PORT WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That the Legislative Council notes—

1. The open letter sent to Premier Mike Rann from a group of prominent Australians calling on the Premier to ensure that opportunities are fully explored to integrate Port Adelaide's maritime heritage and character into the Port Waterfront Redevelopment in an enlightened way;

2. The importance of historic working boatyards and related marine heritage as a tangible and integral element of the sense of place of Port Adelaide and LeFevre Peninsula;

and calls on the Premier to—

1. Allow the three remaining historic working boatyards in Jenkins Street, Birkenhead, another year of operation beyond 30 June 2008 to enable a thorough Burra Charter assessment of their significance; and

2. Ensure greater recognition of the importance of Port Adelaide's marine heritage in the overall Port Waterfront Redevelopment.

(Continued from 18 June 2008. Page 3354.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (20:37): The government opposes this resolution for very good reasons, which I will outline. The local heritage listed buildings and structures—Harts Mill, Fletchers Slip and associated buildings—will be retained and redeveloped in a way that will sympathetically integrate them into the new development. The Land Management Corporation is working to retain other items where possible, including the remnant wharfs such as Musgrave Wharf, the old cranes at Dock 2 and potentially a portion of the Port Adelaide Sailing Club building.

A cultural mapping exercise of the development area initiated by the Land Management Corporation is also being undertaken. It involves recording an understanding of the 'working port' through stories, memories and themes, as well as physical elements, such as structures, artefacts and other remnant industrial activities.

Cultural mapping consultants will recommend how these elements can be incorporated into the new development or interpreted through other mediums. Methods of interpretation may include the development of public art, precinct signage, informing the project's urban design and built form, or collection, preservation and display within existing curatorial institutions. Cultural mapping to date has included the history of Jenkins Street boat yards and the Musgrave Wharf structure. The Jenkins Street tenants (Messrs John Stockton, Andrew McFarlane and Kingsley Haskett) have all been extremely helpful with the cultural mapping exercise.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You didn't know that, did you? While they are talking to you or you are talking to them, they are out there cooperating with this very sensible development. The Land Management Corporation is being assisted in this exercise by heritage consultants Mulloway Studio and the Cultural Mapping Steering Group, including representatives from Newport Quays, SA Maritime Museum, the Port of Adelaide branch of the National Trust, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and the Port Adelaide Historical Society.

The decision to relocate the marine industry was made many years ago on both environmental and commercial grounds, and that decision will not be changed. The reality is that the boat-building businesses at Jenkins Street, Birkenhead are no longer focused simply on wooden boat building. Work today involves spray painting, working with plastics and metals and generating fine dust from antifouling paint and fibreglass.

The government has invested $21 million in Marina Adelaide at Largs North to provide a new environmentally sustainable hub for maritime industries on the Port River and has tried to facilitate the Jenkins Street shipwrights relocating to Marina Adelaide. The current position is that, of the Land Management Corporation's three Jenkins Street tenants, one has already vacated, and the Land Management Corporation anticipates signing documentation that will secure vacant possession of the other two tenancies by mutual agreement between the Land Management Corporation and the parties involved.

The government will continue to work in a responsible way and engage with the Port Adelaide community to maximise the history and heritage of the Port, where possible, and to ensure that the maritime character of the Port is retained.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (20:40): I am delighted to follow that contribution, as dubious as it was. I rise to indicate that the Liberal Party is supporting this motion, and I would like to outline the reasons why. A number of the members of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of this parliament, including Mr Wortley, went to Port Adelaide on a minibus and received a very extensive briefing on the historic sites at risk in our port.

I will not repeat any of the details from the open letter, because the mover of this motion (Hon. Mark Parnell) read the letter in its entirety into the record in his contribution on 18 June, as well as naming all the distinguished people who put their signature to that letter. For those who might accuse us of being anti-development, I would like to state that it is really just asking for a stay of execution for these working boat yards to enable a proper assessment of them to be made.

Port Adelaide was the earliest settlement site in South Australia and, therefore, is crucially important, not only as a place for the import and export of cargo and the transit of people for fishing but also for the construction and servicing of boats and ships. Searles Boat Yard, A. McFarlane & Sons and Central Slipping Company are rare survivors of the continuous maritime activity in Jenkins Street at Birkenhead. These surviving boat yards at Birkenhead are living evidence of the importance to the growth up to the present day of South Australia's major port and the vital trades and activities that supported the craft using the port.

