HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

The CHAIR: Member for Heysen, you do not have the call. I am just letting you know that you have actually used up your three.

Mr TEAGUE: It is highly supplementary.

The CHAIR: No, you need to resume your seat, member.

Clause passed.

Clause 12.

Mr TELFER: My legislation is well dog-eared by this stage indeed. I have some good notes in this copy. The duties of the Registrar-General, I would not suspect I would have comprehensive questions on this, and I will not be continuing to ask too many questions on this.

I am interested in subclause (2)(a), where there is a requirement for the minister to furnish the Registrar-General with any map or plan required by the Registrar-General to give effect to the determination or action. Does the minister envision that there will be a more detailed map or plan required by the Registrar-General to give effect to the determination or action than the one that has been provided to us in schedule 1?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think the short answer is yes. Obviously, as I think we have previously discussed, we have provided the opposition with some more detailed maps and information already. The advice we have had is that the map that has been provided and included in the legislation is the appropriate form for legislation but, as far as the Registrar-General is concerned, there would be a detailed surveying map, which will be consistent with the legislation and which would be provided.

Mrs HURN: I have a question in relation to clause 12(2)(b), which reads:

(b) furnish the Registrar-General with any document required by the Registrar-General in relation to the determination or action.

I am interested to know what that actually means in practical terms. Where it says 'any document required', what are some of the documents that are required by the Registrar-General? If the minister could elaborate on that, it would be enormously beneficial because that is one of the questions I have wanted to ask. I have been waiting to get to clause 12 for that specific question.

What documents would be required by the Registrar-General in relation to the determination or action in the context, of course, of this Women's and Children's Hospital bill? Subclause (1) provides:

(1) The Registrar-General will, at the direction of the minister, take such action as may be required by the minister for or in connection with—

(a) the issue, alteration, correction or cancellation of certificates or other documents of title…

What types of certificates would be cancelled in relation to this bill? It also states that the Registrar-General will, at the direction of the minister, take such action as may be required by the minister for or in connection with:

(b) the making, recording, alteration, correction or cancellation of entries…

What entries would need to be cancelled in relation to this subclause, and what certificates would need to be cancelled in relation to this subclause? That would be particularly helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There were about four questions there; hopefully, I have them all. Essentially, this is about making sure that the register reflects what has happened following the passage of this legislation. The advice I have is that this is generally consistent with other pieces of legislation where there is management of land, that you will find provisions, if not identical then somewhat similar to this, in other pieces of legislation.

In relation to the documents that are required, it could well be something like the minister's determination. There are various points within this act at which a minister makes a determination, so it may well be the document that the minister makes that determination on. In relation to the cancellation of entries, etc., this is really just to make sure that the register reflects the implementation of this act. This has been consulted on with the Registrar-General, and this has been requested to make sure that those administrative functions can be reflected.

Mr TELFER: Whose name, or names if it is multiple titles, is on the current title for this piece of land?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We will double-check, but we believe it is in relation to the South Australian police. We will check whether that is in relation to the Minister for Police or in the name of the South Australian police.

There being a disturbance in the Strangers Gallery:

The CHAIR: Excuse me, in the gallery, you can listen, but you cannot interrupt the chamber or else you will be asked to leave.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We understand it is in relation to the Adelaide City Council as well.

Mr TEAGUE: It is well to maintain an even keel in the course of navigating this bill, but it is also well to remind ourselves as we traverse through it just how extraordinary it really is. In respect of individual powers that are being devolved to the minister in different ways for the purposes of the construction, I think it is already on the record that there is certainly another way of going about this, vis-a-vis consultation with the community in a number of ways. There certainly is scope for separately providing by other legislation for activities that are really ancillary, at best, to the business of the building of the hospital and that includes the subject matter of clause 10.

The best I can say about clause 12 is that, yes, it is unremarkable insofar as, when you are in the context of this bill, you say, 'Yes, you better have a Registrar-General clause so the minister can go ahead and make those directions.' So, within the context of this bill, the clause is unremarkable, but it is a bit like someone who has had the good fortune to go ahead and specify all the individual fit-out for some sort of bespoke luxury construction: by the time you have got nine-tenths of the way down the track, of course you are going to chuck in the final bling at the end.

