Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2025

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:48):

I rise to speak about the Statutes Amendment (Heritage) Bill 2025 with a measured perspective. This bill represents a significant step towards improving how we manage and protect South Australia's state heritage places, but it is not without its challenges. At its core, the bill seeks to provide greater transparency and public accountability regarding decisions about the demolition of heritage-listed sites. It does this by requiring the South Australian Heritage Council to access any proposed demolition, publish a draft report and invite public submissions before finalising its advice. That final report must then be tabled in parliament.

These are welcome reforms. They respond to a growing public expectation that heritage decisions should not be made behind closed doors or behind any secret plans, and that communities should have a voice in shaping the future of places that they value. However, while the intent is commendable, the implementation will require careful attention.

The timelines imposed on the Heritage Council are tight: 10 weeks for a draft report, four weeks for consultation and four more for finalisation. Without additional resources, there is a real risk that the council may struggle to meet these timelines, particularly if multiple applications are lodged at the same time, or if assessments are of a complex nature. If this process is to work as intended, it must be properly supported with a robust framework.

There is also the matter of clarity. The bill refers to the demolition of the whole of a state heritage place, but it does not define what 'whole' means. In practice, this could lead to confusion: does it refer to the principal structure only, or does it include outbuildings, landscapes or associated features? Is leaving only a cornerstone enough to not require this particular process? These are not trivial questions, and I would encourage the government to consider providing further guidance, either through regulations or amendments, to ensure consistent interpretation.

We must be mindful that heritage protection and urban growth are not mutually exclusive. The goal should be to strike a balance, one that respects our past while allowing for thoughtful, sustainable change to meet the contemporary needs of our community. This bill moves us in the right direction, but will require ongoing monitoring to ensure it does not become a barrier to progress. As I have mentioned before, I believe the bill is a step in the right direction and will introduce a more democratic process, one that gives weight to expert advice and community sentiment. It does not prevent demolition outright, but it ensures that such decisions are made with greater care, transparency and public accountability.

In doing so, it helps restore public confidence and integrity in our planning and heritage system. Heritage is not just about preserving old buildings per se; it is about recognising stories, values, identities and legacies—those places that are held dear to the hearts of our community. This bill acknowledges that and, whilst not perfect, it is a constructive foundation on which we can build. I support the bill and look forward to seeing how it is implemented and refined in practice.