HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

No-Confidence Motion

TREASURER

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): I move:

That the house has no confidence in the Treasurer and that this house calls on him to resign, and if he fails to do so the house calls on the Premier to sack him.

If I can first of all take some time to put this matter in context. It is the case that the former leader, the honourable member, Martin Hamilton-Smith, first canvassed the idea of an inner city stadium on 7 February 2008. That stadium was to be able to host future FIFA World Cup games, as well as being able to host football and cricket. As it happens, this followed information that later came from the Office of Recreation and Sport, and documents from that office revealed South Australia to lack a stadium capable of hosting international sporting events. I quote from the draft Strategic Assessment of Facility Needs, April 2007:

To be able [to] host future events such as Commonwealth Games and FIFA World Cups a stadium must be developed that caters for spectator capacity of at least 80,000 and be able to be configured to host a variety of activities. No such venue currently exists in South Australia.

Having made that announcement, the Minister for Transport's response to that proposal was:

This isn't so much a vision as a squint.

That was what Pat Conlon said about this matter. Indeed, on 10 April 2008, the Premier said, in response to it—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: The Premier said:

This government is not committed to building a $1.1 billion football stadium in the city centre—and that's a promise.

Bearing in mind, of course, that no such figure had ever been suggested. That was just the government's way of inflating, as it usually does, any suggestions from the opposition. On 18 February 2009, it was revealed that secret Rann government reports actually backed the state Liberals' plan for a world class stadium to attract FIFA and Commonwealth Games bids. That being the case, on 6 April 2009, the state Liberals released their preliminary plan for the Riverside West precinct, with the inner city stadium as the centrepiece of that plan. The proposal noted, of course, that the state Liberals have a policy of rebuilding the Royal Adelaide Hospital on its current site—

Ms Chapman: Good policy.

Mrs REDMOND: Exactly. 'Good policy', said the member for Bragg—and would not use the site proposed by the government. The Treasurer's response to that proposal, on 7 April, was—and I quote—that it was 'a path to bankruptcy'.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Oh yes, but I want to be very specific about who said what when here—very specific. That is what we found. That was the Treasurer's response on 7 April last year, that our proposal for an inner city stadium was a path to bankruptcy. On 26 November last year I made a statement at a lunch at the Hilton and we took the vision further. We there announced our plans for a revitalised city centre at the heart of a multi-million dollar development. The centrepiece of the redevelopment was a 50,000-seat, retractable roofed, FIFA compliant stadium, fully costed by quantity surveyors, WT Partnerships, which is one of the biggest quantity surveying firms—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —in the world. A significant portion of the funding for this $800 million stadium was to be generated by the sale of land. The Treasurer's response to this proposal was—and I quote—that it was 'like something out of Las Vegas. Anyone can see that it is a poor man's Las Vegas on the Torrens.' But the Liberals' proposal, announced at the end of November, was very popular. In fact, on Adelaidenow it was rating at something like 83 per cent approval. So, it was clear to the government that they had to do something to negative the popularity of our proposal.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mrs REDMOND: They needed a circuit breaker. So what was their response? On 2 December 2009, out they came with their big response: $300 million in state government funding, with up to $150 million from the commonwealth, and in order to do that they cancelled the $100 million that they had previously offered to the AAMI Stadium. They had already deferred that because of the global financial crisis, but then they cancelled that in favour of this new proposal and they deferred, so they said, $200 million of tram extensions to the western suburbs. Of course, the $200 million of tram extensions was not, in any event, in the forward estimates. So it was money that did not really exist, but nevertheless that was what they were going to do—and, remember, $150 million from the commonwealth.

So, on 2 December this was the promise: it was going to provide for a 50,000-seat, FIFA compliant Adelaide Oval with a footbridge across the Torrens. We now know that the current proposal, where we are up to $700 million, includes neither being FIFA compliant nor the footbridge across the Torrens. So this plan was announced as—and again I quote:

The first stage in a major redevelopment of the east bank of the Torrens…which includes a redeveloped convention centre precinct, restaurants, shops and arts space.

Doesn't that sound familiar?

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mrs REDMOND: Yet, a few months earlier, when we had announced it, it was 'like something out of Las Vegas. Anyone can see that it is a poor man's Las Vegas on the Torrens,' according to the Treasurer. So the government announced the Adelaide Oval with a $450 million taxpayer-funded contribution, bearing in mind that it was $300 million of state government money, and they said they had to have sign-off by 30 June. Guess what the date is today—30 June.

An honourable member: It's today.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, it's today. So, it was to be signed off today, and not a penny more than the $450 million, which, of course, included the federal money. So then we get to the election campaign, and this is where the Treasurer's blundering first started. The Treasurer told the media—and it was FIVEaa on 6 March—and again I quote:

I had a briefing during the week with Leigh Whicker and his team…I know what things cost…what we are comparing is a new stadium—

that is ours—

versus the upgrade of Adelaide Oval for $500 million.

So, we had gone from $450 million, including the commonwealth money, to $500 million. This statement was then exposed by Rob Lucas, who put out a press release that day pointing out that it was an extra $50 million; and, indeed, if you started from the government's original position of $300 million of state government money, we have suddenly jumped to $500 million of state government money.

