DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT, ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE, $800,605,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT, ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE, $12,696,000

TRANSADELAIDE, $2,079,000

Witness:

Hon. P.F. Conlon, Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Hallion, Chief Executive, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr R. Hook, Deputy Chief Executive, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr B. Stobbe, Chief Executive, TransAdelaide, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr M. Palm, Manager, Budget & Investment Strategy, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr J. Tepohe, Chief Financial Officer, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr R. Richards, Director, Sustainable Transport Policy, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Ms H. Haselgrove, Acting Executive Director, Public Transport, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr S. Matters, Executive Manager, Corporate Services, TransAdelaide, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate the changeover of departmental advisers. I ask the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition whether an agreement has been reached on the timetable for today's proceedings.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes.

The CHAIR: I have a copy of that. Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the chair is provided with a completed request to discharge 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 17 July 2009. This year, the Hansard supplement containing all estimate committee responses will be published on 2 October 2009.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make an opening statement. I will allow up to 10 minutes each. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for asking questions based on approximately three questions per member. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may, at the discretion of the chair, ask a question. All questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identified or referenced, and they must be addressed to the minister. The minister may seek assistance from officers, but all questions must be directed through me to the minister.

If members are unable to complete any questions during the proceedings, they may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper. I remind members that there is no formal facility for the 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, it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

I also advise that, for the purposes of the committee, television filming will be allowed from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, Part 6. I now call on the minister to make an opening statement, if he so wishes. Do you wish to make an opening statement?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I don't think so.

The CHAIR: Dr McFetridge, do you wish to make an opening statement? I will allow up to 10 minutes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I just want to make more of an announcement rather than a statement: that Harry McFetridge was born yesterday morning and I wish him safe travel through this journey of life.

The CHAIR: I will now transfer the rights to the usual opening batsman, and that is the lead speaker for the opposition. Proceed with your questions, Dr McFetridge.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.31, sub-program 4.2, Passenger Services. Can the minister provide me with a breakdown of the $22.6 million increase in expenditure between the 2008-09 and 2009-10 budgets for free public transport during off-peak periods for seniors; increased bus contract obligations; additional bus and tram services; increased funding to TransAdelaide; and other various public transport related initiatives that contribute to the increased expenditure?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I suspect I will not be able to give you that information on the spot. The free public transport to seniors is, from memory, about $10 million a year. Honestly, I think we will probably have to take that on notice. I do not think anyone here could break it up. The free public transport figure is an estimate, because it has never been done before. We estimate that it will cost about $10 million a year. I think it will be money extremely well spent, and it has been extremely well received. I know that Tony Piccolo was a great champion for this idea. In fact, I think it is safe to say that it was Tony's idea to give free public transport to seniors; he was a very strong advocate. We estimate that aspect of it to be $10 million per year, but it will come down to just how popular it is. I suspect that it will be very popular. The rest of it we will take on notice; I think that is the best that we can do.

Mr VENNING: Can I ask a supplementary question relating to that?

The CHAIR: If it is a supplementary question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes; if you get a seniors card—we are happy to accept that you do not work more than two days a week.

Mr VENNING: Is the free off-peak public transport available to country travellers? I know that the government subsidises some country services.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is available to everyone in South Australia who has a seniors card. I think you qualified for that about 30 years ago, Ivan. It applies to every South Australian. In fact, as I understand it, anyone coming from interstate is eligible for a seniors card.

Mr VENNING: In the country regions themselves?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You do not get it where there is no public transport. In regard to the earlier question about the breakdown of the increased funding, $700,000 per annum of that is for increased inspection and maintenance on the TransAdelaide system; $620,000 per annum is for increased security and graffiti removal—and I can tell you that it is a very important initiative—and $2 million in 2009-10 for operational support for public transport rail services; and $300,000 for an extension of peri-urban services.

Mr VENNING: I have a supplementary question. The government subsidises some of the country services provided by private operators. Are seniors using those services able to avail themselves of this privilege, because you do subsidise the services, anyway?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. I think I am correct in saying that we do not actually subsidise regional services. What we do is pay for the concession holders using that service. We are limited, but it is too difficult to apply this to those regional services. To make the point, I would say that, whenever one of your constituents comes down from Gawler to Adelaide, they are entitled to a service. Every South Australian who holds a seniors card is entitled to a service in the metropolitan area, but it is simply too difficult to arrange it with the many various providers in the regional areas.

Mr VENNING: Is there any chance—

The CHAIR: Order! Does the minister want to respond further?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have just been told that Ivan will be on the frontbench soon, which I think is marvellous; I am looking forward to it.

The CHAIR: Order! There have been three questions from the opposition.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand the member for Schubert's enthusiasm; he is doing the best for his constituents. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.29. How much has been budgeted in total for 2008-09 and 2009-10 as part of the operating expenditure for bus substitute services for the Belair, Gawler and Noarlunga line rail upgrades?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will have to get that information for you later.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, pages 6.69 and 6.70, in relation to the Bombardier maintenance contract. What will be the financial impact on the Bombardier maintenance contract if the new trains are of a type not currently worked on by Bombardier? Likewise, what will be the effect on the maintenance contracts when the new Alstom trams arrive?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It will have no effect at all on the Bombardier maintenance of trams contract.

Dr McFETRIDGE: In relation to the trains, is it too early to know as yet?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In terms of the trains, we have not yet made a purchase decision. I think we will be buying about 50 new trains in 2013-14. So, I will not be able to give any detail until we make a decision about what will be purchased. In short, the current purchases have no effect at all on the current Bombardier contract. As I understand it, that contract was written by a much better minister than me. Madam chair did that years ago, and it is a very good contract. Really, I think we should pause to reflect and congratulate the chair on what a good job she did.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Will the government be entering into another contract with Alstom, then, to maintain the Alstom trams?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The bulk of tram maintenance is done in-house. We have government employees who do that. Something we tend to like, which the Liberals tend not to like, is having government employees. As I understand it, the bulk of that maintenance is done in-house. Of course, the new trams will be under warranty. The trams are slightly second-hand (I think one of them has done about two-weeks' service), but they come with a new tram warranty. If any work were to be required pursuant to the warranty, we would expect the manufacturer to take responsibility for that. However, ordinary maintenance is predominantly done by government employees.

