00:00:00
Speaker 1: Five Double A Afternoons with Stacy Lee. Over the weekend the state government was spooking the Festival Tower two. Construction has now started. This is the second tower to go up on Festival Plaza. It's in between Parliament House and the Festival Theater. Beautiful views of the Torrens Adelaide Oval if you're out looking that way, I would think this is the prime location for views in Adelaide's CBD. It's right there on North Terrace as well. You're in the hub of the CBD. So how much is someone paying in rent for that space? This was raised in Senate Estimates last week by Green Senator for South Australia, Barbara Pocock, and she joins you this afternoon. Good afternoon, Senator.
00:00:48
Speaker 2: Pocock, Hello Spacey, and hello all your listeners.
00:00:52
Speaker 1: So this tower is being developed by the Walker Corporation. How much are they paying for their lease of that site?
00:00:59
Speaker 2: Well, well, bearing in mind that Walker Corporation is a very large, multi billion dollar entity, the least amount that I talked about in Parliament last week is one dollar a year for one hundred years. It is truly unbelievable that our public sector, our government is leasing two Walker Corporation at that one dollar y And I can tell you I've had plenty of South Australians reaching out to me saying, what is going on in the middle of a housing crisis? Why are we making such an extraordinary long term deal with a very wealthy large entity listed in twenty twenty two amongst the wealthiest and richest families in Australia. And there is that lease happening, and it's public land. Of course, it's an incredibly significant site for South Australians, part of our heritage and listed for two reasons on our National Heritage, once for the heritage of the Parliament itself, which is globally significant for being the site of the first full democracy, especially firstly for women, but also our park lands are incredibly important and heritage listed as well. So there's so many reasons why this is such a bad idea and the state government really is on the wrong track.
00:02:15
Speaker 1: And so is it just the money aspect that concerns you?
00:02:20
Speaker 2: Well, the money aspect certainly concerns me. In a national and certainly statewide housing crisis, people would be scratching their heads as to why we are doing a commercial lease at a dollar a year for one hundred years to a commercial property developer. We've got a lot of vacant commercial space in our city and we could build a very big building like this elsewhere in our city without trampling on our heritage. So I'm worried about the value absolutely of that contract. But I'm also extremely concerned about the way it tramples on our heritage and the failure of the federal government it has powers to call it in even that it has really significant heritage consequences and murray what the minister's failed to do. So I was very concerned about that last week in estimates. But state level, our premiere is you know, I don't know whether there is punch drunk on his polling or what, but he's pushing a project here that I get nothing but concern in my inbox about. It's like putting a thirty eight level story building on the apron of Parliament House in Canberra, or in the middle of Federation Square in Melbourne, or next to the Opera House in Sydney. This is an important site for our city and we all know what we love most about our city is as beautiful planning heritage. The opportunity it gives from massive park in the middle of our city, and all of this tramples on our heritage. It's a bad deal, and it hasn't passed proper scrutiny from the federal government on our heritage consequence. So I think it's all round a bad deal. In the premiere needs to rethink it.
00:03:58
Speaker 1: Why should the Walker Corporation be paying more for this? I suspect, and we'll hear from the essay Housing Minister Nick Champion in just a moment to respond. But I suspect the government would say, well, this is going to generate their figures more than a billion dollars in economic activity each year in Adelaide. So we want that billion dollars in economic activity. If we want that, we've got to give this site to Walker Corp. For a dollar.
00:04:28
Speaker 2: Well, what sort of people are we to be begging for that kind of contract. We've got lots of spots in our city that are.
00:04:35
Speaker 3: Built for big buildings.
00:04:38
Speaker 2: We could put it up on Victoria Square, there's other places that can go. I'm not opposing large new developments. I can see our state needs them and we need to have appropriate commercial arrangements around them. But this doesn't mean any kind of commercial sniff test, and it doesn't respect the heritage of our city, which is our commercial development should be in the commercial center, not prime real estate. A beautiful place right on the edge of our river. The overshadowing our parklands and certainly shadowing the historically significant Parliament House a couple of meters away, thirty eighth tower, thirty eight story tower, leaning over, towering over our Parliament and overshadowing our democracy and its heritage. It seems all wrong to me, into many many other South Australians. There's nothing to say we shouldn't do large developments elsewhere where they belong. But this is not the spot for a large corporate entity paying just a dollar a year for one hundred years. That is not commercially significant. It's not a good deal and we should rethink it.
00:05:40
Speaker 1: Okay, Senator Barbara Pocock, thank you for your time this afternoon.
00:05:44
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Stacey.
00:05:46
Speaker 1: Green, Senator for South Australia. There let's get a response now from Nick Champion, the Minister for Housing and Urban Development. Good afternoon, Minister.
00:05:54
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, Stacey.
00:05:56
Speaker 1: Would you consider this a good deal for South Australians.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: Let me make one thing absolutely clear of this dollar a year business is complete nonsense. It's completely untrue. It's a made up fact from somewhere out there on the Internet. And Senator Pocock has taken this untruth and then propelled it into the National Parliament and misled the National Parliament by stating it in the Questions to the Estimates Committee. What the State Government has with Walker Corporation is a commercial deal worth tens of millions of dollars to the State where we get paid for the land. So to say that we're getting a dollar a year for one hundred years is just nonsense. It's true and it shouldn't be repeated. Just because you know something is untrue as repeated constantly does not make it true.
00:06:45
Speaker 1: Okay, So what is doing.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: And I'll be writing to Senator Pocock to correct the record. We have a commercial and confidence deal, but I can tell you it's worth tens of millions of dollars, not a dollar a year for one hundred years.
00:06:58
Speaker 1: And when you say the deal is worth tens of millions of dollars, is Walker Corporation paying the State government tens of millions of dollars.
00:07:06
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, as well as all of the civic improvements as well as all of the works in kind for the public and civic space. So what we're getting out of this is, you know, two towers, We're getting a second tower. We're getting lots of office workers, we're getting are we getting a restaurant and hospitality on the ground floor. We're getting well curated public space, civic space, and we're getting an activated plaza, a car park and all the other improvements that we see around Tower one and now Tower TI. On top of that, we have a commercial agreement between ren Newalsa and Walker Corporation that pays the government for its land.
00:07:50
Speaker 1: And is that deal worth tens of millions.
00:07:53
Speaker 3: Of dollars for years? Yes, that's right. It's the least is one hundred years and it's tens of minin the dollars, not a dollar a year. I don't know where this dollar a year came from. I think it came out of the you know, out of the ether. I don't know where Senator Pocox got it from. I don't know where the Save Festival Alliance a group have got it from. But it's just not true.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I think I've still got that's not true. I think I've still got the Senator on the line, so I might just check, Senator, do I still have you there? You do?
00:08:26
Speaker 2: Did you thank you? I think it would be very useful if the Minister could commit to making public that commercial arrangement. If I have things wrong, I'd like to see what that commercial arrangement is. Is he willing to make it public?
00:08:43
Speaker 3: Minister, Well, we have a range of commercial agreements with a range of development partners across the state, with Sabek, with Boden. We don't make any of them publicly available because that would give away commercial sensitivity. And those commercial sensitivities protect the state government and most importantly protect the state taxpayer. That's why we've got them. But Senator Pocock should just be aware that when she goes out and propagates ridiculous claims, and they are so unbelievably ridiculous, but I cannot believe they've been uttered in the National Parliament or on your radio program, as if we would take a dollar a year for one hundred years. I mean, it's just ridiculous. So we've had appropriate processes around this. We've had market market analysis around this, We've had valuations around this. We do these arrangements with developers all the time through a new USA. And I can tell you right that the claims being made in the National Parliament, on many websites, in Senator Pocock finbox and on this radio station are just not true.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: Senator Pocock, did you check that before you raised it in Senate estimates?
00:09:54
Speaker 2: Absolutely? And the point is the South Australian taxpayers and the people who love our city have a right to know the nature of that contract. It is a prime site. As you said Stacey at the top of this story, it is very very important that South Australians understand to what use, the commercial use, this public, prime piece of public property is being put to at what cost and price. And I think the Minister and the government more importantly should be making it publicly clear to South Australians what they are getting and how much it will change the site lines, the views, the very significant heritage of that particular site. It is being sold off to a very large corporation, one that paid no tax in twenty three twenty four, which is a very very profitable corporation is for commercial uses, and I think it's entirely appropriate for me as a Senator to raise the commercial basis of the deal, ask it for it to be made publicly, and also defend the head, heritage property and the characteristics of a city that we all hold very.
00:11:05
Speaker 1: Dear of course, and I'm sure there'd be a lot of South Australians who are grateful that it's being raised in federal Parliament. But as a Senator for South Australia, shouldn't you also be required to fact check these things before you bring them up in federal Senate estimates? If a dollar a year is untrue and it's a rumor that's been going around online, should you not have the responsibility of making sure that's fact before you bring it up.
00:11:29
Speaker 2: I bring out facts all the time in the Parliament and Senator Murray Watt made no argument argument with me on that basis, and I think it's entirely appropriate to ask for the commercial facts to be put forward in full to the public. And the Minister is refusing to do that. He's contesting my facts, but he's not willing to put his own forward. That's very important to the South Australian public get the facts before them so they can judge them for themselves. And I'm absolutely doing what I'm meant to be doing, which is taking the concern of South Australians. And there are thousands of people who are speaking to me about this online and in my mailbox. They are very worried about what this government is doing to our very significant heritage as a city that's internationally significant, not just for our planning and design of our city, but also for the heritage which we need to fight to maintain and protect.
00:12:22
Speaker 1: All right, Senator, appreciate your time this afternoon. Minister Nick Champion. Before I let you go, you mentioned the civic spaces around around this building as well. What will there be that's available to the public, because I imagine most of the building is going to be for commercial leases.
00:12:44
Speaker 3: Well at the ground floor and the podium level there will be a number of restaurants and bars. There will also be space open civic space between the two towers that will actually deliver a better sight line to Parliament House than the three story building that was locked in by the Marshall government. So we had a choice between a three story building that was contracted for was locked in was meant to be constructed, that would have completely obliterated the sitelines to what is the north face of the Parliament. What we've done is have a tower, which means you get a less floorplane blockage of the sitelines. It improves the sidelines of the north face of Parliament House, it improves the lane way access between the railway station and King William Road. And what this will be is one of the best curated, nicest places in the state. And that's a good thing. It would be a good thing for the public. And let's remember what it's replacing, a nineteen seventies modernist plaza which was a blight for thirty years and never had a person in it. I mean it was a barren hot place which might have been an architect's marvel, but was not very friendly to human beings. And what we're building is an activated plaza which feels safe because there's a lot of people around, a lot of activated restaurants and bars that will beautifully complement the Adelaide Festival Center and the works that have been done there. We've got a new car park, got much better cipy space between the Parliament the old Parliament and the railway station that used to be a road and if you remember, Stacey used to be able to catch a cab when you exited the casino there back in the day. You know, now that's a beautiful pedestrian plaza. And you know, my fear is that, you know, the opponents of Tower To have whipped themselves into a frenzy and they're engaging in a whole lot of kind of irrational thought, which is sad because you know, you know, cities need do need debates about architecture. It's good to have a vibrant debate about architecture. People are entitled to their views about tool buildings or not. But what they can't do is go around are spreading, you know, things that aren't true because they oppose this project.
00:15:02
Speaker 1: Okay, Minister, thank you for your time this afternoon.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: Thanks Dovey.
00:15:06
Speaker 1: Nick Champion, Minister for Housing and Urban Development. Eight double two to three double O double oh is the number to call. You've just heard it there. It's not true. It's not a dollar a year lease. What do you think
Speaker 1: Five Double A Afternoons with Stacy Lee. Over the weekend the state government was spooking the Festival Tower two. Construction has now started. This is the second tower to go up on Festival Plaza. It's in between Parliament House and the Festival Theater. Beautiful views of the Torrens Adelaide Oval if you're out looking that way, I would think this is the prime location for views in Adelaide's CBD. It's right there on North Terrace as well. You're in the hub of the CBD. So how much is someone paying in rent for that space? This was raised in Senate Estimates last week by Green Senator for South Australia, Barbara Pocock, and she joins you this afternoon. Good afternoon, Senator.
00:00:48
Speaker 2: Pocock, Hello Spacey, and hello all your listeners.
00:00:52
Speaker 1: So this tower is being developed by the Walker Corporation. How much are they paying for their lease of that site?
00:00:59
Speaker 2: Well, well, bearing in mind that Walker Corporation is a very large, multi billion dollar entity, the least amount that I talked about in Parliament last week is one dollar a year for one hundred years. It is truly unbelievable that our public sector, our government is leasing two Walker Corporation at that one dollar y And I can tell you I've had plenty of South Australians reaching out to me saying, what is going on in the middle of a housing crisis? Why are we making such an extraordinary long term deal with a very wealthy large entity listed in twenty twenty two amongst the wealthiest and richest families in Australia. And there is that lease happening, and it's public land. Of course, it's an incredibly significant site for South Australians, part of our heritage and listed for two reasons on our National Heritage, once for the heritage of the Parliament itself, which is globally significant for being the site of the first full democracy, especially firstly for women, but also our park lands are incredibly important and heritage listed as well. So there's so many reasons why this is such a bad idea and the state government really is on the wrong track.
00:02:15
Speaker 1: And so is it just the money aspect that concerns you?
00:02:20
Speaker 2: Well, the money aspect certainly concerns me. In a national and certainly statewide housing crisis, people would be scratching their heads as to why we are doing a commercial lease at a dollar a year for one hundred years to a commercial property developer. We've got a lot of vacant commercial space in our city and we could build a very big building like this elsewhere in our city without trampling on our heritage. So I'm worried about the value absolutely of that contract. But I'm also extremely concerned about the way it tramples on our heritage and the failure of the federal government it has powers to call it in even that it has really significant heritage consequences and murray what the minister's failed to do. So I was very concerned about that last week in estimates. But state level, our premiere is you know, I don't know whether there is punch drunk on his polling or what, but he's pushing a project here that I get nothing but concern in my inbox about. It's like putting a thirty eight level story building on the apron of Parliament House in Canberra, or in the middle of Federation Square in Melbourne, or next to the Opera House in Sydney. This is an important site for our city and we all know what we love most about our city is as beautiful planning heritage. The opportunity it gives from massive park in the middle of our city, and all of this tramples on our heritage. It's a bad deal, and it hasn't passed proper scrutiny from the federal government on our heritage consequence. So I think it's all round a bad deal. In the premiere needs to rethink it.
00:03:58
Speaker 1: Why should the Walker Corporation be paying more for this? I suspect, and we'll hear from the essay Housing Minister Nick Champion in just a moment to respond. But I suspect the government would say, well, this is going to generate their figures more than a billion dollars in economic activity each year in Adelaide. So we want that billion dollars in economic activity. If we want that, we've got to give this site to Walker Corp. For a dollar.
00:04:28
Speaker 2: Well, what sort of people are we to be begging for that kind of contract. We've got lots of spots in our city that are.
00:04:35
Speaker 3: Built for big buildings.
00:04:38
Speaker 2: We could put it up on Victoria Square, there's other places that can go. I'm not opposing large new developments. I can see our state needs them and we need to have appropriate commercial arrangements around them. But this doesn't mean any kind of commercial sniff test, and it doesn't respect the heritage of our city, which is our commercial development should be in the commercial center, not prime real estate. A beautiful place right on the edge of our river. The overshadowing our parklands and certainly shadowing the historically significant Parliament House a couple of meters away, thirty eighth tower, thirty eight story tower, leaning over, towering over our Parliament and overshadowing our democracy and its heritage. It seems all wrong to me, into many many other South Australians. There's nothing to say we shouldn't do large developments elsewhere where they belong. But this is not the spot for a large corporate entity paying just a dollar a year for one hundred years. That is not commercially significant. It's not a good deal and we should rethink it.
00:05:40
Speaker 1: Okay, Senator Barbara Pocock, thank you for your time this afternoon.
00:05:44
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Stacey.
00:05:46
Speaker 1: Green, Senator for South Australia. There let's get a response now from Nick Champion, the Minister for Housing and Urban Development. Good afternoon, Minister.
00:05:54
Speaker 3: Good afternoon, Stacey.
00:05:56
Speaker 1: Would you consider this a good deal for South Australians.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: Let me make one thing absolutely clear of this dollar a year business is complete nonsense. It's completely untrue. It's a made up fact from somewhere out there on the Internet. And Senator Pocock has taken this untruth and then propelled it into the National Parliament and misled the National Parliament by stating it in the Questions to the Estimates Committee. What the State Government has with Walker Corporation is a commercial deal worth tens of millions of dollars to the State where we get paid for the land. So to say that we're getting a dollar a year for one hundred years is just nonsense. It's true and it shouldn't be repeated. Just because you know something is untrue as repeated constantly does not make it true.
00:06:45
Speaker 1: Okay, So what is doing.
00:06:47
Speaker 3: And I'll be writing to Senator Pocock to correct the record. We have a commercial and confidence deal, but I can tell you it's worth tens of millions of dollars, not a dollar a year for one hundred years.
00:06:58
Speaker 1: And when you say the deal is worth tens of millions of dollars, is Walker Corporation paying the State government tens of millions of dollars.
00:07:06
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, as well as all of the civic improvements as well as all of the works in kind for the public and civic space. So what we're getting out of this is, you know, two towers, We're getting a second tower. We're getting lots of office workers, we're getting are we getting a restaurant and hospitality on the ground floor. We're getting well curated public space, civic space, and we're getting an activated plaza, a car park and all the other improvements that we see around Tower one and now Tower TI. On top of that, we have a commercial agreement between ren Newalsa and Walker Corporation that pays the government for its land.
00:07:50
Speaker 1: And is that deal worth tens of millions.
00:07:53
Speaker 3: Of dollars for years? Yes, that's right. It's the least is one hundred years and it's tens of minin the dollars, not a dollar a year. I don't know where this dollar a year came from. I think it came out of the you know, out of the ether. I don't know where Senator Pocox got it from. I don't know where the Save Festival Alliance a group have got it from. But it's just not true.
00:08:17
Speaker 1: Okay, Well, I think I've still got that's not true. I think I've still got the Senator on the line, so I might just check, Senator, do I still have you there? You do?
00:08:26
Speaker 2: Did you thank you? I think it would be very useful if the Minister could commit to making public that commercial arrangement. If I have things wrong, I'd like to see what that commercial arrangement is. Is he willing to make it public?
00:08:43
Speaker 3: Minister, Well, we have a range of commercial agreements with a range of development partners across the state, with Sabek, with Boden. We don't make any of them publicly available because that would give away commercial sensitivity. And those commercial sensitivities protect the state government and most importantly protect the state taxpayer. That's why we've got them. But Senator Pocock should just be aware that when she goes out and propagates ridiculous claims, and they are so unbelievably ridiculous, but I cannot believe they've been uttered in the National Parliament or on your radio program, as if we would take a dollar a year for one hundred years. I mean, it's just ridiculous. So we've had appropriate processes around this. We've had market market analysis around this, We've had valuations around this. We do these arrangements with developers all the time through a new USA. And I can tell you right that the claims being made in the National Parliament, on many websites, in Senator Pocock finbox and on this radio station are just not true.
00:09:49
Speaker 1: Senator Pocock, did you check that before you raised it in Senate estimates?
