Government House Precinct Land Dedication Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 December 2015.)

The Hon. A.L. McLACHLAN (11:28): I rise to speak to the Government House Precinct Land Dedication Bill. The South Australian community has been scarred by war. The hopes and aspirations of those who came before us were that no-one would have to experience the horrors of war that they had had to endure and that their children and children's children would live in a lasting peace.

That dream has not become a reality. We live in a world where war is still a grim reality for many. Even as I speak, there are Australian servicemen and women in harm's way serving their country in foreign lands. It is therefore fitting, having just commemorated the centenary year of the ANZAC campaign, that we acknowledge the service of South Australian men and women who have served in conflict.

This bill provides for the creation of the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Garden Walk. It is a worthy endeavour and the Liberal Party will support the bill through the chamber. We have been advised that the key aim of this is to improve understanding and awareness of Australia's war time experience. This is a worthy aim, but is not, by implication, complementary to the state's educational institutions charged with the duty to inform our children of their collective past and their obligations to our society.

We are also advised that the memorial walk will be designed around three pillars of symbolism: remembrance, service and loyalty. These are worthy sentiments, although there appear to be no pillars in the design. The walk will bear witness to all major conflicts since Federation and also include recent conflicts, including the one that I was briefly called upon to serve in. There will be an interpretive wall of black granite which will have images that depict Australian society through a centenary of conflict.

This bill is required because land is being taken from the surrounds of Government House. This has not been done since 1927. I query why this bill is only now before the chamber when it is clear that work has already begun. This is a minor matter, but it is a demonstration of the government's contempt for the workings of this chamber and the government in general in the name of the people. It is also perturbing that the original legislation governing the land which is the subject of this bill states that the land will be reserved for all time. This very bill before us uses the same such language, yet we are seeing, in the tabling of this bill, a government not keeping the commitments of the past and ensuring the reservation of certain land. By doing so it undermines the confidence our citizens have in their parliament when we casually refuse to keep faith with reservations and commitments made long ago.

The design of the walk does not please my personal aesthetic. I think the modern trend to machine etch photographs onto stone diminishes the purpose of the memorial. Modern memorials, often made with an eye to cost rather than the sacrifice of our citizens, do not, in my view, adequately compare with the older memorials. Modern memorials often do not enjoy the craftsmanship that the old memorials exhibit, where the love and dedication of the maker add to the sacredness of the edifice. The work of the machine should not replace the work of the hand when building a reminder of the sacrifice of our dead.

There are pleasing examples of this type of memorial in the vicinity, cast in bronze from sculpture of talented artists. There are better examples of memorials in this city and our state. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the design before us met with the approval of the consultation process. Perhaps what the design lacks is the purity of a single artist's vision, rather than the design of a team of architects seeking to please committees and consultative forums.

I suspect that this is a problem Adelaide faces more generally, as mediocre and bland architecture, created by architects untrained or unaware of the rules of classical architecture and governed by their fragile egos, continues to inflict visual disappointments on our city. I do hope, however, that this initiative will draw more South Australians and visitors to the precinct.

War or the experience of it should not be glorified; its brutality should be acknowledged. It is my view that memorials such as this should particularly focus on sacrifice and the unbearable pain that war inflicts and endeavour to produce within each of us the quiet resolve not to forget the sacrifices of the past and to work hard to build a better future for our children. In this way we can attempt to address Wilfred Owen's lament in his poetry that subsequent generations will learn nothing from the carnage of the trench.

I am reminded of The Iliad, which preaches to us of the impact of war and in particular the grief Priam felt for his lost son Hector. King Priam says:

For so many of my flourishing sons he killed: I did not mourn as much for them, for all my grief, as for this one, bitter grief for whom will carry me down to the house of Hades—Hector. Would he have died in my arms.

I like to think that, upon completion, this memorial will evoke such raw emotions. Although, from what I know to date, I suspect I will be disappointed.

It is proposed that the Dardanelles memorial will be relocated from the south Parklands and repositioned on the walk. While there is some nobility to the idea, I am not in favour of consolidating all our memorials into one place and forsaking its sacred and historical home in the south. I believe it is wiser and more respectful to leave it in the south, and I am not alone in this view. I tabled a petition that prays that we preserve the community's Wattle Day Dardanelles Cenotaph in the south Parklands. The petition also prays that the chamber reject the bill; the Liberal Party does not agree with this position as the bill facilitates the walk and its clauses do not address the relocation of the Dardanelles cenotaph.