I point out that one of the arrangements we will be entering into, as a result of the new trams, is an arrangement with Yarra Trams in Victoria. We are very happy to have a very large company like that involved with us here in South Australia. We think it is a net addition to our capacity to run the system. However, most maintenance is done in-house.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Will the training of the drivers for the new trams have much of a financial impact?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The cost of the training for the drivers is included in the overall cost of the purchase of the trams, which is something I do not think the media fully understand yet.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.59, relating to fuel diesel supply. How many days' strategic fuel supply does the government have for trains and bus operations?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well done Duncan, that is one I don't think we have in the briefing papers. I am told five to seven days.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is that biodiesel or fuel diesel?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, I think we run buses on about 10 per cent and we are trying to get higher and are running trials, but it is diesel—diesel, I think.

Dr McFETRIDGE: As a supplementary, I have correspondence from the federal environment minister, Peter Garrett, who is questioning the availability of E85 fuels in South Australia and you may need to take that up with him, particularly with our encouraging the motor vehicle industry to produce E85 capable cars. I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 2.15: have speed limits been reduced on the O-Bahn and, if so, why and does this apply to all buses on the O-Bahn, and what will be the effect, if any, on time-tabling?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am certain the short answer is no, that there have been no speed restrictions on the O-Bahn. I did not follow the rest of the question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand undulations are developing in the O-Bahn and that it has been affecting the automatic air suspension on some of the buses and they have had to slow down for safety reasons. Is the minister aware of that and has there been an effect on time-tabling?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not know why you say that you are aware of undulations, as we are not aware of undulations and we run the system. It is terribly important that we do not make up stuff.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am not making this up, minister. I was as alarmed as you are, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You have form.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I don't think so. I promise you that I don't make up things.

The CHAIR: The minister has the call.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: As a result of having one of the only two O-Bahn systems in the world, it is hard to get buses made for it. We had some issues with turntables—they were quite public. We managed to write a contract with Scania to get buses with turntables that are not an issue. So often I listen to the member for Morphett and he has some latest story: undulations, speed restrictions—it is just not true. Why do you do this? Why are you so persistent?

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is a brave statement, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mate, I am not brave dealing with you. I have heard some of the greatest rubbish in the world come out of your mouth in parliament. I remember you attacking public servants for doing their job and you named them in parliament—I remember that, and they remember it too. I remember you talking about legionnaire's disease out of the airconditioning on trams. You described a dangerous black powder that was forming on top of the tram. That dangerous black powder was called carbon, and most human beings are made of it. It is fairly common stuff. Forgive me, I will take the risk and put your undulations and speed restriction in the category of another Duncan McFetridge invention.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You do that at your own peril, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I can hardly sleep at night wondering what you are going to do to me.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am pleased you stay awake at night because of me. I shudder to think what the thoughts are. We will move on, minister, if you don't mind, as I have a question on complaints about ticketing. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.3. It didn't take long, did it: 28 minutes past nine.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let us get this on the record, mate: you have a track record as long as your arm for inventing things. There are not undulations or speed restrictions on the O-Bahn. Aren't you ever slightly embarrassed about the bloody nonsense, pardon the language? Tony Piccolo is here today and I know you once said to him, after the last time you made up a story and got embarrassed with it, 'Don't worry, I only have to get one right.' That is the approach: don't worry about all the ones I get wrong—I only have to get one right! I hope you enjoy opposition because that is a luxury you can only enjoy in opposition. When you are in government you have to get everything right. They were your own words: I only have to get one right! If you have some pride in what you do you should get it all right and be truthful, honest and not invent things.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.30: complaints about ticketing. How many complaints in 2007-08 were there in the areas of punctuality, service changes, quality in staff, and fares and ticketing?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: How many complaints were made to whom?

Dr McFETRIDGE: To the Office of Public Transport—to your department, minister. To your department, to officers of your department, minister—just tell me.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Just tell you how many complaints have been made to officers of my department: oddly enough, I don't know. My office is in the Roma Mitchell building. I walk past people every day who have caught trains; most of them are quite complimentary and some of them might have complained. Do I put that in the list? Just tell me so that I understand what you are asking for.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I think that your officers have some information there.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If you want the formal complaints—do you want the commendations as well?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am asking about complaints at the moment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In 2007-08, in terms of complaints, the number is 7,105, which was down on the year before. In terms of fares and ticketing, I think you asked about, the number is 196, which is significantly down on the year before. We had a number of suggestions for service changes, and the number of commendations is 664, up from 532 the year before. Let us be honest about this: you mob were in government for nine years and did not spend a dollar on the public transport system. The place was suffering from a massive under-investment.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I wonder why.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You wonder why? You were not able to be the government because you had problems. They had serious problems so they were not able to be the government; they just kind of hung around for nine years and did not do anything. The truth is that there was massive—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You did. You privatised electricity, at a much lesser price than—

Dr McFETRIDGE: You supported it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, we never did. We never, ever supported it. I would have to say that, if you could read, you could go back through the records and find that we never supported the privatisation of electricity. I do point out that Kennett in Victoria at least got a much better price than you bumbling fools did. And I do remember the Auditor-General's Report on the sale of the—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It was all our fault; we held it up. I remember the Auditor-General's Report on the employment of the American-spiv consultants at $100 million to sell ETSA. I remember the glory days of your government, but let us come to the point. Even before you there was a massive under-investment—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Ivan, come on; you are going to be on the front bench soon. Apparently you and Mitch are new best friends; is that true? There was a massive under-investment in public—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Look, if you interrupt, I will just take longer. I do like the member for Schubert; he is a nice fellow. People say that I hate all the Libs. No, I like him and Gunnie. It gets a bit thin after that. The truth is that there was a massive under-investment in public transport and, in particular, in the rail system. This government has stepped up to the mark with $2 billion of our money. I am very proud of the fact that, through our relationship with it, the federal government is actually kicking in $646 million. There is so much money around—

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is $2.6 billion you are spending now?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If you allow me to finish, it is $2 billion from us and $646 million from the commonwealth. It is a difficult sum, but I reckon that it would probably add up to $2.64 billion. I come back to the point: it is the first and biggest investment in public transport the state has seen, and it is the first time since federation that the commonwealth government has been convinced to invest in public transport. This is a subject, I can tell the member for Morphett, I am happy to talk about all day, because the commitment and performance of this government, in terms of investment in public transport, as opposed to what we used to get from you, is transformational, I think is the best word.