The Treasurer now tells us that these comments followed a meeting he had had with Leigh Whicker on 19 February, where he was told that the costs had blown out to $469 million, but that $469 million excluded the western grandstand, the car parking and the Torrens footbridge. Not only has the project cost blown out but the scope has shrunk. It has blown out by over $100 million. On 8 March—that is this year, 12 days before the election—Rob Lucas again put out a press release and he claimed that the project had blown out by $100 million. This tested the Treasurer's memory. He responded with a press release of his own. I think it was rushed out, because there is a slight typo in it, I suspect. He said:

The government has received no advice from the Stadium Management Authority—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member: Don't get flustered, Isobel. Keep going.

Mrs REDMOND: I am not flustered one little bit. In response to Lucas's statement on 8 March suggesting that this project had blown out by $100 million the Treasurer said:

The government has received no advice from the Stadium Management Authority that the cost of the redevelopment has blown out...there has not been one scrap of advice to from—

That is where I think the error is—

the Stadium Management Authority that this is not sufficient to meet the cost of the redevelopment of the oval.

This was less than three weeks after the very specific briefing that he got from Leigh Whicker on 19 February. This is 8 March. In fact, on 6 March the Treasurer told radio FIVEaa—first of all, Chris Dittmar says:

It was $450 million in December; now you're saying 500.

The Treasurer's response was:

Guys, it was $450 and I've just given a ballpark figure. It's 450; there's no escalation in the costs.

On 9 March, through The Australian a spokesman for Treasurer Foley again dismissed Rob Lucas's claim. This is the third time that Rob Lucas has come out and suggested that there was a blowout—and this time the statement from Treasurer's spokesperson said:

I promise on the soul of my grandmother we have not received any advice—

any advice—

to say the $450 million is not enough.

On 10, 13 and 14 March Rob Lucas again issued press releases—this is all in the week coming up into the election—and, again, none of these jolt the Treasurer's memory. So, we are less than a week before the election. Then suddenly after the election, on 13 May the Treasurer told the house:

The offer from the state government is $450 million minus SACA debt. Therefore, the more debt SACA incurs, the less free cash they get for the rest of the stadium.

Still no mention of cost blowouts. That is interesting, because that was also the first time at which we found out that SACA's debt of about $85 or $90 million was to be included in what was being paid out. So we actually went from the government saying $450 million originally, less the $85 million or so for the SACA debt, less the $5 million to set up the Stadium Management Authority, which is $360 million, and if you took out of that the $150 million from the commonwealth you are down to $210 million of state money at that point.

On 25 May the Treasurer told the house in a ministerial statement:

...in addition to the $450 million for the redeveloped oval, [the government] will also provide a contribution of $85 million towards the cost of current works being undertaken on the western grandstand. This will bring the total government offer of financial assistance to $535 million.

I have always said that that was a bit of a sleight of hand, because suddenly there is no mention of where the commonwealth fits into this, so we have actually gone from $300 million of state money to $535 million of state money, even though it is being sold to us as a mere $85 million increase. But to me that sounds like a cost blowout. On 26 May the Treasurer told the media—and this is a very interesting quote:

I absolutely rule out any suggestion that prior to or immediately after the election I was aware that the cost had blown out. The advice given to me—

Note the next words—

officially at least, was provided in the last week.

On that day the Treasurer also famously told the house:

...I was not made aware in any way, shape or form prior to the election that 450 [million dollars] would not be sufficient.

On 27 May the Treasurer told the house in a ministerial statement:

After a thorough document and record search in my office—

And I think that might be the occasion on which he had undertaken to give a diary search, but he did a document and record search which did not include the diary—

I am now in a position, as I said, to provide the house more specific advice. I can now confirm that this meeting occurred on 3 March and I can also confirm to the house that to the best of my memory I was not advised of the potential cost of the redevelopment at that meeting.

There is still no mention at that point of the meeting he had with Leigh Whicker on 19 February. He did not disclose that because he had instructed the SMA not to specifically discuss the costs with him.

Indeed, the Stadium Management Authority was told during the election campaign not to discuss the Adelaide Oval costs with government ministers because under caretaker conventions that would entitle the opposition to hear about it—and, if we heard about it, obviously the public of South Australia would hear about it. We did get briefings on things such as the GST revenue changes and the need to provide some funding for Chilean earthquake victims, but we did not get briefed—and we were specifically excluded from any briefing—by virtue of the fact that the Treasurer specifically said, 'Let's not get a briefing on the costings.'

In our view, the government took the view that the opposition and the public were forbidden to know about the cost blowout on the Adelaide Oval project until at least after the election. A few things happened in the days leading up to 2 June. First, the Treasurer became aware that the Budget and Finance Committee was formed and that it was likely the committee would have the Adelaide Oval project as term of reference and call Mr Whicker as a witness.

