Heritage Places (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 December 2021.)

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (17:41): I have mentioned on several occasions in this place that my young family and I call the CBD home. Our home is surrounded by green gold: the Adelaide Parklands. The Parklands are our city's lungs, our backyard that you do not need to personally mow, a playground meeting space and a significant cultural site for the Kaurna people.

We know that the Adelaide Parklands are unique because Colonel Light's design was a world first. Adelaide was the first planned city to be in a park creating Australia's biggest backyard for local residents and the broader South Australian community to enjoy. Only this week, I doorknocked a proud CBD resident called Joseph. Joseph shared a story with me on how he often FaceTimes his overseas family and friends from the Parklands and they ask what country town he is in. He said it never gets old, the sound of disbelief when he says, 'I am in the CBD.'

This uniqueness has been recognised time and time again as we continue to climb the ranks in the livability of our great city. In 2001, Adelaide became the third most livable city in the world and the most livable city in Australia. More than ever before, we have looked to the Adelaide Parklands to keep us connected, to keep us local and to keep us safe. They have become our escape from confined rooms during the pandemic and a drive-through COVID testing station. Perhaps this was not ever envisaged.

The bill before us today has been introduced to formally recognise the significance and uniqueness of the 760 hectares that create the Adelaide Parklands. As described in the Heritage Places Act, the object is to recognise the importance of the state's history, including its natural history. A state heritage area may include areas notable for their distinct heritage characters or a sense of place formed by buildings and structures, spaces and allotments, patterns of streets and natural features or the development of the landscape.

The Adelaide Parklands fits well within all the above qualities of what makes an important and valued sense of space. This sense of place is also home to celebrating cultural and creative diversity through pop-up festivals that have become truly unique to the Parklands and their landscape. It is these festivals that help create a sense of place for South Australians, festivals like WOMADelaide, which attracts artists from around the world and close to 20,000 people per day over the four-day festival.

The unique space of the Adelaide Parklands enables Adelaide to create a space that is the envy of the world right at the doorstep of our CBD. There are also many more permanent establishments like the West Terrace Cemetery, the university campuses, the hospital and the Zoo, just to name a few. They call the Adelaide Parklands and their surrounds home.

It is the diversity of the natural and built landscape of the Parklands that makes them a place for everyone, a place that must be identified and recognised. The bill before us today seeks to do just that. The bill seeks to amend the Heritage Places Act and recognises the Adelaide Parklands as a state heritage area.

If we amend the Heritage Places Act, the Parklands would join the 17 current state heritage places located across South Australia, like Port Adelaide, Gawler Church Hill, Colonel Light Gardens and Moonta Mines. Like the Adelaide Parklands, these areas carry with them historical values of importance, but there is a defining difference I would like to touch on, a difference that should not distract from the importance of this bill but nonetheless should be considered.

I will use the Port Adelaide heritage area as an example to explain why we need to discuss this because, after all, that was the first heritage area to be listed in South Australia. The Port Adelaide state heritage area includes the commercial administrative core of early Port Adelaide, an area that is identified as containing South Australia's most substantial continuous group of colonial buildings.

The heritage area is situated between St Vincent Street and North Parade and extends from Nelson Street on the west to Jubilee Street on the east. Those in the chamber who know a little about Port Adelaide will know that this is a relatively small area, an area consisting of similar era colonial buildings like the South Australian Maritime Museum, but not the National Railway Museum, which is located on the other side of St Vincent Street.

The relatively small landscape and narrow diversity in the building structures located within this area could help when it comes to the implementation of the development standards one must follow when carrying out the changes to the state heritage area. The state heritage area developments as defined by the Development Act include land division, change of use, new constructions, demolition, removal, alterations, additions, painting and signage, and any other work that could materially affect the heritage value of the state heritage area. All development applications in the state heritage area that are lodged with the council would then be referred to the Heritage Council of South Australia in the Department for Environment and Water for heritage assessment.

