Bills

Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 August 2024.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:36): I rise to make some remarks on this piece of legislation in relation to the Crown and Anchor and a few other measures in and around the CBD, which is a much-loved venue on Grenfell Street that has existed for a very long time. It has been there for approximately 170 years, operating for much of that time as a licensed premises and as a live music venue for some 30 years.

One fun fact which I do not think has made its way into the parliamentary debate at this stage is that at some stage the Crown and Anchor was owned by ancestors of the member for Finniss, Mr David Basham MP. That was part of the origin of a skit that we did at the Mid Winter Ball, which I will not go into any further because these things are Chatham House Rules, but honourable colleagues would know what I am talking about.

This property was listed as a local heritage site by the Adelaide City Council, which exists through the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act (PDI Act), which protects the site's exterior and prevents its demolition. Our former leader, the Hon. David Speirs, provided a letter of support for the state heritage listing some time ago in April. The origins of the Save the Cranker campaign were triggered when an application was lodged by the current owners, Wee Hur Holdings, with the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP) to develop the site for student accommodation.

The proposal would have retained the heritage facade but not retained the current activities. I would like to again congratulate the Save the Canker group for their extraordinary work in highlighting this issue, the threat to the hotel and to live music generally, and for organising a groundswell of people to rise up and speak in favour of its retention. I would also like to thank them for the respectful way in which they have gone about doing this, which has been very respectful.

I followed all the debate in the House of Assembly and I cannot say that I have as extensive a list of anecdotes as some members, with my history of particular live music venues. I certainly do not get out much these days, but I can appreciate that there are many people who do and that the Crown and Anchor is a place that is much loved and much valued by many South Australians.

I also cannot compare with some of the members with their university tales. Some of us are nerds who had a combination of Dutch parents and so many contact hours that we did not get out much in those days either. My preferred genres fit better with all things camp, disco and drag, the former Mars Bar and the old Synagogue, which is now Marys Poppin, which I have actually had a chance to visit in the last 12 months—but I digress.

The Save the Cranker organisers have told me that this live music venue provides the opportunity for local artists to perform when there are few, if any, other venues in Adelaide. Without the Crown and Anchor, local musicians will be disadvantaged by a lack of venues, with a number having closed in recent years due to redevelopment, and local festivals, including WOMAD, which are supported by direct funding from government, rarely include local artists. There is also an argument that the local activity as a meeting place in combination with the entertainment aspect is unique. I note that over 20,000 signatures have been received for the petition to protect the Cranker—it might be more than that by now—to allow it to continue its operation as a pub/live music venue.

There are also other venues that have already been lost, which is the subject of a motion tomorrow. I will let the cat out of the bag now: the Liberal Party will be supporting that motion to establish a select committee on this issue. It has been said to me, too, that the funding for live music venues from this government has not actually been directed to the areas where it is most needed. We have seen that in one case there was a venue that was provided grant funding that had to return it because it was actually going to be closed.

In relation to the planning aspects of this particular site, I would say that ground floor and street-level activities in our city are critical to a liveable city, but this is something that we all agree on in principle. We can all point to examples of buildings and towers around the city that allow no ground floor activity, have nothing attractive to passers-by and do not enhance security for people at ground level. These are easy concepts to support, harder to articulate in practice, so I think we have all been seeking a similar outcome but potentially disagree about how it is best likely to be achieved.

In relation to the planning system, depending on who you listen to, it is working very well or it is not working very well. I would say what I do support in terms of the changes is that the decisions are meant to be made as merit-based decisions by experts and removed from political decision-making. There are some who argue that the local decision-making authority is inconsistent, but I do not hear that many complaints about the SCAP process. Our current planning laws have been in place since 2016, so they are relatively new.

There is an inclusion in that system that I think is very important for people to be aware of, which is the utility of the Government Architect through the Office for Design and Architecture SA (ODASA), which I will talk to in relation to their submission to SCAP in a bit more detail. The office of the Government Architect adds a huge amount of value to the process. Anyone only needs to go either on their website or that of the SCAP and look at the detailed submissions that they make, which are certainly very well thought out and very articulate in terms of all the aspects that they have looked at. I will be quoting from their submission to the SCAP a little bit later.

The Liberal Party's position has been consistent the entire way through, as follows, just for the record: firstly, to support live music in coexistence with student accommodation; secondly, to encourage people to make submissions through the relevant decision-making body, in this case SCAP—those submissions closed on 10 May; and to support state heritage listing of the Crown and Anchor Hotel. That has not changed throughout the process.

I note that the Minister for Planning has capacity through the PDI Act to direct SCAP to keep specific government policies in mind when making a decision and can seek to have items state heritage listed if they are already local heritage listed. We do know that the state heritage nomination process was underway with this site.

There are concerns about what other development proposals might now have some special legislation in the form that we find before us today, which is going to alter the current landscape and potentially interfere with the independence of the planning process. Developers will be very nervous about what this means going forward. What is to stop the emperor from getting involved next time? Perhaps developers will stop investing, in particular in marginal electorates where the risk of intervention from the emperor is now at an all-time high.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: Emperor?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Emperor Malinauskas. The Liberal Party has concerns about such precedents, which is why we took the position we did in relation to Mr Simms' motion in April, which we had intended amending ourselves, and agreed to the government's amendments, which I note lean in very heavily to heritage arguments, which are quite detailed—one, two, three, four, five of them—and also encouraging at that stage members to make submissions to SCAP. The other four have very strong references to heritage aspects.

