Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $560,412,000

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, $7,928,000

Membership:

Ms Chapman substituted for Mr Whetstone.

Mr Wingard substituted for Mr Bell.

Mr Pederick substituted for Mr Treloar.

Minister:

Hon. S.C. Mullighan, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr M. Deegan, Chief Executive, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr P. Gelston, Chief Operations Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Ms J. Tepohe, Chief Corporate Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr B. Cagialis, Chief Finance Officer, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Mr S. Rodrigues, Acting General Manager, Customer Experience, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

The CHAIR: I welcome you to the estimates committee. Estimates committees are relatively informal procedures and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions, although I do remind members that normal standing orders for conduct in the chamber remain in place. I understand that the minister and lead speaker for the opposition have agreed an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings, previously distributed, is accurate.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, the portfolio programs have been identified in the time frame.

The CHAIR: Just a simple yes is fine. That is good. Have you seen that?

Ms CHAPMAN: I have. I am just indicating the portfolios that have been identified are there; it does not mean that it is the whole of the budget for which the minister is responsible in this area, but I just make that point.

The CHAIR: Changes of the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a complete request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday, 30 October 2015. This year estimate committee responses will be published during 17 November sitting week and corrected daily Hansard over a three-day period.

I propose to allow both the minister and lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, if they should wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

A member who is not part of the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identified or referenced at the beginning of each question. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister, not the minister's advisers. The minister, however, may refer questions to advisers for a response. During the committee's examination, television cameras will be permitted to film from either the northern or southern galleries.

I will now proceed to open the following lines for examination. We are looking at the proposed payments for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. The minister appearing is the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to Agency Statements, Volume 3. I call on the minister to make a statement if he wishes and, if he does not, he can proceed to immediately introduce his advisers.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not propose to make an opening statement and we do not intend on taking government questions. If I could introduce who I have next to me: Michael Deegan to my right, Paul Gelston to my left as well as Julienne Tepohe.

The CHAIR: Deputy leader, are you making a statement or are you going straight to questions?

Ms CHAPMAN: Straight to questions. I am referring to Agency Statements, Volume 3, Budget Paper 4, and I will start with the Adelaide Festival Centre Precinct Plaza and Integration that is identified on page 67. I indicate that yesterday the Attorney-General answered a number of questions in respect of this project but confirmed that it was a project that was under your department's management and, therefore, I have a couple of questions in relation to it. It is also referred to at page 71 in relation to your portfolio statement.

Curiously, he was not able to answer this question and suggested that I ask the Treasurer, given that these documents are published by his department, but it is also referred to as an Across Government initiative in the Budget Measures Statement. That is something new in the 14 years I have been here, but he was not able to answer it. I would inquire first as to why that has a special provision for it as Across Government rather than as a budget measure under your department?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, deputy leader, which specifically were you mentioning? Was there an item on page 71 to which your question is relevant?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, that is where it is mentioned in your portfolio, but separately in the budget measures document, which is a budget paper—and I think it has been shown next to you—it is referred to under Across Government, which is a new division in the budget papers. You have a special section in the budget measures document for your department, each of the departments do, but at the beginning of that document it refers to Across Government measures and one of them is this project and the second is the Sampson Flat bushfire provision. My inquiry to you, as to the Attorney-General yesterday, is as to whether you have any knowledge as to why that is not in your portfolio list of budget measures but in fact has a special provision as Across Government?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps two points to make. Firstly, the reference on page 71 comes under Program 1: Land Use Planning, which is a part of the budget papers that refers to the Minister for Planning's ministerial responsibilities. Secondly, as to the existence of Across Government initiatives, like the Minister for Planning I would suggest that you or someone else interrogate the Treasurer as to why that has been placed in the budget. I suspect it is because it reflects that more than one agency, for example, will be responsible for delivering a initiative.

Ms CHAPMAN: That is fine. I indicated yesterday that I would be asking the Treasurer but I thought I would give you the opportunity. I also mention that this is a project which is identified in your portfolio at page 67 as a project under the administration of your department not his.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Our department, yes.

Ms CHAPMAN: Sorry; yes, in fairness, he is in that as well, but he is suggesting that it is actually in the Department of Transport, that it was a provision under Mr Hook rather than Mr Hanlon, as it was, and now Mr Deegan, hence I raise a couple of matters with you; that is, firstly, whether you can provide an indication as to when that project is to come before the Public Works Committee, given that the first stage of that project is to be completed prior to the next election?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Just to reiterate the point I was making earlier, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is the department which has responsibility for carrying out functions for which several ministers have ministerial responsibility, one of whom is the Minister for Planning. As I mentioned earlier, page 71, Program 1: Land Use Planning, refers to his ministerial responsibilities. In broad terms, my understanding is that there is a governance arrangement of which my department is involved as well as Renewal SA. As to when the Public Works Committee submission will be made to parliament, I cannot give a date at this point in time. If I can provide any further particulars about that I will bring that back before indeed (perhaps) that project is submitted to the parliament's committee.

Ms CHAPMAN: To be clear on this, we did raise this yesterday with minister Rau and his indication was that whilst, I think he described it as—I have his evidence to the committee here—that notwithstanding that it was a project which has involved Renewal SA and indeed the Riverbank Authority, his evidence to that committee was that the actual project management of this was by your department, your part of the department, if I can put it that way; that is, that some were in some major projects or some division of the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and roles in that regard were in your domain, hence why I am asking you now as to the progress of that project. I appreciate that you will indicate as to whether there is any further information you can bring to the committee for public works.

My next question in relation to that is: when will the car park and public realm proposal be presented to the Public Works Committee to consider? You have just indicated that you will make some inquiries about that. Will the agreement lapse in the event that the project does not commence within 12 months by the Walker Corporation?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The agreement between whom?

Ms CHAPMAN: The agreement between the government and the Walker Corporation.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have not been privy to the particular details to which you refer, so I would have to make some inquiries about that. Either the Minister for Planning or I will try to furnish the house with an appropriate response.

Ms CHAPMAN: When will the Festival Centre upgrade commence?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That information will be contained in a submission for the Public Works Committee, so I guess in addition to seeking out a time frame for that report I will come back with the particulars of that matter as well.

Ms CHAPMAN: Will the Riverbank Festival Plaza development agreement lapse again—and I am referring to the same document, or part thereof—in the event that both the office and retail components are not commenced within five years?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I indicated earlier to your similar question, either the Minister for Planning or I will seek to bring back a response to the parliament.

Ms CHAPMAN: What is the effect on the development agreement in the event that the Walker Corporation fails to use its best endeavours to secure occupation of 10,000 square metres by interstate tenants?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will have to take that matter on notice and either I or the Minister for Planning will bring back a response to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN: Similarly, in respect of the Attorney-General's contribution as Attorney-General in estimates yesterday, he answered a number of questions on the now abandoned courts precinct project—and perhaps I will find the page reference for you as we go. The courts precinct proposal was announced by the Attorney-General as having been aborted as at 13 March 2015. As you might recall, he had announced that the proposal that had been developed and presented was 'not value for money'. My understanding is that your department is responsible for the management of that project, in particular the work around obtaining the expression of interest and obviously going through the tender process last year, leading up to today.

I asked the Attorney to at least provide information to the committee as to what his department—or in particular the Courts Administration Authority and/or the Attorney-General's Department—expenses would have been to date. Obviously, as he indicated, this is a project under your department in the sense, again, of it being a major project that your people are managing. Could you also provide the committee with a total of the cost since the project was developed, since the original funding was provided for the scoping study, what expenses your department has incurred to date in respect of that project?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If you could furnish the committee with an appropriate page reference before we finish proceedings at 6.30 this evening then I will endeavour to take that matter on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: The project reference in respect of the courts precinct is in yesterday's evidence, commencing at page 2, and you will see that there are a couple of pages that refer to that project. I thank you for taking that on notice.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Page 2 of the Agency Statements, Volume 3 is blank.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I am talking about page 2 of yesterday's transcript of evidence.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Unless, of course, you are colouring it in for us.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am talking about yesterday's evidence.

The CHAIR: Are you looking at Hansard, deputy leader?

Ms CHAPMAN: Indeed.

The CHAIR: If we could just make that clear.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, without a page reference—I know you have been doing this for 14 years, but you do not seem to have a page reference relevant to the budget papers.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have. I have given you page 67 of the budget papers. What I am referring to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Could you draw my attention to which line on page 67 refers to that project?

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I started with the Adelaide Festival Centre precinct and then I went on to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and now you are talking about a project which you yourself have described as both abandoned and aborted, and you do not have a budget page reference. Can you furnish the committee with that or should we move on to something that is relevant to the budget?

Ms CHAPMAN: If you could take the time at some stage before we conclude to view the matters that have been raised in relation to the courts precinct project, the evidence—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No. I have been called before this committee by the parliament to answer questions about my budget lines within this volume of the Portfolio Statements. You have failed to give us a page reference about this question. If you cannot give us a page reference then perhaps we might move on to a matter which is within the budget papers and of relevance to today's proceedings.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am just indicating to you, in fairness, that the Attorney-General yesterday—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not interested in what the Attorney-General does. I am interested in my portfolio of responsibilities—

Ms CHAPMAN: You may not be but he is the Deputy Premier.