I want to have this discussion because this is a much smaller area than the area of the Adelaide Parklands. I do not want to distract by any means from the importance of this bill, but they do need to be considered. While I have several questions I want to ask during the committee stage, I would like to confirm that the opposition will support this bill, with the proviso that further consultation is considered and undertaken. We would usually say between the houses, but we do want to see a little bit more consultation undertaken.

I raise that point because I know the Adelaide City Council, which would be considerably impacted by these changes—not for the worse necessarily, but it is a good change to be looking at—has not been consulted yet. These are considerations that need to be put forward and looked at during the committee stage of this bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:47): I rise in support of the bill by the Hon. Robert Simms and his very meritorious intent to save our precious Parklands from intrusion and to prevent further loss of the Parklands, particularly in view of the type of developments that the Marshall government wants to push through, including the basketball stadium on one section there, where the Helen Mayo reserve was, and also their thwarted plans through the changes to the planning code about Pinky Flat and other areas around the Riverbank area.

It was that proposal, the proposed basketball stadium and other things, that put the Parklands firmly back in focus and certainly after, of course, we had the debate about whether the Adelaide Football Club could build their much-vaunted future headquarters on the site of the Aquatic Centre at North Adelaide. So the issue about building on the Parklands continues to burn deeply within our community.

I can tell you that there are many people out there who want our Parklands preserved for what they stand for, for what they have achieved for this state, and the historical significance that goes right back to the planning of this great city. It is acknowledged everywhere that we have an amazing piece of land surrounding the CBD. I find it quite special.

As a youngster, I think I would have been about 10 years old, I learnt to play soccer at the West Parklands. As a schoolboy, I would often walk up Henley Beach Road for soccer practice during the evenings and we would also play our games there on weekends. The playing fields were not in great shape at the time, but it was fantastic to see that there was this open facility available for the community to enjoy. We enjoyed that as youngsters, and today the community continues to enjoy the spacious facilities that those Parklands provide.

What the Hon. Robert Simms' bill has put in focus, of course, is the protection of heritage—not just the Parklands, but heritage buildings, heritage areas in our community. It brings it really sharply into focus and the debate continues. It is interesting that just over a week ago I was sitting on my balcony at home, and I can see the skyline of the city from my place. I was there with a friend, and I started to lament the appalling skyline that we have created in the City of Adelaide and I thought, 'Actually, it looks ugly, what has actually sprouted there in the last few years.'

I notice that plans have been announced for the builder of the $400 million Central Market arcade redevelopment. It is great news for that area to see that type of development, but it is a 38-storey tower. The old market buildings, the Sir Samuel Way building, some of the more historic buildings around the City of Adelaide will be in shadow. We are just starting to lose a lot of that quaint, historic feel that the city used to have. It used to be known as the city of churches. It is now becoming the city of skyscrapers.

The other day, there was the announcement of the 55-storey apartment hotel complex on the corner of Pulteney Street and Flinders Street. There is no maximum building height on that block of land. From memory—and correct me if I am wrong, the Hon. Robert Simms—I do recall that originally there was a nice heritage home that was on that building site and they demolished it. It went, and now we are going to see this 55-storey monstrosity there.

There is also a proposal for a 160-metre tower at the Freemasons area on North Terrace. We have a 36-storey Frome hotel at the East End. This is massive development that is going on in the City of Adelaide, and of course it can only go on when properties are sold and others have to be demolished to make way for it. We have saved some important cultural buildings in the city, but we have lost many significant ones. I am not going to go through that at this point.

Earlier in the week, a former colleague of mine, Meno Toutsidis from my days in the newspapers and on Channel 7, happened to send me an article that was written by our first boss, Ron Boland. Ron was the very colourful editor of The News newspaper and also a former editor of the Sunday Mail and was Rupert Murdoch's right-hand man in Australia at the time. He was a very well-respected man.

