10 September 2024
The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:06): I rise to speak in favour of this bill, and it is worth briefly visiting how we found ourselves here.
Back in May it was reported that Wee Hur Holdings Ltd had applied for planning consent for the partial demolition of the Crown and Anchor Hotel to make way for the construction of multilevel student accommodation. At that time the Greens were one of the first groups to come out in opposing this redevelopment, not because we did not want to see more student accommodation in the city—of course we want to see more student accommodation—but because our view was that we did not need to bulldoze or radically alter one of our iconic pubs in order to accommodate that kind of development.
There are already a lot of vacant sites in the CBD that could be activated to make way for more student accommodation, so we never accepted the argument that a private developer should be able to acquire that site and, in effect, get rid of the pub. It does not make sense. Cities are, after all, all about balance, and we need to have live music venues, we need to have iconic pubs in our city, as well as more student accommodation.
What followed from that time was a huge community grassroots campaign that has saved that South Australian icon from destruction. Over the course of several months over 15,000 people signed a petition calling on the state government to save the Cranker, and a record 1,328 submissions were made to the State Commission Assessment Panel—that is more than double those that have been received in any previous public consultation for development.
At two rallies, on 28 April and 18 August, thousands of South Australians took to the streets to demand that the state government save their pub. I want to take this opportunity to praise all of those have been campaigning on this issue, and to recognise their great work in activating the community. In particular, I acknowledge the work of Evan Morony, Patrick Maher and all the other members of the Save the Cranker committee for their tireless work. It has been a privilege to engage with them over the last few months.
This is an example of what we can do when the parliament works in unity with the community. The Greens are very proud to have stood with the community every step of the way, raising this issue at every level of government. We raised it in Town Hall, we raised it here in the state parliament, and this was also discussed on the floor of the federal Senate.
So the Greens are very proud of the work that we have done to fight to save this iconic pub. I also want to acknowledge the work of other members of parliament. In particular, I acknowledge the work of the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who has done a lot of work on this issue, engaging around this one—as she does on many important issues. We share our love of camp.
From the start, the Greens and the community were told by the state government that there was simply nothing that could be done. The government came out of the start and said, 'There's nothing we can do on this. It's not possible. We have a rules-based system.' Well, there is an old saying we have in the Greens: 'If you don't like the rules, you change them.' That is what we are doing today.
Indeed, when I brought a motion to this place calling on the Malinauskas government to oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the Crown and Anchor, the reply of the government was clear: they have no ability to intervene in the decision-making process. Hey presto, less than three months later we now have a bill before us that will save the Cranker and give other live music venues the protection they deserve. This is precisely what the Greens were calling for.
At that time we were told it could not be done: 'We have a rules-based system. We can't do anything, we can't intervene.' Well, thanks to people power, finally we have seen a change in position of the government. The power of community activism is on display here in the parliament today. I have always believed that it is the parliament that makes the law but it is the community that drives change. That is what we have seen here, and we do welcome the fact that the government has finally listened to the community.
It is important to note that the Cranker is just the latest in a string of iconic buildings and live music venues that have been targeted by developers. Over the last decades, we have seen the Producers on Grenfell Street and Pirie Street's Tivoli close their doors, and other venues like the Austral no longer host live music. Their loss has dealt a heavy blow to Adelaide's proud music history and tradition, and this bill will finally give the Cranker and the city's most iconic remaining live music venues the improved protections that they deserve. Acting President, I acknowledge your work in advocating for a committee on live music, which we look forward to seeing getting off the ground in due course because that is an important next step.
This bill provides that the Crown and Anchor cannot be demolished. Its height cannot be increased through the addition of more storeys, and a change in use of the land cannot occur without the concurrence of the Minister for Planning after a community consultation process of not less than four weeks. It also enhances protections for other live music venues in the Adelaide CBD by designating it as a live music venue area and specifying that new residential developments within 60 metres of a venue must include noise attenuation measures to reduce the potential for complaints. We welcome those provisions. This is precisely the kind of intervention that the Greens have been calling for, and so we welcome that.