The CHAIR: If I could just ask for a moment of order. I think the minister is correct in saying that the courts precinct stuff is not in this paper, so perhaps we could give the matter some extra thought between the next two questions. You only have another 15 minutes left on this line and I do not want to miss out on all the questions that are coming through. Perhaps rethink that strategy and we will move on to another question.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to do that. I will give the minister the opportunity to follow that through.

The CHAIR: No; he has already indicated to you that he is here to answer questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: Can I clarify this then, minister: was your department responsible for the development and management of the courts precinct project up until the announcement in March this year that it is not to be proceeded with?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Certainly my department was involved with that, as was the Attorney-General's Department.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of that—because I assume things have ceased since then, since the Attorney's announcement—can you provide to the committee the cost to your department of the development and management, including the scoping study, of that project up until March?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes. You have repeated the question you asked me earlier and I will repeat the answer that I gave earlier. If you can furnish the committee with an appropriate budget paper reference that is relevant to today's proceedings, I will take that question on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you saying that although that is a project under your responsibility and a project that has concluded and which has not been identified as a project that is ongoing, you are not therefore going to provide that information?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, that is not what I said.

Ms CHAPMAN: Having had that expense—it is somewhere here in your budget as to what you have done up until 30 June 2015—all I am asking is that the cost be identified.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If you feel confident in your assertion that it is somewhere within the budget and pointing to the budget paper that we are meant to be interrogating, then surely you can furnish me with the appropriate budget line so that I can answer the question.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just because the Treasurer has not—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, just because you have not met your responsibility in naming the budget line so that you can ask the question, it does not mean that I need to do your work for you.

Ms CHAPMAN: Very well. I am happy to ask you a question in relation to that in normal question time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That would be more appropriate.

Ms CHAPMAN: But the Attorney-General has been happy to indicate that he will get it from his department.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, there you go; you do not need to ask it of me now.

Ms CHAPMAN: From his department, but he cannot identify what cost your department has incurred, hence that is why I am asking you today. If you do not want to give that information, that's fine, but I just make the point that the Attorney-General has been happy to identify from both the Courts Administration Authority and the Attorney-General's Department that he will provide that to the committee. Obviously, he is not in a position to provide it from your department, so I will leave it with you. Next, in relation to the improving critical road infrastructure at page 67, firstly, can you provide detail as to what projects that is going to cover?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, this is an additional allocation of road funding to provide more of the road maintenance and asset maintenance works which we do each year across our road network. It goes a long way to filling the ongoing budget gap, in excess of $9 million a year, that the state has been left with following the reduction in last year's federal budget of road funding to South Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: Does it include there, or in any other of the annual programs that are on page 69, provision for any planning or upgrade or maintenance of the Strzelecki Track?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised, no, it does not.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any provision in your budget for the 15-16 year for any planning upgrade or maintenance of the Strzelecki Track?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If I can just pause on my previous answer, I should point out that out of our annual road maintenance budget to which the $70 million over four years will be contributing, there is of course an allocation to our outback roads, the most prominent of which is the Strzelecki Track, being not only the outback but unsealed and a very long piece of road. If I can remember from the top of my head a previous piece of information that had been provided to me, I think we expend something in the order of 20 or 25 per cent of our outback road budget trying to maintain this, so I suspect—as you see on that line the $10 million—whether any of that specific $10 million will be going towards the Strzelecki Track or, if indeed the allocation to the ongoing maintenance and improvement of different parts of the Strzelecki Track that we would carry out on an ongoing basis is part of the rest of the pool of funds in the road maintenance budget, I could not specifically say.

However, I think you can rest assured that there are perhaps two considerations of funding for the Strzelecki Track. There is the ongoing maintenance to which I have just been referring and then there is the Strzelecki Track sealing proposal which has quite some focus in recent months from parties around South Australia. Of course, we have been advocating for the sealing of the Strzelecki Track for quite some time for several reasons. One is to make sure that those people who use that track on a regular basis get a much improved service from that road but also because it would unlock a new freight corridor, a more reliable freight corridor, between Queensland and South Australia, and also very significantly reduce the transport costs, particularly that operators in the Cooper Basin are having to experience given the sort of time delays and damage and also the necessity to use heavy or heavier trucks and having to navigate such an unwieldy road, for want of a better term.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will come back to Strzelecki in a moment, but in respect of the improving critical road infrastructure allocation, $10 million in this financial year, can you provide to the committee the breakdown of the balance of those moneys in the forward estimate years?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure that we can and for a number of reasons. While we have a pretty good handle on priority projects which need to be attended to across our road network, that assessment is fluid and so some projects may come into consideration and indeed funding which might not currently be conceived based on future assessments of road condition.

Ms CHAPMAN: I appreciate that the nature of what projects will be provided for out of that funding, but at present the $70 million that is there for the total project allocation I am assuming has been allocated over the forward estimates for an amount per year.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If you are talking about what the dollar amount per year is rather than the actual projects—

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The dollar amount is as specified on page 46 of the Budget Measures Statement: it is 10 in 2015-16, 10 in 2016-17, 20 in 2017-18 and 30 in 2018-19 and, of course, I am referring to millions of dollars.

Ms CHAPMAN: Back to Strzelecki, that project, as we know, is currently the basis of a submission to the federal agencies. In that, has there been any proposal for a road network charging contribution to be made?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think the project has been submitted to Infrastructure Australia and it is also the subject of discussions with the commonwealth. Certainly, the opportunity for non-government entities to make a contribution to the road has been flagged, and I think there is particular interest in, and discussion around, those Cooper Basin operators. Whether that looks like a network charge or whether it looks like a more direct contribution, either in retrospect for recompensing the cost of the infrastructure or by some other means, certainly has not been settled at this stage.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Premier's statement in respect of transport, on 9 July this year, that money could be raised for road infrastructure by charging the freight companies based on the mass, distance and locations travelled by trucks, is a matter that I am sure you are aware of. Do you, as the Minister for Infrastructure, have any preferred funding proposal as to how that should operate?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Is this in reference to a particular income line in Program 7?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, it is in relation to the Strzelecki Track.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not want to trawl through the same ground that we have been through merely a matter of minutes ago but, of course, given your extensive experience in conducting inquisitions in this forum, you would be aware that you need to give a budget paper reference when asking questions.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have, and we have been dealing with it under 'Improving critical road infrastructure'. You have indicated that there would be an amount there for the Strzelecki Track and I am now asking about—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I indicated about the road maintenance spending, which may or may not be funded from that, and then you segued onto talking about the Strzelecki project, which is not funded and, hence, does not have a budget line in this current year's budget. Now you are seguing onto another matter which is also not in the budget papers, unless of course you can correct me and point me to a line that I have currently overlooked.

Ms CHAPMAN: Perhaps I misunderstood the statements you have made to date, that there could be money in this portion for the provision for Strzelecki, not as a capital funded amount. As you have pointed out, you have put in an application to Infrastructure Australia to support that and you have indicated to the committee that various options of funding arrangements are under consideration and that there is no issue with that. I am simply asking the question as to whether, in the items that you have just referred to as options that are available or are under consideration, you as the minister have a preferred model?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For funding road maintenance on the Strzelecki? For road maintenance projects, as—

Ms CHAPMAN: For a contribution.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: For road maintenance projects on the Strzelecki Track, as opposed to a project which would seal the Strzelecki Track, we make a budget allocation through our road maintenance budget. An assessment is made of what needs to be done and when. Sometimes that changes. For example, we had a project that we delivered with the commonwealth to replace some infrastructure on the Strzelecki Track—some floodways—but that is an entirely different matter to the prospect of a project to seal the Strzelecki Track. That was what I was referring to previously.

Ms CHAPMAN: When you were giving information to the committee just a few minutes ago as to the options you say were under consideration for road funding contribution by freight vehicles, that was to do with maintenance, was it, and not to do with the project that is currently sitting in Infrastructure Australia?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not think I made reference to funding options by freight vehicles. I made specific reference to operators within the Cooper Basin.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any provision for the Northern Connector in the budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I assume that you have looked through the budget papers—

Ms CHAPMAN: I have, yes.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and might be able to identify a line.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was disappointed to note that there was not anything in it that I could see, so I am asking you the simple question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: So, I guess we can move on if you cannot identify the line then.

Ms CHAPMAN: Is there any provision for it in your state budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If there were, there would no doubt be a line to which we could refer and engage in some question and answers.

Ms CHAPMAN: Not necessarily. It could just be under any of these investment projects that are there, so that is why I am asking.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not really, because there are quite a few investment projects which quite apparently would not be for that project.

Ms CHAPMAN: I have no doubt about that but, in relation to the projects, some are under annual programs. I do not know whether there is an arrangement there for planning.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: A project like the Northern Connector would not be able to be consumed within an annual program budget; it is a pretty substantial project. If you are insistent on talking about it, I notice that it is something which the state government, of course, when we commenced our funded South Road strategy project in 2013, publicly committed to with the federal government and publicly announced.

Then there was the ingenious policy which you yourself, deputy leader, took to the election, saying that we needed a north-south strategy to be developed and that you would commit a future Liberal government to doing that. Of course, you released a map which, at the north, stopped at Wingfield, so clearly this has not really been on your radar for quite some time, but I am glad that finally you have recognised the benefit of a project which this government, as well as the federal government, has shown a keen interest in.

In the same way, I guess, you also went to the election promising to cancel the Torrens to Torrens project—a project which has a very strong cost-benefit ratio. Now that it is funded, we will be supporting in the order of 480 jobs per year in construction and in other tasks. Of course, at this point in time, those sorts of projects are incredibly necessary. Is there any other detail you would like about it?

