HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-02-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Ayers House Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (15:44): As you will remember, just before we had to rise for lunch I was talking about some of the really significant heritage properties in the electorate of Morphett. I touched on Partridge House and had just started on what is probably the most significant of them all, the historic Cummins House in Novar Gardens, built by Sir John Morphett and his family.

Sir John Morphett holds an important part in the history of the Parliament of South Australia. He was the first Speaker of the Legislative Council at the time, before responsible government was in place. He was instrumental in getting responsible government into South Australia, and when that did occur in 1857, he became the President of the Legislative Council. He was also very sport-minded, so he has a special place in my heart, being a sporting person as well. Being of the age in which horses were very important, he was instrumental in the horse racing industry here in South Australia. He was instrumental in setting up Morphettville Racecourse and the South Australian Jockey Club based there.

Sir John Morphett was also very interested in cricket. In fact, Cummins House is credited as being the first place in the colony of South Australia where a cricket game was played—more than likely quite close to the ovals where Immanuel College now sits and has good cricket grounds. So Cummins House is very important. While the Morphett family built it, over time they grew and moved away and so no longer own that property. The state government now owns that property, which is very significant. For a time, the West Torrens council was in charge of leasing it from the state government, so the council was in charge of its maintenance and the like.

Significant to keeping Cummins House open to the public is a fantastic voluntary organisation, The Cummins Society Incorporated. They help run guided tours through there, as well as Devonshire teas to raise money for continuing the upkeep of the house. Jan Ward is the president, and Jan and her fellow committee and volunteers do a terrific job in keeping that house open.

Back in 2019 at the end of the West Torrens council lease, they were not so keen to continue that lease as they were concerned about the costs of maintaining Cummins House. There was real concern from some at the time that this was going to initiate them walking away from it and not continuing on, and concern about what would happen. The Cummins Society was in no place to be able to take over the lease; they are a voluntary organisation that does good work, but it really is beyond their fundraising capabilities.

I worked successfully with our now leader, who was the Minister for Environment at the time, to ensure that the state government took over that lease and took over the responsibility for the maintenance of that property, to keep it running so that it was not instead sold off. That was a great result for The Cummins Society. Jan Ward wrote to me saying, 'Your valuable support has brought about this action and I cannot thank you enough.' They are a very appreciative society and I acknowledge the really great work that they do in opening up Cummins House for people to visit.

Another important historic house in Morphettville is Cobham Hall. That was built in the 1840s, so it is a very historic house. Back in 2018, there were real questions around what was going to happen. No-one was living in it; what had happened was that squatters had moved in there, so there were real issues and it was looking like it might be sold. People were concerned that, similar to a lot of other development that is happening in Morphettville, the actual property itself could be knocked over and replaced by a lot of high-density living.

Thankfully, that was not to happen and instead, a fantastic school, Dara School, was set up. That is a terrific school. It is the only reception to year 12 gifted education school not only in South Australia but in Australia. It has 88 students and a number of those students have come from interstate and the families have relocated to South Australia so that their children can go to this school.

Only recently, in 2022, Better Education did a ranking of primary schools in South Australia and found that Dara School was the top-ranked primary school in the state. They are doing really wonderful things, giving an invaluable service and education to gifted children. At the end of the school year I get to go along to help give out awards and some of the awards given to the students are beyond what you would normally assume for their year level. In fact, the way their education works is that rather than having stratas in just the year level they do it by ability. On some occasions you might have really quite young students doing very advanced mathematics of year 10, year 11 or year 12 standard. That is a really good use of a historic building.

Getting back to the bill, the Liberal Party is a real supporter of heritage, of protecting it and preserving it. As I said, we put $6.6 million into the budget to allow for Ayers House to be upgraded. We urge those opposite to take that $6.6 million and use it effectively so that Ayers House can thrive.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (15:51): I am pleased to close the second reading debate on this bill. I thank everyone who has contributed. I gather there is widespread support for this legislation and I am pleased to hear that.

We have had quite a discursive second reading experience. It has actually been very pleasant to hear people talk so fondly about the heritage places in their electorates in particular. It just demonstrates how important heritage is to everybody, particularly those of us who are representing the older areas. Of course, Port Adelaide is one of the founding areas for European settlement in South Australia.

