Parliamentary Committees

Environment, Resources and Development Committee: Inquiry into Heritage Reform

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins:

That the first report of the committee, on an inquiry into heritage reform, be noted.

(Continued from 1 May 2019.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:49): I rise to make a brief contribution to this report on behalf of the opposition. The Environment, Resources and Development Committee resolved to conduct an inquiry into the current state and potential for reform of local, state and national heritage in South Australia. The committee considered a wide range of evidence from 144 written submissions, 29 witnesses and published literature. As the Hon. Mr Dawkins indicated in his contribution to this place a few weeks ago, the committee also visited state and local heritage places and areas in the City of Adelaide council area and in the Adelaide Hills.

This report notes that heritage is an issue that seems to polarise people. It can be perceived as an economic burden or barrier to development or a precious asset that can benefit the whole community. Either way, it is undeniable that everyone wants the same thing from the government agencies that have responsibility for our built heritage; that is, a simple and timely process to nominate and list heritage, and certainty and consistency in whether and how they can develop their properties.

It is for this reason that the committee's proceedings and its findings are of the utmost importance for heritage policy in this state into the future. Some of the committee's most important findings include that:

heritage is important to the community, including non-government organisations, industry bodies and local councils, and the community expects state and local heritage to be protected from demolition and the impacts of undesirable developments;

the community was generally unhappy with the current sectoral approach to the protection and management of heritage and was desirous of change;

the community desires reform of current heritage policy and legislation, in particular local heritage, and calls for better clarity, efficiency, transparency, consistency and accountability of processes and decision-making

the adversarial nature of the current processes to nominate, assess and list local heritage would likely be moderated by a more strategic, statewide and collaborative approach to identifying heritage, and that the community expects to be involved in the nominations of all heritage; and

providing incentives for appropriate management of heritage properties and discouraging or disincentivising inappropriate management of properties is likely to mitigate against perverse outcomes such as neglecting properties until they are deemed suitable to demolish.

I take this opportunity to thank the various organisations that assisted in the committee's work, including the City of Adelaide; the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure; and SA Heritage in the Department for Environment and Water.

I also thank the members of the committee during this reporting period. They include Mr Nick McBride (member for MacKillop), the Hon. John Rau (former member for Enfield), Mr Michael Brown (member for Playford), the Hon. John Dawkins, the Hon. Mark Parnell, and Presiding Member Mr Adrian Pederick (member for Hammond). I conclude by thanking committee staff, Ms Joanne Fleer and Dr Merry Brown, for their assistance to the committee. It was very much appreciated. With that, I commend this motion.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:53): In normal circumstances, I would have a substantial contribution to make on the subject of heritage protection and how it should be managed into the future. Much of heritage is within the planning system and, as members would know, that is a topic that I am always keen to explore in great depth. But given the amount of business we have before us tonight, I do not propose to go into any detail about the ERD Committee's inquiry, the 144 submissions, the 29 witnesses or any of the recommendations that were made by the committee.

My expectation is that we will be sitting very late tonight, into the early hours, debating other important issues. In these circumstances and to do justice to the topic, I intend to put onto the parliamentary agenda at a later date a separate motion that relates to heritage. I already have one bill before the council that deals with heritage, and I expect to have more in coming months.

For now, what I would like to do is just to thank all those who participated in the inquiry and to put on the record my thanks to those tireless campaigners for heritage who put so much effort into their submissions and their representations. I particularly would like to thank the National Trust, the Community Alliance and the Environmental Defenders Office, as well as the many individuals and local councils whose submissions informed the final report.

I also want to add my thanks to the staff of the committee, Ms Joanne Fleer and Dr Merry Brown, who successfully pulled together a range of divergent views and helped the committee to come up with a final consensus report that, if fully implemented, should ensure that future generations get to enjoy a similar heritage legacy to the one that we inherited from our forebears. I support the motion.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:55): In summing-up the debate, I would like to thank the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Mark Parnell. I will look forward to the three-hour speech that he probably would have had in other circumstances. Can I say that I think the deliberations of the committee in relation to this report were very good. I think we did cover a range of issues, and I think the report has covered the great bulk of those. I look forward to the Hon. Mark Parnell's future motion. I thank those two members of this council for their contributions, and I also thank the staff for their great efforts in the preparation of the report. I commend the motion to the council.

Motion carried.