It is unsurprising that clause 12 is here. The minister is going to need the machinery of the Registrar-General in terms of these functions but, again in the context of a parliamentary committee process, I ask the minister to provide some indication of the scope—it is a planning bill, after all—of anticipated 'issue, alteration, correction or cancellation of certificates or other documents of title' that will occur or are anticipated to occur in the course of the operation of the bill. Can the minister give the house even the slightest particular indication of what that might constitute?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for Heysen for his question. I again reiterate what I said previously: the advice is that this is largely administrative. Some examples that have been suggested to me are that ultimately at the conclusion of this project, where you end up with the new hospital constructed across what could be currently multiple titles, they could be merged to form a new title. Where the road is widened, it may alter the title in relation to where the road starts and finishes, making sure, through the process of the construction of this, that ultimately, at the end of the process, the titles reflect where the new boundaries essentially are formed.

In relation to the previous question in relation to the ownership, we are double-checking this, and if we do not have it for the committee stage then we can follow it up later. There may also be land that is owned by the Crown as well that is part of the project site, but we are just double-checking in relation to those exact ownerships—but certainly between the government, whether it is the Crown or SA Police, but potentially also Adelaide City Council.

Mr TEAGUE: Might clause 12 also have work to do in connection with the necessary vesting of land pursuant to the operation of clause 10? Is that an example of where, if you end up slicing out a prescribed area of the Parklands, you are going to need to create a new certificate of title, and the minister—that is, our heroic singular minister as opposed to the relevant minister for the purposes of clause 10—is going to have to go about saying, 'I'm handing over to you, police minister, this area of the Parklands and, as a result, I'm going to first direct the Registrar-General to issue a certificate of title in relation to that land as it may be described for that purpose'?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Potentially, yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 13.

Mr TELFER: I would like to move amendments Nos 5 and 6 under my name together.

The CHAIR: Because No. 6 is consequential on No. 5; is that correct?

Mr TELFER: Nos 5 and 6 are absolutely consequential on each other. I move:

Amendment No 5 [Telfer–1]—

Page 8, after line 18—Insert:

(1a) The State Heritage Council must—

(a) prepare a report making recommendations as to actions that should be taken to ameliorate the effect of the project on any State Heritage Place or State Heritage Area within the project site; and

(b) provide a copy of the report to the Minister.

(1b) The Minister may cause copies of the report prepared under subsection (1a) to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

Amendment No 6 [Telfer–1]—

Page 8, line 19 [clause 13(2)]—Delete 'On the commencement of this subsection' and substitute:

On the expiration of the period commencing on the day on which the report is tabled in the House of Assembly under subsection (1b) and ending on the 6th sitting day of the House of Assembly after that tabling of the report

In doing so, I think we have taken a little bit of time to get our way to clause 13. I think clause 13 is probably where there is the most contention, angst, uncertainty and community interest of all the clauses we have been discussing, debating and questioning throughout this process.

My amendments, particularly amendments Nos 5 and 6 to clause 13, provide a mechanism to provide transparency relating to the state heritage listing. It refers the matter to the state Heritage Council so that they are formally asked to prepare a report on how to ameliorate the loss of the state heritage items on the site. Only once the report has been prepared and tabled in parliament can the items be removed from the state Heritage Register. The clauses are that after line 18, we insert:

(1a) The State Heritage Council must—

(a) prepare a report making recommendations as to actions that should be taken to ameliorate the effect of the project on any State Heritage Place or State Heritage Area within the project site; and

(b) provide a copy of the report to the Minister.

(1b) The Minister may cause copies of the report prepared under subsection (1a) to be tabled in each House of Parliament.

Then amendment No. 6:

Amendment No 6 [Telfer–1]—

Page 8, line 19 [clause 13(2)]—Delete 'On the commencement of this subsection' and substitute:

On the expiration of the period commencing on the day on which the report is tabled in the House of Assembly under subsection (1b) and ending on the 6th sitting day of the House of Assembly after that tabling of the report

As I said, this clause, and this piece of legislation, is the one I believe has the largest ramifications for what may happen next. To have the existing proposal at subclause (2), as follows, sets a dangerous precedent:

(a) any State Heritage Place within the project site is taken to cease being a State Heritage Place; and

(b) any State Heritage Area within the project site is taken to cease being a State Heritage Area

I note the words from the minister earlier on in this debate were that 'health trumps heritage'. Heritage laws are in place for a reason because without heritage laws in place there is a risk that we, as a society, will have a lesser outcome for future generations without the insight into sustaining and prolonging the heritage we have.

