Repatriation GENERAL Hospital

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:31): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation in relation to heritage at the Repatriation General Hospital.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On 21 April, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched a registration of interest process for organisations interested in redeveloping the Repatriation General Hospital. As part of this announcement, minister Hamilton-Smith acknowledged the presence of heritage-listed buildings on the Daw Park site and said:

We will only consider options which would be in keeping with the history of the site and complement the services and historic buildings which remain.

Last month, the National Trust of South Australia published an article in its newsletter with the title 'Heritage at risk: Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park'. The article notes that while a few buildings on the Daw Park site were listed as local heritage places in 2005, the SA Heritage Council in 2013 confirmed three consolidated sections of the site as a state heritage place. The article continues:

Items include the four Central Administration Buildings at the Daws Road entrance, Wards 1 to 4, the SPF Hall, the Chapel, Peace Garden, former mortuary (now the Museum) and former post office.

The article concludes:

…in its plans for redevelopment of the site, the state government has only promised to retain the chapel, museum and the Peace Garden. This puts into question the permanence of State Heritage Places. It seems that legislation we thought was designed to protect State Heritage Places in perpetuity isn't as watertight as we are led to believe.

My question to the minister is: can the minister assure the council that the government will only consider proposals to redevelop the Repatriation General Hospital precinct that respect the permanence of state heritage places on the Daw Park site?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:32): I am very happy to reassure the council that in fact the state government will take into consideration all heritage matters in our plan for the Repatriation site at Daw Park. What the honourable member needs to understand, if he does not already, is that this is always a balancing proposition.

We balance, when we are making our decisions, whether it has been minister Rau in his responses for local heritage or for processes under the Local Development Act, for example, or myself with responsibility for state heritage under the Heritage Places Act. We have put in place decision-making processes which will regard the merits of proposals in terms of public interest and whether in fact the state heritage can be outweighed in some instances by the proposals that come forward to government.

This is always a balancing act. Of course, we are cognisant of the importance that heritage plays in our state, particularly in terms of our cultural values but also in terms of tourism, for example. At the same time, these are not situations which are black and white. It always requires government to consider the options and make a decision based on the merits of the proposal.