Ms CHAPMAN: I am pleased to hear, minister, that in all of that your government is still progressing the Northern Connector project, so were any moneys allocated for the progressing of that project in the budget up to 30 June 2015?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If you could perhaps attach progressing that initiative to moneys which have been expended by both state and commonwealth governments on the preparation of the 10-year plan, then that may be the case, but I would have to take that on notice.

Ms CHAPMAN: If you can bring that back to the committee as to any moneys that have been expended to date. It may well be just in relation to the costings, cost-benefit analysis, preparation of documents, submissions and the like in that early planning stage; it may be other work that has been undertaken, but in any event we look forward to receiving that from your further inquiries. Can I move to the income position of your employees.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Personally or in total?

Ms CHAPMAN: In total. Page 65 has the workforce summary of your employees of the department. Has there been any provision of bonuses for staff separate to their salary and usual entitlements—that is, superannuation and the like—approved for the payment of your staff in the department?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not that I am aware of, but I will have to take that on notice and check.

Ms CHAPMAN: If that is going to be applicable in this current year for 2015-16, similarly if you could take that on notice and make that provision to the committee. Could I have an indication of that, minister?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry, was that a question? I will see what information I can bring back.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you. In respect of roads and marine, I am going to refer to the ports now in respect of any provision. There has been some provision for the two new River Murray ferries, but I would be keen to identify whether there is any provision in the budget for the development of a deep sea port, both capital or planning.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In the middle of last year, both the Treasurer and I announced that the Resources Infrastructure Taskforce would be carrying out a body of work to examine preferred locations for a deep sea port, principally looking at the Eyre Peninsula although not exclusively. As to how that work has been funded for those employees from the department, I will come back with some finer detail on that.

Ms CHAPMAN: Consistent with that announcement in mid last year, the taskforce was to provide a report by June this year. It is now July. Has it completed the report?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Certainly it has carried out an extensive amount of work, and the government is yet to formally consider the work that has been done.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take it then that you have received the report and it is yet to have cabinet's consideration.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would not possibly confirm what cabinet has or has not considered, deputy leader.

Ms CHAPMAN: Let me just ask the first part of the question: have you received the report?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Some work has been done and I have been briefed on it so, when we have sufficient information, when the government has considered that report, we will be releasing that publicly.

Ms CHAPMAN: I take it then that you have the report and you are looking at other aspects of it. Has it been provided to you as the minister or does it go to the Treasurer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Both the Treasurer and I have been briefed on the work that has been undertaken by the Resources Infrastructure Taskforce.

Ms CHAPMAN: Has there been a proposal presented from Flinders Ports to develop the Port Bonython option without requiring a government capital contribution?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have not seen that. Whether that is something that has been provided to the Coordinator-General in his role as someone who is in receipt of unsolicited bids and the like may be the case, but I have not seen such a proposal.

Ms CHAPMAN: If it was presented under the unsolicited bid proposal, which is possible, in those circumstances are you usually provided with some information about that as the minister?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that the Coordinator-General functionally reports—

Ms CHAPMAN: To the Premier.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —to the Premier and through the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Ms CHAPMAN: But anyway, to your knowledge, you are not aware of any proposal that has been presented to government for a development of Port Bonython?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, no-one has raised that with me, but if that has been presented to government, again I say that it may well have gone to the Coordinator-General, for example or, indeed, to another minister.

Ms CHAPMAN: Are you aware of any other proposals for port development that have been submitted to your department?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure about—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am talking about deep sea ports.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I am not sure about the description of 'submitted to the department'. Of course, there are port proposals which are in existence and are publicly released. Iron Road, for example, has been pushing theirs and, of course, there are other proponents and, when I say proponents, I am principally, although not exclusively, referring to those people involved in the resources industry or minerals extraction. As you can imagine, there are a number of those, given the number of people who are out in the market seeking funding for their mineral developments and they tend to have a pretty broad range of port solutions which, as you would imagine, suit their purposes best, first and foremost and so I could not give you a list. I can certainly take the matter on notice and see what further information I can provide to the parliament about that, but I guess it is fair to say that there are a few proposals that are out there publicly at the moment.

Without meaning or sounding to denigrate them and how realistic they are—particularly given the recent downturn in commodity prices and the difficulties that that is placing on these proponents for these minerals projects in raising funding to develop their prospects, let alone invest in the sort of infrastructure such as ports, etc., that you are referring to—I am aware that there are several, or least more than one because, of course, there is more than one mineral prospect not just on Eyre Peninsula, but in the Braemar region and other regions of South Australia.

Ms CHAPMAN: To the best of your knowledge you are not aware of any projects that are under consideration by your department but, as I understand it, you will make that inquiry with your department and provide that information to the committee if it is able to be provided.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps if I can provide a little more information about the Resources Infrastructure Taskforce. The purpose of it, as the Treasurer and I have publicly announced, is that there would be a joint effort by staff of what is now called DSD—the minerals and energy people in the former department DMITRE—and staff in our department who would follow on from the Regional Mining and Infrastructure Plan and work to make an assessment of how 'likely' some of these mining prospects are, taking into account a range of factors, none the least of which, obviously, are the prices for their commodities on the global market as well as the sorts of infrastructure requirements that they each have.

Out of necessity, staff from both departments have been talking to a range of mining companies as well as representative bodies and other groups about those prospects as well as their infrastructure requirements, which include port projects. I suspect that they have been festooned with proposals about ports as well as other infrastructure requirements, but of course there then has to be a judgement at some stage about how likely they are, and I do not just mean in terms of in total how likely they are, but how likely they are within a relatively short or medium term necessitating the sort of further consideration about how that infrastructure might be brought to bear.

Ms CHAPMAN: When you make that inquiry, in the event that there is an application in your department which is under consideration and in the event that it includes the progressing of an assessment of an environmental impact statement on it, could you bring that information back to the committee in the sense of providing a response as to the progress of the approval of that environmental impact statement process?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that it would not only need a firm proposal but, at the very least, a development application to kick off those sorts of requirements of assessment. I am not sure that the project to which you refer—if, indeed, it is something that has been submitted—let alone any other, have reached that stage; even Iron Road's project which, of course, is held up by its proponents as being the 'obvious' and most likely to succeed, but I will make those inquiries.

Ms CHAPMAN: When you have made those inquiries, in the event that one of these projects—in particular, the one I have referred to in respect of Port Bonython—is in your department and is progressing, albeit slowly as I understand it, with an environmental impact statement assessment, I would ask that you provide the committee with a report as to its progress.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In the event that it is a matter for me to contemplate a report on or, of course, if it is a matter which is best answered by the Minister for Planning as minister responsible for those agencies who would be making calls or issuing approvals or otherwise for these sorts of projects. But we are not quite at that stage yet, are we?

Mr WINGARD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 83, line 4, 'once-off transfer from MAC to the highways fund in 2014-15 for future investment in road safety improvements ($852.9 million)'. Have these proceeds been allocated to projects in forward estimates?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a good question. Of course, funds within the highway fund are hypothecated for—I will not get the exact wording right—road purposes and so in principle, yes. As for the exact projects, I would have to come back to the house.

Mr WINGARD: So you will come back with which projects. Thank you for that. How much of that fund is unallocated?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take that on notice. I do not think I have the balance of the highways fund going forward.

Mr WINGARD: Can I then ask you to get the balance of the highways fund? That would be greatly appreciated.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sure. Now or in time?

Mr WINGARD: When you have an opportunity, thank you.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, no, sorry. Do you mean the balance of the highways fund consistent with those projects going forward over the forward estimates or 30 June?

Mr WINGARD: Consistent with those projects going forward. Actually, if I can have 30 June and then we can table going forward, that would be great. How is the new roads and marine line created in the budget with the changeover from the last budget to this budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I stand to be corrected, but I think that is a transfer of funding from one part of the agency to the other due to the restructure. I am advised that there has been a consolidation of sub-programs within the 2015-16 budget. That transfer which I think you are referring to is the dot point underneath the words 'partially offset by'. That, I am advised, reflects that consolidation of sub-programs into a program.

Mr WINGARD: Fantastic. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 83, line 9. There are actually two references here. You can go to the same budget paper, page 69, line 13. It talks about the fact that you opened the Southern Expressway to two-way traffic, and the other one talks about the Southern Expressway duplication. I am just wondering what extra works need to be completed on this project between now and the finish date, which is tabled there as June 2018?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will see if I need to bring back any further detail on this, but my understanding is that some ongoing vegetation and landscaping work needs to be done, and I think following the local member's representations, there are some additional noise mitigation works that are going to undertaken. There might be some very minor ancillary works, but they are the two primary works that will be undertaken.

Mr WINGARD: Fantastic. So you can get back to me with the timeline for that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If there is any further detail, yes, I will come back to you.

