House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Chelsea Cinema CHELSEA CINEMA Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Norwood Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (16:58): I rise to speak on the continuing calamity that is the botched handling of the Chelsea Cinema sale. Of course, I am very glad that the member for Hartley is in the chamber at the moment, because the Chelsea Cinema falls— The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me; I think you'll find that in this place we do not reflect on who is and who is not here; we just carry on. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: We just carry on. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We do. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: I have heard that we carry on, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note that the member for Bragg has given notice in the house to move a motion condemning the member for Hartley for not doing more to save the Chelsea Cinema. I will be speaking on this motion, because I believe strongly that the member for Hartley has been disingenuous in her concern for the plight of the much loved Chelsea Cinema. She is forever writing to constituents— The Hon. G. Portolesi House of Assembly The Hon. G. Portolesi: Of which you were one. The Deputy Speaker House of Assembly The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Hartley! Member for Norwood, I draw your attention to standing order 127, which, of course, as you would know, asks that you do not impute improper motives. I think the use of the word 'disingenuous' is a little dodgy. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Yes, well, I will retract that. Today I would like to concentrate on the incredible and ongoing mismanagement of this important matter. It is important at a local level, but it is also important at a macro level. In Australia we have three layers of government; each has specific duties and responsibilities. Within the Local Government Act 1999 the state government has provisions to order investigations and take action when it believes there is some form of irregularity at the local government level. The Minister for Local Government believes that there were adequate grounds to commission an investigation into the Burnside Council and its alleged corruption. This report was to run for 12 weeks. The state government appointed former auditor-general Ken MacPherson to conduct this investigation and report. We do not know whether any irregularity and/or corruption has occurred, but what we do know is that Mr MacPherson has had two separate time extensions so far. The 12 week report is now in its eleventh month. Mr MacPherson has concluded his report and it is now in the natural justice phase. I understand that this natural justice phase started way back on 11 May. It is also interesting to note that the Minister for Local Government Relations made a ministerial statement in another place earlier today in which she said that, despite the two granted extensions, she was granting a further extension, and advised the other place that indeed the report will not now be received until mid to late August—not particularly finite but mid to late August. She also outlined the cost of the investigations, which rack up to $800,000 in this financial year so far. This includes Mr MacPherson's services of approximately $340,000 (based on a daily rate of $1,200), costs for supporting staff in the vicinity of $350,000 and materials and operating expenses in the vicinity of $110,000. On the basis of these estimates, the costs for the remaining two months of the investigation is likely to be in the vicinity of a further $150,000. Whilst this is going on, the Burnside council continues to operate business as usual—this is despite massive and continual public condemnation of the council's plan to sell the Chelsea. The Burnside council has recently held multiple closed-door meetings to determine how it will evaluate the tenders already received for the sale of the Chelsea Cinema. The cinema is now in imminent danger of being sold before the government takes any action to stop it. The government commissioned this report, it set the terms of reference, it engaged Mr MacPherson to conduct it and allocated resources to support it. In short, the government has complete responsibility for the delays that have occurred and continue to occur. The member for Hartley is a member of cabinet. If she cared so much for the Chelsea Cinema as she claims then she is in position to do something about it. She can prioritise this matter in cabinet. She could ensure that all resources were brought to bear to ensure an expedited outcome. This matter relates to alleged corruption. If the claims prove unfounded then those under a cloud deserve to be exonerated. If the claims are founded, the council needs to be dismissed and an administrator appointed when fresh elections are held. If the latter is the case it is intolerable for delays to action on this matter. For a report concluded six weeks ago, every day that goes by through a drawn-out natural justice period is another nail in the Chelsea Cinema's coffin. Less than three weeks ago the member for Hartley again went on commercial radio. She claimed that, as the local member, this was her No. 1 issue, yet nothing has happened. We are therefore left with two alternatives: first, she has not raised this with her cabinet colleagues and it is therefore not her No. 1 issue; or, secondly, she raised the issue in cabinet but was ineffectual in convincing her colleagues about this issue, which she repeatedly claims is so important. Either way, the government's delays in action could very well result in the loss of this great asset to South Australia. Time expired.