House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Gillman Land Sale Gillman Land Sale Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Gillman Land Sale Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): Can the Premier confirm which board gave this advice to cabinet: whether it was the Renewal SA board before or after the four out of seven resignations? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly Cheltenham Premier Gillman Land Sale The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:25): The Renewal SA board provided this information. Members interjecting: The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Renewal SA— Mr Pisoni House of Assembly Mr Pisoni: What was the date? Give us the date then. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is called to order. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I might add that these are spookily like the fishing exercise that is being undertaken in litigation proceedings that are actually going on at the moment. I know those opposite come in here advancing the interests— Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: A point of order. Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: This bears no relationship to the question, which was: which board, before or after the resignations, provided the advice? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I am not going to stand here— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Premier, I should make a ruling on that. I would draw the Premier back to the substance of the question: which board gave the advice? The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Mr Speaker, there is one board and it has continuous existence. The constitution of the board at any one point in time is irrelevant and I will not be putting in the public sphere information which is being sought to be gained through litigation which is presently being undertaken in the courts. Ms Chapman House of Assembly Ms Chapman: It's got nothing to do with it. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: No. Of course, it's got a lot to do with it. You are coming in here advancing questions that certain litigants—are being advanced against the government. They are competitors in these processes—commercial competitors. Rather than acting on the basis of some commercial interest, why not act in the public interest, South Australia's interest, which is to actually preserve the capacity for us to enter an arrangement in South Australia's interest? Don't start coming in here running a line on behalf of some private sector competitor that wants to unravel this arrangement. Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir: 127. That is clearly imputing improper motive on members of the opposition. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: There's a point of order from the member for Morialta: 127. Refresh my memory. Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: The Premier is clearly imputing improper motive on members of the opposition. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: And the improper motive is that the opposition is acting in the interests of a litigant? Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: Those are the Premier's words, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I ask the Premier, if indeed he is imputing improper motives, not to do so. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: My proposition is this: that those opposite—I don't know what their motivations are, but they are asking questions which are the same questions that are being asked in litigation of the government and I am requesting that they act in the state interest, not in the interests of a private— Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: Point of order, sir. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The Premier will be seated. I understood the Premier— Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: Sir, I have a new point of order. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I will hear your point of order first. Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: The Premier has gone on to not withdraw the allegations that he made that the opposition was coming in here and asking questions on behalf of a group of people. He is saying it in a different way, but the original claim still stands and it is clearly in contravention of 127 in the standing orders. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: No, I don't think it is. I think the Premier has now reformulated in a way that makes it comply with the standing orders. The Premier said that the questions the opposition are asking are questions that a party to litigation are asking, and that is an acceptable formulation; it is not to impute that the opposition are acting in the interests of a party to litigation. The Premier. The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL House of Assembly The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: The gravamen of the matter is this: we have advice that has been provided by an independent statutory body, not by the personal opinions of any board members, however constituted at any one point in time, but information which demonstrates that this is a premium price for the piece of land in question. That is not a matter of opinion by board members at any one point in time, it is a matter of empirical fact that is gathered from valuations, etc., that have formed the basis for their opinion. That is not something that is going to alter, whatever the composition of the board is at any one point in time. That is information that has a factual basis to it and is going to be able to be rebutted or confirmed on the basis of the analysis of that material, so let's be absolutely clear about that. The advice to us was crystal clear that this was a premium price for that land. The point about this is that we needed to preserve the capacity for this piece of land to be developed in this fashion. Remember that the only other propositions that have been advanced about this matter had actually involved much inferior offers on the price for this land, or the state government itself investing significant sums of money to actually lift the value of this land. It is pretty basic, sir: if you were to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars on a piece of land to upgrade it by filling it up and bringing it to a certain standard, of course it is going to be worth more. That is the basic proposition that has been advanced against us. This company was not only prepared to spend its own money increasing the value of the land, it was prepared to give us a premium price for the land, so of course we wanted to preserve the capacity for the South Australian government to get that arrangement in the state's interest, and that is all that we have done. They have been given a period of exclusivity so that they can prove this thing up, and I hope that they get to do that. I hope those opposite do not destroy our opportunity to do so.