House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Port Augusta Power Stations Port Augusta Power Stations Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Leader of the Opposition Port Augusta Power Stations Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): Supplementary: how much has the government already spent on defending compliance with the Ombudsman's ruling? The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Minister for Finance Minister for State Development Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy Port Augusta Power Stations The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (14:52): First and foremost, we will appeal it, and we will defend the right of private companies to come to the government and to speak to us confidentially about their finances. Mr Marshall interjecting: The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Obviously, the government disagrees, and we will see what the court says. Mr Marshall House of Assembly Mr Marshall: What have you got to hide? The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's not about the government having anything to hide, but there's a principle of place here. Members interjecting: The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, fake laughter is a substitute for policy. How does a company come to the government and speak to it about its financials without those financials being made publicly available, if the government chooses not to intervene with that company? Imagine this scenario: a company comes to the South Australian government and says, 'We are trading as X, we'd like the government to give us this assistance.' Then they say to us, 'Here are our financials.' We do a detailed examination and we have a discussion, and then we refuse. We say, 'We choose not to.' Then that company says, 'Okay, thank you very much', and they leave. Then, because of an opposition request, we have to make all of that public. No company would ever come to the government again to seek advice or financial assistance, and that is a very important principle that this government will defend. However, the counterfactual is this: had we entered into an arrangement with Alinta to keep the operations of Northern operating then, absolutely, we would make that public—absolutely because we would be expending taxpayers' money. The important thing here is about the ability of people to speak to the government under conditions. I have to say, the opposition is being reckless here. They are being reckless because they have no responsibility to the people who come to us. Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: Point of order: standing order 98, debate. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: No, I don't uphold the point of order. The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There are important principles here because when people speak to politicians they have a right to maintain privilege, and when people come to the government and want to speak to us about their issues they have every right to expect that that will remain confidential unless the government enters into an arrangement with them. As I said, the opposition would have more credibility on this point if they said that, if they are elected, they will never, ever appeal an Ombudsman's decision, but, of course, they won't say that because they will want to reserve their right to do so, and that is what a prudent, new government would want to do. But the Leader of the Opposition is dragging this opposition down a path from which they cannot return, because the logical extension of this is that they will not appeal an Ombudsman's decisions ever. Is that the case? Mr Goldsworthy interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Kavel is called to order for impugning the Chair's integrity.