There have been questions, and I will not seek to exhaustively answer all the matters raised but there are a couple of questions probably worth addressing now before we go into the committee stage. One question that has been posed to both sides of this parliament in government is about a vision for Ayers House, what we aspire to see in Ayers House, and one that I am very pleased is likely to come to fruition is having a single entity installed and securely part of the future of Ayers House, being the National Trust. That will evolve over time.

The second question I think particularly in the minds of those opposite and related to that first question is the question of the money that was allocated to Ayers House when they were in government. If I can leap to the end of the story, that money is secured, it is still attached to Ayers House in our budget and will be spent on Ayers House. I will go through in a little bit of detail some of the expenditure that has already occurred.

I point out that that money was not assigned by the previous government in order to deliver a vision of how Ayers House would be used. It was in part to deal with fabric concerns that we share, in part to deal with disability access, a challenge or an opportunity that we share as a priority also. Some of it was going to be applied to turning the upstairs rooms that are currently a museum into office rooms for the History Trust.

I yield to no-one in my admiration of the History Trust, but I am not sure that rooms that are publicly available at present to be looked at, or were, until the National Trust was removed, is quite the vision that most of us aspire to for Ayers House. I think there has been a very satisfactory arrangement now whereby there is accommodation for the History Trust, as is deserved and merited, and there is now going to be the secure home again for the National Trust.

The money that has been spent to date—and the vast majority of it has not; the vast majority is being held, and I will explain why there has been a delay shortly—has been used for various conservation works in the summer sitting room, repairing the ceiling. On the ground floor, the state dining room, the small dining room and the sitting room have had various elements improved and fixed, including timber dados for the dining room. Some cracks in the ceiling and the dado in the dining room have been fixed up as well. The hallway has been looked at.

In fact, interestingly, with the way the technology is applied to older things, the infrared reflection examination was able to determine the original colour scheme of the walls and now we have been able to paint it back to that original colour. Timber flooring has been treated as was necessary, and protected. Window treatments in the ballroom and in the state dining room have been looked after as well.

Upstairs: a supplementary handrail. For the upper landing of the main staircase—because the balustrade was too low for modern standards—there has been the removal of a 20th century wallpaper and compactus that was in the bedroom, and we were able to work on looking at what the original colour of the painting was. There have been some repairs done there. Outside, the fountain is in the process of being reactivated—that is still ongoing—and there is work on some deteriorated stone areas on the western verandah, they have been repointed; and some windows in the first-floor bedrooms have been repaired. So there has been the kind of work that I expect would have been done regardless of who was in government, but to reassure that that level of work has been able to be done.

The reason that there has been a delay in the larger works has been in part because the National Trust was removed—and we want to make sure that we are working with the National Trust on what that looks like, and the use of the building—and in part because when I became minister I was informed that we were heading towards the court with the tenant of the commercial side, the commercial tenant who was not impressed with the idea of having highly disruptive works taking place that would mean that there were weddings in particular displaced that had already been booked. So we need a run-up to be able to do works in a way that is scheduled and does not displace bookings that exist. That did cause a delay. It seemed to me that not only going to court with a commercial tenant was not a great thing, but displacing weddings was not great either. We needed to slow things down and to make sure that we were able to do it in due course and with the appropriate timing.

With that, just to give some background that might give some comfort to the opposition and also perhaps head off some of the questions that might be asked in the committee stage, I commend this bill to the house. I think it is a great step forward for heritage and also for the National Trust in South Australia.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BATTY: Thank you, minister, for closing the debate with some explanations on some of the questions that we had posed throughout the second reading debate. It is much appreciated. I might kick off by asking who the minister consulted with respect to the preparation of this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The consultation was with the National Trust.

Mr BATTY: Was there any consultation with the commercial operator currently at Ayers House and, if not, why not? In any event, if we are consulting only with the National Trust, is there a reason why it has taken nearly two years for this bill to come before the house?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We did advise the commercial tenant, and we were able to reassure the commercial tenant that there would be no change to the commercial tenant's lease arrangements. In terms of timing, government takes time.