The minister says that health trumps heritage, but the worry for me is: what else will then trump heritage? If we set a precedent that health can trump heritage, what is going to be next? Is it going to be the next whim of the Premier or the Minister for Health or indeed the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport or any other minister who sits on the front bench. Maybe their whim or their piece of infrastructure that they think is important might then trump heritage.

There is a dangerous precedent that can be set by this clause in particular and the amendments Nos 5 and 6 that I am putting at the moment and that I commend to the house are a mechanism to provide transparency and a bit of certainty that the Heritage Act in particular is not going to be undermined on the whim of a minister or a premier and try to ensure that there is a proper process that is followed.

To ensure that the state Heritage Council in particular has an insight and is able to provide a report so that the decision-makers who make decisions that impact our heritage in South Australia actually know what the real impact of their decisions is going to be on heritage, I really do commend these amendments to the house. I encourage the government to think strongly about not just the fact that you can spout off a sentence that health trumps heritage but that we need to make sure we are getting the balance right when it comes to heritage in our state.

Mr TEAGUE: I rise to endorse the amendments moved by the member for Flinders. I observe in the context of this particular part of the bill and, as we have come to clause 13, the observations of the Heritage Council, adverted to by the member for Flinders just now, and to draw attention at this part of the record to the South Australian Heritage Council's letter to the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, dated 13 October 2022 and signed by Keith Conlon, Chair of the South Australian Heritage Council, because it is quite profound in its terms as it relates particularly to clause 13, and I quote:

The Council expresses serious concern about the demolition of the State Heritage listed precinct which includes ten significant heritage buildings and its original parade ground.

Demolition of State Heritage Places has been extremely rare. No Government, as far as we are aware, has demolished a confirmed State Heritage Place in its entirety before, let alone a whole precinct. Heritage protection law has been upheld for more than four decades in this State.

Council is extremely concerned about the precedent this Government's decision sets for the future.

Mrs HURN: I rise to offer support and a bit of commentary around these amendments and use it as an opportunity again to get on the record that this is not a debate of health or heritage or this confected idea that there is a choice; in fact, far from it. We support heritage, we support health, but this is typical of a government that just wants to have these fake fights. I think that is really disappointing, which is exactly why we have put forward yet again another commonsense measure. This is a commonsense measure so we can improve transparency when it comes to the heritage in South Australia. I think that is only a good thing for this parliament to at least consider in a cursory manner.

I will say it again that we unequivocally support a Women's and Children's Hospital, but that is not at all what this bill is about. This bill is not about a Women's and Children's Hospital, nor is it about the services that this is going to provide to women and children in South Australia: this is a planning bill, it is a heritage bill, it is a police minister's bill. That is why we are putting forward yet again a commonsense amendment that we believe would strengthen this bill. We urge the government to consider it in the short time they have.

The committee divided on the amendments:

Ayes 11

Noes 22

Majority 11

AYES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Hurn, A.M. (teller) McBride, P.N.
Pederick, A.S. Pratt, P.K. Tarzia, V.A.
Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J.

NOES

Andrews, S.E. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I.
Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D. Cook, N.F.
Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K.
Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J. (teller) Savvas, O.M.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L.
Wortley, D.J.

PAIRS

Speirs, D.J. Bettison, Z.L. Pisoni, D.G.
Close, S.E. Whetstone, T.J. Brock, G.G.
Marshall, S.S. Clancy, N.P. Patterson, S.J.R.
Malinauskas, P.B.

Amendments thus negatived.

The CHAIR: Member for Flinders, you have a further amendment?

Mr TELFER: I move:

Amendment No 7 [Telfer–1]—

Page 8, after line 25—Insert:

(2a) The Minister must ensure that any buildings comprised in the former mounted police barracks complex (being buildings that are removed from the South Australian Heritage Register under subsection (2)) that are dismantled are reconstructed at another suitable location.

I am a new member to this place, and I am aware of the process that was followed previously. The words 'at another suitable location' really do follow the precedence of the process that was followed previously under the previous government, especially in the context of the Waite Gatehouse.