Mr WINGARD: Also, with regard to the noise mitigation you spoke about, a question aligned to that is: are you satisfied with the noise mitigation work that has been done there, or are there more works to be done, as you suggested?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As you might have been briefed on previously, we do a range of sound modelling and acoustic testing, and we also apply the appropriate standards when we are building these projects. I think what occurred was that that noise modelling and the infrastructure was constructed in order to meet the standards, and then of course representations were made by members of the community who lived immediately adjacent to the road corridor, feeling that they had been exposed to a greater level of noise than they should. Given that this is yet another project which has been recently delivered within budget and there were some funds available, then a judgement has been made that we could extend some additional noise mitigation works in line with the representations that have been made.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you for that. I will follow through with you and get the outline of those details as they come to hand. That would be great. Has the date of June 2018 been pushed back because of those extra works?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I think it more reflects that, once we have the road in a state where it is safe for motorists to use, then we will open the road as quickly as possible, but then continue on with works on an ongoing basis, particularly those which do not necessarily impede traffic. You will also see references in this current budget to the Northern Expressway project, and that is another example of how a road which was opened a number of years ago continues to require some minor works, and hence some budget allocation, well past when traffic first started using that particular road.

Mr WINGARD: Are any of these issues around road safety?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not believe so, but I will double-check with the department.

Mr WINGARD: I refer now to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 68, line 27, the O-Bahn extension into the city. Will this include any rebuild to the 30-year-old track as part of this project?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: While we undertake ongoing maintenance of the O-Bahn track, the department has advised me previously that the track is considered to be in reasonable condition, not requiring replacement or significant works, contrary to the assertions of the member for Adelaide. Like with every other development in Adelaide, whether it be the Adelaide Oval or the footbridge or other things which bring people into the city en masse to enjoy themselves, she opposes this project. She has said that the O-Bahn track is crumbling and in dire need of replacement. Well, that is not the advice that has been given to me by the department.

Mr WINGARD: The fact that the speed was dropped from 100 km/h back to 85 km/h in 2012, does that have anything to do with the state of the track and/or the vehicles on it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that, whether it is specifically in relation to that point in time you refer to, there has been occasion where speeds have been limited, particularly when those sorts of maintenance works to which I referred earlier have been undertaken.

Mr WINGARD: But there is a blanket speed reduction on the track: the O-Bahn buses used to do 100 km/h and now they are set 85 km/h top speed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that speed reductions have not been implemented for the purposes of reflecting the condition of the track. I am advised that it is potentially because we are running such a high frequency of buses, particularly during the peak hour, that the speed limit has been reduced. You perhaps would have heard me say earlier than in the timetable changes that we have increased the frequency of buses, particularly in the morning peak, I think to some 150 bus services in the two-hour morning peak. So, that gives you an idea of how often these buses are using that corridor. I am advised that it is most likely due to the high frequency of buses being run.

Mr WINGARD: I appreciate that but, if there is a high frequency, would you not want to get them through the track quicker and get them out the other end; henceforth, dropping speeds would slow them up?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding of how authorities, both here in South Australia and other authorities, whether it is around Australia or internationally, approach road safety matters is through an issue of risk management and, where possible, risk mitigation. I think that there is a substantial amount of evidence that you can lower the risk of incidents occurring through lower speeds. When you have very, very high traffic volumes carrying a substantial number of people, you can understand why a modest reduction from one speed which is very high to a similarly very high speed is an appropriate risk mitigation strategy.

Mr WINGARD: Given that we are about saving time on the journey, how much time did that add to the journey, slowing the O-Bahn buses down?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have to admit, much to my pleasure, that I have stopped doing maths, let alone point-to-point calculations of travel times based on public transport vehicles leaving one area and arriving in another, but I will see what information I can provide you.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 83, the last line—'Commission two new River Murray ferries'. I know we have already done one ferry, but I do not know that it has been placed. Can you tell us where the one ferry and the two new ferries will be stationed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I said that there will be four new ferries in total, two of which I think were funded, from memory, in the 2013-14 state budget, and there are two that are being funded from the moneys we have available going forward in our roads budget. Those ferries, as they are commissioned and come into service, will be placed at areas of highest need.

As I have explained to the member for Chaffey, when there are seasonal demands for higher load limits, for example, then we will move a steel-hulled ferry, whether it is one of the eight we already have in service or whether it is one of the new ones we will be commissioning over the next three years. I cannot give a fixed location, but we try to make sure that the load-restricted wooden-hulled ferries, some of which are between 60 and 80 years old, are located at those areas of lowest demand, principally, from vehicle weight as well as volume of vehicles.

Mr WINGARD: So actually where they will go you cannot say as yet because you have not decided which venues will get what?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, we make a regular and live assessment about where the demand is likely to be, particularly for trucks. If there is harvest on, for example, or some other time of year when heavy vehicles will have a higher than regular demand at a particular crossing, we will move a steel-hulled ferry to that location. Once we deliver all four of these ferries that we are now funding, those sorts of activities will not be necessary, but until we have all of them in service—and we still have some wooden-hulled ferries in service, which of course are load restricted now—we will cycle the steel-hulled ferries around in order to give the local communities best service out of those river crossings.

Mr WINGARD: To clarify, you will move the steel-hulled ferries around to different locations according to where the demand is?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think that is what happens at the moment—yes. We will continue the practice of moving these steel-hulled ferries.

Mr WINGARD: So a region could have a wooden-hulled ferry for a period, but a steel-hulled ferry might come in during harvest, then the steel one might go again and the wooden one come back?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Correct. That is a strategy which we will continue, but continue on a reduced basis over the next three years as these ferries come into service.

Ms CHAPMAN: I refer to page 81. The reference in the commentary for explaining the change of variation between budget and estimated result includes, at the penultimate point in the explanatory commentary:

the reclassification of expenditure from investing to operating for SA Water relocation work for the South Road Upgrade from Torrens Road to River Torrens project ($10.0 million)

This is the relocation work that has gone from being a capital expense to an operating expense for SA Water. What is that for and why has that been changed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is a good question. We require SA Water to do some service relocations for the project. The reason it is reclassified from investing to operating I will take on notice. To be honest, accounting standards require us to do all manner of things like this, so I will endeavour to find the answer and come back to you with a response.

Ms CHAPMAN: When you do make that inquiry, could you inquire as to not only why it has occurred but who has required that to occur—whether, in fact, that has been an initiative from Treasury or whether it is to remedy what should have been a correction as to its description previously?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, but I guess in context it may be because at one point in time it was envisaged that there would be a more direct role for the department or its contractor to be carrying out the works and, hence, initially considered to be investing funds. If it is subsequently considered to be a transfer of payments and then considered to be an operating item, I would imagine that is the sort of flavour of the reasoning. However, as I said, I will take that on notice.

Mr WINGARD: To move on to public transport, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 87, line 5: 'Commission twenty-second and final electric railcar and remove diesel services from the Seaford line'. Given that the 22^nd electric railcar will be commissioned very soon, can you tell the house how many electric railcars are needed to service the southern lines?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is substantially less than the 22. It may not be possible to give you a fixed answer, because we would have a view about how to accommodate current patronage levels, and we would have a separate view about how many EMUs we would use to service a higher patronage level. Of course, one of the principal reasons for electrifying the Noarlunga line and extending it out to Seaford was to grow patronage. I will do my best to give you an estimate on that, but it may not be possible for that reason.

Mr WINGARD: So no figure has been calculated previously to say how many EMUs are required to service the southern lines?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There could well be, for want of a better term, a minimum number to replace what was considered to be, at a point in time, a current level of patronage that was being accommodated in diesel railcar units. We would likely be regularly changing our mind, given the very positive growth we have had in patronage on the Seaford line. So, we would say that to service the growing patronage we would want to use more railcars.

Mr WINGARD: So, given the excess stock (and I am led to believe that it is five), which is about $50 million (at $10 million an EMU), what is the increased average maintenance cost per unit, given the oversupply of these electric trains?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: First, I am not sure I agree with your description of oversupply. The purpose of having a larger fleet than the one you might run on a typical day is for a couple of reasons: first, there will always be at least one railcar being serviced for routine maintenance, perhaps more than one. There may be, as there has been recently (although this of course will eventually come to an end), the need to extensively test and then commission railcars, but I come back to the point: having a greater number in terms of rail capacity than we had at a point in time for diesel services enables us to grow patronage into the future, so we would not agree with the characterisation of oversupply.

Mr WINGARD: Some might say that it is an excess to have an oversupply, but again I confirm the number of 17, which is 16 and a spare and which was the suggested number needed for that. The question I asked was: given that 22 will be in service, as is pointed out in the budget papers, and that the service contract for 10 years was set up around there being 22 in operation, is there an increased average maintenance cost per unit with the oversupply? So, 22 are getting fully serviced when they are not all in operation because the line only requires 16 and a spare. How much extra cost is there in the maintenance budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Again, the way you have framed your question is predicated on having an excess number of railcars, hence an excess amount of maintenance to be conducted on those railcars. As I have explained, as we continue to grow patronage on the Seaford line and put more railcars into service, that would belie your characterisation of them being excess.

I also point out that, depending on how the terms of the maintenance contract are set out (and I do not have those details with me), there may be some declining arrangement in terms of additional cars being serviced, or we might have a fixed price for servicing all of them, which would mean would we would not be able to give a unit price for it.

Mr WINGARD: So are you saying that there is a declining scale in the contract?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I am saying it is possible; I just do not have the details in front of me. I also said it is also possible that there is a fixed price for looking after the whole fleet. I just do not have that information in front of me.

