HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2021-06-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Martindale Hall (Protection and Management) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 May 2021.)

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:12): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that I am the lead speaker on this side. I also indicate, as I have done publicly, that we will not be supporting this bill in this form. There are several reasons for this, and I acknowledge up-front that it is very similar to a bill that had been previously put together by the previous Labor Minister for Environment a few years ago but not advanced, having undertaken fairly extensive community consultation and discussion.

There are several reasons for concern with this piece of legislation. However, I think we can all agree that everybody in this chamber, all sides of parliament, understand and appreciate how important Martindale Hall is, what a treasure it is and also what potential it has. In its existing condition, it is not necessarily fulfilling all the potential it could. On the other hand, I recently went to visit Martindale Hall to refresh my memory about what it is like. I visited with a local councillor, a member of the National Trust who lives nearby and a board member of the National Trust who lives nearby.

Having just heard the minister on the radio earlier in the day or the day before, I got the impression that it must have fallen into pretty dreadful disrepair, whereas in fact it is exquisite. One of the things that pleased not only me but the people I was with was how many people were 'streaming in'—I think we decided in the end that those were the right words—to visit while we were there, possibly because it is back in the media because of the attention raised by the National Trust about concerns with how parliament might manage the future of Martindale Hall.

It is a beautiful building in its own right, and I understand it copies a building from the Lake District in the United Kingdom. It is full of interesting and historical pieces of decoration, art and decor, with wallpaper that is quite wild and exciting. There are objects from all over the world, including Samurai armour, and it has the sense of a building that is almost as it was left by the family who last lived in it.

What is the bill seeking to do and what is it that we object to? The bill has essentially taken the view that there are problems with the protections around Martindale Hall that constrain the capacity of the state to do what it would like to do with it. It removes its conservation park status and it removes the charitable trust that exists by virtue of the family having given this piece of South Australia's history to the University of Adelaide and the University of Adelaide in turn giving it to the state.

The charitable trust that therefore exists between the University of Adelaide and South Australia is sought to be extinguished in this piece of legislation, but what we do not know is why. Assertions are made that it prevents any extensive renovation or remodelling, or even quite minor extension or remodelling. An example that has been given to me was that a disabled toilet could not be installed under the terms of the charitable trust.

The difficulty is that we have not seen the charitable trust. When that was raised on radio, the minister said he would be providing it; however, I am yet to see a copy of it. The National Trust is very sceptical of the claim that the charitable trust would prevent the kind of thoughtful and heritage-consistent remodelling or reworking that might be required. I am open to understanding the constraints of the charitable trust, but I am yet to see it. Having asked the minister's office for it in the briefing and then being pleased to hear in the radio interview on the ABC that it would be provided, it is yet to be provided.

The legislation is clear that it is removing what might be seen as constraints, or otherwise seen as protections. What it does not do, and I think this is of just as much concern, is really articulate what the future of Martindale Hall is and could be and what the limits are to that future. What it does is empower the minister to create policies. Something that has been raised with me not only by the National Trust but by various groups and individuals is that they are concerned that there is not any sense of what is going to happen there in this piece of legislation.

The only protections that would exist over Martindale Hall are, firstly—and I acknowledge this is in the legislation—that it will not be sold and, secondly, that it is a state heritage place. We have seen that being a state heritage place may not have quite the cache that we used to think it had, with the decision by this government (although essentially reversed) to demolish the Waite Gatehouse and, although the Heritage Council found that Shed 26 in Port Adelaide was worthy of being on the state Heritage Register, the approach taken by this government was to remove it during its provisional listing term.

Being a state heritage place in itself, although it does have protections, (a) does not necessarily give protection from the actions of the Crown that one might want and (b) does not in itself give you a sense of what can and will happen. Therefore, these policies that are referred to—that the legislation gives power to the minister to create policies—I think a lot of people would really like to know what they might be well before any legislative instrument is engaged to give weight to them.

Here we get to the deeper objection to this legislation: that it has not come from a deep community engagement or understanding of what is desired, what is expected and what is possible. Although it has been hanging around for a long time, it seems to have emerged almost from thin air. Again, the minister on the radio—thank goodness for the ABC, because I suspect it has given me the most information I could have had on this—indicated that this was something that had come from the local council and that the local council was keen to see this happen, but I do not think that is quite right. I have a letter from the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council, which states:

While the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council's position on economic development and the visitor economy implies that it would be supportive of the Martindale Hall bill, it has not made any formal decision to show that it either supports or does not support the bill.

That is important to understand: that this piece of legislation, which may have been characterised as coming out of a desire from the local council to have this legislation, in fact does not. The council is yet to reach a position on the condition of this bill; however, what is clear and consistent with every conversation I have had about Martindale Hall is that the council and the community would like to see more and greater activation of the hall. With no disrespect to the people who are currently running what is essentially a museum and visitor attraction, I think everybody thinks that there could be more done.

I think one of the challenges for the people who are currently using it—and I stand to be corrected if I have this wrong—is that they are on a year-by-year lease, I am told, which makes it very difficult for them to really invest in any long-term future or, indeed, to develop such a long-term future for consideration, perhaps in the context of a future bill that might have a greater shape to it of what might be expected to happen.

With all those concerns and enormous areas of doubt and grey areas, and a legitimate pushback from the community—I understand a petition is in the process of gaining signatures and the National Trust, with whom the Labor Party does not always agree but always respects and treats respectfully—I cannot see that we can support this piece of legislation at this time.

Should we see convincing and compelling evidence that the Crown advice—and that is what we are waiting to see, the trust and the Crown advice on the trust—does tell us that we cannot do what people might reasonably want to do, should we see what that plan could be, what those policies that are countenanced vaguely in the legislation could be, and whether we could do a proper not community consultation but community engagement where we are able to really listen to the community's ideas and what they value and what they fear, as well as what they hope to see, then we could all come back, possibly in a bipartisan or multipartisan way to see a future for Martindale that we can all agree on.