As I said when I was presenting my first set of amendments, this should not be a debate around health versus heritage: this should be a debate around what is the true value of heritage in our state. There is a reason that there is a state Heritage Council in place and there is a reason that we have heritage legislation. If there was not, then it would not be necessary to have this sort of arrangement in place.

There is a South Australian Heritage Register for a reason. There are heritage areas and heritage places for a reason. This is not a debate about a hospital versus a heritage spot. This amendment really does recognise there are different opportunities to manage what changes might need to be made to an area of heritage. I am disappointed that we are at this point where we are having to put forward this amendment, but this is one that I believe should be supported by the house.

Mr TEAGUE: In speaking in support of the amendment, I indicate that there is a well-understood series of stages of heritage maintenance and preservation. The Burra Charter informs that, and we are no strangers to the preservation of heritage by a variety of means in this state. It is well that we take a moment to reflect on that important consideration of heritage structure because certainly we should not be undertaking this debate in some sort of binary way or, as has been reflected upon, some kind of fake fights, one or the other way.

If we are to maturely navigate this territory, it is important to observe that there is a grading of preservation that is well recognised, including by the Heritage Council. First on the list is the one that has occurred plenty of times over the course of recent decades in this state and in other areas, where a recognised heritage place is re-used and sensitively so, Lot Fourteen style. There are many examples in which, over the passing of time, the original use of the building is moved along to suit the needs from time to time that change over the years.

Heritage well recognises that sensitive re-use is preserving heritage status. That was very much the outcome of the planning decision I signed at the end of last year, for example, in relation to these very buildings. It contemplated the sensitive re-use of the buildings in accord with their heritage values. That is one scenario.

If, as we are to deal with the reality of this bill, we are to contemplate circumstances in which the site location renders consequent not the re-use of the buildings following their vacating by police but their necessary demolition, then we will hear the Heritage Council saying loud and clear that recognised next best preservation of heritage in those circumstances involves the reconstruction of the buildings in a suitable location to preserve their structure.

The point might be made that again this is a matter of practicality and gradation. If you are going to see something as dramatic as the demolition of a building, let alone a whole precinct, you go about it in a very careful and sensitive way and you preserve heritage in that next best way by that reconstruction in an appropriate place. That stepwise approach to heritage preservation has the recognition of the charter, the council and so on, and should not be regarded as, 'Baby's out with the bathwater once and for all. Don't enter into any further correspondence.'

Of course, we have the very thoughtful and thoroughgoing contribution of the Heritage Council in its letter to the minister dated 13 October. Insofar as it is not addressing that particular outcome, it is nonetheless setting out the landscape of activity that ought to properly flow when dealing with the demolition of heritage structures.

In briefly endorsing the amendment proposed by the member for Flinders, I will save for perhaps a bit later on the opportunity to flesh out what those particular steps are that are recommended by the council, but it is well just to underscore the appropriate adherence to heritage values associated with the proposal that is the subject of the member for Flinders' amendment.

The CHAIR: I will take that as a contribution.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 10

Noes 22

Majority 12

AYES

Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Cowdrey, M.J.
Gardner, J.A.W. Hurn, A.M. (teller) Pederick, A.S.
Pratt, P.K. Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B.
Telfer, S.J.

NOES

Andrews, S.E. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I.
Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D. Cook, N.F.
Fulbrook, J.P. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P.
Hughes, E.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Koutsantonis, A.
Michaels, A. Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K.
Pearce, R.K. Picton, C.J. (teller) Savvas, O.M.
Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Thompson, E.L.
Wortley, D.J.

PAIRS

Patterson, S.J.R. Malinauskas, P.B. Pisoni, D.G.
Bettison, Z.L. Marshall, S.S. Close, S.E.
Whetstone, T.J. Brock, G.G. Speirs, D.J.
Clancy, N.P.

Amendment thus negatived.

Mr TELFER: As I spoke about earlier, I think this is one of the most important clauses of this piece of legislation. It might be a joke to those in government, who are hamming it up throughout this process, but I am frankly disappointed.

The CHAIR: We have been doing pretty well now. Let's try to keep it parliamentary.

Mr TELFER: I am pretty disappointed at the carry-on when considering amendments that are pretty important when it comes to the future of heritage in our state. The process that has been followed here—clause 13 in particular, talking about any State Heritage Place within the project site being taken to cease and any state heritage area within the project area being taken to cease—is a discouraging and amazing process to me to be going through.

