ADELAIDE SHIP CONSTRUCTION INTERNATIONAL

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:05): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, representing the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, a question concerning Adelaide Ship Construction International.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: On 16 June this year, I asked a question about rent negotiations between Defence SA and Adelaide Ship Construction International, following the excessive rental increase from $55,000 per annum to $108,000 per annum. In the answer that was provided to me, I was told that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries was negotiating with Adelaide Ship Construction International to come to a compromise position.

The impression given from this was that genuine negotiations were going to take place to achieve a reasonable outcome; however, I believe that this has not been the case. Adelaide Ship Construction International has informed me that it has not been in any negotiations with the minister or Defence SA and any attempts at communication have been referred to the Crown Solicitor's Office.

In fact, in a recent meeting I had with Defence SA's chief executive officer, contrary to the information provided by the minister, it was made quite clear that Defence SA had no intention of negotiating an outcome and that it believed that the only way the matter could be settled was in court.

ASCI's latest attempt at a compromise was about $77,000 per annum. I understand that Defence SA has not deviated from its original offer and is still insisting on pursuing $108,000 per annum, which indicates that very little or no negotiation has taken place. My questions are:

1. Has the minister, Defence SA or any other individual other than representatives from the Crown Solicitor's Office been directly involved in negotiations with ASCI in the form of personal meetings?

2. What is the estimated total cost of the legal proceedings to South Australian taxpayers, and does this amount outweigh the $31,000 difference between ASCI and Defence SA's respective proposed rents?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:07): At the time that question was originally asked by the Hon. Mr Darley, my understanding was that there were negotiations that took place. Obviously, a settlement was unable to be reached and the matter is now before the courts, and that is probably about as much as one can say.

It is interesting that members opposite have been telling us that we should have an ICAC in this state, yet what they are suggesting is that somehow this government should make arbitrary decisions. They are saying that we should come to some arrangement when, clearly, one has had an independent valuation that suggests that an asset of this state is worth a certain amount of money. They are suggesting that we should come to some negotiation with somebody because they are a mate, or whatever.

I think that underlines that if we do ever have a Liberal government we will need an ICAC, because of the sort of behaviour that they are suggesting. If a minister were to make a decision to act against the proper advice they had received then they would be held liable. Not only would the Auditor-General be criticising them but given that taxpayer money is at stake it is incumbent on any person in government to use the advice that is given to them—whether it is by Crown law, independent valuations, or whatever—to try to come to some solution. If it is not possible to do that then the only way that it can be resolved is through the courts.

It is unfortunate that this matter has gone through the courts. As I understand it, all sorts of variations were made and independent valuations sought. But ultimately, if this government is to behave ethically and properly, then it has to act on the advice it is given, or it is a matter that is settled through the courts, and that is what is happening now.

I find it extraordinary that these advocates of an ICAC are the ones who seem to be, effectively, advocating that a government should behave in that way. This is the sort of issue that would be put straight before an ICAC because a government would not be acting in accordance with proper and accepted practice.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, I have.