The Treasurer became aware that on 25 May Leigh Whicker had indicated to Kevin Cantley (head of the South Australian Financing Authority, a unit of the Department of Treasury and Finance) and Bruce Carter (chair of the steering committee) that they had been told on 22 February that Leigh Whicker had briefed the Treasurer on 19 February about the cost blowouts and that, if he was asked about it, Leigh Whicker would be saying that he would give that evidence.

Ian McLachlan was on ABC radio that morning, and he said that he had told the government's steering committee on Adelaide Oval in February: 'This thing's looking expensive.' The opposition was due to have a briefing with Leigh Whicker, Ian McLachlan and other members of the Stadium Management Authority on 2 June at 2pm—so the Treasurer called a press conference right then at 2 pm. At the press conference he said:

I now recall [strangely] a general discussion about a range of issues in relation to the project I had with the SMA's CEO Leigh Whicker at the SANFL offices at AAMI Stadium on 19 February this year prior to the state election. At this meeting Mr Whicker indicated that initial estimates of project costs were in excess of the $450 million commitment from the government.

However, as we would find out in the Treasurer's ministerial statement of 22 June, the Treasurer had waited five days after becoming aware of it; so on 28 May he became aware of it and he waited five days until 2 June to make it public. Yet in that press conference he said:

I am an extremely diligent and honest politician. The minute I recalled it I have gone public with it.

The minute five days later. The Treasurer had all of Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and on Wednesday afternoon—the minute after he found out about it five days earlier—he went public with it.

On 22 June the Treasurer made a statement. The Treasurer misled the public and the parliament. He made a statement saying that he had done a more thorough search of his office and found evidence of his meeting with Leigh Whicker on 19 February where costings were discussed, but he decided that 'the estimates lacked sufficient substance to them'.

However, as we know, the estimates given at the 19 February meeting were based on a six-page consultant's report. For this reason the Treasurer expects this house and the public of South Australia to believe that a figure of $469 million in a six-page consultant's report that had taken some weeks to prepare was for some reason less reliable than a figure of $450 million plucked out of mid air for an announcement on 2 December because our proposal was so popular.

The ministerial statement on 22 June also revealed that the Treasurer had attended a meeting on 13 April this year where $701 million was mentioned as the price tag for the Adelaide Oval. Still, at the meeting of 13 April the Treasurer would have us believe that that meeting also failed to jog his memory about the fact that on 19 February, the day before the writs were issued for this election, he had had that meeting with Leigh Whicker and had found out that there was a blowout in the costs.

So, the Treasurer's ministerial statement of 27 May, based on a thorough document and record search of the office, failed to reveal both the 19 February meeting with Leigh Whicker and the 13 April meeting of the Stadium Management Authority, which strangely enough were the only two meetings where the costings of the Adelaide Oval were discussed. And then on Monday we had, of course, Leigh Whicker's testimony to the Budget and Finance Committee, where he revealed that the SANFL had had grave reservations that the Adelaide Oval upgrade could be completed for $450 million; indeed, they had written to Andrew Demetriou on 17 November indicating that.

Indeed, yesterday, the Treasurer got most upset in this house when I mentioned that people were happy about the fact that the announcement was made for $450 million, but I refer to the Australian Financial Review of 10 May which points out that, in addition to Mr Demetriou's $1.8 million salary:

The AFL boss was rewarded for helping squeeze $450 million from the South Australian government for the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.

He was paid extra, on top of his salary, for getting that money. As I said, the SANFL wrote to Andrew Demetriou and the AFL on 17 November to this effect, but the Treasurer's evidence is that he knew nothing of that. Leigh Whicker also revealed that the SANFL only found out about the 2 December Adelaide announcement the night before it happened. The fact is that the Treasurer is either incompetent or he has deliberately misled the public, or possibly both, and if he will not resign then I call on the Premier to sack him.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (14:42): I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for her submissions, although they seemed to get a little lost in the detail. Let us remember what this is really about. This is a dummy spit over losing the election. That is what it is all about. It is road rage because the Liberals believed they had the election in the bag. They took the people of this state for granted, and apparently no-one told the Liberal strategy group that, in order to win an election, you need to win a majority of votes in a majority of seats.

This is all about three months of boiling road rage, three months that was building towards today's dummy spit. I heard someone yell out about why the Leader of the Opposition was reading her submission and said that the Liberals are not loose with the truth, except, of course, when they are dealing with forged documents, forged receipts, faked letters and so on. This road rage is not just by the Liberal Party, this road rage also—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: We have got a long time.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: This road rage also comes through a number of groups that were set up for the election campaign with the Save the RAH group, the land tax group and others. It was like 'catch Tim' a few years ago—all these dodgy groups. We see fake twitter sites, hacking groups, all these things are being done—road rage by the Liberals and their allies, motivated either by a promise or by malice.

Let us just go to some of the issues. Now the opposition's strategy, having lost the election, is to say, 'Okay, we didn't win the election, so now we're going to play bugger up.' That is what this is about: 'We're going to try to stop everything. We're going to try to paralyse this city. We're going to try to paralyse this state. We're going to try to halt development. We're going to try to stop anything good from happening.'