Mr WINGARD: If there is a fixed price for looking after the whole fleet, and the whole fleet is not getting utilised to its full potential, then surely there is a cost differential here and a wastage in not getting that full capacity out of the fleet.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I see the point that you are getting at but in the environment where we are running electric services out to Seaford, we are seeing patronage grow year on year and, indeed, extraordinarily returning to the sorts of trend increases that we wanted to see from the electrification of the Seaford line, then of course calls are made on the rest of the fleet, and that is also true when we have times of particularly high demand outside of peak.

So for example, with Footy Express services, the department has been running effectively six-car sets, so two EMUs joined together which is something that we have not previously done, not necessarily just with EMUs of course, by definition, but also with the diesel railcars. So we are able to get these railcars into service on an increasing basis and that means that we can provide a greater level of service to those communities in the southern suburbs.

Mr WINGARD: You take us to a very good point—the running of the six-car sets. Of course, for those who do not know, the EMUs run as a three and a three, and you have to run them either as a six or a three, which I understand. How many stations on the southern lines are not long enough to accommodate six cars?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Several, I think, and so the strategy that we have used is trying to best inform people as they are boarding the six-car set that, in order to get off at a particular station, they need to be either in the front or the back of the configuration to make sure that they can get off. That is a system that has worked pretty well, although it has been drawn to my attention that there has been at least one occasion where somebody has been caught out.

Mr WINGARD: Stuck in the doors?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Somebody has been caught out, and we have made sure that we have continued to improve both the signage and the advice that we give to people, particularly people coming back into the railway station after Footy Express services, so that we are making sure that people are on the right carriage to get off.

Mr WINGARD: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 86, the last line states, 'Completed station upgrades at Broadmeadows and Parafield stations.' Of course they are not on the lines. Do you have any other stations that you are going to be lengthening and upgrading as part of that project to alleviate this problem of people getting stuck in the doors, and trains being too long for the station?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess there are two elements to that one: 'Are we lengthening platforms for the purposes of running six-car rail sets?' or perhaps were you referring to, 'Are we continuing on with our regular station upgrade program across the network?'

Mr WINGARD: I was hoping the upgrade would be lengthening to accommodate the six-car rail sets.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: What we have seen with the introduction of electric train services on the Seaford line, particularly when we have introduced limited stop peak services, is that those services will only call at particular stations, so it would be a very expensive and unnecessary task to lengthen every platform of every train station along the Seaford line to accommodate a six-car set, because of course we know from our data that some stations are vastly more heavily patronised than others, so to spend great deals of money to lengthen a platform at a station which is not particularly heavily patronised might not be the best allocation of—of course what we have across all areas of government, and transport is no exception—defined resources.

The CHAIR: If I could just butt in here. I have recently come back from a study tour in England and the trains there do not always accommodate the platforms, which I noted particularly, and they seem to be able to manage with just some announcements.

Mr WINGARD: I appreciate your comments but the fact that someone got stuck in the doors the other day is a little bit alarming and they are a bit concerned about it, but thank you for your comment, Chair; I do appreciate that. Back to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 87, line 5 about the commissioning of the 22^nd railcar. The statement also says that diesel railcars will all be removed from the Seaford line and presumably moved to the Gawler/Outer Harbor and Belair line with a 35-year old 2000 series train scheduled to be taken out of service.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We are removing those from service as we speak and continuing over the coming months.

Mr WINGARD: When were they scheduled to be taken out of service?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think they were scheduled to be taken out of service once we had received all of the electric train sets and gone through the testing and commissioning process for those rail sets.

Mr WINGARD: Can you give us a date as to when they will be taken off the Gawler line?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Not right now, but I can certainly endeavour to come back to the committee with some further information.

Mr WINGARD: I refer to Budget Measures Statement, Budget Paper 5, page 48, Station security and amenity upgrades. It says that there is $1 million per year for four years for CCTV lighting and amenities. Which stations are earmarked for these upgrades this financial year and how much will be spent on each one?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We will be making assessments of where this money is best spent. We have been rolling out improved security and safety arrangements across our train stations over the past six or seven years in particular, and we are left with, off the top of my head, a small handful of stations which do not have those sorts of amenities. We will also be looking at what other improvements beyond those CCTV and lighting upgrades we can provide to those stations. We already spend an amount of money every year improving, upgrading and refurbishing train stations. This is additional money which will help us move through that task a little quicker.

Mr WINGARD: What percentage of CCTVs at stations have been transferred from analog to digital?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have that detail in front of me.

Mr WINGARD: Does anyone alongside you have that information?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Mr WINGARD: Will this budgeted program transfer all current analogue systems to digital by its completion?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No; as I pointed out, this is in an effort to roll out CCTV and lighting improvements to a greater number of locations than what we currently have.

Mr WINGARD: How many stations on the Seaford line have been identified with poor lighting?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have that in front of me if indeed any have.

Mr WINGARD: Does anyone alongside you have that information?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Mr WINGARD: Has this poor lighting at stations caused problems for drivers, with inadequate vision on the cameras and the monitors in the cabins of the EMUs when passengers get on and off?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Your assertion within that question is that there is poor lighting at those stations, and that has not been advice to me. In the event that lighting is an issue at any of those stations, I would have to take that on notice.

Mr WINGARD: So it has not come to your attention that there is poor lighting at stations where the EMUs that have the cameras on the side cannot see people getting on and off?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I appreciate the assertion that you are desperately trying to make that there is poor lighting along stations on the Seaford line. I guess to remind you of the answer I have just given, that information has not been provided to me, but nonetheless I have undertaken to see if there is any further information I can provide to the committee.

Mr WINGARD: You will come back to us, thank you very much, I appreciate that. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 87, line 12, '% of train services arriving within 5 minutes and 59 seconds'. The 2014-15 the target was 95 per cent and the 2014-15 estimated result was 91.18 per cent. In 2016-17, the target is 94 per cent. I note there is a change in methodology measuring on time running. Why the change?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps if you can provide me with some more information about the change in the methodology of on time running.

Mr WINGARD: That is what I am asking you: the Budget Paper has a note that says there has been a change in the methodology.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will come back to you on that.

Mr WINGARD: Given that on time running for trains is measured at five minutes and 59 seconds, if they are inside five minutes and 59 seconds they are not deemed to be late, but if they tick over to six minutes they are deemed to be late. Can you confirm that on time running of trains coming into Adelaide station are clocked? Does the clock stop when they hit the platform and people can alight the train at the Adelaide station, or does it stop well before that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess there are a few points that should be made about—

Mr WINGARD: Not really.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Sorry?

Mr WINGARD: I was just saying, whether they can get to that stop or not is the question that I am asking.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, I appreciate the question. I am beginning to answer it. On-time running reflects, obviously, how well these vehicles are moving between train stations. Whether on-time running is assessed as a train reaching the Adelaide Railway Station in particular, let alone at a particular point in time within the Adelaide Railway Station, or if indeed it is a measure of a train and it is travelling between two other points in the system, I would need to clarify.

For example, by your measure, only trains coming from areas such as Grange, Outer Harbor, Belair or Seaford reaching into the Adelaide Railway Station would be assessed for on-time running rather than trains, for example, leaving the Adelaide Railway Station and heading out to places like Belair, Grange, Outer Harbor and Seaford, as well as Gawler.

Secondly, I guess the point I make is that, while it is unfortunate for the rest of the passengers on board, sometimes on-time running issues arise because there are a higher than anticipated number of boardings at a particular station, or indeed at a particular number of stations, which, in a concertina effect, cause trains to run beyond the five minutes and 59 seconds.

I guess the other point I should make as well is that sometimes train drivers need to step out of their cabin where they control the train from, walk down the side of a train, which can be an extensive walk, particularly if it is on a three-car diesel set or indeed an EMU, and assist disabled people or people with other mobility issues getting onto a train.

So, while 100 per cent would be fantastic, we have benchmarks reflecting that, from time to time, higher levels of patronage and/or people with mobility issues using public transport are impacting those figures. So, I am perhaps not quite as ruthless as you are in towelling up train drivers who are doing the right thing by people in our community, helping them use public transport on an increasing basis.

Mr WINGARD: That is absolutely nothing to do with what I said, and actually did not even address the question. If I can ask the question again—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I think I addressed it, particularly in the early part of my answer, pretty well.

Mr WINGARD: No, the question is: are trains deemed on-time running when they arrive at the station, or is it just when they get into the Adelaide rail yard? If they make it into the Adelaide rail yard inside that five minutes 59 seconds, does the clock stop then, and it does not matter how long it takes them to get to the station, or does the clock stop when they get to the station? It is a simple question.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The answer that I have provided you is that—

Mr WINGARD: Yes or no?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —there are likely to be several definitions for on-time running, depending on which direction the train is heading. So, by your definition, we would never be able to assess a train heading out to Belair, heading out to Grange, heading out to Gawler, or heading out to Outer Harbour, because your definition of on-time running is when a train is entering the Adelaide Railway Station.

Mr WINGARD: No, I am saying as a measure. Does the train have to get to the platform, or just inside the rail yard?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and providing you that context in my answer I said that I would seek some information from the department about how it is measured.

Mr WINGARD: Sorry, I did not hear you say that bit first. I apologise, I did not hear that bit and I am sure the gentleman alongside you can probably answer that question straightaway, and if we can get an answer, that would be great, because it is quite a big measure. If people know that the train arrives at the station and it is on-time running or if it is just in the vicinity, like the rail yard, there is a big difference. So, would you like to—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Maybe it is to do with the car park tax—who knows?

