Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $636,641,000

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $9,719,000

Department of Treasury and Finance, $55,641,000

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $1,582,470,000

Membership:

Ms Chapman substituted for Mr Pisoni.

Minister:

Hon. S.C. Mullighan, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Hanlon, Chief Executive, Renewal SA.

Mr J. Oliver, Chief Executive, HomeStart Finance.

Mr D. De Luca, General Manager, Corporate Services, Renewal SA.

Ms G. Vasilevski, General Manager, People and Place Management, Renewal SA.

Mr M. Buchan, General Manager, Property Management, Renewal SA.

Mr M. Devine, General Manager, Project Delivery, Renewal SA.

The CHAIR: We are now looking at the proposed payments for the portfolios of HomeStart Finance, Affordable Housing and the Urban Renewal Authority. I declare the proposed payments reopened for examination. I refer members to Agency Statements Volumes 3 and 4. I now call on the minister to make a statement if he wishes, or to introduce his new advisers.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have John Hanlon, the Chief Executive of Renewal SA; John Oliver, the Chief Executive of HomeStart; and Damian De Luca, who is the General Manager of Corporate Services, with me. I do not have an opening statement, except to again invite the deputy leader or others, if they have omnibus questions, I am more than happy to receive them now or at the end, whenever suits.

Ms CHAPMAN: My understanding, minister, is that the omnibus questions that have previously been read out were to be in respect of all the agencies for which you are responsible, and therefore they do not need to be repeated, you will be pleased to know. You do not need to hear them three or four times during the day.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is fine.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will start in respect of HomeStart, and indicate I will not have any opening statement. I am referring to Budget Paper 3, page 57, and I will also be referring to, under public financial corporations on page 80 and page 81, in respect of HomeStart Finance. Perhaps if the minister could look at page 80 to start with. In particular I am referring to the dividend for HomeStart Finance, which you will note was budgeted in 2015-16 for $10.9 million, estimated result $11.5 million. My question is: did HomeStart Finance receive a ministerial direction to increase the dividend to government in the 2015-16 year from $10.9 million to $11.5 million?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is no, it is more a reflection of the financial performance of that financial year.

Ms CHAPMAN: Had HomeStart Finance received any ministerial directions or Treasurer's directions during that financial year, and if so, what were they?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have to take that on notice, deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take it you cannot recall issuing any?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. I have only held the portfolio for six months.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that. Why did the income tax equivalents increase from $4.6 million to $5.1 million in the same year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is a reflection of financial performance, I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: Overall then, apart from obviously increasing the net contribution to government, had there been any particular event during the year that had improved the financial performance of the agency, or was it relieved of any kind of liability in that time that ordinarily had not been anticipated?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that it is a reflection, as I mentioned earlier, of financial performance and in particular that over that time period there has been tighter lending criteria from the established banks which has turned more customers towards HomeStart who are otherwise unable to be financed by the regular banks. In fact, I think the figure I have been given was: as against a target of 1,400 loans, I think 1,599 were written.

Ms CHAPMAN: That would explain it. Thank you. There is a payment to government to underwrite the insurance, essentially, of this agency. How much was paid last year to government for that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Are you referring to the SAFA guarantee fee?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take that on notice and come back to you with an exact figure.

Ms CHAPMAN: About?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Somewhere between 26 and 27.

Ms CHAPMAN: Million?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Million, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Was that significantly different from the previous year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised probably not; probably within a million dollars difference, but I will come back with—

Ms CHAPMAN: And anticipated this year? Has there been any ministerial direction as to what is to be paid this year? Treasurer's direction, I should say.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that there has been no direction and it is anticipated that the guarantee fee paid will be of a similar order, but maybe fractionally higher.

Ms CHAPMAN: Page 81. Was the return of capital to government of $15.6 million in the 2015-16 year at the direction of the Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that an additional level of high dividend was paid at the request of Treasury. As to the role of the Treasurer in there, I would need to take some specific advice as to how that worked.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think they have the power to do it in that role, but the reason they did it or the reason they have asked for it, if you could return to the committee with that information.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can do that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, because there is not foreshadowed to be any return of capital in the forthcoming financial years; that is, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20. It appears to be a one-off. Perhaps it will be sold by then, but anyway, we will see. Is there still a board of HomeStart Finance?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Did the board approve the transfers of capital? I assume that one to have been a ministerial direction, a Treasurer's direction, but the increase in dividends?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just to check if this is one of the agencies that has to declare a dividend and approve one but does not necessarily have to pay it, is this one of those agencies?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: We are now past 30 June, did it pay the $11.5 million to government?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: When did it pay that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: 28 June.

Ms CHAPMAN: Anticipatory. Thank you. Confidence. Who is paying for the scoping study on the possibility of transferring the commercial elements, is the quote I am referring to on page 57?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that is the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Ms CHAPMAN: Had there been any request by the board to undertake the scoping study, or has this all come from Treasury?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think you have a representative on the board, minister?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: When did they last meet?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: 19 July, I am told.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is a week or so ago?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have you had a report from that meeting?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. In fact, I attended the first half an hour of that meeting.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, you were there.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Anything discussed about the scoping study or the request by Treasury to undertake a scoping study to consider the possibility of transferring commercial elements of HomeStart's current loan book and making its data base available to the private sector?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, we discussed a range of issues that included that.

