26 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:12): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before directing a question without notice to the minister representing the Minister for Planning on the topic of the Duke of York Hotel.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Yesterday, it was announced that the historic Duke of York Hotel will be closed and gutted to build a 33-storey student accommodation tower. The plans will retain only a majority of the facade in the redevelopment. The Duke of York is a local heritage place and hosts regular comedy nights, DJs and live music—sounds very similar to a scenario we have dealt with before in this parliament.

Just this month, the Governor assented to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Designated Live Music Venues and Protection of Crown and Anchor Hotel) Amendment Bill, which aims to protect designated live music venues. My questions to the minister representing the Minister for Planning therefore are:

1. Will the minister designate the Duke of York Hotel a live music venue under the amendments that were recently made to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act?

2. What is the minister doing to retain the heritage value of this building?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries) (15:13): I am happy to refer those questions to the Minister for Planning in the other place and bring back a response.

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (26 September 2024).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development, Minister for Forest Industries):

The Minister for Planning has advised:

• That he will take advice from the Department for Housing and Urban Development on what venues should be designated as live music venues under the new provisions of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.
• In determining what venues should be designated as live music venues, the following will be considered:
  • The extent to which the venue is used as a live music venue;
  • Whether there is likely to be residential development within 60 metres of the venue;
  • Any relevant zoning that applies to the venue in the Planning and Design Code, which could include:
  • consideration of whether existing code policy in relation to noise attenuation is already sufficient; and
  • whether a venue is located within a zone envisaged for entertainment;
  • Whether the venue is a place of state or local heritage;
  • The existing development approval and any relevant conditions attached to it; and
  • Any other approvals or licences (such as a liquor licence under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997) the venue has.
• He will consult with relevant stakeholders and hotel owners of venues proposed to be designated before designating any venues as live music venues.
• The Duke of York Hotel (hotel) is listed as a place of local heritage in the Planning and Design Code. This means that any demolition, destruction or removal may only occur if the portion to be demolished, destroyed or removed does not contribute to the heritage values of the hotel itself.
• It would be a matter for the South Australian Heritage Council as to whether the hotel is worthy of any further protection as a place of state heritage under the Heritage Places Act 1993.

12 September 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:20): I rise to speak in favour of the motion from my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks. This proposal for a parliamentary inquiry into live music comes after the debate about the Crown and Anchor. It has really exposed some of the challenges that our live music venues face. As I indicated at the time when we were dealing with that debate, one of the big challenges, of course, has been planning laws and the lack of protection for our heritage buildings—and I am really pleased the parliament has dealt with that—but there are lots of other challenges that live music faces in our state. One need to only look at the closure of venues that we have seen in recent years.

Those challenges were magnified during COVID, but we have seen the closure of The Producers on Grenfell Street; the Tivoli on Pirie Street; Enigma, which closed after operating for nearly 25 years; and the King's Head, once the stomping ground for the original line-up of The Masters Apprentices, which rehearsed in the pub's back shed, has been closed down. The Wright Street Hotel has also been put on the chopping block, and that has closed down. The Edinburgh Castle on Currie Street—I have some good memories of that hotel back when it was a gay venue in the early 2000s. I used to go there a bit then. It has closed, it has reopened a few times, but, sadly, it has also fallen by the wayside and it closed in 2018, and it had been licensed since 1837. And then, of course, The Austral, which has faced challenges through planning.

I acknowledge that, as a result of the bill that passed the parliament the other day, there will be protection for some of those remaining live music venues. Some of our iconic venues potentially could get protection—that will be a decision the minister will make in terms of those that meet the criteria that he establishes—but that could theoretically ensure we do not have the problems that have been faced by pubs like The Austral, for instance, where they had a development pop up next to them and, in effect, that meant that their business model was no longer viable.

There are other challenges that live music venues face and, indeed, the arts community face more broadly in our state. The need for more government funding is one challenge, but I know the Hon. Tammy Franks has spoken previously about some of the peculiarities that exist in liquor licensing laws, for instance, and the impact that can have on business operations. This is a really worthwhile committee, and I am very pleased to hear that it has broad support across the parliament.

I very much look forward to hearing about the issues that come to light and having an opportunity for the parliament to look at the recommendations and see what can be done to ensure that we make Adelaide, and our state, a place that really celebrates live music and the arts well into the future.

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.

