Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 6:51:13 to 7:15:48
Discussion focuses on cultural heritage law reviews and the controversial Walker Tower development in Adelaide.
Topics: First Nations, Infrastructure, EPBC Act
Speakers: Barbara Pocock, Michelle Dumazel, Hon Murray Watt, Larissa Waters, Wayne Beswick, Kylie Calhoun, Rachel Parry, Speaker 37, Varun Ghosh
>> Well, it depends how long you're going to take. I I would like to give um Senate to share the call and also to give Senator PCO an opportunity. Um,
way through. >> I might push on then and then I'm and I'll leave you all to it. Thank you. So, cultural heritage. Thanks, bud. Uh the Duke and Gorge Senate inquiry report made clear recommendations for the government to co-design a cultural heritage uh legislation with Aboriginal and touristra islander people and it set minimum standards for state and territory laws and after an update please of the review of cultural heritage laws and the time frame for any new legislation.
We uh continue to work uh in partnership with the First Nations Cultural Heritage Protection Alliance um on options uh uh for cultural heritage reforms. Certainly, our focus has been on making sure that uh we're taking on board the feedback that we've received um so far and making sure that we're focused on strengthening protections and um uh considering a standing for who speaks for country because it's been very clear um from uh uh proponents that that's been uh one thing that they've been struggling with. um making sure that there's streamlined processes and also um giving certainty and confidence in the system.
>> Okay. And so what is the time frame for
>> That'll be a matter for government minister. Senator,
>> are you working to any sort of hopeful time frame?
>> We're working through as quickly as we can the material uh for consideration for next steps.
>> Okay. U minister is there any time frame that your government has set?
>> We haven't we haven't committed to a particular time frame. Obviously, this is, you know, subject to um drafting instructions, drafting resources, other legislation that's in the parliament, but we certainly see it as a priority to progress this. In fact, just last week I met again with uh one of the co-chairs, I think Miss Perkins is co-chair of the First Nations Cultural Heritage or chair chair of the
>> She's um >> I've forgotten her title. >> She's the key um officer uh reporting to the alliance on the reforms.
>> So, I met with her um last week to talk through the reforms. So, we're we're actively engaged.
>> Okay. Um, I'm interested in the interaction between the as yet undrafted cultural heritage laws and the new national environmental standards for first nations engagement. Is anyone across the likely interaction of those? Can you outline that for me?
>> Yeah, >> certainly one of the key things from the very start is we wanted to make sure that for both proponents and traditional owners that they they weren't going to have to have duplicative processes. So the idea is that the um the principles that are in um an engagement standard um uh for the cultural heritage reforms that they are mirrored in um the first nations engagement standard for uh in for EPBC. Uh so we're working through that at the moment and as was outlined um earlier this today uh around the timing of that um so that around the first nations engagement standard in relation to EPBC um we're working through a document that could be uh ready for consultation shortly. The focus on any standard in relation to engagement needs to be around genuine early engagement um with the right
>> Okay. Thank you. I'm you've said they will interact with each other and not be inconsistent. Is there any further thought there? If there's any further detail perhaps if you could provide it to me on notice of conscious my colleagues have questions as well. I still feel like of course they're going to be consistent but interested in whether there's any further level of detail on
>> we can provide some level of detail on
>> Um and also interested in particular whether both the cultural heritage laws and the standard will be consistent with the UNRIP principle of free prior and informed consent and self-determination for that matter.
>> Certainly has been a consideration in the development of the reforms.
>> Yes. But will the product be consistent
So the principles of UNRIP have been uh what we've been has been a key consideration in the development of the reforms. We are still working through what the details of the reforms are.
>> Okay. So you've considered it but you're not necessarily going to reflect it.
>> Well, we haven't said that, Senator. I think what you're hearing is it's an incomplete product. So we've absolutely uh taken those um principles into account, but we don't yet have a final piece of legislation in front of us.
>> Okay. Minister, is that a commitment that your surely your government wants to be consistent with UNRIP in the new legislative framework?
intent and it's I think the reason the um officials are understandably hedging a little bit is that that the work is
>> Okay. I'm pleased to hear you say that is the intent. I think that's important. Um and lastly, will those cultural heritage laws provide a framework for truthtelling as recommended by the Duke
So the response uh so the cultural heritage reforms the development of them is is in line with the uh recommendations from a way forward. Uh so we're working through um those principles that are in there and I'll hand to my colleague Dr. Beswick.