What other development might we consider that will start to follow this same process? If there is a State Heritage Place that is in the road of a development, is that going to cease being a State Heritage Place? Likewise, is any State Heritage Area going to cease being a State Heritage Area and all those other places and areas within the project site that are taken to have been removed from the South Australian Heritage Register? It is a confronting and disappointing precedent when we are looking at this process.

My question to the minister is a pretty simple one: numerically, how many different state heritage places and State Heritage Areas are going to cease being state heritage places and areas throughout this process and thus will be lost to our state as areas of state heritage?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: As has been publicly articulated during both this debate and elsewhere, this is very specific legislation in relation to this specific site, so this is very specific in terms of the project site itself. There is no overall change to the heritage legislation. This is clearly a difficult decision that has had to be made in relation to the heritage on that site, but we have taken the view that it is a decision that has been made for the best interests of the state overall—the best long-term interests—and that is why we are seeking the permission and the support for this from the parliament.

Mr TEAGUE: I want to make some observations about the new reality we now will confront in terms of characterising state heritage here in South Australia. Let's be very clear about what is going on. This is a matter for everyone to contemplate because we need to continue to chart a course over the years and decades to come.

The concept of a State Heritage Place is not something that came with the dawn of time or anything; it was a status, an appreciation, a designation that came along at a time when it was regarded as important that we set in a really very uniquely permanent place rules for the preservation and maintenance of those structures that are important to signify evidence and provide a living example for those who are here now and into the future of our state's heritage, particularly of those structures that have been established over the course of the state's history.

It is not something that just exists on its own. It is not something that will just be preserved with a minor exception that comes along and is somehow, by definition, the one and only departure from the rule. This is really one of those situations where it is appropriate to reflect on what these values mean for us and what the purpose of a State Heritage Place really is. I am sure that in the context of the passage of this bill, should it pass the parliament in the form that it is presently drafted, then those members of the South Australian Heritage Council I am sure will be reflecting—and, in light of what the state Heritage Council has already advised the minister a month ago anticipating this outcome—on an event that is unprecedented in this state.

It is rare enough that there be a carving out of as yet undisclosed portions of the Parklands—east, west, north, south, who knows—but we learnt from the state Heritage Council that so far as it is aware it is an unprecedented event to demolish a confirmed State Heritage Place in its entirety, let alone a whole precinct. I think there is no doubting, when you contemplate the demolition of 10 buildings, all of which enjoy state heritage status and all of which have a common character, then you are contemplating the destruction of a precinct.

These are barracks that were constructed in 1917 pursuant to the second of those acts that the minister has adverted to in the course of the debate and pursuant to the 1913 and 1917 acts to accommodate the South Australian mounted police. As the state Heritage Council observed, they moved there from their premises located behind the South Australian Museum.

The South Australian mounted police cadre, established in 1838, the council observes is the oldest of its type in Australia and, with the possible exception of the Royal Irish Constabulary created by Robert Peel, is the oldest in the world. So it is not just the bricks and mortar that will be lost should there be a demolition without any further action taken, but it will be that very real human connection to that proud heritage of service by the South Australian mounted police.

We know that they were at some stage on their way to moving and certainly we look forward to the continuation of their story wherever they may next travel. But it is so important to the understanding of what is captured by that State Heritage Place to contemplate the human story associated with its history.

It is important in that context—again, I am sure that the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water is the recipient of the Heritage Council's correspondence because that minister has responsibility for heritage in this state—for the minister for heritage to adhere to those entreaties of the council in relation to what steps ought to be taken that relate to capturing the heritage in the course of the process of demolition should that occur and it extends to the archaeological investigations that properly, in accord with heritage process, can and ought to be applied to the site.

The South Australian Heritage Council has more and practical detail working through of those steps that ought to be taken to record all the buildings and to capture the contents and then to take full advantage of the archaeological discovery that may be afforded by the process of demolition.

So there should be no sense in which the government, in going about this process, simply looks at it in binary terms or simply says, 'We have this open slather to go ahead and demolish the buildings, so that is the end of the story.' There is important practical work to be done and the more faithful that engagement is with the South Australian Heritage Council and others who are concerned with that preservation, may I say the less damage associated with the operation of this clause.

