Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions LeFevre Peninsula LEFEVRE PENINSULA Adjourned debate on motion of the Hon. M.C. Parnell: 1.	That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire and report on the relationship between industrial and residential land uses on the Lefevre Peninsula and adjacent areas, with specific reference to— (a)	the risk to health, safety and amenity of existing residents and potential new residents; (b)	the impact of new residential development on existing and potential future industry; (c)	the adequacy of existing laws, policies and guidelines; (d)	the role of the following agencies: i.	Land Management Corporation; ii.	Environment Protection Authority; iii.	Port Adelaide Enfield Council; iv.	Development Assessment Commission; v.	Development Policy Advisory Committee; vi.	other referral bodies under the Development Act; and vii.	other relevant agencies; and (e)	any other matters that the committee considers relevant. 2.	That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only. 3.	That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council. 4.	That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating. (Continued from 27 October 2010.) The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO Legislative Council The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (23:01): I respond on behalf of the government. The government opposes this motion. Parliament can do little to assist the independent Environment Protection Authority and the Development Assessment Commission in dealing with current development applications on the Port waterfront. This inquiry will divert resources from the actual work required. I agree that the state has a legacy issue associated with the proximity of existing industries and housing on the Lefevre Peninsula. This issue is not restricted to the Lefevre Peninsula or, indeed, the Port Adelaide area. There are many places across the state where the proximity of housing to factories must be managed. Indeed, I think the Hon. Ann Bressington made that comment earlier when she was referring to an EPA inquiry. It is for this reason that the parliament has established the independent Environment Protection Authority, the independent Development Assessment Commission, and council development assessment panels to deal with development applications. For this reason, the government does not support a parliamentary committee. However, if the council does support the motion, I will be moving an amendment to the terms of reference to ensure that the investigations go back to June 2001, when the former Liberal government initiated residential development on the Port waterfront through a registration of interest process. The former government saw the need for revitalising the Port Adelaide centre and waterfront in 2001, and appointed the Land Management Corporation to coordinate government involvement and to facilitate private sector development. This government agrees with the former government on this point. Newport Quays was a bidder in the ROI process, and in October 2004 a formal agreement was entered into between the LMC and Newport Quays. It is important to note that the terms of agreement between LMC and Newport Quays required that the land be rezoned to accommodate the anticipated development. The rezoning was formally implemented in September 2004, leading directly to the agreement in October 2004. Under these arrangements, the LMC owns the waterfront land at Port Adelaide and has the role of making the land safe and suitable for development, and clearing the land of any buildings or structures not required as part of future redevelopment before progressive transfer of the land to Newport Quays. The work carried out by LMC includes site investigations and remediation earthworks. Before the land can be developed by Newport Quays, an independent environmental auditor must certify that the land is suitable for the proposed development. Newport Quays is responsible for obtaining the necessary development approvals. Under this process, members will be aware that early stages of the project have successfully been completed. New housing exists on the western side of the Port River, upstream from the Birkenhead Bridge. Four hundred and thirty-four new dwellings were completed in 2007 and 2009. I urge members of the council to have a look at this successful development. The latest stage of the development is immediately south of Dock One. A five-stage Dock One development application was lodged by Newport Quays with the Development Assessment Commission in April 2010. The application included a residential subdivision and stage 1 housing. As required under the Development Act, the commission referred the application to the Environment Protection Authority. On 15 July 2010 the EPA responded, raising concerns about the site proximity to three existing industrial activities, namely Adelaide Brighton Cement, the Incitec Pivot fertilizer business, and the fuel storage tanks north of Adelaide Brighton Cement. The EPA report also suggested that the commission consult SafeWork SA. The commission took up this suggestion. It is clear from the advice that there are real issues associated with the proximity of Dock One to these industries. The assessment process has identified these issues, the applications are on hold, and Newport Quays and the LMC are working with the EPA and the commission to resolve these issues. It has already been announced that the government is in negotiation with Incitec Pivot Fertilizers about its possible relocation. Clearly the assessment process has worked as it should. Parliament can do nothing to assist the EPA and the commission in resolving this issue. The independent authorities should be left to get on with the job. I recognise, however, that the new development application is not the only issue. There are existing houses near these industries. Once again, the government has been far from inactive. The environmental impact of these industries is managed through licence agreements under the Environment Protection Act. It must be recognised that the state has been left with a legacy issue. It must be managed in a way that achieves good outcomes. As background, the Adelaide Brighton Cement company is licensed by the EPA for cement manufacture. One of the main concerns with that industry is its stack emissions. The EPA has licensed ABC, recognising it uses Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BATEA). EPA-imposed licence conditions include the development and implementation of an Environmental Improvement Program (EIP). In addition, there are management, maintenance, monitoring and reporting requirements. Changes made in accordance with the EPA licence and its associated EIP include improvements relating to dust emissions, such as truck washing, dust suppressants, containment of stock piles, pavement of unsealed areas, and so on. Improvements have been made on noise emissions, including redevelopment of the plant to improve noise attenuation. Stack emissions have improved through new filtration systems. Public complaints received by the EPA about Adelaide Brighton Cement have been steadily reducing. The EPA continues to require ambient dust monitoring, and receives reports four times each year. The Incitec Pivot plant is licensed for chemical storage and warehousing. Like the ABC plant, Incitec Pivot is subject to an EIP, focusing on water quality and stormwater. Should the Dock 1 development proceed, the EPA is likely to require an air quality EIP; however, as advised earlier, the government has commenced discussions about relocation of that plant. The EPA has also raised concerns about fuel storage facilities to the north of the ABC plant. Under the EPA licence and EIP, significant improvements have been made to these facilities, including installation of floating roof tanks on all storage tanks. This work is due to be finished this year. This will reduce evaporative loss of fuel and manage odours. In addition, vapour recovery units are being installed at all fuel storage facilities, with work due to finish by the end of this year. The community of Port Adelaide expects the government, through its independent agencies, to deal with pollution issues at Port Adelaide on an ongoing basis. The EPA commenced an air quality monitoring program in 2003. It has initiated a collaborative project to develop a pilot air quality strategy for Lefevre Peninsula, a key recommendation of the State of the Environment report 2008. The 18-month project commenced in June 2010, with representation from relevant state agencies and the council. In addition, active participation has been sought from the local community. In addition to government forums, Adelaide Brighton Cement has established its own community outreach program. It commenced in 2005 and meets every two months. Recent discussions have included changes to EPA licence conditions. The EPA has been advised that this forum is very useful from both the community and ABC's perspectives. The EPA also regularly attends the Port Adelaide Environment Forum. This forum meets monthly and is provided with regular information about environmental works and licence conditions associated with industries in the Port Adelaide area. From the above discussions, it can be seen that environmental concerns in the Port region are being addressed. It is too simplistic to say that these conditions should not exist. They are legacy issue associated with 150 years of development of industry and housing at the Port. The government views the select committee as unnecessary to the point of being counterproductive, as it will divert resources from doing the required work. Should the council fail to appreciate how a select committee will be counterproductive and choose to proceed anyway, I move that the terms of reference be amended as follows: After the words 'on Lefevre Peninsula and adjacent' insert 'from the commencement of the registration of interest process for the Port waterfront in June 2001' The government, as I have mentioned, opposes the motion but, should it be successful, I hope that honourable members see fit to amend the motion as I have proposed. Such an amendment would capture all the history—and I think this is entirely what the Hon. Mark Parnell is trying to do—of this development, as indeed it is appropriate to do. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (23:13): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will be supporting the select committee. The Hon. Carmel Zollo Legislative Council The Hon. Carmel Zollo: Are you going on the select committee? The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am looking forward to going on it. The Newport Quays development has been of interest to me in the time I have been the shadow minister for urban development and planning, along with the interface between industry and housing. Certainly, there are always issues to deal with, where you have heavy industry and housing, to do with air quality and noise. Of course the Incitec Pivot facility has also I think passed— The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting: The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Incitec. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! Let's get on with it. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did not realise the Hon. Robert Brokenshire was going to give elocution lessons from the backbench. He is up on the Labor backbench; I hope there are no photographers around. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: It is getting late. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: It is getting late. I very much would like to be on the select committee, as I responded to the Hon. Carmel Zollo's interjection. One of the reasons I am very keen to participate in this select committee is that during the opportunity that I had in May this year on the transit oriented development tour we saw a number of waterfront redevelopments which took a different approach from what has been proposed under the Newport Quays development. I am particularly interested in paragraph (e) 'any other matters that the committee considers relevant'. I think there is an opportunity for the state, especially under a future Liberal government, to develop a really iconic, visionary area—a second hub where we can link with some quality public transport and reinvigorate the area, because we know it is Labor heartland, and they never look after their people in the Labor heartland because they want to keep them oppressed and struggling out there under bad air quality and bad living conditions. This is a wonderful opportunity to look at some of the major issues and problems there, but also to have a look at the way forward, to develop the inner port and that particular part of our city into a much better place to live, and a much better part of our state. So, I am very happy to support the establishment of this select committee. The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Next time you go down, wear your Crows jumper! The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (23:16): I thank the Hon. David Ridgway for the Liberal Party's support for this committee and for his personal interest in the people of Port Adelaide. I also thank the Hon. Carmel Zollo for her contribution, and I am not surprised that the government is not supporting the select committee because I do not recall a select committee over the last six years that it has supported. The main point that I would like people to note in my summing up is that this motion does not condemn the government, it does not call for sackings, it does not say that nothing has been done. This motion looks forward to coming up with some solutions for a range of issues that the Hon. Carmel Zollo correctly described as legacy issues. These are not brand new issues. There has been an interface between polluting industry and residences in the Port Adelaide area for many years. The Hon. Carmel Zollo said that not only was this unnecessary but it was counterproductive, and I guess what she had in mind is that the resources of all these agencies will be devoted entirely to servicing the Legislative Council's select committee. I do not imagine our call on them will be excessive and, rather than being counterproductive, it will be incredibly productive because, for the first time, a number of these agencies will be forced to consider how they relate to each other. The Hon. Carmel Zollo's main arguments seem to be that we should expect these agencies to simply get on with it, and that they do not require any parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that that is the right approach—it is an arrogant approach—and I think the Legislative Council can make a great contribution. As we understand it, there is every chance that there will be a new member for the seat of Port Adelaide, and I am sure that that member will be watching the outcomes of this inquiry because, if we can get some answers to these largely intractable legacy issues in Port Adelaide, the solutions can be applied to other areas in metropolitan Adelaide and elsewhere in South Australia, in regional centres, where these residential and industrial interface issues are so problematic. I do not need to convince too many more members as to the importance of this inquiry. I am looking forward to it being an efficient inquiry. I am looking forward to it taking evidence from a range of government agencies, not only the EPA, but also the Land Management Corporation, the local council, the Development Assessment Commission and the Development Policy Advisory Committee. I think we need to look at the totality of the problem and I do not accept that we can leave these bodies to their own devices. I think that we can provide them with some support, encouragement and some guidance to do better in the future. For those reasons, I am opposing the proposed amendment, which seeks to simply restrict this committee to looking back to the last ten years. I cannot see that that provides any great benefit at all. It seems to imply that it is only the Newport Quays Port Waterfront development that is of interest to the people of Port Adelaide and the Lefevre Peninsula. We know that it is much more than that. Whilst that is a big part of it, it is not the only part of it, so it makes no sense to try to limit the scope of this inquiry to simply things that might have happened in the last 10 years. These legacy issues have existed longer than that, and we need to be able to address them all. I urge all honourable member's to support the motion in its original unamended form. Amendment negatived; motion carried. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL (23:21): I move: That the select committee consist of the Hon. John Gazzola, the Hon. John Darley, the Hon. David Ridgway, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the mover. Motion carried. The Hon. M. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move: That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 23 November 2011. Motion carried.