Legislative Council Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Adelaide Airport Limited Adelaide Airport Limited The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD Legislative Council Adelaide Airport Limited The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (14:32): My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer indicate whether the government this year settled a long-running claim against the government by Adelaide Airport Limited and, if so, what was the cost to taxpayers? The Hon. R.I. LUCAS Legislative Council Adelaide Airport Limited The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:32): After all that urban folklore frivolity and levity, I return to a more serious issue and, sadly, I do have to report that this year, reluctantly, I had to agree and authorise a payment in terms of a legal settlement, at a cost to taxpayers, of $4.5 million in terms of settlement of the legal claim. The facts in relation to this particular issue go back to 2014 when the then minister, Mullighan, in 2014 approved a deal for a 33-year lease over land, approximately 3.1 hectares, at Parafield Airport for a major park-and-ride facility. Soon after that deal had been approved by the former minister, Mullighan, in 2014, Mr Mullighan realised that he didn't actually need to lease the land, as the government already owned land immediately adjacent to the land that he had leased, so the government then proceeded to build the park-and-ride on that adjacent piece of property. At that particular time, legal advice provided to the former minister, Mullighan, indicated that if he didn't proceed with the deal with Adelaide Airport—it was actually with a subsidiary of Adelaide Airport, Parafield Airport Limited—he would be in breach of contract and the exposure of taxpayers would be significant. Sadly, early this year on behalf of taxpayers, based on advice that I received, I had to authorise the payment of $4.5 million to Parafield Airport Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Adelaide Airport Limited, to settle that particular longstanding legal claim. Put simply, we had a situation where the former minister, Mullighan, entered into a deal, at great cost to taxpayers, for a park-and-ride. He then finds out, either through a combination of incompetence or negligence, that the government actually didn't need the land, it actually owned land immediately adjacent, with which he proceeded to go ahead with a park-and-ride. He got legal advice that said he was going to be in breach of contract and as a result of that we have had to settle this particular dispute. This comes hot on the heels of something else that I have highlighted previously to this house, which was Mr Mulligan's decision in relation to the spectacular bungle of the Gillman deal, which promised thousands of jobs and more than $70 million in revenue over the life of the project, which failed to materialise. I conclude by saying two things. One, I hope at some stage the Auditor-General will cast his forensic eye over this particular bungle and report publicly as to the circumstances of the ultimate cost to taxpayers of $4.5 million. And I guess the final note I make in relation to this is that Mr Mullighan, or the member for Lee, is obviously the person the alternative government hangs out to be the alternative treasurer, a treasurer of the state. The sad reality is that his performance in relation to the Gillman deal and bungle and this particular bungle means, in my view, he is not fit to serve in that particular office.