![]() |
Legislative
Council |
|
![]() |
||
| Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
SAGRIC INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General, representing the Minister for Government Enterprises, a question about SAGRIC.
Leave granted.
The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: SAGRIC International Pty Limited is a fully owned government enterprise that has been in existence for 20 years. It employs approximately 200 people, about 50 of them in the South Australian head office. SAGRIC specialises in the transfer of technology and project management of international aid, with an annual turnover of over $30 million. It manages international projects worth more than $100 million, which include land management, health, environmental management, and education and training and, according to this year's Auditor-General's Report, SAGRIC International posted a $900 000 dividend to the South Australian government, the largest profit posted in the past six years.
It has made a loss in a couple of those years, but its profitability has increased markedly over the past four financial years. Seventeen per cent of SAGRIC's business involves projects in Indonesia. At a time when Australia's relations with Indonesia are critical SAGRIC, I am advised, has a higher reputation in Jakarta for assistance to business and commerce of Australian and South Australian origin than does Austrade.
SAGRIC is being sold by the government, the sale being managed by a business group of the Department of Administrative and Information Services-a public trade sale with competitive bids sought locally, nationally and from overseas. From the minister's press release of 1 April and another on 20 August I quote:
SAGRIC International's professional board has done an excellent job over the years in promoting SA expertise and know-how to the world.
My questions are:
1. Given the positive image of South Australia that SAGRIC provides to the international community through its project management, its profitability to the state's economy and its value for SA in international credibility, why is it being sold off?
2. At what stage is the bidding process, considering that registrations of interest were asked for six months ago?
3. If the sale is to go ahead, what steps is the government taking to ensure that the head office, at least, will remain in South Australia to keep some employment and industry of an excellent South Australian enterprise based in South Australia?
The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: I will refer those questions to my colleague in another place and bring back replies.
See Ian Gilfillan's News Release on this issue: 11 December 1999
and the Government's reply: 4 July 2000