House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Gillman Land Sale Gillman Land Sale Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Gillman Land Sale Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): I have a supplementary question. Is the Treasurer then not prepared to tell us whether he had any conversation with these witnesses before they gave evidence or whether they are members of the Australian Labor Party? Come on, John: a serious question. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier. Ms Chapman interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The deputy leader, if she makes an utterance outside standing orders for the next 26 minutes, will be removed from the chamber. The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly 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 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) (14:38): The situation is that I apprehend that the deputy leader is, for some reason, disappointed in the findings of the commissioner. That is a matter that she may or may not wish to undertake in some other forum. However, the fact is that the Treasurer cooperated with the inquiry; the findings of the commissioner are the findings of the commissioner. The government is not arguing with what the commissioner has written. The government has acknowledged that where criticisms were made they need to be taken seriously, and the commissioner has acknowledged that at least in respect of Renewal SA's performance there have already been important remedial steps taken. I think the Treasurer and the Premier have certainly during today and yesterday more than thoroughly covered the question of the suggestion in the report that some of the language used by the Treasurer in some instances may not have been ideal, and the Treasurer made a public apology in respect of that matter yesterday. That really is an end to this matter, and raking over the coals about who was invited to speak and what they said—what they said to the commissioner and what the commissioner held to be relevant is contained in the body of his report. If the commissioner had thought it relevant to consider the questions that are being raised by the deputy leader when assessing the value or otherwise of the evidence of the individuals concerned, he no doubt would have asked those questions himself. As the deputy leader would appreciate, the commissioner, in his days at the bar, was regarded as one of the most fierce forensic cross-examiners ever to be seen, and he has a very high reputation as a judge, both in the Supreme Court and in the Federal Court of Australia. I think, round for round, he would possibly be at least as forensically capable as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—possibly more—and I therefore have confidence that he would have asked the appropriate questions.