Cabinet submission on Gillman land deal ‘misleading’

A CABINET submission that represented a deal for the sale of prime land at Gillman as a “good value offer” was “misleading” because it left out key advice, the State’s Auditor-General has found.

A CABINET submission that represented a deal for the sale controversial sale of land at Gillman as a “good value offer” was “misleading” because it left out key advice, the State’s Auditor-General has found.

It follows details in a scathing Supreme Court judgment released earlier this week that found the same Cabinet submission from the State Government’s land development agency “contained a limited number of changes to the draft” provided by then chief executive Fred Hansen.

State Auditor-General Simon O’Neill’s report on the deal between the Government and Adelaide Capital Partners for 407ha of prime industrial land also found the absence of a Government-wide policy for unsolicited bids had been a major downfall of the process.

The report states that a Cabinet submission dated December 2, 2013 — just weeks before the deal was announced — referred to a recommendation by the Renewal SA board that ACP’s offer represented good value, based on independent and comparable market advice.

However presiding member Bronwyn Pike told the Auditor-General that the board’s advice also raised several key risks and had recommended the Government reject the offer.

“It was the board’s expectation that Cabinet would be made aware that the board had resolved to advise the Minister to reject ACP’s offer and offer the land to market for sale in regard to the key risks identified by the Board,” the audit report states.

“This advice was not included in the submission of 2 December 2013, presented to Cabinet.

“Audit considers that the wording in the Cabinet submission is misleading in that a reader may reasonably conclude that the board had considered the revised ACP proposal as provided to Cabinet.”

Opposition spokesman Rob Lucas said Supreme Court Justice Malcolm Blue’s judgment revealed this same Cabinet submission, signed by Premier Jay Weatherill and then Urban Development Minister Tom Koutsantonis, contained changes from Mr Hansen’s draft.

“This means that either or both of Mr Koutsantonis and Mr Weatherill approved changes to the draft which eventually went to Cabinet,” he said.

“Mr Weatherill and Mr Koutsantonis need now to explain the details of the changes they made to the draft Cabinet submission.”

Deputy Premier John Rau said the Renewal SA Board’s recommendation against the sale was referenced in documents related to the sale provided to Cabinet by Treasury.

He said the Government’s new unsolicited bids policy would be reviewed in light of the Supreme Court judgment and the Auditor General’s report.

“But in large measure, all of the matters that were complained about in the AuditorGeneral’s report have been addressed already,” he said.

“These complaints that have been made against Renewal in Mr Hansen’s time are essentially complaints about process saying things could have been done better.”