Mr WINGARD: Would you like to ask—

The CHAIR: Member for Mitchell, in my opening remarks to you: all questions go to the minister and he directs from there.

Mr WINGARD: I am just wondering whether—

The CHAIR: No, your questions are to the minister.

Mr WINGARD: Fair enough, and he will decide if he asks?

The CHAIR: He will seek the answer if he needs to.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I have indicated twice that I would take the question on notice and bring back further details to the house.

Mr WINGARD: I appreciate that; I just thought—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can write it down for you—

Mr WINGARD: I just thought we could do it really quickly, because he is sitting right next to you, but if you do not want to do that, that is fine. Budget Measures Statement, page 47: 'Rail signals and communication cable upgrade'—$6 million over the next two years, with a budgeted spend of $6 million a year over the next two years. Will this fix all the issues with rail signals and communication cables on our metro rail network?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess the first point to make is this is additional money. It is not $6 million but indeed $12 million—

Mr WINGARD: Sorry, $6 million over two years, that's $12 million, yes. Apologies, I need to make that point.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —that we are providing in addition to the tens of millions of dollars that we spend on rail maintenance on an ongoing basis. While we have spent significant amounts of money in extending and electrifying the rail network (certainly on the Seaford line), and while we have spent a significant amount of money on resleepering the vast majority of the passenger rail network as well, that does not mean that every element of the rail system has been upgraded.

Given that we take the services we provide to South Australians on the public transport system seriously enough that we would contemplate a range of measures that could possibly improve the public transport experience for South Australians, and given that we promulgate those sorts of policies on an ongoing basis, whether it is through budgets or whether it is at elections, this is another of our efforts to improve the reliability of the system.

You asked me if I will guarantee that this will fix every problem in the system. Of course it will not. Problems will always emerge in the rail system, in the same way that problems will continue to emerge on the road system as well. The key is: are we doing more about it? Yes, we are, and we are dedicating our resources accordingly.

Mr WINGARD: What impact is the current signalling system having on the Seaford line express trains, given that it was pointed out by the head of the department that he was having trouble sleeping at night because of some of the signalling problems that were within that network?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that that comment was particularly in relation to level crossings. Given, as I have explained to this chamber on previous occasions, the fact that we have what is perhaps described as a comparatively open rail system compared to other passenger rail systems around the country (for example, Sydney, which has a far more closed system; indeed, I am advised that some parts of it are completely closed, particularly to crossings, whether it is road or pedestrian crossings), the opportunity for people to deliberately or inadvertently stray onto our rail network and put themselves, drivers and other passengers on public transport vehicles like trains at risk is something which indeed causes all people who are involved with this area a great deal of stress.

I am sure if you spoke with emergency services workers, the prospect of having to attend a scene where somebody has been hit or killed in an accident on our rail lines would cause them an amount of concern and stress as well.

Mr WINGARD: Given that we are attempting to fix these rail signals and communication cables with this upgrade, how many different signalling systems will there be on the metro rail network after this upgrade?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that we are replacing components of the existing system. I am advised that this work is aimed towards upgrading the existing components within the signalling system rather than installing a new signalling system.

Mr WINGARD: The question was: how many signalling systems do we have on our Adelaide metro rail network?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will come back to you on that.

Mr WINGARD: Will these new upgraded signalling systems work seamlessly with the automatic train protection system when it comes online?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said, the $12 million over two years is not a measure to introduce a new and separate signalling system. This is money which is dedicated towards replacing and improving elements of the existing system. My understanding of the automatic train protection program is that it is designed to operate in coordination with the existing signalling system.

Mr WINGARD: So when will the ATP system come online?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The ATP system is being rolled out over a period, including both the works necessary, I think, below rail and above rail. I am not sure that I have a date, but I will endeavour to come back and find one.

Mr WINGARD: It was, in last year's budget papers, saying that it was already completed.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry, could you repeat that?

Mr WINGARD: It was in last year's budget papers saying that it was already completed, but it is not up and running yet. Is there are a reason?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am just advised that it is in the testing and commissioning phase, some elements of it.

Mr WINGARD: Will the ATP system then run on the entire network, or only on certain lines?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that it is progressively being rolled out across the system. As to how much the current initiative and the current budget funds, I would have to take that on notice and come back.

Mr WINGARD: Just to clarify, we are not sure how many lines the ATP system is going to be running on?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure but I am pretty confident someone in the department would be.

Mr WINGARD: But we are not going to ask them. Will the upgrade of the signalling system and the SigView system be able to handle express trains automatically, or will there be ongoing issues with yellow cautions slowing them down?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will take some advice but I would have thought whether a train is configured as a single or multiple car set, whether it is stopping at each station or running between stations missing some stops would not necessarily have an impact on how effective the signalling system and the automatic train protection system is, but I will come back if there is any further detail to add to that answer.

Mr WINGARD: More specifically, will the new upgrade of the signalling system work in with the SigView system and prevent the ongoing caution problems that are causing problems and delays with the trains as it stands?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I guess, either for the third or fourth time, I reiterate that the $12 million that we have over two years is to replace components in the existing system rather than—

Mr WINGARD: And will it make it work, is what I am saying.

The CHAIR: Member for Mitchell.

Mr WINGARD: I am just trying to clarify because he is saying—

The CHAIR: Let us hear the answers and then you can jump in again. I need to hear the answer.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You have already questioned me about this during question time and, as I said to you at the time, this is about improving the reliability of the system and making sure that we have fewer service interruptions due to signalling issues. It is a priority for this government because, of course, unlike your side of politics, we are always looking for ways to improve the public transport system and get more people onto public transport.

If you wanted some evidence to support my claim, not only have you personally failed to come up with one idea to improve public transport but, certainly, your party has failed to take a policy to the last three elections about public transport and, indeed, your federal party has made it very clear to jurisdictions, including South Australia, that they will not fund public transport improvements. I think that is a pretty clear demonstration of the Liberal Party of Australia's plans on this issue.

Mr WINGARD: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 69, line 26: Public Transport Infrastructure Renewal. What projects will be done under this budget line in 2015-16, $13.8 million?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You will see in the preceding two columns, for example, Estimated Completion, and not applicable is given to each quarter and to Total Project Cost not applicable is given. That is a treatment common throughout budget papers for programs which are on an ongoing basis, and that is the annual allocation for the 2015-16-year. Not only is it an increase of some $4.2 million on the previous year but it also indicates that this is an ongoing effort with no end because, once again, we recognise that we need to continue investing in the public transport system, certainly in its improvement as well as its maintenance.

Mr WINGARD: I understand you have got a pool of money and you have got projects you want to do as ongoing works that need to be done. Has that pool of money been allocated to any projects?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would imagine there is a standing number of matters that would need to be addressed on an ongoing or periodic basis within the maintenance budget. Whether all of it has been allocated or whether the additional money that we are putting in to improving our public transport infrastructure has been allocated, I will take that matter on notice.

Mr WINGARD: Is Laing O'Rourke's maintenance contract paid out of this capital works budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that this question, which you asked me in question time a number of weeks ago, is about the maintenance of parts of the rail network for which Laing O'Rourke has a contract, and is that paid for out of a project budget for the Seaford rail line? I think my answer stands that no, it is not.

Mr WINGARD: So it is not paid out of this budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think you said—

Mr WINGARD: The question is then: is Laing O'Rourke's maintenance contract paid out of this capital works budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Out of its capital works budget?

Mr WINGARD: Out of this capital works budget.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that it is unlikely because the payments made to Laing O'Rourke are likely to be considered operating expenditure.

Mr WINGARD: So it is considered operating expenditure and it is not being paid out of this budget line. Is that confirmed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is what I am advised. I am advised that the maintenance contract is most likely to be operating expenditure but I will double-check that and, if I have it wrong, I will bring it back to the house as a correction.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you. Can you confirm that Laing O'Rourke was paid $250,000 a month for its maintenance budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cannot confirm that.

The CHAIR: We just do not understand the word you are using; what is the question?

Mr WINGARD: I just asked: can the minister confirm that Laing O'Rourke—

The CHAIR: Sorry, what is the next bit: Laing and?

Mr WINGARD: Laing O'Rourke.

The CHAIR: Is that the name of a company?

Mr WINGARD: Yes, the name of a company—are they being paid $250,000 a month for their maintenance budget?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I cannot confirm that; I do not have that figure with me.

Mr WINGARD: Can you check it and get back to the house?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I can check it.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you. I move on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 86, line 1, which states:

additional income for services provided for special events through the implementation of the special events levy ($2.2 million).

What was the total budget for the special events levy for 2014-15?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You mean the anticipated receipts? It is not mentioned here but what is mentioned here is the fact that there is an increase in income of some $2.2 million from the application of that special events levy. I think that would have been outlined in the previous year's budget papers.

Mr WINGARD: The budgeted was but I am looking for what the actual was for 2014-15 for the special events levy, the actual figure.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Unless I am mistaken I think it is $2.2 million. I am told it is $2.5 million.

Mr WINGARD: So the budget was for $1.7 million but the special events levy brought in $2.5 million?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am sorry. I am advised that the budgeted amount of revenue was $2.5 million and it appears here the estimate is—

Mr WINGARD: For what it is worth, I think last year's budget papers indicated $1.7 million, if that is of any help.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will clarify that. I do not have last year's budget revenue target in front of me so I will have to double-check that. I am also advised that we do not yet have a consolidated actual revenue figure for that financial year, so I will provide that.

