TORRENS ISLAND QUARANTINE STATION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Bressington:

That this council calls on—

1. the Minister for Environment and Conservation to—

(a) conserve the heritage value of the Torrens Island Quarantine Station and the remaining pristine environment on the northern end of Torrens Island by taking steps to prevent any further industrial development of these sites;

(b) take steps to restore the Torrens Island Quarantine Station buildings on the South Australian Heritage Register and ensure sufficient funds are available to do so;

(c) engage in negotiations with the Treasurer with the objective being for the Department of Environment and Heritage to take control of the northern end of Torrens Island, including the site of the former quarantine station, from the Generation Lessor Corporation;

(d) take steps to provide tourist access to the Torrens Island Quarantine Station and surrounding historical sites and engage in consultation with all relevant parties with a view to facilitating regulated tourism; and

2. the Treasurer to—

(a) release details of the application before the Development Assessment Commission and of the proposed commercial uses of the proposed allotments; and

(b) cease moves to further develop Torrens Island and cease negotiations with commercial parties seeking to do so.

(Continued from 21 July 2010.)

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:08): I indicate that the government opposes this motion. The government believes that we already have in place, through the legislative requirements of the Development Act 1993 and the Heritage Places Act 1993, a rigorous and thorough statutory process for ensuring that any potential environmental or heritage impacts are considered during the development application process.

I have been advised that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has received a referral for a land division application from the Development Assessment Commission (the commission) for a portion of Torrens Island. The referral is a statutory requirement of the Development Act 1993. This statutory process provides that the commission must have regard to advice from agencies prescribed under schedule 8 of the Development Regulations 2008 prior to making a recommendation to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning for a decision under section 49 of the act.

DENR has received the referral on behalf of staff as delegates of the Coast Protection Board and as delegates of the minister responsible for the Heritage Places Act 1993, the Minister for Environment and Conservation. The application for subdivision proposes to create five additional allotments on Torrens Island by subdividing the two existing allotments into seven allotments.

I am advised that the area encompasses approximately 47 hectares of land and that it is located on the western side of Torrens Island. The land is partly occupied by Origin Energy, with a gas turbine electricity generating plant, as well as containing state heritage places, and is predominantly cleared of vegetation.

As portions of the Torrens Island Quarantine Station are listed as state heritage places (namely, the central complex of buildings, the mortuary, jetties and the cemetery), DENR has asked the proponents, the Generation Lessor Corporation, for more information prior to considering the heritage impact of the proposal. As a consequence, I understand that the proponents are in the process of preparing a heritage impact statement to submit as part of the application.

It is my understanding that the application relates solely to subdivision and not to any new works proposed for the land. I am advised that, if a development application for physical works is received in the future, DENR staff will consider any potential environmental and heritage impacts relating to the proposed development, as will the Development Assessment Commission. This could include, for example, an assessment of potential impacts on the Barker Inlet and Port River to ensure the protection of the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary environment, as well as assessing any potential impacts on state heritage places. Any development on the island will also need to be assessed for seawater flooding risk, based on the government's Policy on Coast Protection and New Coastal Development 1991.

As I am sure members are aware, the use of Torrens Island as a quarantine station dates from the 1850s and at various times has served as both an animal and a human quarantine station. Under the proposed land subdivision, one of the seven proposed lots (lot 205) contains the majority of the state heritage listed quarantine station buildings, and proposed lot 206 contains the old mortuary and the cemetery. These surviving structures are evidence of the early methods of infectious disease control in South Australia and are important elements of our cultural history. The cemetery contains nine graves, the majority of which date from the influenza epidemic at the end of the First World War. In more recent years, as members would be aware, power stations have been built at the southern end, with the first being commissioned in 1967.

I note Ms Bressington's desire for DENR to take control of the northern end of Torrens Island, including the site of the former quarantine station. However, it is important to recognise that DENR does not need to own the land to protect state heritage places. While the conservation and maintenance of state heritage places is the responsibility of the owner, the Development Act 1993 provides appropriate procedures to ensure that potential impacts on heritage places are taken into consideration and appropriate conditions of development approval are imposed to ensure that sites are adequately protected and conserved.

I am advised that the provisions of the Development Act and regulations will ensure that any development that may be in or proposed near these state heritage places must be referred to DENR staff as delegates of the Minister for Environment and Conservation. Heritage listing protects our cultural assets through requiring a development application referral, which requires comment on the proposal to ensure that impacts on the heritage are minimised or eliminated.

