HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TORRENS ISLAND QUARANTINE STATION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. A. Bressington:

That this council calls on—

1. The Minister for Environment and Conservation to—

(a) conserve the heritage value of the Torrens Island Quarantine Station and the remaining pristine environment on the northern end of Torrens Island by taking steps to prevent any further industrial development of these sites;

(b) take steps to restore the Torrens Island Quarantine Station buildings on the South Australian Heritage Register and ensure sufficient funds are available to do so;

(c) engage in negotiations with the Treasurer with the objective being for the Department of Environment and Heritage to take control of the northern end of Torrens Island, including the site of the former quarantine station, from the Generation Lessor Corporation;

(d) take steps to provide tourist access to the Torrens Island Quarantine Station and surrounding historical sites and engage in consultation with all relevant parties with a view to facilitating regulated tourism; and

2. The Treasurer to—

(a) release details of the application before the Development Assessment Commission and of the proposed commercial uses of the proposed allotments; and

(b) cease moves to further develop Torrens Island and cease negotiations with commercial parties seeking to do so.

(Continued from 30 June 2010.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (20:37): I rise briefly to support the motion that calls on the Minister for Environment and Conservation to take various steps. At the heart of the motion is a need for a more transparent process that has, as its primary objective, the protection of Torrens Island from inappropriate development.

I acknowledge the Hon. Ann Bressington for bringing this motion to the house and also for the very useful forum that she hosted in Parliament House last week. I am also grateful to members of the National Trust, who facilitated a tour that I took a fortnight ago of Torrens Island. Members would be aware that this issue has been locally controversial and has taken up a great deal of space in the pages of the Portside Messenger.

At its heart, the conflict is over the appropriate use of an area that is relatively undisturbed. Members might think it unusual for me to describe Torrens Island as relatively undisturbed because it has a massive power station there, but one of the ironies of sites where access is restricted is that, apart from the footprint of that particular power station, there is very little other visitation of the island and it is relatively undisturbed.

Part of Torrens Island is mangroves and sand dunes and it is in excellent condition. It is in excellent condition because it is behind a locked gate and very few people have access to it, which means that the usual human impacts that have so degraded the coastal environment are largely absent from Torrens Island.

The application that is before the Development Assessment Commission is an application for a subdivision. Subdivisions of themselves do not cause any impact on the environment. A subdivision is an exercise in drawing lines on a map, but the problem is that this is clearly not just an application for a subdivision but that it is effectively the precursor to a debate on what will happen to each of those blocks once they have been subdivided. The big fear is that industrial development, such as developments that have been moved out from the Inner Harbor as a result of the Newport Quays development will be located in amongst the native vegetation and the natural environment of Torrens Island.

The Hon. Ann Bressington's motion refers to the heritage values of the island and, if members have not had the chance to visit the old quarantine station, I suggest that they seek that opportunity, because it is really a remarkable place in South Australian history, a place where many early arrivals disembarked. Most of them got through that process; a number did not, and their graves are still there to be seen.

The government's position, as outlined by the local member, treasurer Foley, and other members of the government seems to be that, because there is a power station on the island, then it is open slather for industrial development. I agree with the Nature Conservation Society that that is not the right approach to take. In fact, the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia is quoted in the local Messenger newspaper as saying:

This is the last sand dune mangrove area remaining in the Port region, which makes it really significant.

That quote is from Georgina Mollison, the society's conservation ecologist. She goes on to say:

There is very little left of this type of ecosystem remaining, particularly in metropolitan Adelaide. From an ecological point of view it is a buffer for the Port River, and we need to maintain a buffer in that area to minimise the effects of industrial development.

Members would also appreciate that Torrens Island is in fact the intertidal area and, particularly, part of the Adelaide dolphin sanctuary. It begs the question: with the amount of development, both industrial and residential, occurring around and in some cases on top of the dolphin sanctuary: what is the point? What is the point of declaring a dolphin sanctuary if anything goes in terms of residential and, in this case, industrial development?

The honourable member's motion calls on the government to publish more details in relation to the proposal, and I would say that it is not good enough for the government to simply allow to be published on the Development Assessment Commission's website the bare bones of a subdivision application when clearly what people have a right to know and are interested in knowing is to which heavy industries the government proposes to sell or lease these blocks, once subdivided, on Torrens Island. We know, for example, that Heritage SA and the Native Vegetation Council have already made comment on the subdivision proposal, yet there is no easy access to their reports. The government should be open and honest with the people—not just of Port Adelaide but also the people of the state—because this heritage is of state significance, and tell us exactly who it has in mind.

It also brings to mind the debate we had here not that long ago over the Searles boatyard. I remember being castigated by the Leader of the Government and other members of the government that we were standing up for old tin sheds and standing up for the old waterfront heritage of Port Adelaide. The point is that those people who were dislocated from those sites now need somewhere to go, and what the government is doing, most inappropriately, is sending them towards Torrens Island. We know there are other locations, other empty waterfront sites and other industrial sites at Gillman, for example, that would be far more appropriate than this area on Torrens Island. To my mind it shows that this government cares very little for protecting open space, and in particular environmentally significant open space.

I expect that the Environment, Resources and Development Committee of parliament will have something to say about this development when we have a look at it, as we looked last year at a similar project whereby the government rezoned a large area of biodiversity park for industrial development, the same area that the environment department had been funding community groups to rehabilitate. The other government departments relating to trade are more than happy to rezone that not quite completely revegetated land for industrial development. So, with those words, the Greens are pleased to be supporting the Hon. Ann Bressington's motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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