Some time between May and August some members of the Labor Party did a U-turn—perhaps not telling all members of the Labor Party because some of them were quite upset that they had not been invited to the party. The feedback we received in regard to whether the member for Adelaide in particular was on board back in May with advocating for the Crown and Anchor was that it was noted the level of activity that she had engaged in in relation to the Citify proposal at Gilberton, which was knocked back by SCAP, with letter drops to local residents and meetings, etc., encouraging submissions to SCAP.

In this case there had not been the same level of activity. Indeed, I am not sure whether any Labor members engaged with SCAP or encouraged others to engage with SCAP. My advice to the Save the Cranker folk was certainly to engage with the SCAP process, which was the decision-making body that would look at it.

As we said, SCAP received a submission from Wee Hur Holdings in March, with submissions closing on 10 May. The submission was an application which was 19 storeys, which is five storeys over the applicable zoning, the applicable zoning for the Capital City Zone being a maximum of 53 metres or approximately 14 storeys. I note that because there will be times when SCAP will allow over height applications but usually require a level of things such as affordable housing to be included.

The Government Architect made a submission to SCAP, which is definitely worth a read. I am going to quote excerpts from it, firstly to demonstrate the value of the Government Architect process but also that ODASA had certainly looked at a range of matters in great detail with great consideration and decided that they could not support the proposal before SCAP in its current form. So if you just bear with me for a little bit. It is some six pages. On the first page it says:

My support for development of this significant city site is contingent on achieving a high-quality design outcome, particularly in relation to the architectural response to the historic context and varying streetscape characters, public realm contribution, sustainability response and residential amenity. In my view, this has not yet been demonstrated. As such, I am unable to offer my support to the proposal in its current form.

The submission then goes into some detail talking about site context, in particular the Union Street small street/laneway, which is in proximity to the old East End Market and the former Adelaide Fruit and Produce Exchange buildings. At the end of that section, the Government Architect says the following:

I recognise the unique site attributes, including the prominent corner site, fine grain streetscape character, and proximity to the vibrant and historic Rundle Street East precinct. In my view, this unique context demands a high-quality architectural and public realm response, informed by a rigorous context analysis and development of key design principles.

The next section talks about building height, built form composition and architectural expression. Some of this language I do not quite understand, but the key paragraph being the summary, which says:

While I could support the proposed land use for the site as student accommodation and acknowledge the design intent to reflect the varying streetscape contexts, in my view, the proposed built form massing and composition is yet to demonstrate a convincing architectural response to the existing context or a positive contribution to the vibrancy of this part of the city.

The submission then talks about podium architectural expression and, interestingly, in relation to parts of the existing site on which Roxie's and Chateau Apollo are, the submission says:

I acknowledge the existing buildings on site adjacent the Crown & Anchor Hotel are not heritage listed, however in my view, they contribute to the fine grain character of the streetscape and locality.

On page 4 there is a comment that 'retention of "pub" use to recognise the cultural and social significance and extend the public offer' deserves further resolution. There is some criticism about the configuration of the student accommodation, which I will not go into for the purposes of this. Overall, I think the Government Architect had a good look at this and on a range of matters decided that they could not support the application.

I note, too, that there were a record number of submissions. Some 800 were made to SCAP, mostly in favour of retaining the site. So it begs the question: why did the government not trust SCAP to do its job? Why did the emperor feel the need to ride in and strike a deal? Was it criticism from the arts community that the Premier only cares about sport, making his ears burn? Why did the Labor government not accept any of our heritage amendments for the Women's and Children's Hospital legislation to assist Thebarton barracks, which will exist in history and virtual reality only, while the Marshall government rebuilt the Waite gatehouse—so our proposal for that was rejected.

In relation to the bill, I would have to say that this has been a very rushed process. The minister described this bill as elegant. I strongly disagree. I would describe it as either not doing what it says it does or simply replicating what is able to be done by other means. The biggest failure as it is, is that in 'saving the Cranker' by only inserting certain heritage provisions, that is, that the pub cannot be demolished, it fails. It says the building cannot be demolished; I say big deal. The state heritage listing process was in train, other critical provisions about neglect and make good which exist in the state heritage legislation are missing.

The irony is that the debate on this bill took place on the same night as amendments to the Heritage Act. The member for Bragg, Jack Batty, was trying to make this point and yet no-one in Labor was paying any attention. I think that is because the Labor Party caravan has moved on. The emperor has had his headlines and his radio interviews, and the member for Adelaide has her social pictures, so as far as they are concerned, job done. They have left it to the Legislative Council to correct Labor's poor drafting. How many times has that happened?

The Hon. Mr Simms and I have spoken about reinserting some of these clauses into this bill. I am pleased to see them on file and we will be supporting them. If anyone is in any doubt that these amendments to this legislation are required, just consider this: Wee Hur Holdings is a company that builds student accommodation. They will, I have no doubt, comply with the requirements not to demolish the hotel. That is the deal that has been done. Given their core business is not owning hotels, it is a matter of time before they sell it, and what binds future owners to maintain the building? Nothing.

To suggest, as the minister did in debate in the other place, that the current owners will own this hotel in perpetuity is a nonsense, and that is why other parts of the heritage provisions must be included in this legislation. I will talk a bit about the timing of the process as well. We kind of knew a bill was coming. We were prepared to make accommodation for the AUKUS legislation earlier this year, which essentially was to fast-track what would otherwise have been a very lengthy process for that site to go through the standard community land revocation process, in recognition that civil works were needed to get cracking for the whole project to meet its timeframes. But there is no justification for this bill being rushed. Secretive rushed bills can often lead to unintended consequences, and we have this in the bill before us today.

