HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARBLE HILL (PROTECTION) BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (10:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

We have just seen the government set a very interesting precedent—that is, to deny members their private members' time and to use its numbers, without consulting members, to bring forward a matter not first in the order of precedence. The government is setting a very interesting precedent here. If it wants to play these games, we are very happy to oblige, and I would just make the point that the losers will be the government.

To cut to the issue of the bill, this is a very simple measure. It is a test of whether or not the Labor Party and the Rann Labor government value this state's heritage or whether they seek to flog off the farm—whether they value not only Marble Hill but also Carrick Hill, Government House, the Old Adelaide Gaol, Fort Glanville, and a range of other historic sites. I suspect the answer to that question is no. I suspect that the party that, during the Dunstan period oversaw the demolition of so much of Adelaide's heritage, wants to weave its work again.

I thank the staff from the department of heritage, particularly Richard Fox and Bob Inns, and Ann Barclay from minister Gago's office, for their briefing on this matter on 4 July. I also acknowledge Dr Patricia Bishop and Edwin Michell for their genuine desire to restore and preserve Marble Hill as a lifetime project. I also acknowledge the Friends of Marble Hill for their many years of work conserving and promoting Marble Hill and ensuring that it was open to the public. Mr Ernie McKenna recently retired as president of this group after approximately 14 years in the position. There is a group of people who love this site—which was, after all, built at great expense to the state.

The ruin at Marble Hill is an imposing landmark in the Mount Lofty region and is listed in the state's Heritage Register. Marble Hill was built as the summer residence for South Australia's early governors. Construction of the former governor's residence began in 1878, and land, buildings and furnishings cost around £36,000, a significant sum at the time. The 26-room house was completed in 1879 in a Victorian gothic revival style. In 1955, Marble Hill was almost totally destroyed in the Black Sunday bushfire.

The sale of Marble Hill by the Rann Labor government to private owners for use primarily as a private residence without enforceable guarantees of future access to the house—and that is what this is about, access to the house—sets an interesting precedent. If it is all right to sell Marble Hill to private ownership with no guarantee of access to the house by the people of South Australia, who paid for this building, who have loved this building for a long time and who presently own this building, why not other sell historic homes? Why not sell Carrick Hill? Why not sell Old Adelaide Gaol to entrepreneurs and let them turn it into whatever? Why not sell Fort Glanville? Why not sell any one of a range of heritage homes? Why not decommission the History Trust and flog off all its historic homes to private ownership with no further access to those buildings by the people of South Australia? That is where the Labor Party wants to take heritage matters in this state.

The bill allows the sale or lease of Marble Hill as well as the improvement or restoration of any Marble Hill building. It also allows the use of any part of Marble Hill for a variety of purposes and provides for the exclusion of members of the public for the purposes of health or safety, preservation of any Marble Hill building; or any other matter relevant to the proper management, conservation or protection of Marble Hill.

The heads of agreement between Patricia and Edwin Michell and the Minister for Environment and Conservation only provides for three open days and four pre-booked events. It is our view that 10 open days per year would be a suitable compromise, given that Marble Hill has previously been open to the public through the Friends of Marble Hill for 12 days a year, plus numerous additional pre-booked events.

It is very important for members to look at this heads of agreement. It is a bit like the agreement the Premier signed on the River Murray. It has holes through which you could sail the Titanic; it is a very loose and floppy document. When one looks through the fine print, there is no guarantee of access to the house at all—none whatsoever. The government intends to sell off the property in order to have it restored—and that is wonderful. I commend the Michells for that intention. The catch is that no South Australian will ever be allowed, necessarily, by this agreement into the house again. It is fine to have these things restored but, if they are never to be seen by the people of South Australia, then one might ask what is the point? Do the people of South Australia wave from the road or car park, never again to see this building? I put that question to the government.

It is our view that there must be some guaranteed public access to the building. It is our intention to deal with the issue through the heritage agreement, which would need to be approved by parliament under this bill. We appreciate that Patricia and Edwin Michell have indicated that they plan to develop a museum, which will be accessible to the public on open days. But there must be a binding commitment to this heritage agreement. The brutal truth is that the owners today may not be the owners tomorrow. Who knows what may unfold? The Michells may well, through circumstances even they cannot foresee, pass on ownership to some other party who may care nothing for verbal commitments or best wishes agreed to by the Michells and go back to the letter of the agreement.

