HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-02-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Heritage Places (Protection of State Heritage Places) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 August 2023.)

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (17:08): I rise to support the bill of the Hon. Robert Simms and the intent of what this bill is going to do. One of the first images that really springs to mind when we are considering what this bill is hoping to do is Bell's Plumbers Shop. I do not know whether you are familiar with that place, but Bell's Plumbers Shop is that glaring eyesore on Payneham Road opposite the Maid and Magpie. There were court orders in 2018 for the then owner, Philip March, to repair the vandalised, dilapidated and fire ravaged shop. He was the first and, to my knowledge, the only person convicted of neglecting a state heritage building.

The whole thing is at a standstill now because during criminal proceedings, ownership had changed. In 2018, the then environment minister, David Speirs, said the government did have an option to compulsorily acquire the property, but as yet that has not been exercised. Norwood Payneham and St Peters council want the government to acquire it and restore it. It is an eyesore now.

Communicating with the Mayor of Norwood, Payneham and St Peters council, Robert Bria, only yesterday to ask him if there had been any movement on trying to get something done with this building, he told me, 'No, it just seems to be forgotten,' and yet there it is, an old heritage building that would have been in its day an attractive little place, just looking like it has been forgotten, trashed, and almost like a tiny ghetto of a building in that part of Adelaide.

The cost to bring the 140-year-old building back to its old glory would no doubt be exorbitant now but the question is, what could you possibly do with it now? If you actually had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing it, what would you do with it? You could not open it up as another plumber shop, so now it becomes nothing more than a museum piece, and I think that is also the conundrum that the state government and also Norwood Payneham and St Peters council and others face about this building.

It is almost symbolic of government and local government being frozen in making a decision on what to do, and it is probably also symbolic of what Mr Simms wants to do with his bill. It has a unique history. It was built in 1883 by one of our premiers, John Colton, and it is a unique memory of a bygone era and we are starting to lose much of that around the city. So I support the bill because it seeks to preserve heritage buildings that are neglected, like Bell's, and that deteriorate to the point where they have to be demolished. I fear that that could well be the fate of Bell's plumber shop: it will end up being demolished.

The state owns several heritage-listed buildings and not all of them are in an acceptable state or receive the maintenance that is required. One example of that is the magnificent Martindale Hall near Clare. I visited Martindale Hall three years ago, and I was alarmed to be told that this magnificent building, which featured in Peter Weir's movie Picnic at Hanging Rock and has been used as a backdrop in many cultural events and fashion shoots and other occasions, badly needed repairs to its leaking roof, along with other maintenance work to the building.

When the state does not want to spend money, they try to flog off these buildings to private enterprise and commercial operators and that seemed to be the fate that was going to befall Martindale Hall. Before there was a change of government, there were moves afoot to try to at least get some commercial value as a result of it. Mr Simms pointed out the state of Romilly House on the corner of Hackney Road and North Terrace. He also highlighted the lack of tenants for Edmund Wright House. This is a stunning example of, I think it is Georgian-era architecture, with its breathtaking interior. It is in a prime location but, sadly, no business is interested in bringing it back to life.

Some years ago, the popular Parlamento restaurant across the road tried to make a go of it as a reception centre. That did not last too long, unfortunately, and it has not been open since 2015. I really hate to see what it looks like now. What has the current owner done to make it still an attractive proposition for a new buyer? It is simply stunning inside, from the last time I was in there.

This bill wants to provide more incentives to heritage building owners to bring them up to scratch. Councils do this, to some extent, but usually it is not enough to meet the cost of this exercise. Mr Simms proposes significant penalties for intentional or reckless damage through neglect. The penalties are quite significant, up to half a million dollars, but I must ask: what is 'intentional or reckless damage'? Some owners simply do not have the funds to spend on a building that may not provide a return on their investment. This is where the government has to step in and contribute.

Adelaide is blessed with some magnificent heritage buildings, many saved by the intervention of a visionary in former Premier Don Dunstan. Some were not, unfortunately. You only have to think of the imposing Jubilee Exhibition Building on North Terrace, which had a unique place in Australian history because that is where the fathers of Federation actually met and started to construct the constitution. It happened here in Adelaide.

It was a magnificent building on North Terrace. It would have had incredible pride of place even if it was there today. It would have been an enormous attraction but, for some strange reason, it was flattened. It was demolished. Modern buildings that are not anywhere near as attractive have sprung up there. Talking about that section of North Terrace, I certainly hope that from King William Street on towards Hackney Road, on that left-hand side, we do not see the intrusion of modernistic buildings that will detract from the attractiveness of those buildings that we have there today.

