Economic Recovery Fund

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (15:03): My question is to the Premier. Was a business case finalised prior to the establishment of the Economic Recovery Fund, and was the establishment of the Economic Recovery Fund supported by a business case?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Treasurer) (15:03): Well, that is extraordinary, isn't it? I have just explained that we will ask businesses to come forward with proposals for them to expand their operations—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Cowdrey: Was there a business case for the scheme?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Was there a business case for a government fund? Well, what sort of business case would you establish for a fund which is yet to make its allocations? It is just ridiculous.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps you have a business case that you release for a $9.95 billion tunnel project? Has that been released publicly? 'Oh, whoops. We forgot to do that in the four years that we were in government' from those opposite.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Colton, member for Hammond, member for Chaffey!

Mr Cowdrey: I didn't ask if it had been released publicly. It doesn't exist! It doesn't exist.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member for Colton yells out, 'It doesn't exist!'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta well knows the rules.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Then they complain that it hasn't started five minutes ago now that they are in opposition, when they haven't even got a publicly released business case.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Oh, no!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: I will hear the point of order from the member for Morialta.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The question was clearly about Labor's fund, not about the north-south corridor.

The SPEAKER: There is some force in the point of order, but I do observe that we are very early in the answer. I will be listening carefully. Of course, it is permissible to introduce a degree of context.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If it's not the tunnels, it's the new Women's and Children's Hospital. At the beginning of this year, before a state election, they were parading around out there quoting a cost of $1.95 billion, which they got in mid-2019. I don't know anyone who has bought a lettuce, let alone tried to build a pergola, in recent times who honestly expects that that cost holds. Where was the business case? Did you release that publicly?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: There is a point of order. I anticipate that the member persists in making the point of order in relation to debate. There is some force in the point of order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Daniel come to judgement, sir.

The SPEAKER: Very well. I am listening carefully. The Treasurer is to take a closer line to the question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For those opposite, given they were unused to dealing with and releasing business cases while they were in government, that is the purpose of a business case. When you have a specific project or a specific process or proposal—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Colton!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —you expect a business case. Are we now—

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Colton! The Treasurer has the call.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —going to have calls from those opposite that every fund in government has a business case? Do we have a business case for the Victims of Crime Fund? Is that the expectation next? We have pools of—

Mr Cowdrey: That's in legislation.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am interested to hear the member for Colton say that the need for a business case for expenditures from the Victims of Crime Fund is 'in legislation'. Do you read legislation? Do you understand what funds are for? Dig up not down. It is extraordinary. We won't be taking a private approach to government assistance for industries. It will be open and it will be transparent. I know they don't like it because of the way they conducted themselves over the last four years: much wailing and gnashing of teeth because we have had the temerity to stop projects that were important to them—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —because we dare impose the commitments—

The SPEAKER: Treasurer, there is a point of order, which I will hear under 134. The member for Morialta in relation to a point of order.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: It's 98, debate.

The SPEAKER: Standing order 98, as members are well aware, does prohibit debate of a type the Treasurer may or may not be engaging with. In any event, I note that the time has expired.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Only for question time, sir, not the answer.

The SPEAKER: Very well. The Treasurer makes a strong—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: I heard the Treasurer remind the Chair that in fact there are two minutes remaining in relation to his answer, though question time itself has expired. I am minded to hear the Treasurer.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: I then request that you deal with the standing order that was raised, which was that the Treasurer is debating, and that he not do that for the next two minutes.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I am listening carefully.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps, finally, I can clear this up for the house. Perhaps I can task myself with bringing back a fulsome response to this place of all the industry assistance that was paid under the last four years of the previous Liberal government and the terms and conditions that applied to it, because I think the public would like some transparency about how much taxpayer support was provided to all those organisations when it was suddenly announced without any due process, without any competition or without any chance for any other South Australian organisation to get it. Maybe, once we all have access to that transparency, we can see how the previous government chose to dole out these funds and whether—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —there were business cases attached.

The SPEAKER: I will hear the point of order under 134. The member for Morialta has raised a number of points of order today but is now raising another.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Every submission should be judged on its merits under 134. Standing order 98 does not allow this sort of response to a very narrow question.

The SPEAKER: Well, it may or may not allow such a response. In any event, of course the member is right to say that each point of order ought be judged on its merits. I will guide the Treasurer to come closer to the question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Alas, I have concluded my remarks, sir.

The SPEAKER: Very well.