1 May 2024

Motions

CROWN AND ANCHOR HOTEL

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon R.A. Simms:

That this council—

1. Notes that Singapore-based developer Wee Hur Holdings Ltd has made an application for partial demolition and adaptive reuse of the site of the Crown and Anchor Hotel, which was first licensed in 1853 and has been a cornerstone of Adelaide’s live music scene for over three decades.

2. Acknowledges an online petition signed by over 15,000 people opposing any attempts at demolition or change in the use of the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

3. Recognises that Adelaide is a designated UNESCO City of Music for the vibrancy of the city’s music culture, including its live music venues.

4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to:

(a) oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the Crown and Anchor Hotel;

(b) make a submission to the State Commission Assessment Panel indicating that position; and

(c) move to amend state heritage laws to ensure that cultural and social value is considered in the development assessment of heritage sites like the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (17:25): moved an amendment to the motion:

Leave out paragraph 4 and insert new paragraphs as follows:

4. Encourages any member in this place to make a submission to the State Commission Assessment Panel by 11.59pm on Friday 10 May 2024 to enable them to make an informed decision when the application is considered.

5. Notes that the Planning and Design Code under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 can designate a place as a place of local heritage value and local councils may seek to initiate amendments to the Planning and Design Code to designate a place as a place of local heritage value and that the Crown and Anchor was designated as a local heritage place on 1 November 2001.

6. Notes that on 24 April 2024 the Heritage Council received a nomination from a member of the public to make the Crown and Anchor a State Heritage Place and that the council is also anticipating a second nomination imminently.

7. Notes that on 26 April 2024 the Crown and Anchor Hotel was provisionally entered on the state Heritage Register as a State Heritage Place by the Chair of the Heritage Council under section 17 (2)(b) of the Heritage Places Act 1993 which is essentially a determination that a place should be protected while an assessment of its heritage significance is carried out and that an assessment will now be carried out with a decision to be made on the validity of the nomination at a future meeting of council likely in early September.

8. Notes the criteria to list a place as a State Heritage Place is contained within the Heritage Places Act 1993—this means that any future considerations to amend the criteria would be a matter for the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water as the minister responsible for the Heritage Places Act 1993 and that the act already includes a specific criteria centred around a place having a strong cultural or spiritual association for the community or a group within it.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:45): I want to thank all members who have spoken on this motion: the Hon. Mr Hanson, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Tammy Franks, and the Hon. Frank Pangallo. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Crown and Anchor campaign, the Cranker campaign, for the amazing work that they have done in mobilising so many people in our community on this issue. This motion is not the end of this campaign; in fact, it is just the beginning. It is just the beginning of a new movement that is campaigning to reform our planning laws in South Australia and ensure that we have a planning system that actually listens to the views of the community rather than being captive to the interests of developers.

It is clear that there is momentum to fix South Australia's broken planning system and to actually listen to the views of the community. I am disappointed that paragraph 4 of this motion is being struck out, because the government's amendments take all of the verbs out of the motion. The motion actually called on the government to form a position opposing this redevelopment of the Crown and Anchor, and it called on the government to support the social and cultural elements of heritage as well, and to ensure that that was appropriately recognised through our planning laws.

I am disappointed that the Liberal Party seems to have changed its position on that. It seems to be a case of saying one thing on the steps of Parliament House on Sunday and doing something a bit different here in the parliament, and that is a shame. I fear that there may be some members here who are capitulating to the views of the Property Council, and that is a shame, because if the Property Council had their way, then our planning laws would not be about people at all. It is a bit like those uni chiefs who talk about unis being great places if not for the students.

The Property Council seems to think that our cities would be great places to live if not for the people who are actually in them. They seem to think that our planning system should not involve any emotion, should not actually consider the views of the residents and the community. Well, our cities are not simply soulless concrete jungles. They are about people—that is what they are about—and the community should have a say in planning the neighbourhoods in which we live. These decisions should not be outsourced to unelected committees, committees of so-called experts. These decisions should be made by communities and involve their local councils.

I do just want to say that one of the deep flaws in our planning system and our heritage laws that has been exposed here is the fact that we have a planning regime and a heritage regime that is really shallow in terms of the protection that it provides to our iconic buildings. It is simply not acceptable that a developer can protect the facade and gut the interior of our iconic buildings. We need to change our planning laws so that that cannot continue to happen. We need to change our planning laws to ensure that a venue like the Crown and Anchor cannot be converted into a soulless building.

