Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:44): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2025. This bill proposes amendments to the Heritage Places Act and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act to introduce new procedural requirements for the proposed demolition of state heritage places. Specifically, it mandates that when an application is made to demolish such a place it must first be referred to the South Australian Heritage Council, subjected to a period of public consultation and followed by a report, which must be tabled in parliament—which is ironic, given that this is exactly the process that the Liberal Party sought to amend when the Labor Party decided to demolish the police barracks for the Women's and Children's Hospital and which was rejected by them at the time.

At a high level, these provisions are aimed at increasing transparency and community confidence in decisions that may impact South Australia's most significant heritage assets. The Liberal Party shares the community view that decisions about the demolition of heritage places should not occur behind closed doors. While we support the general objective of a different process, this bill has been a long time coming, like many things with this government. The government first signalled its intention to legislate in this area several years ago, and yet this bill has only arrived here this year. During that time, there has been ongoing concern in the community about whether existing mechanisms are adequate to protect heritage places from loss by neglect or other pressures.

This bill is also limited in its scope. It applies only to demolition of a whole of a state heritage place, which is potentially open to interpretation, and there may also be circumstances where substantial demolition or degradation occurs that does not technically meet the threshold of 'whole demolition', so we are concerned about whether this is going to be applied consistently. Furthermore, the bill does not provide the Heritage Council with any binding veto or power to stop the demolition proceeding, nor does the requirement to table a report in parliament come with any associated obligation on the minister to act in any way. You could say that this is just a fairly tokenistic piece of legislation for the purposes of the Labor Party sticking it on a DL.

We are also mindful of the potential for delay and uncertainty, so how that plays out we shall see. However, some level of public consultation, expert input and parliamentary oversight do improve the system. So we support the bill, but believe that it is potentially quite tokenistic in its application. It has taken a very long time to get here, and the Labor Party did not think it was good enough to recognise the significant value of the Thebarton barracks. With those comments, I look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:48): I rise to speak about the Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2025 with a measured perspective. This bill represents a significant step towards improving how we manage and protect South Australia's state heritage places, but it is not without its challenges. At its core, the bill seeks to provide greater transparency and public accountability regarding decisions about the demolition of heritage-listed sites. It does this by requiring the South Australian Heritage Council to access any proposed demolition, publish a draft report and invite public submissions before finalising its advice. That final report must then be tabled in parliament.

These are welcome reforms. They respond to a growing public expectation that heritage decisions should not be made behind closed doors or behind any secret plans, and that communities should have a voice in shaping the future of places that they value. However, while the intent is commendable, the implementation will require careful attention.

The timelines imposed on the Heritage Council are tight: 10 weeks for a draft report, four weeks for consultation and four more for finalisation. Without additional resources, there is a real risk that the council may struggle to meet these timelines, particularly if multiple applications are lodged at the same time, or if assessments are of a complex nature. If this process is to work as intended, it must be properly supported with a robust framework.

There is also the matter of clarity. The bill refers to the demolition of the whole of a state heritage place, but it does not define what 'whole' means. In practice, this could lead to confusion: does it refer to the principal structure only, or does it include outbuildings, landscapes or associated features? Is leaving only a cornerstone enough to not require this particular process? These are not trivial questions, and I would encourage the government to consider providing further guidance, either through regulations or amendments, to ensure consistent interpretation.

We must be mindful that heritage protection and urban growth are not mutually exclusive. The goal should be to strike a balance, one that respects our past while allowing for thoughtful, sustainable change to meet the contemporary needs of our community. This bill moves us in the right direction, but will require ongoing monitoring to ensure it does not become a barrier to progress. As I have mentioned before, I believe the bill is a step in the right direction and will introduce a more democratic process, one that gives weight to expert advice and community sentiment. It does not prevent demolition outright, but it ensures that such decisions are made with greater care, transparency and public accountability.

In doing so, it helps restore public confidence and integrity in our planning and heritage system. Heritage is not just about preserving old buildings per se; it is about recognising stories, values, identities and legacies—those places that are held dear to the hearts of our community. This bill acknowledges that and, whilst not perfect, it is a constructive foundation on which we can build. I support the bill and look forward to seeing how it is implemented and refined in practice.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:52): I rise to speak in favour of the Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill. This bill will require the proposed demolition of state heritage places to be subject to full consultation and a public report from the SA Heritage Council, which will be tabled in the parliament. The SA Heritage Council will have a 10-week period to prepare the report to assess the heritage significance of a place.

The bill also requires the application for consent to or approval of demolition to be accompanied by the SA Heritage Council report. The Greens support these amendments to the Heritage Places Act and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act. I do see these as being an advancement on the status quo, and I welcome the government taking action in this regard. I will say that I do share some of the concerns, however, of the Hon. Michelle Lensink that this Labor government and, might I say, previous Labor governments do not have a good track record when it comes to heritage protection in South Australia. We have seen the way in which Labor has wilfully flouted heritage protection laws when it suits them.

We see the complete disregard that they have for national heritage protection laws. Indeed, this very parliament is protected under national heritage laws, yet they are salivating at the prospect of the Walker Corporation building a gargantuan tower overshadowing it and destroying that heritage value. Of course, the Thebarton barracks were protected under state heritage laws, but the Labor Party was very happy to swing the bulldozers into it, without regard for those heritage protections. So I welcome them taking action, but they do need to do more to demonstrate their bona fides in this regard.