But this legislation does not do that. It is disrespectful to the National Trust, which has lodged its concerns about it. It is a simple, 'We just want to be able to do this. We don't want that constraint, so we are going to remove it and we want to have the power for the minister.' As I say, I acknowledge that that was a version that was previously considered by the Labor Party but it was not advanced into a piece of legislation that was considered by the parliament. As long as I am involved in this portfolio, we will not treat heritage that way on this side of parliament.

I look forward to hearing other people's contributions, and should we proceed to a committee stage then I will be very interested to ask more detailed questions to try to elicit some of the answers that I have signalled I am yet to hear, and we will see whether it gets through the lower house to even be considered in the upper house.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:22): I rise to speak today to support the Martindale Hall (Protection and Management) Bill. Most South Australians are certainly familiar with Martindale Hall. It is a Georgian-style mansion which sits in many ways rather incongruously in the South Australian Mid North near a place called Mintaro just east of Clare.

We believe as a government that it does have the potential to be a significant tourism drawcard and that it would make a vibrant contribution to the cultural and economic landscape of the Clare Valley and surrounding regions. The deputy leader was talking about the steady stream of visitors who have been visiting Martindale Hall through decades really, and continue to do so, but there is certainly a desire within the community, and that is articulated in the joint communiqué by the Regional Development Authority, Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council and the Clare Valley Wine and Grape Association—all to see the development of a high-end accommodation offering in the Clare Valley, and Martindale Hall has the potential to contribute to this vision for the region.

As I said, Martindale Hall is a grand and beautiful Georgian-style mansion which lies just east of the historic town of Mintaro, nestled in the Clare Valley. It is probably just outside the Clare Valley if we were to be particularly pedantic about it. I certainly have visited it, not for some time now, and I remember being totally awestruck by the grandeur of the building—Georgian-style, English-style, architecture sitting in the middle of the Mid North South Australian landscape.

The hall was originally built for Edmund Bowman after he inherited the Martindale estate from his father who had drowned in the River Wakefield in 1866, which is rather sad. I guess it was during the winter, but we should not make those assumptions. By 1879, the mansion was completed. It was built of Manoora freestone, which had been ornately carved by skilled tradesmen especially brought out from England.

The house and property was named after Martindale in Cumbria, which was close to the Bowman's family home town. The property was intended as a sheep station, and evidence of that is still seen today. Edmund Bowman lived in style. He built himself a large stable complex and training track. He also possessed his own pack of fox hounds, and even had his own cricket ground where the English cricketers would come and stay. During this time, Edmund even gave licence to a small group of people to search for gold on his estate and they did indeed find some there. It sounds to me like he was looking to establish a little England here in South Australia.

However, in 1892 debt eventually forced Edmund to sell Martindale Hall to William Tennant Mortlock. Debt and drought, or the lack of rain and then drought, lack of production and sheep losses were the scourge of the South Australian landscape in the early days. He sold the hall to William Tennant Mortlock, who bought it a year after marrying. They had six children of whom only two survived into adulthood, one being John Andrew Mortlock. John inherited Martindale Hall and eventually bequeathed part of the estate to the University of Adelaide. The rest was transferred to the university in 1965 by his widow. Then, of course, the university transferred the hall to the state government in 1979.

I want to speak briefly about the Mortlock family. In the first instance they were pastoralists here in South Australia and did well, as many of the early pastoralists did, but the foundation and base of their pastoral empire really began on Eyre Peninsula. In fact, the first Mortlock, who was William Ranson Mortlock, and his son William Tennant Mortlock, both for a time at least in the second half the 19th century were members for Flinders in this very parliament.

Of course, the Mortlock name survives as place names now throughout Eyre Peninsula, and in fact the Hundred I live in is known as the Hundred of Mortlock. It was named the Hundred of Mortlock in 1904. Certainly, they had extensive pastoral interests and for a time in the very early days ran a station known as Yalluna Station, with the station homestead just out of Tumby Bay. The Secker family, Bill senior, I think it was, was the overseer and manager of that station.

In fact, my family and the Secker family had much to do with each other for generations. I know that my grandfather called into the Martindale Hall when the Seckers were actually living there to negotiate some sort of business deal, land purchase or job opportunity. That would have been back in the 1940s. I do not really know the detail, but I have heard my father speak of it.

Then, of course, the final Mortlock in that run of Mortlocks was John Tennant Mortlock, and the Mortlock name survives here in Adelaide. Of course, we have the Mortlock Building in the State Library, and there is a magnificent portrait of either William Tennant or John Tennant—I am not sure—but one of the Mortlocks anyway, sitting there in his tweed jacket with a dog and a shotgun by his side. They certainly were well-to-do and influential people at the time. The family owned Martindale Hall for a very long time.

When the hall was gifted to the government by the University of Adelaide in 1986—I have a correction, as I originally said 1979—specific heritage protection laws did not exist in South Australia, so it was afforded protection under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 through the creation of the Martindale Hall Conservation Park. Structures at the site, including the hall and the coach-house, are listed on the South Australian Heritage Register.

For many years, the hall was leased to the private sector as a tourist attraction and a venue for events and tourism accommodation. The terms of the lease were unsustainable for the government and the lease concluded in 2014. Since that time, the hall has been open to the public as a museum through a short-term caretaker arrangement. Those of us who are old enough will remember that a portion of one of those great Australian movies from the 1970s, Picnic at Hanging Rock, was filmed—

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: Yes, some here can remember the movie. I think I recall seeing it in 1975, when it was made and first came out. Of course, the South Australian film industry at that time was really cranking along.