One of the organisers of the petition was the grandson of Colonel Walter Dollman, commander of the 27^th South Australian Battalion at Gallipoli and subsequently in France. It is a strongly held view of the petitioners that the removal of the memorial is a misappropriation and utter desecration of the cenotaph. To move the memorial from the south will destroy its primary context; in other words, desecrate the reason for its being.

The memorial's current home in the southern Parklands also has strong links to the state's military history, dating from as early as 1885. When the memorial was unveiled it was sited in a wattle grove in the southern parklands. The creation of the wattle grove and the construction of the cenotaph were the work of the Wattle Day League, a women's group that raised funds to supply amenities to the troops. The memorial was dedicated by the then governor-general Sir Ronald Ferguson on Tuesday 7 September 1915. Importantly, ANZAC services were conducted at the memorial in subsequent years. It is an important memorial and represents an early attempt by our South Australian community to grapple with the losses of our sons on foreign shores. In time the wattle grove was lost and the cenotaph was moved to its current location.

The Dardanelles memorial is the first memorial in Australia erected to soldiers of the First World War. It commemorates the landing of ANZAC forces on the Gallipoli peninsula on 25 April 1915 and the many casualties suffered. The memorial was erected and unveiled when troops were still pinned down and suffering heavy casualties on the Gallipoli peninsula; nevertheless The Register's report of the occasion emphasised not grief but pride and a call to service.

The rough stone base represented the rugged hills up which the Australian soldiers had to climb. The smooth stone at the apex symbolised victory. Initially the obelisk had a flat stone surface on which a vase of flowers could be placed, but it was later topped by a stone cross. The inscription carved into the granite block beneath the cross simply acknowledged the Australasian soldiers at the landing.

It is my view that the sacrifice of those who have come before us should be woven throughout the fabric of our city, not all corralled together. We should be encouraged to think of the sacrifice of all those who gave their life to our state, wherever we toil in the confines of this city. We should respect the past gatherings of our kin and the ground upon which they dedicated their memorials. The dedication of the builders and the solemn gatherings of mothers mourning their lost sons has made part of the southern parklands sacred to the memory of lost youth sacrificed for empire.

We should not relocate their tribute on a whim. We should not relocate their tribute because we have an eye on the cost of the new walk. We should not relocate their tribute because we no longer have the vision, will or resolve to create new physical public acknowledgments of the sacrifice of our war dead and those injured in conflict. A more respectful action by the state would be to recreate the grove and leave the cenotaph close to the ground where the tears of mothers, inconsolable with grief, have fallen.

I suspect it will be difficult to reverse the course of action now decided, to uproot the cenotaph and drag it to the location of the walk. I console myself that if the relocation proceeds it will at least provide an example of loving craftsmanship against the modern ways bereft of creation by the loving hand—which, it appears, will unfortunately populate the remainder of the trail. Despite my aesthetic reservation, I strongly support the creation of this walk. The walk will be an important reminder of service and sacrifice. I hope it will ensure that the noble sacrifice of those who came before us remains firmly in our community's collective consciousness.

I have some questions for the minister to which I seek a response at his second reading summing up. Were any significant trees cut down during the works? If so, what were the species of those trees and their ages? Were any of the trees cut down of historic or cultural significance? Are any trees going to be cut down in the immediate future? If so, what species and ages are those trees? Are any of the trees that will be cut down of historic or cultural significance? If trees have been or will be removed, will these trees be replaced? Will they be replaced with the same species and what age will the replacements be?

I ask members to have regard to the petition and also to the lack of judgement in moving the cenotaph. I commend the bill to the chamber and leave you with the words of Achilles as told to the embassy:

…if I stay here and fight beside the city of the Trojans, my return home is gone, but my glory shall be everlasting; but if I return home to the beloved land of my fathers, the excellence of my glory is gone, but there will be a long life for me left, and my end in death will not come to me quickly. And this would be my counsel to others also, to sail back home again.

The greatest warrior of the classics is telling us: savour life; it is more important than glory. We should remember the deeds of past soldiers, not just commemorate, which is why we must respect the grief of the mothers who lost their sons at Gallipoli and not disrespect their memorial by moving it simply to complement a city path. Their soldier sons did not come home. The mothers never recovered from their grief. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (11:41): I take the floor on behalf of Dignity for Disability to say a few words on this bill. I doubt that they are going to be anywhere near as poetic as the contribution of our previous speaker, but I will give it a crack.

