House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time GM Holden GM HOLDEN Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Norwood Leader of the Opposition GM HOLDEN Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier now release his correspondence with Holden that he says has been breached, and if he won't release it, why not? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Minister for State Development Minister for the Public Sector Minister for the Arts GM HOLDEN The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:31): I am happy to answer both of those questions. It's a job lot, two questions for the price of one. I am more than happy to release the correspondence; it is just that the company has an agreement with us about the confidentiality of those documents. I would be more than happy to release them, in fact. They insist on that. In fact, I asked as recently as just before coming into this parliament whether they would waive that agreement and they are violently opposed to doing that. So, I would be more than happy to release the documents. I must say that I think on 28 March 2012 the South Australian Parliament in fact had a detailed recitation of elements of a number of the terms of those agreements, including a paraphrasing of a crucial letter, which was I think a letter of 20 March 2012 and which is set out in that document. It makes it clear that there is an agreement that has been reached and it will be subject to a later implementation agreement to be executed between the parties. So, that is clear. I did not hear on that occasion, back on 28 March when we had this debate in parliament, this point being made. Shrieks of silence from those opposite about the fact that we had laid this out, that an agreement had been reached and that it was going to be subject to a later implementation agreement. No points were raised about whether we actually had an agreement, because it was manifest to all those who were actually witnessing the events that were occurring at the time. You had essentially the head of Holden's in Australia standing up and pledging on behalf of this company that he was committing a billion dollars of investment. Of course agreements had been reached and of course there were more detailed implementation agreements that would follow. The critical issue—and this is not an issue that is in dispute with Holden—is that they accept that what happened yesterday means that we have to revisit the agreement. Leave everything else aside—all your tricky legal points about funding agreements and the implications they have. Just look at that fundamental fact: General Motors acknowledged they need to sit down with us in the light of what happened yesterday. That is the proof of exactly what the nature of the relationship is, and we are prepared to have that conversation because this has been a longstanding and positive relationship between the South Australian government, the South Australian community, the South Australian workforce and this company. My uncle started working there when he was a 15 year old and left at 65. There are many people who can trace their roots back to this important company. I support this company: I drive a Holden, as many of you do here. Seventy-four per cent, in fact, of our state government fleet is Holden, and if other states did the same thing we would be in much better shape.