Gillman Land Sale

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:51): That's a felony, indeed, Mr Speaker. My question is to the junior assistant minister for planning. Has the minister commenced work on the rezoning of the potential industrial land at Gillman, as per your appointment as the minister delegated to deal with this matter, and as recently gazetted?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier will not provoke the opposition with silence! Deputy Premier.

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, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (14:52): Perhaps if I hummed a tune or something it might be less provocative. Look, the situation—

Mr Gardner: Do you have ministerial responsibility for this?

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta is called to order. Deputy Premier.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I understand the question, although it was laden with what I think were intended to be pejorative references to 'junior', which is not something that we actually have as part of our titles—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is not the United States where every second person's name is 'something or rather junior', you know, so that's not the situation here. The situation is that there was a delegation—that much is clear from matters on the public record—and the minister to whom the delegation has been referred will deal with that matter in the minister's own good time. How that minister deals with that matter is a matter for him, and it is not something about which any minister in his position is expected to or, indeed, properly should be giving a commentary. Can I also say that the notion that, from time to time, these delegations occur from the Minister for Planning is quite unremarkable. It happens from time to time.

Ms Chapman: Once.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, actually, that's not true. There is nothing sort of remarkable about it. I say this, too, to the members of the opposition who might be interested in this matter. It does occur to me that one of the complexities of this matter is, given that I am presently the minister for Renewal and, therefore, am minister for the entity which has actually participated in the negotiation of the agreement—albeit not during my term; nonetheless, that entity—it would, for the sake of things not only being done well but being seen to be done well, be appropriate that I did not appear to take one hat off whilst sitting at the same desk and put another hat on.

I actually have the view that had I done that, I would be potentially criticised for having done precisely that because how was I separating my knowledge in respect of one matter from my function in respect of another? So, I am capable of doing that. Indeed, I think one has to in a range of ways. But from the point of view of the right thing being absolutely transparent on the surface in that the same person was not exercising a discretion under the planning development legislation, whilst at the same time having been a signatory to matters relating to contractual arrangements with the parties proposing the development, I thought that was appropriate. What we have done is enter into an arrangement which preserves the independent decision-making, not only in an actual sense but in the sense that it is separated so that there are two completely separate individuals exercising both of those matters.

In my opinion, particularly given the significance of this matter and the attention to which the opposition has paid to this matter, and the fact that there has been considerable scrutiny and discussion about this matter, it is entirely appropriate that that complete separation of decision-making should occur—

The SPEAKER: The minister's time has expired. Supplementary, deputy leader.