There have also been rumours of a ghostly presence at Martindale Hall. In fact, there have been several sightings of ghosts in Martindale Hall, ranging from a man seen sitting on the back stairs in period costume through to a guest reportedly waking up and finding a child lying in bed with her. The owner reported how the guest had woken to find a girl standing in her room but, on reflection, thought it more likely to be a boy, as in the early days boys would wear long hair. He is believed to be one of Mortlock's sons, in particular Valentine, who died in 1906 aged nine years. Who would know? Certainly, there has been more than one report of a ghostly presence at Martindale Hall.

During 2015 and 2016, the government received multiple unsolicited proposals for the use of the hall, each of which sought to develop the site for use as a wellness retreat and/or accommodation and a restaurant. Extensive community consultation occurred in response to these proposals, which indicated that the community, unsurprisingly, wanted to see the heritage value of the hall and its collections preserved while ensuring ongoing public access to the site.

During consideration of these proposals, legal advice provided to the government indicated that through the gifting of the hall to government a charitable trust was created that would restrict the future use of the hall to being a museum. That would ensure that visitors to the site could experience life as was lived by the Mortlock family. The terms of the charitable trust also prohibit any modernising development, including installation of public toilets, which has previously occurred.

To allow Martindale Hall to be used for a broader range of future uses whilst retaining it in public ownership, the terms and conditions of the charitable trust can be revoked through legislation that explicitly seeks to vary or revoke the charitable trust.

What this bill does is remove restrictions that presently limit the adaptive re-use of the hall. It abolishes the charitable trust over the site; it requires that the hall remains in public ownership, which honours the intention of the gift of the hall to be held for the people of South Australia; and it also strengthens its heritage protections. This will be achieved by abolishing the Martindale Hall Conservation Park and placing the hall under the care and control of the Minister for Environment and Water, who is the minister responsible for the Heritage Places Act.

The bill will also ensure that the hall cannot be removed from the South Australian Heritage Register without the concurrence of both houses of parliament. So there are significant protections there. Even though it is a change in structure, there are significant protections in place. The bill also requires that the Minister for Environment and Water prepare and adopt a heritage and conservation policy and a material contents policy for the hall's collections and that any lease or licence of the hall is consistent with these heritage policies. Finally, it will mandate a level of ongoing public access, which is expressly provided for in any lease or licence arrangement for the hall.

It is considered that the protections of the bill, in particular the requirement that the hall remain in public ownership, along with the provisions of the Heritage Places Act 1993, provide a more appropriate form of protection for the hall than that which it currently has.

Importantly, the bill does not make any decisions about the future use of the hall, but it would allow the government the chance to work with the private sector and community to develop heritage tourism and other economic opportunities at the property, and we make no apology for that. It is proposed that any future private sector investment in the hall, the grounds and surrounding buildings would occur via a long-term lease, where the government retains a high level of oversight and strategic involvement in the future use of the hall and its collections.

At present, the highly restrictive operating framework for Martindale Hall prevents any profitable third-party commercial venture from being advanced. In the meantime, and this is a critical point, the ongoing costs associated with operating and maintaining the hall are being borne by the state government, which, since being gifted to the state, are in excess of $5 million.

We all recognise the critical nature of this asset. It is a treasure—a word that is often used and sometimes overused, but certainly Martindale Hall is a treasure. As a government, we have determined that the current arrangements are outdated and what we plan to do with this bill is set up arrangements that will add considerably to the importance and special nature of Martindale Hall. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:36): I, too, rise to speak to the Martindale Hall (Protection and Management) Bill. My first few comments are that there has been a lot of misinformation about what we are trying to do here as a government with this bill. Last night, I was talking to a friend of mine who said, 'You're just going to sell it because that's what they said on the radio.' I said, 'Don't believe everything you hear.' That is not going to happen. What has been put so well in this place already by the member for Flinders is that it is about an opportunity for public ownership and private entrepreneurialism to make this gem really shine.

As has been indicated, Martindale Hall is a site located in the Mintaro region, a beautiful area of the Clare Valley, which has the real potential to be a significant tourism drawcard that would make a vibrant contribution to the cultural and economic landscape of the Clare Valley and surrounding region. Certainly, with the influx of regional tourism we have had right across the state because of what is going on with COVID and what we have done as a government, assisting with tourism vouchers, it is so good to see so many people out and about through the regions of this state. I suppose you could say there have been some positives with COVID simply because people cannot spend those billions of dollars overseas that they normally would have.

There is a desire within the community, articulated in a joint communiqué between the Regional Development Authority, the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council and the Clare Valley Wine and Grape Association, to see the development of high-end accommodation offerings in the Clare Valley, and Martindale Hall has the potential to contribute to this vision for the region.

The hall was gifted to the government by the University of Adelaide in 1986, when specific heritage protection laws did not exist in South Australia. It was afforded protection under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, through the creation of the Martindale Hall Conservation Park. Structures at the site, including the hall and coach-house, are listed on the state Heritage Register.

For many years, the hall was leased to the private sector as a tourist attraction and a venue for events and tourism accommodation. The terms of the lease were unsustainable over time to the government, and the lease concluded in 2014. Since that time, the hall has been open to the public just as a museum through a short-term caretaker arrangement.

A couple of years after that, during 2015 and 2016, the government received multiple unsolicited proposals for use of Martindale Hall, each of which sought to develop the site for use as a wellness retreat and maybe accommodation and a restaurant. Extensive community consultation occurred in response to these proposals, which indicated that the community wanted to see the heritage values of Martindale Hall and its collections preserved whilst ensuring ongoing public access to the site.

During consideration of these proposals, legal advice provided to the government indicated that through the gifting of Martindale Hall to the government a charitable trust was created, which would restrict the future use of the hall to a museum, which would ensure that visitors to the site could experience life as it was lived by the Mortlock family, who owned the property from 1892.