Ms CHAPMAN: And was that taken as being a discussion as a result of receiving the required notice from the Treasurer, that is, by the budget announcement at least, or had there been prior discussion about this at the board level?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There may well have been prior discussion by the board, but it was discussed in the time that I was at the board as part of a pretty wideranging discussion of how HomeStart is going, how the housing industry is going, and the role of HomeStart within the financial and housing industries.

Ms CHAPMAN: Any indication at the board level as to their agreement or otherwise, or did they just see it as a fait accompli anyway?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not think the conversation to my recollection was framed in either of those ways; it was more really just to have a discussion about all of those issues that HomeStart is dealing with, is anticipated it will deal with, in the context of the current housing and financial industries.

Ms CHAPMAN: Had there been any discussion at board level of this proposal or consideration of the commercial sale of any of these aspects prior to the announcement of the budget in June?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to check and come back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: For how long have you been minister?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Six months.

Ms CHAPMAN: And in that six months have you had monthly reports from the board?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think I do get reports from the board, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you have a representative from your office attend the board meetings?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There is a representative; I am not sure whether from my office or from Treasury.

Ms CHAPMAN: From Treasury, but you get a report via the minutes?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is my understanding, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: You have no recollection of that being discussed at this stage—you will check, I appreciate.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, that is right. It may well have been, and it may well have been summarised and referenced in a minute that I have seen, but given the volume of material and breadth of issues on which I am subjecting myself for questioning, I cannot recall that specific detail.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy that you have indicated that you will take it on notice and make it available. The key protections are identified on page 58 for the transaction in respect of the Land Services group, but is there similarly a list of key protections that your board or you have been informed of that would apply to HomeStart Finance if any of its services are sold?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, given that this is a—

Ms CHAPMAN: Scoping study.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you. Given that this is a scoping study that has been conducted by the Department of Treasury and Finance, that question would be best directed to the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have, but I am asking you from your perspective, as you have the board that is responsible to you, whether to your knowledge your board or the executive officer made any request to you about ensuring that certain aspects of HomeStart Finance be secured, similar to the key protections for the other agency?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think, as I have described, this is a scoping study that has been resourced and conducted by the Department of Treasury and Finance. The key tenets or principles of the work and any transaction that may or may not occur as a result of that scoping study is, as I understand, within the purview of DTF rather than HomeStart. So, I do not know that I have the capacity to adequately answer that question.

Ms CHAPMAN: At the discussion you had for the first half hour of the board meeting 10 days ago, when it discussed it generally, was there any discussion or expression by the board about any elements that may need to be protected, and to let Treasury know, that might need some quarantining or protection while they were preparing their scoping study?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Views were put forward about what is the role of HomeStart, and what it may or may not be in the future, but I do not think that can be readily equated to the same sorts of protections or principles for a particular transaction in the way that you have drawn my attention to those listed on page 58 for elements of the Lands Titles Office, but I will check.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you recall if they raised at all issues such as the privacy information of the current database—that is, on the current loan book—the protection of that or security of continuation of loans, bearing in mind that I think we could describe so many of these as financially fragile in the sense that those applicants who get HomeStart finance would often never, ever get through the door of a commercial bank? These elements are being considered for sale. Was there anything discussed at that board meeting that raised any of those types of issues which they may or may not have indicated some concern about in your presence?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure that the conversation got down to that level of detail. Certainly, I recall discussions about how it might relate to the future role of HomeStart. In particular, there was some discussion around the fact that there is a level of diversity amongst those who have loans with HomeStart. Your characterisation of them as being people who would 'never, ever' get through the front door of a bank—

Ms CHAPMAN: No, some of them.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —you did not say 'some of them'—is not accurate. A good example of that would be the product which has been offered for quite a long period of time, I think at least 10 years, which is the graduate loan where people who meet certain criteria, who may be graduates from tertiary institutions, for example, but who may not meet all of the pre-qualifications to receive finance from the big four as they may not have enough capital behind them to meet an acceptable loan value ratio and so forth, might receive a loan from HomeStart, but very quickly become financially capable to the extent that they would be able to receive finance from a traditional lender. That is an example of the broader considerations that I recall being canvassed at the board meeting. I will take some time to refresh my memory, or have it refreshed for me, about exactly what was discussed at the meeting, but I do not recall getting down to that level of detail.

Ms CHAPMAN: We will look forward to receiving that. Certainly, I think it is fairly clear that the student lists are a very attractive piece. Were there any aspects identified in that conversation—

The CHAIR: Excuse me, deputy leader, I am sorry to interrupt your flow, but can you just tell us what volume you are looking at, please? My team of experts cannot locate it.

Ms CHAPMAN: Budget Paper 3, Budget Statement. The sale arrangements and scoping study are at page 57, and the agency is described under Public financial corporations on pages 80 and 81. Finally, on HomeStart Finance at the bottom of page 81, minister, the number of full-time equivalent employees is 94.4, and it is just repeated all the way through as exactly the same. Is there any efficiency measure imposed on them?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised, not in the context of affecting the FTE numbers.

Ms CHAPMAN: In what other context? Just to take more money?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, there could be other administrative efficiencies in an organisation.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is what I am asking—what else?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There is no other, at this time.