I heard the member for Unley referring to the Minister for Planning as a seagull. I would describe the process of getting details from the minister and the government as like dealing with the CIA. I received a text from the minister on Monday, letting me know that he was interested in talking to us about the bill. On Tuesday I was informed that they wanted to give me a briefing. I was a bit perplexed and asked, 'When's this happening?—'Oh, today.'

We got the bill at about lunch time—I am not sure whether all the other stakeholders had received it or not—so we had to move heaven and earth to make sure everyone was briefed or at least had some opportunity to understand what on earth was going on. I think that was all completely unnecessary, and I will have some similar questions in the committee stage in relation to that process. I hope it is not something that will be repeated in the future, because we all have other things that we are doing and we do try to do the right thing. Whether it was to try to meet some other obligations or not, none of that was properly explained. With those comments, I indicate we will support the legislation, albeit I think it is setting a precedent that the Premier may live to regret.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:57): I rise to speak on the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill 2024. First and foremost, this is clearly an amazing demonstration of what people power can result in and what that looks like, what grassroots campaigning can achieve, and that is something to be admired. On that note, I commend the Hon. Rob Simms, the Greens and you, Madam Acting Chair, for your advocacy on this issue.

There is absolutely no question that this has been a passionate campaign to save the iconic Crown and Anchor Hotel, affectionately known as the Cranker, and that has been loud and clear. The hotel, while a piece of local heritage, is not state listed, as we know, due to likely the unsympathetic additions made in the fifties, yet for everyone who knows about the Cranker—I am not one of those people; I always walked past and saw the crowds, but I was not one of those patrons—it is, nevertheless, a reflection of the importance of a live music venue that clearly cannot be underestimated or understated, based on that public response. Everyone agrees that the venue deserves to be preserved.

The proposal at hand, as we have heard, will see the development increase from 19 to 29 storeys and, while there are concerns about scale, I understand there are additional storeys to be added to it to ensure that it ends up in more spacious accommodation. The $150 million investment by the Chinese developer includes necessary noise treatment, which is essential for the venue's continued operation as a live music hotspot. I understand that has pricked up the ears of many of the commentators on this issue in terms of the need for that particular measure in terms of prescribing the requirement for any new development within a 60-metre radius of a designated live music venue to be properly insulated against noise, and no doubt in the future we will hear more about that as the cost of that insulation becomes an issue. It is important to note, of course, though, that this applies only to future developments, not existing ones.

To echo the sentiments just expressed by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, overall it is a great example of people power at its best, but I do think we need to be cautious about the precedent we are setting as legislators. In essence we are fast-tracking a commercial agreement through bespoke legislation to address a single site and a unique set of circumstances.

We have seen with the Tea Tree Gully parking the ongoing ripple effect that can have on existing commercial arrangements across the state. We saw that, because as a result of the one bespoke piece of legislation at Tea Tree Gully, Marion shopping centre has been impacted and Westfield shopping centre has been impacted and, ultimately, that has impacted the commercial revenue of those private arrangements—because of a private arrangement entered into legislation via a bespoke bill debated in this place.

If this had not been the case, I think we would have seen about a six to nine-month process, probably, before this issue would have been resolved, if it was resolved, so I guess it is a win this time. By all accounts everyone might be satisfied, including the international developer and especially including the live music enthusiasts, but I do, again, remind everybody of the concerns that were just raised by the Hon. Michelle Lensink in terms of the long-term impacts of this arrangement, and I also have concerns about what happens next time, because whilst I support the protection of that particular venue we do have to remain cautious that this does not become the norm for future developments.

It is a great headline: 'We're saving the Cranker.' It was a genius move on the part of the Premier, but it was politicking at best. I do not think the Premier actually probably knew how he was going to save the Cranker when he made that announcement. He has worked his way, but I do not think he has done so with the support of private development, necessarily, in this state. I think if you asked any of the peak bodies who represent private business in this state they would have a very different take on saving the Cranker.

It is a legitimate concern because we know precedents could lead us down a slippery slope where developers and businesses expect legislative solutions for their specific needs, and there is nothing preventing this exact same scenario playing out the next time a developer comes in and buys up an equivalent to the Cranker somewhere else, in Rundle Street, Hindley Street or wherever it may be, and we are faced with the exact same situation again.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that we either need to address the flaws in the system comprehensively or let the private sector navigate within the existing planning framework without relying on bespoke legislation to fast-track what is in effect a contractual arrangement and a deal.

I do note that the Property Council certainly were quite vocal about this when it was proposed. The executive director is on the record as having noted their concerns about the dangerous precedent that could result from political interference and stating that government must not entertain the idea of undermining the state's independent assessment process and, more broadly, the entire planning system. He went on to say that it is not the job of politicians or advocacy bodies to decide what is or is not a good development; to do so would set a dangerous precedent and completely undermine a fundamental reason the planning system exists.

That remains a genuine concern, and whilst we might all be happy about the Cranker being saved, at least for now—and hopefully long into the future—the process that we have followed in relation to this is one that I am concerned about and leaves much to be desired. The concerns about that precedent-setting—which is, in effect, what is happening today, setting that precedent and paving the way for other future developments to go down the same path—is extraordinarily complicated and dangerous, and really does undermine the system we have in place.

