Matter of Privilege

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:19): I rise on a matter of privilege. I believe that the Treasurer knowingly and deliberately misled this house in a way that materially affects the deliberations of the house. On 26 May this year, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition about Adelaide Oval, the Treasurer said:

—over a number of weeks—in reports that I was given verbally, that there were concerns about the scope and the cost of the works. We continually requested that the SMA look at doing all it can to remain within the budget allocation that the government had provided, but about a week or so ago, it was clear that that was not going to happen.

Mrs Redmond said, 'A week.' Mr Foley responded, 'It became clear a week or more...' Members then interjected and you, Madam Speaker, called for order, saying, 'The Treasurer is answering this question.' Mr Williams then interjected and said, 'How many weeks before 20 March?', and you, Madam Speaker, called the deputy leader to order. The Deputy Premier then responded by saying, 'I can say to the interjection of the member opposite that I was not made aware in any way, shape or form prior to the election that the 450 would not be sufficient.' That statement is crystal clear.

The Treasurer reinforced that claim later in the same answer when he said:

As I said in the process over some weeks since the election it was becoming apparent that this was going to be a difficult one to land at 450. This does need—if I do say so, in terms of the context and fact—to be put on the public record.

On the same day, the Treasurer was asked whether he had had a meeting with the Stadium Management Authority in March, prior to the election. The Treasurer said:

I cannot recall exactly when I met the Stadium Management Authority. I will check my diary and let you know.

On the next sitting day (27 May), the Treasurer made a ministerial statement specifically addressing the issues raised the previous day. In the ministerial statement, the Treasurer advised:

After a thorough document and record search in my office, I am now in a position, as I said, to provide the house with more specific advice.

This statement of the Deputy Premier confirms a meeting of the SMA on 3 March 2010, prior to the 20 March state election.

On 2 June this year, at 2 o'clock, the opposition met with the Stadium Management Authority for a briefing on the Adelaide Oval project. At approximately 2.15 that day, the Treasurer gave a press conference. During the press conference, the Treasurer admitted meeting Leigh Whicker, the Executive Officer of the Stadium Management Authority, on 19 February, recalling that, in this meeting, Mr Whicker indicated that the initial estimates of the project costs were in excess of the $450 million government commitment, and the Treasurer confirmed that today in his statement to the house. This statement is in direct conflict with the Treasurer's statement to the house, when he said:

I was not made aware in any way, shape or form prior to the election that the 450 would not be sufficient.

The Treasurer admits to a meeting on 19 February, before the state election, where the cost blowout was discussed with Leigh Whicker, the Executive Officer of the Stadium Management Authority. The Treasurer's media statement of 2 June made it clear that he took a deliberate decision not to tell anyone about the blowout. He said:

I did not consider the estimates were sufficiently accurate or sourced enough to relay back to government.

During the election campaign, the opposition raised at least four times the issue of a cost blowout in the Adelaide Oval upgrade, and every time the Treasurer denied the claim. This is important as it illustrates that the Treasurer has shown that he will deliberately hide the truth for political gain.

I draw members' attention to the Treasurer's media interviews, where he claims that he did not come across the meeting of 19 February with Mr Whicker when doing his 'thorough document and records search' in his office, because his diary was not checked. On FIVEaa, on 3 June, the Treasurer said:

I didn't recall and I should have—the diary was not checked.

I ask the house to reflect on that statement, given that the day before this apparent thorough document and records search he told the house that he would check his diary and advise the house whether meetings had occurred. On the minister's own evidence, he went to check his diary, but his diary was not checked. There is a second matter. On 13 May, the Treasurer advised the house:

...I am talking about my responsibility as a minister in answering questions. We do not as yet have agreement. We do not have the final design work; we do not have the final engineering work completed. The SMA, on my advice, do not have a final costs themselves but I can say today to the house that the upgrade of Adelaide Oval—if the opposition is trying to suggest that it would be an expansion of its footprint—will be built within the existing footprint of Adelaide Oval. The care, control and maintenance issue is about the parklands and onsite parking. The control of the precinct is a matter between the council and the SMA as to the appropriate boundaries for that.

On 27 May this year the Premier advised the house that, in relation to the briefing the opposition was to get from the Stadium Management Authority on the Adelaide Oval upgrade, he was:

...pleased that you—

that being the opposition—

will be getting the same designs that I will be getting.

In other words, we were getting the same brief as the government. At the briefing on 2 June, the SMA advised the opposition that the Adelaide Oval would be extending into the parklands precinct up to approximately 15 metres. The Stadium Management Authority also advised the opposition that day that the proposed 50,000 seat stadium could not be built without extending the footprint of the stadium into the Parklands.

On 18 June 2010 the Stadium Management Authority released the design for the Adelaide Oval upgrade. Under the heading 'Parklands' the design brief fact sheet states, 'The east stand will extend 9 to 15 metres further east.' This official document is in direct contradiction to the Premier's statement of 13 May 2010. The Treasurer's statement makes it clear that, although 'we do not have the final design work; we do not have the final engineering completed', he still gave this advice to the house. The advice he gave the house was:

...but I can say today to the house that the upgrade of Adelaide Oval—if the opposition is trying to suggest that it would be an expansion of its footprint—will be built within the existing footprint of Adelaide Oval.

The Treasurer's answer makes it clear that regardless of the design the new stadium will be built within the existing footprint of the Adelaide Oval. That is in direct contradiction to the documents released by the Stadium Management Authority.

Madam Speaker, I ask you to consider the above and rule whether prima facie the matter raised relates to privilege and should therefore be accorded precedence for a motion to enable the house to determine if there has been a breach of privilege.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: I understand the matter raised by the honourable member. I will defer my decision and report back to the house at the first opportunity on whether I do consider it to be a matter of privilege prima facie. I ask the member for Davenport to supply me with any documentation that he has that I can look at. I will report back to the house at my earliest opportunity.