Talking about Don Dunstan and that era of the 1970s, we had quite an imposing hotel called the South Australian, which was directly across the road. It was a fantastic building, reminiscent of Raffles in Singapore. As a young reporter, I would often walk past that building on my way into work and just marvel at the architecture and the decor inside. Of course, it also had another unique place in our history—our music history, anyway—because that is where The Beatles stayed when they were here in 1964. That building was demolished and you can see what is across the road there now: a hotel that certainly is nowhere near as visually attractive as what the South Australian was.

You also need to think of Ayers House. That fabulous residence was also set for demolition until the government stepped in and saved it. Another one that was of quite unique historical interest was the Harbors Board department building, which was saved from demolition to enable the government to construct the headquarters for the insurance business it had at the time, SGIC. With some clever civil engineering and some innovation, the building was actually moved on rollers that were placed under the foundations. That space was then used to build the multistorey building that is currently standing there on the corner of Wakefield Street and Victoria Square.

The Hon. Mr Simms laments the impending demolition of the police barracks at Thebarton to make way for the Women's and Children's Hospital. I supported the government's decision to do that, and I do not regret doing so. I never thought of them as being so attractive that they needed protection, and certainly there are examples of that style elsewhere in Adelaide. When they go I do not think they are going to be missed by anybody.

However, we are seeing Adelaide today, in 2024, starting to resemble Legoland—some tall towers, looking the same—and you have to ask yourself: where is the architectural creativity and innovation in these designs? I am hoping that the current government does not approve a multistorey building. I believe some of the proposals that have been put to the government are for a building up to 37 storeys right behind Parliament House, next to the new building that has just been completed and opened. It would certainly cast Parliament House in shadow almost all day but also rob Parliament House of its own unique position here. I think it should be resisted, and I hope the government does not go for another multistorey tower.

Just talking about these new multistorey buildings that are going up everywhere, there are not many of them that you would think would be worth saving one day, to be honest. Another was unveiled yesterday for the CBD with, again, nothing really attractive about its design. Because of the size of allotments in the CBD—it is only a one-kilometre square, of course, as we know—allotments are also determining what goes on them, but now height is the new black in construction in the City of Adelaide.

We do have the SAHMRI building, which is affectionately known as the cheese grater, and that is one of the sort of modern designs that you would actually admire and think that that building would be here for quite a long time, certainly long after I have passed on. The view of the city skyline may look like a modern growing metropolis, but Adelaide's unique heritage styles are actually being swamped by modernism. They are in contrast to places, for instance, like Doha, Dubai and Abu Dhabi. Of course, there was nothing there at the time but desert sand, but the structures that go up there actually have some visual appeal as well, and it is something that is sadly missing from many buildings in the City of Adelaide.

One of my old newspaper bosses, Ron Boland, who was a long-time distinguished editor and a trusted adviser and colleague of Rupert Murdoch, once wrote a provocative opinion piece in The News in the mid-1980s where he lamented the demise of Adelaide's heritage buildings and urged greater protection for them. He also warned against the city becoming another Manhattan but, sadly, it is starting to look that way. With that, I support the bill from the Hon. Rob Simms, and I look forward to its passage through the Legislative Council.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (17:23): I rise in support of this bill on behalf of the opposition. In essence, this bill has three main objectives. Firstly, it allows for the creation of a heritage agreement to be entered into between the owner of the state heritage place and the minister to provide for the management, occupation and the future use of the land.

The second objective is to significantly increase the penalties applicable in circumstances where there is additional or reckless damage to a state heritage place. The penalty is increased from $120,000 to $250,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a body corporate.

Thirdly, the bill amends the provisions relating to protection orders. The existing act already allows for the creation of protection orders, but this bill introduces a penalty for failing to comply with a protection order. The penalty order is relatively high, equal to a tenth of the maximum penalty prescribed for that offence. For a body corporate, this could equal $50,000 per day.

There are numerous privately owned state heritage places in South Australia. As at mid-2023, there were 2,323 such places, of which more than 80 per cent were owned by private, commercial or local government entities.

The opposition does intend to support this bill because it fundamentally aligns with the approach we have taken as a party over the years. The opposition has been a significant promoter of heritage protection in South Australia. Heritage buildings tell the stories of our past and contribute to the built and cultural fabric of our future. It is imperative that we do everything we can to ensure that those buildings are maintained.

In 2018, under the then Marshall Liberal government, the Heritage Conservation Grant was reinstated. Under that program, $1.25 million was provided to support private owners to maintain heritage buildings. The grants acted as a significant incentive for many owners to commence restoration of their properties. While in government, we made it very plain that we were committed to maintaining state heritage places. The same cannot be said by those opposite. This is unfortunately another display of promises made and not kept by the current Malinauskas government.