What they cannot bear the thought of is that, early next year, the Minister for Health and I will be side by side signing a deal for the immediate construction of a world-class hospital in this state. That is what this is all about. This is about: you could not win the election, now you are going to turn your vengeance and anger on our state and its interests, because you always—just as with the nuclear waste dump—put your party before your state, and that is the difference. Let us go on to some of the other issues.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier will be heard in silence. There is too much noise from my left. The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Of course, in trying to paralyse our state, they are not just going to oppose a stadium. Their policy of maximum mayhem, that is what they talk about. It is why they are so depressed when we get good job figures. They are so depressed when the employment rate goes down. So, maximum mayhem is their policy. They are opposed not just to the stadium but to the new hospital and the super schools. They were opposed to the trams. They are opposed to the new $130 million Glenside Hospital. They are opposed to the film studios. Of course, one minute they were calling for the desal plant and now they are opposed to it because it is too big and too costly. This goes on and on. They were opposed to the Northern Expressway. No doubt, they will find a reason to be opposed to the duplication of the Southern Expressway. Of course, also—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It is also about the Liberal leadership. We have seen the member for Davenport trying to be the comeback kid and is spreading rumours. The muffled drums are being sounded at last about what age certain people will be at the next election and perhaps they need to groom someone down the back to come forward, and that is why the member for Davenport still has not forgotten that he has field marshal's baton in his knapsack, as of course does the member for Waite, who I think was the best of the six Liberal leaders whom I have faced on this side of the house—and I say that knowing that it will be reported. It is also about the stadium—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Finniss! The Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Okay; but it is also about their opposition to a stadium—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Finniss!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It is about the fact that they do not want football to come home to Adelaide Oval where it belongs. That is what it is all about. We heard from the Leader of the Opposition when she was postulating about these issues that she had never ever been to AAMI Stadium to see an AFL football match. Apparently, that has been rapidly addressed. This is about the fact that most South Australians would love to see AFL football and a world sporting icon at Adelaide Oval. You are going to fight this tooth and nail, because you know that the hospital, when its construction starts next year, will be on one of the sites of your proposed stadium. Although, apparently now it is not the 'Adelaide Oval': it is the 'Adelaide High Oval' next to West Terrace Cemetery. It goes on and it goes on and it goes on.

We believe that football should be in the heart of our city. We want the upgraded Adelaide Oval to be part of a revitalised riverbank, including the new hospital—a hospital and a world-class science centre in a park, the revitalisation of the Convention Centre and the entire precinct. But you do not want that to happen. You do not want football to be played in this city and you are going to fight this tooth and nail. But do you know what, you tried to stop the hospital, but I will invite you along to the opening ceremony, and I am looking forward to seeing you and seeing the patients in world-class facilities—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Finniss!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Okay, why is this happening today? It was supposed to happen, by the way, last Thursday. They called on a privileges motion to support a privileges committee—and it was not defeated on party lines. We saw Independents, distinguished Independents of a conservative persuasion, voting with the government because they could see what a fraud this argument was. There was supposed to be a no confidence motion on Thursday because it was so important to the future of the state, but that was the day of a new Prime Minister being sworn in, so they thought, 'Okay, let's wait until Leigh Whicker appears before the star chamber of the upper house. That will fuel us along for a whole week.' But, unfortunately, the Liberals did not like the fact that Leigh Whicker came in, told the truth and totally backed up the Deputy Premier's position in relation to what he was told.

That is the nub of it: this Deputy Premier told the truth. He made a mistake and he came out publicly and did the decent thing, even though it was embarrassing for him to do so—and he did it 20 days before parliament sat. I have worked with the Deputy Premier in many capacities over decades. He is an extraordinarily honest human being. What you see is what you get. He is honest about his own problems, issues and challenges. I think he gets credit from the people of this state for actually saying it as it is and speaking out. We are told so often that people are sick and tired of politicians who believe only in spin—and that is what the opposition said their own costings were at the last election.

People want politicians to be real, raw and open, and that is exactly what the Deputy Premier has been. A fundamental responsibility upon a minister is to act honestly, diligently and with propriety in the exercise of their duties. This obligation is greatest in the minister's accountability and responsibility to this place, to the parliament of South Australia. In reporting to parliament, a minister must, to the best of his or her ability and knowledge, be accurate. Where a minister becomes aware—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: You think that is the point?

Mrs Redmond: Yes.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Then, where a minister becomes aware of an inadvertent error, he or she must, as soon as possible and in an appropriate manner, correct the record.

So, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Premier to come back in here the next day of sitting and bell the cat and say, 'I inadvertently misled the parliament. I made a mistake.' That has always been the system in the 25 years that I have been in this place and longer in this building and, indeed, for 100 years before and, indeed, in the mother of parliaments in Westminster; and that has been the standard which every premier and minister of this state has applied. However, instead of just doing that, this Deputy Premier called a news conference 20 days before the return of parliament to announce that he had made an error. The opposition cannot accept the truth of that, because it is not in their political interests to do so.