The terms of the charitable trust also prohibit any modernising development, including installation of public toilets, but that has previously occurred at the site. To allow for Martindale Hall to be used for a broader range of future uses whilst retaining it in public ownership—and I stress 'whilst retaining it in public ownership'—the terms and conditions of the charitable trust can be revoked through a legislative process, which is what we are going through here today, which explicitly seeks to vary or revoke the charitable trust. The Martindale Hall (Protection and Management) Bill 2020:

removes restrictions that presently limit the adaptive re-use of the hall;

abolishes the charitable trust over the site;

requires that the hall remains in public ownership, which honours the intention of the gift of the hall to be held for the people of South Australia, and that is extremely important;

strengthens its heritage protections—again, extremely important not just for the people of the Clare Valley and the Mintaro region but for the state and the country. This will be achieved by abolishing the Martindale Hall Conservation Park, proclaimed under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, and placing Martindale Hall in the care and control of the Minister for Environment and Water as the minister responsible for the Heritage Places Act 1993;

ensures that Martindale Hall cannot be removed from the South Australian Heritage Register without the concurrence of both houses of parliament;

requires that the Minister for Environment and Water prepares and adopts a heritage conservation policy, and a material contents policy for the hall's collections, and that any lease or licence of Martindale Hall is consistent with these heritage polices; and

mandates a level of ongoing public access, which is expressly provided for in any lease or licence arrangement for Martindale Hall. This may include requiring that the hall and grounds are open to the public for a specified number of days per year.

It is certainly considered that in the major protections that are part of the bill, in particular the requirement that Martindale Hall remain in public ownership, along with the provisions of the Heritage Places Act 1993, provide a more appropriate form of protection to the hall than that which is currently afforded by the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, which is somewhat cumbersome in its protection of the hall through a conservation park. I stress again: it provides a more appropriate form of protection to Martindale Hall.

Importantly, the bill does not make any decisions about the future use of the hall, but it does allow the government the chance to work with the private sector and the community to develop heritage tourism and other economic opportunities at the property. It is proposed that any future private sector investment in Martindale Hall, the grounds and the surrounding buildings, would occur via a long-term lease, where the government retains a high level of oversight and strategic involvement in the future use of the hall and its collections.

At present, the highly restrictive operating framework at Martindale Hall prevents any profitable third-party commercial venture from being advanced and, in the meantime, the ongoing costs associated with operating and maintaining Martindale Hall are being borne by the state government, which, since being gifted to the state, are in excess of $5 million.

I think this is an excellent proposal, not only to keep one of these great heritage sites in public ownership and give Martindale Hall the appropriate protections that it deserves and requires to advance into the future but also to give the people of South Australia, Australia and international visitors when they finally start coming back—and they will—the opportunity to visit this magnificent site.

It is not dissimilar to Padthaway Homestead on Padthaway Estate down in the South-East in the seat of MacKillop, which was owned by the former leader of the Liberal Party Dale Baker, the former member for MacKillop. That is a place of similar ilk to Martindale Hall. I stayed there one evening. I had an excellent evening, when all the guests had their own rooms upstairs but then the different groups or couples mingled downstairs for pre-dinner drinks and then went to their separate tables for dining. That was a little while ago.

Currently, the family that owns Padthaway house is renovating. These buildings do need a lot of care and love and they can be expensive to work with. Certainly, in light of the opportunities that Martindale Hall can give back to not only the Clare Valley but the state and the nation as a whole, you just cannot let these things disappear. That is why we are putting these protections in place, but we are also making sure as a government that we are giving the private operators that have the opportunity to come here the ability to open Martindale Hall up and give more access so that everyone can see life as it was in the late 1800s as this state was finding its feet. I fully commend the bill and hope it has a speedy passage through the parliament.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (16:47): I rise to acknowledge and thank the members of parliament who have made a contribution to this debate this afternoon, in particular the member for Flinders and the member for Hammond. I look forward to responding to questions about the specific clauses of the bill during the upcoming committee stage.

As we have seen from the contributions made to this bill and from public sentiment expressed in recent weeks, Martindale Hall is an iconic heritage site in our state and holds a special place in the hearts of many South Australians. Martindale Hall serves as a special reminder of our pastoral heritage and that of the Mortlock family.

Martindale Hall currently receives visitation of between 10,000 and 15,000 people in a normal year. This government believes that we have the opportunity to not only improve the heritage framework that protects the site but also identify a pathway that will allow for sensitive activation of the site, increasing visitation to Martindale Hall and, along with it, people's connection to South Australia's heritage. If we can achieve this, it will provide benefits to the local Clare Valley community and the broader Mid North region.

There is commentary that has been aired in recent weeks suggesting that this bill sets out to diminish and undermine the current protections which are afforded to Martindale Hall. To the contrary, this is absolutely not the case: this bill will afford Martindale Hall a higher level of protection than any other heritage place in South Australia. I repeat: this bill will provide Martindale Hall the highest level of protection of any heritage place in this state's history. It will provide a pathway to secure the future of the site, protecting it and preserving it for the enjoyment of future generations.

I again wish to thank members for their contributions and I look forward to perhaps considering amendments because I am very open to amendments. I am not fixed on what this bill necessarily looks like. I am very keen to achieve a particular aim, but I am more than open to talking about, considering and exploring amendments with both the opposition and crossbench between the houses. I ask that the bill now be read a second time.