The passage of this legislation would appear to be a necessary precursor for the construction of the proposed ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk. However, as is well known, that project was approved by the government in January 2014—some two years ago. I understand that it received planning approval in July 2015. The Public Works Committee reported on the project on 2 July 2015. Construction started in August and its completion is imminent. The new memorial walk is due to be ready for ANZAC Day of this very year.

Nonetheless, this place is only now considering proposed legislative changes to enable the eastern boundary of the Government House grounds to be shifted 10 metres to the west in order to create the site for this already virtually finished project. The merits of this project notwithstanding, like the previous speaker I see that the question surely must be asked: what is the justification for dealing with this bill in retrospect?

It does not appear to be the case that the government belatedly became aware of the need for the legislation. As soon as the project was conceived—as I said, over two years ago—it would have been evident that the project needed to occupy a slice of the Government House grounds. When the memorial walk’s design was finalised, the exact extent of the reduction was known. The Public Works Committee’s report on the project states, on page 7:

The grounds of Government House are legislated under the Government House Domain Dedication Act 1927. The Act will require legislative amendment to reflect the new boundary of Government House 10 metres west of its current location.

In the absence of any other explanation, the clear implication is that the government considers that the role and stature of this parliament is unimportant. An uncharitable person—certainly one less charitable than I—might suggest that parliament is being treated with some contempt. There is another aspect of the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk project about which I would like to express some concern.

It is the intention to relocate the Dardanelles monument from Lundie Gardens, in the south Parklands, to the zone of the memorial walk. The Dardanelles monument, unveiled on 7 September 2015, was the first in Australia and New Zealand, I understand, to commemorate the First World War. It was moved a short distance in 1940. Nonetheless, in its present location it has links to the military history of the south Parklands that dates back to 1885. It has been the site of annual memorial services on the anniversary of its dedication. In addition, the monument was conceived for a garden setting. It was created by the Wattle League and was originally surrounded by the Gallipoli memorial wattle grove.

Mr Walter Dollman, grandson of the commander of the South Australian contingent (27^th Battalion AIF) in the Dardanelles, where the monument was dedicated, has argued that moving the monument will practically destroy its primary context, its builders' intention, and its secondary context, being its use since. Mr Dollman's views highlight the important point that any built memorial, not least one over 100 years old, cannot be considered as a disembodied object that will simply retain its significance wherever it is placed.

Apart from the other aspects of its heritage mentioned here, the Dardanelles monument has been a landmark in the corner of the Parklands for many decades. Relocating it to a new hard-paved area to be grouped with a cluster of other First World War memorials will, I understand, detract from the value of the monument itself and from its historic original site.

I register my objection on behalf of people like Mr Dollman to this aspect of the ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk project. Notwithstanding that objection, and the objection to the time at which this legislation has come to the parliament, I indicate Dignity for Disability's support for this bill.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (11:47): I also rise to indicate my support for this bill which facilitates the erection of an ANZAC Centenary Memorial Walk at the Government House precinct along Kintore Avenue.

The memorial walk was partly funded under the commonwealth government's ANZAC Public Fund. This fund is an extremely competitive one to win a grant from. My understanding is that many worthwhile projects Australia-wide had their grant applications refused owing to the sheer quality of applications received. The total cost of the project is $9.7 million and made up of $5 million from the ANZAC Public Fund, $3 million from the state government and $2 million from the Adelaide City Council. It is good to see the Adelaide City Council on board.

All honourable members here would be aware of the important part these types of projects play in sharing the stories of South Australians at war.

Like the granite that was used to build this parliament, the Memorial Walk interpretative wall will be made from one of Adelaide's black granites. It was designed by Grieve Gillett Dimitty Andersen Architects, following extensive consultation with the veterans' groups and other key stakeholders. The design will be around three pillars of symbolism: remembrance, service and loyalty.

It will pay tribute to more than 102,000 Australian servicemen and women lost in conflict since Federation. It will also document all major conflicts from World War I to Afghanistan and Iraq, operational theatres, peacekeeping, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the home front, the Cheer Up Society, animals, matériel and equipment.

I would like to briefly acknowledge the role that Sir Eric Neal, as Chair of the Veterans Advisory Council, played in making this project happen. The VAC, which is the Veterans Advisory Council, was established in April 2008 to promote the wellbeing of veterans and provide advice to the state government about matters concerning the veterans' community.