The heading in a policy document released by the Labor government prior to the 2022 election is 'Protect State Heritage Places'—even the heading starts with a lie. It reads:

To ensure that demolition cannot occur at the whim of a future government, Labor will—

and I emphasise '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.

Yet, here we are, less than two months after that empty promise, with the government unilaterally deciding to demolish the numerous state heritage listed buildings in the Thebarton Police Barracks. Where is the promised public report laid in parliament? Where is the full public consultation? There has been none.

This is another example of how we cannot trust this current government. They have yet again broken another election commitment. The list of broken election promises by those opposite is growing by the minute, leaving a path of destruction behind them and seemingly no remorse.

My question is: how many more state heritage buildings do we have to see demolished without public consultation and without the requisite public report laid in parliament before the Malinauskas government feel a pang of guilt for their deception and failure to act in this area and decide to follow through on their election commitments?

As I said, the opposition intends to support this bill and we thank the honourable member for bringing forward this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (17:28): I am pleased to speak on this bill on behalf of the government and thank the Hon. Robert Simms for introducing it. This bill seeks to address the issues of neglect by amending section 33 (effect of heritage agreements), section 36 (damage or neglect), section 39A (protection orders) and section 42 of the Heritage Places Act 1993.

The bill proposes to strengthen heritage protection by allowing the government to occupy or make use of a state heritage place where a heritage agreement is in place; increasing the penalties for damage or neglect of state heritage places; and increasing penalties for failure to comply with a protection order under section 39A, including making provision for daily penalties.

In the 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Review, which the Hon. Nicola Centofanti must have looked over, the Malinauskas Labor government announced $10 million in funding over 10 years to protect heritage for the future. This is twice as much money, over twice as many years, compared with investments in heritage from the previous government.

This funding included an additional $250,000 a year for heritage conservation grants to support the owners of state heritage places. The first round of this program saw grants awarded to some of our state's most iconic state heritage places in both metropolitan and regional South Australia. The funding will also deliver a reform agenda that includes providing additional support to the Heritage Council, reducing the backlog of outstanding heritage listings and moving the heritage register online, providing more detailed mapping and information for decision-makers and owners.

But most importantly, and most relevant to this bill, part of this funding was also committed to legislation and policy reform to modernise heritage protection in South Australia. This legislative reform work is already underway and is being conducted by the Department for Environment and Water. Reforms currently being considered include many aspects of what is proposed in this bill, such as demolition by neglect, compliance, regulation, penalties, incentives and more. It is for this reason that the government supports this bill.

The government believes that our precious history deserves protecting. Evidence of our commitment can be seen in the Ayers House Bill 2023, which was introduced to state parliament on 29 November with the aim of fulfilling the election commitment of establishing the state heritage listed property as the History Trust of South Australia's permanent home.

This expands and continues the vision of former Premier Don Dunstan, who granted Ayers House to the trust as a permanent home, only for the trust to be evicted—which, again, must have been forgotten by the honourable member opposite—by the former Marshall Liberal government on a whim after more than 50 years of calling Ayers House home. Don Dunstan invited the trust to contribute to his plan to restore, furnish and present the house to the public, and we are ensuring that his vision once again can be restored. The government supports the intention of this bill and looks forward to its passage.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:31): I want to thank all members for their contributions: the Hon. Frank Pangallo, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti and the Hon. Emily Bourke. I know that we have had a few disagreements in the chamber this week, but it is nice to end on a Thursday with a moment of agreement where we see all parties on the same page in terms of dealing with this issue.

Many members have touched on the details of the bill, so I do not think it is necessary for me to go through them all again. Suffice to say the clear intention here is to give the relevant minister increased powers regarding those who are sitting on our iconic heritage buildings and allowing them to rot. This bill gives the minister the power to step in and incentivise those buildings being activated.

One of the key changes here is that, as part of a heritage agreement, the minister could potentially step in for the management or occupation of the site. It has always been the view of the Greens that it is morally wrong that we have these iconic buildings sitting there vacant in the middle of a once-in-a-generation housing crisis, so we should be doing everything we can to incentivise the activation of those buildings.

Another of the issues the Greens have been concerned about has been the lack of appropriate penalties for noncompliance, and that is another issue this bill seeks to address. I thank all members for their support. In particular, I want to thank Minister Susan Close's office. I have been in regular communication with the minister regarding this issue and look forward to, hopefully, this bill being supported down the track in the other place.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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