House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Royal Adelaide Hospital Site Redevelopment Royal Adelaide Hospital Site Redevelopment Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Dunstan Leader of the Opposition Royal Adelaide Hospital Site Redevelopment Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:48): Supplementary: is the Attorney-General suggesting to this house that the original deal from C&G, which was acclaimed by the government in October 2016, offered value for money but that that offer deteriorated to the point that the government had to move away from the contract? The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly Enfield Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Justice Reform Minister for Planning Minister for Industrial Relations Minister for Child Protection Reform Minister for the Public Sector Minister for Consumer and Business Services Minister for the City of Adelaide Royal Adelaide Hospital Site Redevelopment The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (14:48): No, I won't be verballed in that way. What I am saying is that the original proposal put forward by the proponent was sufficiently interesting to warrant the government entering into bona fide detailed conversations with the proponent. Those detailed conversations ultimately, as I explained before, led to a position where the amount of money being offered by the proponent was substantially less—not quite 50 per cent less, but substantially less—than the amount of money that was originally discussed at the time that the government entered into that exclusive dealing conversation with the proponent, so at no time was the proponent in a position where the government had effected a deal or executed a deal or made a determination that there was a deal. What happened in 2016 was that the government was satisfied that, of the range of people who had come forward, this particular proposal had the most probability of being one that we could satisfactorily work further with, and that is what we did. But, in the end, we were not satisfied. It is our responsibility, on behalf of the people, to actually be prepared to say no sometimes when something does not represent what appears to be best value for money. Members interjecting: The Hon. J.R. RAU House of Assembly The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is the situation. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I call to order, for interjecting during that answer, the leader, the deputy leader, the member for Davenport and the members for Hartley and Schubert. Leader.