But the fact is that the star chamber in the upper house not only confirmed what the Deputy Premier said but also took the wind out of the opposition's sails, and that is why this motion is being held today and not tomorrow, because they can feel the momentum fizzing. That is exactly what happened. Now, as the father of the house, let me go into objectivity. Let us objectively examine the Deputy Premier's response. Through his staff, the Deputy Premier ascertained the correct information and personally confirmed it by checking the record. He publicly volunteered the fact that he had made an error at the earliest opportunity and, due to the three week break in parliamentary sittings, the Deputy Premier elected to disclose the error and correct the public record because it was in the public interest to do so.

Last week, the Deputy Premier, at the first opportunity, explained the error, corrected the record and offered the house a genuine and sincere apology for his error, which the opposition will not accept. They were prepared to accept it when they were forging documents and using those materials around the place. It was absolutely outrageous and one of the worst things ever seen in a parliament in Australia. They are prepared to accept that, but they are not prepared to accept someone making a mistake and genuinely making an apology to this house and the people of this state.

In short, the Deputy Premier has adhered to the highest standards required of a minister. His explanation speaks for itself and I do not intend to repeat it, other than to say that the error was an honest and genuine mistake and, in the context of the circumstances which he has fully explained, is understandable. In essence, the Deputy Premier has explained that his error was caused by a failure of memory.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.D. RANN: I listened to you in silence. Will you please give me the same courtesy? Courtesy is very important in this house. He simply, in the heat of question time, overlooked a meeting some weeks earlier—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —and much has happened since that meeting. Recent events have added weight to his explanation. Mr Whicker, the person the Deputy Premier met, gave evidence this week before a committee of the Legislative Council that touched on this issue. What did Mr Whicker say about the meeting? You did not mention that in your submissions to this house. He said:

I also provided Mr Foley with a preliminary cost figure from the Rider Levett Bucknall document...of $469 million. That was a verbal briefing and a brief briefing.

Mr Whicker in his evidence also explained the range of other topics discussed with the Deputy Premier at that meeting. It is clear from his evidence that the mention of the cost estimate was one of but many topics covered, and only in passing. That evidence is completely consistent with the Deputy Premier's explanation to the house that the mention of the cost estimate was only fleeting.

Last week, obviously realising the weakness of their argument, they tried to bolster it by making further allegations of the Deputy Premier misleading the house by contrasting selectively quoted passages of a Stadium Management Authority announcement last Friday with statements deliberately taken out of context from statements the Deputy Premier made five weeks earlier. That is how shabby the politics of this argument have become. Can I just say this: I remember the night following, apparently, a meeting—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: —that occurred in last December, or the end of November, that went on for some days, involving all the different sports organisations. I remember the Deputy Premier asking me to convene a meeting in the cabinet room of the State Administration Centre. Present were the Deputy Premier, the AFL, SANFL, SACA, Port Adelaide FC, and Adelaide FC representatives.

I addressed the meeting, outlining not only the background to the meeting but also my understanding of where the various parties were. I said I had called everyone together because I wanted to hear from the horses' mouths what they wanted. I wanted everyone in the same room to ensure that, in fact, we were on the same page. I said that I had been sick and tired of getting mixed messages from various people about what they really wanted, like being told officially that a certain club supported AAMI Stadium but unofficially supported Adelaide Oval.

I said I would only support a united position, not a divided one—because we know what division has done to members opposite. I also said that it was not for cricket to tell me what football wanted. I wanted to hear from football itself. I wanted to hear from the AFL, the SANFL and the two AFL clubs; and we went around the room.

This is a furphy; you know it is a furphy. It is about the member for Davenport trying to raise his profile, lift his credentials. It is about the fact that they know that they have to have different Leader of the Opposition at the next election, and what we are seeing is jockeying for positions. We have a Deputy Premier who admitted his mistake, who did the right thing, who wants to see football back at Adelaide Oval, who wants to see the football come home, who wants to see our state move ahead, and that is why this motion is a fraud.

The SPEAKER: The member for—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (14:58): This debate today is not only about the stadium, Premier; this debate today is about honesty to the people and honesty to the parliament. The reason I support this motion, Premier and Treasurer, is because I believe this Treasurer has been dishonest to the public, dishonest to the parliament, dishonest to the media, and dishonest to his colleagues.

This Treasurer has misled the public, misled the parliament, misled the media, and it is my view that this Treasurer should resign or be sacked. The problem with the Premier and the Treasurer's argument is that they believe ministerial standards should only apply to minority governments. The Premier and the Treasurer were the great champions of ministerial standards when they were over on this side of the house. They were the champions of ministerial standards. Madam Speaker, I find myself occasionally agreeing with the Treasurer, and I will give him some quotes from debates past. The Premier is on record as saying:

This is about whether or not we have an honest government in South Australia, whether or not we have a mandate for continued dishonesty.

I have to agree with you, Premier, with that quote. The Treasurer himself, in talking about honesty to the parliament, stated:

South Australians have a right to have confidence and trust in the integrity and honesty of their government.

I agree with that quote, Treasurer. You said, again, in a similar debate:

How can we say that we have an effective government in this state when it is a government that is built on dishonesty, [and] is prepared to support dishonesty...

Madam Speaker, I put to you that the Treasurer should listen to those quotes and resign or be sacked, because this Treasurer—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: They were about the past government, but they are now about your government, sunshine; they are now about your government, because in my view you have been dishonest to the public, dishonest to the parliament and dishonest to the media.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have a point of order. The debate has been conducted in at least courteous tones up to date. It is inappropriate to direct remarks in the first person to the Treasurer; it has to be by the name of his seat or, in particular, through the chair.

The SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order. Refer to him as the Treasurer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The reason we are having this debate is because the Premier needs the Treasurer's numbers. We all know that, if the Premier, Mr Rann, moved on the Treasurer, the Treasurer would call in the right wing of the Labor Party. The ghost of defamation past, the former attorney-general, would be called in to do the numbers, and ultimately the Premier's position is at risk if Mr Foley's position is at risk. The reason we are here today is because this Premier is too gutless to sack the Treasurer for his behaviour over this issue.

I want to touch on the issue of misleading the public for the whole of the election campaign. At the end of this debate we are going to have a division, and every one of the Labor members opposite will sit on one side of the house, whether they support the Treasurer and the way he misled the public during the whole of the campaign or whether they do not support the Treasurer and the way he misled the public during the whole of the campaign. Why do I say that the Treasurer misled the public for the whole of the campaign?

The Treasurer misled the public for the whole of the campaign because we now know—we have weaselled it out of the Treasurer—that on 19 February he was briefed by Leigh Whicker that the stadium cost had blown out, but then for the whole campaign the Treasurer sat there and said, 'I haven't received any advice.' Not a skerrick of advice, no advice, had not been told, there is no blowout: pick a line, the Treasurer spun it. And he spun it because he lied to South Australia for the whole of the election campaign.

At the end of this debate every single one of the Labor members will have to sit on one side of the house, and I cannot wait to letterbox the marginal seats to say that these members actually support the Treasurer's actions. The Treasurer had ample time to come out and correct the record during the campaign. On 6 March there was a radio interview. The Treasurer lies dormant and continues the misinformation. On 8 March, 9 March, and 10 March this Treasurer had ample opportunity to come out and correct the record.

He wants us to believe that he did not tell anyone, not a soul. You can imagine the scene in the minister's office. He goes down to meet Leigh Whicker on 19 February, he comes back to the office and the staff say, 'How did the meeting with Mr Whicker go?' The Treasurer's answer? 'I forgot.' This is the story, the sham, that this government is peddling; that the Treasurer can have a briefing, it goes from $450 million to $469 million, and the Treasurer just tells no-one. I mean, does anyone actually believe that story? It is a crock. This Treasurer misled the public for the whole of the campaign, and he took a deliberate decision to do so, by his own admission.

Let us now fast forward to the parliament. The Treasurer says that he accidentally misled the parliament. So, for all of the election campaign he remembered to forget. The 6 March he remembered to forget, the 8 March he remembered to forget, the 9 March he remembered to forget, the 10 March he remembered to forget; but when he comes to the parliament, when it comes here, where it really matters, he forgets to remember. I mean, what is it with this Treasurer? He is spinning a line and we should not accept it. So, he misleads the parliament, by his own admission. He says that he does it by accident. He says that he comes out straight away. Not this Treasurer. This Treasurer comes out five days later.

Did he ring the Speaker on the day of the misleading and say, 'I've made an error'? No. Did he ring the opposition when he found out he had made an error? No. He waits until 2 o'clock, when we were in a meeting with Leigh Whicker, because he thought that we were going to get told by Leigh Whicker. The Premier said in his own contribution that Leigh Whicker was going to tell the truth, and that is absolutely right: Leigh Whicker was going to tell the truth.

The Treasurer came out for these reasons only: McLachlan was on the radio; Leigh Whicker was going to tell the truth, if we asked him, in that meeting; and he was aware, through Kevin Cantley, that his officers had been told that there were minutes to the effect that Kevin Foley had been told before the election. He came out and confessed his misleading because he knew he was going to get caught out.

We should not accept this spinning line from this Treasurer that he came out because he was being honest. He came out because he was being honestly dishonest and he got caught out. This Treasurer has been dishonest to the public, dishonest to the parliament and dishonest to the media and he should be sacked or he should resign.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Finniss, behave yourself.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (15:06): I think from that, Madam Speaker, it is obvious that we are dealing with a matter of confidence here today, and I think that performance may well have seriously eroded the confidence of some people in this place, but not particularly in Kevin Foley. I think you would have to be not here not to have observed the differences in the relative performances of the two speakers for the opposition. I suspect perhaps Iain Evans helped to write that speech for the Leader of the Opposition, and I have to say it was very informative to watch the pained smile on her face all during Iain's very passionate performance. I will say no more than that. I will leave people to make their own judgements. I did note the member for Schubert nodding off during the Leader of the Opposition's performance, but I will leave it at that.