If the letter of the agreement provides for the shutters to be pulled down and the gates to be padlocked and the premises to never be seen by any South Australian, they may well do just that. It is the letter of the agreement that matters. Verbal agreements and best wishes mean nothing. It is what the agreement says that counts. Any lawyer and anyone who has signed a contract will explain to any member of the government who cares to take an interest that what is in the written agreement will determine, ultimately, the future of the building.

We recognise merit in the proposal by the Michells and commend their genuine commitment to preserving and restoring Marble Hill; there is no question of it. Although recognising their good intentions, intentions can change—as may ownership. The parliament must protect South Australia from the unforeseen. It is our view that the sale of Marble Hill without sufficient enduring protections through the parliament may be the tip of the iceberg and a dangerous precedent to the state's heritage.

Previously, this government has proposed changes to legislation about Carrick Hill and its incorporation into the History Trust. I note there was an effort by the government to do away with the bill that protected Carrick Hill in order to swallow it into the History Trust, so it lost its protections under the parliament's direction and guidance. Who knows what the later plan would have been? Would we have seen proposals to sell Marble Hill? Is this the government's plan? Is it the plan to flog off the register of heritage and the national estate? What is the government's agenda here?

I have had discussions with the proponents, Dr Patricia Bishop and Edwin Michell, who consider themselves to be historians and environmentalists with a genuine desire to restore and preserve this heritage site as a lifetime project. Also, we have had discussions with Ian Stephenson of the National Trust of South Australia, which is of the view that it would like to see some reasonable public access to the building, as well as the land, and a transparent process for any changes to the heritage agreement.

The arrangements in which the government has entered could see the minister, at the strike of a pen, change the heritage agreement as he sees fit—as we have just seen with the Masonic building on North Terrace, where the agreement has been varied and we will now get a major development. I have had discussions with the Friends of Marble Hill, and received phone calls and correspondence from a variety of people throughout the community about this matter.

Let me make the point—in case Labor MPs do not quite get it: South Australians do value their built heritage. They do value these buildings. They do value their National Trust. They do value these estates. Some of the friends support the Michells' proposal and some of the friends oppose the proposal. Surprise, surprise! I have had discussions with a range of other people who have a stake in the future of this building. There are a number of possibilities for it. A number of developments could have been proposed, and we certainly have no opposition to private interests and private investment in the building or other buildings, provided there is some access to the building for the public.

Although it is not a direct comparator, what has occurred at Mount Lofty House is an example of an historic home which has been destroyed by fire and which has been redeveloped but, because it is a function centre and a private hotel, it is accessible to the public. It may be something along those lines—that could be done better, by the way—could apply to Marble Hill. Frankly, we would be happy to accept the Michells' proposal, provided there is some access to the building. There is a simple compromise here. I say to the government that if it simply insists and requires some reasonable access to the building—not to the private rooms, but the public rooms— and some enforceable access, then the whole issue goes away. Michells can go ahead and develop their proposal. There will be an assurance that there will be some future access to the building, even if it is minimal, for South Australians (who built this wonderful residence) and we all can move on.

I just make the point—and let there be no doubt in the minds of members of the government: heritage matters are important to the Liberal opposition. There was a recent attempt by the Mayor of Unley to bulldoze three cottages in Norwood. The opposition got involved in organising strong opposition from the community and assisting them through the issue. I note that the mayor and the council of Norwood backed down on that—and I commend them for it—and that the three cottages have been saved. I note the Premier lives approximately 150 metres away from the site.

We have other issues at the moment, with heritage homes being bulldozed in suburbs such as Unley, Burnside, Mitcham and throughout the city. At the moment, we have issues in the city itself where heritage buildings are being bulldozed at a rapid rate under this government. Apparently we have planning reforms coming forward that touch on this issue. I can tell members that we will be vigilantly reviewing those laws to ensure that we do not lose any more of our built heritage. There were proposals to ball and chain Old Parliament House. We lost the South Australia Hotel. We have lost so much over the years. Does this state Labor government now want to sell off the rest of the National Trust estate, the rest of our heritage homes into private ownership, with no guarantee that any South Australian, man or woman, will ever again set foot inside their doors? That is the precedent you are establishing here.

We do not object to the sale, although I think, as a principle, the private sale of these properties to individuals for use as a residence is of concern. However, provided access is guaranteed, as has been proved in other heritage homes in other states, it can be sustainable, provided there is access and it can be to the mutual benefit of the building. We would all love to see it restored. To suggest that it has no value as a ruin is wrong: it does have some value as a ruin. To suggest that no other propositions could be put to restore it is also wrong.

