House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Gillman Land Sale Gillman Land Sale Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Gillman Land Sale Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): May I ask a further supplementary? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Alright, a further supplementary. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, sir. To the Minister for Planning: did the state government discuss helping Incitec Pivot move to land at Gillman with Renewal SA during the Gillman master plan process? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Housing and Urban Development Minister for Industrial Relations The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:26): There are a number of questions in there and there are a number of time lines, so let me start off with the time lines. If I am not mistaken, the agreement to commence the Gillman master plan process was the subject of a tender process which would have begun, I think, in about May of last year. I think that there was a contract signed early in June, maybe around 6 June, last year. I think that the actual starting date of the master planning process was on about 10 June or thereabouts, and also, if I am not mistaken, in November of last year, my predecessor, as minister, indicated that a draft master plan document was being presented to the public for evaluation and feedback and suchlike. So, having regard to that, the real question that I am being asked, as I understand it, by the deputy leader is: at any time since about May 2013 and the present time and continuing, has there been any conversation with Incitec Pivot and Renewal? I do not know the detail of any such conversation, but I expect the answer to that is probably yes because, as the deputy leader would be aware, there has been a longstanding issue about Incitec Pivot down in the Port. I think members would be aware that there was a restriction on the type of development that might occur in the Port Adelaide region, which was a consequence of the activities conducted by Incitec Pivot in their premises down in the Port. They were storing there a product which, although I think for 99.99 per cent of the time everyone would say is absolutely safe, there was a very small risk that that product could become unstable. In those circumstances, there was an exclusion zone, which was related to the nature of that product and the fact that that activity was occurring there, and that had a direct bearing on the type of development that might conceivably occur in that area around the Port dock region. Members can imagine the area there where the lighthouse is. You move east of there, and you get to a certain point where there is no more construction going on. Part of the reason that's been the case historically is because of the fact that this building was there and they were storing material there. I don't have any particular knowledge of conversations but I would think it highly likely that Renewal SA had some conversations with Incitec Pivot during the period between May or thereabouts of last year and the present time and continuing, for the reason that I have just explained. Being that, Incitec Pivot finding another place to go about their business is one of the important elements in the renewal project that we are undertaking in Port Adelaide, because for us to be able to have the Port realise the sort of potential that the Port undoubtedly has there is a need for some transitioning types of activities that are occurring in some parts of the Port, and Incitec Pivot is one such activity.