Mr WINGARD: Is there an estimated figure?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is an assumption and, of course, subject to correction, but if there is an increase in income, $2.2 million of that being for the special events levy, it may well be the case that the amount is $2.2 million but I would have to clarify that because, of course, that could also be just a $2.2 million increase on what was already being collected. I am just not 100 per cent sure how these numbers are broken down so I will take that on notice and come back to you.

Mr WINGARD: I understand, thank you. What is the budget for the special events levy for 2015-16?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised that it is $4.75 million.

Mr WINGARD: Can you outline which events paid the levy in 2014-15?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not have that list but, of course, the bulk of it to date and on an ongoing basis will be payments for the Footy Express services which are currently made by both football clubs, the SMA and the SANFL in different proportions.

Mr WINGARD: Can you come back to the house with a list of all the events that do pay the special events levy?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think so; I think we should be able to provide that, yes.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you; that would be great. Moving on to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 69, line 1, Rail Revitalisation—remaining network re-sleepering. Does this work include replacing the wooden sleepers with concrete sleepers on the Seaford line between Oaklands and Warradale?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not believe so, but if I am wrong about that then I will correct the record subsequently.

Mr WINGARD: Does this include replacing all remaining wooden sleepers in the Adelaide rail yard with concrete ones?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am advised we will have to take that on notice.

Mr WINGARD: Can I ask where these wooden sleepers will be replaced with concrete ones, if it is not those two locations?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You can and I will take it on notice and provide you with an answer.

Mr WINGARD: Will all projects be completed by December 2015, as outlined in the budget as the completion quarter?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Given we have $43,000 left to spend, I would hope so, unless there is some mitigating issue which prevents us from doing that.

Mr WINGARD: Sorry, but you have just said that you will not be doing the Oaklands to Warradale stretch and you will not be doing the Adelaide rail yard.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, and then you asked me: will the line at the top of page 69 be complete by December 2015?

Mr WINGARD: And that is the re-sleepering of the entire network with concrete sleepers?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I specifically pointed out previously that that is not the re-sleepering of the entire network.

Mr WINGARD: So, the project will not be completed, is that what you are saying?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think you might be getting confused. The project is a project of re-sleepering an amount of the wooden sleepers. You asked me earlier would we be re-sleepering those wooden sleepers in the vicinity of the Oaklands crossing and I made it clear that we will not be. However, given that there is money available and, of course, works still to be done, then this element, this project, will be conducted, or it is estimated to be done by December 2015.

Mr WINGARD: So, to quote the Premier, the wooden toothpicks will be staying at Oaklands.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not think the Premier said that the wooden toothpicks will be staying at Oaklands. Could you provide me with the reference for that?

Mr WINGARD: No, he called the wooden sleepers the wooden toothpicks; that is alright.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In areas on the Outer Harbor line and the Gawler line that was certainly the case, many sleepers that were replaced were in an advanced state of deterioration, but your characterisation that that applies equally to every wooden sleeper across the network, I think, is a bit of a stretch.

Mr WINGARD: Again, just quoting the Premier. What impact will this project have on service delivery when the work is being carried out to replace these sleepers?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would need to check where the sleepers are being replaced, but the rail commissioner has been endeavouring to conduct maintenance works and improvements to infrastructure in the period when trains are not running and I assume that is the case with these, but how that $43,000 is to be spent within the next six months I would need to double-check.

Mr WINGARD: Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 69, line 26, Public Transport Infrastructure Renewal. Does this project include trailer bogie inspection timer replacement for 3000 series trains, compressor upgrades for 3000 class railcars, road rail excavator for concrete sleepers, Glengowrie depot overhead upgrade and a tamper machine?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I explained in a previous answer a little while ago, this is an ongoing program, it is not a specific project, so these moneys will be allocated across public transport assets not necessarily just within the rail system nor necessarily just within the tram network or even indeed amongst the bus network. It will apply across those different areas and, indeed, maybe in other areas which immediately have not come to mind. You asked earlier if I could provide a breakdown as to what this will fund and my answer stands that I will seek some further detail and return to the house.

Mr WINGARD: So, it may or it may not be some of those projects, is that what you are saying?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said, it will go—

Mr WINGARD: It is unlikely.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, I did not say whether it was likely or unlikely. I reconfirmed my previous answer to the committee that I will seek some detail and bring it back to the house.

Mr WINGARD: How much has been paid to Tracksure for tamping works as part of the rail revitalisation program?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I would have to take that on notice. Are you out of questions?

Mr WINGARD: No, not at all, just smiling—just smiling. Given how important it is to have properly tamped tracks to run electric trains properly and to prevent damage to these trains, the department believe that our 30 and 40 year old tamping machines cannot do the work required. Given that, as you point out, the majority of sleepers now on the rail line are concrete, is the intention to keep the Tracksure contract going or is the intention to purchase a new tamping machine?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that what we have done with some of the works on the Seaford line is that we have made use of specialist equipment when it has become available in between that equipment being used by other jurisdictions for other purposes. Whether that is the approach for this work, I will have to take that on notice and confirm it.

Mr WINGARD: Where are we getting the machines from?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I said, I would determine—

Mr WINGARD: What other jurisdictions are we getting them from?

The CHAIR: Member for Mitchell, can we just hear the answer?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will walk you through them: Perth has a rail system, Victoria has a rail system, New South Wales has a rail system, there may be contractors in Queensland that have these sorts of machinery, and there are also two states and territories which have commercial operations as well which might—

Mr WINGARD: Are we getting it from all those states?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You have asked which other states we might get it from, and I am outlining to you those others that comprise the federation.

Mr WINGARD: Given the need for these machines and us getting them from other states, are we looking at getting a wheel lathe for our rail network to profile the wheels in maintenance, to maintain the money we have spent on the rail revitalisation program?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My understanding is that we have used a non-government wheel lathe; we have used a private wheel lathe in the past. Whether it is value for money for us to purchase one, I would have to make an assessment at the time as well as make an assessment of the availability of the wheel lathe. If it is just as easy or efficient or cost-effective to use someone else's wheel lathe and to procure those services on a regular, or even on an occasional basis, then we will make that judgement. It is about making sure that we are using our maintenance budget effectively.

Mr WINGARD: How much does it cost to send tram bogies to Melbourne to get the wheels lathed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure whether all tram bogies are sent to Melbourne to get them done—

Mr WINGARD: They are.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In the event that it does happen, I will take that on notice. I do not have that figure with me.

Mr WINGARD: Will you get back to the house with a figure?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If I can provide one.

Mr WINGARD: Given that an Evans & Peck report in 2012 suggested that the train wheel lathe that we have access to is diminishing and dying and unlikely to be replaced, have you done any scoping work and costing work on how much it would cost to ship our trains to Melbourne to get the wheels lathed as well?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I explained, we would make an assessment on whether it is more cost-effective to purchase a wheel lathe and continue to own and operate that piece of equipment, with all the budget implications that would entail, or whether it is more cost-effective to call these services in from the private sector, or indeed one of the other jurisdictions that comprise our federation. It is about making sure that we use our funds as efficiently as possible and also, of course, balancing the impact on the railcars that we are able to put into service.

Mr WINGARD: Could you inquire with the department as to any scoping work or costings that have been done and get back to the house as to how much it would cost if you were to go down that path of sending trains to Melbourne to have the wheels lathed?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not sure that the practice has occurred, but I will make an inquiry as to what the current arrangement is.

Mr WINGARD: My apologies; I am not saying that it has happened, I am asking if any scoping work has been done to get a price on what it would cost.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am not aware of that. I will see if I can find out any further detail for you.

Mr WINGARD: That would be greatly appreciated; thank you very much. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 87, line 9. The percentage of metropolitan weekday passenger vehicle travel on public transport was 6.5 per cent in 2013-14 and was maintained at 6.5 per cent in 2014-15, and it was 6.6 per cent in 2012-13. Given that this figure has gone down since 2012-13 and currently sits at 6.5 per cent, are you confident of meeting your target of 10 per cent by 2018?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We certainly aim to meet the target. It is a function of two things. One, of course, is the increasing levels of patronage on our public transport network. Of course, patronage increased by 5.5 per cent in the last financial year compared to the year above, and we saw very significant increases, for example, on our train system; some 7 or 8 per cent on the Gawler and Outer Harbor lines and, albeit compared to a year where there was some service interruptions and restrictions for work, a 78 per cent increase on the Seaford line. So we are growing our patronage.

However, as I have also outlined in another initiative that we have announced in the last 24 hours, we are also seeing a significant increase in the number of road vehicles that have been registered here in South Australia. Presumably because the cost of cars is decreasing as they become more available to people and more people take up the opportunity of travelling on weekdays in private motor vehicles, it becomes a more difficult function to catch that target, despite having strong growth in our public transport patronage.

The answer is: we will continue to chase that target down and, in doing so, we will continue to invest in initiatives like improving the services that we currently provide, improving the network on which we provide them, through the sorts of initiatives like improving the signalling system and replacing elements of it and also increasing the number of services, as we continue to do on the train lines, let alone what we are doing on our tram and bus network. Of course, the bus network does, for want of a better term, the heavy lifting of public transport movements in our city.

Mr WINGARD: Given the media release today that said train patronage for 2014-15 was up to 13 million from 10.3 million last year and given the growth of the line, the addition of extra stations and the lengthening of the line—the release also points out that the Adelaide Metro annual patronage numbers have gone up too, and they do not include the Footy Express or free travel—do the train patronage numbers include the free travel as well, the 13 million?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No; I am advised that the nearly 67 million passenger figure that we released today in terms of total patronage across excludes the eight million free trips that we provide as well. Including those, you would be looking at something in the order of 75 million trips across both buses and trains, but also trams, and that reflects certainly the Footy Express services. We do not quite do eight million or anywhere near eight million of the Footy Express services; we have been averaging a little over 50 per cent of Adelaide Oval attendances. To give you an idea, that is perhaps in the 24,000 or 25,000 people a game average, although sometimes that is much higher and sometimes it is a bit lower. That also includes the free trips that we give to pensioners and those eligible concession card holders outside of peak times, as well as for other community events for which we do not cost recover through special events.

Mr WINGARD: I appreciate that. I just want to make my question abundantly clear. You said that the 66.7 million people that used Adelaide Metro in the annual patronage figures did not include the free trips for special events, etc. I am asking: did the figure portraying of 13.1 million patronage include special events and all the free trips and the like?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: My advice is that the 67 comprises the 13 as well as the other amounts for tram and bus, and that the 67 doesn't include the eight.

Mr WINGARD: The 13 doesn't; is that what you are saying?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It does not, is my advice.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you, I appreciate that.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I will triple check that, but I am pretty sure that that is the case.

Mr WINGARD: Sorry, you will check that?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I said I will triple check that, but I am pretty sure that that is the case: it does not include those free trips.

Mr WINGARD: Fantastic. If you could get back to the house that would be wonderful. Budget Paper 4, Agency Statement Volume 3, page 68, line 34, 'Public Transport—Park'n'Ride Interchanges': of the $8.9 million to be spent in 2015-16, how much will be spent on upgrading the car parking at the Paradise Interchange?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is an excellent question because we, of course, went to the election with a policy to benefit people who use public transport—being the only major party in South Australia that conducted such an exercise—and we said two things. We said that we would upgrade the Paradise park-and-ride as well as a series of other park-and-ride locations, and we also said that we would introduce a transport development levy, which would go into the sorts of initiatives that would reduce congestion in our city. Of course, public transport is a major contributor to reducing congestion in our city. So when people like the member for Hartley, who has been banging his chest about wanting to get on with improving park-and-ride capacity at the Paradise Interchange, then voted against the revenue stream, which would have specifically funded it, unsurprisingly we were unable to continue with that initiative.

So, it has been a regrettable task for me to inform as many of his constituents as possible that he is responsible for meaning that hundreds of people each day continue to have to park on Darley Road, sometimes many hundreds of metres away from where buses pick up and set down passengers.

Mr WINGARD: Will you be bringing back the car park tax?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No, it is not in these budget papers and we have no plans to do so.

Mr WINGARD: How much is the estimated upgrade cost for the park-and-ride at Paradise Interchange?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There had been a previous budget allocation but there were of course several options which were being considered, everything from trying to provide an improvement either at or adjacent to the car park of the Paradise Community Church (that is not what it is called now) or moving roughly westwards towards where the skate park is to perhaps try to find a solution on the unfortunately spaced constricted area actually at the interchange on the same side of Darley Road as the interchange.

The figure off the top of my head was something in excess of $2 million, but unfortunately because your side of politics does not support public transport let alone those sorts of measures which encourage and enable people to take it, this revenue measure was voted down and we cannot deliver these sorts of important improvements which would benefit people in the north-eastern suburbs.

I am pleased to say, though, that despite the opposition of 'I do not support any improvements in the city of Adelaide, member for Adelaide,' we are getting on with the O-Bahn City Access Project which is a benefit to people in the north-eastern suburbs. Those two disparate positions of the two political parties which comprise the vast majority of members in this chamber—those who support the north-eastern suburbs and public transport and those who do not—that is a distinction and a delineation we look forward to promulgating throughout those suburbs, particularly in the lead-up to March 2018.

Mr WINGARD: When you did not mention the car park tax. Which measures are being undertaken to improve security such as—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, there is no car park tax. It is called the Transport Development Levy.

Mr WINGARD: —cameras at the car parks at the Paradise Interchange?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I think I have used several hundred words to explain what we are or more—

Ms CHAPMAN: It is still not clear.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, perhaps you are still fossicking around for an appropriate budget reference. Perhaps that is why you were not able to concentrate on—

Ms CHAPMAN: I've got it here for you in a minute.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You've finally got it, have you? It is a shame you didn't have it an hour and a half ago.

The CHAIR: Member for Mitchell, did you have a question?

Mr WINGARD: Yes, I did. Sorry, I did not realise you had finished. Apologies. I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 47, line 2: Operation Moving Traffic Adelaide. Given this initiative is looking to improve traffic flows around Adelaide, will any of these measures be designed to keep cars out of the city?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, I think your commentary has been that this is a waste of money and a distraction. Is that correct?

Mr WINGARD: No.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I do not want to distract you from the task at hand here.

The CHAIR: Order! The member for Mitchell is a big boy. He can look after himself.

Mr WINGARD: Are there measures to keep cars out of the city in this proposal?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: If you had a look at the material which was provided publicly, you would realise that this measure is about making it easier for cars to move around our metropolitan area, including the city.

Ms CHAPMAN: So what is the answer?

The CHAIR: Order! It is getting late.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Well, if you listened, deputy leader, perhaps with some attention, you might be enlightened.

Mr WINGARD: The Premier has made mention that he does want to get cars out of the city, so I am asking on the back of this proposal to make transport easier and improve traffic flows, will any of that be to divert traffic out of the city?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: No.

Mr WINGARD: So, that is all good. Fantastic. Thank you for that. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 83, line 23 on strengthening the national chain of responsibility laws. I note that given last year's papers referred to the commencement of the implementation of the heavy vehicle national law, is the government concerned by suggestions that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will not be able to implement its chain of responsibility legislation, roadworthiness reforms, national registration scheme and mass distance location charging, given financial constraints that they will not be able to deliver all four of those?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: To provide a bit of context, we have been working with industry stakeholders to come up with a package of reforms that will provide demonstrable benefits to road safety, particularly for the heavy vehicle industry. We have been doing that with the Livestock and Rural Transporters Association, and we have been doing it with the South Australian Road Transport Association, as well as other national organisations, such as the Australian Logistics Council.

In the same way that we have been working cooperatively and our efforts have been wholly supported by entities like the RAA, for example, which represents some 680,000 motorists and also the Bus Industry Confederation, which represents those bus operators, in the same way that they have supported wholeheartedly our efforts for Operation Moving Traffic, these other stakeholders, with regard to the heavy vehicle industry, have been supporting our efforts in this respect.

In the last meeting we had as national transport ministers, in May, I successfully moved that we accelerate efforts which were being conducted by the National Transport Commission, which is the policy-generating body for these matters. The Heavy Vehicle Regulator is, as its name suggests, the regulator: it is not an organisation that designs or sets policy or, indeed, is responsible for drafting legislation or negotiating with the states about how we roll that legislation out. When the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator makes comments that 'we cannot possibly afford to do all these policy functions', that is for good reason, because that is not what they are funded for.

It is South Australia's view and, I am aware, the view of some other people nationally, that, quite frankly, until we have the permitting systems and the other operations of the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator functioning smoothly, they need to stick to their knitting and make sure that we can move trucks around our community as efficiently as possible.

That is making sure that they process permits, so that we do not have to go to the extent that we have previously done between now and February 2014 and second staff out of our organisation, paid for by South Australian taxpayers, to supplement the money and the efforts that the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator has gone to with the money that South Australian taxpayers have already contributed to those efforts. If they say they are not confident that they can bite off a whole bunch of tasks beyond their remit, then that is probably because they are not meant to and they are not funded to.

Mr WINGARD: When do you expect the mass distance location charging trials to get underway?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Which budget reference are you looking at?

Mr WINGARD: I was just referring to 'strengthening national chain of responsibility laws'.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is something different.

Mr WINGARD: Fair enough—we can skip that. I will read in the omnibus questions because we are running out of time. Thank you very much; I do appreciate this.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2014-15 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2014-15, please provide the number of public servants broken down into heads and FTEs that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

3. In financial year 2014-15, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2015-16?

4. Between 30 June 2014 and 30 June 2015, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more which (1) has been abolished and (2) which has been created?

5. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, please provide a breakdown of attraction, retention and performance allowances as well as non-salary benefits paid to public servants and contractors in the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

6. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister and, for 2014-15, provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant, the purpose of the grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction 15.

7. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the name and budget for each individual program administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

8. For each year of the forward estimates, please provide the names and budget for each individual investing expenditure project administered by or on behalf of all departments and agencies reporting to the minister.

9. For each department and agency reporting to the minister, what is the total budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for financial years included in the forward estimates by year and how are these packages to be funded?

10. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2015, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers?

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed—

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Chair—

The CHAIR: We are out of time.

Ms CHAPMAN: I just wish to thank the members of the department for being in attendance, and confirm, as I previously indicated, that, if the minister were to view page 5 of the Hansard yesterday of the Attorney-General, he would understand why he and Mr Deegan have been put in the deep end.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of proposed payments adjourned and referred to committee B. I thank all members of the ministerial staff for their help today.

At 18:31 the committee adjourned to Friday 24 July 2015 at 10:30.