PUGLIA

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Hamilton-Smith:

That the Economic and Finance Committee inquire into the government's investments and activities in Italy and in particular, the investments and activities in the region of Puglia and that the committee report to the house—

(a) the total value of all expenditure across the whole of government linked to Puglia;

(b) whether the memorandum of understanding signed between the state government and the region of Puglia has been properly implemented; and

(c) what value South Australian taxpayers have received from the investment.

(Continued from 9 February 2011.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:13): I shall not be very long. I do rise in support of this motion of referral to the Economic and Finance Committee for some level of review to be undertaken in regard to the government investments and activities in Italy, and particularly the investments and activities in the region of Puglia, and that the committee report to the house. I do so on the basis that I am a big supporter of the Economic and Finance Committee, as the Minister for Correctional Services knows.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, we hope so, but it is important that this committee return to its all-powerful status, and the minister nods his head in agreement, so I am pleased. As soon as we get some industry development committee referrals to come through, that will be even better.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: You want me chairing it, do you?

Mr GRIFFITHS: No; very happy with Michael Wright—very happy. It is important that some level of scrutiny occur here. I know there has been an enormous amount in the media in previous times about the Puglia area and indeed the level of investment made by South Australian taxpayers. However, it is an issue of accountability for me. It is the same as the Adelaide Oval and the amendment that we are proposing about Auditor-General scrutiny there. We are talking about accountability and the appropriate use of taxpayer funds.

I respect the fact that governments of any persuasion can make policy decisions and therefore allocate dollars, and then people will debate that ad nauseam. However, accountability is the important issue here and that is why the motion from the member for Waite is one that this house should support. It is to allow a review to take place in a bipartisan way—and there is a very strong bipartisan atmosphere that revolves around the Economic and Finance Committee at the moment—to ensure that all members can be aware of the issues, consider the input being made by taxpayer dollars, consider what the outcomes of those dollars are and make some form of recommendation back to the parliament on the appropriateness of that.

It is on that basis that I stand in support of this motion. I hope it is a motion that the government will support. No doubt there will be, in the report, opportunities for both sides to put a case. I am not pre-empting any level of minority report that might come from it, but it is important that this committee have that chance.

The Economic and Finance Committee has existed for many years. It has done some great work in the past. I read with jealousy some of the reports from previous years, in comparison to what we have done in recent times. It is important that we put a focus back on the Economic and Finance Committee, and this recommendation for a referral from the house to the committee is an opportunity for that. I hope that members on the other side will rise in support of this motion and that we get some good outcomes from it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.