Ms CHAPMAN: So is there any reason why that remains exactly the same?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I explained in a previous answer, the business has gone through a period of growth, particularly in the most recent financial year when there has been a significant increase in the number of loans, and the financial performance of the organisation is such that there has been an increasing return to government. So, in that context, perhaps the quest or the need for further efficiencies may not be as ready as perhaps some other areas.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just wondering why it would not be expanding if it is doing so well but, anyway, that is fine, thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Maybe they are already ruthlessly efficient.

Ms CHAPMAN: Ripe for sale, as they say? I would like to move on, if I may, to Renewal SA. I refer to Budget Paper 3, pages 78 and 79. I will come to some other references in a moment. I will start with the dividend, which is on page 78. This is an agency that must declare a dividend as part of its legislative base. It does not necessarily have to pay it.

What we heard last year was that it declared a dividend and then did not pay it, and it was forgiven after 30 June. That is not uncommon, but it is still statutorily required to produce one. For the purposes of calculating the ones we have here—the amount that was budgeted for at 5.3 million and estimated at 7.2 million—firstly, what was the final result at 2015-16?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that the final financial performance for the year end is still being calculated, so the exact impact on dividends, special or otherwise, is still yet to be finalised. And it is my understanding that the estimated result for 2015-16 that you see in table 5.8 on page 78—that 7.2 figure—is the accrual of three years' worth of ASER dividends, which has been paid.

Ms CHAPMAN: That was my next question—7.2 million has been paid?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is my advice.

Ms CHAPMAN: When was that paid?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On 30 June, so on that—

Ms CHAPMAN: On 30 June?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: When the announcement came in respect of the transfer of TAFE assets, which I will come to an a moment, the provision under that arrangement was that the first $85 million to be transferred from government to TAFE was to occur before 30 June. Was that taken into account in determining the 7.2 million?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will check this, but I think we are talking about separate areas of Renewal SA's responsibilities. I just outlined that the 7.2 is a reflection of a dividend that is payable in respect to ASER, whereas the remainder of the financial arrangements occur across the rest of the Renewal SA business. That 7.2 only relates to the ASER payment and not to any other payment.

Ms CHAPMAN: When the Renewal SA board budgeted for a 5.3 dividend, based on the anticipated net income that it would receive during that financial year, did it assume that it was going to get income only from ASER?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that that 5.3 figure which you refer to in the 2015-16 budget line—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, as a dividend.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —as the dividend is two years of ASER dividend, because an ASER dividend has not been paid for some time. The 2015-16 result, which is a higher figure of 7.2, is a reflection of three years of ASER dividend. That dividend line in the 2015-16 context—both budget and estimated result—is specific to the ASER dividend and the difference is between the accumulation of two years' dividends versus three years' dividends and it was the three years which reflects in that high estimated result figure.

Ms CHAPMAN: Which is curious, given the statements made by the Attorney-General last year when he had this area of responsibility, when we were talking about an $11 million dividend that have been approved at the May meeting of the board, was in the budget and was then not paid. Without being critical of it, the poor financial record of the division last year and that preceding year resulted in a plea of mercy to the Treasurer to relieve them of the obligation to pay it, even though there was a statutory obligation to declare it. So you are saying here that in this instance it was identified, it was money that was directly coming in because of the ASER transfer—and that occurred a few years before, we understand that—and that that was not required to be debited against other performance of the agency? That was just an amount that was paid as a result of that obligation of transfer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that the $11 million you referred to was a special dividend separate from the ASER dividend. I will endeavour to come back with any further detail should I not accurately describe this, but my understanding is that there were two elements to dividend payments, one ASER and one special dividend, and there was a waiver of the special dividend but not the ASER dividend.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the dividend, of which for its general performance there was none, or it was relieved or whatever, was that calculated before or after the decision to receive the TAFE assets and in particular the first $85 million of the money transfer under the TAFE deal?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that the dividend was calculated on the basis of the entirety of the Renewal SA business, and it could be considered that that is quite separate from the transfer of TAFE properties, which I understand does not occur until the current financial year, from 1 July. I am advised that there was an equity injection of $105 million in the financial year that has just concluded, in 2015-16. As to whether that had any impact on the calculation for the dividend, I would have to come back to you with some further advice.

Ms CHAPMAN: So the $85 million that was to be paid in as part of the agreement, a share of the equity for the TAFE deal, you say was actually transferred at $105 million before 30 June?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am struggling to locate, either mentally or on the page, the $85 million that you are referring to because the advice I have is that there was an equity injection from the general government sector to Renewal SA of $105 million in 2015-16.

Ms CHAPMAN: What was that for if it was not for the advanced payment on TAFE assets?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that it was to contribute towards the transaction for the TAFE properties, but the transfer of the properties themselves does not occur until—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I will come to that in a moment. When it came to assessing what the board would approve to recommend as the dividend to the government, the transfer of equity was not taken into account because that was not part of its normal operating buying and selling during the year. Do I have that correct?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take that on notice just to be absolutely sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have the first transfer of the equity prior to 30 June. When does the $650 million worth of asset actually transfer to Renewal SA?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is anticipated that the transfer of the properties at this stage will occur in the second quarter of the financial year.

Ms CHAPMAN: In the second quarter, so some time between end of September and end of December this year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, the last three months of this calendar year. That is the anticipated time.