In 2001, the LMC called for registrations of interest for a waterfront redevelopment. The billion dollar Newport Quays development was announced in 2004, to turn 52 hectares of government-owned land into medium and high density waterside residential development. There is no dispute that development of Port Adelaide is a positive move for the area. However, the major concern in relation to the redevelopment is that Port Adelaide's maritime heritage is at risk of losing essential physical elements of its history as a working port. It has been identified by the National Trust as a site at risk.

I note that the Port Adelaide branch of the National Trust is the newest branch in South Australia and, interestingly, is now the largest. I think that is directly related to the fact that the LMC has changed its agenda in terms of redevelopment more times than it has changed its socks and, indeed, I think it has indulged in some fairly shady behaviour in its treatment of people in the local area who are making a meaningful living out of this area and who have a historical and a heritage claim on the region, which is just effectively being driven over with a bulldozer.

The government has been the landlord of the boat yards in Port Adelaide and has sold on particular sites to third parties. A number of different operators, whether it be people at the boat yards or some of the fishermen, have tried to obtain parcels of land so that they could continue their operations. In fact, they have been fobbed off. They have heard on the grapevine that particular parcels have been available and then, when they approach the LMC, they are told that they are not available and then they have been on sold to developers.

Indeed, I think the LMC has even acquired parcels of land at massively inflated prices, which has driven up the value of adjoining land. From a taxpayer point of view, that in itself is highly questionable. One example about which I have been advised is a piece of land that was worth $390,000 and which, some six years later, was purchased by the LMC for some $7.4 million. I am not sure where on earth in South Australia you can get those sorts of windfalls, but if the LMC has that attitude, I would be willing to sell it a piece of land any day of the week.

The LMC is driven by Messrs Foley and Conlon. It is interesting that, in 2002 and 2003, Treasurer Foley gave undertakings to the boat yards in particular but which he is now not interested in fulfilling. Indeed, in the initial expressions of interest and throughout some of the proposals over a number of years, it has been proposed that the boat yards be incorporated in the Inner Harbour as working boat yards. However, these current developers have demanded that they be provided with a greenfield site and, indeed, I am told that they will sue the government if the boat yards stay. I wonder at what cost that will be to the taxpayer if that takes place.

This is a deal that has been in so many places over the years that, it is fair to say, it has not been properly planned from the outset and the agenda which should have been stuck to has not been. Marinas were not part of the original plan. The government often cites the pollution from the boat yards, whereas the EPA continues to provide the boat yards with a licence, which is a very strong indication that they are not a problem. Indeed, when we visited that site, we were shown where the tins of paint and so forth are placed in the event of a king tide. The operators are given a fair amount of notice and so they are able to place anything that might be hazardous at a much higher level.

We know very well that much of the pollution that has gone into the Port River has come from other sources, whether it be from Penrice, stormwater, local drains in the area, or the old treatment plant at Royal Park which was operated by SA Water. I think it is unfair for the government to make those sorts of claims against the boat yards: it is just an excuse for it to put another nail in the coffin and it is dishonest.

My final points are as follows. Some interesting funds have been raised at that particular site involving Adelaide Progressive Business (or whatever the fundraising arm of the Australian Labor Party is called) and I think that, if we had an ICAC in this state, then that issue alone would certainly be referred to it. I think that some of the plans that have been published are very unimaginative. When we drove around the area, I have to say that I was not impressed with the quality of some of the construction, and I would predict that some of those apartments will be the ghettoes of tomorrow. In fact, I do not know why you would want to live in a high-rise that distance from the city and next to a noisy railway track. We saw some good examples of—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Yes, how far away is that? That will be next century under you guys. Indeed, the chairman of the local National Trust, Tony Kearney, was generous enough to show us his apartment which, from memory, was an old flour mill. It was quite innovative and very attractive. In comparison to those apartments, it is a hundred times more liveable than the apartments that have been built.

I question many elements of this particular development. I think government ministers' ego have got in the way of this and it is a disgrace.

In relation to the preceding speaker's comments, of course the heritage-listed items will be preserved but a number of items have not yet made it onto the list. We know that heritage listing is a problem, as we saw recently at Stepney where, thankfully, the council has realised the error of its ways and pulled back from bulldozing historic cottages. It is my view that this government's attitude is that if it is not listed do not give it a second chance but, rather, just bulldoze it. For that reason I support the motion.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (20:51): As a former Broken Hill girl, I am one of the many thousands of Broken Hill people who at Christmas time would be involved in the exodus of 600 kilometres—I remember from my primary school geography it was 320 miles—to Taperoo to what was called the zinc mine holiday camp.