Concerns have been raised publicly about how the government approached this whole matter, the level of openness and the level of accountability regarding the whole process. I am not sure whether it was advertised perhaps as thoroughly as it could have been. Anyway, the point that I am making is simple. I am very happy for the Michells who are well intentioned people and who want to restore this beautiful building—no problems with that going ahead. We are simply trying to bring about some access to the building in the future should ownership change. That is all we are trying to achieve here.

It seems that the only way that we will achieve that is by supporting the bill, because the government has proven immovable on that point. I urge members to support the bill, or, as an alternative, I would be happy to consider the future of the bill, if the government would simply agree to ensure there is a fail-safe process to ensure that not only the Michells but any future owner simply provide some reasonable access to the house on a few occasions each year in the years ahead by their constituents, the people of South Australia. It was built by the people of South Australia: they deserve an ongoing access to at least a public building as we go on. I seek leave to have the explanation of clauses inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Preamble

The Preamble to the Bill provides a summary of the provisions in the Bill, which are to provide for the preservation, management and use of Marble Hill; and for other purposes.

1—Short title

This clause is formal.

2—Interpretation

Provides definitions of Heritage Minister, Marble Hill and Marble Hill building for the purposes of this Bill.

3—Preservation of Marble Hill

Subclause (1)

Provides that Marble Hill must be kept reasonably available as a community facility for the benefit of South Australians and visitors to the State.

Subclause (2)

Provides that subclause (1) does not prevent the improvement or restoration of any Marble Hill building or the use of Marble Hill for certain purposes so long as the principle established in subclause (1) is maintained.

Subclause (3)

Provides that a person in occupation of Marble Hill must ensure that Marble Hill is open to the public on at least 10 occasions, for at least 4 hours (between 9am and 5pm) on each occasion, in any calendar year.

4—State Heritage significance

Provides that Marble Hill must not be removed from the South Australian Heritage Register.

5—Heritage agreement

Subclause (1)

Provides that an approved heritage agreement must be noted against the relevant instrument of title before the whole or any part of Marble Hill, or the whole or any part of an interest in Marble Hill, may be transferred.

Subclause (2)

Provides that for the purposes of subclause (1), an approved heritage agreement is a heritage agreement under Part 6 of the Heritage Places Act 1993 that has been authorised by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Subclause (3)

Provides that a heritage agreement entered into for the purposes of subclause (1) must not be varied so as to provide for a significant variation; or terminated, unless the variation or termination has been authorised by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Subclause (4)

Provides that a notice of a motion for a resolution under this clause must be given not less than 14 sitting days before the motion is passed.

6—Dealing with land

Subclause (1)

Provides that subject to compliance with the preceding sections, the whole or any part of Marble Hill, or the whole or any part of an interest in Marble Hill may be leased or transferred.

Subclause (2)

Provides that a person or body in occupation of, any part of Marble Hill may exclude members of the public from a part of Marble Hill for any purpose related to health or safety, the preservation of any Marble Hill building, or any other matter relevant to the proper management, conservation or protection of Marble Hill or a Marble Hill building.

7—Endorsement on land record

Provides that the Registrar-General must endorse on any instrument or record of title or Crown holding for any part of Marble Hill a memorandum to the effect that Marble Hill is subject to the operation of this Act.

Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (10:55): The government will be opposing this bill. This bill is not about protecting Marble Hill at all: it is about politics, not heritage. Although there has been some back down in the opposition's original position as introduced in the other place, let us be clear why the government brought this bill on at this stage. There was a risk that this sale could be in jeopardy because we fast approach the six-month period allowed in the heads of agreement and the opposition knows this. This bill is aimed squarely at preventing the sale of this site and, if it were to proceed, it is absolutely guaranteed that this property would remain a ruin.

A little history: Marble Hill, in the beautiful electorate of Morialta, was a summer residence of the governors of South Australia from 1879 until it was largely destroyed by the Black Sunday bushfires of 1955. It has remained a ruin and has been allowed to deteriorate for the past 53 years. The site comprises a ruined mansion, tearooms, caretaker's residence and about 22 hectares of hilltop land. The National Trust had care, control and management of the site from 1967 until 1992. Since then, the Department for Environment and Heritage has had operational management of the site, while Friends of Marble Hill (and some of those volunteers are here today) have provided valuable support and opened the site to the public.

