HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-11-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

New Women's and Children's Hospital Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: Before the break, I was beginning to provide a brief contribution in relation to what I have described as the meritorious proposed insertion of the word 'Development' in the title of the act. It is no small thing that at the outset of this committee process we actually do the right thing by the people of South Australia by directing them to what this bill is really all about.

I have indicated that we have in the chamber today the Minister for Health leading the government's carriage of this bill that is named as a bill that, in fact, related to health might be named. But we know that not a single aspect of this bill, in fact, relates to matters that would ordinarily be within the relevant ministerial responsibilities of the Minister for Health. I provided what might have been an incomplete list of the ministers who might more properly be expected to be leading the debate from the government's point of view and being responsible for the bill.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Point of order: I am not sure how which minister is managing this on behalf of the government is of relevance to what the title of the bill is.

The CHAIR: I think that the title allows some scope for some discussion on that. If the member for Heysen wants to use up his 15 minutes or 30 minutes left to discuss that, that is fine. Unless he makes some reflection on yourself or other ministers, I have to let him go.

Mr TEAGUE: Thank you very much, Chair. As I was just beginning to indicate, the combination of the two in this case, the misleading Orwellian title of this bill combined with the fact that the government is choosing to—and it is no reflection on the competence of the member for Kaurna and certainly, in this context, no reflection on the relevant competence of a Minister for Health in the government of the day, far from it. In fact, there are plenty of occasions in the course of debate in the house at which those matters ought properly be tested.

It is particularly invidious for the minister for heritage and the Minister for Planning to be placed in the positions that they have respectively, not leading the way on this particular bill, because it should be expected that those two ministers in fact would have a lot to impart in relation to the subject matter of the bill. We will come to it later on, but the South Australian Heritage Council has published its letter to the Deputy Premier, the minister for heritage, to the Minister for Environment and Water, as her title indicates, with the responsibility for heritage. That is who the Heritage Council is interested in addressing with respect to this bill, and that is just one example.

I do not see that there are too many relevant bodies, individuals or members of the community—certainly those who are focusing their concerns on what this bill will go ahead and impact—who would think that they would be expecting the answers to their questions to be given by the Minister for Health in this regard. So, at the very least, if the government is going to come in and have, as it were, a debate characterised by its carriage by the Minister for Health, it can name the bill in a way that does not doubly mischaracterise the nature of the debate and the nature of the legislation for the people of South Australia.

There will be an opportunity more particularly to address those concerns in terms of the particular subject matter of the bill. But at the outset, and I said it in the course of my second reading debate contribution, if we are going to see this bill jammed in here to the House of Assembly, and we are going to see a government that is continuing to resist reasonable calls for the opportunity, which might only be over a matter of weeks, to engage with bodies such as the South Australian state Heritage Council and others about the way in which this is all going to pan out, if we are going to see that resistance, then the very least we could do is have an accurately named bill to commence the debate.

Amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: Your questions now relate to the title as it stands, not as you had sought to amend it.

Mr TELFER: Yes, absolutely. Minister, did the government ask the Park Lands Authority for their perspective on any implications of the legislation as named in this clause?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think we have been clear in terms of the process that has been undertaken. We had a site review undertaken, which was led by Jim Hallion, that led to the site selection process that was released publicly, and then this has been a development across government and has not been worked through with the Park Lands Authority.

Mr TELFER: Can the minister advise whether the National Trust made some sort of submission to that process, as he has illustrated?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Not that I am aware of.

Mr TELFER: Can the minister advise on the views of the Heritage Council on this bill?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I understand that there is a letter that might have been referred to by the other member previously that is on the Heritage Council website, where they have made their views known in relation to that.

Mr Telfer: What were the views? I haven't read the letter.

The CHAIR: Firstly, you need to stand to speak. Secondly, you have asked a question and he has answered it. I will allow you a supplementary, but that is your third question.

Mr TELFER: I was just asking on the views, not whether they had views, sorry. I was asking if the Heritage Council had views on this bill.

The CHAIR: You have just asked—

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will let the Heritage Council speak for themselves; I will not put words in their mouth. I think it is fair to say that clearly there has been a difficult decision in relation to heritage in this matter. The bill, as we will get to hopefully at some stage, in the actual guts of the legislation has a clause in which expires the State Heritage Places in relation to the project site. Obviously, that has been of some concern to some people in relation to heritage matters.

There have been other prominent heritage advocates, however, who have advocated that in this case, as I think Professor Warren Jones has noted, health trumps heritage in this regard. That is the difficult balance the government has arrived at, and we have made no secret about that.

Mrs HURN: How does the minister respond to the views of the Heritage Council?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I think we are being clear in terms of we will be going through a process in relation to the heritage on the site and working with the Heritage Council and other bodies in terms of how we can undertake a process of preserving as many of the stories and history of those buildings on the site as is possible.

This is work that is being worked through with the Department for Environment and Water, their heritage branch. This will be undertaken. We are looking at a number of examples around the world where these sorts of projects have had to be taken, where photographs and histories will be undertaken of those heritage aspects.

Mrs HURN: As a supplementary, when you refer to preserving the buildings, you are referring to the stories, presumably, and not to preserving the actual buildings, or is there a view in place that that is something that is possible through the process you have referred to? Also, I wonder whether the process that has been undertaken by the department, whether there is a view to table that document or the findings of that so that the people of South Australia can see it.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I will check Hansard, but I do not believe my language was as I was quoted by the member for Schubert. Certainly, I was not referring to the buildings themselves but preserving the stories, taking photographs of them, visual and audio collections of that material to enable that to be preserved. We are looking at examples where that has been done, where there have had to be buildings of heritage value that are removed around the world. We will be certainly working with the heritage branch in relation to how that can best be done in South Australia.