Port Adelaide became part of my world at a young age because of that. It was the place we went to shop if we needed a new pair of thongs or new bathers. So many times I stood there on the wharf and watched ships come in or go out, with old Tusker the tug boat strongly pulling and pushing and issuing forth black smoke. I talked to sailors, sometimes not very successfully because they did not speak English. It was an extraordinary place. There is a great history to Port Adelaide. Unfortunately, as a result of the redevelopment that is occurring, sadly that history is being destroyed.

I wholeheartedly support this motion. I know that later tonight or tomorrow we will be discussing Marble Hill, which is a case of a failure of public imagination, but here we are discussing how the public and private sector can combine to destroy our heritage and the sense of place that used to exist in Port Adelaide.

The Hon. Mark Parnell has outlined a detailed case to support his motion. I want to go briefly through the logic of the government's decisions and return to the theme of failure of imagination. We have lost an important part of our history, but I know that the government does not really care about history and heritage. Nevertheless, it should also consider that we have lost an important economic asset—and that is when it starts to take note.

The world is full of apartment towers by waterfronts. Their residents may soon enjoy the view, although, if this government has its way, soon all they will have are views of other apartment towers. They are certainly not unique. No-one would travel to Port Adelaide or South Australia to look at them.

But if we had preserved the boat yards we would have a traditional industry using historic tools and instruments—and that is the sort of thing that affluent tourists will come to see. Those affluent experiential tourists are likely to become more important as rising fuel prices reduce, if not wipe out, the budget tourism that we have come to know. Also, it would have increased the richness and diversity of the port for both residents and visitors. If the developers had had any vision, they would have been clambering to keep the boat yards going. It would not have been difficult or expensive to preserve those boat yards. They are a very small part of a 52-hectare project worth $1.2 billion.

No doubt, the government will argue that the South Australian Heritage Council is on its side. The council recently determined that the boat yards could not be considered of state heritage significance because the Heritage Places Act does not allow use to be considered in determining significance and, if the yards ceased to be used for building boats, the structures alone do not meet the criteria for listing.

This does not let the government off the hook. The Heritage Council might have to consider technicalities, but the government does not have to miss the wood for the trees. If it really had an appreciation of heritage and a vision for how to integrate the past and the future, it could have kept the boat yards; but, instead, the Land Management Corporation has ordered the tenants out and intends to demolish the boat yards even though the developers do not need that land for another five years. This charade also demonstrates how inappropriate it is to have the Land Management Corporation reporting to the state Treasury. Making money is its ultimate object, and any hint of resistance to the development must be aggressively swept aside by this state government.

When I was a member of it, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee made a recommendation to the government that the Land Management Corporation should be transferred from Treasury to urban planning, but that recommendation was turned down. What we are seeing now—and demonstrated through this project—is a ruthless drive to crush opposition in this state, and it is something that is relatively new. I hope that it will backfire and that it will spark a new wave of heritage activism; and, if that happens, I would certainly welcome it. This motion, however, is not part of that coming wave of activism: it echoes the sentiments of the establishment. People, such as Sir James Hardy and Professor Philip Cox (an architect), have called on the Premier to give the boat yards another year of life to ensure that the opportunity to integrate them into the development has at least been explored. I am pleased to be supporting this motion.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (20:56): I rise briefly to indicate my personal support for this motion, and to make only this comment: in South Australia there is a great tendency of governments to feel that any new buildings represent progress. That is certainly the case with this particular government, and I must admit that previous governments have similarly had that view. However, if one looks dispassionately at the quality of the buildings being constructed in South Australia and the developments, the designs, the materials used and the environments created, etc., one will find, unfortunately, that ours are very much second grade. It is driven by developers who say that, unless we spend only the amount of money we have available, the rate of return in this state will not be available to them and therefore they will go elsewhere.

Governments capitulate all the time to that sort of rhetoric, and that is exactly what we have got at Newport Quays. There is an opportunity to preserve a fantastic marine environment, but the government has decided to capitulate to the developers who say, 'We will use this space not to create something that is unique, that has real quality, that preserves the real history and tradition of this state. No, let's demolish it and we'll put up more cheap apartments—as cheap as we can possibly build them. We will get the highest possible price for them and people will buy them,' but we squander—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: The planning minister is speaking. He is defending it. What sort of planning minister is this? This is the planning minister who is in the pocket of developers who take no notice at all—

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Mr President, that is a totally unacceptable claim by the Hon. Mr Lawson, and I demand that he withdraw.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lawson—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Lawson should withdraw that last remark. It was a very unparliamentary remark and it should be withdrawn.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: I am happy to withdraw the remark and to say that this is a planning minister in a government which bows down at every possible occasion to the demands of developers, and that is quite happy to squander the heritage of this state and to ruin what is unique in this state in the interests of some development.