Governments of both persuasions have not been able to find the funds either to preserve or restore the site. In fact, during all these years, the only significant work that has been undertaken was by the National Trust, and that is over 15 years ago, particularly, I am told, by Mr Ted Eling, but again on a very limited budget. In 1980, Marble Hill was entered on the South Australian Heritage Register and is now protected by the Heritage Places Act 1993. On 2 March 2007, public advertisements were placed seeking expressions of interest for the future management and development of Marble Hill because this site is no longer required for its original purpose.

A redevelopment at taxpayers' expense was not considered a responsible use of public funds. One expression of interest was received and, on 16 May this year, a heads of agreement was signed by the former minister for environment and heritage (Hon. Gail Gago) MLC and Patricia Bishop and Edwin Michell. This heads of agreement outlines:

the proposed sale at a future independent market valuation—it is currently valued at $815,000;

provision for public access on at least seven days a year, including three open days and four pre-booked events—and these include such things as the Australia Day celebrations for citizenship ceremonies, which will go ahead again this year;

intention of the proponents to explore opportunities for the continuing involvement of the Friends of Marble Hill (which I will discuss later);

the proponents' commitment substantially to restore the residence under the guidance of a heritage architect and in consultation with the Department for Environment and Heritage; and

the registration on the title of a heritage agreement making public access, conservation, maintenance and restoration requirements enforceable by a court, while preventing subdivision of the land forevermore.

The government still believes this is a good outcome and will see the ruins of Marble Hill substantially restored to its former beauty.

I am very disappointed that there is not bipartisan support for the Michell family. South Australians are very fortunate that Patricia and Edwin Michell are prepared to commit their time and resources to restore Marble Hill. The multimillion dollar restorations will incorporate a museum featuring the history of the property and its relevance to the state. The Bishop and Michell families are longstanding landowners in the district and have considerable passion for the restoration of heritage properties.

It is important to note that a key condition of the sale is that future public access to the site is assured for ever. I commend the Friends of Marble Hill for their valuable contribution in keeping the site open to the public over many years, and I thank them for their dedication. In recognition of this commitment, the Michell family has signalled its willingness to establish a working relationship with the Friends of Marble Hill and, accordingly, will look for opportunities for their future involvement if the friends wish. In fact, this last weekend saw a very, very successful new style of open day at Marble Hill. I quote from two pieces of correspondence I have received this week, as follows:

Dear Lindsay,

I am forwarding you a letter I received last night from the Hittman family, who are members of the Friends of Marble Hill and were volunteers at the Open Day at Marble Hill last Sunday. I think this conveys the sentiments of all of us who were there. It confirms that this style of public access, as envisaged under the new heritage agreement, i.e., run on behalf of and for the benefit of non-profit community groups, has been well received and supported by the local community.

With best wishes,

Patricia Michell

The second letter states:

Hi Patricia and Edwin,

Sunday was such an enjoyable day and everything went so smoothly. There was an atmosphere of excitement and interest, with all the volunteers introducing themselves to each other and all keen to help out with the setting up. Steve and Mitchell enjoyed manning the gates welcoming all the 100 visitors to Marble Hill, while Malcolm directed traffic for hassle free parking.

The East Torrens Historical Society put on a wonderful afternoon tea out on the verandah and sold many books on local history.

And so it goes on, thanking the Michells for a great day.

The opposition should also note that an agreement registered on the certificate of title when the sale is finalised will prevent it from being subdivided. The heritage agreement will ensure the site's heritage values are protected and public access is guaranteed. I personally thank Patricia and Edwin Michell for the generous public spirit they have shown in their commitment to buy and restore Marble Hill to its former glory, while ensuring that public access to this important historical site will continue.

To bring members up to date since that announcement, the planned sale is on track and negotiations are continuing with the Bishop and Michell family. They have entered into a heads of agreement, which guarantees the restoration of this ruin, in full cooperation with heritage experts and the Department for Environment and Heritage. It guarantees public access on seven days each year, and it commits them to build, at their own expense, a small museum explaining to visitors the heritage and history of the building. It guarantees that there can be no subdivision of the 22 hectare site. Most people would see this as a win-win; indeed, the former member for Mayo, Alexander Downer, did. On 20 May this year, he put out a media release stating:

I welcome the recent announcement by businessman Edwin Michell and his wife Dr Patricia Bishop to restore the historic Marble Hill. Mr Michell and Dr Bishop's enthusiasm for our local history is simply inspiring.

