LAND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): Did the Minister for Infrastructure or any member of his staff communicate with or meet representatives of Newport Quays Management Pty Ltd or the company's owners to discuss the remediation works business raised by the Auditor-General in his special report yesterday before the minister made a decision to waive and cancel the open tender process in favour of NQPM?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:44): Can I assure—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What the Leader of the Opposition is trying to imply is that we did a dirty deal and then somehow got legal advice to support it. That is the implication and it is utterly and completely false. I will just explain again to the Leader of the Opposition that he will not win by making up stories. If members opposite want to compare the standards of integrity exercised by this government with theirs, I will simply refer to the water contract or the TAB—the water contract, with bids coming in late and the tape going missing from the camera.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will answer the question. The decision to do that was based upon a minute of advice from the corporation after it took legal advice.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I rise on a point of order. The question was very clear about whether the minister had meetings. He could just say yes or no.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister is not debating. He is free to answer the question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You are an unmitigated grub to suggest this. I hope you have one iota of proof. I have met with the proponents of it, as have the Premier and the Treasurer, on many occasions. I will explain to the Leader of the Opposition that we are talking about a $151,000 remediation contract, not a $1.5 billion contract. If we were going to do something dodgy for them we would probably make it a little bit bigger. I have met with them, but I have absolutely no recollection and I believe I have never spoken with them about the remediation contract. It is not a matter I would speak to them about, and it is just a grubby slur. It is nothing but a grubby slur.

The process is this, and I will explain it to members opposite again: the Liberal government sought tenders—or, more accurately, they were probably called expressions of interest or something like that—for developing this land. The ultimately successful bid was from Newport Quays. The matters that created this legal obligation were in its bid (I am advised) from day one, and they subsequently became embodied in a planning development agreement (PDA), and the LMC went out and let a tender for the management of remediation.

Then Newport Quays came and said, 'Hang on, we have got the right of first refusal on that.' The LMC took legal advice and the legal advice was, as I understand it—I have read crown law's; I have not seen that one; I have relied on the minute from the agency—that it should be given the contract. They advised me of that and I did it. I have acted absolutely properly.

If I had got a minute from them saying, 'The legal advice is that we should do this,' and had not done it, then I think there would be an issue to raise. But to come with no evidence whatsoever, not a shred of evidence—it is beyond the difference of a legal opinion—and make the slur that someone in our government has done a deal with them is absolutely below contempt. There is not a shred of evidence.

Understand this: I do not believe I have ever discussed a remediation contract with them—I cannot imagine why I would. When we meet with developers we talk about plans for development worth hundreds of millions of dollars. This is an outstanding success story and your slur is utterly below contempt.