GM HOLDEN

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): My question is again to the Premier. Is it the case that if the Premier had signed a contract with Holden they would not have been able to cut one quarter of their Adelaide—

The SPEAKER: The question is clearly out of order because it is expressed, structured, to be hypothetical. Perhaps try another question, deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: Am I given any permission to redo it?

The SPEAKER: Okay; we will go back to the government then. The member for Kaurna.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes or no?

The SPEAKER: You wish to reformulate it immediately?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The SPEAKER: In that case, go ahead.

Ms CHAPMAN: My question is to the Premier. In the event—

The SPEAKER: No, I don't think that quite does it. Would you like another go or should I go to the government and you will reformulate it?

Ms CHAPMAN: No; I'm happy to ask the question about whether, in fact, the obligations of the contract required—

The SPEAKER: Are the obligations of the contract required.

Ms CHAPMAN: —required; yes—to ensure that a quarter of the workforce wouldn't have been sacked?

The SPEAKER: Well, that's not hypothetical and, therefore, it's in order. Treasurer.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier, Treasurer, Minister for State Development, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for the Arts) (14:39): I do not think the courts are going to be granting a specific performance of a contractual arrangement to require General Motors Holden to actually retain 400 workers it decides in its business interests—

Ms Chapman: Why not?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: They are not on piecework. Learn your industrial law.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: That is right. I am sure you would be able to get quick legal advice from somebody at chambers.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport is warned for the second time. If he does it once more he will be out.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The remedy, of course, would be, given that it is a breach of the arrangement, that we are relieved of our obligations under the contract to pay $50 million. But the truth is this: there are three levels at which this operates. There is the relationship that we have with General Motors, a longstanding relationship of decades and decades and decades, a relationship that we have invested in as a South Australian community. As an agent for the South Australian community the South Australian government will be seeking to restore this relationship because it has, in recent days, been affected by the decision that Holden has taken.

My role is to make sure that I protect the public interest, the interests of those workers and the long-term interests of the people of the northern suburbs and, indeed, the state, and that is what I will be advancing in discussions. I am not going to be having discussions on arcane legal points about what may or may not be a remedy. What is common between both parties, between General Motors and the South Australian government, is that the events of this week require us to sit down and discuss the future of our relationship—that is common ground. It is common ground and General Motors has authorised me to say that on their behalf.

They accept that the events of this week mean that we have to sit down and have discussions, because on any view of it, even on General Motors' view of the world, the situation that they comprehended when they entered into the arrangement with us has materially changed and they expect that this will mean that a discussion needs to be had with the South Australian government. Those arrangements have been made and it will occur later this week.