<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2016-02-11" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="4227" />
  <endPage num="4308" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Daw Park Site</name>
      <text id="20160211be39014862ee44b780000676">
        <heading>Daw Park Site</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="question">
        <name>Mr MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-02-11">
            <name>Daw Park Site</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-02-11T14:32:35" />
        <text id="20160211be39014862ee44b780000677">
          <timeStamp time="2016-02-11T14:32:35" />
          <by role="member" id="4338">Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32):</by>  And whose land is that asset sitting on, then? Is that crown land?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="627" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. J.J. SNELLING</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Playford</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Health</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for the Arts</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Health Industries</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2016-02-11">
            <name>Daw Park Site</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2016-02-11T14:32:42" />
        <text id="20160211be39014862ee44b780000678">
          <timeStamp time="2016-02-11T14:32:42" />
          <by role="member" id="627">The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Health, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Health Industries) (14:32):</by>  I'll need to check. It was done before my time. I think it was done under the arrangements entered into when the Hon. John Hill was the minister for health, so I don't know exactly what the legal arrangements are for ViTA to use the site. I would hazard a guess it's probably on the basis of it being a peppercorn lease, but I would need to double-check. If I sense where the Leader of the Opposition is going is to try and say that the ViTA facility is in some sort of doubt, or under threat, or something like that, I can completely repudiate that that might be the case at all.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>