House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Grievance Debate Gillman Land Sale Gillman Land Sale Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:04): Here we are, at about chapter 85 of the saga of the Gillman land deal and, as The Advertiser said this morning, it stinks! It is a stench that is just unquashable. It is important that we all understand the significant players in this. We have got 'Planet Jay', we have got 'Planet John' and now we have got 'Planet Tom'—what a disaster! We have had repeated inquiries already, a High Court application— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Is the member for Bragg quoting The Advertiser? Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: No. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Well, if the member for Bragg is not quoting The Advertiser, I suggest she refer to 'Planet Premier', 'Planet Deputy Premier' and 'Planet Treasurer'. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you for making that clear, Mr Speaker. I am absolutely delighted that you made it absolutely clear. Obviously you got it; good on you. We have an application before the High Court for special leave, we have an ongoing select committee and we have the court of public opinion out there, the people of South Australia, absolutely outraged at what has happened over this very significant piece of land at Gillman—a property of over 400 hectares which has been given away on a platter to one party who has threatened the government that, if they did not do a deal with them, they would not be prepared to tender. That is the level of blackmail that the government is claiming is their excuse for not putting this out to public tender and why we have ended up with such a deal. The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting: Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: It doesn't have to be my opinion. We are dealing with Supreme Court judges, and plenty of them. Of course, we have dealt with the ICAC report, we have dealt with property experts, we have the public servants who have given evidence, we have the board members who have given evidence and statements, and a number of them have resigned—resigned from a public board. We have evidence before the ICAC inquiry of the most scandalous nature in respect of the Treasurer's not only foul and uncouth language but indeed statements of alleged threat towards other public servants. We can couple all of that with the ICAC annual report this year, which reports a 40 per cent bullying and intimidation level of complaint. We have the Premier's deal, which he keeps on about today, as does the Treasurer, as being the best deal for South Australia. 'This is going to give us jobs.' It does not matter about value. He does not give a toss about that. This is all about jobs. How many jobs have we got out of this? The salvation of the two sitting here on the front bench: the then treasurer and the then urban development minister, who are doing everything they possibly can to save their jobs, not the 6,000 jobs for South Australians. In the face of all of that, we then have the announcement, in the ICAC report, in Commissioner Lander's report, where the current CEO of Renewal SA—the organisation responsible for the management of this project and the acquisition and sale of assets in South Australia—too says he cannot believe it. This is a deal that is just completely without any explanation. Why would you alienate, even above the 150 hectares, all of the rest of the land for one protagonist who is threatening the government that they will not proceed with this, if they have not got it? We have the property experts. We have the Treasury department again confirmed in this report as saying, 'Do not do this and, if you do do it, if you do not go out to public tender, at the very least, keep it quarantined at 150 hectares, not the 400.' How many pieces of advice can they get? Of course, as I say, at page 180—it is a good read—of Commissioner Lander's report, the current CEO is clearly astounded as to why the government would proceed with this. Well, he has been put in charge of doing two things: one is, as the head of Renewal SA, continuing to manage this deal, of which he clearly does not approve himself; secondly, he has been flicked off yesterday, given responsibility to deal with the management or repercussions of Mr Buchan's maladministration findings. He has to go in there and discipline the very chap who has been under pressure to not say to a government, to not say back to minister Koutsantonis, 'Do not put pressure on us. We have not got time to do what you ask.' This was clearly the position of Commissioner Lander, saying, 'You cannot do this,' and 'Mr Buchan should have done that.' Yet, he is being asked, as the CEO of Renewal SA, to do just that. Time expired.