House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Kangaroo Island Wharf Facility Kangaroo Island Wharf Facility Ms MICHAELS House of Assembly Enfield Kangaroo Island Wharf Facility Ms MICHAELS (Enfield) (14:34): Again, my question is to the Minister for Planning. Did the minister mislead the parliament in her evidence to the estimates committee on 2 August in relation to the planning commission's assessment report into the proposed wharf at Smith Bay on Kangaroo Island? With your leave, and that of the house, I will explain. Leave granted. Ms MICHAELS House of Assembly Ms MICHAELS: The Minister claimed in estimates there were no recommendations made in that report to approve the port, that it was simply for noting and was introducing a new process. The Minister stated she had a good read of the planning assessment report and I quote, 'It does not ask me to approve anything. It just asks me to note the assessment report,' The minister went on to say, 'I am not sure whether there are any recommendations yet.' I further quote: 'This one seems to introduce a new process.' The report made 56 recommendations, including at the outset one to approve the application. I quote page 8 of the report: Having carefully considered these matters, along with the advice obtained, it is considered that the impacts and potential risks associated with the Smith Bay proposal can be managed through a strict suite of management plans, and licensing when required. On this basis, whilst finely balanced, it is concluded that the proposal should be granted provisional development authorisation, subject to conditions. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning and Local Government The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (14:35): I stand by what I said in the estimates and indeed further what I have said on radio recently when I was asked about this matter. I absolutely stand by that, and I refer members to the assessment report. Unlike any other major project that had been put to me, which is either recommended development or not, this had a recommendation of provisional development with reserve matters, whatever that means, and as I indicated to the committee, I did get further advice on that matter and made my decision.