We have recognised, as a government, despite difficult times, that there is a paradigm change in Australia about the way in which people will get around in the future. The car will not be king anymore. I am a great supporter of renewable energy; and, if I could spend some time talking about it, this state has been remarkably successful in renewable energy—without doubt the most successful in Australia, but—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mate, I do not think anyone in the Liberal opposition should go off on relevance. I do not think that relevance is an issue you guys should raise. Let me tell you this, and I will come back to public transport: the reason I raised renewable energy is that, as proud as we are, the greenest thing you can do is invest in public transport, and we are investing in public transport in a way that no government in South Australia ever has before, and I am very proud of that.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Ivan, you ride a bike? I do encourage cycling. I do know that Ivan is a keen cyclist. In lycra he does look like a character from Little Britain, but we will leave that alone. If you want to ask questions about public transport we will do it all day, because this is the government that has invested in public transport like no government before. We have made the single largest investment in the history of the state in public transport. I am very proud of the people who work for us in the Department for Transport, Jim Hallion and Rod Hook.

I want to emphasise the work we have done to secure a massive injection of federal funds for the first time since federation. So that we understand, for the first time since federation the federal government is putting money into public transport and we did better out of it than any other state, and I am proud of that. If you want to talk about public transport, I am here for the rest of the day.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer the minister to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.69 and train breakdowns. When will the reports be released on the Adelaide rail yard derailment and the Noarlunga train breakdown, and will these reports be released in full?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Which reports do you refer to?

Dr McFETRIDGE: The investigation reports into why they broke down and how the incidents were handled.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Are you talking about the rail safety reports?

Dr McFETRIDGE: The rail safety reports, any reports. You said that there would be investigations into these incidents, and we are looking for any reports that are available on them.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: From memory, we talked about the Adelaide derailment. Isn't it marvellous? Here we are in estimates in 2009, and the best you can do is go back over a year to dredge up some bad news from then. You are special, aren't you? I do not know whether you have short-term memory problems, Duncan, but you actually asked this question. We went through this at some length in parliament.

The answer was (and I love this one) that the cause of that derailment in Adelaide was what they call a fishplate. It was one put in during the term of the Liberal government; so it got lost in the system that was put in place by the former Liberal government. The cause of that derailment in Adelaide was the systems put in place by the former Liberal government and the former minister for transport.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; you do not understand it. You actually did ask this question about releasing the report, and I was giving the answer. Can I tell you that I make no decision personally about the release of reports. That is a decision made, I think in this case, by the Rail Safety Regulator. As I told you in parliament I cannot remember how long ago, the recommendation of the Rail Safety Regulator was that the full report should not be released because otherwise (from memory, this was the argument put to me) they will not get the candour and honesty from interviewing people if those people know that their comments will be made public.

Let me tell you this, Duncan. In some bizarre future world, you may be a minister, and I hope that, when you are, having know you personally for some time, you take the advice of people smarter than you—because that is what I do. I am quite ready to acknowledge that I have a number of people—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, mate. I do not know when you think you were put in charge, but you were not, okay? Duncan, my understanding is that you are going to be out and that Ivan is going to be in as soon as the new person takes over.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Ivan, come on! Mate, you look younger, you look better and you look brighter.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! We have a point of order.

Mr VENNING: There are too many sideshows.

The CHAIR: If members continue to interject, they cannot call foul when the minister responds to their interjections. If they do not want the minister to respond to interjections, do not make the interjection. Minister, have you completed your answer?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do apologise. I go on at length because I am so fearful of the next question from the member for Morphett. Please roll out another one for me.

The CHAIR: And the next question is, member for Morphett?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.69. What disaster recovery plan does TransAdelaide have for breakdowns and accidents, and how often are these practised with the emergency services?

Mr STOBBE: In relation to the question, we just completed another exercise only a few weeks ago that included all the emergency services. It involved a tram incident, and we undertook it at the Glengowrie depot. As I said, it involved all the emergency services and, by all accounts, the whole project went well, and there were some learnings. We undertake it on an annual basis.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I say that I think Mr Stobbe is doing an outstanding job running TransAdelaide.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes; I think that Mr Stobbe is a breath of fresh air. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.69: security. What agency will be providing the extra security on public transport systems and at what cost? When will these extra security be commenced?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It will be the same people who do it at present. When will it commence? I would hope on 1 July because we do this quite unique thing of budgeting: we budget for financial years. In short, the new security people will be the same as the old security people; there will just be more of them, and they will be working longer hours. Of course, we have brought ahead by an hour the presence of the security people on trains, and we have increased their number.

They will be employed under the same conditions as when you were last in government, but the difference is that there will be 60 per cent more of them and they will work longer hours, We think it is a terrific initiative, and I thank you for allowing me to point it out. I point out that, as a result of our increase in police numbers, there are also many more Transit Police than there used to be.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Part of the question was: what is the cost of the extra security?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is $1.5 million over four years.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.69: the redeployment waiting room. How many TransAdelaide staff are in the redeployment waiting room? What are their classifications, and what is the total amount of their salaries and other charges?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What is the redeployment waiting room? As far as I can ascertain, we do not have a redeployment waiting room, so can you get your questions somewhere closer to the facts? What are you talking about?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are there unallocated staff, who are still on salaries, sitting around in offices doing menial tasks?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Menial tasks? To be honest, I do not know. We do not have any in TransAdelaide.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is good news. In Budget Paper 4, page 6.18 concerning rail services City West, will normal rail services be disrupted during the relocation phase of the rail yards at City West and, if so, for how long?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How many of the Adelaide based employees will be moved onto the new Dry Creek depot, and what car parking provision has been made for those employees who will remain in the city?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: When we relocate the rail yards you want to know what car parking facilities—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Will be left here.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Oddly enough, we did not anticipate that question. I acknowledge it is a biggie, but we will just have to get back to you. Seriously; this is the Parliament of South Australia. You are asking me what car parking provisions are made for the relocation of the rail yard. Can we lift our game?

Dr McFETRIDGE: You do not think it is important where the employees park, how you plan it and so on? I would have thought it was a pretty simple question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, it is a simple question; I think 'simple' is a wonderful description of that question. I would assume that the car parking will be adequate. We encourage people to use public transport, and over the next few years we will be spending record levels on investment in public transport. One of those projects will be the relocation of the rail yards. When we relocate the rail yards there will be adequate parking for the purposes.

We are talking about being the government of South Australia that has invested in public transport in a massive way. We are buying new rolling stock, we are resleepering, and we are electrifying. The member for Morphett will have to forgive me if I have not turned my mind to the number of car parks in the new rail yards. They will be adequate. The Department for Transport in South Australia is transformed from the tired, underfunded people you used to employ way back then. That is a fact. We are proud of what we are doing. I will get back to you on the car parking, but I will tell you this: I might even get one marked out for you out there in the new rail yards—a permanent position for the opposition spokesperson for transport.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is a sad, sad day.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let's lift the game, eh?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.18, concerning rail yard bus relocation. Where will the government be relocating the buses that are now parked down by the rail yards?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: One of the great things about buses is that you can drive them around to somewhere else.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Round and round the city.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Apparently, we have a contractor called Transitplus, and it will decide where to park its buses.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, we do not know?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, I do not, and I am kind of happy that I do not. I have to say that, if I spent my time worrying about where a contractor parks his buses, I would think there was something wrong with me. I am not making a judgment about you; you may take seriously the issue of where a contractor parks their buses. I happen to think we have bigger issues.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 1.69, involving a similar issue of dead running time. What will be the cost of dead running railcars to the new Dry Creek rail facility?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We do not expect things to change at all significantly, but we will have to get the actual detail of that. It has been pointed out to me that electrification and resleepering mean they will be in the depots for less time. One of the things we will do as a result of our record investment is resleeper the lines and electrify them, and the trains will run faster, so they will spend less time dead, as you call it. They do not have to be refuelled, because they run on electricity. So, as a result of the investment of this government, the entire system will work much better than it has in the past.

I do not have the numbers on dead running to there, but I am reliably advised by the people next to me that there is no significant detriment in going to Dry Creek rather than Adelaide. One of the few things that we agree on in politics in South Australia is that there is a better use for that land that I see out of my window every day than a rail yard. It is a marvellous site. We believe it should be the site for a world class hospital; the opposition agrees that it could be better used, but its latest idea is for a sports stadium; that is what you guys are still on about. Mark, are you guys still committed to building a stadium on the rail yards?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: A very important piece of infrastructure.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There you go: a very important piece of infrastructure. The one thing we do agree on is that there are better uses for that piece of land than a rail marshalling yard. We do not agree on what the better use is; we think a hospital is marvellous, and I look forward to using that hospital one day (but not too soon). You think it should be a sports stadium, but there is no doubt that the one thing we agree on is that there are better uses for that land than putting trains on it.

Mr VENNING: As the minister is aware, at the moment the ERD Committee is inquiring into a reference on public transport generally across the state, and yesterday it specifically looked at the Barossa problems. If it cannot supply trains, is it feasible for the department to supply buses that link in with the scheduled Gawler to Adelaide services so that at least a few times a day it can run linking services into the Barossa under the metro ticket system?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I thank the member for Schubert. I put on the record that he is a genuine fellow who genuinely represents his area, and he plagues us about public transport out there.

Is it feasible? It is a difficult word because if you were to be entirely economic, you would not run public transport at all. I think the taxpayer subsidises three out of four dollars in the public transport system. About 75 per cent of the system is paid for by the taxpayer and about 25 per cent is paid for by the user. So, no public transport system is feasible. You make a judgment when you provide services as to the demand for those services and the cost. I believe that the northern suburbs out towards Gawler, where they have a very good local member—

The Hon. L. Stevens interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Sorry, and the other members on the Gawler line. There is no doubt that it is the growth area at present. The massive investment in road infrastructure through there, the presence of the interstate rail, and the fact that we were able to deepen Outer Harbor to 14.2 metres all means that the northern suburbs have infrastructure and jobs.

I think, at present, the numbers for public transport out there do not quite stack up, but it is the growth area of South Australia. If I were to predict the future, I think there would be much less in the south and much more in the north and, in those circumstances, those numbers that I talked about before become far more 'doable'. We do not have plans at present to increase public transport services there, but I think it is inevitable that there will be increased services in the north because it is the growth part of South Australia.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.31 regarding taxi revenue. Has the minister discussed with taxi owners the impact of additional taxi plates on owners' revenue streams and market value of the taxi plates?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Have I discussed with taxi owners? I have discussed it with the radio control people. There are a lot of taxi plate owners, so I could not say that I have discussed it with everyone. But yes, we have certainly discussed it with the representatives of industry. Some of them have different views than others; in fact, I can guarantee that some of them believed it was a good idea to put out more plates and some of them believed it was a bad idea. But yes, we have certainly discussed it.

We have probably talked to the taxi industry more than any government has before. We have the Premier's Taxi Council. I am happy to say that I consider Ron Barton to be a mate of mine—he is a good bloke. I talk to Wally Sievers; I talk to all of them. Yes, we have discussed it with them. At the end of the day, we made the decision and we made it on the basis of the interests of South Australians.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.31. Where is the current boundary for the metropolitan taxi zone? Does this include Mount Barker? Is the zone going to be increased?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What are the current boundaries for the metropolitan taxis?

Dr McFETRIDGE: For the metropolitan taxis, yes. Are you going to increase it and does it include Mount Barker at the moment?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, it does not. If you catch a taxi from the city to Mount Barker, of course, we regulate that taxi service. We will get to the metro boundary, but it is metro. No, Mount Barker is not within the metro boundary.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.69. What overseas travel has been undertaken by TransAdelaide staff during 2007-08 and 2008-09? Who went and what for?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will get you the details, but I can tell you that one of our blokes has been travelling to Spain a lot recently. We have bought some trams from the Spanish local government in Madrid, and they would forgive me for saying this but they have processes that would choke us to death. We have had a lot of people in Spain. Randall Barry is there at the moment because you cannot do a contract apparently unless you have signed it in Spain, and he has my delegated authority to go there and sign it. I spoke to my wife about my going to Madrid instead of delegating it to Randall, but she was not impressed with the idea. That is what you do.

I can assure the member for Morphett that South Australia is changing; it is not the place it used to be. It is bigger and better, with the brightest economic future of any state in Australia, and Australia is the place to be in the world, and I think that is a fantastic thing. What it does mean is that we are in the world, we are an exporting state and our people travel. Most recently they have travelled a lot by trams. I am proud of that. As a result of that, we will have a capacity that is 50 per cent larger in trams than the previous government. We are quite proud of that. We have had to go to Spain a lot for it. I will find out the rest of it.

I am advised that we have sent technical people to Madrid to check the trams to make sure that we were buying the right thing. No-one else from TransAdelaide has travelled in the past year other than for the tram purchase in Spain. Being the nice bloke I am, I can tell you in a broader sense that, in public transport and in transport in general, we have some people who are members of international committees and they travel for that. In fact, I am such a good bloke I will get you those details even though you did not ask for them.

The TransAdelaide people travelled this year entirely associated with the tram purchase from Madrid.

If you want transport in general, I am advised that 13 international flights will be taken by DTEI employees at a total cost of $50,000 for the 2008-09 year. Not bad really. Those health people travel more than that, don't they?

Mr VENNING: I refer to page 6.29, the same line. In relation to the wine train, I understand that you and your department are involved in continual negotiations with the current owner of the wine train, Mr John Geber. Is there anything to report? Are we making progress?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I can honestly say that I have not had anything across my desk on the wine train for as long as I have been the Minister for Transport. Apparently, we are waiting for him to get back to us. He has a responsibility to get some accreditation. I can tell you—

Mr VENNING: I have a supplementary question. I understand your department has had several reports. I know the Hon. Dennis Hood has tried to get some information from you under FOI.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is actually not true, and I am glad you have given me this opportunity because it is very annoying. It is a low level annoyance this notion that we refuse to give some reports on an FOI. There are no reports. I make the point right at the start; that is, we as ministers do not influence the FOI decisions: they are made by the departments. There are no reports. As I understand it, there is a series of internal documents where the people in the department have conversed with each other about—and often I think quite tangentially—the train.

There is no report to give anyone. There is nothing in the nature of a report. I have been the Minister for Transport since about 2005 (or something like that) and I have never had anything come to me about Barossa rail proposing that we do anything. This sort of fanciful stuff that some sort of secret study has not been released or acted on is not true. There are some documents that are not reports. They are internal documents which refer to the Barossa. They were not released. They are five to seven years old, I am told, and they are inconsequential.

The difficult politics of it is that we are not doing Barossa services. I am very clear about that: we are not. No-one in the department has ever suggested we should and we are not. We are not winning any points with people in the Barossa by saying that, but the simple fact is that, on our understanding, it would not wash its face. Public transport, as we talked about earlier, does not wash its face.

Mr VENNING: Should I ask the Minister for Tourism that question and not you?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The point you have raised is that, yes, it is probably a more important issue from the consideration of tourism than it is for public transport. Unfortunately, our obligation is to run public transport the best and most economic way we can. I come back to this point: when we run public transport, it is subsidised. It is about 75 per cent subsidised by the taxpayer. We do not have magic money; we only have taxpayers' money. We have to make decisions about the best way to spend that money on behalf of taxpayers.

The Barossa service has not been a matter of great discussion within the department because it certainly is not a priority. If you look around our services in South Australia and around the country, there has been a huge increase in demand for public transport and you put those taxpayer dollars in the best place you can. My advice is that is not the best place.

Mr VENNING: I hear the answer. I continue on the same line. I think we all know that no passenger transport service pays in the state, and I do not expect the Barossa one would either, but that is the criteria being used. My last question on this line is—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mate, you own about 35 cars; what would you do with public transport? How many cars do you own, Ivan?

Mr VENNING: That is hypothetical; it is an irrelevant question. The minister would know that most Barossa people drive to Gawler, park their cars and use the Gawler service to commute to Adelaide, which is a good service. We continually have a security problem in the Gawler car parks. I understand the department does control these car parks. What can be done, because cars are continually being stolen and vandalised? Cars are left there all day, with some of them often remaining there into the evening when it is dark, and the vandalism is extremely high.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will get Bob Stobbe to talk about this in a minute. What I will say is that we as a government are quite proud of our influence on crime statistics, particularly motor vehicle crime. When we came to government, we used to lead the nation by a long way in motor vehicle crime and we have improved that. Mike Rann is unashamedly tough on the people who interfere with your wellbeing and property.

I was very encouraged to see that one of our Supreme Court judges has been positive about the new bikie laws that have been made, and I think it is a tremendous step forward. I am sure that Mike is in the other place and is more than happy to talk about this himself. What I will say is that things are better now than they were seven years ago in terms of motor vehicle crime and crime in general. One of the reasons is—and I used to be a police minister—that we dramatically increased the number of police officers when we came to government, and that is something I am proud of.

Mr VENNING: What about a car park attendant?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have not finished yet, Ivan. I love listening to me. Do you? I really enjoy it. Bob might want to say something about it, but what I will say is that, in terms of rail security, there is more now. I think in terms of security people, 60 per cent more than there were, and they work longer hours than they used to. We have stepped up to the mark there. There is no doubt that you could do more if you had unlimited resources, but we have stepped up to the mark. We do 60 per cent more—it is actually more than 60 per cent more, because it is 60 per cent in numbers and, in terms of hours, they actually work an hour longer as well. Bob, do you want to add anything?

Mr STOBBE: Yes.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I know that Tony Piccolo is a very active local member, so I have to tell you that, if we were going to do anything, we would do it for Tony, because he never lets up on you. He is the hardest working local member I have ever seen. He never lets up on you. He is in our office about three times a week. He is always buying my staff chocolates. I know what it is all about, mate. It is about him getting his way.

Mr STOBBE: If I could add just a few points: in relation to the Gawler car park, we have actually received some additional funding to enhance the CCTV coverage. You may also be aware that there is a proposal to expand that car park as well to provide additional car parking spaces. That is still under review, but it is likely to proceed.

In addition, we work very closely with SAPOL in terms of identifying the hot spots. We encourage both our employees and the general public to let us know where there are issues. We respond very quickly to known hot spots, and SAPOL is involved—both uniformed and undercover operations—and it has been very successful. You can see the success rate of SAPOL. We work very closely with SAPOL, and we are very happy with that arrangement.

Mr HANNA: I refer to the same budget paper volume. In sub-program 4.2, passenger services, I am pleased to note the reference to additional bus and tram services. Of course, I am particularly concerned about the electorate of Mitchell. A particular point of reference is the development of the Hallett Cove shops, which is going to mean an increased demand for people to get from Trott Park, Sheidow Park and maybe Old Reynella—across the suburbs, in a sense, usually against the flow of public transport routes—to the Hallett Cove shops. Also, in Seaview Downs and Seacombe Heights, increasingly the population is older, and they have to walk across or up the hills—more than 500 metres usually—to get to a bus stop. Is there anything there which will assist the people in the electorate of Mitchell?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Off the top of my head, I cannot tell you. What I will say—and you would know—is that, in the area that you are talking about, we actually put $3 million into a road that we ordinarily would not fund, because we recognised the unusual circumstances. What is the connector road called?

Mr HANNA: Patpa Road.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Patpa; that's right. I would like to think that they named it after me, but apparently not. It means something else. I am advised, and as you have identified, we have actually bought new buses—not just replacement buses, but extra buses—and we have funded extra kilometres, which is the key point. I am told that there are five p.m. peak service increases and one a.m. peak service increase (Mitcham to city and city to Mitcham), so there are extra services for Mitcham out of those extra funds.

Mr HANNA: I am the member for Mitchell, not Mitcham.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Why are you saying it like that? I know you are the member for Mitchell because we swap suburbs every time there is a redistribution. I know all about that. We will get you the details. We always go out of our way to help you, Kris.

Mr PICCOLO: I am trying to find the reference. It was a supplementary question asked by the member for Schubert in relation to car parking.

An honourable member: It's 6.39.

Mr PICCOLO: Thank you; 6.39. Can the minister elaborate on the new security arrangements proposed for not only the Gawler station but also for Gawler Central station, and could he perhaps provide some background as to why the car parking has been increased?

Mr VENNING: Can we buy lock-up spaces? Can you provide lock-up spaces?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will come back to it. I want to put on the record that Tony Piccolo, the former mayor of Gawler, is the greatest champion for his area that I have ever dealt with. When I said that he is in my office three days a week, I am probably understating it. He has been an enormous champion for services out there. I know that, as a result of his work, he has had a number of meetings with Bob Stobbe about these issues. Bob, would you like to put something on the record? Before Bob starts, in short, as a result of the work done by Tony Piccolo, there are 60 extra car parks out there. In terms of security—I think we talked about this a little earlier—I will hand over to Bob.

Mr STOBBE: We have seen a significant increase in patronage, not just at Gawler, and we would like to see a continuation of that, obviously, as we expand our rolling stock and also our network. We often hear from MPs or the public about requirements at various stations. Gawler is one that we are looking at, but there are a number of other stations and park-and-rides that we are also considering expanding because of the increase in patronage. Gawler is just one of them.

As was mentioned by the minister, we are increasing the car parking there by around 60 car parks and, no doubt, that will quickly fill as well. So, we will have to look at other opportunities as well, as we continue to see this increase in patronage. I think I have previously discussed the security there.

Mr PICCOLO: Gawler Central as well?

Mr STOBBE: The same arrangements are in place at Gawler Central in terms of improvements to CCTV. I should have said previously that there have been significant upgrades and improvement in the lighting for the platforms and car parks, which will enhance security. We will continue to look at other opportunities to enhance the security as we go forward.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, my question is based on an allegation that has been put to me. I hope the minister can discredit the allegation because it is a significant issue, and I hope it is not true. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.31—Taxi accreditation. Can the minister assure the committee that no taxi drivers in South Australia are using illegally obtained accreditation?

Recently, on a trip to the airport, a fellow who claimed to be a taxi owner told me that two Department for Transport employees had been suspended because they had been issuing false taxi driver accreditation, and he quoted the figure of 47. I have not been able to verify this alarming allegation. If the minister is able to publicly discredit the allegation, that would be wonderful for the taxi drivers.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I guarantee that people will not act unlawfully? No, I cannot; I would be a mug if I did. The truth of the matter is that we have laws in place and, if people choose to break the law, they are criminals. I cannot guarantee you that every person in South Australia will obey the laws we make. However, what I can say is that, if you have some substantial allegation about this sort of behaviour, I urge you to deliver it to us, and we will act upon it. We cannot act upon things we are not told about. If you seriously have information, I ask you to deliver it to us so that we can act upon it.

I have no doubt that, as in every other walk of life, the majority of people in the taxi industry are lawful, hardworking people. However, I have no doubt that the industry, like any other, will occasionally attract people who choose to be less than lawful, and that is regrettable, but it is not unique to the taxi industry. I will say, though, that South Australia has always had the best taxi industry in Australia. It is not perfect, but it is an industry that has so often offered an opportunity to migrants to Australia to find their way, to work hard and to build a future, and that is something of which we can be proud and they can be proud.

Are there people in the taxi industry who are prepared to act unlawfully? Yes. Are there people in the banking industry or any industry on earth who are prepared to act unlawfully? Yes, there are. If the member for Morphett has some substantial information, he should give it to us and it will be acted upon because, as a government, we do not like people who act unlawfully. Even more importantly, the vast majority of people in the taxi industry are hardworking, decent people who are working for their families, and we would prefer that they are not tainted with allegations. I say to the member: if you have any information, bring it to us and it will be acted upon.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I put on the record that I hold the taxi drivers of South Australia in high regard. They do a difficult job, often under very difficult circumstances. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.8—Ministerial office resources. Minister, there have been some issues about the use of Cabcharge vouchers by TransAdelaide employees. I know that most of these Cabcharge vouchers have been used for exceptionally good reasons, but the issue has been raised with me about TransAdelaide employees being given Cabcharge vouchers to travel home from TransAdelaide social functions.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I just hope you have some reason for putting that on the record. I hope it is not another one of your inventions, because it reflects very poorly on people. You are talking about human beings. I remember you came into the other chamber and launched what I think was one of most outrageous attacks on a public servant, and you named him—and I think he will remember it for the rest of his life—and it was absolutely wrong. You accused him in cowards castle of acting inappropriately, bordering on corruptly, and it was wrong. You have never, to my knowledge, apologised to the chamber or to him for it.

We will look at your allegation, but I really hope there is some basis to it. You can come into this place and hop into me as much as you like, because I can take it. However, public servants who are doing their job—and if, God forbid, you are ever the government, they will do the job for you—should not be used as a political football. I know and Tony Piccolo knows, because he is out there, that your attack on that public servant was disgraceful, and I have never seen a trace of embarrassment or apology from you for it. So, yes, we will look at your allegation, but I do hope that one day you will take seriously the fact that you have been given high office and access to privilege and you should use it with some degree of responsibility and, I dare say, honesty.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That completes the questioning. I appreciate the fact that the government has not asked any questions, other than those asked by Mr Piccolo. We are happy to now move on to Transport Planning Services.