This is not the end of this campaign; it is simply the campaign moving into another phase. If this motion gets up in an amended form tonight, that will be a good outcome for all those who have been out there rallying and campaigning, because it demonstrates that the parliament takes this matter seriously. But there is still a lot more work to do, and I want to make it very clear that the Greens stand shoulder to shoulder with all those people in our community who want to see a planning system that actually works for people and not developers. I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments, but we will support, of course, the substantive motion should the amendments be successful.

The council divided on the amendment:

Ayes 17

Noes 3

Majority 14

AYES

NOES

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.

30 April 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:56): I rise the join my colleague in reiterating the Greens opposition to this bill, what is an attack on the principles of our democracy, an attack on the integrity of our foreign policy, but also a slap in the face of the people of our nation and the people of our state in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis.

We have spoken at length in this chamber about myriad crises the people of South Australia face at the moment. Imagine what could be done to tackle the cost-of-living crisis if we were spending the $368 billion that is going towards these war machines on actually helping people. Imagine the amount of housing you could build with $368 billion. Imagine the amount of money we could put into our public education system with $368 billion. Imagine what we could do to our health system with $368 billion. Imagine what we could do with our university system at a time when students are facing skyrocketing HECS debts. The sky is the limit in terms of what we could achieve with this level of investment, yet the limit of the Labor Party's ambition is building war machines, signing us up to a dirty deal with Washington.

It is absolutely outrageous, and I urge members of parliament who are voting for this bill and who are supporting this bill to go out into their communities and justify to the people of South Australia how this is money well spent, how this will help the South Australians who are sleeping on the street, sleeping in cars, sleeping in tents, because they cannot afford to find a place to live. Yet, meanwhile, over in Canberra we are seeing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money being spent on this dud deal. It is an absolute outrage.

Budgets are about priorities. The Labor Party, in locking Australia into this dud deal, has demonstrated how out of touch it is with the people of our country. When I was at uni, we used to have an old chant, which was, 'Labor, Liberal are the same, only difference is the name.' I can tell you, when I look at the activities of the do-nothing Albanese government over in Canberra, never before has a truer statement been made. It is outrageous.

It is really disappointing to see Labor and the Liberals working in lockstep in this place to rush this bill through with such limited scrutiny, such little consideration of the implications for the management of public land, such little consideration about the nature of this deal and what it means for South Australia. This is a jobs mirage. We have heard these claims over and over and over again in South Australia. They do not eventuate. Instead, the South Australian government should be advocating for better job investment in our state that is not tied to making these war machines, that is not tied to locking Australia into an alliance with the United States.

Might I say, if there was surely a time to reconsider this approach, this is it. We are on the cusp of tying our foreign policy in Australia to Donald Trump. I have heard about going all the way with LBJ. Talk about going to hell in a handbasket with a basket case! That man is nuts. This is the person that Australians are meant to draw comfort from—Donald Trump, dictating Australia's foreign policy—us tying our national security to what goes on in Washington at a time when they have such a dangerous person vying for the presidency, such a dangerous person on the cusp of getting back into power over in Washington. This does not make our country safer. It actually creates more instability. It creates more danger for the people of Australia.

Indeed, children who are not yet born will spend all of their adult lives paying for this project. Rather than putting the money into public services—health, education, aged care, electricity—the Labor Party, with their mates in the Liberals, are locking Australia into this dud deal with the United States. It is really dangerous for Australia. It is something that is going to cause unrest in our region, and it is all about promoting the war industry and stoking the war-making ambitions of the United States. That is what this is about. It is an obscene waste of money—an absolutely obscene waste of money.

I think this parliament has an obligation to apply the blowtorch to this proposal, because, as my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks has said, this land swap or land grab, or whatever you want to call it, is the first step as part of this project. There is considerable community concern about this. Lots of people in the community are saying, 'Hang on, why can't we find the money for health? Why can't we find the money for education? Why can't we fix the ramping crisis? Why can't we give every South Australian a roof over their head, when we can find hundreds of millions of dollars to fund these war machines?' Many Australians are saying, 'Why on earth is the Australian government tying Australia's foreign policy to the United States in this way? Why on earth would we outsource our foreign policy to Trump Tower?' What a joke! The Greens will be opposing this.

10 April 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:30): I rise to speak this afternoon about a matter that will be important to any South Australian who cares about the character of the City of Adelaide, and that is the decision of the Malinauskas government to green light a second tower on the Festival Plaza—38 storeys, no less, to sit alongside the 29 levels that have already been constructed on our public space. This is Crown land, land that belongs to all South Australians.

