<!--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="2018-12-06" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>54</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>1</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="4341" />
  <endPage num="4426" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Answers to Questions</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Techport Common User Facility</name>
      <text id="20181206e87f564f8f1d450e80001234">
        <inserted>
          <heading>Techport Common User Facility</heading>
        </inserted>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="5084" kind="question">
        <name>In reply to Mr MALINAUSKAS</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Croydon</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Leader of the Opposition</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2018-12-06">
            <name>Techport Common User Facility</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="20181206e87f564f8f1d450e80001235">
          <inserted>In reply to <by role="member" id="5084">Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition)</by> (28 November 2018).  </inserted>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4338" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Dunstan</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Premier</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2018-12-06">
            <name>Techport Common User Facility</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <text id="20181206e87f564f8f1d450e80001236">
          <inserted>
            <by role="member" id="4338">The Hon. S.S. MARSHALL (Dunstan—Premier):</by>  I have been advised:</inserted>
        </text>
        <page num="4426" />
        <text id="20181206e87f564f8f1d450e80001237">
          <inserted>The dispute relates to dredging services performed for Defence SA at the former Techport Australia Common User Facility (CUF) and the adjacent ASC submarine facility between October 2016 and November 2017. At the time of preparation of the Auditor-General's report, there was a total of four disputed variation claims totalling $1.952 million, one of which has been resolved. Defence SA and the dredging contractor have participated in an executive negotiation process in accordance with the contract, which failed to resolve the dispute. In December 2017, following the executive negotiation process, Defence SA confirmed to the dredging contractor its agreement to proceed to mediation, subject to the dredging contractor demonstrating the legal and commercial basis on which their claim is based.</inserted>
        </text>
        <page num="4424" />
        <text id="20181206e87f564f8f1d450e80001238">
          <inserted>On 3 October 2018, the dredging contractor provided a draft statement of claim demonstrating the contractual basis on which it is relying for its claim and seeking to initiate the mediation process. This draft statement of claim includes a further claim for wrongful termination and a revised calculation method for one claim, which further increases the total value of the claims. Defence SA is currently working with officers from the Crown Solicitor's Office to review the claim and agree the terms for the mediation process which is expected to occur in February 2019. Defence SA will meet any reasonable payment or claim that can be appropriately justified within the contractual provisions, and will continue to take all reasonable steps to resolve this matter, while ensuring responsible expenditure of public funds.</inserted>
        </text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>