The Treasurer is the prime example of a Philistine in relation to this. He is very happy to have apartments spread across the whole of Port Adelaide. That may be great for the number of people who live there. It might be a pleasant sort of environment, but it is nowhere near as good as it could be and it is nowhere near as good as it should be. We are simply, as I say, squandering opportunities. I am very happy to support the honourable member's motion.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (21:00): I was not going to enter this debate but, after some of the outrageous comments made and the appalling contribution by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who raised a number of allegations without evidence, of course, because she does not have any. The deputy leader made allegations with lots of sleaze thrown in but with no substance at all, no facts at all.

If members opposite think that those boatsheds are so great, why do they not shift them down to St Peters, on the banks of the Torrens? Why not put them there? What a tragedy it was that the Hon. Michelle Lensink was not over in Melbourne to save Docklands and the asbestos and iron sheds there. What a pity she was not in Darling Harbour in Sydney, with its millions of people, to save that and keep it as some sort of memento for history.

What I think is outrageous is that the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Robert Lawson were denigrating the quality of houses that people want. If people do not like them, they will not buy them. However, as I understand it, people are paying lots of money for apartments there. Who is the Hon. Michelle Lensink to tell people what they can and cannot buy, what is good and what is bad housing?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I would not tell them what they could and could not buy.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is what you are saying. What is wrong with the old Liberal Party that once believed in choice; that people could choose to live in the type of housing that they want? If people are spending $1 million, which I understand they are for some of these properties, because they want that, why should they not do so? What sort of heritage are we preserving? We had nonsense from Sandra Kanck; this romanticism that somehow or other Port Adelaide has been a—

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: I take a point of order. The Leader of the Government has been here long enough to know that he should refer to members in this place by their correct title.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Sandra Kanck, in her comments, talked about a romantic notion of Port Adelaide as a port and, of course, it was about 50 years ago—but how long is it since ships came into the inner harbour at Port Adelaide? Whether the Hon. Sandra Kanck likes it or not, the world shipping industry has changed and they now use much bigger ships. Why does she think we have just dredged Port Adelaide out to 14 metres?

That is the future of shipping. There will be great big ships that keep getting bigger—there was Panamax, post-Panamax and Cape size. They keep getting bigger and bigger and that is why we are spending tens of millions of dollars dredging the port at Outer Harbor. That is the future. We are not getting ships in there, other than a few tourist ones. Let us have none of this nonsense that Port Adelaide is somehow or other like it was 30 or 40 years ago, or ever will be again. It will not; it cannot.

The other thing that I think needs to be addressed is the nonsense about preservation. The fact is that we all know what the Liberal Party's record was in relation to heritage and preservation: it was an appalling one.

The Hon. R.D. Lawson: You are outdoing us!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No, I am not outdoing you at all. What I have done, through the planning system, particularly through our latest planning review and what we are doing in relation to character, is to preserve what is good about our city. What we need to do is not just keep old buildings, particularly rusty iron sheds, for the sake of keeping them when they have no purpose. We have to have a use for them.

On North Terrace are three buildings that have been empty for over a decade. They are deteriorating even though they are on a heritage list. I am talking about the Gawler Chambers and the buildings next to David Jones. They have all been empty for more than 10 years. There are a number of other buildings around this city which have been boarded up for years. If you do not have a viable use for them then that is all they will become.

I suggest that perhaps the Hon. Michelle Lensink visit Vancouver and have a look at a modern city on one side and, next to it, behind the old gas town, are 2,000 drug addicts. Vancouver has become the drug addict centre of North America. Why? Because they have kept all their old buildings on a heritage list but no-one can fix them and, therefore, they are deteriorating. They have been taken over by squatters and it has become the drug capital of North America. Part of the reason is because—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is what happened there because a whole lot of buildings have been allowed to deteriorate and they have had squatters move in. There, next to one of the most beautiful cities in North America, you have this problem in historical areas.

Members opposite should start living in the real world. I know that, politically, what they are trying to do is win a couple of seats by trying this new-found 'green' appeal they have about heritage, but heritage is more than a couple of rusty iron sheds. How long is it since those boat yards made a genuine wooden historical boat? What sort of boats do you think they are building down there, and why does it need to be in a rusty iron shed?