I think the minister responsible for this portfolio would say, 'Well, there are no necessary changes to the planning system because nothing could have anticipated this particular instance.' I do not buy that for a second, I absolutely do not buy that for a second, because you have identified an issue here that you have wanted to involve yourself in, insert yourself in politically and legislatively.

I guess the response to that is that, again, if this is a genuine issue that affects venues, we cannot pick and choose between venues, noting as well that another venue might not have anywhere near the public support the Cranker has had or be able to mount that sort of campaign—especially without the help of the Hon. Roberts Simms on that front.

The point is that it is a dangerous precedent, and it does undermine that system and the independence of that system. If we have a problem with the way that system works, then our job here as legislators is to review that system, not to introduce a bespoke piece of legislation like the one we are seeing today—or like the Tea Tree Gully car park scenario, which has had detrimental commercial impacts for other shopping centres.

I make those points not because I am not happy that all the music enthusiasts at the Crown and Anchor have managed to secure this arrangement with the government and with the developer but simply because I do not think this is what we are meant to be doing here as legislators.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:06): I rise to speak in favour of this bill, and it is worth briefly visiting how we found ourselves here.

Back in May it was reported that Wee Hur Holdings Ltd had applied for planning consent for the partial demolition of the Crown and Anchor Hotel to make way for the construction of multilevel student accommodation. At that time the Greens were one of the first groups to come out in opposing this redevelopment, not because we did not want to see more student accommodation in the city—of course we want to see more student accommodation—but because our view was that we did not need to bulldoze or radically alter one of our iconic pubs in order to accommodate that kind of development.

There are already a lot of vacant sites in the CBD that could be activated to make way for more student accommodation, so we never accepted the argument that a private developer should be able to acquire that site and, in effect, get rid of the pub. It does not make sense. Cities are, after all, all about balance, and we need to have live music venues, we need to have iconic pubs in our city, as well as more student accommodation.

What followed from that time was a huge community grassroots campaign that has saved that South Australian icon from destruction. Over the course of several months over 15,000 people signed a petition calling on the state government to save the Cranker, and a record 1,328 submissions were made to the State Commission Assessment Panel—that is more than double those that have been received in any previous public consultation for development.

At two rallies, on 28 April and 18 August, thousands of South Australians took to the streets to demand that the state government save their pub. I want to take this opportunity to praise all of those have been campaigning on this issue, and to recognise their great work in activating the community. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Evan Morony, Patrick Maher and all the other members of the Save the Cranker committee for their tireless work. It has been a privilege to engage with them over the last few months.

This is an example of what we can do when the parliament works in unity with the community. The Greens are very proud to have stood with the community every step of the way, raising this issue at every level of government. We raised it in Town Hall, we raised it here in the state parliament, and this was also discussed on the floor of the federal Senate.

So the Greens are very proud of the work that we have done to fight to save this iconic pub. I also want to acknowledge the work of other members of parliament. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who has done a lot of work on this issue, engaging around this one—as she does on many important issues. We share our love of camp.

From the start, the Greens and the community were told by the state government that there was simply nothing that could be done. The government came out of the start and said, 'There's nothing we can do on this. It's not possible. We have a rules-based system.' Well, there is an old saying we have in the Greens: 'If you don't like the rules, you change them.' That is what we are doing today.

Indeed, when I brought a motion to this place calling on the Malinauskas government to oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the Crown and Anchor, the reply of the government was clear: they have no ability to intervene in the decision-making process. Hey presto, less than three months later we now have a bill before us that will save the Cranker and give other live music venues the protection they deserve. This is precisely what the Greens were calling for.

At that time we were told it could not be done: 'We have a rules-based system. We can't do anything, we can't intervene.' Well, thanks to people power, finally we have seen a change in position of the government. The power of community activism is on display here in the parliament today. I have always believed that it is the parliament that makes the law but it is the community that drives change. That is what we have seen here, and we do welcome the fact that the government has finally listened to the community.

It is important to note that the Cranker is just the latest in a string of iconic buildings and live music venues that have been targeted by developers. Over the last decades, we have seen the Producers on Grenfell Street and Pirie Street's Tivoli close their doors, and other venues like the Austral no longer host live music. Their loss has dealt a heavy blow to Adelaide's proud music history and tradition, and this bill will finally give the Cranker and the city's most iconic remaining live music venues the improved protections that they deserve. Acting President, I acknowledge your work in advocating for a committee on live music, which we look forward to seeing getting off the ground in due course because that is an important next step.

This bill provides that the Crown and Anchor cannot be demolished. Its height cannot be increased through the addition of more storeys, and a change in use of the land cannot occur without the concurrence of the Minister for Planning after a community consultation process of not less than four weeks. It also enhances protections for other live music venues in the Adelaide CBD by designating it as a live music venue area and specifying that new residential developments within 60 metres of a venue must include noise attenuation measures to reduce the potential for complaints. We welcome those provisions. This is precisely the kind of intervention that the Greens have been calling for, and so we welcome that.

We will also be moving to amend the bill so that the provisions of the Heritage Places (Protection of State Heritage Places) Amendment Bill that passed the other place several weeks ago will apply to the Crown and Anchor. This was a Greens private members' bill, which was to increase the penalties that applied for demolition by neglect. That is the practice where you see an owner of a property allowing it to fall into disrepair. Because the penalties were previously so low, there was really nothing to compel the developer to take action to ensure that these properties were being held to an appropriate standard, and they could therefore be bulldozed.