The East Torrens Historical Society, which worked so hard to make Sunday's open day, together with our own friends, so successful, also supports the Michell's ambition to restore the ruin. The society has written to the minister, stating:

The membership of the East Torrens Historical Society wishes to express its support for the proposed sale of the Marble Hill property, as publicly announced in May this year. The building has been in a ruinous state for 53 years, and its condition continues to deteriorate. The transfer of ownership presents the opportunity to reverse this situation. If nothing is done soon, this heritage listed, sandstone building will gradually disintegrate over the next couple of decades.

I will also read into Hansard a letter to the Minister for Environment and Conservation from the secretary of the Friends of Marble Hill, Malcolm Dallwitz. I have been thrilled to work closely with this friends group, and I have been most impressed with their dedication to this historical landmark. The letter states:

It is with some concern that I write in relation to the recent proceedings in parliament on the Marble Hill (Protection) Bill. As a member of the Friends of Marble Hill Committee for the last 15 years and currently secretary, I wish to point out that the views of Ernie McKenna and Ruth Russell are not those of the entire committee. Approximately half of the committee are pleased with the proposal by Patricia and Edwin Michell and believe that this is possibly the best news Marble Hill has had in the last 50 years.

Patricia and Edwin have met with representatives of the committee, including Ernie, and have endeavoured to answer any questions and come to an arrangement for our ongoing participation.

So, what sort of support do these heritage enthusiasts get from the local opposition for their outstanding contribution to our state's heritage? They get this bill, which seems to be specifically designed to stymie what some members opposite see as a good deal by people who are doing the state 'a considerable service', according to the Hon. Robert Lawson in the Legislative Council debate on 18 June 2008. I would like to read the house a letter—

Time expired.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (11:06): I thank the honourable member for her contribution, and I thank the house for listening to the debate. I am a little disappointed that there were not more contributions, but I understand that the government has resolved to oppose the bill. I can count, so I know how this is going to finish up.

However, I will say that, as the bill has come out of all stages of debate, I am a little disappointed, particularly with the position of the member for Morialta. I think that, if she consulted with her constituents more broadly, she would find that many of them are very deeply committed to this building. It is a very important building within her constituency, and I think there will be alarm and concern if it is denied to them for ever.

I know that is not the intention of the Michells. I know they have the intention of opening the house, but there is no requirement for them to do so. Attitudes can change, and that is the weakness in the arrangements the government has struck. For some reason, the government is belligerently opposed to requiring of the proponents that there be access to the house at all.

This means that, should they choose, or should a future owner choose, they can simply meet the minimum requirements of this agreement by throwing open the gates; no need to advertise it. They could open it at 6am, or they could open it at some inconvenient time. They could give access to the grounds only. I do not think that there is any suggestion in the agreement as to how long it may be open—it could be five minutes, or whatever. I guess people could wave at the house from the car park, not allowed to ever step inside its portals. I think that is a real shame, because some of the great decisions in this state were made in this house. It was one of the first recipients of a telephone, which connected government house to the city. It has seen a number of historic events. It is part of the history of this great state. What this Labor government proposes to do is to potentially sign it off to private ownership with no access to the public ever again.

I have written about this to the Friends of Carrick Hill, to the friends of a number of historic homes, and to a raft of groups within the community concerned about heritage matters, and I can tell you that there is concern about the direction in which this government is going. When we put together some of the things that this government is doing—with the decision today to oppose my bill—a picture is forming of a state Labor government that does not (as a nation and as a state) care at all about our heritage. The government wants to sell it off; it sees these things as liabilities to be sold off.

I foreshadow to the house and to stakeholders, including the Michells, that I have made the view of a future Liberal government very clear. As this deal between the government and the private owners proceeds, should we form government at some point in the future, let there be no doubt about what the view of a Liberal state government will be.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: So, you retrospectively override their rights. Is that what you are saying in this place?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am making the views of a future state Liberal government very clear.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: You make that clear in this place.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: The minister had an opportunity to speak to the bill, and he just sat there like a stunned mullet and said nothing; now he is chirping, chirping, chirping. Well, he had his chance to stand up for heritage matters—he missed it; it's gone. The bill will clearly fail, but I will just say to the government that there is something that it can now do: go back to your heritage agreement and require of the private owners at least some access to the house. If you did that, we would be satisfied, because the Michells will do a wonderful job of rebuilding this house. It will be worth a lot of money when it is finished, and the public should have some access to it.

Second reading negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT