Incolink

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (15:00): My question is to the Premier. When was the Premier first made aware that the Victorian CFMEU-owned Incolink has—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You don't like it when we point out the dealings of your mates, your bikie-infested CFMEU. You don't like that, do you?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: You don't like it. Your business partners in politics—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Florey can leave until the end of question time. The member for Unley, you will be seated.

The honourable member for Florey having withdrawn from the chamber:

The SPEAKER: I can't hear the member for Unley and his question, so please, members on my right, stop yelling out. Member for Unley.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you very much for your protection, sir. When was the Premier first made aware that the Victorian CFMEU-owned Incolink had purchased an interest in the Adelaide City Council's Market Square development, and does he have any concerns about the CFMEU's involvement in the project?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (15:01): The government has taken an interest in the Market Square development more broadly at a high level because we think it's a great development for the state. I remember first being briefed on the proposition for the Market Square by the former Rundle Mall management chair and market chair, Theo Maras, some years ago and expressing unequivocally my support for that development more broadly and being very keen to see that happen. We followed it closely. I think the state government is potentially taking occupancy in some of the office parts of Market Square, which is a good thing.

In terms of decisions that are made by the developer and who is investing and what the Masters Builders Association, in conjunction with other representatives on the board of Incolink in Victoria, are deciding in respect of private developers, obviously we have no line of sight over that. I am aware that there is a share in it. I cannot remember exactly when I got told that. I can't remember if I read it or heard it, but I think this has been in the public realm for some time. As I know the member for Unley would appreciate, this isn't something that the South Australian government has anything to do with, with respect to that private developer and how they are funding their program of works.

I think the inference from the member for Unley in his question is: does somehow this mean that the South Australian government fails to repudiate the bad behaviour that was seen within the CFMEU in Victoria? Of course not. Anybody familiar with myself or any other member of the state cabinet understands what good industrial relations looks like. We are very proudly of the view in this government that the Australian trade union movement has a role to play, particularly in the economy at the moment, now more than ever, where we see workers' wages wanting to be heading in the right direction rather than the wrong direction. Real wage growth is an aspiration that I think every government should have, and I think unions play a role in that regard.

That, we believe, is best achieved through thoughtful, pragmatic and responsible trade union leadership, and the actions of the CFMEU in Victoria are anything but that. We reject them wholeheartedly and always have. Anybody who knows my record as a trade union leader would be well familiar with that. I think this sort of feigned, pretend, trying to create this idea that somehow we think the CFMEU in Victoria represents good trade unionism is just rubbish. Anybody who knows us knows it is rubbish, and we actively repudiate it—no different to those in opposition—but the member for Unley knows that. The member for Unley equally knows that, whoever is the private developer responsible for the Market Square development, they make their own decisions about how they fund their developments.