HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DOCK 1 REDEVELOPMENT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:51): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question on the Dock 1 redevelopment at Port Adelaide.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Last Wednesday night I chaired a standing room only public meeting at Semaphore in response to community concerns about the impact on the health and safety of residents in Port Adelaide and surrounding areas from heavy industry. Although this issue has been debated for many years, the latest concerns were sparked after I obtained submissions from the EPA, SafeWork SA and the Department of Health to the Development Assessment Commission in relation to the Dock 1 redevelopment.

Those submissions raise, in particular, significant concerns about airborne pollution levels and the risk to nearby residents from an explosion or chemical fire involving the massive ammonium nitrate stockpiles located at the Incitec Pivot fertiliser plant. Members should note that SafeWork SA was only asked for its advice after the EPA recommended to the Development Assessment Commission that it be approached.

At last week's meeting, Wayne Gibbings, the Chief Executive of the Land Management Corporation, made the following statement:

Incitec Pivot had never been raised since 2000, to the best of my knowledge, that I can find speaking to all the agencies, as a planning issue. I can't understand why that didn't happen, why that happened, but it had never been raised before until this report.

After the meeting, I was approached by members of the Port Adelaide community who expressed frustration that they had indeed tried to raise the issue of the safety of the Incitec Pivot plant with government agencies over a number of years, well before the EPA and the SafeWork SA reports.

Since then I have obtained copies of minutes of the Port Environment Forum and the Port River Expressway Road and Rail Bridges Community Liaison Group from December 2005, June 2006 and June 2007. At each of these forums at which officers from the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure were present, the minutes record that the issue of the Incitec Pivot plant was raised by members of the community. My questions are:

1. Why isn't SafeWork SA as the agency responsible for the Dangerous Substances Act a referral body under the Development Act and regulations in relation to developments in close proximity to licensed premises? Will the minister now consider amendments to ensure that, in future, SafeWork SA is consulted in circumstances where housing is proposed to be located close to industry?

2. Does the minister agree that this whole issue highlights the inadequacy of both consultation and coordination between government agencies in respect of the interface between industry and residential areas in Port Adelaide, and what will the government do to redress those problems?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:54): In relation to the latter bit, no, I do not agree. In fact, if anything, what has happened in relation to the Dock 1 application is that the planning system works. The proposal was put forward. The relevant agencies, in this case the EPA, were notified. They have raised that in turn with SafeWork SA. As a consequence, we have the reports.

The system has worked as it should do to draw attention to any potential issues. The honourable member asked whether we should have SafeWork SA as a participating authority. If there are any issues related to the storage of hazardous substances, SafeWork SA is the appropriate body to be consulted, as it ultimately was, in relation to this situation.

In relation to the history of it, most people would be aware that there are a number of fertiliser plants around the country. I would think that it has been only in relatively recent times, in perhaps the last four or five years, mainly through consideration of terrorism activities and so on, that greater attention has been focused on the capacity for ammonium nitrate to be used as an explosive. I am sure that it has been those fairly recent changes that have drawn attention to this matter. Prior to publicity being given to this nationally some three or four years ago, or thereabouts, I do not recall too much concern in the past in relation to this particular issue. Nevertheless, whatever the issues associated with ammonium nitrate have been, it is appropriate that they should be addressed, and they have been.

As my colleague the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure announced, consideration has now been given to how to address the storage and removal of ammonium nitrate. I think the planning system does work. As to the question whether one needs every agency notified all the time, even if it may not be relevant, all that will do is add further cost and red tape. What is important is that the system works so that, if an agency needs to be involved because the matter is relative to its expertise, it should be involved.

Finally, I will make one comment generally in relation to the Development Act and the consideration of all development proposals, and that is that it is not always possible for the government to have all the information that might be necessary as to exactly what is going on within a particular area of any proposed development. I do not think there is any central government data agency that has a comprehensive database of industrial activities located on every site within the state.

Clearly, there is notification of some particularly high-risk activities with some agencies, and the EPA will have its own register of activities that might come within its purview. However, it may well be that other activities are undertaken which may from time to time get below the radar. That is, I guess, why ultimately, with any major proposals, we have a public consultation process so that, if anything does slip through the net, we can be made aware of it.

I take some comfort from the fact that, in this particular case, the systems do, in fact, work and that, when attention is drawn to these matters, we can get the expertise from the agency concerned. Of course, it is appropriate that SafeWork SA, as the appropriate body, should let us know when these important issues arise. I believe that the system, as it is operating, does work.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT