It doesn’t happen often – the last time was October 2012, and that led to the Debelle inquiry – but the State Government was caught in the spotlight yesterday as the Opposition fired a barrage of questions in both Houses of Parliament.

Shadow Environment Minister Michelle Lensink opened fire in the Upper House at 2.23pm.

“Can the minister confirm that more than six weeks ago the Environment Protection Authority identified a significantly increased risk to residents in Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park as a result of groundwater and soil contamination?” she asked Environment Minister Ian Hunter

“My answer is yes,” Hunter said.

Lensink backed up with: “Have residents been informed and will they be asked to vacate their properties?”

And that’s where the wheels fell off as Hunter tried to play down the looming prospect of relocation.

Hunter fumbled and stumbled, promising to “get back to House” – but the questions didn’t stop there as Liberal MPs fired off a rapid series of questions demanding detail and assurances.

Six minutes later in the Lower House, Opposition Leader Steven Marshall aimed his cannon across the chamber.

“Can the Premier confirm that, more than six weeks ago, the Environment Protection Authority identified a significantly increased risk to residents in Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park as a result of groundwater and soil contamination?” Marshall asked the Premier.

Jay Weatherill responded with an unusual assurance that the matter was in the hands of the communications people: “It is true that some preliminary advice has been provided to the government about a significant issue in relation to environmental protection. I do not want to add any further remark in relation to that today because we also have advise to say that there is a very extensive communication strategy which is being prepared.”

Marshall then upped the ante with a reference to “relocation” of residents – and that’s when the State Government floundered.

“Have residents been informed, and will they be asked to vacate their properties?” he said.

“I do not think it is appropriate to answer those questions at this time, except to say that a full communication strategy is imminent. It is imminent,” the Premier said.

Marshall then took aim at successive ministers and the Government seemed to have its hands tied.

“When was the Public Health Division of SA Health advised of groundwater and soil contamination in Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park and what is their assessment of the risk?”

“Has local government been notified of this contamination?”

“Have non-government organisations who have undertaken social housing works in the Clovelly Park and Mitchell Park area, their workers and their unions, been notified of the contamination?

The answers were short.

“I will have to get a report back to the house,” said the Health Minister.

“I think the Premier has adequately answered that question,” said the Manufacturing Minister.

“The Premier has covered these matters and I will not be commenting any further at this time,” said the Local Government Minister.

Across in the Upper House, meanwhile, the minister with responsibility for the issue, Ian Hunter, was being roped in.

The Liberals’ Michelle Lensink, Rob Lucas and David Ridgway were having a field day.

“Recently, it has been brought to my attention that the ongoing low-level risk has risen and the EPA will be conducting some community consultation in the very near future, primarily getting in touch with residents,” Hunter said, confident he could contain the issue.

“First of all, we will be communicating with the residents.

“As I said, we will be communicating with the residents in the first instance. I will come back to this place with an answer in due course.”

The questions kept coming – and Hunter tried to hold the line: “I indicate that this has been an ongoing situation and we have been continuing our investigations. I will bring back a response to this council in due course.

“I am happy to take the honourable member’s most important question on notice and bring back a response in due course.

“Again, I advise the chamber I will be advising them of all actions that we will take in due course.”

It was 2.27pm – and the bird had already flown.