The CHAIR: We will now proceed to Transport Planning Services.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Heather Haselgrove is now leaving the chamber, but she is also leaving TransAdelaide as she has taken up a job running public transport in Hobart. I wish her the very best and thank her for all the work she has done for us.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr Andrew Milazzo, Executive Director, Transport Services Division.

Ms Trudi Meakins, Executive Director, Policy and Planning Division.

Mr Phil Allan, Executive Director, Safety and Regulation.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.17: DTEI's structure. Has the Department for Transport an Energy been restructured to remove the Department for Transport into an entirely different structure and, if so, when will this happen?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I did not understand the question: is the Department for Transport being restructured into something else?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. There are planned changes around TransAdelaide. I am bemused as it is a government department. There is no doubt we have a savings target and no doubt that it is likely to lead to a reduction in jobs in the future, but that is something in the environment of the global financial crisis for which we cannot apologise, but as to the structure of the department itself, it is a government department.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You said something about TransAdelaide.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: To be completely frank—and I have said it before—the structure of TransAdelaide was set up by the previous Liberal Government as a precursor to privatisation. They created a body corporate that could be hived off and sold. As a result of the good judgment of the people of South Australia, we came to government and that did not happen, but we inherited a corporate structure for TransAdelaide that I do not think is entirely appropriate for an ongoing government agency. Let us make no mistake: this is a government agency. It is a government agency that does service for South Australians—it is not a business. If it were a business it would go broke because, as I said earlier, public transport (particularly trains) is subsidised $3 for every $1 by the taxpayer, so you have to recognise that it will not be privatised and will never be privatised under this government.

Dr McFETRIDGE: But it has been restructured, has it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, we are looking at TransAdelaide because we believe the thing you put in place when last in government as a precursor to the privatisation was wrong. Unfortunately in the modern world we are all captives of accountants and how you account for the expenditure of moneys is bizarrely important in government. I assure you that, if it were not for what the accountants tell us, personally I would have moved from a corporate structure for TransAdelaide a long time ago. I believe that TransAdelaide is a part of the Department for Transport and provides services to the public and should be simply a government agency. How we get there is another matter. We are all under the control of accountants but, make no mistake, the only structure in the Department for Transport that should and will change is the structure for TransAdelaide.

One of the bizarre and weird things the previous Liberal Government did with TransAdelaide was set up within government this corporation that contracts with us, with the Public Transport Division (PTD), and it is bizarre. I do not know what was going through the heads of the previous Liberal government where you have an agency in government that contracts with another agency in government and then argues about the contract—it is bizarre. Why you did that is beyond me; it is wrong and we will change it.

Unfortunately, we are all under the control of accountants and have to do it so that it does not affect the bottom line. I find it quite weird that a dollar spent one way in government, if you change the name of the corporate structure, is different from a dollar spent elsewhere as it is all taxpayers' money, but that is the truth of the matter. I find it weird. The only change in the structure of the department is TransAdelaide, as should be the case, because it was a bizarre mad model that the previous government created as a precursor to privatisation. It is outdated, because we will never privatise it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.23. Does the state government have a comprehensive transport plan? When you were commenting on the O-Bahn on ABC Radio and referring to a comprehensive transport plan of the public transport system, the Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House (Hon. David Ridgway) FOI'd a copy of the comprehensive transport plan as follows:

I request access to a copy of the comprehensive transport plan referred to by the Minister for Transport on ABC891 on 13 May.

In response to that there is a one-page document, which appears to have come straight out of 'Adelaide—new connections' in last year's budget papers. I have had a look at the Victorian document, which is 154 pages. Does the state government have a comprehensive transport plan, as you said on radio?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I say to the member for Morphett that we have something better than a comprehensive transport plan. We have got the most comprehensive set of investments in public transport that the state has ever seen.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is different from an integrated plan.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You may value your 170 pages from Victoria; I value the $2 billion we have got out of the state Treasury to invest in public transport.

Dr McFETRIDGE: But without a plan, a comprehensive plan.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I could go on about this for a while.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Let us hear about this comprehensive plan.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I can assure the member for Morphett of a number of things, one is that we are far more serious than he is. We are putting taxpayers' money—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Well, show us your comprehensive plan, Patrick.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You have arced up; it is good to see that there is a little life left in you. It is really good to see because you have looked so much like a bloke walking the plank for the past few months. I understand that, as soon as the change is made, Ivan is going up and you are going down. Ivan, welcome. Look at Ivan; he looks happy enough. Look at that smile. He knows the future. I turn to plans. We came to government and we established the South Australian Strategic Plan.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You said you had a comprehensive plan of public transport.

The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, we have the most comprehensive plan for transport South Australia has ever seen, and we have investment to back it up. It is not a report for the consumption of people like you. It is—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What we are going through is the highlight of Duncan's time at estimates here, where he has woken out of his slumber and he yells a few interjections.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I say this to the member for Morphett about South Australia's planning for transport, the member for Morphett should look at what happened in the recent federal budget and the Infrastructure Australia funding. What happened was that, for the first time in history, since federation, the federal government put money into public transport. Per capita it put more into South Australia than anywhere else. Why were we able to do that?

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Will you just stop talking and listen for a moment.

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: His complaint is that the Senate committee did not come here. Let me tell you what we got out of Infrastructure Australia—about $1.2 billion. Do you know what New South Wales got? Do you know? It got $90 million. We got $1.2 billion. I am sorry but I would rather have the money than the Senate committee, mate. Call me old-fashioned, but I would rather have the money.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No plan. I look forward to the day when he is the minister because we will not have any money but we will have a great plan. The truth is that the quality of the work done by our officials in South Australia was the reason we got $646 million—the first time since federation—into public transport into South Australia. Why? Because of the quality of the work that they did. Why did New South Wales get only $90 million out of the whole fund and we got $640 million for public transport? Why? Because of the quality of the planning work that our people did. It is about the quality of the work: it is not about selling some cheap document to you—

Dr McFETRIDGE: You sent it to us, Patrick.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: When you are finished I will go on, because I am very proud of what our people have done. The fact that South Australia has the biggest per capita funding for public transport—I stress, for the first time since federation—was as a result of the quality of the work that was put up to Infrastructure Australia: the quality of the planning for the entire network. I do not know where you have been, but I can tell you this: we have put out a plan that involves the resleepering and electrification of the entire system. It involves buying something like 70 new items of rolling stock. It involves tram extensions, which one day you support and the next day you oppose, according to which way the wind is blowing.

