Question Time

PORT ADELAIDE

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (14:34): Thank you, member for Florey. My question is to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Can the minister explain the nature of the document entitled 'Optimum decision making framework and precinct level multi criteria analysis' and whether any erroneous claims have been made about it?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Do you need that question to be repeated, minister?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:35): I am more than happy to enjoy the laughter from the other side. I hope they continue to laugh for the entire length of the question. The document which so excited the member for Bragg yesterday I can tell you is, in fact, an extremely technical document which deals—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I'm sorry; do you have a point? I doubt it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It deals with techniques for the selection of maintenance and capital works, and it is created to enable the agency, at the appropriate time, to make informed forecasts and bids for funding for capital works to maintain assets. It has absolutely nothing to do, as was wrongly claimed by the member for Bragg, with Newport Quays. It mentions Newport Quays nowhere in its some 66 pages, makes no reference to the relationship—has nothing to do with it. But more concerning than that erroneous claim—

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The minister—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I can't hear the member for MacKillop.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right, behave.

Mr WILLIAMS: The standing order is 98, Madam Speaker: the minister is clearly debating. The opposition made no claim. We simply asked a question yesterday, and the minister is now turning this into a debate, saying that we are 'claiming' it.

The SPEAKER: You are now also debating the point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will explain when the member for Bragg made this claim, on two occasions. But even more concerning is the fact that this was a document sought by the member for Bragg, as she is allowed to do, under freedom of information. It was initially refused by the Land Management Corporation because it was—

Ms Chapman: As they usually are.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I have these distractions subtracted from my four minutes, Madam Speaker, because I have very important things to tell the house. The LMC refused that because it had been made up for the preparation of a future cabinet submission. What concerns me is this: on 27 February, the Ombudsman, to whom the member for Bragg appealed, made an interim finding. That was sent to the applicant and to the Land Management Corporation on 29 February, that is, yesterday.

What concerns me is the question that was asked by the member for Bragg yesterday, and that was, to paraphrase it: when—not if—did I send this document to cabinet, or a summary of it? This was on the very day when she was told this by the Ombudsman:

The document identified as a document within the scope of the FOI application was prepared for submission to cabinet. The document has yet to be submitted to cabinet, as the LMC is having further work undertaken.

Madam Speaker, I ask: why would the member for Bragg, on the very day that she is being told clearly, in black and white, that it has not come into cabinet, come in here and try to trick people into believing that it has. Why would she do that? It is not—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is absolutely clear, in black and white, from the Ombudsman that it never went to cabinet.

Mr WILLIAMS: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There will be no quarrels across the floor. Stop yelling at each other.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, the member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Again, standing order 98: the minister is clearly debating. When he poses the question, 'why would somebody do something?', I suggest that is debate.

The SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. I would refer the member back to the substance of the question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I simply refer to the Hansard record of what the member for Bragg did, and that was to assert that this had been to cabinet, on the very day that she had been advised by the Ombudsman that it had not. And I also refer—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —to the frequently repeated assertion that they don't get answers to questions. Well, can I say this: if, heaven forbid, the member for Bragg is ever a minister, if she answers questions with the candour she asks them, she is going to be in trouble very, very early. I refer, Madam Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, member for Stuart.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Norwood, I understand that you are looking to ask a question later. You may not be here if you keep shouting across the floor like that.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, Madam Speaker: clearly a personal reflection, not allowed under 127.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Stuart. Minister, I refer you back to the substance of the question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I close by saying this: on 27 January, the member for Bragg, in a press release, headed 'Secret Newport Quays risk report'—in which she refers to this document, completely wrong—says it came to me, completely wrong (it came to me for the first time yesterday), and suggests that the government was sitting on a decision to abolish the Newport Quays agreement for a year and never told anyone, completely wrong. I simply point out that the facts speak for themselves. The member for Bragg, it is no wonder that the national president of the AMA once said that she does not know her elbow from the terminal opening of her alimentary canal.

The SPEAKER: Thank you minister, your time has expired. Point of order, member for Bragg.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: As I understand the minister's response, he quoted from a draft judgement of the Ombudsman, which has not yet been published.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Well, he sent it to you.

Ms CHAPMAN: As the applicant, that is actually the normal process, Tom.

The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, I don't know what your point of order is. If you wish to make a personal explanation, you can do it after question time.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, the reason I raise this is not as a personal explanation from me, I can assure you. I am very happy to have the answer on the record of what the minister has said. I do raise with you, though, Madam Speaker, the efficacy of the publication of a draft document of the Ombudsman, who is a statutory officer—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No, he is on my side—of this parliament, before that judgement has been published. I do ask that you inquire into that and report to the house as to the conduct of the minister.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I will report back.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If it assists on the point of order, it was also sent to the applicant, and it didn't say, 'Please don't tell anyone.'

The SPEAKER: Thank you.