It was a lovely performance by the member for Davenport, but he would have you believe that he has come in full of outrage about this misleading. His points are that we should not have confidence in Kevin Foley because he says he misled the parliament and he misled the people of South Australia. That is the entirety of his argument. I make one point, firstly. The absolute entirety of the misleading of parliament was Kevin Foley, in response to an interjection—this is their own case; this is what they said—saying something like (what were the words?) 'no way, shape or form.' So, the entirety of the opposition's case—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They are so discourteous, are they not? The entirety of the opposition's case is that, in response to an interjection, in the heat of what we have seen in recent times in this place, the incredible noise from the other side, the Treasurer said something that he has later had to come back and correct, which he did. The member for Davenport went through some things said in this place before. I am quite happy to go back over many years, when the opposition was in government, and their attitude to the obligations of honesty in this place.

It never came voluntarily; it was dragged out kicking and screaming, in one case. It required not one but two judges to have inquiries before the truth would eventually emerge, and never, to this date, has there been an acknowledgement of the case against them. That is in stark contrast to the performance of the Deputy Premier. So, there it is: the entirety of their case is a response to one interjection in this place.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, that's what you said when you came in here on a privileges matter. That is what you said. I am just telling you back what you said. So you can interrupt me if you like, but that is what you said. The other part of it was misleading the public during the campaign. Now, what is purposely being forgotten in this entire debate is that, to a great degree, whatever early estimates and costs there were were not consequential to the position of the taxpayer, had no consequence whatever on the position of the taxpayer. I wonder if you want to remember that, because it was absolutely clear that the contribution from the taxpayer was $450 million. That was absolutely clear, so those estimates that they are now beating the drum about had no consequence—how was the taxpayer misled? They were up for 450, they were told they were up for 450. Now, subsequently—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Unley!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I can guarantee this house—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They are so rude. This is the thing—there is nothing genuine about this. What we have in here is a motion of no confidence, when they have a star chamber going in another place and, of course, this will be decided on a—they say they have set up that inquiry to get to the truth. But, of course, they are not really interested in the truth, because they have run out of questions and they have got to do something. Honestly, you saw them yesterday, and the rephrasing of questions asked the day before and last week. They have run out of questions, so they are going to get to the end of the inquiry upstairs before they have it. There is absolutely nothing genuine about this at all. I want to come back to this thing about misleading the public. I can guarantee this house that until—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They are so rude. I can guarantee this house that until we walked into a Labor Party caucus to put a proposition to them to increase that funding there was nothing more than that 450. I do not remember the date of the meeting, but it was relatively recent, and I guarantee you, as was reported, there was some heat in that debate, because—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Will you not be rude? The only people that interjected on them when they were speaking were them. Did you notice that?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is the height of bad manners. But they have never been kind to each other, have they? They have never been kind to each other. Can I say, and it has been well reported, that there was a great reluctance on the behalf of some—and they have made their positions clear—to fund football and cricket for more than we had originally committed. So up until that point, up until a decision of a Labor caucus following a cabinet decision to increase that funding, the total exposure of the South Australian taxpayer was $450 million. That was true on day one of the campaign, and it was true on the last day of the campaign.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: As I said, they are very rude. I want to compare that position of the Treasurer's with the positions taken by the other side. They actually never have produced any costings on their stadium, ever, of any kind. That was for very good reasons—because we actually heard from them about who was misleading whom during an election campaign. The former deputy leader—I mean one of the former deputy leaders of the opposition—when asked if it meant that the Liberal's previous statements were spin in regard to costings, said, in essence, yes. If you don't want to look at the credibility of this batch of Liberals, let us go back a few years, to other questions during election campaigns.

An honourable member: Go right back to John Bannon and the State Bank if you like.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You can if you like. I'm more than happy I have got a few minutes left. It was not much to answer from your side, I must say. Let us talk about who misleads people during election campaigns. Are you going to sell ETSA? No, we will not sell ETSA full stop, full stop, full stop. Of course, and then a little while after the election, they saw the electric light on the road to Damascus and changed their mind. Now, no-one believes that. That was one of the most egregious lies ever told to the people of South Australia. So on this side we have got a bloke who had a liability capped at $450 million, whose story has been entirely supported by Mr Whicker, whose story—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It hasn't gone well, has it? It hasn't gone well for you. So, you have—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I point out the difference in the behaviour of the people on that side in something that they have brought, which they have told us is terribly important. Of course, they have their kangaroo court elsewhere. They have told us this is terribly important, and when they do not like something that is said they interject and shout. That, as I said, was how poor old Kevin got into trouble in the first place. I have no doubt that my colleague, the Deputy Premier, has told the truth about this. I stress this nonsense about the public being misled about a capped liability of $450 million. If you do not believe that was capped, you should have been in that Labor caucus room when they decided, after a vigorous debate, to increase the amount of funding. You should have been there. I can tell you—

Ms Fox: Robust.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Robust, yes, is a very good way of putting it. What we have is an opposition that, after eight years, so many leaders, so many deputy leaders and a complete inability ever to take a ministerial scalp, because we tell the truth on this side—after all those years they think they are finally going somewhere.