00:09:54
Speaker 2: Absolutely? And the point is the South Australian taxpayers and the people who love our city have a right to know the nature of that contract. It is a prime site. As you said Stacey at the top of this story, it is very very important that South Australians understand to what use, the commercial use, this public, prime piece of public property is being put to at what cost and price. And I think the Minister and the government more importantly should be making it publicly clear to South Australians what they are getting and how much it will change the site lines, the views, the very significant heritage of that particular site. It is being sold off to a very large corporation, one that paid no tax in twenty three twenty four, which is a very very profitable corporation is for commercial uses, and I think it's entirely appropriate for me as a Senator to raise the commercial basis of the deal, ask it for it to be made publicly, and also defend the head, heritage property and the characteristics of a city that we all hold very.
00:11:05
Speaker 1: Dear of course, and I'm sure there'd be a lot of South Australians who are grateful that it's being raised in federal Parliament. But as a Senator for South Australia, shouldn't you also be required to fact check these things before you bring them up in federal Senate estimates? If a dollar a year is untrue and it's a rumor that's been going around online, should you not have the responsibility of making sure that's fact before you bring it up.
00:11:29
Speaker 2: I bring out facts all the time in the Parliament and Senator Murray Watt made no argument argument with me on that basis, and I think it's entirely appropriate to ask for the commercial facts to be put forward in full to the public. And the Minister is refusing to do that. He's contesting my facts, but he's not willing to put his own forward. That's very important to the South Australian public get the facts before them so they can judge them for themselves. And I'm absolutely doing what I'm meant to be doing, which is taking the concern of South Australians. And there are thousands of people who are speaking to me about this online and in my mailbox. They are very worried about what this government is doing to our very significant heritage as a city that's internationally significant, not just for our planning and design of our city, but also for the heritage which we need to fight to maintain and protect.
00:12:22
Speaker 1: All right, Senator, appreciate your time this afternoon. Minister Nick Champion. Before I let you go, you mentioned the civic spaces around around this building as well. What will there be that's available to the public, because I imagine most of the building is going to be for commercial leases.
00:12:44
Speaker 3: Well at the ground floor and the podium level there will be a number of restaurants and bars. There will also be space open civic space between the two towers that will actually deliver a better sight line to Parliament House than the three story building that was locked in by the Marshall government. So we had a choice between a three story building that was contracted for was locked in was meant to be constructed, that would have completely obliterated the sitelines to what is the north face of the Parliament. What we've done is have a tower, which means you get a less floorplane blockage of the sitelines. It improves the sidelines of the north face of Parliament House, it improves the lane way access between the railway station and King William Road. And what this will be is one of the best curated, nicest places in the state. And that's a good thing. It would be a good thing for the public. And let's remember what it's replacing, a nineteen seventies modernist plaza which was a blight for thirty years and never had a person in it. I mean it was a barren hot place which might have been an architect's marvel, but was not very friendly to human beings. And what we're building is an activated plaza which feels safe because there's a lot of people around, a lot of activated restaurants and bars that will beautifully complement the Adelaide Festival Center and the works that have been done there. We've got a new car park, got much better cipy space between the Parliament the old Parliament and the railway station that used to be a road and if you remember, Stacey used to be able to catch a cab when you exited the casino there back in the day. You know, now that's a beautiful pedestrian plaza. And you know, my fear is that, you know, the opponents of Tower To have whipped themselves into a frenzy and they're engaging in a whole lot of kind of irrational thought, which is sad because you know, you know, cities need do need debates about architecture. It's good to have a vibrant debate about architecture. People are entitled to their views about tool buildings or not. But what they can't do is go around are spreading, you know, things that aren't true because they oppose this project.
00:15:02
Speaker 1: Okay, Minister, thank you for your time this afternoon.
00:15:05
Speaker 3: Thanks Dovey.
00:15:06
Speaker 1: Nick Champion, Minister for Housing and Urban Development. Eight double two to three double O double oh is the number to call. You've just heard it there. It's not true. It's not a dollar a year lease. What do you think