In relation to the release of any documents in relation to that, I believe that work is still underway, but I suspect that we will be making notifications about that with the Heritage Council over time as the project develops.

Mrs HURN: Just to be clear, I was not quoting you, I was just seeking clarification as to whether you were referring to preserving the buildings in their structural form or also seeking to preserve the stories, so thank you for confirming that it is about preserving the stories and not the buildings.

Mr TEAGUE: I just want to take up this question of the attitude of the South Australian Heritage Council. The South Australian Heritage Council wrote to the Deputy Premier by letter dated 13 October 2022. I think it has been referred and accurately so that that letter is available publicly. It is published on the state Heritage Council's website. That having been said, I have a degree of sympathy for the Minister for Health in looking to do his best to field questions about the subject matter of the letter. It is not within his portfolio area and I appreciate the fact that he has adverted to his awareness of it.

There are a number of pertinent matters that are the subject of the letter, to the extent it might be appropriate that I refer to it at some length. It is a letter that is addressed to the Deputy Premier from the Chair of the South Australian Heritage Council, Keith Conlon. The subject matter of the letter is the requested report on the decision to demolish the Thebarton Police Barracks.

Necessarily so, in the course of the second reading debate—perhaps it would not be so necessary in ordinary circumstances—in the circumstances of the egregious contribution of the Minister for Planning on 28 September in this place, in response to a government question, I might add, mischaracterising, as he did, the decision that I made on 16 December last year in relation to the status of those buildings, that contribution is found commencing on page 1693, 1694 and 1695 of Hansard.

For completeness, my personal explanation setting the record straight in about the most succinct way possible is at pages 1700 and 1701 of the same date. Given that that planning decision in December last year not only provided for the re-use of those buildings in accord with their state heritage character and preservation of both the buildings and their heritage character in the course of any re-use within the health precinct, but so far from any change of use—that is, through the departure of the police—was that from contemplation that there was, in fact, no provision, no plan and no action undertaken by police or government either in the lead-up, in the immediate aftermath or as late as the approach to the election to provide for any move.

In other words, there was not going to be any change or threat to the buildings consequent on the planning decision—in fact, the opposite for the long term—and in the short term, in terms of the anticipated eventual move of police and the horses away from that place, there was no planning or provision for doing so. I have spelt that out as abundantly clearly as I think I am able.

In those circumstances, when the South Australian Heritage Council is writing to the Deputy Premier, the now minister responsible for heritage, it should not be surprising that the South Australian Heritage Council in October is expressing a novel view about the threat that is imposed to those state heritage buildings, the result of this legislation. So let's be super clear about it. At page 2 of the letter, moreover, the state Heritage Council says:

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.

It is a matter that has been adverted to by others over the journey, including as recently as this morning when Chris Sumner provided a 50-year overview of the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the context of those four decades to which Keith Conlon refers at page 2 of the letter. The council goes on to say that the council is extremely concerned about the precedent this government's decision sets for the future. So it is concerned in the specific and it is concerned about the precedent that this sets for the future.

The council then goes on to say that there are some particular things that need to be considered, and in a thoroughgoing way; it is the perfect thing for a committee of review to consider at the very least, in my view. They are under two headings, and I will seek the minister's indication that these will be done—firstly, capturing the heritage to which the member for Schubert, the shadow minister, has referred to just now, and I quote:

In the event of special legislation being passed by Parliament to allow demolition of the Thebarton Police Barracks precinct—

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Point of order.

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. I need to deal with the point of order.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I am wondering if you could rule, sir, on whether the member for Heysen may well have strayed from the topic of the discussion of the title of the bill in relation to these very detailed comments in relation to heritage that perhaps may be dealt with later in the debate.

The CHAIR: I do not know. It has been the practice to allow some latitude on this matter. I am aware that the member only has nine minutes left to speak. I will let him ask his questions but I just remind members that repetition is not something which is allowed, so they cannot ask the same questions under different clauses.

Mr TEAGUE: I will quote from the beginning of the paragraph for the benefit of Hansard; it need not be repeated. I quote:

In the event of special legislation being passed by Parliament to allow demolition of the Thebarton Police Barracks precinct, the Council strongly recommends the full site should be recorded in perpetuity. This will involve a range of techniques and processes. Further details of such preservation are included in Attachment 1.

I will not read that in its entirety. That is No. 1, minister. No. 2, is archaeological investigations, and I quote:

Council also recommends the archaeological investigations apply to all areas within and adjacent to the Thebarton Police Barracks precinct where the ground will be disturbed or excavated to enable the construction of the new WCH.

Given the history of this part of the Adelaide Park Lands there are reasonable grounds to suspect that archaeological artefacts of heritage significance are likely to be found.

Can the minister guarantee that both of those exercises will be done?

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: I thank the member for reading out the letter, which obviously will be a help to the member for Flinders, who said he did not have access to the letter earlier.

Mr Telfer: Very useful.

The Hon. C.J. PICTON: Very useful, the member for Flinders says. As I said earlier, that has been under consideration as we consider how we work through the process of being able to retain the stories and heritage values through photography, through audiovisual means, as well as considering the other issues that have been raised by the Heritage Council in relation to consideration of the development of the hospital.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

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