We will also be moving to amend the bill so that the provisions of the Heritage Places (Protection of State Heritage Places) Amendment Bill that passed the other place several weeks ago will apply to the Crown and Anchor. This was a Greens private members' bill, which was to increase the penalties that applied for demolition by neglect. That is the practice where you see an owner of a property allowing it to fall into disrepair. Because the penalties were previously so low, there was really nothing to compel the developer to take action to ensure that these properties were being held to an appropriate standard, and they could therefore be bulldozed.
The Greens worked with the Malinauskas government to close that loophole. We passed a private members' bill in the parliament during the last sitting. This suite of amendments that I will be moving will insert those provisions into the way in which the Cranker is managed in the future. That will ensure of course that, if there is any change of ownership or if the developer decides in the future that they are not going to take action to keep that building up to an appropriate standard, the heritage minister can intervene, slap them with fines and take action. I do acknowledge, as the Hon. Michelle Lensink has mentioned in her comments, her and I have spoken about this and I welcome the Liberals' support for that and appreciate that.
The Cranker has been saved, but without further reforms to our planning and heritage laws South Australia's iconic places will remain at risk of being lost forever. I agree with my colleagues that this demonstrates the flaws in our planning system. If the planning system was actually working and meeting community expectations, you would not need to see legislative intervention like this. This really is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the flaws in our state's planning laws and heritage laws. It is clear that our heritage protection laws, which are focused on built form aesthetics, do not extend protections to ongoing use or the broader cultural and social value of these buildings. The result is that heritage places which are of huge social and cultural significance to our community could be bought by developers and gutted, with only the facade remaining.
What this debate has exposed is that heritage is about much more than just bricks and mortar, it is about the heart and soul of our state, our city and our community. The government must now move to amend our heritage laws to reflect this. It must also strengthen the role of people in our planning system and give communities more of a say in planning the cities that they want to live in. I do not agree with the views of the Property Council that it is not for advocates, politicians and local councillors to be involved in these decisions and that these decisions should simply be made by unelected officials. It is the role of parliament and council, as the people's representatives, to actually give effect to the views of the people and ensure that we have a planning system that suits their needs.
We really need to revise the thresholds in the planning, development and infrastructure regulations that push planning assessments of medium-size developments from council assessment plans to the State Commission Assessment Panel. At present, the threshold is just $10 million for developments in the City of Adelaide, which means that the council is stripped of its role in most development proposals. That is why I think there is such a discomfort with so many of the decisions that are being made, because the community is not having an appropriate say.
The Greens have also proposed a community right to buy, which is modelled on similar legislation that has worked well in the United Kingdom. This would enable local councils, community organisations and charities to be able to nominate land or buildings that are of community value for inclusion on a register which would be managed by the Minister for Planning. Once listed, a building or a piece of land would become an asset of community value and remain on the register for five years. During that time, the owner would have to apply to the minister should they wish to change its use or to sell the building, and the community would have a right to express interest as a potential buyer during an eight-week period.
The minister would consider applications from councils, community organisations and charities and if an expression of interest is approved, a 12-month moratorium is put on the asset to enable the community group or council to raise funds for the offer. This would provide a lifeline to our iconic pubs and stop the endless decline of live music venues and SA's cherished places. The Greens are going to continue to push for that, as well as other changes to our planning laws.
I agree with the comments made by the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Connie Bonaros that this bill does set a precedent. If the state government has the power to save the Cranker, then it has the power to fix our state's heritage and planning laws, too, and the Greens will continue to stand with the community in fighting for a heritage and planning regime that serves the interests of the community rather than developers. I certainly put the government on notice that next time there is a development proposal that totally offends community sentiment, the Greens will come back knocking once again for this parliament to intervene because we now know that when there is a will, there is a way.
I think this should actually send a shiver down the spine of all those developers in our state who are seeking to impose inappropriate development on our city, because with people power we can intervene and we can strike a better balance in our state's planning laws. I welcome the government's intervention in this instance, and I will have a bit more to say in the committee stage and a few questions of the government.