Motions

Festival Plaza

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.A. Simms:

That this council—

1. Notes that on 11 June 2025 the state planning commission assessment panel granted planning consent for the 38-storey Festival Plaza Tower 2;

2. Recognises that over 125 eminent South Australians, including former Premier Reverend Hon. Dr Lynn Arnold AO and former President of the Legislative Council, the Hon Anne Levy AO, have signed an open letter calling on the Premier and this parliament to stop the construction of Festival Plaza Tower 2, protect Festival Plaza as an open, civic space, and retain it as public land;

3. Acknowledges that the construction of the Festival Plaza Tower 2 would incur a major loss of open, civic space and negatively impact on the heritage values of the Parliament House complex and the Adelaide Parklands; and

4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to intervene to prevent the construction of Festival Plaza Tower 2.

(Continued from 18 June 2025.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (21:05): In this motion, the first three points, of course, are statements of fact which detail the matters to do with the Festival Plaza and the consent it has received for a 38-storey Festival Plaza Tower 2, point 2 being recognition of a number of prominent South Australians who oppose Tower 2. Point 3 is in relation to the loss of open civic space. I have concerns that there is a net loss of open space without a consequential plan to make up for that. The fourth point is really the issue that is problematic because it is asking the government to intervene to prevent the construction of the tower.

The powers that the government have would be kind of extraordinary, in the sense that they would have to be new powers that have not been used before and would actually undermine South Australia's planning system in that the planning rules allow for the construction of Tower 2 and it has been approved through the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP). That is the process that we have. It is set in legislation. It is one that is followed by anyone who is using the planning system seeking to develop anything and my concerns are that it undermines sovereign risk.

If the government did choose to intervene in this matter, it is my understanding that the Walker Corporation would be entitled to claim for significant amounts of compensation, having been given approval. That is unknown. It would be significant, indeed.

Of course, if we just wind back history a little bit, the Marshall Liberal government approved a three-storey development that we believed was in keeping with the scale of Parliament House and the Festival Theatre. Minister Champion subsequently approved the Planning and Design Code amendment relevant to the site, which legally he is able to do and, as I mentioned, SCAP has approved it. So unfortunately the horse has bolted. I do not mean to sound glib, but those who are aggrieved by this should have voted Liberal at the last election and they would have got three storeys, not Tower 2.

We are not able to support this particular motion because I think it is moving into the grounds of undermining the planning system. I know the Labor government undermine the planning system at their own choosing, and they have done so on several occasions, but in our party we do like consistency. We are very wary of sovereign risk matters and of needing the state, which is not flush for cash thanks to the Labor Party being back in government again, to shell out potentially hundreds of millions of dollars for the corporation that has legally received those approvals.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (21:09): I rise briefly to support this motion. It will probably come as no surprise to members of this council that I do so. This indeed is with regard to what under the previous Liberal government was, as they have just said, a three-storey development, now being the monstrosity of the Walker tower under Labor. It is on our public land, it is in our civic space, it is in our Parklands. It is monolithic. It is a corporate tower on a location that goes against Colonel William Light's vision for the Parklands and, of course, Don Dunstan's vision for the Festival Plaza.

It is most recently opposed by former premiers such as the Rev. Dr Lynn Arnold AO and a former president of this place, the Hon. Anne Levy AO, both stalwarts and shining lights of the Labor Party and leaders in this space. There has, in fact, been some 125 eminent South Australians write in an open letter expressing their disgust, disdain and concern about this decision and urging the government to rethink it.

It is yet another attack on the Parklands by the Malinauskas government. In fact, it adds to their other attacks on the Parklands, such as the pouring of tonnes of concrete and asphalt onto Victoria Park for the Adelaide 500 car race. It comes after we have seen the building of a five-storey building extension on Frome Park. It also has seen a more than doubling of the car parks for the Aquatic Centre, controversially, which will now have a larger building footprint than the previous one. We have seen the destruction of heritage barracks and a large part of the Kate Cocks Park for the new Women's and Children's Hospital and associated eight-storey car park, despite there being alternative locations recommended by professionals.

It is an attack on our public civic space. It is an attack on our Parklands. It should never have not faced the scrutiny of a proper public consultation, and that is why so many people are now speaking out against it. They did not know that their vote would impact whether or not we had three storeys there or the monstrosity that is now planned and indeed disrupts the operations and sound in this building every single day at the moment.

The people of South Australia had no idea that this was going to be planned for this space prior to the election. It is understandable that these eminent South Australians are now urging the Malinauskas government to revisit this particular appalling decision before the next state election. I do think it is a vote changer and I know that the City of Adelaide and the seat of Adelaide can be volatile when we have arrogant Labor leadership, and I look forward with interest to see how this all plays out.