Ms CHAPMAN: When does the $400 million debt transfer occur?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised at the time of the transaction occurring for the properties. So, effectively at the same time.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let us assume that happens on 1 October, or some date in that second quarter of this financial year; up until that time, all of the current rental arrangements, this is the payment of TAFE, of their $20 million a year, in round terms, for rent, it does not become an obligation of Renewal SA, until it actually gets the title, is that correct?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, correspondingly, it would not be receiving the $35 million a year CSO from government to make it have a commercial return?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is my understanding, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, for this current financial year we are in, the obligation to really charge the rental and receive income from government will be effective as at the registration of the transfer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take some advice on whether the figures that we have just canvassed, which is the $30-odd million and the $20-odd million, split between rental payments and CSO payments, rental payments—

Ms CHAPMAN: They are in the documents—I am happy to go to them, if you would like me to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I have not questioned the veracity of what you have said. I am just explaining my answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is all at page 79, if you need to have the detail there.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have lost my train of thought, sorry.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is at page 79.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am aware of the reference, but I was part way through—

Ms CHAPMAN: At paragraph 2 it gives you a summary of what is being paid: $650 million, assets; $250 million, equity injection; the $55 million per annum, which is $20 million from TAFE to rent the property and another $35 million as CSO payments. It is all explained there.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: So, my question is: whilst the obligation to manage these properties and rent them back, given that it has been identified as 'the best available commercial property management experience and expertise of Renewal SA', why did it get the equity injection of $105 million before 30 June?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That would be a question you would have to direct to the Treasurer.

Ms CHAPMAN: The documents which have been referred to in the parliament, and at budget estimates a month ago—11 July—when the treasury department came in, indicated that the—

The CHAIR: Are you referring to the Budget and Finance Committee?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, budget and finance. Are you on that, sir?

The CHAIR: No, I am the chair of the Economic and Finance Committee.

Ms CHAPMAN: A worthy committee. Because the reference was that this was to 'improve the debt to asset ratio of Renewal SA' to improve their bottom line.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry. Was that a question?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, if that was their evidence then I assume if I sought an answer from them, then it would be consistent with that answer.

Ms CHAPMAN: Had there been any requests by Renewal SA to Treasury, if they were to take over the responsibility of these assets, to actually have an advance in this arrangement, like this, of the $105 million in equity?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure what the communications were between Renewal SA and the Treasury department, but I am happy to take that on notice and come back with whatever I might be able to discover.

Ms CHAPMAN: And you have monthly meetings, your board has monthly meetings?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And you receive the minutes of those meetings?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: And do you recall any reference in those to any requests being sent to the Treasury, that if they took over the TAFE assets that they get some equity early up?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I certainly remember the fact that the matter was canvassed and discussed at a board level. As to exactly what they sought from that, I would have to come back to you with more detail.

Ms CHAPMAN: You would be aware, and I appreciate you have only relatively recently taken over the responsibility of this agency, that it has not actually had a stunning financial performance since its inception, in the sense that there has been hopeful expectation of certain sales and each year we hear about the rather depressed urban development market and the consequential explanation for having a fairly poor financial return. So it probably would not surprise you, minister, that they would be seeking some element of advance to prop up the budget. Would that be fair?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not surprised at elements of Renewal SA's financial performance, for a few reasons. One is that they have been charged with the traditional role of, for example, the previous Land Management Corporation, and that is to take possession, to purchase property, and retain that property for quite some time and then provide that property to the community—whether it is the residential, commercial or industrial sectors—for development at an appropriate time in the market cycle. In that instance, for example, there are—obviously as a public non-financial corporation meeting the competitive neutrality principles which many, if not all, of the PNFC sector are having to operate within—often significant costs in holding that land, and a good example of that would be land tax liabilities.

I am also not surprised by elements of Renewal SA's financial performance given that the government, over a number of years now, has taken very deliberate decisions to take possession of and expend very significant sums of money on ensuring that those sites can be prepared, master planned and then successively developed into different uses. Good examples of that would be the Tonsley site down at Mitsubishi, which of course is a significantly industrially blighted site. Another example of that would be the Bowden site and another would be the waterfront land around the inner harbour of Port Adelaide.

The government has purposely taken a decision to take control of that land and spend money on it so that that former industrial land can be repurposed into something more in keeping with desired community uses. That involves expenditure of often vast amounts of money, getting it into a fit state for that.

So, in those contexts, I am not surprised by some of the elements of the financial performance. Probably the last concluding remark is that, as you quite well point out, there has been a significant decline, in many cases, of the value of land—particularly land which could be used for commercial or industrial purposes—given the lack of demand for land as a result of the lack of demand for goods or services being provided by those sectors of the economy, particularly since September 2008.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given that you have mentioned that Port Adelaide's development, which I was not going to go to, but it has recently been announced as a new development. Three people have been identified for tendering to develop—well, one is to clean up, the others are for housing developments. Are you saying that Renewal SA has actually spent money in respect of that project in the last financial year and, if so, how much?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will come back to you with an answer, but certainly the expenditure, at the very least, has included the operating expenditure, which has funded a series of joint initiatives between the state government and the Port Adelaide Enfield council, as well as any other resources which were required for the superintendence of that process.

