HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-03-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 February 2025.)

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (12:00): I will continue my remarks, even though they were very brief last time. As I said back then, I am the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition. The bill before us is here to amend the Heritage Places Act 1993 and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, and looking at the subject of proposed demolitions of State Heritage Places and opening that up to full public consultation. It is trying to emphasise the protection of these places from demolition and trying to show the transparency around decision-making, and also makes some changes for modernisation and to update the terms within the act.

This proposal, brought to us by the minister, is very much an election commitment that was made by the Labor Party back in February 2022 where, quoting from their Protect State Heritage Places policy document, they would:

Legislate to require proposed demolition of state heritage sites are subject to full public consultation and a public report from SA Heritage Council.

The document goes on to state:

To ensure that demolition cannot occur at the whim of a future government, Labor will legislate to better protect State Heritage Places, including requiring a public report by the SA Heritage Council being prepared and laid in parliament before any consideration of a demolition approval and full public consultation so that all South Australians can have their views heard.

I just reflect on those remarks and look at some of the instances where we have seen state heritage items demolished. The most recent one is certainly the SA Police barracks. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation was not in place prior to those being demolished. This would not necessarily have even required this piece of legislation to be followed, because the government of the day decided—at their whim—to introduce another piece of legislation to actually deal with the removal of those barracks.

Likewise, looking at Shed 26—which was done under the previous minister, David Speirs—my understanding is that that was only provisionally on the register at that point in time. The minister at the time had the ability to have it removed from the provisional register and not actually have it proceed right through to full listing, so that meant that the minister again had the ability to step in and stop this process, and this again would not have applied in those circumstances. There are certainly very challenging things there as well.

Another one that comes to mind is the Waite Gatehouse, another piece of state heritage that under the previous government in the end definitely was not demolished—it was dismantled. Again, it would not have necessarily triggered this piece of legislation to actually look at that. I am not sure that this piece of legislation is actually going to achieve the desired outcome of stopping the whims of ministers from either side from deciding to remove heritage-listed places.

The other interesting scenario here is very much in the wording of the bill around the demolition of the whole item. I am very curious and certainly will investigate further through the committee stage what 'demolition of the whole' means: for example, with the old causeway to Granite Island, the fact that two pieces were left at either end definitely would not have meant it was demolished as a whole. Some of the heritage was retained. I am trying to understand what 'whole' means—is it leaving the foundation stone? It is really hard to know what 'whole' means and who is going to be interpreting what 'whole' means.

I think there is certainly a need to protect heritage, going forward, but I am not sure this piece of legislation actually achieves the outcome that is necessarily desired. We need to make sure that we do what we can to protect heritage. It is not just state heritage items that may need protecting from demolition, there are also local heritage items. We have the two systems that operate: one has quite significant protections, the other one has very limited protections. I think that is something on which we may need to take a very bipartisan approach, having a look at how we can work out how we can protect these heritage buildings.

Heritage is certainly very important. It is great to protect these buildings for future generations—and it is not just buildings, it is places as well. We need to make sure that we protect them for the future. But it can be very challenging. We need to keep them as viable buildings as well. We do not necessarily want something just to look at, it needs to actually have purpose, and certainly that is part of the heritage that needs protecting. It is a challenging space.

Interestingly, I have seen people apply for heritage listing. It is certainly a fairly fulsome process and a difficult process. There is a very limited set of criteria that needs to be met to actually get there. There may be some great pieces of history out there that we would love to protect but that do not meet the criteria for state heritage listing and will not be covered by protections. It is an interesting process. It is also going to be a really complicated process.

The timelines that have been put in the bill are certainly something else I will be investigating through the committee stage. With the report having to lay on the table in front of parliament for a period of time, if you happen to get the timing wrong, you could be in an election year and have to wait. The report might be presented to the parliament in late November of the final year of a parliamentary term, such as this year, and the parliament would not sit again until May, so it would not be until June that it actually triggers the timeframe. It could significantly hold up the process. We need to see whether we can find a way of making sure there are not those sorts of obstructions and whether there is another way of achieving that reporting to the people of South Australia.