Mr BATTY: I appreciate that these things do take time. I am curious what has been happening at Ayers House in that time, the last couple of years. Has the building remained open to the public over the last couple of years? Has the museum been operating over the past couple of years? What has been the situation with the commercial tenant there? Has the restaurant continued to operate? I note some of the very early building works commenced, but not a lot, seemingly, so I guess we are just cautious that we have not had the building sitting there languishing for the past couple of years, which has been a concern raised.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The commercial tenant has continued operating, so the restaurant, weddings and so on have continued unabated. The public museum was dependent rather on a lot of the goods that the National Trust had in there that they were required to remove by the previous government.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr BATTY: This is the commencement clause. When will the National Trust take control of the building?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The intention is to commence the act reasonably quickly. We are keen to keep going, so that means that the National Trust is operating under the act and Ayers House is operating under the act. In terms of when the National Trust will move in, they are working through how quickly they are able to do that.

Mr BATTY: Prior to commencement, is it envisaged that any of the work that you foreshadowed just a moment ago will take place? Is that meant to happen before the act commences, or is the intention that we will hand it over to the National Trust, and then they are responsible for that work?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The work that I just went through in the close of the second reading speech is the work that is completed already. The larger works that the money has been retained for will be done once the National Trust is acting under the act and has the rights that are given by the act. They will determine, with the government of course, the timing of when some of the larger works will be appropriate, given commercial tenancy, given their own occupation of the building and, of course, the availability of people who can do the work.

Mr BATTY: My question is: is the National Trust effectively becoming the project manager for those works? The works were funded a few years ago. In the 2021-22 state budget, there was a $6.6 million commitment to the restoration of Ayers House. I think that was the largest investment ever made in a heritage building. There were a number of things that I spoke about in my second reading contribution, what that was intended to do—removing asbestos; disability access, in particular, I am quite interested in as well. Has any of that work been done? How much of the $6.6 million remains? Is the intention that, whatever that number is, it is going to be handed over in a pot, effectively, to the National Trust now for them to undertake these works or for them to spend as they wish?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The answer to how much is left is $5.2 million. I am rounding up slightly—I think it is $5.188—but there is $5.2 million left in the budget, so the lion's share of it is left. That is allocated for disability access almost entirely because that is how much it costs. A lot of the work has been done and is currently being done with the architects on the design of that alongside the National Trust, of course. A development application will be put in place in due course. So there will be a grant to the National Trust, but it will be within the terms of what is expected to be done, which is largely the disability access.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr BATTY: This is the objects clause. In particular, I want to have a look at clause 4(a), where the object is:

(a) to enable and guarantee the ongoing use of Ayers House by the National Trust (including its use for commercial operations to generate revenue for the National Trust)…

What sort of commercial operations does the minister envisage that this might entail?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In the immediate term, the transitional arrangements that are included in the bill define that, essentially, a similar kind of activity that is occurring now will continue, and there is an expectation that what is performed by the current tenant under the terms of that tenancy is likely to continue to be a substantial part of the way that Ayers House is operated. If part of the question comes from a concern that something quite different and perhaps not consistent with what one would expect to occur at Ayers House might be undertaken by the National Trust, there are provisions not only in this act through the objects but also in the National Trust act that define really the kind of activity that the National Trust undertakes.

Mr BATTY: Thank you, minister. I understand your answer to be that they can do what they are doing now, and that will not constitute a change in the use of that land. If they want to do anything else, then under separate legislation they will need to make an application to vary the use of their land.

One activity they were undertaking previously was a museum. Is there anything in this act stopping that museum turning into more of a commercial operation—for example, entrance fees, a retail space connected to it? Is there anything stopping a sort of a shop? Also, what about a restaurant, for example, that is already in there. Is there anything stopping another restaurant opening in there as well and the National Trust turning it into a full-scale operation as quite a commercial landlord with various operations on the site?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The intention of the National Trust is to continue to have a museum experience. There would be nothing preventing a shop to be placed in there, a National Trust shop; in fact, it could be very appealing for people. It is certainly what happens in the United Kingdom with their equivalent.

There is no intention from the National Trust to engage in any commercial activity that will be in competition with the current tenant, and I think that would be quite counterproductive given that they will in fact be the landholders for that commercial tenant. They are going to want them to succeed.

Mr BATTY: Has the minister received any advice about whether this legislation contravenes any principles of competitive neutrality?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that it does not interfere with competitive neutrality, and that is largely on the basis that not much will change in terms of use of the building in that there continues to be a commercial tenant who continues to have rights. The National Trust, although not there now, was up until a couple of years ago in there operating, and it will return to that, so there is no reason to think that it would trigger a competitive neutrality concern.