Clause passed.

Clause 14.

Mr TELFER: Obviously this is not in number of words a very complex clause. I am curious, minister; it states:

No fees or charges are payable to The Corporation of the City of Adelaide in respect of the exercise of functions under this Act.

If this clause were not to pass, what fees or charges would be payable to the Corporation of the City of Adelaide in respect of the exercise of functions under this act?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am advised that the Adelaide City Council has a number of fees in relation to construction zones that would apply to part of the project site, being fees of 35¢ per square metre per day. Obviously, with the significant site and significant time of construction, the advice we have is that could add up very considerably in terms of fees that would have to be payable. We believe that money would be better spent in terms of both the project and other purposes for the state.

Mr TELFER: So this amount, the construction fees of 35¢ per square metre per day, is the amount that any other construction within the City of Adelaide boundaries would be paying ordinarily?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, that is the advice I have.

Mrs HURN: In relation to this clause, 'No fees or charges are payable to The Corporation of the City of Adelaide in respect of the exercise of functions under this Act,' if the minister could further elaborate on what some of the current fees and charges would be if this clause were not included, that would be particularly helpful. I know that there has been some cursory touching on it in the answer to the former member. I do seem to recall the reference to 35¢ per square metre per day was a reference made in the briefing and certainly throughout the course of this debate. What was the advice given to the minister as to why this clause even needed to be considered as part of this act? That would be helpful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I reiterate my answer to the member for Flinders. It is a very good memory from the member for Schubert. In terms of our previous briefing, I did reiterate to the member for Flinders that 35¢ per square metre per day is the relevant fee that is applied, as we understand, in relation to construction zones. It would apply to part of the project site, which would add up considerably.

Mr TELFER: In consideration of this clause in particular and the fact that the government has decided that a recompense to the City of Adelaide of 35¢ per square metre per day is not something that the state government is wishing to be paying, is there any other recompense, or arrangements that are going to be put in place, to recognise that there is going to be a disadvantage to the City of Adelaide throughout the process? Is there any other recompense that the state government is looking at instigating for the City of Adelaide?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: No, I do not believe so.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps for the record, the minister might catalogue examples—there may be others in the near precinct—of developments that have had the same treatment applied to them.

The CHAIR: Can I clarify that when you say developments in the near precinct, is that government developments or non-government developments?

Mr TEAGUE: It needs to be, necessarily; I think so. It is a good point, Chair. I will perhaps broaden it out.

The CHAIR: No, if you broaden it out, it is beyond the scope of the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: No, it is not.

The CHAIR: Hold on.

Mr TEAGUE: I am with you.

The CHAIR: Sorry, I make that ruling: you do not, until you are sitting in this chair. What the minister is answerable for is this bill, and it is reasonable for you to ask questions about what the cost is to the government on this project. Beyond that, it is beyond the bill.

Mr TEAGUE: Okay.

The CHAIR: I am just clarifying that for you.

Mr TEAGUE: The reason it is not is that your proposition is well made and I adopt it. I ask then a question that is more fully reflected in all the words of clause 14 no more and no less. In what catalogue of circumstances, and the minister might include government or otherwise, although I cannot imagine an otherwise example, is there such an arrangement in place? I just anticipate that there might be examples in the local area nearby.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We do not readily have available information on a range of other projects. I reiterate the advice that has been provided, that there are currently fees in relation to the use of Adelaide City Council space in respect of construction zones. That is 35¢ per day, I am advised, and hence the clause in relation to this bill, which is that no fees or charges be payable in relation to that.

For the benefit of members, I think a question was raised in one of our briefings about council rates as well. The advice we have received is that the current Women's and Children's Hospital site does not pay council rates. We would not expect that would apply to the new site once it is established, whether or not this clause is in there. This clause is much more about the temporary fees that would be in place, both the current ones and, I guess, any future ones that may be devised by the Adelaide City Council and put in their by-laws.

I take the opportunity to add to one of my answers on previous clauses. There was a question in relation to the exact ownership titles for the project site. As I undertook to do, we did some checking and essentially the two elements are the barracks themselves, which are under Crown ownership, under the Adelaide Parklands and with the care, control and management of SAPOL. In relation to the Kate Cocks Park to the north of the barracks, that is also Crown and it is Adelaide Parklands under the care, control and management of the City of Adelaide, dedicated for Parklands purposes.