With those few words, I will leave my comments there. I look forward to the committee stage to investigate some of these questions.

Ms O'HANLON (Dunstan) (12:08): It is a great pleasure to speak in this place on any bill that improves the protection of our state's heritage, but I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in support of this bill, the Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2025, a significant piece of legislation that strengthens the protection of our state's irreplaceable heritage places while streamlining our planning processes.

Our heritage buildings and sites are not merely bricks and mortar, they are the physical embodiment of our state's history, culture and identity. Each heritage place tells a unique story about South Australia's journey and, once lost, these stories can never be fully recovered. From the iconic Adelaide Town Hall to the historic Port Adelaide Lighthouse, from our 19th-century churches to our colonial-era warehouses, these structures stand as testament to the vision and craftsmanship of those who came before us.

I grew up in old houses, sometimes rundown, usually in a constant process of being renovated. I love the history that our old and early buildings hold. I love the architecture, their beauty and their dimensions. When I moved to the Norwood area over a decade ago, it was this beauty and history of the character and heritage buildings I fell in love with. It felt like home. I know that much of my community feels the same way. In fact, over the last four years as I have been doorknocking in my community and holding community meetings, it is one of the most common issues raised. We love our character and heritage buildings. We want them protected.

The Malinauskas government has listened and has delivered and in this bill continues to deliver. This bill delivers specifically on our government's election commitment to better protect State Heritage Places, particularly regarding proposals for their demolition. The amendments before us today represent the most significant reform to heritage protection in our state in recent years and there are some key elements of these changes.

First and foremost, the bill establishes a robust process requiring proponents seeking to demolish a State Heritage Place to obtain a comprehensive assessment report from the South Australian Heritage Council. This requirement serves several crucial purposes and I want to elaborate on why this step is so essential. Many of our heritage listings, particularly those from decades past, lack the detailed documentation we expect by today's standards. Some of these places were listed with minimal information about their historical significance, architectural merit or cultural value.

The contemporary assessment this bill mandates will ensure decisions about demolition are based on current thorough evaluations of a site's heritage significance. However, we must acknowledge that heritage significance is not static. The cultural or historic importance of a place can evolve over time. A building that was listed primarily for its architectural features might, decades later, have acquired additional significance through its role in important community events or its association with notable South Australians.

This new assessment process ensures we capture these evolving values. The bill specifically addresses complete demolition of heritage places and for good reason. While partial demolition and adaptive reuse often allows us to preserve heritage values while accommodating new development, total demolition is final and irreversible. It effectively removes a place from our Heritage Register permanently. That is why we have created a process that demands careful consideration and multiple layers of scrutiny.

The bill builds in practical timeframes that balance thoroughness with efficiency. The Heritage Council will have 10 weeks to prepare their assessment report, a period that provides adequate time for proper evaluation while giving developers certainty about timeframes. This is not an arbitrary number. It reflects careful consultation with heritage experts, planning authorities and development industry stakeholders.

One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the mandatory public consultation period. Every South Australian deserves a voice in decisions that affect our shared heritage. This is not just about procedure. It is about recognising that our heritage belongs to all of us. Public consultation has already proved invaluable in other heritage matters, such as the provisional entry of places into the Heritage Register. It often brings to light historical information, community connections and cultural values that might otherwise have been overlooked.

The bill also introduces a crucial layer of accountability, while requiring these reports to be tabled in parliament. This means that decisions about our most significant Heritage Places will be subject to scrutiny by all members of this house, rather than resting with a single minister or authority. This parliamentary oversight reflects the gravity of any decision about the future of State Heritage Places and ensures proper democratic scrutiny of significant choices.

Practical amendments to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 have also been made to ensure these new requirements are clearly signposted for developers and seamlessly integrated into the planning process. This includes requiring the heritage assessment report to be submitted with any development application for demolition. These changes are not just administrative; they are about creating a clear, transparent process that all stakeholders can understand and follow.