The house divided on the second reading:

Ayes 21

Noes 19

Majority 2

AYES
Basham, D.K.B. Chapman, V.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Cregan, D. Ellis, F.J. Harvey, R.M. (teller)
Knoll, S.K. Luethen, P. Marshall, S.S.
McBride, N. Murray, S. Patterson, S.J.R.
Pisoni, D.G. Power, C. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D.J. Tarzia, V.A. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.L.
NOES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. (teller) Close, S.E.
Cook, N.F. Hildyard, K.A. Hughes, E.J.
Koutsantonis, A. Malinauskas, P. Michaels, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K.
Wortley, D.
PAIRS
Gardner, J.A.W. Gee, J.P. Pederick, A.S.
Brock, G.G.

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Dr CLOSE: This clause refers to the objects of the act, saying that it is to ensure the ongoing effective protection of the heritage values of Martindale Hall while allowing for new uses. What are the new uses that the minister is expecting?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is difficult to obviously define all the potential new uses. There will be a process, as outlined in the bill, to develop a series of policies, one being a heritage management policy, which we would require to be completed before we contemplated any future new use for this property. Obviously, there have been discussions over the years about adaptive re-use, particularly of some of the outbuildings, the stables or the coach-house and potentially the grounds.

I know that a proposal put forward into the public domain several years ago by the National Trust contemplated a modern building being built on the grounds and potentially adaptive re-use or at least access to some of the other buildings for interpretive facilities and events and the like. It is not possible to define exactly what the new uses would be. In my mind, it would be something in keeping with the building but possibly more focused on the grounds and the outbuildings than the hall itself necessarily.

Ms BEDFORD: I have just come into the room, but I understand you are on clause 4; is that correct?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Clause 4, correct.

Ms BEDFORD: You are talking about objects and continued public access to the property?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I am in your hands, member for Florey.

Ms BEDFORD: I am just waiting for the minister to nod, like he is in the ballpark of clause 4(b). When you talk about 'continued public access', that could be once every six years, couldn't it? How are we going to make sure that public access is fair and reasonable or even decide the definition of 'fair and reasonable' public access?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is no doubt that public access could take a number of different forms, such as viewing the building and grounds versus accessing the interiors of the hall and the coach-house. It is certainly the intention of the government to maintain ongoing access to both the exterior, being the grounds, and the outbuilding, as well as the interior of the hall itself.

As minister, I believe there should be a significant level of public access afforded. I have been very clear that a minimum level of public access should be set; not only that, that minimum level of public access should have a high threshold, as we have had with previous private leases and caretakers. We currently have a private arrangement with a caretaker who manages the hall for us as a tourism destination, enables tours and welcomes people to the site.

As has been the case and is currently the case, the government will negotiate with any future occupiers the level of access that is sustainable for whatever particular model of business is proposed while still fulfilling community expectations. The level of access that is ultimately available depends upon the outcome of future deliberations about the long-term management model for the hall.

I do not want to pre-empt what the proposals that might come forward might be. We have seen some in the past from the private sector and we have seen at least one from the not-for-profit sector. There may be varying proposals for different parts of the property—for the grounds, for the coach-house and for the hall itself—whether it as a museum, a cellar door, a visitor centre, an art gallery, an events space or a restaurant, or an event space constructed in the grounds, as proposed by the National Trust, albeit facilitated by private money.

It may be a combination of all these things or a combination of something that has been mentioned, but I am not sure what form that would necessarily take. I do not foresee the hall itself lending itself to an accommodation outcome, but I guess time will tell if this legislation passes both houses and we get an opportunity to see what the private and not-for-profit sectors are keen to propose.

Ms BEDFORD: Again, I excuse myself if you have already covered this, but in a letter I have seen you talk about the trust maintaining that people should experience life as it was lived at the hall. So you are saying that the trust is so difficult to do anything with that you perhaps could not even repair a leaky roof at the hall as it stands now. I see your adviser is shaking her head but, before you get up, I have not finished the question. Could you just perhaps explain a bit more to me about why the trust is such a difficult trust in allowing any sort of repair to the building or modernisation, which has meant you have had to come to the house with this very prescriptive bill?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The clause which distinguishes the trust is clause 7.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): While potentially not directly relevant, the minister can provide an answer as he sees fit. If that is his answer, he can provide it to the committee.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think it would be more appropriate to provide that answer under clause 7, which deals with the abolition of the trust in its specific sense. I do not feel that fits under the objects of the act. If we want to jump forward to that—

Ms BEDFORD: I can wait for clause 7.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Very good. Member for Florey, your third question.

Ms BEDFORD: In that case, let's talk about some exact wording here at clause 4(b), 'provide a framework for the assessment of any proposed use of Martindale Hall'. Who will be doing that and who will be responsible for approving that framework?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As this bill is drafted, the minister of the day, the minister for heritage, would approve the underpinning policies, and then any proposal to undertake something that could be described as development on the site would be approved by SCAP.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Could I have an indication from the committee about where—

Ms BEDFORD: It is obviously clause 7 for me.

Clause passed.

Clauses 5 and 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Dr CLOSE: Could the minister give examples of when a conservation park has previously been extinguished and not replaced with any new other form of protection? I accept that there is already heritage listing, but has there ever previously been an extinguishment of a conservation park? I appreciate that you probably do not have National Parks people here so you may need to do that between the houses, and that is fine.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not have specific examples. There have been examples here and there, where small components of conservation parks and national parks have been extinguished to facilitate particular land swaps and things like that. Not that long ago, I think the member for Port Adelaide and I were involved in the Flinders Ranges block, which went through both houses of parliament. That was a land swap. There was a piece of higher conservation land—block 101 or lot 101 in the Flinders Ranges—that was swapped for a lower grade area of land that had low conservation values and was swapped for a higher conservation value block. That was an issue which had been going on for many years and which had been initiated under the previous government and was much more recently passed.

I guess when it comes to the conservation park that sits around this hall, our view is that it was used as an instrument of the day to afford that building protection in 1986 when the university changed the set-up of Martindale Hall and the surrounding pastoral country and controversially sold off components of it. The use of a conservation park I think would be strongly advised against today to protect a heritage building. It was an unusual instrument, and we cannot really find anything quite like it.