The Greens worked with the Malinauskas government to close that loophole. We passed a private members' bill in the parliament during the last sitting. This suite of amendments that I will be moving will insert those provisions into the way in which the Cranker is managed in the future. That will ensure of course that, if there is any change of ownership or if the developer decides in the future that they are not going to take action to keep that building up to an appropriate standard, the heritage minister can intervene, slap them with fines and take action. I do acknowledge, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink has mentioned in her comments, her and I have spoken about this and I welcome the Liberals' support for that and appreciate that.

The Cranker has been saved, but without further reforms to our planning and heritage laws South Australia's iconic places will remain at risk of being lost forever. I agree with my colleagues that this demonstrates the flaws in our planning system. If the planning system was actually working and meeting community expectations, you would not need to see legislative intervention like this. This really is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the flaws in our state's planning laws and heritage laws. It is clear that our heritage protection laws, which are focused on built form aesthetics, do not extend protections to ongoing use or the broader cultural and social value of these buildings. The result is that heritage places which are of huge social and cultural significance to our community could be bought by developers and gutted, with only the facade remaining.

What this debate has exposed is that heritage is about much more than just bricks and mortar, it is about the heart and soul of our state, our city and our community. The government must now move to amend our heritage laws to reflect this. It must also strengthen the role of people in our planning system and give communities more of a say in planning the cities that they want to live in. I do not agree with the views of the Property Council that it is not for advocates, politicians and local councillors to be involved in these decisions and that these decisions should simply be made by unelected officials. It is the role of parliament and council, as the people's representatives, to actually give effect to the views of the people and ensure that we have a planning system that suits their needs.

We really need to revise the thresholds in the planning, development and infrastructure regulations that push planning assessments of medium-size developments from council assessment plans to the State Commission Assessment Panel. At present, the threshold is just $10 million for developments in the City of Adelaide, which means that the council is stripped of its role in most development proposals. That is why I think there is such a discomfort with so many of the decisions that are being made, because the community is not having an appropriate say.

The Greens have also proposed a community right to buy, which is modelled on similar legislation that has worked well in the United Kingdom. This would enable local councils, community organisations and charities to be able to nominate land or buildings that are of community value for inclusion on a register which would be managed by the Minister for Planning. Once listed, a building or a piece of land would become an asset of community value and remain on the register for five years. During that time, the owner would have to apply to the minister should they wish to change its use or to sell the building, and the community would have a right to express interest as a potential buyer during an eight-week period.

The minister would consider applications from councils, community organisations and charities and if an expression of interest is approved, a 12-month moratorium is put on the asset to enable the community group or council to raise funds for the offer. This would provide a lifeline to our iconic pubs and stop the endless decline of live music venues and SA's cherished places. The Greens are going to continue to push for that, as well as other changes to our planning laws.

I agree with the comments made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Connie Bonaros that this bill does set a precedent. If the state government has the power to save the Cranker, then it has the power to fix our state's heritage and planning laws, too, and the Greens will continue to stand with the community in fighting for a heritage and planning regime that serves the interests of the community rather than developers. I certainly put the government on notice that next time there is a development proposal that totally offends community sentiment, the Greens will come back knocking once again for this parliament to intervene because we now know that when there is a will, there is a way.

I think this should actually send a shiver down the spine of all those developers in our state who are seeking to impose inappropriate development on our city, because with people power we can intervene and we can strike a better balance in our state's planning laws. I welcome the government's intervention in this instance, and I will have a bit more to say in the committee stage and a few questions of the government.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (16:18): For close to a decade I have lived within the North, East, South and West terraces that surround our CBD. What makes this my home is the strong and vibrant community lining the streets of our city. These homes are as diverse as the residents. The mix of heritage and new dwellings and environments is home to a multicultural community. The early mornings are quiet but there is always coffee close by, the commute to work is short and hassle free, and the evenings are vibrant with the sounds of music and fun coming from the pubs and restaurants.

It is this balance between protecting the liveability, the heritage and the vibrancy of our city that makes this bill so important. That is why I am pleased to rise to speak in support of this bill. South Australians have strong feelings about heritage, and so they should, because our heritage is a very significant part of our shared identity. The care that we have taken to preserve and to protect our heritage, and our built heritage in particular, is something that contributes to our identity as a state and is something that helps us to build community.

However, it is not only the historic bricks and mortar that make our city so unique. There is a substance to the life and the soul of some places that helps to create and strengthen community and culture and that fundamentally underpins our identity. As a hospitality venue, the Cranker is a place of character and grit. It is also a place with a remarkably long life span, with its history stretching back some 170 years.

The Crown and Anchor's story is interwoven into that of modern South Australia and celebrates our heritage, our past and our contemporary culture and community, but of course it is not only this long history and its longstanding place in the built landscape of our CBD that makes the Crown and Anchor so special. Its modern identity as a popular venue where a vibrant live music scene has flourished for three decades plays a very significant part in giving the Cranker its unique and important place in the cultural landscape.

The Cranker has a raw and effortless authenticity that cannot be manufactured. It is welcoming and inclusive to all, and it can be enjoyed equally by all. In keeping with its long and colourful life, it seems that just about anyone who has spent time at the Cranker has a Cranker story, and what remarkable stories there have been from the young and the not so young alike. Its particular blend of history and contemporary cultural vibrancy is why the Cranker is cherished by so many people, and it is why it is so important to the life and soul of our city.