As I said earlier, my understanding is that the current application before the Development Assessment Commission is for subdivision of land only. I am advised that, should there be a proposal in the future to develop or undertake works in or near the state heritage listed places, the application must be referred to DENR, pursuant to the development regulations, to assess any potential impact on that place and provide advice on how to minimise or eliminate any impact, and that the Development Assessment Commission must have regard to that advice. Under the Development Act 1993, conditions can then be placed on any approval given.

The government believes that there are sufficient checks and balances in current legislation to ensure that any heritage or environmental impacts are addressed and considered during the development application process, and we should therefore let this process run its course. The government opposes the motion.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:15): I rise to make some comments in relation to the honourable member's motion, and I would like to commend her for bringing this matter to the attention of the parliament. It is an important conservation and heritage aspect of South Australia that is tucked away and pretty inaccessible to most people, apart from those who work there for various purposes.

The Liberal opposition has gone through a reasonable amount of due process just to sort out what is the existing zoning, and so forth, of the area and what is proposed, and I am grateful to the many stakeholders who have been very open and transparent and willing to give their time to enable us to do that. So, first and foremost I would like to recognise the honourable member for organising a briefing for all members held at Parliament House in July, as well as a number of speakers she invited to address that briefing. In particular I would like to recognise Mr Aaron Machado of the Australian Marine Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Organisation.

A site visit was organised on 15 July by the honourable member's office, and I attended that along with my colleagues the Hon. David Ridgway, the member for Goyder, Steven Griffiths, and the Hon. John Darley and some of his staff. We were taken up the western side of the island to view the old quarantine station, jetty, burial ground and the northern end, which is a conservation park. There are a number of heritage and non-heritage buildings and the old jetty, which, I think it is fair to say, are in poor condition.

I understand that a non-government youth organisation spends some time there, as do Star Force officers and Australian Service personnel, so the site has been used as a training ground as well as for recreational purposes. I do not think that has assisted the protection of that site at all, nor have maintenance works been performed there, and that is a shame, particularly given the heritage-listed buildings there. I think there ought to be a conservation management plan—something the National Trust is very strong on—to prevent further deterioration and ensure that the structures there are provided with appropriate protection.

My office looked into the issue of the conservation park, which was one of the issues that Mr Machado raised. I was quite surprised to realise that the majority of the island is, in fact, part of what is called the Torrens Island Conservation Park, which most people believe to be just that northern tip. There are also two new parts which were added in 2005, and that is published in the Gazette of 3 March 2005. That took in a fairly large slab of the middle section to the east and the lower south-eastern corner as well so, on my rough looking at it, there is maybe 20 per cent that is not actually contained within that conservation park. The western area, which is slated for rezoning, is, of course, not contained within that conservation park, and honourable members have outlined the process that is being undergone there.

The area in question, in fact, the whole island, is located within the boundaries of the City of Port Adelaide Enfield and is therefore exempt from council jurisdiction. The area for rezoning is under the control of the Generation Lessor Corporation, so the usual requirements for development approval are based entirely on the recommendation of the Development Assessment Panel to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning. I think this process in itself probably leads to some of the consternation that people have, and perhaps to some of the misinformation that does not assist when these matters are before the community. Silence and lack of public information can actually lead to people becoming concerned about matters that are not necessarily as bad as they may appear.

As part of the due process, in terms of visiting that site and having a look, sharing the concerns of Mr Machado, the Liberal opposition also contacted two of the three companies which are seeking to gain parcels of land on that side. One of them is Origin Energy and I think it is fairly obvious that that is at the southernmost part and close to the locality of the existing energy-producing facilities there. That is for peaking power plants.

The middle section is for Maritime Constructions who would like to have coast and harbor access provided following their relocation from the Inner Harbor of Port Adelaide. I have some sympathy for Maritime Constructions which was relocated from the Inner Harbor. Snowdon's Beach, on the other side of the Port River, was supposed to be provided for all of those operations which were originally displaced from the Inner Harbor. The Land Management Corporation, in its usual manner, has denied a number of those operators and so they have been searching for some particular site which would suit their needs, and have perhaps have found something which may suit.

Indeed, I had a recent conversation with the Mayor of Port Adelaide Enfield council Mr Gary Johanson—and I am sure he will not mind me placing this on the public record—and he has obviously taken a keen interest in this issue. He has been seeking to have a site provided on the western side of the Port River, if that is possible. I understand from our discussions that they are ongoing negotiations so that may well eventuate. The meeting with Maritime Constructions last month was very constructive. I understand they are being granted the right to purchase that piece of land (which is known as No. 205) because all their other potential options—such as Flinders Ports and Defence SA sites—at that stage, as they relayed it to us, have been exhausted.