After Ron retired, he had an active interest in heritage in the city. Meno sent me this article that Ron wrote on 29 April 1984. At that time, just as it is today, the debate was raging about what was going on in the City of Adelaide as far as heritage protection. I just want to read some paragraphs from Ron's article, which was headed 'What's wrong with old-world style? Our unique heritage must be preserved.' He says:

Never before have Adelaide's special attractions and their preservation come under such scrutiny.

Remember this is 1984. The article continues:

And all to the good, because never before has there been such a need to look at our special heritage, our historic and cultural associations, and decide whether we are to retain this unique character of Adelaide, or lose it.

It's no easy task to define this special uniqueness, but it is there and I believe it can be fostered, nurtured and developed in a manner to give Adelaide the reputation of a model of heritage preservation.

Ron goes on to say that he had unearthed a report by Adelaide's former Town Clerk, Russell Arland. I do not know if many of you younger members in here would remember the term 'town clerk', which of course has been since superseded by the very highly paid job of chief executive and many other staff who work in the Town Hall, but in those days Russell Arland was the lone hand who ran the Adelaide City Council.

Russell had compiled a report to the council following a world tour, where he visited many cities in Europe that were also greatly concerned with their preservation and their early history and old buildings. He went on to talk about places like Amsterdam naming all buildings having a frontage to a canal as historic monuments.

He talks about the rebuilding of Munich, much of which was destroyed during World War II, but the Germans in the postwar rebuild decided to try to retain and bring back the old character. In fact, when I was in Munich for the World Cup back in 2006, I was actually quite surprised. I thought, 'Wow, these buildings look fantastic for their age.' In fact, they were actually rebuilt in the postwar period to make them look and retain that cultural heritage. They look fantastic. Anyway, Ron went on to say:

Retention of old environments is more aesthetically attractive and gives the city a character that we like to be part of.

Our history is part of our heritage. We must preserve its built form to the best of our ability.

Then he was talking about the establishment of a special committee that was put together to try to protect heritage buildings. I would say that it would probably be the precursor of the National Trust or the History Trust. He then went on and noted the words of noted Sydney urban architect and expert Francesca Morrison, who spoke in Adelaide during the Adelaide Festival of Arts. Francesca said, and I quote:

Buildings will become cheaper and nastier each year. They are not inspiring, environmentally uplifting or satisfying. They are basically brutal…alien…soul destroying.

At the rate we are going our cultural continuity will be severed. It is not just our Victorian or colonial heritage, it is our complete historical and cultural consciousness which is at stake.

That is a very interesting comment. Certainly, in light of what I have just said about the changing skyline of Adelaide in the CBD, it is great to see new architectural structures going up that are aesthetically pleasing, but I think we have lost sight of that now. It has just become one mushroom after another and see how tall you can get and beat the record. It is certainly different from what you see in London—and London, as we know, is a very old, historic place—where they have managed to integrate new buildings, aesthetically designed to fit in with their environment, and it is pleasing to see that.

Another thing that was pleasing to see was the announcement by the City of Norwood Payneham & St Peters. The mayor, Robert Bria, is a very strong, passionate advocate for retaining the heritage in that particular area—in the Premier's own seat, actually, of Dunstan. Mayor Bria and the staff at Norwood Payneham & St Peters work extremely hard to protect a lot of those heritage homes and buildings in Norwood, in that area. It is important that we protect those places for future generations. They may only be 150 or 200 years old, but of course they were our beginnings and we should not stand back and allow progress to just sweep them aside.

Mayor Bria's motion was passed unanimously by the council, and I commend them for what they have done. The idea is that they protect these historic buildings in what they claim to be Australia's oldest suburban municipality, which could well be true. They have their urban planning and environment general manager, Carlos Buzzetti, who is going to be focusing on an area of construction, streetscapes and the types of buildings that need to be protected.

They highlight that we have seen the incursion of some subdivisions that are present in Glenelg, Kensington and also in my vicinity, Colonel Light Gardens, which is a garden city, a beautiful suburb, but there are fears—and there were fears—that this garden city suburb could find itself being enveloped by new and far more grotesque buildings and homes that certainly do not fit in with the heritage area of it. It is great to see that councils like Norwood Payneham & St Peters are doing so much to protect that heritage.

