Motions

Festival Plaza

Debate resumed.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (21:13): In the shoes of the Hon. Mr Ngo, I am going to put the Hon. Mr Simms out of his misery early on. The government obviously opposes this motion, and I am going to outline the reasons. I am advised that on 11 June 2025 the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP), as a delegate of the State Planning Commission, granted conditional planning consent, including reserve matters, for a 38-level mixed-use development by the Walker Corporation in Adelaide's Festival Plaza.

I am advised that SCAP's assessment was informed by the expert advice provided by the City of Adelaide, Heritage SA, the Government Architect, Adelaide Airport Limited and the Department for Housing and Urban Development. The assessment reviewed key matters, inclusive of heritage, which have formed part of the broader representations that have been made. I am advised that SCAP's planning consent nominated several matters reserved for further assessment and includes detailed conditions assigned under the direction of statutory referral agencies. Reserve matters relate to intended public realm contributions, maximising views of Parliament House, architectural expression and external material selection, whatever that means.

On 1 October 2025, I am advised that SCAP considered amended details submitted by the Walker Corporation intended to address the scale and extent of the development's first-level podium element and the surrounding Festival Plaza ground plane in the interests of satisfying Reserved Matter One.

I am advised Walker Corporation were contractually obligated to develop the area into a three-storey retail building under a contract signed by the former Marshall Liberal government in 2021. This would have been a pretty terrible outcome for the state. I am advised the original contract for the three-storey, box-shaped retail building would have completely obscured any views of Parliament House and would not bring any additional people to the area.

I am advised the second tower strives to deliver improved heritage outcomes, which were an important consideration in the decision to proceed with Walker Corporation's proposal for a second tower, which include the following:

the tower's footprint being smaller—smaller—than what was originally proposed, that is, with the three-storey building;

a glass foyer which allows for continuous sight lines between Parliament House and Festival Plaza, including revealing the Parliament House balcony;

options for allowing new public artworks; and

significantly more public space and public amenity at both ground and podium levels.

I am advised the proposal is expected to result in a high-quality development that will assist in sustaining the ongoing vibrancy and activation of Festival Plaza, consolidating this important area as an appealing destination in Adelaide's CBD.

I am advised that when finished, the site will become the home of up to 5,000 office workers and support a further 100 retail positions across its restaurants, cafes and bars, driving more than $1 billion in yearly economic activity. Over 1,300 jobs will be generated during the execution of the project, including roles in construction, engineering and project management.

I think there is little doubt that the former plaza that sat there was underutilised. The most successful public spaces around the world, I think it goes without doubt to say, have day and night activation. This development will make Festival Plaza a world-class hub for the arts, cultural, tourism and entertainment sectors and, as such, we oppose Mr Simms' motion.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (21:17): I thank honourable members for their contributions: the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Tammy Franks and the Hon. Justin Hanson. I feel for the Hon. Justin Hanson being asked to deliver that nonsense, but I am pleased for him that at least he has been able to take the pressure off the Hon. Tung Ngo, who is usually dispatched to kill off my motions in his usual style. But tonight the task has fallen to the Hon. Justin Hanson to mount the nonsensical argument that somehow a giant office tower is going to be key civic space.

The honourable member paints the picture of these incredible civic spaces around the world and somehow our Festival Plaza will sit among them with a giant office tower. It is an absolute joke. I do not understand the position of the Liberal opposition on this. This is one of those instances where they could have taken a firm position in the parliament today. When the Liberal Party were in government, they negotiated a three-storey tower. I think a three-storey proposition would have been far more desirable than a 38-storey monstrosity that is going to entirely blot out the sun and dominate the public space.

No-one in the Labor government has been able to explain to me how their proposition is in any way better. The minister says to me, and has said publicly, that this is going to be a key civic space for Adelaide. We already have a high vacancy rate of existing office towers in the CBD. Why on earth are we building yet another one, and why are we doing it on what is, in effect, prime public land?

This is a great deal for the Walker Corporation and it is a dud deal for everybody else. As the Hon. Tammy Franks noted, and I thank her for her support of the motion, a number of prominent South Australians have come out in support of the campaign against this second Walker Tower monstrosity, chief among them former Labor Premier Lynn Arnold. Sadly, though, the Labor government are turning their noses up at those prominent South Australians and saying the extent of their imagination for this public space is another office tower.

I think Tower No. 1 is a monstrosity and I think Tower No. 2 is, to quote the Hon. Frank Pangallo—I think he referenced it once before as being something out of Legoland. I have mentioned before in the media that I think it is going to look like Gotham City. This is not the kind of vision that we want for Adelaide, but it is the extent of the vision of the Malinauskas government. Shame on Labor and the Liberals for being too jelly-backed to support this motion and to send a clear message.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: The Hon. Michelle Lensink says that we are not able to change the rules; however, under this term of parliament, the Labor government has bowed to community pressure with respect to the Crown and Anchor. The Greens were the chief agitators in that campaign. I urge them to think again when it comes to this key civic space. Surely we can do better for our state. It is my plan to call a division on this matter so that the position of members of this chamber can be put on the public record.

The council divided on the motion:

Ayes 2

Noes 16

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Motion thus negatived.