>> Yes Senator uh Wayne Beswick branch head heritage. uh the Duke and Gorge inquiry made a number of recommendations in a way forward. Recommendation three was the one that principally went to the shape and nature of the reforms. There are a number of other recommendations uh including the one I think that you're referring to that are also the responsibility of a range of other agencies uh NIAA, AGT, uh Office for the Arts. Uh so the reforms uh as they're currently framed are sort of focusing on those elements of recommendation three in terms of um working in a co-design partnership with first nations peoples to uh develop a reform of um the current uh cultural heritage protection law and that's the focus that we've we've taken to this point.
>> Okay. So when I spoke with NIAA earlier today, they said no, they've still only got half a person looking at truthtelling and treaties and that half a person is just tracking what the states are doing and they confirmed there was no new funding for Macarada. So am I hearing from you that you're leaving it to them and I've heard from them that they're leaving it to the states >> in terms I don't want to misquote you. Is that what you're saying?
>> In terms of portfolio responsibility, uh truthtelling uh and Macarata would sit with National Indigenous Australians Agency. That's correct.
>> Okay. and they're not working on it either. Great. Thanks very much.
>> Thank you, Senator. Senator Boto, >> thank you. Um, I want to go to some questions in relation to a significant building in South Australia, the Walker Tower. U Minister, when we last met in estimates, the department said if there was significant evidence to suggest a referral should have been made and a significant impact was likely, the minister can call in a project and require it to be assessed. It's my understanding that Walker Corporation submitted the original threestory festival plaza site in Adelaide for assessment but the 38story development now to be built on this very important
the point here that this is like putting
a 38story building next to uh the opera house or plunking it down in the middle of Federation Square. This is a very sacred site for South Australians. It's right on the edge of our river just to the north of the parliament and it will
sky uh profile of the city buildings. It will change citizens access to public
space and many many Australians are South Australians are exercised about this. So I'm advised that Walker Corporation briefed the Australian Heritage Council on this project in late January this year. Have Walker Corporation provided the heritage impact the Australian Heritage Council? And if
>> I don't know whether they have. I'm not sure one of the whether one of the officials knows that.
>> Um I'm not sure. I I'd have to take on notice exactly what they have received. Um but can I be say that um in terms of um that the this has not been referred for assessment. Um and so um
>> we have not received it from a um environmental regulation um perspective. We have discussed it with them but we have not received [clears throat] the report.
>> Sorry you've discussed it with who? With
>> uh with Walker Corporation.
>> I can also I've got you come to our branch head. Um the heritage council met with Walker Corp again last week and they intend to meet again but in terms of whether actual documents have been provided we'd need to take that on not
>> what's happening at those meetings
>> that that would be
>> the matter heritage council.
>> So do you have any have you had any briefings from anyone uh in relation to
these discussions? So we have had um uh we have provided um advice um and uh to date this is is not a matter that has been referred for assessment uh in relation to the heritage values. So um I understand the Australian Heritage Council um has met with um Walker. I am not aware of um the documentation that has been provided. Um but as I said um it is not under assessment.
>> Can you provide to us the nature of notes of those meetings of of your briefings? Sorry, your briefings.
>> Uh we can take that on notice for you.
>> does the Australian Heritage Council whose responsibility is it is to advise the minister on matters of National Heritage agree with the findings of Walker Corporation with respect to the impact of this proposed development?
So the Australian Heritage Council has to take into account um uh would take into account whether the values that are currently listed as part of the National Heritage listing uh whether that um they would consider it as we do um whether those values uh would be impacted. Um so that's that's the that's the remit um in terms of uh the requirements in relation to under EPBC. Um but uh whether there have been broader discussions had had with the Australian Heritage Council uh I'm
unaware. So why would it be appropriate for Walker Corporation to refer a threestory plan for review by the department but not a 38tory plan? I'll just draw your attention to what this actually looks like in Adelaide. This tiny three-story very significant nonetheless building which they referred themselves for in relation to and now nothing in relation to this monster of a building which actually can lever over the top of Parliament House. So I think why not?
>> I think it goes um and again without knowing the ins and outs of the case. I'm so I'm speaking quite generally senator but just trying to give you a sense of the kinds of things that we would take into consideration as part of an assessment or a proponent might take into consideration as part of assessment. It would depend on the values on which that national heritage property was listed and whether or not the the proposed building would have a significant impact on those values. And I think that's um that's kind of generally what would be what would be taken into account and the proponent is clearly in discussions now with the with the heritage council. Um we have not yet had it's not yet been referred um for an assessment. So they are clearly uh determining whether or not their proposed project would have a
Australia's old and new parliament houses are listed as national heritage places because they hold a central place in Australia's democratic history for a series of radical reforms to political laws and processes. In [clears throat] addition, uh the Adelaide Parklands are listed uh on the National Heritage site because of the uh innovative and historic way they have built a city on the edge of a river, a rising plane. It's it's recognized in its statement about why it's of na why the parklands are of international significance very clear very important significance in technical and city design and creative design the minister you I refer to your letter to me on the 1st of December made no reference to the parklands and their listing you referred only to the parliament house which many South Australians would disagree with you uh absolutely needs to be preserved and uh protected from the impact of this building. But why is so little attention paid to the question of these internationally significant parklands and the design of the city? Colonel Light's very innovative technical design of this city.
>> Um I'd probably want to have a look. I remember signing that letter, Senator Pokeoff. Um I'd probably want to have a look at the letter that you wrote to me and whether that also raised the parklands. Um each of the discussions we've had um at estimates about this matter has focused on the uh parliament house site rather than the parklands. So it may well be that I was replying to the issue that you raised in your letter
>> Well, I'd make the point to you as many South Australians have that it is both I mean this is a core a prize. >> It's very very significant. In your letter to Steve Georganas MP dated 14th of January 2026, you write these heritage values do not extend to the building settings or view. Whereas I think many South Australians, certainly myself, this place does not only hold social value, it's a very significant architectural and park lands value, um the description on the database is clear that the physical building itself is a landmake. Mark, your statement in this letter appears at odds with the department's own guidelines as an action is likely to have significant impact on the national heritage values of a national heritage place if there's a real chance or possibility that it will cause one or more of the national heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured, or diminished. I think it's pretty hard to say that this building does not alter, diminish, obscure, and modify the view of our parliament house and its amenity along with the amenity of its parklands on which it's located.
>> Well, the I'm sure the officials can elaborate on this, but the advice to me has always been that the building setting views or sight lines are not part of its national heritage listing and are thus not protected. Now, different people will have different views about the proposed development and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, whether it's pretty, whether it's ugly, but what our job is to assess um the impact of that development on the listing. And the advice to me has been that the building setting views and sight lines are not part of that list.
>> Plenty of South Australians including a large group of very significant figures who took out a full page ad in the advertiser. can't remember remember how many but there were a lot of them the 71% who put in submissions to the state parliament saying that this was a travesty that it should not be done why are you so determined to defend this project rather than allow important heritage protection processes to be undertaken in this case
>> I'm not I'm I'm just acting in accordance with the law I I haven't I haven't I think it's a misrepresentation to say that I or anyone else is so determined to do anything what we're doing is assessing the impact of a proposed development on a n national heritage list. There are from time to time people want us to list certain properties or stop certain developments from happening because of its impact on what they say as a listing. Um we don't always agree um because we um you know there are times when I've stopped developments happening because uh of the impact they would have on uh heritage listed areas. There are times that I haven't and I'll always apply apply the law.
>> Well, there are a lot of people. This is not some small. There's a lot of South Australians who were looking at that and saying, "Believe me, there are what are you doing?" I understand from your letter to me dated 1st of December that you're not planning to use your ministerial powers to call in the proposed power to action. The department's referral guidelines advise that if there is uncertainty about whether or not the action is likely to have a significant impact, then a referral should be made. Given the uncertainty of the South Australian community and heritage uh experts, why are you against allowing a process of proper review for a place that surely deserves the highest possible scrutiny under the EPBC? You're talking about a place in the center of our city that citizens really care about that goes to the heritage values that go way back uh in very significant place also of course for first nations people but certainly for Colonel Light and and the heritage that's core to the amenity of our city
>> and can I can I say that we have like in relation to obligations uh under EPBC we have gone through to look at the values that are listed as part of that national heritage huge listing. Um, and uh and and so that's based on the values and and that's what that's that's all we can look at in terms of the values that are included in the national heritage listing.
>> And have you looked at both the uh uh listing of these the site of the parklands as well as the parliament itself? Historically,
>> my team has looked through the information that is on the National Heritage listing and so the values against that and the obligations under EPBC.
>> Minister, why won't you call this in given the uncertainty and very strong controversy around this building?
>> Well, I don't I don't um base my decisions on controversy. I base my decisions on the law.
>> Law says it's uncertain. You should call
me. That's your opinion and the opinion of the people who have signed that open letter. My job is not to listen respectfully to um opinions for or against a development. Um if I did that, I would constantly be tying myself up thinking about what people think. My job my job is to apply the law. And the advice to me uh has been to not exercise the call-in power for the reasons that I've already explained.
>> Well, many South Australians are very unhappy about this. And I asked you in the last estimates for the correspondence between uh department and Walker corporations or the state government in relation to this building. You've refused to supply that. People in our state are very concerned about the lack of transparency around your decision-m and correspondence. Why would I had very specific scope in my request? It's not an unreasonable request. Why have you not supplied what I've sought?
>> I suspect I probably provided a reason, but I'm happy to go back and look at
on notice, please? Either way, it's incredibly unacceptable to the citizens of South Australia on such an important decision that you will not be transparent about your communications. In 2023, Walker Corporation, its total income was half a billion dollars. According to the AT, they paid no corporate tax. In 2024, the median rent for a house in Adelaide was 580 bucks a week. It's a lot more than that now. That equates to 43% of the average uh take-home pay of a nurse. In contrast, the South Australian government have determined it's perfectly reasonable to lease inner city public land to Walker Corporation, a multi-billion dollar asset base for $1 per year for a 100red years. That's this key site in the middle of our city. A dollar a year for 100 years. I'd like to know, Minister, as a minister in the federal Labor government, you are you happy to tell the people of Australia struggling to keep a roof over their heads that you consider the rate that the South Australian government has leased this public land to Walker Corporation to be fair and reasonable?
>> I'm not going to offer an opinion on a decision of a state government. What I'm going to do is apply the law irrespective of controversy, opinion, and all of the other things that you are suggesting that I should base my decision on. My decision will be based
on the law. I think there'll be plenty of people all around our country, not just in our state, who think that rent of a dollar. They're entitled to their view >> for 100 years is outrageous.
>> They're entitled to their view. I'm not here to express an opinion on state governments. I'm here to apply federal law.
>> Concrete has already been poured uh on this site preparing foundations for this tower. This is despite the plan essay decision-making notification form showing that although Walker Corporation received planning consent on 11 June 2025, there is no building consent or development approval for this building. Given your responsibility to protect national heritage places and the Minister of Environment and Water, will you ask the South Australian government how this development can legally proceed without having obtained building consent and development approvals? It is just incredible and you should have an opinion about this.
>> Well, what can you direct me to a section of the legislation that empowers me to do those things? >> My job is to my job is to apply Commonwealth law and in this case it's to make a decision whether to call in a project or not. I've told you why I've decided not to based on the advice that I've received. You seem to be asking me to do all sorts of things that are completely outside my responsibility.
Minister, it strikes me that you are reading down your powers. You have a real power. You have a significant responsibility to preserve the national heritage. This is double on for two very specific criteria on our national heritage. You have the power to call this in and do something to protect a very significant place and you do not you choose not to do it.
>> I have the power to do so if a proposed development will impact on a national heritage listing. The advice to me is that this proposal would not do so. It doesn't mean that people think it's great, but my job is to apply the law. If I go around making decisions based on controversy or community opinion, then every decision I make will be overturned by a court. I happen to believe that my decisions should be based on the law and that's the way that they can be legally robust.
>> You have the power to make a difference on this decision, Minister, and you're choosing not to. And it is it is truly a scandal and years ahead you're going to look at this like lots of South Australians if it goes ahead without proper permissions at present and you are I I'm willing to predict perhaps share some of the regret of South Australians. I really hope it doesn't happen and you don't feel that regret but you're really not doing what the South Australian
>> I'm applying the law Senator PCO. If you if you want to move choosing to do it if you want to move an amendment to the law that says that a minister can block a development because of local controversy, go your hardest. That's not how the law works. What the law says is that I can call in a development if it's going to impact on national heritage listing. The advice to me is that it's not if I if I do something different to that, my decision will be overturned by a
>> Well, I look forward to seeing your correspondence with Walker Corporation around this development. I
ever having written to them, but I'm happy to for us to go and have a look.
>> Well, in which case I'm looking forward to seeing it. I've been refused access to it today and it is important for us to see.
>> Thank you, senators. Um, we will now go to our afternoon tea break. Um, Senator Pocock, did you have further questions on this outcome?
>> I'm done.
>> Okay, wonderful. Um, then in which case we will move off outcome 2.2 and move to outcome 2.3 which will resume in 15 minutes when we return. Thank you very