The Greens believe that South Australia's natural and built cultural heritage is a precious asset and resource to be respected and protected for current and future generations. Unfortunately, a slow and steady stream of important architectural buildings are still being demolished or severely compromised here in Adelaide, despite planning protections and heritage listings. One of the recent egregious examples of this is, of course, the demolition of the Thebarton Police Barracks that I mentioned earlier. New laws were passed to get around heritage legislation first enacted in 1978 and updated in 1993. In the decades before we saw those laws introduced, many significant buildings were lost here in our state. Indeed, I think a lot of South Australians lament the loss of the public bars in the festival area that is now going to be turned into the plaything of developers, thanks to the Labor Party.

In 1962, the Theatre Royal on Hindley Street, which featured stars including Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier, was replaced by a car park. In 1971, the South Australian Hotel, where the Beatles stayed in 1964 during their famous visit to Adelaide—I was far too young to have been around to witness that; others here may be more familiar with it—was demolished to make way for the construction of the Stamford hotel. The Brookman Building on Grenfell Street was knocked over in the late 1970s and replaced by the Grenfell Centre, also known as the 'Black Stump' because of its dark exterior. In 1986, Adelaide Steamship Company's distinctive building on Currie Street, complete with a ship's hull on its roof, went down for the RAA Tower, which until recently was known as Westpac House.

The Grand Central Hotel, on the corner of Pulteney and Rundle streets, hosted The Kinks and author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote the Sherlock Holmes series, and Mark Twain, who wrote Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In 1976 it, too, was demolished in favour of another car park. Probably the most tragic loss was the demolition of the Jubilee Exhibition Building in 1887, built to celebrate the 50^th anniversary of South Australia's founding and named in honour of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. That building was demolished in 1962 and replaced by the hideous Napier Building in Adelaide University. It is one of the more grotesque buildings in our city.

The most famous lost building would of course be the Aurora Hotel of 1859. That was demolished in 1983 and replaced by a heavy-set, low-rise office building. It was the fight to prevent the demolition of this building that spurred on the newly formed heritage fraternity to push for heritage surveys and heritage listings of important buildings in the city and, indeed, the rest of the state.

There is still an incremental loss of our built heritage buildings today. Some of it is overt and some of it is more subtle and disguised by clever marketing and other forms of justification. The Adelaide Oval redevelopment is, of course, a case in point. The greater future good seems to justify the demolition of most of the three heritage-listed grandstands. Curiously, they are still on the state register.

Generally, the demolition of heritage-listed buildings is due to pressure from developers and rising land values in the city and inner suburban areas. At this stage in Adelaide's development, it appears to be our government and the developers that have a major say in what is deemed important to our heritage. This bill we hope, from a Greens' perspective, will go some way to ameliorating the status quo and will give the public a greater say in planning decisions. The Greens believe the public has a right to genuine participation in planning decisions, including the right to access all relevant information, to participate in decision-making and to insist on all proper processes being followed.

I have pointed out some of the deficiencies in Labor's record when it comes to heritage protection, but I should also acknowledge one of the areas where we have collaborated with the Labor government during this term. It is in the area of demolition by neglect, and I welcome their support for my private member's bill which significantly increases the penalties for buildings that are falling into disrepair. I really thank the minister and her office for collaborating with the Greens on that issue. I think the bill that we are dealing with today is a positive step in the right direction in terms of adding further protections to some of our state's iconic buildings.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (11:59): I rise today to speak on this bill that will achieve the South Australian government's somewhat oxymoronically named 'Heritage for the Future' election commitment to legislate a requirement that a proposed demolition of the whole of a state heritage place is subject to a public report from the South Australian Heritage Council, public consultation and the laying of the report into this parliament. The proposed amendments to the Heritage Places Act will ensure a transparent process is in place to protect heritage places from demolition in the future. The Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2024 achieves a few things and I am going to go few through a few of them.

Firstly, is the requirement that the South Australian Heritage Council prepares a report on an application by a person to demolish a whole State Heritage Place which assesses the heritage significance of the place in accordance with section 16(1) of the Heritage Places Act and includes other information prescribed by regulation. Secondly, is the requirement that the South Australian Heritage Council (SAHC) publishes a copy of the report and invites a public submission on the report over a four-week period.

Thirdly, is the requirement that the SAHC finalises the report within four weeks of the end of consultation and provides a copy of the report to the minister responsible for the administration of the Heritage Places Act. Fourthly, is the requirement that the report is laid before parliament within five sitting days from receipt by the minister. Another aspect is the replacement of references to the repealed Development Act 1993 and wording therein, as well as the addition of references to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 and the Planning and Design Code and wording therein.

Lastly, is the requirement that the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 include a provision requiring an application for consent to, or approval of, a development involving the demolition of the whole of a State Heritage Place to be accompanied by a finalised report prepared by the council.

The South Australian government's heritage for the future election commitments provide foundational provisions to uphold the state heritage protection and conservation system. Committing to and investing in the heritage reform agenda, particularly around protecting State Heritage Places from demolition, will increase the community's confidence in the state government's commitment to heritage conservation. The amendments in the Heritage Places Act will encourage adaptive reuse of State Heritage Places, allowing for greater retention and reuse of these spaces.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (12:02): I thank all honourable members for their very impassioned and genuine contributions and look forward to the passing of this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (12:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.