When you have an opportunity to preserve and respect the continued operation of such an institution, whilst also facilitating much-needed development, it is very sensible to pursue that opportunity. That is why this piece of legislation seeks to achieve that balance. The Malinauskas Labor government is eager to support development in our CBD, particularly where it contributes to housing supply amid a very challenging set of circumstances for South Australia's housing market.

We are also determined to support the culture, the vibrancy and the soul of our city through ensuring that important live music spaces are maintained and protected. That is why this bill aims to find the best way forward, with a balance for a culturally significant live music venue and new developments that will make a meaningful contribution to housing availability to coexist successfully, because of course both are important: culture and development.

This government does not believe that one must come at the expense of the other. Our community deserves both, and through our legislative and regulatory efforts we are working to ensure that can be achieved. This bill aims to preserve the Crown and Anchor Hotel as a venue where live music can continue to thrive into the future. It provides that the hotel cannot be demolished, its height cannot be increased through the addition of more storeys of development, and a change in use of the land cannot occur without the agreement of the Minister for Planning after the minister has consulted with the community for a period of no fewer than four weeks.

Significantly, it increases the supply of student accommodation in the Adelaide CBD, which will help to alleviate the significant pressure affecting the private housing rental market by supporting housing diversity and adding to the city's diversity and vibrancy. This bill represents a compromise that has been thoughtfully laid out and will serve the interests and the needs of our community from multiple perspectives.

Alongside a number of passionate and dedicated members of the community—in particular the Save the Cranker group, which has done an incredible job in bringing their community together and other communities into this space to advocate for the Crown and Anchor—the Malinauskas government has secured a future for an important cultural institution while also providing opportunity for the development to proceed, which will help to address one of our community's greatest needs at this time. The bill before us represents a considered solution that delivers a strong outcome for our community.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:24): It gives me great pleasure to rise as the second speaker for the Greens to support this bill. It is described as the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill on our Notice Paper. For many people, it will be known as the 'save the Cranker bill'.

I certainly echo the other members who have congratulated the community of the Crown and Anchor Hotel, affectionately known as the Cranker to all who have enjoyed going there. If they could overcome the generational difference in how to spell 'the Cranker'—either with an 'er' or an 'a', which I discovered very quickly gave away my generation as much older than some of the other supporters of the Cranker—they can overcome anything. Indeed, they have absolutely moved mountains. I believe that this is a piece of legislation that shows the power of community and of that particular community to stand up and fight and win.

As someone who turned 18 at the Tivoli Hotel, not far from the Cranker, and used to enjoy the Producers, I am really glad to see that this bill also protects those live music pubs, particularly, and venues that we have come to love. Of course, we will see the loss of Chateau Apollo and Roxie's, much loved, as part of this deal. We also know that South Australia is the second highest state and third highest jurisdiction for losing live music venues since COVID. Some 27 per cent have been lost. The names of those venues, most recently places like My Lover Cindi and others, just show that we have a lot to protect when it comes to live music culture.

One of the areas of this debate that was overlooked, though, was that the Cranker was never at risk of going under and shutting because people were not there as punters, as live music lovers, as comedy enjoyers or, indeed, just frequenting the front bar. The Crown and Anchor was a roaring success. It was only the proposed development that put it under threat; it was not that it had no patrons. It was something that many in the Save the Cranker campaign were at great pains to point out.

Since COVID, we have lost a lot of our live music culture, and it does need to be nurtured. I am glad to see the Malinauskas government and the Liberal opposition pledge their support for a motion that I put before this place to investigate those live music venues, those creative venues, such as the Rhino Room and Confession down at Port Adelaide, which is currently ostensibly closed, only operating for one-off shows or private functions. Those sorts of venues that give creative life for not just artists but also audiences, that foot in the door, are so important.

I am really pleased to have seen this past weekend that the Crown and Anchor was inducted into the Hall of Fame—well overdue, I might say. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend that event, but I note that Deputy Lord Mayor Keiran Snape gave a nice short speech. Short speeches seem to be the order of the day. For those who were unable to attend that Hall of Fame induction, I am really pleased to see that there is not only going to be a future for the Crown and Anchor well beyond these next few years but, while it will have to be closed for part of the development, it is enshrined in law that that not be over that particular two-year point and that a pop-up venue will be identified.

As the rally chant went—and these were some of the best rallies I have ever attended—'music, arts and culture is more than bricks and mortar', but it does also need bricks and mortar. That is why I am really pleased that we have this piece of legislation that the Greens are very happy to support with amendment today. I commend the work of the Hon. Rob Simms, who has really led the charge here, and I really congratulate the Save the Cranker team for working over generations, across differences of opinion, to really unite, to stay the course and to absolutely see something quite historic in this parliament as recognition of not just their efforts but the importance of the Cranker to the community.

I hope in the future that we are going to see more live music and live creative venues, those places that provide comedy or theatre—the Holden Street Theatres, for example, or the Cue Bar that has people dancing near pool tables, which has incurred the wrath of local licensing enforcement at times and seen them before the courts. I hope that we see creative culture, and that bricks and mortar that supports creative culture, supported to flourish into the future. Post-COVID we should be building back better, and building back better means ensuring that live music and the creative scenes, and the communities such as those of Save the Cranker, are supported with that bricks and mortar. With that I commend the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:30): I rise to support the bill and also the amendments of the Hon. Robert Simms. Congratulations to the Premier for pulling off another populist piece of politics. He has set a precedent here where the government can override SCAP decisions and development approvals. The Property Council's Bruce Djite was in two minds over that decision. He thinks political interference of this type could set a dangerous precedent, and one driven by emotion and populist decision-making, which could undermine the independent planning system. 'Where could it stop?' he asks, but at the same time I think he welcomed the fact a politician would step in and be able to do something in the face of mounting opposition from the community.