All heavy infrastructure will remain on their land at the Mersey Road site. I believe they were very transparent in their briefing to us and advised that they would undertake extensive efforts to preserve the conservation values of the site. They intend to actually restore the heritage jetty, which I think the National Trust has listed as a structure at risk. They would like to offer greater protection for the heritage listed buildings at the quarantine station and their intention, in terms of the coast, is to undertake minimal dredging of some 4.5 metres adjacent to the river access site, which they intend to offset with a riverfront site on the Osborne side of the Port River so that they can provide mangroves with the right conditions to germinate. They have engaged Bruce Harry and Delta Enviro as their heritage and environment consultants respectively and they have also sought advice from the Coast Protection Board on how best to minimise their impact.

I have also been provided with a briefing from SARDI. It is seeking to gain No. 206 for an aquaculture or algal biofuel pilot plant. It is obviously quite keen to enter into that research area which may hold some great hope for future industry which will be much more environmentally friendly, both in terms of its carbon emissions and in providing cleaner fuels for cars and the like. That is a joint venture with the CSIRO and Flinders University.

Their advice is that their pilot plant would not have a high impact on the environment due to the fact that it would actually improve the water quality in the Port River as high nutrients (which are mostly nitrogen and CO₂ which exist because of the Penrice plant) are removed from the Port River as water is brought into the plant via an intake pipe and returned via an out-take pipe. Also, the on-land infrastructure consists of shallow ponds with plastic linings and some transportable buildings. In my view, they are not high impact.

In relation to those two operations, at least, I do not believe that their actions will have a significant impact on the environmental and heritage values. In fact, those sections of the honourable member's motion which seek to halt development I do not believe should be supported. I would also be sceptical that that old quarantine station has sufficient tourism interest to justify funding in a tight budgetary situation. Honourable members may have heard me this afternoon lament the demise of Union Hall. There are a number of other heritage issues in South Australia which I think this government is neglecting and which have high priority. Maritime Constructions have indicated that they would be more than happy to manage those particular areas themselves. From what I understand, the government has said 'Yippee!' because they are off the hook on that front.

I would also be concerned about additional human activity which may be in conflict with those pristine sections of the conservation park and adjacent coastline: that is quite evident from visiting the conservation park at the northern end. There are a lot of mangroves to the east of the top part of Torrens Island and extending further south. They are clearly in very good condition along the coast there. I am not convinced that having a lot of people traipsing around in that part of the world would actually be good for the environment.

However, I must say that I am very sympathetic with the criticisms that have been made about the lack of consultation with stakeholders. While it may not be a statutory requirement for this matter to go through the usual processes where there are obligatory requirements to consult with various community groups and other organisations, I think that would have helped to waylay a lot of concerns and actually got groups together so that they could try to find a mutually beneficial outcome. There are a couple of clauses in the honourable member's motion which I do have sympathy for but, overall, I am not convinced that they are actually going to be of any assistance in the desired outcome and, therefore, the Liberal Party will not be supporting the motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:27): I rise only to speak briefly on the motion and, in doing so, I wanted to indicate that it was only recently that I saw some current affairs programming in relation to this issue and also some news feature coverage highlighting protesters. In particular, the aspects I wanted to talk about involving the protests related to the health and safety of the dolphins in the region and also the health of the mangroves.

The reason that I wanted to speak was that approximately 12 or 13 years ago, when I heard very similar concerns being expressed by very similar protesters. I was the minister responsible for the decision, together with the government of the day, for the building of the last big baseline power station at Pelican Point. The current Premier, the current Treasurer, all and sundry in the Labor Party and fellow travellers organised mass protests about the destruction that was going to be wrought upon this part of the coastline by a power station. I remember at the time my children saying to me, 'Why are you going to burn dolphins alive, dad?' because the protesters had coffins on the steps—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: What did you say—'Because I want to sell the power industry later'?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: We were in the process of selling the power industry at the time, so the Hon. Mr Finnigan's historical knowledge is perhaps not as much as his other knowledge. The protesters had mass demonstrations at Parliament House. I remember attending a protest meeting down at the Port, where some 400 or 500 people were loudly protesting and roundly condemning me for a variety of things. In particular, what I wanted to highlight was the claims that were being made that this power station was going to destroy the mangroves and it was also going to boil the dolphins alive. It was threatening the health and welfare of the dolphins in the Port.