Mr BATTY: Just on that point, minister—

The CHAIR: I will allow you a supplementary.

Mr BATTY: You are very kind, Chair, thank you. If, under the ordinary arrangements, the National Trust were to operate their own restaurant under a peppercorn lease and had a commercial lease next door to them operating their own restaurant, surely that would contravene principles of competitive neutrality. Is this scenario different in that we have an entity effectively being gifted a property to do what they want with it while competing with the private sector next door?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The way I am being advised is that in a sense nothing changes because, as the custodians now, the government is there and could presumably decide to run a commercial business and undercut the commercial tenant. The thing is that we would not do that because we are currently the beneficiaries of the tenant being successful. Now the National Trust will be the beneficiaries of the tenant being successful, so what we would expect, in fact, is that this will create more opportunities for the tenant rather than fewer.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

Mr BATTY: This is the clause that retains Ayers House being vested in the minister. Is this an ordinary arrangement where we have an asset that is vested in the minister's name but under the care and control of others? How many other pieces of legislation do similar?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: In a sense this is a unique piece of legislation—this idea of continuing to have this vested in the minister but with the care and control essentially being handed to the National Trust which is, of course, a statutory body in the sense that it has its own act guiding it, but in another sense it regularises or formalises what has been going on for 50 years with the National Trust being installed in Ayers House.

Mr BATTY: Is it the ordinary way that the National Trust holds any other property? Presumably over time there has been Crown property that has simply been transferred to the National Trust. How are their other assets held? I have Z Ward, for example, in my own electorate. What is the structure there for it, by way of example?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Z Ward, as I am advised, went from private ownership and was given to the National Trust, so the National Trust are owners of Z Ward. This legislation is unique in the sense that it is not normally done in a piece of legislation that creates the rights for the National Trust, but in many other ways its effect is the same as the way in which we often dedicate Crown land.

You will be aware that usually that is to a council. It is dedicated to the care and control of Port Adelaide Enfield council and so they effectively become the managers of that piece of land while it is retained by the Crown, because it is the Crown in the name of the Minister for Environment and Water. So in that sense it is equivalent in effect; it is different in the way in which it is constructed.

Mr BATTY: Did you ever consider simply vesting Ayers House in the National Trust? Is there a particular reason why it is being done in this way, and do you think simply handing it over to the National Trust might have better met your election commitment? I suppose on this model, one reason you could do it this way is for a government to take it back again at a later date.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: To carry on in a sense from the last answer, the difference in the Crown land that is then dedicated to is that as minister I can change that. What happens with this is it becomes the property of the parliament. The reason that the National Trust and I discussed that and the reason that the election commitment was explicitly to have an act was that, because of having been turfed out and the feelings that the National Trust had about that experience, they felt that it would give them a sense of security if it was this parliament that would change any relationship they had to Ayers House, rather than remaining not exactly at the whim of a minister but the decision of a minister.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr BATTY: This is a clause vesting care, control and management in the National Trust. I guess I wanted to explore a little bit more your vision for what Ayers House will turn into following this legislation. You addressed it a little bit in your closing. I think you said it will evolve over time. What do you as the minister want to see Ayers House become?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is very clear that we need to continue to have public access to Ayers House. That is the baseline. This is not to become an entirely privatised entity and turn into offices or whatever. The positive idea of what Ayers House could be is something that I think we need to allow to evolve with the National Trust. In some senses, it is captured by the resource question, as most policy is. We can agree what would be lovely, but what can we afford? What makes sense financially, for the National Trust or for this government or for a federal government that might be interested in investing?

The idea of Ayers House being a pre-eminent display of that era for Adelaide and the idea that it has a connection to Lot Fourteen—as was drawn out in a few speeches and quite rightly so; Lot Fourteen is a glorious success along North Terrace and will continue to get stronger—I think is a very useful place to start. The question then becomes practicality and also the appetite of the public.

What is the public interested in seeing and who in the public are we wanting to appeal to? Is it about schoolchildren learning about the history? Is it about people who come from elsewhere learning about our history? Is it a place that is, although historical, more about the sense of occasion that you get in a place like Ayers House? I think those are legitimate questions to be asked. I am certainly not wanting to be on the parliamentary record defining that in a way that would limit those discussions.