Mr TEAGUE: Would the minister take on notice that question. The minister has adverted to the Royal Adelaide Hospital site. I had that in mind; I just did not want to prompt it. There may be others—the Convention Centre and so on—to which this exemption from fees and charges has been applied. It might be helpful for the record in due course to have an indication of the catalogue of those.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will see what information we have available. I will double-check this, as I am speaking off the top of my head, but the new Royal Adelaide Hospital site was not owned by or in the care and control of the Adelaide City Council, in the same way that some of the land that would be utilised either permanently—particularly I think temporarily in relation to some of those support zones—or would be temporarily used. I am not sure that the same applied to the Royal Adelaide Hospital because that was land that was originally the rail yards, as people will remember, so there was a transition from ownership, as I understand it, internally in government. That may not have been such a significant issue as it would be potentially in this case. We will take that away and see what information we can provide on notice.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

Mr TELFER: I note we have eventually got to clause 15, Regulations. I refer in particular to subclause (2)(e), which states:

(e) provide that a matter or thing in respect of which regulations may be made is to be determined according to the discretion of the Minister—

and then it says—

or any other specified person or body.

Firstly, who would make the specification of who that person or body is? Secondly, can the minister give an example of who that specified person or body may be?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: The advice I have from parliamentary counsel is that this is a clause that features in a number of different bills in relation to allowing regulations for powers to be subdelegated. That would be specified in the regulation, should regulation need to be made, but there was not a particular drafting instruction, etc. from the government in relation to this clause. I think it is a standard ability that therefore allows further subdelegation should that be necessary in the future. Obviously, any regulation would be subject to potential disallowance from parliament.

Mr TELFER: Thank you for the clarification. The specification of the person or body would happen through the regulation, and that regulation obviously is guided by the minister. In this case, we have discussed who that minister might be, but at the moment the assumption is that it would be the health minister?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Yes, that is correct.

Mrs HURN: In relation to the regulations, I have particular interest in relation to clause 15(2), where it states:

(2) The regulations may—

(a) modify or exclude the application of any Act (or a provision of an Act) or law in connection with the project or any other functions exercised under this Act; and

(b) be of general or limited application;

I am interested to know whether the minister can catalogue a list of those potential acts for the benefit of the chamber and if there are any that have been forgotten, any that have been listed out of the course of this bill?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: There is certainly no list because if there were something that we were aware of we would have included it in the bill. This allows that if there is something that has been identified later, then that could be included as a regulation. That would obviously be subject to the provisions of this parliament in relation to review by the Legislative Review Committee—which I am sure, sir, in your role on that committee you would give it good scrutiny when it came to you—and also the potential disallowance motion in either house of parliament.

Mr TEAGUE: I take on board the point that there is provision in the bill commonly to provide for the making of regulations. I make the observation that it is somewhat a belt and braces measure in circumstances where we have clause 4 already excluding the operation of any other act or law of the state and then more particularly operating, notwithstanding the Real Property Act, and excluding the operation of the Land Acquisition Act 1969. To then include a power for regulations to be made pursuant to this act to exclude the application of any act or law in connection with the project or any other functions draws a fairly heavy bold underline to clause 4.

I hear the minister indicating that, if the government could have thought of anything else to exclude, it would have spelled it out in clause 4. Is it the correct understanding to interpret that in terms of, 'We gave it our best shot in clause 4 to exclude everything more particularly, as set out there, but just in case we forgot any then our intent is to exclude that as well to ensure that there's complete carte blanche for the purposes of implementing the operation of the bill'?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: We obviously are dealing somewhat with hypotheticals, given we are not sure what the circumstances could be, but it may well be a situation where there is not a direct conflict with another piece of legislation that is identified but a lack of clarity, for instance, and where further clarity could be drawn by having a regulation that is put in place in the future.

As I said before, this is being put in place to make sure that, if there were those circumstances in the future, there was an ability to have a regulation that could provide that clarity. That would obviously be subject to the oversight of the parliament through the standard regulation process.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr TELFER: This is the moment I have been waiting for—to get to schedule 1. Once again, the anticipation has been the most enjoyable part, and that is why we have taken such a prolonged period of time. Obviously, there is not a lot of detail within this schedule 1, and I look forward to a more detailed map of the project site and support zones, etc. as time goes along.

