NEWPORT QUAYS

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (14:22): My question is to the Premier. What is the value of the land being transferred by the government through the Land Management Corporation to private developers for the Port Adelaide waterfront development, and what payment has been made for the property? The Land Management Corporation's annual report describes the relationship between the Port Adelaide waterfront development Newport Quays consortium and the state government as a unique partnership in which the government 'will prepare and deliver former wharves and land along the inner harbour to developers, creating seven separate precincts'. Whilst the government will spend about $40 million to deliver 50 hectares of land to Newport Quays, no mention is made of the price to be paid for the land by the developer.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:23): I am quite astonished that a question like that would come so far into this process, particularly given that this whole process of the redevelopment of Port Adelaide (which I support, I hasten to point out) was commenced by the previous government prior to 2002. In fact, I think one of the first issues that we had in the first few weeks after we came to government was to do with the successful bidder, the Urban Construct/Multiplex consortium, known as Newport Quays (and I have cause to remember it, because one of the tender documents went to the wrong place, which was embarrassing). The whole process was started under a tender process.

I know that many on the other side did not enjoy the luxury of being a minister in the previous government and may not have known this, and those who were ministers often did it for a very short period of time, so they may well not have known this, but in fact, that process was commenced by the member's government.

Ms Chapman: What is the value?

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What is the value: it is all so simple, isn't it? A number of very complex matters were dealt with under that arrangement, including the cost of remediating contaminated land and, in some circumstances, one may find that the cost of remediation of contaminated land is in excess of the value of the land. That happens all the time. I will provide a full and thorough briefing to the member for—

An honourable member: You've said that before.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I've said it before?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, I have said it. No, we do not—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will come to order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What I would say, sir, is that, on 9 April 2008, to have as your second question, a question on a legal relationship which has been put in place on a process that you started and which has been in place for six years, does show that you are not really up with the game, are you? What I would say to you is that there are a range—

Ms Chapman: Too scared to.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Unfortunately—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members will come to order! If members on my left want to ask another question if there is something they want to the minister to clarify, then I am happy to give them the call. There are still 51 minutes of question time left. It is not necessary to interject when the minister is speaking.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I indicate two things? First, the question is not quite as simple as the world view the opposition has. Life is a little more complex than the way they think. That is why I would urge them to have a briefing. We do provide briefings, and they are very useful because, a few weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Morphett were asking very silly questions and making very silly allegations about some reports into tram and train derailments and they had a briefing; and, of course, they have now decided to desist from it.

There is a lot of use to be made of briefings. It helps to inform even those who are very difficult to inform. I would suggest that you do that. If the opposition's proposition is that the arrangement that it sought to come to with that consortium provides valuable land for no consideration to the government, well, I would be upset about that, and that is wrong. However, what I will say is that there are many complexities about this. It is a development worth some (I think) $16 billion over the full lifetime of the project—very big. I would urgently advise the Leader of the Opposition and the member for MacKillop to take a briefing on it and we can work through the complexities at a pace that suits their capacities.