Everyone is a winner here: heritage lovers; the hotel, which will be shut for two years; the developer gets an extra few storeys for student accommodation; live music venues are in the spotlight, which is a good thing; and, of course, the Premier, who made the captain's call. That has been applauded. I would like to congratulate a couple of members in this room: the Hon. Robert Simms for his advocacy, and recognising it is an important cultural relic that needed to be preserved in a city that is starting to look like Legoland, with slim towers stretching to the sky; and the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who went out on a limb to throw her support behind the activists.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: I got criticised.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You did, and that was wrong. You have emerged as getting it right. Also, of course, the patrons of the Crown and Anchor came out in force and in numbers to support the move to save the affectionately known Cranker.

We do now have laws in the CBD that allow for skyscrapers. The land on which buildings like the Crown and Anchor stand is considered far more valuable than the buildings themselves because of the value in the airspace. We need to protect the old character of the city, and I think that is epitomised by old churches and old pubs, including the Crown and Anchor. When we talk about old pubs, just think of the South Australian Hotel. I am not sure how many members in this place would actually remember what it looked like.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: I have seen pictures.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: You have seen pictures, but I remember it because I would pass it every day on my way to work at The News. I often marvelled at the elegance of that place. They allowed it to be demolished, and you can see what is in its place across the road—a pretty ugly building in itself that has little character—but we have moved on.

The bill adds an extra layer of protecting places with some kind of cultural significance as well and, again, compliments to the Hon. Robert Simms for pushing for that to happen. With that, I commend the bill and look forward to the debate.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:34): I rise briefly to support the government amendment bill that will preserve the long-term future of the Crown and Anchor Hotel as a live music venue and commend the individuals who came together to fight for something they were passionate about. It is a testament to the community spirit here in Adelaide and a determination from some to preserve our unique history and culture, and I am happy it has been a win-win outcome in this case.

I also put on the record concerns about the precedent set by this case, though, and effectively the state's planning laws being sidestepped. The way forward is to adopt a fair and consistent approach to these types of issues and not to hand-pick or give preferential treatment for some over others. I also note the Property Council's concerns about the rushed nature of this legislation and possible outcomes connected to that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (16:35): I would like to thank those who have made a contribution to this in their second reading speeches: the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Sarah Game, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Rob Simms, the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Emily Bourke.

Both Mr Simms and Ms Bourke made some very relevant points about the balance that this achieves. This is a balance between preserving the hotel, it provides for noise attenuation, and it increases the supply of student accommodation, which in turn reduces the pressure on private rental markets. All of these things are very much designed to provide a balance to some very worthy outcomes. I thank members for their indications of support and look forward to the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The only question I have is in relation to the application of the new noise attenuation requirements to hotels and motels. Can the minister explain why these new noise attenuation requirements are not being applied to the construction of motels and hotels, and what standing people residing in hotels and motels have in relation to noise complaints?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that relevant residential development, for the purposes of applying the minister's noise attenuation requirements within 60 metres of a designated live music venue, does not include development primarily for the purposes of a hotel or motel or to provide any other form of temporary accommodation.

Section 106 of the Liquor Licensing Act 1997 only allows a person who resides, works or worships in the vicinity of a licensed premises to make a complaint and, therefore, not visitors to a hotel or motel. So, in this light, if there were to be an amendment proposed to apply the noise attenuation requirements to hotels and motels, that would add to construction costs but not reduce complaints on live music venues.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some questions. I think I have divided them up into each of the relevant clauses. At clause 1, I wanted to get a response from the government about the timeliness of jamming this legislation through the parliament in the timeframe that they did. It has not really been embellished as to why it needed to go through the House of Assembly in one day and why it needed to be through the entire parliament within two weeks' time. I do not feel that we have been provided with an adequate explanation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the student accommodation is really required to be up and running in time for the 2027 academic year; therefore, it was important that this be progressed as soon as possible. Perhaps anticipating other questions that may come, that is also the reason this has been done as a separate piece of legislation rather than a code amendment process.

The minister in the other place indicated that, if we had an unlimited amount of time, we could have done it through a code amendment, we could have done that through appropriate interactions with other acts, but that would have affected the timelines for the provision of student accommodation and potentially damaged investor confidence as well. Therefore, it seemed most appropriate to give that confidence and assurance that it was appropriate to progress this bill as soon as possible.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Following that argument then, if that is relevant for this particular development—and I note there is a proposal for student accommodation closer to the West End—how is that consistent with that particular proposal? Will that also have its own special purpose legislation and, if not, will that not damage investor confidence in student accommodation because it is not being done under the same set of rules?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the difference is that there is a current application in terms of this development and the developer agreed to put on hold the process, including in terms of the fact that there was an interim listing as state heritage. That is why it is different from the other one referred to by the honourable member.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can the minister confirm—and I have noted what she has said about the timing—whether the timetable for the bill passing through this place is in any way tied to the contractual agreements reached and any deadlines that have been agreed to between the relevant parties?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The question is a little unclear, but this may answer it: if this bill is passed then the developer will be able to lodge an application and that will be determined within 10 business days.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps I can try to be a little more clear. Were any agreements reached between parties in terms of the time that it would take for this bill to pass this parliament? Were any agreements reached in the discussions that have taken place about when that can happen, based on the passage through parliament?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We are not aware of any such agreements.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Aside from what has been made publicly available by the government, are any other elements of the agreement that has been reached between all parties involved publicly available?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: We are not aware of any other separate agreements. The agreement is what is contained within the bill and therefore is 100 per cent publicly available.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This is one of the specific clauses which I think is relevant to the noise attenuation issue. If I can just reflect on the debate in the House of Assembly, there is a bit of inconsistency about whether it is going to cost subsequent developments in the city more money to install the appropriate noise attenuation.

