BOWDEN URBAN VILLAGE

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Can the minister respond to comments made by the opposition about the LMC's Bowden development?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:21): I thank the member for Lee for this important question, because it does give me the opportunity to respond to some comments that have been made by the Hon. David Ridgway, and it does very much go to the matters spoken about by the Premier on Tuesday relating to the standards of political debate. On the radio today the Hon. David Ridgway said to Leon Byner about the Bowden development:

Leon, this information we've uncovered...it just does uncover that recommendations from the EPA that indicate 'they would have difficulty accepting a change in land use from industrial to residential'...for example, they discovered that a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon at 7,100 times greater than the guideline level...

Now, Madam Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Would members stop chatting; I cannot hear.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —to use the term 'uncovered' would be to suggest that something had been covered, and that—

Mr Pisoni: He's got a messy desk; he just lifted something up and found it. He uncovered it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will continue when the member for Unley has control of himself.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Unley!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Oh, there's a standard for you, isn't there? There's a standard.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will continue when they have control of themselves. As I say, to suggest 'uncovered' would be to suggest that something was covered. The opposition was briefed in 2010 on contamination of the Clipsal site and the gas company site. In February 2010 the Land Management Corporation set aside $30 million for remediation of the site. The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that were uncovered were on the website of the Land Management Corporation in a document co-authored by the LMC, the health department and the EPA.

Mr Ridgway goes on to suggest that, perhaps, the EPA does not approve of this project when the EPA is co-authoring documents about the release of land there, and where the opposition has been briefed that the land will not be released without the sign-off of the EPA, and the EPA is working with the Land Management Corporation on the remediation. All this is known to the opposition. All this is known to virtually everyone.

Despite that, Mr Ridgway persists. He actually says at the end that, to try and market housing product in the middle of a remediation and construction zone, 'I think the government is going to find it very difficult.' That is nothing less than a comment that damages the interests of the taxpayer at the Bowden site. It is not true.

In a press release, entitled 'Bowden Village: poisoned chalice', he even contradicts himself and says that the remediation bill has blown out from $30 million to $43 million. That is despite having been briefed and having been told by the head of the Land Management Corporation that the $43 million description is merely the $30 million in 2009-10 dollars adjusted for inflation over the 12 years of the project—absolutely, clearly, and he had been told that but he ignored it.

The reason I say about standards is what is most galling about this is that members of the opposition attended this launch. It is an outstanding project which will remediate land, but Mr Ridgway's comments when enjoying the hospitality of the Land Management Corporation with the group there were somewhat different. He said this: 'I hate to admit it, but I think we are very near bipartisan on this project.' So, I just come back to what the Premier has said. Are we going to have a debate on the substance of the issue or are we going to play cheap politics?