I must say that, when I heard this announcement, I was shocked and dismayed that the extent of the vision and imagination of the Malinauskas government when it comes to this premier site in the City of Adelaide is yet another office tower. We already have a vacancy rate in the City of Adelaide when it comes to office buildings of about 20 per cent. Why on earth is the government building yet another office tower? Why on earth is it giving the Walker Corporation the right to build another tower in that location?

I have heard some of the comments made by the planning minister in this regard, where he talks about this being an iconic building. This is not the Opera House, this is not the Taj Mahal, it is not the iconic Festival Centre, it is an office tower and it is one that is going to overshadow our historic Parliament House and obscure the view for the public and prevent the public from being able to enjoy this key civic space.

The government says that office space is going to be a key civic space, and I think the community is meant to be excited about the prospect of schoolchildren touring an office and checking out the remarkable office space. We are going to have four storeys made available to the public, yet there is no assurance that this will be anything more than just a food court for the office workers in that building. It is a disgrace.

Where was the tender process here? When will the community find out how much the Walker Corporation is going to be paying the people of South Australia to take control of that parcel of land? How do we know whether or not this is going to be a commercial deal? Will the taxpayer be asked to contribute to this, given the South Australian taxpayer has already forked out more than $200 million to support what is in effect a private development? Who will be the tenants? These are all important questions that the Malinauskas government must answer.

I think it is outrageous that they have treated our public space with such disdain. This sends a very clear message to the people of South Australia around our planning system. It demonstrates that our planning system, of which the Labor Party is the architect, serves developers. It puts the interests of developers above the interests of the community and it is an absolute disgrace.

It is not just the Greens saying this. I was interested to read some of the letters to the editor today. I want to quote from my friend and former colleague Anne Moran, with years of experience on the city council:

If this had been announced before the Dunstan by-election, Labor would have lost. It shows who really runs this state—it's the developers!

C and D office space can be upgraded, but will now probably be left to rot because the demand has been met by this building on community land.

Bring on…the next election. Many will not vote for Labor after this betrayal.

John Irving writes:

What a great spot to house a major arts company!

That is in relation to the destruction of the Edmund Wright House, which has been able to fall into disrepair. I can quote from Barbara Ferguson, who states:

When is our…government going to show real leadership in the development of Adelaide?

People are up in arms about this. This is community space, it belongs to all South Australians, and the Labor Party needs to do much better.

10 April 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:03): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that Singapore-based developer Wee Hur Holdings Ltd has made an application for partial demolition and adaptive reuse of the site of the Crown and Anchor Hotel, which was first licensed in 1853 and has been a cornerstone of Adelaide's live music scene for over three decades.

2. Acknowledges an online petition signed by over 15,000 people opposing any attempts at demolition or change in the use of the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

3. Recognises that Adelaide is a designated UNESCO City of Music for the vibrancy of the city’s music culture, including its live music venues.

4. Calls on the Malinauskas government to:

(a) oppose any partial demolition or adaptive reuse of the Crown and Anchor Hotel;

(b) make a submission to the State Commission Assessment Panel indicating that position; and

(c) move to amend state heritage laws to ensure that cultural and social value is considered in the development assessment of heritage sites like the Crown and Anchor Hotel.

I rise today to speak about the proposed redevelopment of the Crown and Anchor Hotel. The Crown and Anchor was first licensed 171 years ago and is one of the oldest pubs in Adelaide. Its long and colourful history has included everything from coronial inquests to election forums. For the last 30 years it has been a stalwart of Adelaide's music scene, hosting live and loud music acts almost every night of the week.

The Cranker proudly calls itself the home of cold beer and amplified music. Countless local and touring independent bands have entertained South Australian audiences on the Cranker's stage, and many South Australians have enjoyed a pint or two at the Cranker after work before watching their favourite band play a gig. Indeed, I remember enjoying a few drinks myself at the Cranker during my uni days. It is a pub that has earned a good reputation as being an inclusive and queer-friendly venue, and there are not many of those in our city.

Last month, Singapore-based developer, Wee Hur Holdings Ltd, applied for planning construction for a multi-student level accommodation at 188 and 196 Grenfell Street. That is currently home to the venues Roxie, Chateau Apollo and Midnight Spaghetti, as well as the Cranker. The application proposes partial demolition and adaptive reuse of the Cranker site.