The question might be asked why the bill requires this assessment before a development application can be lodged. The answer is simple: it provides certainty. Developers will know exactly where they stand regarding a site's heritage significance before investing significant resources in detailed development plans. This approach actually saves time and money in the long run by identifying any major heritage concerns at the outset.

I want to emphasise that this bill is not about stopping development; in fact, we have seen numerous examples across the state where heritage buildings have been successfully integrated into new developments, creating unique and valuable spaces that combine historical character with modern functionality. The Mayfair Hotel in Adelaide is a prime example where a heritage-listed building has been transformed into a world-class hotel by preserving its historical significance.

What this bill does is ensure that when we are faced with proposals to demolish our heritage places entirely, we make those decisions with full knowledge of what we stand to lose, with input from experts and the community and with proper oversight from this parliament.

In closing, this bill strikes a careful balance between development and heritage preservation. It recognises that while our city must grow and evolve, we have a responsibility to ensure this does not come at the cost of erasing our history. These amendments provide the framework for making informed, transparent decisions about our heritage places, decisions that will affect not just our generation but those that follow. I commend this bill to the house.

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (12:15): I rise in support of this bill. When there is an application for a State Heritage Place to be demolished, it is important that there is a contemporaneous assessment of the heritage significance of the place.

Under this bill a report by the SA Heritage Council would be prepared within a 10-week period. This is considered a reasonable timeframe in which to complete the report and provide certainty for any proponent that the development process will not be unduly delayed. Such an assessment may be necessary, particularly when there is insufficient information recorded at the time of listing the State Heritage Place, as is the case with older listings in order to determine the heritage significance.

Further, an assessment may be necessary when there have been changes in the heritage significance of the place, from the time of listing to the time that the proponent makes their application. Having the report prepared before lodging of a development application also allows the proponent to have certainty regarding the heritage significance of the place in question and may assist in their decision whether or not to proceed with the application to demolish.

Public consultation as part of the report's preparation will also allow all South Australians to have their views heard, thereby increasing transparency of the process, and will aid procedural fairness in the process. Provisions for public consultation currently exist under the Heritage Places Act 1993 relating to other actions by the South Australian Heritage Council, such as the provisional entry of places into the Heritage Register and designations.

As committed by government, providing powers to ensure the report is tabled in parliament provides for parliamentary scrutiny by all members. This bill joins other efforts by the Malinauskas government in the heritage portfolio. Just last year we introduced the bill to save the Crown and Anchor, securing the heritage-listed pub's future as an important live music venue. This was a great example of the community, the government and the private sector working together on a win, win, win outcome.

Last year we also passed the state Heritage Places (Protection of State Heritage Places) Amendment Bill 2024 with the support of the Hon. Robert Simms in the other place and increased protections for State Heritage Places, including addressing the issue of demolition by neglect. We also announced a $250,000 funding boost to the City of Adelaide Heritage Incentives Scheme. This will help more owners preserve and protect their state heritage-listed properties.

We have also strengthened planning rules to increase protections for historical builds in character areas. The changes identified as part of our independent expert panel review into the state's Planning and Design Code makes it easier for councils to protect specific sites and buildings of significance and provide certainty for landowners.

The opposition perhaps has a short-term memory when it comes to their efforts in the heritage space. The Marshall Liberal government announced it would demolish the Waite Gatehouse. The building was rescued only because people protested, signed petitions and insisted that demolition was not necessary. This occurred after the Marshall Liberal government decided to allow Shed 26 in Port Adelaide to be demolished, despite the Heritage Council approving it for listing on the South Australian Heritage Register.

The Marshall Liberal government also introduced to parliament a bill that would remove the conservation park status and charitable trust of Martindale Hall with no consultation, rationale or clear plan for the future. Let's not forget when the former Liberal leader, David Speirs, booted the National Trust from Ayers House, handing them a 30-day eviction notice in 2021 after 50 years of dedicated service. Only a few weeks ago, it was wonderful to see the National Trust of South Australia state office officially move back into the historic Ayers House. Since the Malinauskas government's legislation passed in late 2024 to keep Ayers House in the National Trust's care, we are delighted to see it return home to its iconic venue. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:20): The reference to short memories prompts me just to highlight the gall of this Labor government to come in here with legislation on heritage. In honour of the service of the great Keith Conlon, I just say to the government that has demolished the police barracks, the government that has embarked upon what is $150 million and more now in relocating the police horses, the debacle that has ensued over these years: it highlights that when this government wants to dispose of heritage it will take it as far as special-purpose legislation. It will ride roughshod literally over heritage when it suits it, so it does not sit well in the mouth of this government to be talking about memories of the treatment of heritage.

Keith Conlon is a lifelong friend of mine. I honour his service. I was dismayed by what he was forced to endure in particular. I think it does not put it too high to say that that particular insult to our state's heritage brought an end to his committed service.

Yes, let's talk about the value of heritage in this state, but let's also be clear that this Malinauskas Labor government has just the most hypocritical record on heritage that one might countenance, extending to what is loud and clear on the record just in recent years, compounded of course by the massive cost that it has imposed on the taxpayers of South Australia in having to then relocate facilities. It is an insult to heritage on one hand, followed by the mismanagement of the consequences on the other.

Yes, let's value heritage. Let's honour the commitment to exactly that from all of those, including the great Keith Conlon. I pay tribute to him. Let's see whether or not the Malinauskas Labor government can learn from its mistakes and ensure that, when it comes to heritage, we can actually turn a corner towards improvement. But let's not hear from those in this house who would trumpet the merits of this bill about insults to heritage. That really stands out and will continue to sound to the shame of the Malinauskas Labor government for decades to come.

S.E. ANDREWS (Gibson) (12:23): I rise to indicate my support for the Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2025. This bill delivers on another election commitment of this Malinauskas Labor government. Protecting our heritage is important, and I am proud to stand here as a member of parliament with 101 local and 13 State Heritage Places in my electorate. I will speak about some of those special places later. The government committed, prior to the 2022 state election, to introduce legislation to require the proposed demolition of State Heritage Places to be subject to full public consultation and, additionally, that a public report be prepared by the South Australian Heritage Council and tabled in parliament.

The Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2024 outlines that on an application to demolish the whole of a State Heritage Place, the South Australian Heritage Council is to prepare a report within a 10-week period. The report will assess the heritage significance of the place in accordance with section 16(1) of the Heritage Places Act 1993.

Additionally, this bill requires the state Heritage Council to publish a copy of the report and invite public submissions within a four-week period. The South Australian Heritage Council is to finalise the report within four weeks of the end of the consultation period, and provide it to the minister responsible for the Heritage Protection Act. This report is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within five sitting days of receipt.

It is appropriate that the SA Heritage Council, which provides strategic advice to the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, administers the Heritage Places Act 1993 and administers the South Australian Heritage Register, should provide this report.

You may ask why it is important that we protect such places. They include places like St Jude's Cemetery at Brighton, which was established in 1854 and which is the resting place of many significant South Australians, including Sir Douglas Mawson (who lived in Brighton), and Catherine Helen Spence, one of our suffragettes.

They include Marion's Albion Homestead, occupied by the Turner and Vinall families, amongst others, that saw grapes, alfalfa, peas and olives grown by its inhabitants, as well as honey being produced from the apiary. Edward Vinall even provided free milk to pupils at Brighton Primary School. This homestead, comprising a cottage and stone outbuildings, is an example that demonstrates the development of the south-western Adelaide Plains between the 1840s and 1950s. As we know, much my electorate used to host primary production for our state.