Mr BATTY: You mentioned the public right of access. Other than that right of access, is there any obligation on Ayers House to do anything in particular with the property or not do anything in particular with the property? For example, if the National Trust decided they did not want to operate a museum there, is there anything you as minister could do? I guess in a worst case scenario is there anything stopping this bill passing and the National Trust simply becoming a commercial landlord at Ayers House?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is nothing explicit about a museum, but what a museum is, of course, is open to lots of debate in definition. What we have done is say that there must be ongoing right of public access, and we have also said that it is necessary to provide for the ongoing care and management of Ayers House.

There is, in addition, the requirement of the National Trust to operate under its act. It cannot go violently off course just in this one property, but it does give them the opportunity—and I think they are an organisation that have existed for a long time and have demonstrated their commitment to heritage and to public engagement for a very long period—to consider different ways in which that could be expressed.

Mr BATTY: One way I thought you might have been able to provide a little bit of direction is through clause 6(3)(b), which says that the minister may:

…by notice in the Gazette specify requirements applying to the National Trust's care, control and management of Ayers House.

There is this sort of curious part in there that says:

(b) may, with the agreement of the National Trust…specify requirements…

Doesn't requiring the agreement of the National Trust for you to a give direction to the National Trust make that whole clause redundant?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think that is reflective of the nature of the relationship that most governments have had for a very long time with the National Trust and their concern that reinserting a right for a minister to effectively say, 'Well, actually, what we are going to do by Gazette is kick you out and put the History Trust in,' is something that they would not want to see.

We are talking about an organisation that exists under an act, so it is a substantial organisation and one that has contributed substantially to the way in which we have been able to preserve heritage and to celebrate heritage in South Australia. So making decisions in partnership is entirely appropriate.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr BATTY: This is the clause that shifts all of the liability for Ayers House to the National Trust. What is the annual upkeep of Ayers House, and is there going to be any ongoing funding provided to the National Trust to service that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think if the member is concerned that the National Trust is being left with a liability that they will not be able to maintain, the beauty of the way that Ayers House operates with a commercial tenant is that there is more that goes in than is currently spent in most years, which enables then occasionally for a big piece of expenditure. So the National Trust will have the setup of having the kind of income that is required to really look after the place and to invest in it.

Mr BATTY: What about for capital works down the track? We have referred a lot in the course of this debate to a $6.6 million investment. How is the National Trust ever going to be doing that in decades to come?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: That is the question that I alluded to in talking about the resourcing of a future vision. Obviously, because there is a net positive in what we are handing over, they will be able to accumulate income if they choose to, as governments do as well, but otherwise it will be a matter of working out what capital works they want to do and what the proposition is. Thanks to, although, ultimately, a failed decision by the previous government in the sense that it was not welcomed by the National Trust, the money that was allocated that was then able to be retained has given them a good start.

It has meant that we have been able to do those conservation works that were outstanding for some time, I imagine, and also do the disability access so that it gets them ahead nicely. Then, should there be other calls on government—and, as I say, my favourite money is Canberra money, so if there are any other governments that might want to contribute (the Adelaide City Council is very generous in the way it supports heritage also)—then they will go hunting for those kinds of sources.

Philanthropy is another source, and, particularly I think for heritage, a very fruitful source in Adelaide. So there will be multiple ways in which they will be able to do that. The success I imagine will be largely dependent on whether the vision that they come up with is a shared one, one that resonates with South Australians.

Mr BATTY: I assume there is nothing stopping the National Trust also applying for other grants that could be used at Ayers House. I think, in particular, there are a whole string of education programs that are running at Ayers House. Is that something you envisage National Trust doing into the future?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Absolutely, and you are quite right to point out education can be a very useful source of support because it is an offering that is of great use to education. But, yes, there will be nothing stopping the National Trust being able to gain grants to be able to invest into Ayers House.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

Mr BATTY: You just mentioned how generous Adelaide City Council are when it comes to heritage. Have they been consulted with respect to this clause, minister, that exempts Ayers House from paying council rates?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The city council, or at least the Lord Mayor, is aware that this is part of the legislation and has no objections to that. She has recently canvassed a more general concern about exemptions, as local governments are absolutely entitled to raise in the public, but this is a completely legitimate purpose for creating an exemption and she recognises that.

Mr BATTY: What is the value of the lost rates to Adelaide City Council?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is $35,000 a year.

