PORT ADELAIDE

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (14:52): My question is for the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. When did the minister provide cabinet with a copy or even a summary of, and I quote, 'Optimum decision making framework and precinct level multi criteria analysis' in respect of government-owned land at the Port Adelaide waterfront, including Newport Quays, and received by the Land Management Corporation on 3 June 2010; and what is the financial exposure for taxpayers?

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport, I hope you understood that question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:53): Come again? I actually don't really understand the import of the question. I would need to have it again, I'm sorry.

Ms Chapman: Do you want me to read it?

The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: When did the minister provide cabinet with a copy or even a summary of, and I quote—have you got your pen ready—'Optimum decision making framework and precinct level multi criteria analysis'? It's a document. When did you provide that to cabinet, in respect of the government's own land at Port Adelaide waterfront, including Newport Quays? The Land Management Corporation received it on 3 June 2010. And what is the financial consequence of that to taxpayers?

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: I'll let you read it. You can phone a friend—Rod Hook.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister. I point out that the question took almost as long as the four minutes.

Ms Chapman: Under four minutes.

The SPEAKER: Minister, do you have a response?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, I would wonder why the member for Bragg believes I did present it or a summary. She obviously hasn't decided whether I presented it or a summary, but I will leave her—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will leave her to ponder through that.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, it was two questions; you don't understand. I will leave her to ponder through that, but I assume the member for Bragg is referring to cabinet's decision to terminate our relationship with Newport Quays.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, actually you asked a number of questions; you asked whether I—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You asked when I gave them the report, or when I gave them the summary. Now, those two things aren't mutually consistent; I would like to know which one you think I did.

Ms Chapman: Either.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Either? So you don't know what I did? Okay—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Okay, and you want to know what the cost to the taxpayer is of me presenting that report or that summary. So, which one; the report or the summary?

Ms Chapman: Either.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I don't think it costs us anything to provide a report or a summary to cabinet.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, let's be clear here: we came into this place today and the opposition complained about new standing orders—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! Just a moment, minister. Point of order.

Mr PISONI: This is clearly debate, Madam Speaker—clearly debate. It doesn't relate to the question whatsoever.

The SPEAKER: I don't uphold that point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: With the greatest respect, Madam Speaker, you would have to be Nostradamus—

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Standing order 127: the minister can't digress. He is digressing from the question in regard to the cabinet document. He is seeking to talk about a debate this morning about standing orders.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I think it is within the context of the question. However, I refer you back to the substance of the question, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I simply make the point that the opposition come here and complain about not getting answers when what has occurred today is a deliberate attempt to somehow hide whatever question it is they are trying to ask. All I would say is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: All I would say is that you—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: And if you particularly believe that I am a simple man, give me a simple question, and I'll answer it. What we heard today was apparently, in asking people to abide by the standing orders, was that it was the jackboot of tyranny. Can I say: more the gumboot of hyperbole.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: But I say this: if the member for Bragg believes that I gave a document to the cabinet—or a summary; whichever she believes—which caused lost cost exposure to the taxpayer, I am quite happy to hear the question in a less obscure fashion. I am a simple man; I just ask her forbearance and ask me the question in simple terms.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to make it clear. He has the name of the report down there, and my question was: when—w-h-e-n—did you provide that or a summary of it to cabinet?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Which did I do?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister, do you have anything further to add?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What I would say is, if documents were presented to cabinet and considered by cabinet—I would point out, as John Hill, the Minister for Health, pointed out earlier, we actually do not disclose what goes on in cabinet, unlike—

Ms Chapman: Julia Rudd!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —the habits of former governments, but if the member has a discernible question which doesn't involve a breach of cabinet confidentiality, I am more than—but I repeat this: don't come in here—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Don't come into this—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Don't come into this place complaining you don't get answers when you ask obscure—

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mr WILLIAMS: If the minister is incapable of answering the question, he should just simply sit down and not abuse the opposition for asking a question which he is obviously incapable of answering.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for MacKillop; we don't need any more from you. Minister, have you finished answering your question?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Are there any more questions? I don't appear to have any more questions. Member for Chaffey.