The VAC is chaired by Sir Eric Neal, includes lots of veterans, and has distinguished people on the committee. This is some of the CV of Sir Eric Neal. He was appointed to review Australia's Higher Defence Organisation in 1981. In 1992, he was awarded the United States Department of Defense Medal for distinguished public service by the Secretary of Defense, in recognition of his contribution in chairing the council that organised the commemorative events in Australia to mark the 50^th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea.

Other members on the VAC include Mrs Helen Adamson. Mrs Adamson is the State President of the War Widows' Guild and Vice President of the Partners of Veterans' Association. Another member is Mr Chris Burns CSC. Mr Burns enlisted in the Australian Army as an apprentice electrician in 1975 and graduated from the Officer Cadet School, Portsea, in 1979. As most members would be aware, Mr Burns now runs the Defence Teaming Centre for South Australia.

Another member is Mr Leon Eddy. Mr Eddy volunteered for national service. He served with the 2RTB and the 9^th Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment.

Mr David Everitt was a national serviceman who saw operational service in Vietnam with 9 RAR. Mr Ray Kemp is the State President of the Submarine Association of Australia and its National Pensions and Welfare Coordinator. Ms Chantelle Graham served in the Royal Australian Navy from July 1997 until June 2003. Her rank on discharge was Leading Seaman, Combat Systems Operator. During her career, Ms Graham was posted to the Australian joint intelligence centre in Sydney and served on HMAS Tobruk between 1999 and 2001.

Another member of the VAC is Lieutenant Colonel Jack Gregg. Lieutenant Colonel Gregg is the Deputy Commander of 1 Brigade based at RAAF Base, Edinburgh. Lieutenant Colonel Gregg graduated from the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in December 1976 into the Royal Australian Infantry.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ngo, are you reading a speech or Wikipedia? What are you doing?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No, I am just reading some—

The PRESIDENT: It really is out of order using a phone. I have tolerated it up to now, but it just seems to be dragging on a little bit.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I am just trying to mention some of the VAC members.

The PRESIDENT: Yes, I know that, but it is not appropriate to use a phone.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: They are the names of some members of the VAC. I would like to acknowledge the role that Sir Eric Neil played at the time of this proposal to feature an ANZAC Day centenary memorial walk. I was working with the then minister for veterans' affairs, the Hon. Jack Snelling MP, and I have been well aware of this project from an early stage since it was first put to the government. I am happy that the Labor government saw the merit in this project and made it an election commitment.

I ceased to be involved with this project after the election, and I was really disappointed at that time that the Liberal Party did not make the same commitment had they won the election. Obviously, the Hon. Andrew McLachlan was not there at that stage; he was not involved in the election campaign, so I am assuming had he been around he would have made sure that the Liberal Party would have been on board with this project right at the start to make this a bipartisan project. However, now that he is here it is great to hear him speak glowingly about the project. I was also hoping, as I am sure the veteran community was also, that this project would play a role in the last state election. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party did not come around to it.

It was Sir Eric Neil's persistent support for this project that made it possible. As a former governor of South Australia, he understood the nature of what was being proposed and sold the concept to many different stakeholders. I know that if it wasn't for Sir Eric Neil's dedication and persistence this project would not have got over the line.

I would also like to thank the current Governor, His Excellency Hieu Van Le, for his understanding and willingness to see this project through. I will quote some of the comments made by the current Governor about the project. Governor Hieu Van Le said that the project was 'so important that it's good enough for some land from this house to be excised'. Further, he stated:

I have, however, sought assurances to make sure it has no unreasonable impact to the privacy, functionality, heritage aspects and security of the house.

Another quote from him:

I am a strong believer in the community thanking the sacrifices of all South Australians—and Australians, for that matter—involved in armed conflicts in the world in our name. It is important to recognise and honour them, especially those that make the ultimate sacrifice.

I also have a few quotes from Sir Eric Neal, as follows:

[the government] deserves a lot of credit for bringing this project to fruition, given it's been going on for some years.

He further stated:

When it was first put forward to Veterans Advisory Council—

which I read out earlier—

the plan was to take 40 metres [of Government House], which was a disaster, in my opinion.

Sir Eric Neal went on to say, however:

As a former Governor I feel very comfortable about it, it's going to benefit the state and the people of this state.

He said that about the revised version of the plans being presented in this bill. I commend the current Governor for his willingness to open up Government House to the public by giving up 10 metres of setbacks, which made it possible for this project to go ahead. With that, I commend this bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

Sitting suspended from 12:03 to 14:16.