Clause passed.

Clause 9 passed.

Schedule.

Mr BATTY: Going back to some of the building works that still need to be undertaken, does the National Trust have a time line for undertaking and completing those works? One barrier that you mentioned in closing the debate was working with the commercial operator and not interfering with weddings, which I think is a very worthy thing to do. I am, frankly, a little surprised that that has stopped anything happening for the last couple of years. There are going to be weddings for the next couple of years as well, presumably. What is the plan?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The member is correct that people plan their weddings ahead, so I do not want to overpromise and underdeliver. There will be another period of time. The National Trust's view was that they wanted to have this legislation through before they enter into those negotiations. The tenant is now very aware that that is coming, and I am hopeful that they will be able to find a window that will work over a period of time. Leaving the weddings alone is important.

Mr BATTY: Indeed. The $5.2 million that is left to conduct this work, will that be tied to the disability access, for example, or is it funds to use as the National Trust wishes?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I was indicating earlier, although it will go as a grant, it will be tied to—and we expect that probably all, if not nearly all, will be taken up by those works, so we will be defining very clearly what it is that that money is for so that we all get that outcome.

I think one thing that is important is the conservation works that have been done were really necessary. The place was looking a bit tired, as happens with heritage buildings, so being able to get those out of the way while it has been empty has been, I think, very useful. That defined piece of work for the access from the western side, and then also the lift, is going to be disruptive but it will be for a short period, and then it will be done and it will be over, whereas the other works were roaming all over the house.

So I think it is important that that has been done and that then the public experience, other than for those who particularly need that disability access, will be a good one. When we can get this disability access through, that will create the opportunity for other people to be able also to enjoy the place.

Mr BATTY: Finally, the schedule refers to assignments of leases and licences. Is that only the restaurant catering business?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The intent of this clause is to say the two leases, so the one we have talked about a lot and also the one for the parking, although entered into with the government, will be treated by virtue of this clause as if the National Trust had entered into them so that they become wholly responsible for those leases.

Mr McBRIDE: I take your guidance here, Chair, but I assume when you are talking about questions now for schedule 1, that takes into account parts 1 and 2?

The CHAIR: You can ask about parts 1 or 2, correct.

Mr McBRIDE: It has been fascinating sitting back here and listening to this whole process. As the minister might know, and certainly from the briefing I had, I am very pleased and I know that the heritage trust, the National Trust, are also pleased with the developments and changes that have taken place with this legislation. One of the things I like to do is try to understand where we got to and why.

I know the minister is very diplomatic and very respectful, but it does not take away the frustrations I had as a Liberal member of a government that had intentions in this area that I still do not understand today, why and where to—when I looked at this legislation and the words 'transitional provisions', 'no change in use of land' and 'the resumption of use of Ayers House by the National Trust after the commencement of this act' and the intentions of the previous Liberal Marshall government in relation to where we have landed today.

Is the minister able to elaborate or explain what the intentions were of the previous government, where we are heading today, why the huge difference and perhaps maybe the joy and excitement that the National Trust might have as a result of this legislation and changes, because I would be most interested to know some sort of answer for the sufferance I had as a Liberal and the changes that were made by the previous Liberal government.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Thank you for the question. Yes, the member is quite right to, not always, draw attention to my occasional excessive diplomacy in this role. The truth is that this act is only here because of a decision that was made by the previous minister. Everything was going along reasonably well. Of course, there were frustrations with the fabric of the building, as there are with most heritage buildings from time to time. There was ambition for a greater vision and concern about where support would come from for that vision.

I have seen various versions that the National Trust have produced about what they would like to do at Ayers House, so that was where their minds were at the time. They also had engaged in a number of discussions in public—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am being very diplomatic by looking at my colleagues and going, 'Could you please be quiet so I can hear myself think.'

The CHAIR: The member for Elizabeth and the other minister are not in their seats, so they should be really quiet.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The National Trust, at the same time as being a very good caretaker of properties, have always been an advocacy body also for heritage and, in fact, were responsible really—and do not ask me, ask Don Dunstan—for the preservation of Ayers House by being very active about wanting to keep it within the public purview and also as a beautiful old building with enormous historical associations. So they have always had that advocacy role.