Ms Chapman: What about Atko? Atko for treasurer.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will say, if Michael Atkinson was treasurer I don't think footy would get very much; I don't think cricket would get very much either. I will close by saying this about what this debate is really about, and I wish people would think about this. When I was a child (a rather better looking person than I am now) I went to my first two grand finals at Adelaide Oval. I think they were 1971 and 1972. I was supporting Port Adelaide.

An honourable member: They were good years.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, they were great years. We were torn apart by Barrie Robran; one icon on another icon at Adelaide Oval. Even though we lost those, I have never seen a game at AAMI Stadium that has matched the atmosphere of those games at Adelaide Oval. Can I tell you: if Kevin Foley has made a mistake, it is his passion to get football back to Adelaide Oval. He has driven this with a passion.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They laugh, but I tell you that is simply the truth. This matter on our side of the house has been entirely driven by Kevin Foley and his passion to bring this about for football and for South Australia. He made a couple of mistakes along the way and fessed up to them. I am going to give you a few more minutes so that we can hear from another one of your luminaries, because I want another point of comparison. What I can say is this: this is a guy with a passion to get football to Adelaide Oval, who made a mistake and came and fessed up to it. You have been all over him like a rash and he has taken a bit of pain for it, but that is all it is.

At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, that is all it is. That is all they will find with their kangaroo court, which will report in about 2015 or something like that. That is all they will find because that is all there was. Let's get this nonsense over with, let's get football back to Adelaide Oval, and let's get the stadium built. I look forward to going there one day with Martin Hamilton-Smith, who at least knows that it is a good idea to get football there. I am happy to go to the football one day with Martin Hamilton-Smith at Adelaide Oval, because he will enjoy it—and I promise I will turn up.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I promise I will be there. But if you try and hold hands it will be a different matter—no. I look forward to being at the football with the former leader of the opposition, who I think did have a passion for this, just like Kevin Foley does. A few mistakes and that is all it is.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): I am absolutely delighted that neither of the speakers on behalf of the government are defending me, because their defence has been lamentable. Since they wanted to delve into history, can I quote from something that was said in this house some years ago concerning the test of a premier. Their role is 'to lead, to make judgments, and to exert moral authority'. He went on to say:

If he had shown any moral leadership or moral authority, then the Premier would have disciplined and got rid of this minister weeks ago.

Mrs Redmond: Who said that?

Mr WILLIAMS: Mike Rann, 1998—moral authority: the code of conduct for ministers of the government of South Australia. I was in the chamber when this was handed down and when this Premier made much of the code of conduct for his ministers. This is printed and it is out there for everybody to live by:

Ministers are expected to act honestly, diligently and with propriety in the performance of their public duties and functions. Ministers must ensure they do not deliberately mislead the public or the Parliament on any matter of significance arising from their functions.

Notwithstanding that we know the Treasurer on his own admission misled both the public and the parliament, this Premier has no moral authority, nor do any of his colleagues. I concur with my colleague the member for Davenport and I may come back to that. The deputy leader—the Treasurer—has acknowledged that on the day before the writs were issued, 19 February, he was given information that he forgot. The Premier's defence is that it was only verbal information. The Premier's defence of his Treasurer is that if it is verbal it does not matter.

In what manner do you have to get the information before it actually sinks in? Does it have to be a caricature? Maybe it has to be a picture for the Treasurer, but I would have thought he could understand a verbal briefing. There were six pages of information from the consultants. The Minister for Infrastructure came out in defence of the Treasurer, too. What did his defence say? His defence was that, by and large, it does not matter because he was only responding to an interjection when he lied to the parliament. So if you are responding to an interjection you can lie to the parliament.

Notwithstanding the Freudian slip that the Treasurer made on FIVEaa on 6 March when he said that the cost was $500 million, he went on to say on public radio throughout the election period, 'We have got sound costings. We have a group of people working on this and we have sound costings and they are a lot better than what the opposition has got.' That is what he said on public radio. He knew he had sound costings, because Leigh Whicker had explained them to him but, because it was only a verbal briefing, he was allowed to forget it.

That is what the Deputy Premier did. He went on to say, 'Not one scrap of advice; no way, shape or form; on the soul of my grandmother.' Well, I have a lot more respect for my grandmother, as I have a lot more respect for this parliament and the people of South Australia than is held by this deputy leader—by this Treasurer—by this Premier and by this government.

The House divided on the motion:

AYES (18)
Chapman, V.A. Evans, I.F. Gardner, J.A.W.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Griffiths, S.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
Marshall, S.S. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S.
Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M. (teller)
Sanderson, R. Treloar, P.A. van Holst Pellekaan, D.C.
Venning, I.H. Whetstone, T.J. Williams, M.R.
NOES (27)
Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Brock, G.G. Caica, P. Conlon, P.F. (teller)
Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K.
Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W.
Koutsantonis, A. O'Brien, M.F. Odenwalder, L.K.
Pegler, D.W. Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G.
Rankine, J.M. Rann, M.D. Rau, J.R.
Sibbons, A.L. Snelling, J.J. Thompson, M.G.
Vlahos, L.A. Weatherill, J.W. Wright, M.J.

Majority of 9 for the Noes

Motion thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT