Ministerial Statement

Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (14:01): I rise to make a statement about quotes and assertions that appear in the Sunday Mail article by Mr Paul Ashenden on Sunday 23 May entitled, 'Chapman "too close" on wharf decision'.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Does the Deputy Premier seek leave to do so?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier might resume her seat.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The minister has not sought leave, sir.

The SPEAKER: I am just addressing that, member for West Torrens. Does the Deputy Premier seek leave?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Sir, I do.

The SPEAKER: Leave is sought; is leave granted?

Honourable members: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: Leave is granted, Deputy Premier.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: This article appears to be prompted by evidence provided at the Select Committee on Matters Relating to the Timber Industry in the Limestone Coast, held on 30 April on Kangaroo Island, whereby committee members the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Russell Wortley suggest that I should recuse myself as the Minister for Planning and Local Government from making a determination about a port development at Smith Bay, given my longstanding association with Kangaroo Island.

Notwithstanding this recommendation, in the same breath both members also appeared to indicate concern that the port had not already been approved and that the government had somehow caused the delay in achieving this outcome. Through you, Mr Speaker, I wish to assist those members, who are unaware of the project, by providing a brief summary and its assessment to date. Kangaroo Island Plantation Timbers has proposed a deepwater port facility at Smith Bay on the north coast of Kangaroo Island to assist with moving timber from their plantation to the mainland for processing.

As with many projects of this scale, and as it was lodged prior to the introduction of the new Planning and Design Code, the proposal has been considered under the major development assessment process of the old Development Act 1993. This includes the creation of an environment impact statement, consultation with the relevant council, state government agencies and the community before drafting an assessment report and providing a recommendation to the Minister for Planning and Local Government for a final decision.

As members may appreciate, ensuring all relevant information is collected and thoroughly assessed before being approved is of the utmost importance to the applicant and the community. This can often be a time-consuming process, particularly when further information is required to be supplied by the applicant, as was the case here.

On 24 December 2020, I as minister agreed to release a second addendum to the EIS for public consultation on the basis that information provided by KIPT significantly affected the substance of the original EIS. These important matters included (as were outlined at the recent inquiry by Mr Lamb):

the design of the facility, in particular those structures within or having a direct impact on the marine environment;

how matters pertaining to marine pest management are proposed to be managed; and

how matters pertaining to road traffic management are proposed to be dealt with.

The second addendum was placed on consultation from 14 January to 12 February 2021. A public meeting was held at Kingscote on 2 February 2021. The submissions received from this consultation were provided to KIPT, which lodged a second response document on 12 March 2021. On 14 April 2021 I noted the second addendum to the EIS, including the submissions received during the public consultation and the response document prepared and provided by KIPT in their reply. The State Planning Commission is currently assessing the overall proposal, which will culminate in an assessment report ultimately for my consideration. This is yet to be provided.

As provided to the journalist prior to the publishing of the story, while I was born on the island and have significant family history there, I have no conflict of interest in relation to this matter. I have no pecuniary interest in the affected property or the business of KIPT, nor any property or industry associated with or potentially impacted by the proposed wharf.

For completeness, I advise the house that as planning minister I have also had a decision-making role in another major project on Kangaroo Island, namely, the Southern Ocean Lodge. I can report to the house that at no time have I received any request to recuse myself from this project by Mr Pangallo, Mr Wortley or anyone else.

Let me be clear: the Marshall government has a longstanding commitment to Kangaroo Island. Kangaroo Island is home to some of the world's most stunning natural landscapes, hosting around 30 per cent of South Australia's total international visitor nights, and it is an important part of South Australia's identity as a clean, green destination. It is also important to our state's economy, particularly in fishing, agriculture, tourism and, more recently, forestry.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: the time has expired for the giving of a personal explanation by the Deputy Premier.

The SPEAKER: The ministerial statement is being given by leave. There is, I am advised, 15 minutes allowed for the giving of the statement.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but the Deputy Premier did not indicate that she would be seeking leave to make a ministerial statement.

An honourable member: She did.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, she sought leave of the house to make a statement in response to assertions that were made about her in an article in the Sunday Mail by journalist Paul Ashenden. That is a personal explanation—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —the time for which has already expired.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The context in which leave was sought—and I indicate belatedly—was in the context of my having called on the minister for the purposes of presenting papers, giving notices of motion and providing ministerial statements. A ministerial statement in writing has been circulated in the house, including to me, and my understanding is that the minister is clearly addressing that document. In all the circumstances, there is no point of order. The Deputy Premier has the call.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The bushfires that occurred in late 2019/early 2020 have obviously had a massive impact on the island. In addition to immediate response efforts to contain and put out the fires, the state government introduced new tax relief options and fee-waiving measures to assist islanders get back on their feet quickly. Additionally, the Marshall Liberal government announced in June last year up to $52 million of works to rebuild Kangaroo Island's nature-based tourism economy. We assisted to fast-track the redevelopment efforts of the Southern Ocean Lodge, and supported ecotourism through the approval of eco-pods at Flinders Chase.

Our government is committed to the ongoing recovery and success of Kangaroo Island, and every minister at the Marshall cabinet table shares this vision. Nonetheless, the roles and responsibilities of a minister are of incredible importance, and adherence to the Ministerial Code of Conduct is something I take very seriously.

I am one of 40 per cent of Kangaroo Island ratepayers who do not live on Kangaroo Island. To hear both Mr Wortley and Mr Pangello, both of whom also—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —have an interest on properties on Kangaroo Island—not to mention the member for Torrens—assert that I have a conflict of interest in assessing this matter when they are making recommendations on the same subject matter beggars belief.

Furthermore, it is unfortunate to only learn of this position through Hansard. Quite recently I was approached by Mr Pangello and asked what the status of the project was. He could have shared his views with me then and I could have disavowed him of any misgivings at that time. In contrast, KIPT executive director, Ms Shauna Black, was very measured when she was questioned about my alleged impartiality. Unfortunately, it did not make it to the Sunday Mail publication so I will share it with you now. She says this, quote—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee and the member for West Torrens are called to order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Ms Black says:

First of all, I need to say I don't think the minister has made it clear that she opposes Smith Bay. She has not said anything in public that would lead us to believe that she opposes Smith Bay.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I continue:

The minister is a smart woman, and she is a woman who understands the law. I don't want to impugn her reputation here because I think that's not fair. I agree with you that obviously it's common knowledge that Ms Chapman owns property here on Kangaroo Island. As such, you could be led to believe that she understands the politics of the island pretty closely. We have put our faith in the scientific assessment and the process, and we would hope that politics would not be playing a part.

The assessment for the proposed port at Smith Bay is an important one, and I know that there is significant interest by people on the island about the outcome of KIPT's proposal.

Having determined that I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter, I share Ms Black's faith in the assessment process and I await the Planning Commission's report with interest. I assure the house that, just as I have with five other major projects, including two ports, this application will be given due consideration and a prompt determination. If it stacks up, it will be approved, and if it doesn't it won't.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call to order the member for Chaffey, I call to order the member for Playford and I warn the member for Lee.