They were rather provoked under the last government by some decisions that were being made that they disagreed with. One was, of course, the knocking over of Shed 26 in Port Adelaide. The Port of Adelaide National Trust branch was very concerned about that; it was put onto the heritage register provisionally. There is that moment where you have some time for the minister to take it off, and the decision by the previous minister was to take it off, so it was knocked over. There was also the Waite Gatehouse, which was a huge heritage fight that took place over a long period of time under the last government with the proposition that it would be demolished to make way for roadworks.

The National Trust was very vocal about that and, in that case, very successful. It was able to create an argument that the Waite Gatehouse was worthy of being kept and, as I understand it, we are not that far away from its reconstruction. The settlement was in the end to pull it apart and then put it back together. I am mystified as to how that can be possible, and also the way that buildings can be moved, but I believe that it happens. I trust that it happens, I just do not understand how people can be so ingenious as to be able to deliver that. The success of the National Trust in preserving the Waite Gatehouse has another chapter to come, which will be when it is recreated which, as I say, I understand is not too far away.

The National Trust I think was surprised but not surprised by the previous minister's decision to move the History Trust out of the Torrens Parade Ground, which was necessary—indeed, had to happen—but to then displace the National Trust and put it into Ayers House. The History Trust—as I say, I yield to no-one in my admiration for the History Trust—is a state agency; it is not able to go out and campaign to save the Waite Gatehouse, even if many people within it may well have wanted to, and I have no evidence but I can assume that being heritage people many of them in their hearts would have liked to.

But they are not able to advocate publicly, they are not able to go to shopping centres with petitions, as I saw the National Trust do. They are the state-owned entity as the History Trust, and they had quite a few staff who were going to need office accommodation. It was very clear that in the move, although they would certainly have ambitions to celebrate the history of Ayers House, and certainly would have wanted to have public access—I have no doubt that that would have been what the History Trust wanted to do—nonetheless, they do have people who require offices, and that was going to be their office.

As I say, the impression I had of the National Trust was that they were surprised by being kicked out after 50 years but not surprised given the deterioration of the relationship with the previous government over their advocacy on heritage matters. So they came to the public, to their membership, to their affiliated organisations and to politicians to ask us to stop this. I remember going to a very lively forum in Ayers House. Frank Pangallo was there, Peter Malinauskas was there, I was there in opposition times, and they begged us to restore them to Ayers House in the event that they were unsuccessful in changing the then government's mind.

Indeed, they were successful in persuading us to give them those commitments, but that was dependent on election. They were not successful in changing the previous minister's mind and, unfortunately, despite the proximity of the election, the last government did require them to pack everything up and move it out. That has caused an enormous delay in our being able to advance this because they have lost faith in the way that governments can be capricious and also they have physically got things all over the place, so it is quite a logistical challenge to get them back in—a challenge that we will succeed in, but nonetheless it would have been much easier to have left them there, allowed the election to happen and then made a decision on the basis of the will of the people.

So here we are. We have sought to reassure the National Trust, this fine organisation with a long and proud history, that they are entitled to feel that Ayers House is their home. They had felt that way before, but they had the rug pulled from under them. It is interesting, of course, having this question expressed in such a way by a member who had a very proud liberal tradition not only personally but in his family but has felt that these people are best served through being independent. Therefore, you start to hear some of the views that were probably expressed by more than the member in the previous government but were not listened to.

We all, as governments, make mistakes. We all make errors of judgement, but we tend to make fewer if we listen to our members on the ground, who have a sense of what is fair and what is right. I suspect that if the then minister had listened to some of the people in his party who might have counselled against that decision, we would not be in the place where we are.

Ultimately, we will be in a better place. We are in a better place because we have created an act that has given confidence to the National Trust. The money that was partially assigned in order to move the History Trust has been able to be retained. It will be spent on the right things, and we will be ultimately the better for it, but that was not the intention of the previous government. It is just as a result of an election that meant that we were able to come in and fix it up, and I thank the member for the question.

Mr McBRIDE: Without asking a question, may I thank the minister very much for that great explanation. I wish the government all the best with the negotiations over Ayers House.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Defence and Space Industries, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water) (16:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I thank everyone who has contributed. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the public servants who have been so diligent in working through this piece of legislation. As we have discussed, although in many ways it restores rather than creates anew, it is a new way of doing legislation to make an arrangement for the National Trust to be in Ayers House, and so I thank them for the work that they have done.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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