Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Parliamentary Committees Parliamentary Committees Select Committee on Sale of State Government Owned Land at Gillman Select Committee on Sale of State Government Owned Land at Gillman Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas: That a message be sent to the House of Assembly requesting that the Premier (Hon. J.W. Weatherill) and the Treasurer (Hon. T. Koutsantonis), members of the House of Assembly, be permitted to attend and give evidence before the Legislative Council Select Committee on Sale of State Government Owned Land at Gillman. (Continued from 18 June 2014.) The Hon. M.C. PARNELL Legislative Council The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:15): The Greens support this motion. We believe that part of the accountability mechanism of select committees is that ministers should be invited to participate, and that is what this motion does. The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS Legislative Council The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:15): I rise to place on the record the government's opposition to this motion, which seeks nothing more than the government's cooperation in a political witch-hunt, posing a risk to this state. My comments here today largely reflect the government's comments in opposition to the establishment of the select committee generally. The Select Committee into Sale of State Government Owned Land at Gillman is a risk to private investment in our state. Let's remember that the Select Committee into Sale of State Government Owned Land at Gillman motion potentially places at risk 6,000 jobs. It also risks the development of a global logistics hub to support exploration and development of South Australia's oil and gas reserves. It is a risk to the provision of industrial allotments catering for other large-scale transport logistics uses. It is a risk forfeiting a long-term strategic advantage to South Australia in a key growth industry. The Renewal SA board provided advice to the then minister for housing and urban renewal that the proposed sale of the land at Gillman to ACP represented good value, had been managed in accordance with Renewal SA's existing policies regarding off-market transactions, had been guided by independent probity advice and was ultimately a matter for cabinet. The government is comfortable with the advice received from the Renewal SA board and welcomes scrutiny as to the sale process. Let's be clear, though. Any witch-hunt threatens the viability of the transaction and threatens private sector investment in South Australia. As has previously been mentioned in this place, a select committee probing the transaction before it has been completed has a real potential to jeopardise an important transaction critical to the future of South Australia. ACP continues to negotiate with investors prior to deciding whether to exercise its option to purchase. A politically motivated witch-hunt threatens to undermine the transaction with ACP and more generally the private sector's confidence to invest in South Australia. The government does not consider that the attendance of the Premier or the Treasurer before the select committee will benefit this state in the slightest. As such, the government opposes the motion and urges other members to do the same. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:18): Thank you for the invitation to close the debate. I will only speak briefly, given the hour. Much of what the Hon. Mr Kandelaars has said can be described in two words: palpable nonsense. The Hon. T.J. Stephens Legislative Council The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Rubbish and piffle. The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: 'Rubbish and piffle', as my colleague the Hon. Mr Stephens has portrayed. It is a nonsense to suggest that in any way the work of a chamber of this parliament, a properly constituted select committee of the Legislative Council, following due process and the procedures of the council, could do any of the dastardly things that the Hon. Mr Kandelaars is suggesting. Indeed, one can only think that the reason for the defence that Hon. Mr Kandelaars has sought to erect in relation to this particular issue, that is, opposing the establishment of the committee and opposing evidence being given by the Premier and the now Treasurer, is that he and his ministerial colleagues clearly have something to hide. Clearly, they do not want the truth to be outed. The nonsense that the Hon. Mr Kandelaars indicated in relation to the position of the board has already been made clear by four of the six board members in the evidence they have given before the committee. There is the question of any correlation between what he has just said, which, of course, to be fair to him is only what the Hon. Mr Koutsantonis and the Premier have claimed in relation to this issue, and what the three of the four members have said thus far. The committee will be taking evidence on this issue from another two board members in the next week, and we will wait to see what their evidence will be. There has been striking evidence from some of those board members indicating quite clearly that they in no way supported the position that the government and the Hon. Mr Kandelaars have been supporting. As I said, I am not going to enter the debate. This is a simple motion to say that the committee believes that, if the Premier and the Treasurer have nothing to hide, there is no reason they should not appear before the committee and put all the arguments, if they so wish, to the members of the committee. As I highlighted in moving the motion, a number of ministers in the past, Labor and Liberal, have appeared before Legislative Council select committees. They have had the guts to turn up to answer questions and to argue their case. They have not cowered underneath their ministerial desk in their ministerial office, afraid to come out to answer questions from members of the Legislative Council. But, clearly, the Treasurer and the Premier are too fearful of being able to answer the questions that members of the select committee may well have put to them. They have already put their position publicly. The Hon. Mr Kandelaars is obviously seeking to defend the indefensible by indicating that they will not appear before the committee, as is indeed the honourable member's right to do so in this chamber. I urge members to support the motion. Motion carried.