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 Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Gillman Land Sale Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (13:38): If the minister continues to assert that he has only just learnt about this, how does he reconcile that with the evidence that the Chief Executive of Renewal SA, Mr John Hanlon, gave to the Budget and Finance Committee earlier this year— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: That's a hypothetical question. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: He provided evidence to the Budget and Finance Committee that the settlement was not included—not included—in the budget for this year. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The leader will be seated. The Hon. P. Caica House of Assembly The Hon. P. Caica: Put your finger away. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member for Colton is called to order. The leader expressed the question as a hypothetical in his lead-in. Would he like to rephrase it so that it's not a hypothetical? Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Was the minister unaware that in fact the state government's budget did not include the $45 million settlement that was due today? The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN House of Assembly Lee Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Minister for Housing and Urban Development The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (13:39): There are two separate issues here. One is whether the government, and whether I as minister, was aware that there was a requirement for ACP to settle on the 150 hectares for a value of $45 million. The other issue that the Leader of the Opposition alludes to in his question is about the budgeting for revenues by Renewal SA within the most recent budget papers. Am I aware that those budget papers and indeed subsequent evidence was given to a parliamentary committee about that level of revenue being lower than the $45 million? Yes, of course, I am aware of that fact. Why was that estimate made? Well, that is indeed a question which I understand perhaps the opposition may have intended to ask. He will be surprised to learn perhaps that ministers are not responsible for setting revenue targets and comprising budget papers themselves. If he is after an answer about why Renewal SA or why indeed perhaps the Department of Treasury and Finance inserted that revenue estimate, I will come back to the house with an appropriate answer.