The Independent Commissioner Against Corruption, Bruce Lander, has confirmed he is investigating the Gillman land deal.

In a statement this afternoon, Lander said he was investigating the matter to see if there was evidence of maladministration.

“For some time now there has been speculation regarding whether or not my office is examining the sale of government land at Gillman,” Lander said. “I confirm that this matter is under investigation by my office.

“I am investigating the matter to determine if there is any evidence of maladministration. This is not a corruption investigation. However, should I find any evidence to suggest that there has been conduct that falls within the ICAC Act’s definition of corruption, then I will pursue it.

“At the conclusion of this investigation I will make a statement on my findings. I will proceed as quickly as possible to conclude the investigation. Until that time I do not intend to discuss any particulars related to the investigation, nor do I intend to make any further public statements during the course of the investigation.”

Lander, who is the only person authorised under legislation to comment on ICAC investigations, said he had been following various inquiries into the Government’s decision to offer the Gillman land to Adelaide Capital Partners without going to tender.

“I have been closely following the evidence given before the Legislative Council Select Committee in its continuing inquiry, the ‘Sale of State Government Land at Gillman’, and the judicial review proceedings before Justice Blue.

“I have requested that the Auditor General provide me with a copy of his report into the matter, but it may not be made available until after it has been formally tabled in Parliament.”

Premier Jay Weatherill released a brief statement welcoming the investigation.

“We welcome the inquiry,” he said. “It is a good thing that this transaction is scrutinised to avoid any doubt about its probity.”

The deal has come under renewed fire over the past two weeks.

Last week, Supreme Court Justice Malcolm Blue published scathing findings into the deal.

In findings on litigation by a waste company, Blue found “the decision by the (Renewal SA) Chief Executive to enter into the Contract was a decision that no reasonable person in his position could rationally have made”.

“The decision … was made in ignorance of matters that were fundamental prerequisites to making an informed, prudent or rational decision,” Blue found.

“It was an irrational decision.”

Then on Friday, the state’s Auditor-General found a number of flaws in the Gillman land deal process, including that the Cabinet submission failed to reveal that the board of Renewal SA had rejected the deal.

The Auditor-General found that “the Board’s consultation process was not accurately disclosed in the Cabinet submission to reflect the objections of the Board and all the advice provided to the Minister to then be considered by Cabinet, the approving authority”.

In a series of exclusive reports a year ago, InDaily revealed what the State Government had refused to confirm – that it went ahead with the deal despite the misgivings of the board of Renewal SA.

In fact, the board had explicitly recommended that the land be put out to tender.

Premier Jay Weatherill was a strong supporter of the ACP deal from the beginning, with the initial approach from ACP coming to him via the Economic Development Board.

This week, Weatherill defended the deal, saying it was about creating jobs in South Australia.

“We are going to have to do some incredibly controversial things if we are going to turn South Australia around,” he told ABC radio. “And if you think this is controversial, if you think this is a challenge, you haven’t seen anything yet.

“We are going to be putting in front of South Australians some very big changes which I think will cause them to gasp a little. ”

He said the Government was trying to prevent South Australia going into “genteel decline”.

“We’re at least having a crack at getting something happening here. We’ve got this piece of land sitting there for 30 years and you want me to turn my back on a developer who wants to spend $200 million of his own money.”