Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 28 November 2000

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2000 Spring Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I thank members for their contributions, particularly the last speaker (The Hon. R.R. Roberts) who I think very succinctly put his verbal finger on the issue. I am aware that forces beyond his control mean that he will not be sitting on the same side of the chamber as my colleagues and I will be when voting. It is important to look at what we have been debating in regard to charging admission. The issue is not so much whether an authority is entitled to charge admission to an enterprise that has been constructed and whether the government, with its electoral mandate, has the power to make that decision, because under normal circumstances those issues would not be challenged. But these are not normal circumstances-although sadly they are more and more becoming normal circumstances in that the parklands has lost the reverence and integrity that it has had, with varying degrees, over the past 160 or 170 years that it has existed.

When we talk about comparisons with other countries or compare it with the situation of paying for entry into other facilities, we lose sight of the fact that we only have one Adelaide parklands and that it is not growing. It is not fertile and it has not been mated with anything, and there are no other Adelaide parklands offspring areas that are enhancing or replacing the areas that have been lost. It is so transparent that I think that most people have forgotten the significance of what a travesty it is when we willingly lose the free access of members of the public to any square metre of the parklands.

The basic principle of having the parklands is that it is freely available to the public to move onto and enjoy. Whether or not it was a good or a poor decision to site a rose garden there is not the debate: the debate is about the fence. The Adelaide City Council, to its credit, has strenuously enforced, where it can, that there will not be any prohibitive fencing of any area of the parklands, yet here we have a most significant fence, the purpose of which is for one thing, because it does not enhance the roses or the rose garden: it is to keep the ordinary public-

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: To keep the aphids out, and possibly dogs as well. Its prime purpose is to keep out any who do not part with the $3.50 fee, or whatever the current charge is, regardless of concessions. It is a pathetic qualification to say that just because-

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: It's a furphy; it's a very appropriate furphy. It disturbs me-in fact, it saddens me-that we are not, as a parliament, grasping the sacred nature of the parklands, revering it and treating it with integrity. In my view it is not too much of an analogy to compare it with any of the cathedrals in our city. If one were to say that a portion of the cathedral will be fenced off and that only paying members of the public will be able to worship in that part of the cathedral-

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Hon. Terry Roberts has a penchant for interjecting in most disruptive ways, and I would ask him as a good Catholic to keep his mouth shut. The fact remains that until we treat the parklands with the same reverence that we treat dedicated holy ground, this constant erosion, alienation and bastardisation of parklands will continue to the point where it will be of very little significance for anyone living in Adelaide or coming from overseas or interstate to visit.

I know first-hand that tourist operators are overwhelmed by the admiration and praise that interstate and overseas visitors give when they are driven through and around the parklands. In some cases these tourists find it the most significant feature that they have found in Australia-not just Adelaide, South Australia, but in Australia-that a modern city has been able to retain this unique belt of parklands. Does not that mean anything to members in this chamber or to those who are making the big plans, the master plans, for the way in which so-called development will take place in Adelaide?

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: My colleague says, `Obviously not.' I do not think it is malicious: it is not a `Let's get the parklands syndrome.' I do not accuse people of that. It is just that they are blind, that they are dumb to the fact that we have a precious entity that cannot protect itself. It cannot survive unless measures such as this measure of mine are successful, and if it is successful it should result in that fence coming down. The roses can still stay there. We have beautiful rose gardens in Rymill Park which are unfenced and which have free access for anyone who wants to go through them.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: They have been there for years, they will remain there for years, and they will stand as an indictment to the fact that commercial or financial priorities have warped the judgment of those who have authorised the mishandling of the land on which the Hackney bus depot stood and which was promised to be returned to parklands. So, it is with great sadness that I predict that this motion will not succeed. However, because I am a perpetual optimist on this issue, I hope that by steadily beating on this door of insensitivity the decision makers in this parliament, this government, and the Adelaide City Council will realise that we have to be proactive to protect the parklands.

When I hear the argument that there is unused land on the north-side of North Terrace, which has had some STA use, and that the promoters of the Investigator Science Centre say that it is wasted land and it would be a great enhancement if the Investigator Science Centre was established there, to a certain extent, I understand the sophistry and the illogicality of people who genuinely do not understand what parklands are and what their potential is.

Some areas of the parklands are not properly and fully `developed'; they are empty and may look unattractive but they are still able to be returned, enhanced and used as parklands. Once there are buildings, or it is fenced off with permanent structures, it is gone. The return rate of alienated parklands is minimal.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The interjection was relatively insignificant and I have given it only passing comment. With some disappointment, I acknowledge that the motion is not likely to get up but I urge honourable members to have a last minute change of mind and support it.