We look at the support zone that enters in off Port Road on the northern side of Bonython Park and wanders its way around through the site as a whole. I cannot quite tell with the 50-metre scale measurement, but do you know, minister, exactly what the width of that support zone is as it wanders around the edge of Bonython Park and through?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: When the member says, 'I look forward to a more exact map,' I reiterate again that we have provided to the Leader of the Opposition—

Mrs Hurn interjecting:

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: —I will get to that—the member for Schubert and also the Hon. Michelle Lensink another map that does provide some level of greater detail, but perhaps not to the level of specificity, the level of detail, the member for Flinders requires in relation to the exact width of those distances. We will have to take that on notice. It may well be too late for the committee stage of this parliament, but we can provide some detail on that at a later date.

It is worth just pointing out that that is obviously part of the support zone. We have talked a bit about that 'lower case' road before in terms of the idea being that we need to provide access to the Gaol. There may well need to be some works as part of that road to make sure that that is an appropriate avenue for vehicles to traverse.

Mr TEAGUE: For the purpose of the committee, can I ask at the outset a rather straightforward question. I do not mean to refer to this diagram in a pejorative way at all, but rather just in the context of this planning act, which at some point fairly soon is going to need to be pretty precise in terms of the land area and the different zones and all the rest of it that it is affecting.

We are presented with what we have been describing throughout the debate as a mud map of the site and it is useful for that purpose, notwithstanding those perhaps somewhat more elegant artistic impressions that were the subject of the 1913 act and the 1917 act for example. Clearly it is not meant to serve as more than a ready reckoner, a visual comparator, for the purpose of somebody looking to interpret a clause in the bill.

Can the minister assure the committee that schedule 1 has no other purpose and, in the same breath, give an indication of the best present publicly available source of a proper map? If there is not one presently in circulation that satisfies the minister as to its necessary specificity, when will such a map be published?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Thank you very much for the question. Obviously, this schedule forms part of the bill, which we hope becomes an act and hence will have legal status. However, as we have already discussed, there will be more detailed maps and survey work that will be done of the exact measurements, etc., that will be finished for the various processes under the previous clauses of the bill. In terms of additional information at this stage, as I said previously, we have provided a larger map as well, overlaid against the satellite view of this section, that provides clarity in terms of those particular areas.

Mr TELFER: Following on from the answer the minister gave to my previous question, I am looking at the support zone that traverses around Bonython Park. The minister spoke about the potential for that being an access road during the construction. From my layman's glance at this, I would hazard that it probably will not be wide enough to appropriately have a two-way road in it. Does the minister have an insight into how many trees will need to be removed along this support zone thoroughfare if there is going to be access that is used for the processes that he articulated in his last answer?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Work is being done in that regard. We do not have the exact number, etc. at this stage, but I think clearly work has been done in terms of how we can maintain access to Gaol Road. There may be some turns in that road to the north of the project site, where it may be necessary to remove some trees. Obviously part of the bill is a make good provision in relation to vegetation, etc., so there would have to be replacement or betterment in terms of that vegetation as part of that process.

I will just briefly add one final comment. It has been a very respectful debate with the engagement of members opposite. I think we have now had a debate for 10 hours and 10 minutes through the course of this bill through this parliament, so I thank members for their contributions and I thank all parliamentary staff as well who have had to stay back late for this.

The CHAIR: The Clerk just said the pleasure has all been his.

Schedule passed.

Long title.

The CHAIR: The question before the Chair is that the long title be agreed to. Do you have a question or comment?

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you, Chair, for the call. At this point, perhaps it is appropriate to make an observation that harks back to the commencement of that period of time that has been afforded to us to consider the contents of the bill and really back to the beginning.

I will not reflect on votes of the house, but it is well to observe—and I anticipate that members on this side will probably become accustomed to describing this bill in terms of its long title rather than its short title—that the long title really reflects what this is about: it is an act to facilitate the development of a building and for other purposes. That is actually a more accurate description of what this bill is doing. I guess in the light of and informed by the committee process, it is somewhat disappointing to see that the long title does not include any direct reference to those horses.

Long title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.J. PICTON (Kaurna—Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (23:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 23:24 the house adjourned until Thursday 17 November 2022 at 11:00.


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