There is the beautiful Townsend House, the site of what was known as the Townsend House School for Deaf and Blind Children, which combined the roles of accommodation for staff and pupils, teaching, and sports and recreation for vision and hearing impaired children. There is also the unique Shri Ganesha Temple at Oaklands Park, which was the first traditional Hindu temple in South Australia, and which has been serving my local community for years. It was an absolute pleasure to visit there are a couple of weeks ago and see their renovations.

While I have highlighted these diverse places, I would also like to mention the Marion Uniting Church, the Marion Cultural Centre, Warriparinga (including Fairford House, the Coach House and grounds), the Brighton Municipal Offices and Council Chambers, the Former Brighton Town Hall, the Verco and Rogerson buildings and Brighton House at Minda Home, and the Paringa Hall at Sacred Heart College, to complete the list of State Heritage Places in my electorate.

In fact, if any of you are familiar with the grounds of Sacred Heart, you may have seen the cottage that sits on the corner of Brighton Road. My parents were married at Sacred Heart, my dad being a student there. He became a teacher, and in his very first year of teaching he and my mum lived in that house for the first 12 months of their marriage.

A consequential legislative amendment will be made to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 to require that an application for consent to or approval of a development involving demolition of the whole of a State Heritage Place be accompanied by a finalised report prepared by the South Australian Heritage Council. This amendment to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 will alert the proponent, through the planning system, of the need to apply for the report. While it is important to protect our heritage, it is also important to ensure that those who may wish to demolish heritage sites are fully informed of their responsibilities.

Earlier I mentioned Brighton Primary School, which was formerly known as Brighton Public School when it opened in 1877. Most of its first 19 students were daughters or sons of local farmers who lived in New Brighton. The original school consisted of two buildings: the bluestone building facing Brighton Road, and the bluestone cottage, which was the residence of the headmaster. Both these buildings are local heritage places.

As a lover and protector of beautiful trees, I am also so pleased to see a number of eucalypts, Moreton Bay figs, pines, and river red gums recognised in local heritage places across my electorate, including the beautiful trees outside St Jude's Church, where I volunteer, serving lunch on a regular basis. I support and commend this bill to the house.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (12:29): The Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2025 before us today stems from our government's 'Protect state heritage places' election commitment in the lead-up to the 2022 state election. I refer here specifically to the commitment to legislate to require that the proposed demolition of state heritage sites are subject to full public consultation and a public report from the South Australian Heritage Council. The Premier said that Labor will legislate to better protect State Heritage Places, including requiring a public report by the South Australian Heritage Council to be prepared and laid in parliament before consideration of a demolition approval and full public consultation so South Australians can have their views heard, and that is important.

That is the path we are taking with the bill before us today. It outlines that on application to demolish the whole of the State Heritage Place, the South Australian Heritage Council is to prepare a report to assess the heritage significance of the place in accordance with section 16(1) of the Heritage Places Act 1993 and, further, that the state Heritage Council is to publish the report, inviting public submissions within four weeks of its publication. The South Australian Heritage Council is to then, within four weeks of the consultation period closing, provide the final report to the minister, to be laid before both houses of parliament within five sitting days of it being received.

The importance of having the South Australian Heritage Council conduct an assessment is evident as it is the body that manages and assesses places of significance for inclusion on the register. Part of this process is the public consultation, allowing all South Australians to have their views heard, increasing transparency and procedural fairness. Tabling the report in both houses of the parliament will enable proper parliamentary scrutiny by all members and removes the possibility of only one minister or body having the sole responsibility for the removal or demolition of any given State Heritage Place.

The process is important, and having the report prepared prior to the lodging of a development application will mean the proponent will have a full understanding of the heritage significance of the place in question, with that possibly being ultimately a deciding factor on whether to proceed with the demolition application.

There is also a consequential amendment to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016, which activates the proponent of the proposed demolition to seek a copy of the report prepared by the South Australian Heritage Council. It also results in the planning authority considering the report as part of the assessment. These are positive steps to ensure state heritage sites are given absolute and proper consideration. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.

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