House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Environment Protection Authority Environment Protection Authority Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Environment Protection Authority Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (15:11): My question is to the Premier. Was the former EPA chief Campbell Gemmell correct when he said on 8 July, and I quote: The task of fixing South Australia's industrial contamination was made more difficult by cultural problems including a lack of funds and political support. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Premier. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (15:11): I am not sure what the former head of the EPA was talking about, although I do recall, because I was treasurer at the time, a failed budget bid in relation to cleaning up certain contaminated sites—not relevant necessarily to the industrial contamination we are talking about here, but certainly a proposition that was about readying sites for essentially development. It is a worthy idea but it was not relevant in a health and welfare sense to the broader community. It was really about accelerating the process of urban development or, indeed, development around the city as the principal sources of the 'blighted sites' I think was the nature of the thing. So, if it is the case that Mr Gemmell's remarks are directed to his disappointment that sufficient resources were not made available in the context of a difficult budget to actually set aside some money to clean up somebody else's contamination of a site that would allow us to then accelerate some urban development in and around inner urban areas, then perhaps that is what his remarks are directed at. In all other respects, the South Australian government has taken our obligations incredibly seriously in relation to the health and wellbeing of our citizens. At all times I have ensured, and I know my ministers have ensured, that relevant information and relevant steps are taken to ensure that our community is kept safe. Of course, there have been some unfortunate steps taken in relation to this matter. I think it is true, with the benefit of hindsight, that instead of trying to be in possession of as much information as we can to answer as many questions as we can before going out to talk to people, we have to have a much stronger culture of telling people immediately as soon as we know anything and running the risk that there will be many more unanswered questions. I think that is a risk that is better run than creating the impression in people's minds that we are hiding something, because we simply are not. All we are trying to do is to give them the best information in the fullest form, and I think what needs to be said about this matter, after having an opportunity to reflect upon it, is that where agencies get to after they go through a process of analysis of data is not where they necessarily start at the beginning of the time when they get that data. These are complex matters that do require some analysis and, by the end of the matter when they reach their conclusions about this, what is sometimes visited against them is that they should have known that right back at the start. That ignores the complexity of the analysis that is undertaken to actually understand the picture here. Some of the theories that they had about the way in which material of this sort moves through the soil profile have actually been changed through the gathering of additional evidence. So, when dealing with incomplete information, they are seeking to draw conclusions. This is not a simple matter. It requires careful expert judgement but, at all times, we have been at pains to make sure that the community knows the information as soon as we are secure about its veracity. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Supplementary, the leader.