Ms CHAPMAN: I look forward to that; thank you. In respect of the charter of Renewal SA, the last of which was tabled on 5 August 2014, is there any funding for any upgrading of the charter?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I don't know. I will check on that. Usually, the renewal of a charter does not require a significant amount of resources, just a level of effort by existing staff.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is it happening?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, it is, I am told.

Ms CHAPMAN: When is it expected to have a reformed charter to be tabled in the parliament?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Fairly soon, I think.

Ms CHAPMAN: This financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would think so, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: While we are on the dividend—and I appreciate that you are indicating the $7.2 million is actually just a reflection of the ASER payments for the last three years—I assume that is as a result of the land tax consequences of the legislation that we passed several years ago?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that the dividend is based on the operating surplus we would make as a result of our activities as a landlord to the extent that there is land tax which comprises or influences that result. I will have to come back to you with further details.

Ms CHAPMAN: We dealt with that a few years ago; that is fine. In respect of the dividend otherwise, which I think you are indicating would be nil, we have a dividend for the 2016-17 year, which is not looking terribly generous, to the extent of $2.7 million.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It depends on where you are sitting really, doesn't it?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am taxpayer, so I am very concerned at the minute. Is that $2.7 million wholly expected to be again just the expected return on the ASER site?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: One of the hopeful expectations, in the likelihood of the 2015-16 dividend being much improved when we were here last year, that is, when we found that the $11 million that was scheduled to be a dividend then was not paid for the reasons we have already gone through, was that the Attorney-General (and minister at the time) was asked whether he would explain why that had not happened. I think largely, in fairness, the non-receipt of the first $45 million under the Gillman deal had some very clear consequences and understandably the letter of request to the Treasurer to be relieved of that payment followed and he gave all of that evidence last year. He thought that that $45 million would be paid in the 2015-16 year. I assume, because of public statements made in respect to the High Court settlement, that that was not paid?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you expecting to receive it in this financial year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that we anticipate that the settlement of the land is still to occur from ACP. I think the date that the Deputy Premier has previously spoken about is 1 November.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is when the first payment is due under the High Court settlement, but has that been included in the budgeted figures for the purposes of assessing the future dividends?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will have to come back to you on that.

Ms CHAPMAN: In any event, in respect of that settlement, are you, minister, confident that that is going to be received?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would like it to be received. I am not currently au fait with how all of the requirements on ACP are travelling and how that enables them to be in a position to make that payment, but if there is some further information I can provide to you then I will do that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Since 26 May this year, when I asked you in the parliament whether you had met with any of the proposed investors for the Adelaide Capital Partners proposal at Gillman, have you actually met with any investors?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not recall—

Ms CHAPMAN: Being asked to?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —but I would have to check.

Ms CHAPMAN: What are the total costs, including legal costs, for the Gillman project that have been met by the agency for the 2015-16 year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The total costs I might have to take on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you have any details of any costs that Renewal SA has paid out during the 2015-16 year?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have a line of legal costs incurred, you asked specifically for Gillman—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —of $243,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: And any other litigation?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I understand a settlement payment of $1.7 million has been made in respect of Gillman.

Ms CHAPMAN: That was to Adelaide City Council?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. Then there has been a range of other legal fees which have been incurred in the course of Renewal SA's business.

Ms CHAPMAN: What was that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mostly to the Crown Solicitor's Office.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, I appreciate that. They charge a lot.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. Again, it depends in which position you sit. I am advised that figure is $437,000. We have $246,000 for Festival Plaza, $194,000 in relation to advice regarding SkyCity Casino, and then some other costs relating to general project delivery, property management and some other costs which I do not have any further details of, respectively of $185,000, $85,000 and $198,000.

Ms CHAPMAN: What was the amount for Gillman?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: $243,000. The total figure I have for legal fees is $1.6 million, and that is across all of the functions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that, thank you. But the other costs in respect of this project, I will await those in respect of personnel required for inquiries, all the things that go with that project, which hopefully will produce a response in the next few months. Adelaide City Council and settlement of the Supreme Court dispute for them, has that been paid?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think we are still finalising that settlement.

Ms CHAPMAN: There is still $1 million of your agency's money sitting in the Supreme Court account, is that right?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not know about that, but I will not be disclosing any figures until we conclude that settlement with the Adelaide City Council.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has it been settled?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: At the point in time that I am able to disclose those amounts without potentially compromising the legal settlement proceedings that we are in with the Adelaide City Council—

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, I had not asked you the amount that you paid.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You did. You just said, 'Is $1 million still sitting in a particular account?'

Ms CHAPMAN: I know, but I then just said, 'Has it been settled?' Anyway, it has not been settled. There may be some money in a trust account. This is all in the public arena. I am not trying to be tricky with it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is indeed a public arena, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: I just want to ask whether it has been settled.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Did you not just confirm that that was my previous answer?

Ms CHAPMAN: I did not.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, you did. You just said that it has not been settled.

Ms CHAPMAN: You just said, 'I am not prepared to answer that.'

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I said I am not prepared to give any figures—

Ms CHAPMAN: So I am asking you, are you prepared to tell us whether it has settled or not?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —until settlement occurs, and then you just said, 'Right, so it is not settled, I understand that.' Unless I have that wrong, Hansard?

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay. So having not been settled, this is in respect of the Dean Rifle Range, you still own that with an equitable claim on it, and now a legal claim in the Supreme Court on that property?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In terms of where that claim sits, whether it is in the court or whether it is in arbitration or some other mediation process, I do not have that in front of me. All I can say is that it has not been settled yet.