As I said, at the protests at Parliament House, I well remember protesters delivering coffins to Parliament House portraying the death of the dolphins as part of the protest. That was all because supposedly the power station was going to raise the temperature of the water in the area so significantly that it was going to destroy the habitat for the dolphins. I can happily report that some 13 years later the mangroves are still there and the dolphins are still there. Any concerns that there are about the health and welfare of the dolphins have more to do with fishers and others in the region, I suspect.

The power station is a most important part of the state's infrastructure. It is the last major baseload power station that has been built in South Australia and, if the decision had not been taken, the electricity industry would be in a parlous state in South Australia, but that is a different debate. As I said, the mangroves remain, the dolphins remain and I just recognise some fellow travellers who, 13 years ago, were protesting about the health and welfare of the dolphins and the mangroves and were making almost the same claims in relation to this development. I hasten to say that I am not entering into the debate about heritage and all the other issues which I know are part of this motion and, indeed, I acknowledge that the terms of the motion themselves do not specifically refer to the health and welfare of the dolphins.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: But you care.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I care about the dolphins, and always have cared about the dolphins and never would consciously or unconsciously or subconsciously take a decision to boil dolphins alive. I put that on the public record. I hasten to say that the Hon. Ms Bressington does not include that in her resolution, and it includes many other issues which I do not propose to debate, but I did notice, on the news service and one of the current affairs shows, some of the protesters raising these similar concerns to try to beat up concerns about the developments down there.

As I said, I recognise some of them. I certainly recognise the claims and, for those reasons, I want to place on the public record that people should at least discount that part of the concerns that have been raised by protesters in relation to developments down in this area. It is possible, and I will leave that to the judgment of others, to have developments in the area which can leave the mangroves and also the health and welfare of the dolphins. I will leave it for others to make the judgment. I certainly support the position that has been put by my colleague the Hon. Ms Lensink.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:33): I thank honourable members for their contributions on this motion. At least now the concerns about the environment and heritage issues are on the record and, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink said, this island and those particular heritage interests are tucked away there for very few to see—out of sight, out of mind, really.

It is a shame that the motion is not supported, but I would just like to pick up on a couple of things that came to mind while I was listening. We talk about concern for heritage issues, and it was mentioned that the quarantine station is currently used for Army exercises and there are buildings there with the doors smashed in and empty shells left lying everywhere.

This place could actually have some value for tourism. Interest was expressed by the owner of the dolphin tours in Port Adelaide to assist with that and build up knowledge that this place actually exists, and that has been quite successful in Victoria with its quarantine station.

The one thing about this particular motion that presses on me the heaviest is where maritime construction will have its port, or whatever it is called, and that it is going to require—as the Hon. Ms Lensink said—a dredging of that river back some 50 metres, I think, which is going to flood part of the mangroves and flood the graveyards.

As has been indicated to me, there are now issues with the Indigenous community. This is a sacred burial ground to them and, prior to the knowledge of these projects going ahead, it was suggested to people in the Indigenous community that this area would be used to bury the bones of some of their ancestors or relatives who had been found elsewhere, that they would be relocated to Torrens Island. It was actually the mayor of Port Adelaide who brought that to my attention. If that is the case, perhaps the government may like to enter into some discussions with the Indigenous people involved and explain why this proposed burial ground is going to be exposed to industry and perhaps even flooding of that area.

I acknowledge the Hon. Rob Lucas's comments that this is an old issue. The same thing was touted 13 years ago about the dolphins and the mangroves. That, in fact, was not the intention of the Stateline program that the Hon. Mark Parnell and I did together regarding this matter. However, we all know that the dolphins are a good hook and that everybody loves dolphins. It was a way of getting people to pay attention to this issue, because we can only muck around with this river system and with the mangroves so many times before there is an impact on the dolphins and the fish breeding ground in those mangroves.

We need to understand that the fish bred in those mangroves are what the dolphins use to train their pups in how to shepherd and catch fish. So, we have a whole system that is gradually—bit by bit—being reclaimed, if you like, by we humans. Although the impact might not be right here, right now, we have no guarantee that these ecological systems are not going to be disrupted to the point where we will lose a very important system in the future.

I am not going to rave on forever. As I said, I thank honourable members. I am sure that the media interest in this particular issue will continue, and I intend to make sure that it does, and that these projects, these subdivisions, are watched very carefully and very closely.

Motion negatived.