This is why it is important that we support what the Hon. Robert Simms is doing here simply because, as my old boss pointed out, heritage is not just about buildings. It is also about the environment that we have and that we have had for more than a century. It is important that we do protect it, and I am hoping that it does lead to World Heritage listing eventually because protection is certainly required here. I urge members to support the Hon. Robert Simms's legislation.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (18:04): I rise to speak today to support the Heritage Places (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill 2021 and advise that the government has amendments which I understand have been filed. The process to establish the Adelaide Parklands as a state heritage area is well underway. The South Australian Heritage Council has already determined the heritage significance of the Adelaide Parklands and city layout and has prepared a statement of significance, which states that they are:

…an outstanding representation of a nineteenth century planned colonial settlement. The principal components of Light's 1837 plan are the original layout, width and grid pattern of the city streets; surrounding outer ring of parklands; six internal squares; and the topographical response to terrain. These components remain clearly legible today and served both the economic and well-being needs of early settlements.

The South Australian Heritage Council has requested that the Adelaide Parklands and city layout be recommended to the planning minister for state heritage area consideration, with the area of the proposed state heritage recognition replicating that of the national heritage place, and this has been progressed as required by the relevant legislation.

Heritage standards for the Adelaide Parklands and city layout state heritage area are currently being written to guide future development decisions within the newly created state heritage area. It is anticipated that these should be available for public consultation in mid-2022 and finalised before November 2022. The standard will clarify how the heritage values at the Adelaide Parklands and city layout state heritage area will be managed and streamline the process for any development applications and referrals. This work should be completed before the act comes into operation.

While there are approximately 70 individually listed state heritage places located in the Parklands already, these listings do not recognise the heritage values of the Adelaide Parklands and city layout as a whole. The 70 places will remain entered in the register in their own right. The inclusion of the Adelaide Parklands and city layout as a state heritage area in the South Australian Heritage Register, and the creation of the state heritage area overlay, under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, is an important step to recognising the value of our iconic Parklands and city layout.

The government thanks the Hon. Robert Simms for introducing the Heritage Places (Adelaide Park Lands) Amendment Bill into the parliament. In doing so, this bill circumvents the current two-stage process for creating state heritage areas, in particular: the South Australian Heritage Council determines the significance and heritage values of a state heritage area, and the planning minister approves a code amendment so that its heritage values can be appropriately managed within the state's planning system.

To ensure the bill can operate effectively, on behalf of the Minister for Environment and Water I propose three government amendments, which do the following:

the entry of the Adelaide Parklands in the South Australian Heritage Register also includes the city layout and mirrors the National Heritage List 2008;

only the state heritage area overlay under the Planning and Design Code, and not the state heritage place overlay, is applied to the Adelaide Parklands in the city layout state heritage area; and

the act comes into operation on 1 November 2022. This will allow the proposed heritage standards to be consulted and approved, providing clarity on how the heritage values relate to the development in the state heritage areas.

I note that the Hon. Emily Burke said in her contribution that the City of Adelaide council has not been consulted at this stage. With these minor government amendments, we support this important step of recognising the value of our Adelaide Parklands and city layout.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:08): I want to thank members for their contributions. I acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Emily Burke, the contribution of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the contribution of the Hon. Michelle Lensink. I do want to acknowledge the fact that we are at an exciting moment where all political parties are supporting the heritage listing of our iconic Parklands and Adelaide's iconic green space. I think that really is a breakthrough moment in terms of protection of our Parklands.

This has been a long-term campaign by Parklands advocates. It is over 10 years ago that we saw the Adelaide Parklands included on the National Heritage List, and since that time there has been a long-term push for the Adelaide Parklands to be included on the state heritage list. It is terrific to see such strong support for this bill, and certainly, whether the Labor Party claims government or whether the Liberal Party is returned to government in March, the Greens will be reintroducing this legislation into the new parliament to ensure that the two major parties make good on their commitment and their support for this legislation so that we can make this a reality. I see today's vote as being an important step in that regard, and I acknowledge the support of my colleagues in making that happen.