Ms CHAPMAN: Of the 20 hectares of the Gillman land to be transferred to Integrated Waste Services, is there a total price of what is to be paid?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There is, but I understand that is a matter between the parties. We are not directly brokering.

Ms CHAPMAN: At least Renewal SA does not have to budget to pay for that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does it come off the bottom line of the amount that ACP pays to Renewal SA in the end?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, it is a transaction between the two of them. The obligations that ACP has to the government remain.

Ms CHAPMAN: So we still get the $100 million if the deal goes through?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, we still get the full amount of what the obligations from ACP are to the government.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do you have any say on what the price per hectare is to be paid in respect of the 20 hectares of Gillman land to be transferred to IWS?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think it is a matter that is to be settled between the parties.

Ms CHAPMAN: But whatever the figure is, I am not asking what it is, I am asking does Renewal SA have any say on how much that is to be transferred by, at what price?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is all I have in relation to Gillman and TAFE.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Plenty of time left over for the members for Hammond and Schubert.

Ms CHAPMAN: Absolutely.

The CHAIR: Are there any further questions?

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of the TAFE land—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: But wait, there is more.

Ms CHAPMAN: —Mr Reynolds gave evidence on 11 July about the TAFE transfer and explained how it affects their bottom line and what their obligations are under the transfer arrangements. When asked in respect of the intention to sell any of these assets, and it is at the bottom of page 1304 of the transcript of that day, he indicated that he was not aware of the proposed sites. He then said:

…I know the TAFE board is discussing which sites it wants to do and what consolidation it might do. If it chooses to no longer use one of those sites, then it's a matter for Renewal SA to go to market in the normal way, and it would sell and make the return to government for the sale.

There are a couple of questions I have to ask about that. Firstly, has Renewal SA received any notice from TAFE SA of any sites that are surplus to its requirements, that when it gets it later this year it may be able to sell?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that they are transferring over a series of properties to us and they are retaining a series of properties that they are dealing with separately and potentially for other purposes, but I do not have the details of what they are doing with those other properties.

Ms CHAPMAN: Do I understand that the $650 million worth of property that is being transferred to you is not the whole of the number of campuses of TAFE?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: What happened to this idea that is referred to here in the budget as being important that you transfer—the reason Renewal SA is getting these is because they have the best available commercial property management experience and expertise—if you are not getting all of them?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As you said in the lengthy preface to your previous question, properties will be transferred over to Renewal for their superintendence and then should, at a later date, there be any use for those they will be dealt with by the agency most appropriate, which is Renewal.

Ms CHAPMAN: Why were the remaining campuses owned by TAFE at present not transferred to you for management?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That would be a question best put to DSD.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will ask Ms Close this afternoon.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think she is on now.

Ms CHAPMAN: No; 1.15. You get a bit longer from me yet. In respect of that $650 million worth of assets, which we now know to be part of the total number of campuses of TAFE, the valuation of those is at what date?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that it is a valuation that we believe to be accurate at the date of transfer which, as we have said, is estimated to be in the second quarter of this year.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does that mean they are all going to be revalued before then?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The process is if not complete then underway towards completion.

Ms CHAPMAN: And because the government has announced $15 million to fund a revaluation model for all government assets in this year's budget, are these properties to be revalued according to the new model or has that not yet been—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You would have to direct that question to Treasury as to what properties they feel are in scope, but as you could imagine from all of the financial statements in Budget Paper 4 across all the agencies, there is a very broad range of assets which are held by different agencies in different capacities.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that, and the Valuer-General has moved out of your department, I appreciate that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I suggest that, while I am not 100 per cent au fait with the intentions of the Department of Treasury and Finance, those efforts would be directed at those sorts of assets which are held by the broad range of agencies around government.

Ms CHAPMAN: And the Valuer-General's department, which has been transferred out of your department as of three weeks ago: were there any discussions with them about that before they left?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Did we have a farewell or something?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, about this issue of revaluing all the assets—State Valuation Office to the Department of Treasury and Finance from your department.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You would have to ask the Treasurer about that.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am talking about while it was still with you as of 29 days ago.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So, did I discuss a new initiative by the Department of Treasury and Finance to revalue assets across government?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, of the valuation office to conduct valuations under a new model, an extra $15 million then being allocated for it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. I had had a range of meetings, as you would expect, with the Valuer-General, given that that position reported to me, but I do not think I can recall a figure of $15 million to be applied towards a revaluation exercise.

Ms CHAPMAN: Alright, anyway, it is there now and we have it. At present, you are expecting your agency to have the assets that it gets transferred in the second quarter of this year all revalued before you get them?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think, as I indicated, that process has been underway and continues to be underway.

Ms CHAPMAN: And who values them for Renewal SA?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We have a series of external independent valuers to undertake that process.

Ms CHAPMAN: And they have started doing that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: What are the number of properties you are getting in the 650?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Twenty-seven.

Ms CHAPMAN: Twenty-seven properties? Are they 27 sites or are they properties that are—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Like spreading over different titles, for example?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to come back to you on that—27 sites is what I am referring to.