I note that the minister in his second reading explanation made some comments that 'the requirement for noise attenuation will be the same as currently exists in the Planning and Design Code', to which the moot point is, 'Well, what do you need it in a statute for?' Then there are some other comments in the committee stage where he says there are costs associated with noise attenuation. So I am a bit confused about whether there is or there is not. I think the concern that has been raised by industry is a very legitimate concern that this is going to potentially add costs in the middle of a housing crisis in the CBD. So I would like some comments from the minister in relation to that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised, first of all, that it is anticipated that the minister's noise attenuation requirements will reflect the existing requirements in the Planning and Design Code. The code currently requires, in certain circumstances, that buildings must be designed and constructed such that bedrooms are exposed to music noise less than eight decibels above the level of background noise in any octave band of the sound spectrum and five decibels above the level of background noise for the overall A-weighted levels.

I think the overall consideration needs to be that we want to have fewer complaints about noise when it is associated with live music venues. Therefore, by implementing this it means that hopefully complaints will be less, liveability for residents will be improved and amenity will be improved. That is the underlying principle, which I think is a worthy one.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have some more questions on this issue which I will put at clause 3, but if there are changes to the Planning and Design Code do they automatically flow on through this piece of legislation and therefore apply to any of those buildings that are within 60 metres of a designated live music venue?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could I please clarify that the honourable member is only asking about changes in the design code that relate to noise attenuation?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Correct.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that if the Planning and Design Code were to be changed in the future, then that would impact on residential development within 60 metres of the Crown and Anchor.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Still on the noise and noise attenuation issues, can the minister in this house advise whether the government considered declaring noise from a live music venue that existed before a particular date to not constitute a nuisance under the Environment Protection Act and the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act? If not, why not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the answer is no.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Rushing legislation—I will just say that for the record. My next question is: is there a list of designated live music venues available yet?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised the answer is no. The criterion for designating a venue under this act has already been accorded in the other place. The minister will consider those and make decisions from there.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the minister for that reply. Does the minister have a timeframe for when the list is likely to be available? Just a ballpark figure: weeks, months?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that a timeframe has not yet been indicated. The minister has simply advised that the powers are there and that he intends to use them as outlined.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the minister for that answer. In terms of the operation in practice—and this is a fairly important issue for hotels and live music venues, etc.—I note that in the other place I think the member for Unley asked the minister whether venues could nominate themselves, to which the answer was that they would be considered if they nominated. However, is the list fluid? That is, can venues be added or deleted, which I think is important, or will it be fixed, which I think would be problematic?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised the answer is yes; venues will be able to be added or deleted. In the latter case the likely reason for that might be something like that it had ceased to be used as a live music venue for a significant period of time.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: On this topic of the list of live music venues, is this something that the community will have direct input into? Is there any way the community could potentially propose alterations to the criterion that the minister is developing, for instance, down the track?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that, as the criteria is not legislated, certainly changes could be made. If someone was to feel very strongly that the criteria should be changed then that could occur. They should write to the minister, etc., in the normal way that they might advocate for a particular position.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In relation to the map, which is effectively the CBD, this was canvassed in the lower house but I would like to get on the record in this house as well that one of the live music venues that has been the most subject of complaints of noise from neighbours is The Gov. I note that the map is just in relation to the CBD and I would have thought that people who move into the city and live in the city would probably have more tolerance for noise than people in suburbia. Why did the government not make provision for The Gov and consider other venues that might be subject to complaints from neighbours?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am advised that the rationale was that it is in the city that one is more likely to expect significant residential development adjacent to or nearby a live music venue.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, line 18 [clause 4, inserted section 135A(5)]—Delete ‘The’ and substitute 'Subject to subsection (5a), the'

Amendment No 2 [Simms–1]—

Page 4, after line 25 [clause 4, inserted section 135A]—After subsection (5) insert:

(5a) The following provisions of the Heritage Places Act 1993 apply in relation to the Crown and Anchor Hotel building as if that building were a State Heritage Place:

(a) section 36;

(b) section 38A;

(c) section 39A;

(d) section 39B.

I do not need to say much about this because I detailed the rationale in the second reading speech. Suffice to say this simply inserts the protections that apply to heritage places with respect to giving the minister the power to issue repair orders and also applies penalties for neglect of properties, to prevent demolition by neglect.

This was a potential omission from the original bill. The Greens were concerned that this did put the Crown and Anchor building under some threat. Were the ownership of the building to change hands down the track, this would give the heritage minister the opportunity to step in and really incentivise the owner of that building to ensure that it is being kept up to scratch.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The government is happy to accept these two amendments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I commend the Hon. Mr Simms on these amendments. These are the Save the Cranker part B amendments. In the debate in the lower house, the minister was not following that this site is unlikely to be in the same hands in perpetuity and therefore it protects the site from future owners who may indeed cause demolition by neglect. It also applies ERD Court rules and protection orders and is a glaring omission from the government's legislation, so I commend the member for bringing these to the house.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clause (5) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (17:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.