There has been a great deal of self-serving nonsense spoken in this place by members. This is all about politics. They do not really give a damn about what happens in Port Adelaide, and they never have and they never will. You try to get someone to keep rusty iron sheds up at Burnside or up where they live.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: We did. We wanted to keep the one at Glenside.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, perhaps they should start living in them. Perhaps that is what they need to do. Perhaps they should move into them, or put them up next door to where they live if they think they are so fantastic. Cities have to grow and evolve. We have to keep what is good about our city, and we have to preserve our character. However, that will not happen if we preserve every building beyond a certain age—in particular, iron sheds that are rusting. To make heritage live, you need to ensure that the heritage buildings are alive and working and that they still have a use and an economic value, otherwise they will end up like some of those buildings we have along North Terrace that have been vacant for 10 or 15 years and probably will be for ever more.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:07): It gives me great pleasure to close this debate and to bring honourable members' attention back to the fairly modest motion that is before us. Had I known that these boat yards would become drug havens, I may not have moved the motion. What I will say, by way of defence of this motion and in urging honourable members to support it (and on this I agree with Paul Holloway), is that heritage is not just the fabric of buildings. It is not just the sheds—tin, rusty or otherwise. Heritage is about function, history and the sense of place that is Port Adelaide.

I would agree with people who say that these boatsheds are not the prettiest structures in South Australia. I do not subscribe to a theory that heritage is elderly gentlemen in a captain's cap and cable sweater smoking a pipe amongst lobster pots and rolls of rope—and I especially do not want them smoking pipes because that is bad for you. The point is that this motion is not about saving every last building in the old Port Adelaide. There are only three left. In the second reading, I referred to figures from Sydney Harbour, where there are hundreds of working boat heritage items left. We are down to the last three. So, the question for us is whether or not we should give these last three another year of life so that a proper borough charter heritage assessment can be undertaken.

As far as I know, Sir James Hardy is not a member of the Greens. But I was happy to read into Hansard his open letter to the Premier published in The Advertiser, because there is a growing awareness not just in South Australia but around the country and overseas. Heritage boat magazines in the United Kingdom have bemoaned what is happening to Port Adelaide's heritage.

The question has to be: what is the great urgency to get these people out and to demolish these properties now? We know, from the Newport Quays project staging, that there is no intention to do anything with this site for the next few years. In other words, the reason for getting these people out and demolishing these heritage buildings now is to avoid political pain and to prevent the growing community concern from actually becoming a winnable campaign.

I was at the very first meeting of the Development Assessment Commission where the Port Adelaide rezoning was discussed. There were hundreds of people in that hall. The overwhelming theme from all of them was that: yes, we need to revitalise the Port; and, yes, we need development, but we can do it, and we must do it, in a way that is sympathetic with the character of the place, with its history and boat building heritage.

The Hon. Paul Holloway says that we do not build great massive ships in the inner harbour any more. Well, no, we do not, but the Environment, Resources Development Committee members, on a trip to these boat yards, saw a large number of old wooden boats and more modern boats that were in there for repair. There was a huge boat up on the slipway in for repair. There were some ancient vessels (over 100 years old) in for repair.

They built the Popeye boats there, for goodness sake! Whatever you think about the Popeye boats, they are a part of South Australia's heritage. I do not think anyone is about to get rid of the Popeye boats: they were built at Searles Boatyard. The boat yards have been on the Port River pretty well ever since the Port was settled.

Let us not get too carried away with reinterpreting this motion as being whether you are for or against the Port redevelopment. That is not what this motion is about. What the motion does is note the concerns that have been expressed by heritage and maritime experts from around the country, and it calls on the Premier to allow these three remaining historic working boat yards in Jenkins Street, Birkenhead another year of operation (not forever) so that we can do a proper and thorough borough charter assessment of their significance. Secondly, we call on the Premier to ensure greater recognition of the importance of Port Adelaide's maritime heritage in the overall Port Waterfront redevelopment.

This is not a referendum on everything that is happening there. What it is saying is that we have demolished most of the heritage, and there is a little bit of it left; let us give it one more year of life so that we do the proper assessment and we can make sure that we do not actually kill the goose that has laid the golden egg, because Port Adelaide does have that heritage, and the people who move there—even those who move into the new apartments—do want some sense of place and I think they do want to know that there is some heritage left in Port Adelaide. I urge all honourable members to support this motion.

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (10)

NOES (8)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 2 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.