 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
BOTANIC GARDENS AND STATE HERBARIUM
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I move:
That the regulations under the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium Act 1978 concerning admission charges, made on 31 August and laid on the table of this Council on 4 October, be disallowed.
I do not intend this to be a wide-ranging contribution covering all aspects of the parklands, although I am sorely tempted to do so, but I must share with the Council this particular observation. It is my wont early in the morning to run on parts of the Victoria Park parklands, and I share that pleasure with Jan Davis and her husband Peter. We were virtually compelled to observe that the general ambience of that area has been starkly destroyed by a gulag-type fence of two-metre fabric and then two barbed wires on top, which hardly enhances the ambience of gentle recreation in the parklands. I will not digress any more unless I am provoked.
The target of my motion for disallowance is the regulation relating to admission charges for the rose garden: $3 per adult, $1.50 per child or concession cardholder, $7 per family and $2 per adult in a group tour. It is unfortunate in a way that, when we move for disallowance of regulations, they must be dealt with in toto because, although there may well be an interesting discussion over the charges for the conservatory, that is not the target of my disallowance motion in its specific case, and I make that clear in moving this motion.
I intend to come back to the regulations in a while, but first I want to set the scene for the Council. I refer to an excellent book on the parklands entitled Decisions and Disasters: Alienation of the Adelaide Parklands , by Jim Daly, which has often been quoted in debate on the parklands. It is an invaluable work to refer to and I recommend it to any member who wants to find out more about the parklands, pretty well up to the present day. On page 166, in a paragraph headed `Intangible values of recreation in the parklands', Mr Daly states:
Undoubtedly the recreational use of the parklands has increased over the years as people have now more time and mobility for leisure activities. As rising costs of petrol curtail the use of the car for longer trips to the country or distant national parks, competition for the present space will increase. This requires a balanced approach to the management of this finite resource rather than the conversion of additional parklands to sporting grounds in an attempt to meet an almost impossible demand.
With good management, the return of government reserves over the years can bring about the development of additional open space to satisfy limited new demands. Recreation has an intrinsic quality, an `attitude of mind' which is often apparent in an appreciation of the natural world. Aesthetic values associated with the parklands are therefore as important to many people as active recreation or sport.
It is difficult to measure the visual importance of the parklands too, for example, the motorists and the commuters on public transport, who pass through the parklands to and from their places of work. Also, those intrinsic values are important to the people who have decided to live in residential areas near or overlooking the parklands as they are conscious of `the magnificent views across the parklands encircling the city to the Mount Lofty Ranges'.
That quote typifies what I believe is an underrated value of the parklands, underestimated by many who are so determined that the parklands are there to have some sort of edifice, structure or enclosure placed on them. It is a constant, ongoing battle.
I turn to page 174 of the same book and a paragraph headed `Hackney Bus Depot', which reads:
In 1908 the state government alienated land formerly used as a government experimental orchard in Hackney Road for the construction of a maintenance and storage depot to service Adelaide's electric trams. In 1977, the Dunstan government made a commitment to move the Hackney Bus Depot workshops to Regency Park. This provided the opportunity for a substantial area of 13.5 acres (5.46 hectares) to be returned to parklands.
As a result of the Tomkinson review, the Premier, John Bannon, announced on 16 June 1985 that the state government had acquired the United Motors site at Mile End for $6.6 million to relocate the bus depot. The Premier said:
It would be the first major restoration of parklands since alienation of parkland areas began when the site was taken over amid controversy for the tram depot in 1908.
It is quite clear that the intention of the then Premier was that that area be returned as parklands. He was goaded in debate in the House by the current Premier, John Olsen, to get on with it, and those quotes are easily found in Hansard and can be readily referred to. The interpretation and the expectation of the public was that return to parklands meant return to parklands, not to be covered with other material, buildings and, in this case, a rose garden fenced off from access by the public. It was not envisaged, I do not believe even by Premier John Olsen at that stage, that it would involve anything other than returning that area to genuine parklands. Genuine parklands means open space that is freely available for ready access, so it is neither fenced nor does access to it have a charge.
I refer now to some paragraphs in the minister's report which justifies the regulations. The regulations are over the hand of the Hon. Iain Evans MP, Minister for Environment and Heritage and Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing. Under the paragraph headed `Background', the report states:
The development of the Adelaide International Rose Garden is a state government mandated component of Stage 1 of the Botanic, Wine and Rose Project, on the previous STA site at Hackney.
It is on the STA depot site at Hackney, the area that was pledged to be returned to parklands by Premier Bannon and by the then Leader of the Opposition, John Olsen. It continues:
On effective completion of Stage 1 in October 1999, the Adelaide International Rose Garden became the responsibility of the Department for Environment and Heritage and, in particular, the board of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium as an extension of the Adelaide Botanic Garden.
I interrupt the reading to make this observation: the Botanic Gardens notably has free access. One of the charms and values of a botanic gardens is that the public can move freely into that area. It will not impose any financial burden to have access to it. When we see that this is to be viewed as an extension of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens, at least on that argument as well there should be the expectation that there would be no fee or charge for access. It continues:
The final report of the Public Works Committee on this part of the project dated August 1998 acknowledges that the cost of maintaining the Adelaide International Rose Garden will `incur annual expenditure of approximately $290 000' and thus the need to `realise approximately $60 000 to $90 000 in revenue from an entrance fee'.
The Adelaide City Council puts millions of dollars into the maintenance and enhancement of the parklands and it does not gain a dollar in revenue from charges and entrance fees. The final comment in relation to this document is rather a wry one, as follows:
Further, the regulations have been amended to enable an increase in the entrance fee to the Bicentennial Conservatory so that they are consistent with those fees charged for the Adelaide International Rose Garden.
I can see a leap frog game that could be entered into with eventually the fees being ratcheted up to cover what is perceived as a public obligation to pay for people's access to roses and plants, which in many cases have been taken from the Botanic Gardens, in an area which is theirs: they would be charged to have the right to move into that area.
It is my view-and I know I do not hold this view alone by any means, and I detach the argument for disallowance from any argument as to the pros and cons of the rose garden- that it does not give the image of open and free access. It has a fence structure which looks like a palisade around a compound. It is rather forbidding. I hope for the virtue of visual impact on passersby that roses will cover the stark metal spikes which surround the area.
I emphasise in moving this motion of disallowance that many people have come to me indignant that there is a charge imposed on access to the rose garden. Although it would certainly be very satisfactory for me to move into a debate as to the pros and cons of the rose garden per se, I resist that. I do not think that is appropriate to this disallowance motion. The disallowance motion is purely and singly based on the premise that we should not in principle or in morality be charging the public access to an area which was promised to be returned to them as parklands.
