House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Land Management Corporation LAND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Waite Leader of the Opposition LAND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:37): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure. Was there a conflict of interest involving developers when decisions were made by the LMC to award the remediation project management business to Newport Quays Management Pty Ltd? In his special report to parliament yesterday, the Auditor-General confirmed that a director of the developer and an employee of the consortium for the Port Adelaide waterfront redevelopment participated in LMC's remediation subcommittee, which considered proposals lodged in response to the corporation's invitation to submit a proposal for project management services. The Auditor-General states: The corporation should have considered the possibility of a conflict of interest arising from the involvement of the consortium's representatives on the remediation subcommittee which evaluated tenders. This should have been done before proceeding to appoint the consortium as remediation project managers. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly Elder Minister for Transport Minister for Infrastructure Minister for Energy LAND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:38): There is absolutely no doubt that the Auditor-General does not agree with awarding the contract in the way it was done. Crown law advice is that, had it not been awarded to the developer, the state would have very likely faced litigation as a result of the original agreement. I point out to the member again: the matters that went into that original agreement were first put to the government when it was his government. I ask the member again: does he honestly suggest that we should have ignored the legal advice? Does he honestly suggest that that is a sound way for a minister to operate, to ignore the advice of the board based on legal advice? Does he honestly suggest that that is the case? I am sure that if he reflects, he does not. In terms of the matters raised about process, I have had discussions with the chair of the board. What I would invite the member to do, if he is slightly interested in the truth, it is to take a briefing from the chief executive of the LMC and the chairman of the board on the matters raised and how they have been addressed. I am absolutely satisfied that the corporation has addressed matters raised by the Auditor-General in a serious fashion. I urge the Leader of the Opposition, if he does want to know the truth, to accept a briefing from the chief executive and the chairman of the board. I will urge them to make themselves available at the earliest possible moment.