While it is not unknown for heritage buildings, significant heritage buildings, to be located within a national park, normally that is a quirk of the landscape more than anything else, as opposed to the reason the instrument under the National Parks and Wildlife Act has been used. It is quite unique, and I am not completely aware of the motivations for why this occurred in 1986, but there is no conservation value within the Martindale Hall Conservation Park. There is no flora or fauna. There is no significance, aside from the built heritage, which obviously has state heritage protection, but there is no environmental significance within the paddocks and gardens that are sheathed by this conservation park status.

Our very strong view is that the protections offered under this bill are of equivalent strength, if not greater strength, to those offered by a conservation park and that the protections cannot be revoked without going to parliament and passing through both houses of parliament. The land cannot be sold from the public estate. Site-specific management policies are required to be adopted, in the same way that a park management plan is required to be adopted under the National Parks and Wildlife Act for a conservation or a national park.

The difference between the bill and the protections afforded in the conservation park are tailored to the heritage significance of Martindale Hall. The conservation park status is not tailored to the built heritage significance of Martindale Hall, and to put these protections in place and retain conservation park status would, in our view, create unnecessary duplication and layers of management policies that would not be adding anything. You would end up with a situation where this bill requires a series of management policies, and then the National Parks and Wildlife Act would require a management plan, which could be similar but which would be certainly a duplication.

We are confident that the enhanced and holistic heritage protections afforded by the bill before the house today, together with the existing strong protections of the Heritage Places Act, will provide more effective heritage protection than is currently present under the conservation park status, ensuring that management decisions are made with an appropriate and insightful heritage lens.

Ms BEDFORD: I am sure the minister is aware of what my question will be, and it relates to everything I said before, in particular: how many trusts are there around Martindale Hall, and what is so difficult in each of them that means you cannot do anything without changing it in such a rash fashion?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Our legal advice suggests there is one trust, and the interpretation of that trust requires that Martindale Hall be held essentially as a museum to demonstrate what life was like for those people who resided in and possibly worked in Martindale Hall back when it was a colonial stately home in the state. This really is very restrictive.

The member for Florey made reference to not being able to fix a leaky roof. We certainly would be able to fix a leaky roof. We have fixed the leaky roof at Martindale Hall often, and the salt damp and a whole range of other things, to the tune of between $100,000 and $200,000 per annum. The challenge is that for more significant modernisation, certainly the provision of disabled toilets and more substantial built interference, we do not believe that the trust would enable it.

Ms BEDFORD: Is this trust documented? The bill states, 'all trusts to which Martindale Hall was subject', which is plural, but there is only one trust so that should be singular. Rather than 'all trusts', it should be 'the trust to which Martindale Hall was subject'.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There is just one trust.

Ms BEDFORD: Are you going to correct that, because it says 'all trusts to which Martindale Hall was subject'. It should be 'the trust to which Martindale Hall was subject'.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am not sure which document the member refers to.

Ms BEDFORD: At clause 7(b) it states, 'all trusts to which Martindale Hall was subject'. If there is only one, should that not be singular?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Because there was uncertainty around the nature of the trust, the drafters have provided this as a catch-all term.

Ms BEDFORD: So there is only one trust. Is that a public document, and is the interpretation of this single trust not very narrow, if you cannot replace the toilet?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The trust is a legal interpretation. This is not like a trust for which you would go your solicitor and say, 'I want a trust to hold property and assets for my children,' or, 'I want to separate assets from my person in order to be protected from bankruptcy and things like that.' This is a trust that legal minds have interpreted exists through the gifting. So the act of gifting created a trust with a particular purpose. There is no written trust here. I guess this is a legal fiction, in some ways.

Ms BEDFORD: Well, that is something I did not know till now. So there is no trust as such.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Member for Florey, you have used your three questions in regard to this clause, so I will unfortunately have to pull you up.

Dr CLOSE: I understand from an interview that the minister did last week on the ABC about this that he would release the Crown advice. If the trust itself does not exist in document form, you would release the Crown advice saying what it interprets the trust to mean and the limitations it puts on the use of the hall or the changes to the hall. We have not yet seen that, so will the minister now table that, please?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have received further advice that in my enthusiasm—the legal advice does not belong to me. The legal advice was generated by the previous government through an instruction to the Solicitor-General. That advice is privileged and sits between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, so it cannot be released because it is not mine, as the Minister for Environment and Water, to release. It was legal advice obtained by someone else.

Dr CLOSE: Will the minister, before this is considered in the upper house, seek that advice himself so that he will be in a position to release it?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That is something I will look into because it was certainly my intention to be able to provide the advice or a summary thereof. I will seek advice on whether I can do that or not, in completely good faith.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Ms BEDFORD: The heading of part 3 reads, 'Management of land and moveable items' and it says, 'the Crown may not sell or grant the fee simple of any land forming part of Martindale Hall', but it says nothing about moveable items. So, if there is nothing about moveable items, why have you put moveable items in the title of part 3?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Because those are listed in the requirements under the policies, the heritage conservation policy and the material contents policy, which are a requirement under clause 10—Minister to prepare policies. Those are the policies.

Ms BEDFORD: Where in this bill is the protection for the moveable items, of which there are several hundred one would think.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Clause 10(1)(b) requires a material contents policy dealing with the matters set out in schedule 2, so there is the broader heritage conservation policy and then there is one that focuses on the moveable material contents that are part of the house's heritage fabric. I should also say that clause 11 deals with the adoption of the material contents policy and considers whether any moveable items, including items of furniture and contents, should be included in the South Australian Heritage Register, which is immediately a layer of protection beyond the material contents policy.