The Greens are not opposed to more student accommodation in the city but the question must be asked: why this location, when we have an abundance of vacant sites in the CBD? There is a site on Gouger Street that has been vacant for years, there is another on Sturt Street, there are a number of areas in the city that could house student accommodation. We do not have to be destroying our historic pubs and our historic icons.

It would be a huge loss to Adelaide's cultural heritage if this proposed development leads to the Cranker closing its doors. It is no surprise that news of this development application has prompted a huge groundswell of community support to protect the Cranker. So far, over 15,000 people have signed a petition against any attempts at demolition or a change in the Cranker's use that would rob South Australians of this iconic pub and music venue—and I expect that many more South Australians will soon add their names. I want to praise all those who have been campaigning on this issue and the great work they are doing in terms of activating the community.

Last night, the Adelaide City Council passed a motion calling on the Lord Mayor to write to the Premier asking for state support for the Cranker and for a change in the planning code for better protections for living cultural heritage. The community is sending the Malinauskas government a very clear message, and that is: save the Cranker.

The proposed redevelopment of the Cranker hotel is especially concerning given Adelaide has the honour of being Australia's first and only city to be a designated UNESCO City of Music. It was Adelaide's vibrant live music and pub rock culture which has produced some of the Australia's most successful and best-loved bands like Cold Chisel and The Angels, as well as up-and-coming artists like Bad Dreems and West Thebarton, who contribute to our city being recognised in this way.

However, the sad reality is that the Cranker is one of the few survivors of a once thriving live music scene in the CBD in the East End. We have seen the closure of many of our historic pubs and music venues in recent years. The Producers on Grenfell Street and Pirie Street's Tivoli have both stopped operating. The Austral on Rundle Street has declined as a music venue because it has been required to build a soundproof bunker over its beer garden due to the construction of an apartment block directly behind it. The loss of the Cranker would be yet another blow to Adelaide's proud music history and tradition.

The Cranker has survived two world wars, 33 US Presidents, 31 Australian Prime Ministers, and so far all 47 Premiers of South Australia. But will it survive the Malinauskas government? This is a test for the Premier. Will he step up and support Adelaide's live music scene and support our local heritage, or will he sit back, remain silent and let the axe fall on yet another iconic Adelaide pub? This is a real test of leadership for the Premier, and he and his government need to step up.

The Premier is passionate about putting Adelaide on the map, and his government is doing much to promote Adelaide as a tourist destination. I commend him for that. It was great to see so much energy and activity in the city over the weekend for Gather Round, but the only thing that will be gathering in Adelaide in the future is dust, if we lose iconic pubs like the Cranker.

We need to ensure that Adelaide is a dynamic place to live and to work all year round, not just during major events and festivals. We simply cannot afford to lose more of our historic pubs and live music venues. The state government must listen to the community and unequivocally oppose the demolition and reuse of the Cranker and make this position clear to the State Commission Assessment Panel when it considers Wee Hur Holdings development application later this month.

If the government allows this development to go ahead without adopting any position then there is no way that they can claim that they are truly committed to creating opportunities for South Australian artists, preserving our cultural heritage or ensuring that Adelaide maintains its status as a UNESCO City of Music.

This saga has shed serious light on a significant flaw in South Australia's heritage protection planning laws. These laws focus almost entirely on our built form and exclude consideration of our state's cultural and social heritage. The result is that heritage places like the Cranker, which are of huge social significance to the community, can be bought by developers and gutted with only the facade remaining.

It is absurd to think that our laws allow a developer to hollow out a pub like the Cranker and convert it into the foyer of an apartment building and leave some of the exterior untouched. Cultural significance and ongoing social use should not be cast as being of lesser importance compared to the architectural or aesthetic significance in our planning and development processes.

Heritage is not simply about bricks and mortar; it is about the beating heart of our city and our state. The growing campaign to save the Cranker is living proof of this. It is clear to all that our planning laws simply are not fit for purpose. This motion is for the government to amend our laws, to plug these gaps by ensuring that the social and cultural value of heritage places is considered as part of any development assessment process. We need to do this before SA's heritage is lost forever.

The Labor Party is the architect of this failed planning regime. They are the architect of this failed planning regime which so often excludes community views and is blind to our city's cultural life, but Labor also has the power to fix this. The Labor Party has been in power for 18 of the last 30 years in South Australia. They own this failed planning system, they own this planning mess, they own the consequences that flow from it. They need to take action and they need to step up and fix it.