I will respond very briefly and directly to one of the comments made by the Hon. Emily Bourke. The Hon. Ms Bourke has asked about the involvement of the Adelaide City Council. Whilst it is true that I have not negotiated directly with the council on this bill, the council has had a long-term position of supporting state heritage listing for the Adelaide Parklands and also supporting World Heritage listing for the Parklands. I would certainly see that this bill, were it to become law, would strengthen that campaign for World Heritage listing.

In the interests of time, I indicate on behalf of the Greens that we are supportive of two of the three amendments that are going to be put forward by the government. We support amendment No. 2 [Lensink-1] and amendment No. 3 [Lensink-1]. We do not support amendment No.1, which relates to the time frame in which the bill would come into operation. There may well be a change of government in March, and they may well have very different priorities in terms of the work of the bureaucracy, and it may be possible to expedite this.

People have been waiting a very long time for state heritage listing, and I do not want to see more delays put in place. It is for that reason that we are opposed to that first amendment from the government. I acknowledge the support of all parties in terms of making this happen.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

New clause 1A.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Lensink–1]—

Page 2, after line 5—Insert:

1A—Commencement

This Act comes into operation on 1 November 2022.

The government proposes to delay the commencement of the bill until 1 November 2022 to allow time for the heritage standards for the state heritage area to be developed, consulted on and published. Under the new Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, and the Planning and Design Code, the heritage standards are a supplementary tool of the code and are referenced in the state heritage area overlay.

If the Adelaide Parklands and city layout are listed as a state heritage area, any applications to undertake development in the state heritage area will be referred to the Department for Environment and Water and Heritage South Australia as a delegate of the minister responsible for the Heritage Places Act 1993 for referred development applications. The heritage standards are used by Heritage South Australia as a key part of assessing development proposals that are referred to Heritage SA. Although Heritage SA is currently working on the heritage standards, they will need to be publicly consulted on and finalised.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I indicate that we will not support this first amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I also indicate that the Greens will not be supporting the amendment for the reasons I outlined in my previous contribution.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: We will not be supporting the amendment either.

New clause negatived.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Lensink–1]—

Page 2, lines 12 and 13 [clause 3(1), definition of Adelaide Park Lands]—

Delete 'has the same meaning as in the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005' and substitute:

means the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout described in the Schedule to the notice published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of the Commonwealth for the purposes of including the Adelaide Park Lands and City Layout in the National Heritage List (see Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. S238, Friday 7 November 2008);

This amendment ensures that what is entered onto the South Australian Heritage Register is consistent with the entry in the National Heritage List. In addition, this is what has been recognised by the South Australian Heritage Council as having heritage value worthy of listing as a state heritage area.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: I rise to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this amendment and thank the government for introducing it. We feel it does address some of the concerns that were within the bill and I think it is a good addition to be including in this bill.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I feel like we have a unity ticket happening here, Chair. We are all on the same page. I also support this amendment, on behalf of the Greens, and I agree it enhances the bill. I thank the government for putting it forward.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: SA-Best will be supporting both amendments from the Hon. Michelle Lensink.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (4 to 6) passed.

Schedule 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Lensink–1]—

Page 3, clause 1, lines 24 and 25 [Schedule 1, clause 1, inserted paragraph (ca)]—

Delete 'any overlay relating to State heritage' and substitute 'the State Heritage Area Overlay'

The bill proposes to apply all overlays relating to heritage under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act to the Adelaide Parklands and city layout. This amendment ensures that only the State Heritage Area Overlay applies to the listing. To apply both the State Heritage Area and State Heritage Place Overlay would be inconsistent and unnecessary.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: The opposition will also be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Likewise, Chair.

The CHAIR: And we have had an indication from the Hon. Mr Pangallo.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (18:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 18:20 the council adjourned until Wednesday 9 February 2022 at 14:15.