<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2015-09-10" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="1441" />
  <endPage num="1518" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Repatriation General Hospital</name>
      <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000065">
        <heading>Repatriation GENERAL Hospital</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="3164" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2015-09-10">
            <name>Repatriation GENERAL Hospital</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2015-09-10T14:31:04" />
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000066">
          <timeStamp time="2015-09-10T14:31:04" />
          <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:31):</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000067">Leave granted.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3164" kind="question" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.G. WADE</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000068">
          <by role="member" id="3164">The Hon. S.G. WADE:</by>  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:</text>
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000069">
          <inserted>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.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000070">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:</text>
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000071">
          <inserted>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.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000072">The article concludes:</text>
        <page num="1445" />
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000073">
          <inserted>…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.</inserted>
        </text>
        <text continued="true" id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000074">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?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3122" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. I.K. HUNTER</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change</electorate>
        <startTime time="2015-09-10T14:32:02" />
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000075">
          <timeStamp time="2015-09-10T14:32:02" />
          <by role="member" id="3122">The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:32):</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000076">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.</text>
        <text id="201509103d0d1da87dc64f4c80000077">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.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>