We need a planning system that actually serves the interests of the community, not developers. It is time for the Cranker and other pubs like it to finally get the protection they deserve. Save the Cranker! I commend the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.B. Martin.

9 April 2024

I rise to support this bill on behalf of the Greens. In so doing, I recognise that this was an election commitment from the Malinauskas government and, indeed, an election commitment of the Greens. We indicated that if the government were to move to legislate this we would support this change. We welcome the government taking this action.

Ayers House is one of Adelaide's most treasured historical landmarks. This 19^th century mansion has long been under the stewardship of the National Trust of South Australia, an organisation that is dedicated to protecting our state's rich cultural heritage. It is important that we take all necessary steps to ensure that the National Trust can continue maintaining and operating out of Ayers House for the benefit of the South Australian community. South Australia's natural and built cultural heritage is a precious asset and a resource to be respected and protected for current and future generations.

As we know, the future of the National Trust's stewardship over Ayers House was threatened by the Liberal government in 2021. I want to refer to a media release from the Hon. David Speirs in April of that year, when he stated:

Iconic properties such as Ayers House and Martindale Hall will be the initial focus of our attention for possible investment and activation.

I think many members of the community, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros has alluded to, became very concerned about the potential activation of Martindale Hall, indeed the commercialisation, potentially, of Martindale Hall. If my memory serves me correctly, the Liberal government did intend to open up the prospect for that. They had a bill that was put before this place, which they abandoned because it became clear that there was not the support in the parliament to progress that.

I welcome the fact that they have abandoned that approach to our heritage buildings. I hope that we do not ever see future governments, Labor or Liberal, going down that path, because, as the Hon. Connie Bonaros has stated, what we should be doing is actually putting public money into supporting these buildings and ensuring that they are owned by the people of South Australia in common, to ensure that they are enjoyed by the whole South Australian community, not sending them on the path to privatisation, private ownership. We have seen what can happen when we do that. One only needs to walk down North Terrace and look at a beautiful building like Edmund Wright House, which has been allowed to fall into disrepair, to see some of the dangers of that approach. I hope we do not see that happen again.

Under the Marshall government, the National Trust was given a 30-day eviction notice and there was a plan to give the building to the History Trust for their offices. I should disclose that Greg Mackie of the History Trust is a friend and former colleague of mine. I have no criticism at all of the History Trust; they do good work. It was a shame that the former government pitted these two organisations against each other. That was really regrettable.

The National Trust of course is an independent organisation. There were 4,000 signatures, gathered in just three weeks, calling for the National Trust to stay at Ayers House. I recognise that the then Labor opposition committed to that campaign and, as I indicated from the outset, the Greens also supported that campaign. So we support this legislation, consistent with the commitment we made during the election.

6 March 2024

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (14:31): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question without notice to the minister representing the Minister for Planning on the topic of rental vacancy rates.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Figures that were published earlier this week in Domain's February vacancy rates report showed that Adelaide continues to have a vacancy rate of just 0.3 per cent, the lowest in the country. The data shows that in 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Adelaide's rental vacancy rates were much higher, at 1.2 per cent. On Monday, Architecture Australia published an article that suggested that Australia has enough unoccupied homes to cater for the shortage of housing. Also on Monday, SACOSS released its budget submission calling for a vacancy tax to free up more rental properties in our state.

My question to the minister representing the Minister for Planning therefore is: will the government consider a vacancy tax to free up more supply for rentals here in our state and if not, why not?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (14:32): I thank the honourable member for his question. I will refer it to the Minister for Planning in the other place and bring back a response.

In reply to the Hon. R.A. SIMMS (6 March 2024).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development): The Treasurer has advised:

"The Victorian government announced a waiver to the vacant residential land tax in September 2020, and the estimated cost of that measure suggested that only around 880 properties would have been liable for the tax out of the 298,000 properties that were listed as vacant in Victoria based on the 2021 Census.

In comparison, there were 83,821 vacant properties in South Australia based on the 2021 census. Introducing an identical vacant property tax would only impact a very small number of properties in South Australia, making any benefit from implementing the tax minimal. Based on the Victorian model, it would not capture houses being constructed or renovated, holiday homes, properties used for work purposes or properties transferred during the preceding year. It is therefore likely that the number of liable properties in South Australia would be in the low hundreds.

The South Australian government does not have any plans to introduce a vacant property tax like that administered in Victoria and intends to maintain its commitment to not introducing new taxes."

22 February 2024

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.