Ms CHAPMAN: Twenty-seven sites is what you understand—thank you. Fortunately, the budget and finance people were able to give us quite a bit of information on that. I will ask one other question in respect of inquiries: is any money budgeted each year by Renewal SA to deal with inquiries by the Auditor-General? I appreciate that they bill you for what they do each year—each agency and each department—but is there any cost to the agency in what they have to do to comply with requests and support to the Auditor-General's Department?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not believe so. If there is a specific inquiry, the Auditor-General advises the agency being inquired into and provides a cost estimate. My understanding is that, either towards the end or at the end of that inquiry, there is a reconciliation if there is any difference in those costs that need to be recouped from the agency in question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes; I think we are at cross purposes. I am talking about what extra cost the Auditor-General has, because they send you a bill anyway. I am talking about what cost it is to the agency.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The agency is billed by the Auditor-General for those costs that the Auditor-General incurs.

Ms CHAPMAN: Correct: what I am saying is that, to support the inquiry of the Auditor-General, who charges you a fee to do it, it also requires the chief executive to enter into correspondence—sometimes it is not very much. For some agencies that we have looked at over the years there has been a huge amount, but sometimes that can take quite a bit of time, especially, for example, in the Gillman inquiry, where there was a special inquiry by the Auditor-General in respect of the processes used—way before your time, but nevertheless it was significant.

People were called out, had to give evidence and obviously there was a second inquiry in that matter separately by the Independent Commission Against Corruption. Sometimes it is not very much, sometimes it is quite a bit. Was there any budgeted amount of cost to the agency in complying with the Auditor-General's requests in the 2015-16 year and, if so, how much was it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not know if it was budgeted, but what we incurred I will take on notice and come back to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. Did you want to ask anything on those issues?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Come on Stefan, you have 45 seconds.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry, 12.30 I thought.

Mr KNOLL: No, he is teasing me, not you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Okay, Festival Plaza—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Come on, smash them out.

Ms CHAPMAN: It would be nice to get the answers but, in any event, the beginning of the Festival Plaza project is referred to at page 78 of the DPTI budget. Obviously, money is starting to be spent, and that is good. We see the backyard being dug up and so on.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think you are mostly concerned with car parks, aren't you? That has been the reverberating concern I have heard around the traps down at parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not park there. I would not dare park there, it is in such a mess.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is it?

Ms CHAPMAN: It was even before they started pulling it apart, so let's not talk about the condition of the car park. In any event, of the development itself—

Mr PEDERICK: It is a hard hat area.

Ms CHAPMAN: Exactly.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Of course, you probably do not have to park there as often as some other MPs.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am here a lot more often than you are.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Do we need to move a motion to extend the deputy leader's time for the estimates committee?

The CHAIR: We are here until 12:30.

Ms CHAPMAN: We have plenty of time. Can I just say that, obviously, we are still to have the parliament in this place actually determine and conclude the ASER bill to facilitate the development in question but, in respect of that development, the letter of 2012 from Mr Hook to Mr Walker identified that there was to be no government money in respect of this proposed development.

I appreciate things have changed a bit since then, and now there is a very considerable amount of money that is being expended into this agreement which followed. I think about $180 million is now the government's exposure to this development. Whilst the plans were changed over a period of time, the Attorney-General was on radio at 9am on 28 June this year and, in respect of the tender documents, he said the tender documentation said, 'car park and/or other buildings on top of the car park'. We know that the published program here in fact is a 26-storey building over the road, and that was the means by which the Premier distinguished the original project pre-election from the final project post-election as being justifiable because his suggestion that there was not going to be a commercial property was distinguished by the fact it was now going to be one that was to be built over the road and, therefore, it was not the same. So, is it the case, to your knowledge, that the original project—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which part of the previous 500 words would you like me to address in your question?

Ms CHAPMAN: I have not asked the question yet. Is it the case that your understanding is that the original tender documents included—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just asking. You can take it on notice, if you would like to, rather than shake your head before I have finished. Is it your understanding that the original tender documents disclosed a 'car park and/or other buildings on top of the car park'?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not know. I will have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. Have the new planning requirements been approved for this project yet?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that the development approval for the public realm works has been achieved. There are obligations on other parties, particularly Walker, in terms of seeking approvals for the elements of the construction work that they are responsible for. The approval for the construction of the car park, for example, which was to be obtained by Walker following the development plan amendment, still needs to be achieved.

Ms CHAPMAN: Who grants that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Development Assessment Commission (DAC), I am advised.

Ms CHAPMAN: That has not yet been concluded; is that right?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are there any other preconditions that are the subject of the development agreement—which none of us have seen; well, perhaps you have, sir—that need to be met?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, there are several.

Ms CHAPMAN: What are they?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Would you like me to go through them?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There is a requirement on the government that, where it pertains to the state, the state obtains all other authority approvals required for the construction of the public realm.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I just stop you there, if I may. How long will that take the government to do?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that those matters are being finalised and put before the Development Assessment Commission. There is the requirement for the removal and/or the relocation by the state of all artworks and items of cultural or heritage significance necessary for the development to be undertaken. That is to be undertaken jointly between Arts SA and DPTI, and that work—

Ms CHAPMAN: And is that underway?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That work, I understand, is underway. They have started dismantling, etc.

Ms CHAPMAN: Dismantling the artworks, yes. How long is it expected to be before that is completed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As you can imagine, these are very important and sensitive artworks that need to be treated accordingly.

