Member for Frome, Government Agreement

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:25): My supplementary is to the Premier. Did the Premier or anybody in his office put any assurance that the state government would provide a full underwriting of this project to the member for Frome in writing, and, if so will the Premier table it?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:26): This has all been superseded by events. We did provide assurances to the member for Frome both verbally and in writing, just as we received in writing assurances from the federal government, through EFIC, on 30 November 2012 that they would underwrite this project. So, we were joint partners with the commonwealth and we had remarks during the election campaign—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Premier will be seated.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: If it's already underwritten why do you have to have it in writing?

The SPEAKER: The member for Davenport is called to order. The leader is on two warnings. I do not want to have to remove the Leader of the Opposition from the house, but I will if he moves his lips again out of order. The member for Chaffey's proposed solution that I not warn him is not viable. The Premier.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I will say it again for those who did not hear it: we said that we would put ourselves in a position to ensure this project went ahead, and we take all the necessary steps to do that. There are a number of issues that at that stage we rated as a low risk, given that we had the letter from EFIC saying that the project was going to be supported by the federal government, and we had subsequent remarks, within days of those communications, from the federal minister, saying that it was on a positive trajectory. Notwithstanding that, there were questions raised about what if the federal government was not going to do this, which seemed like an unlikely risk, or, more importantly, and probably a more likely risk, what if they were not able to give the commitment in the relevant time?

Remember, sir, it is worth setting out some of the history of this project. As the project went on there were some changes in the scope. An acid plant was added to the project, which meant there was a much larger need for capital raising on the international capital markets. There was, when the final due diligence was undertaken, a larger cost to the project. So, initially it was a $385 million project that became a $514 million project.

All of those things meant that there were certain delays in the process, but the company had been creating expectations in the investor community, for the purposes of raising the capital necessary to get this project underway, that it would be put out on a certain time line. There is a limit to how many times you can keep telling capital investors that this project is on its way before they begin to lose confidence in their capacity to actually put their money behind the project. So, time was of the essence, so the state government was concerned to ensure that it gave the relevant assurances to the member for Frome and, indeed, the company, when it came time, to ensure that we were able to get this project away.

What we did not expect—and I think is an outrage, frankly—is that opportunistically the federal government would say, 'Alright, just because you're stepping into the breach there to actually make sure this project doesn't fall over, we're actually going to walk away.' I am happy to drop the federal minister in it, because I had a discussion with the federal minister, in China, about this very question, and he was attracted to the idea of the South Australian government going first to actually make sure that this agreement was secured, to minimise any risk to the future of the project and that he would positively entertain the idea of EFIC coming in at a later point.

That is exactly the nature of the conversation we had, but when he went to see the Prime Minister he obviously got a different answer. I think that is shameful. I think the federal Liberal Party has abandoned Port Pirie, they have abandoned South Australia—and stop making excuses for them. Why don't you stand with us and actually criticise them? You should have been standing there with us at Port Pirie the other day. So should have been—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Premier—

An honourable member: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: I think I have the point of order. Premier, I should not have been standing there with them at Port Pirie: the opposition should have been. I take it that's your meaning.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: I think that's true, sir. As much as you would have liked being in Port Pirie, with your great love of the Molfettese community there—

The SPEAKER: Yes.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: —it's not really directed at you. The truth is we should have all been standing together—federal Liberal, state Liberal, state Labor—supporting this fantastic project for the future of our state.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

Ms CHAPMAN: I seek your ruling on the tabling of a document by the Premier a few moments ago which, if I heard this correctly, he identified as an abridged agreement in support of the announcement that he made in a ministerial statement about Nyrstar and the government's finance arranging commitment. I would ask you to peruse the document that has been tabled—

The SPEAKER: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: —which, on my assessment, is not an agreement: it is a summary, a commentary of the government, of some of the terms of what is in the ministerial statement and not an abridged agreement, as indicated by the Premier.

The SPEAKER: I will read it and see if I need to say anything about it. Before I call the member for Elder, it is, of course, in order for ministers to answer questions about the effect on South Australia of the federal budget, but it is not in order for ministers to take responsibility to the house for the conduct of Her Majesty's state opposition. I trust they will bear that distinction in mind. The member for Elder.