Mike Elliott: Industrial Zoning and Royal Park Waste Treatment

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
26 July 2001

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
2001 Autumn Sitting Index
Browse by Subject
Search all Democrats material
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning a question about industrial zoning.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have received correspondence from C.E. & A. Co Pty Limited, marine industrial engineers and agents at Royal Park. This company has a significant investment in manufacturing equipment which facilitates South Australia in its naval shipbuilding and repair. It has produced equipment for the Australian Submarine Corporation, high speed patrol boats for the Royal Thailand Navy, Hong Kong police boats and New South Wales police boats, amongst others.

A block of land adjacent to this company has been purchased and applications made to develop a waste transfer station. The company is concerned about the potential impact of its business on that operation. I am told that also in the same area there are food processors, one of which employs 50 people in the export of seafoods and also has some concern. I am told that the waste transfer station is likely to have three jobs when it is up and running.

Apparently at one stage the proposal was given approval, but it was found that a mistake had been made in the process, so the consultation process has started again. I think the issue finally comes down to whether or not the zoning (when drawn up) is sufficiently precise to be certain that businesses are appropriately located and there are clear enough signals as to what businesses are acceptable. In a way it is perhaps a bit like the experience that we had at Mount Barker in relation to the foundry. My questions are:

1. Is the minister familiar with this particular case and can she give any information to the parliament about its current status?

2. Would the minister care to give an opinion as to whether or not in creating zones under PARs councils are being sufficiently precise in their wording to ensure that appropriate businesses collocate?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW (Minister for Transport and Urban Planning): As the Hon. Angus Redford interjects, it is interesting that, one day after Premier Gallop has expressed his disappointment with a process because he did not like the outcome, it would appear that South Australia- I think because of our brilliance in engineering skills and application and electronics-has been awarded this work. If it is confirmed that we are to gain the maintenance work for the Submarine Corporation, that would also reflect well on the energy that the government has applied to the federal government in lobbying for this major work.

I am very aware from the background of Perry Engineering and others-and I suspect that it is equally relevant to the company to which the honourable member refers-that the Submarine Corporation applies the strictest of standards in terms of not only precision but cleanliness and controls, because its work is applied to the submarine project which is a defence facility. So, I am not at all surprised that these concerns may have been raised in that context.

I am familiar with the subject, but I have not had an update in terms of any briefing for perhaps a week. Because of the delicacy of planning decisions and the way in which any comment is reflected on for any litigious purpose later, I would be unwise to reflect on this matter from what I recall and I should obtain updated information.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I am prepared to make more general comment not in relation to this one development application but in terms of industry. One of the real issues that South Australia faces, and particularly in the metropolitan area, is a scarcity of industrial zoned land. For that reason, it has been general practice over successive governments to be more general in the definition of what that scarce industrial land can be used for, so that we close off no options in terms of attracting development and assessing it under different criteria. The honourable member asked for a general comment: that is the background of the way in which successive state governments and successive ministers of planning have approached this issue.

I can assure the honourable member that gaining more access to industrial land across Adelaide is difficult because many local councils do not want it because their local residents do not want to be associated with industrial land. People want the jobs- they scream at all of us, collectively, that they want more jobs in this state-but neighbourhoods do not want land zoned for industrial purposes. Many developers or landowners also do not want their land zoned for industrial purposes because they believe that they will get a lower rate of return than they would get for commercial zoned land or residential zoned land. So, there is that issue to deal with as well.

Therefore, the land that is currently zoned industrial-and there is always pressure from the Department of Industry and Trade, state development, the Employers' Federation and the unions for more land to be zoned industrial-is generally defined in terms of its specific purposes, for that reason. That may give rise to other issues such as those that have been raised by the honourable member, but at that point other matters come into account, including EPA issues and the like, but I will get more detailed information for the honourable member on the specific application and the assessment process.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister supportive of having special zones, such as the family zone, to cater for situations like this transfer station, or does she prefer to use other approaches?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The question is relevant to the government's approach to clusters. The Minister for Industry and Trade could talk more on this, but, because of the general difficulties that I have outlined, there is a general push across government for the relocation of businesses and clusters to maximise like skills and efficiencies. It depends on the category of assessment, but, in terms of category 3, generally the NIMBY syndrome of nobody wanting various industries in general in their backyard comes into play. There is an absolute distaste for some industries and you can guarantee that there will be an adverse community reaction, no matter how clean and environmentally sound their effort is in establishing a plant. There is a psychological barrier to certain types of industry, yet industry, as we know, through environmental controls and the like, is required to operate in a much cleaner, more responsible manner than it did in the past.

I have not seen any general enthusiasm for waste transfer stations to be clustered, but there will certainly be a much greater focus on waste transfer, waste resource and recycling; and certainly the Wingfield area has been an area which has attracted such business in the past. They are updating their practices. Royal Park has just moved beyond that cluster and has generated some big issues of local concern. As I said earlier, I will have to get more detailed and recent updates on the issues before I reflect further on that particular application.