Ms BEDFORD: Is there a list of the movable items from Martindale Hall anywhere?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, there is a list. There has been an audit done of these items, but I guess the motivation behind having a material contents policy would solidify that list and make sure it was in its complete form and formed a key part of the protection for the site.

Clause passed.

Clause 10.

Dr CLOSE: The bill is asking us to create an act that asks the minister to prepare policies. I have questions about the matters that are set out in schedule 1, which are about what the heritage conservation policy in clause 10 must do. I seek the guidance of the Chair about whether I ask those questions here.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): I believe they are relevant.

Dr CLOSE: So here?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Cowdrey): Yes.

Dr CLOSE: My question is why we have not been able to define the heritage values in the piece of legislation. This bill says that the minister must prepare policies as soon as practicable on a heritage conservation policy dealing with matters referred to in schedule 1 and schedule 1 says that there must be a heritage conservation policy that defines the heritage values of Martindale Hall.

I think that people would be far more relaxed about the good intent of this bill if that work had already been done and if this bill in fact defined, perhaps not exclusively, perhaps not exhaustively, the heritage values that this bill is seeking to protect and that the process of consulting, communicating and engaging with the community that would have led to that might then have created greater goodwill within the community to see this piece of legislation supported rather than opposed.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do appreciate the deputy leader's sentiment here. There is a heritage list and the heritage values sit under that listing. They are 33 pages in length. That obviously varies when a building is listed. The heritage values from any building are probably quite short but, because of the significance of Martindale Hall and the history thereof, there has been a great deal of effort put into defining the heritage values under the heritage listing for this building and as a consequence we have a very detailed set of values, which would be onerous to put into the bill itself but would form the key contents of the heritage conservation policy.

Dr CLOSE: Another part of the concern that has been raised with me is that, while the minister is required to prepare a policy, as we have just canvassed, dealing with the heritage values that then exist somewhere else again, the minister, in subclause (2), may subsequently alter any policy prepared under this section. So is there anything in this legislation that defines the limits to the way in which that policy could be altered?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Any changes to this document, under this current bill, would be vested in the minister but you would have to still go through the required consultation process which would require consultation with affected parties including the Heritage Council, local government, in this case the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council, and other stakeholders.

Expanding on that, in preparing the policy, the minister would be required to have regard to the advice of the South Australian Heritage Council, a body established for the protection of heritage, currently chaired by Keith Conlon. I am also required to consult with the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council and other affected parties.

Finally, the policies will be publicly available once adopted. The usual administrative review mechanisms will also remain available to any interested person concerned about the decisions made in adopting a particular policy. I remain confident that these various checks and balances, which are associated with many heritage-listed buildings across the state, will ensure the veracity of any policy adopted under this bill.

Dr CLOSE: The checks and balances are procedural only, though. They do not have any substance because, although the minister must consult with the Heritage Council, the minister is not bound by any advice that is given by the Heritage Council. Indeed, it is sort of ironic that there is more requirement in the bill to undertake consultation than the consultation that has occurred to generate this bill. The local government council has not been officially consulted. The Heritage Council may have been, but I have no evidence of what they have advised on it.

I guess I am just seeking clarity that I have understood this clause, and this bill indeed, that in effect this does not require the minister to make any decision on the content of the policy, not the process of asking people their views, but the content of the policy is not defined in any way other than the protection that already exists under the heritage listing of the building. There is no particular thing than can or cannot happen to that, other than the not selling, that is defined in this bill. This is only process and it is not process that binds the minister to take any particular advice but only to seek it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader's characterisation of that would be correct. I do want to say, though, there has been a very substantial amount of consultation undertaken, both formal and informal, and conversations with a whole range of heritage-based stakeholders over a lengthy period of time. This legislation was in vast part developed under the previous government during which consultation occurred, and I have seen the outcomes of perhaps not all, but a significant part of that consultation back in 2017.

The main stumbling block for community support at that time was certainly the idea that the legislation, as developed by the previous government, contemplated the sale of the property. That has been removed. I would say that was on the feedback from the community. But, in consulting on the future of Martindale Hall, it was really the government's decision to move forward with this legislation. It was prompted by conversations and written feedback from the regional development authority, one of the tourism bodies and the Clare and Gilbert Valleys Council.

Ms BEDFORD: While I obviously have to accept the minister is acting in goodwill and always has, I have had a long interest in Martindale Hall and I knew nothing about this until a couple of weeks ago, which is again no-one's fault, I guess. I did not like the previous bill under the former government, so I do not like this much either. It really has not given me a lot of time to ask questions about it, but I would like the ministers to perhaps tell me the difference between this property and Carrick Hill.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: In a physical sense?

Ms BEDFORD: If we are talking about a building of significance given to the state on a plot of land, that is kind of the same. So what is the difference between Carrick Hill and Martindale Hall?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not feel qualified at all to make comments on the physical characteristics of the two buildings. Both buildings are, however, state heritage protected, as you would expect, and afforded very similar protections under the pieces of legislation that look after them both.

The difference is that Carrick Hill has a board of trustees that looks after it, and it is not envisaged under this bill that that would be the case for Martindale Hall. The protection and the heritage values would be managed from the Department for Environment and Water. Carrick Hill is not a building under the ownership of the Minister for Environment and Water; it sits, I think, with the Minister for the Arts, but I could be corrected on that.

Ms BEDFORD: There seem to be some significant resemblances, in that they are both buildings, both given to the state, both on plots of land. As it may be, we will look into that separately and of course between the houses. In subclause (9)(d) it says 'any other persons or bodies who the Minister thinks would have an interest'. How would your thought processes decide who would have an interest in this? Would it have to be a large body? Can it be an individual or group of individuals? Who is going to have the opportunity to speak about it? Does 'affected' mean they have to have some special interest in the building?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It could be seen in two lights, I guess; one would be a legal interest, someone who had a lease or an ownership right in and around the property. The other option could be someone with a particular interest or a body with a particular interest in heritage protection, and the National Trust of South Australia springs to mind. There may be other organisations in the local community, such as a progress association, a residents association or a tourism entity and the like. I do not think I am not able define that any further, but it is designed to capture a broader section of interest, from the legal side of things and that broader interested stakeholder side of things.

Ms BEDFORD: Is there any particular reason why the National Trust could not be inserted here as an affected party in much the same way as you have included the councils and the Heritage Council?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not see any technical reason why. Obviously, the National Trust had made an unsolicited bid for this property in the past. So I suppose, on the legal side of that argument, they would inevitably have an interest. If not, they would be captured by the interested stakeholder side of things. But I do not necessarily see why you could not prescribe the National Trust as the peak body for heritage protection and an interest in heritage in this state. Perhaps that is an amendment that could be explored between the houses.

Clause passed.

Clause 11.

Ms BEDFORD: This gets back to our movable items list. Will there be a list released? Will people be able to see what items are on the movable items list?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The two policies will be on the public record, probably via the Heritage SA website or some other similar platform. Both the heritage conservation policy and the material items policy would be public documents.

Ms BEDFORD: Just to clarify, that does not exist now but it will shortly?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: If this legislation is passed, it will be generated as soon as possible, as the legislation requires. What has been done to date is an audit of material items in the building and, obviously, that is a working document used by Heritage SA and my department as the department that has care and control of the building to keep an eye on material items within the property.

Ms BEDFORD: Is there any sort of time line envisaged? It is not going to waffle off into the distance. Is it going to be soon?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The legislation, as written, requires the minister to do that as soon as practicably possible and certainly before going out to market or tender. If we were going out to market or out to tender to ask for people to express interest in a future use for this building, this legislation requires those two main policies—the heritage conservation policy and the materials policy—to be developed and finalised and in the public domain, and in all likelihood provided to interested parties, as part of a market process prior to even proceeding down that route.

Clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 16 passed.

Clause 17.

Ms BEDFORD: What would this access agreement look like?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I mentioned earlier that I think that would vary quite considerably depending on the various uses proposed as part of a market-led process. We are dealing with different entities here. We are dealing with open space and land, parkland essentially—fairly manicured parkland—around the site. We are dealing with outbuildings, particularly the coach-house. We are dealing with the anchor site, in my mind, Martindale Hall itself. That level of public access could vary very significantly between the various components of the land here, and that is something that we would work through as part of a negotiation with a private or not-for-profit entity.

I have been very clear that I think a very high level of public access should be required for this building. Currently, public access, depending on the time of year—I do not want to be overly specific here—is at least six days a week, maybe slightly less in winter. That is something that we would have to negotiate with potential lessees for each component of the site, if not the whole site. You might obviously have a much higher level of public access to the hall itself as the anchor site than the coach-house, bearing in mind that the coach-house has no public access in 2021, unless by special request. Unless you were a particular heritage expert—

Ms Bedford: Buff.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —or buff, you might not want to go to the coach-house because there is not much there.

Ms BEDFORD: Subclause (2) also mentions a payment of fee. I wander onto the land around Martindale Hall freely now whenever I like when the gate is open at the front. I would be a bit worried you might want a fee for me just to wander around. I have looked through the coach-house cracks as much as anybody in this state, and I find it a really interesting place to visit without gaining access to it. The question is that I am a bit concerned about a fee being included at that point.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: A fee is obviously currently payable to enter the hall itself.

Ms Bedford: Not the grounds.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Not the grounds but the hall. Again, I do not want to mislead the committee, but I think it is $15 for an adult. There has been for a long period of time a fee to enter the house. There might be a business proposition for a cafe in the coach-house. I do not imagine that you would have to pay to enter the cafe, but there might be a reasonable expectation that you would buy a muffin and a cup of tea. I cannot foresee a situation where you would be charged at the gate to walk around the grounds.

Ms Bedford: You can or you can't?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I can't. Sorry, that is my accent, member for Florey.

Ms Bedford: I just wanted to be careful it was on the record.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, c-a-n-apostrophe-t—can't imagine. I cannot see that being part of this because we have the house, which is probably the most interesting site, we have that part of the site and we have the stables, which lend themselves very naturally to some sort of adaptive re-use, where there might be a business enterprise there.

People in the past have pitched wellness retreat ideas. I think the National Trust saw in their proposal a cafe or a restaurant. I am not sure if that was in the coach-house or to be built in a modern building alongside. There would be different elements of this site, but general public access to be able to walk around and appropriately peak through the cracks—hopefully, there are not too many cracks—would be anticipated by me.

Ms BEDFORD: They are close to the ground, so there will be no water getting in through them. I guess that is fine while we have a minister such as you with good intent, but what if we do not have a minister with good intent? How are we to protect the public's right to go onto the land? Of course, this is about access to the land. It is free of charge at the moment, and you are building in here capacity to have a fee while you are still in the chair, but I am worried about the next incumbent.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I cannot create a situation where there is not some flexibility here for businesses enterprises to be profitable or for not-for-profit exercises to be able to generate some sort of income from this site. The capacity to create a fee is mentioned in here to create certainty around the ability to generate income from the site. It is largely intended, in my mind, for the hall itself, which is a replication of the situation that occurs today, in June 2021.

Importantly, because there are so many different potential uses for parts of this site, I do not think you can be overly prescriptive at this stage. I like to think that a minister of any political persuasion and of any individual persuasion when it comes to matters of heritage would want this site to be open for the public to view and enjoy, and that includes the general grounds around Martindale Hall.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (18 to 22), schedules and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (17:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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