Ms CHAPMAN: I do not doubt that for one moment, but I do not know how many are out there and how long you think it will take. Could you give me an estimate?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that that needs to be completed before the commencement of the delivery of the grade separation—the lowering of Festival Drive. Off the top of my head, and I will have to confirm this, I understand that that grade separation is to occur in, I think, October of this year, so the artwork needs to be removed before then. In fact, I think the removal in earnest is due to commence imminently. Did you want me to keep going?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There is a requirement for Walker to enter into a legally binding agreement with SkyCity (and any other) for the sublease of 750 car parking spaces in the car park or such other number as may be agreed between SkyCity and Walker.

Ms CHAPMAN: Have they done that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that a final agreement has been issued to SkyCity for execution, and they are waiting just for that be executed.

Ms CHAPMAN: Artworks and various things are already on their way out and I think notices have been given to vacate certain parts of the car park. Obviously, things are happening out there. Just so I am clear about this: are your agencies—both Renewal SA and DPTI, in managing this project jointly—able to continue working notwithstanding that this agreement has not been signed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This particular element of the agreement?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, that is correct.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is happening or progressing. Anything else?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The state and Walker agree to the scope of the public realm works within the budgeted $40 million, and the works continue on that basis.

Ms CHAPMAN: What actually has to be done by the government for that? Anything?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. There is obviously the agreement within government of the scope of works. We conduct that not just between DPTI which is the project manager for the project but also the surrounding tenants like the Festival Centre etc., and make sure that we get the public realm design that we seek and want and make sure that we manage that design so that it fits within the budgeted envelope. Then, as I mentioned previously, there is the development approval process for that as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: Anything else? Any other preconditions?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, there are plenty more, deputy leader. Renewal SA and Walker are to enter into a soil banking agreement, which has been done. And this is something that would be music to a legal practitioner's ears:

The State and Walker (each acting reasonably) agreeing the nature of, and extent to which, any leases, licences, encumbrances, easements or rights need to be surrendered, varied, extinguished or granted in order to grant the Integrated Development Leases—

I understand that that is ongoing—

…[and] achievement of the surrender, variation, extinguishment or grant (as applicable) of all leases, licences, encumbrances, easements and rights which would otherwise prevent the grant of integrated development leases.

The State (acting reasonably) approving Walker's final program for construction of the Car Park and Public Realm—

That is obviously ongoing. The list continues:

The State and Walker (each acting reasonably) agreeing the nature of, and extent to which, any leases, licences, encumbrances, easements or rights need to be surrendered, varied, extinguished or granted in order to facilitate the access to, or construction and subsequent use of the Integrated Development; and achievement of the surrender, variation, extinguishment or grant (as applicable) of all leases, licences, encumbrances, easements and rights in respect of the Integrated Development Land, Ancillary Land or other land adjacent to the Integrated Development Land which would otherwise prevent or enable (as relevant) access to, or the ability to construct the Integrated Development.

And that is ongoing.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Let's not overlook the next page:

The State being satisfied that Walker has either:

a) obtained approval for finance from a financial institution sufficient to satisfy Walker's requirements to finance the construction of the Car Park; or

b) has the financial capacity to complete construction of the Car Park in its own right.

…the State must also be satisfied as to the extent of any security that any financier may require to take over any Integrated Development lease or in relation to this Agreement generally in relation to the finance refer to in the appropriate clause.

The State procuring the passage of legislation providing for the realignment of easements and ancillary rights within or adjacent to the Integrated Development Land which would otherwise prevent access to or the ability to construct the Integrated Development on the Integrated Development Land—

Ms CHAPMAN: That is the ASER bill we have just discussed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Correct—

on a temporary basis, during construction of the Integrated Development; and on a Permanent Basis, upon Completion of Construction of the Integrated Development.

The State and Walker agreeing the design responsibility, final plans, construction program and payment schedule for the Agreed Works.

Walker and the State entering into the Interface Agreement and the State procuring all other relevant parties to enter into the Interface Agreement.

The State and Walker agreeing the terms on which the Retail Curtilage Licence will be issued, subject to the grant of the Retail Lease.

That, I am told, is all of them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. But you still expect the car park to be concluded as scheduled to public works?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am advised that we can commence the car park works while still attending to the completion of some of these conditions.

Ms CHAPMAN: And it is on time?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am told.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Richard McLachlan was involved in this project—he is still in the employment of your agency, that is Renewal SA—and attended a number of consultations on this matter. More recently they have been with Mr Hanlon and other members. It became clear from the report from Mr Lander on the Gillman matter, in which he gave evidence, that he had been terminated from this project. Is there any reason for that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I had not understood that to be the case.

Ms CHAPMAN: Had you inquired?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will you?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure.

Ms CHAPMAN: And provide that information to the committee?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Regarding the lease arrangements of the commercial property, for which we are yet to have tenants, we have been through all the terms of those. Mr Walker has to try to find interstate and overseas tenants of a certain percentage, etc. What are the lease payments that he has to pay, if any, to the government to have his commercial property on the premises for, I think, 70 years?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will have to take that on notice.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I thank the minister and his advisers. I thank members of the committee for their civilised conversation today and declare the examination of the proposed payments be referred to committee A.

At 12:29 the committee adjourned until Monday 1 August 2016 at 09:00.