Courts Precinct

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (15:06): My question is to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General negotiated approval or entered into any discussions for occupancy of the Commonwealth Law Courts Building for state cases in view of the announcement not to proceed with the courts precinct?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (15:06): I thank the honourable member for his question. There are a couple of things about that. First of all, part of the premise of the question is not quite correct. What has been said, and what I have been at pains to try and explain, is that the methodology by which we were seeking to deliver a renewal of the courts project from a financial point of view turned out to be something that we, in all fairness, regarded as not a value for money proposition.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have been talking about this for a while and I was very enthusiastic about the whole project.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is what I was explaining when you interrupted. It is about value for money, so—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Perhaps if I could put it in a more—

Mr Marshall: Does it involve Star Wars?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, it doesn't. Let me put it in a more household sort of sense. If you—

Members interjecting:

Mr Marshall: The question is: have you had discussions with the commonwealth?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I was trying to explain, if you wanted to buy a car and the ticket—

Mr Marshall: Did you have discussions with the commonwealth about this car, so to speak?

The SPEAKER: I am afraid I am going to have to warn the leader a first time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just trying to explain something, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: However, I may warn the Attorney for provocative silences.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Provocative silence? An unparliamentary silence. If I can explain it this way, if you are going to purchase a vehicle for $20,000, that is the ticket price of the vehicle, and you discovered that if you went into some sort of arrangement with a hire purchase company you could get the same vehicle but over the space of three or four years it would cost you $60,000, you might ask yourself, 'Look, even though it is a great vehicle, it is the one I want, it is definitely the vehicle I am after, but—'

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is warned for the second and final time.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So at the end of that process you discover that the cost of actually doing it one way is dramatically more than doing it the other way and you ask yourself, as a prudent manager of your own household budget, or in this case prudent managers of the state's budget, 'Is that value for money?' That is completely different to the proposition which unfortunately I have noticed that the Hon. David Bleby, who is a very respected person—he wrote a letter today in letters to the editor where he actually missed that little nuance, where he was not saying, 'It's not good value to do something for the courts. It's not good value to do it in a way that's more expensive than it could be if you did it a different way.' Given that that decision has only just been arrived at—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Due diligence. In the past I believe there have been communications between the courts and the Federal Court, and my understanding is that the general position of the Federal Court is that it would rather remain the Federal Court. I think that is the best way of putting it.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Have I had any further discussions with anybody about the Federal Court in the last few days? No.