It involves tram extensions to West Lakes and to Semaphore: a coast to coast tram. It is the most comprehensive plan for the future of public transport the state has ever seen. But it is better than that, it is an investment commitment. We had a global financial crisis interrupt us and we managed not only to preserve all of that public transport planning and investment but we increased it with the support of the commonwealth. This is a big success story. This is a success story for the state. This will be around for decades once we are all out of this place. It is a success story. The fact that you do not like the way it is presented to you is something that I will just have to live with.

When I am retired and I look around South Australia and I see the result of the great work of these people I work with—and I am very proud of the people in the Department of Transport—I will not be thinking about the fact that you did not get your plan, Duncan. Goodness me, let's get serious. We are talking about $2.6 billion going into public transport. We are talking about doing it in the best planned way that has ever happened in this state. We are talking about the fact that, in the next few days—I do not know whether I am supposed to say this because it is the Hon. Paul Holloway's responsibility—there will be a 30-year plan for Adelaide. That 30-year plan for Adelaide will include 70 per cent of development in the future around our rail corridors, with our urban growth boundary preserved and infill around public transport corridors. It will be about excellence and sustainability. It is the best thing we could have done for South Australia.

There is a paradigm shift. We cannot spread north and south any more, and the car cannot be king any more. Quality public transport is the future. We have $2.6 billion to underpin that future. It is without doubt the most significant investment in our future that we are making, and I am just going to have to live with myself because I have not given you the plan you want.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.23. What planning has been completed on the tramlines to Port Adelaide, Semaphore, West Lakes and Grange? When does the government propose that those extensions will be completed?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I remember that you asked me why there was no money for these extensions in the budget. They are beyond the out years. From memory, 2015 is the completion of works. You asked this question (although I am not sure why), but can I assure you that they are locked in. When we went to the commonwealth to get its contribution, we did so on the basis of what we were doing. That is why they are locked in—because we could not have got $600 million out of the commonwealth if we had not shown it our earnestness about what we were going to do. So, they are locked in, and they are going to happen. They are not in the out years, as I explained to you in parliament, but they are going to happen.

I grew up in Port Adelaide and, when I was a child, they took the railway line out of the middle of Semaphore Road, and we are going to put it back in. It is something we are very proud of, and it is going to happen. It is just outside the forward estimates, which go for four years, but I can guarantee that the funding is locked in because we have gone to the commonwealth and told it what we are doing, and it is contributing on that basis. I suspect that it will not contribute if we do not do our part of the bargain, so it will happen.

I point out that the commencement of funding is in 2013-14, with completion in 2015. You have to understand that we have to buy rolling stock, which has a long lead time. I have seen some of your frankly silly comments about the trams from Madrid. I do hope you are going to ask something about the purchase price of the trams from Madrid because you seem very keen to get out there and mislead people in the media. I do hope you have the courage to ask a question about them at some point. Are you going to ask about the purchase price of the trams?

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will wait.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will try to stay awake. What you said in the paper was absolutely silly but, then again, I am used to that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.23. Which areas along the current network have been developed for TODs, and why has the government approved developments, such as Buckland Park, which are not consistent with TOD policy?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Here is the deal. I will do this slowly. Our investment means that 70 per cent of development will be within the urban growth boundary, and that means that 30 per cent will not. The northern suburbs are the growth suburbs. The investment by this government in the Northern Expressway, the deepening of Outer Harbor, the future investment in what will be called the 'northern connector' and the movement of freight rail means that the northern suburbs are on the most important freight corridor in South Australia by a mile. It means that people want to do business and create jobs up there, which they are doing in bucket loads. That is why it is likely that you will see new suburbs in the north.

South Australia is a success story, and the northern suburbs are a huge part of that; therefore, in my view, Buckland Park (it is a private development and private investment) makes sense. It is putting people where the jobs are, where the freight is and where the future is. I do not apologise for that. I do not apologise for that at all. I will tell you something about Buckland Park. It used to be a bit of land out in the west that was bought by a bloke called Lang Walker.

Lang Walker is an Australian who, every time he starts a business, he tends to make a billion dollars out of it and then sells it. He is a very astute businessman. I have had a conversation with him because he believes that the future is not New South Wales; it is South Australia. He says that this is the place to be. Kerry Stokes says that this is the place to be. Why are they at Buckland Park? Because South Australia has the brightest future of any state in the commonwealth, and we are the best country on earth, too. So, why is Buckland Park going ahead? Because we are succeeding.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; we have not. We have not done any planning; we are just going to sit and let it happen. Are you serious? For God's sake, are you serious? Of course we have done planning.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order, member for Morphett!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I tell you something: not only are we planning but we are investing and we are building the future.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: South Australia is the place to be. Take some pride in your state, mate.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I just point out that what the member for Morphett is complaining, whingeing and whining about is the success of South Australia.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Show us your plan.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Show us your plan! Let me show you success. Independent economic advisers say that this is the place to be. Kerry Stokes says this is the place to be. Lang Walker says this is the next place he is going to make a billion dollars.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I tell you this, mate: my plan for the state is for South Australia to be the most successful state in the commonwealth, and I have bad news for you—it is working.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! I warn the member for Morphett. The minister has the call. The member for Morphett will have an opportunity to speak once the minister has finished.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My plan for South Australia is for South Australia to be the best place to live in Australia and to be the most successful place. I have bad news for you: we are on track. Independent advisers tell us we are on track. Access Economics—you know: that left wing group—says South Australia is the best place in Australia, and Australia is the best modern economy in the world. That is my plan for South Australia. Forgive me for its being a humble plan; I want South Australia to be the best place to live in Australia. I was born in Belfast; I migrated to this country. Every morning when I wake up I am in front, because I am in South Australia. I want it to be the best place in the world; that is our plan. You know what? Bad news for you, member for Morphett: it is actually working.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Despite you!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Despite me. I have to point out to these blokes—

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There should be an offence in the South Australia statute books of impersonating an opposition. These blokes are pathetic. They want to get on the front foot and get angry; they are pathetic.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The only reason the Leader of the Opposition has not been replaced is that no-one wants the bloody job. No-one wants it, because you are embarrassed. You are an embarrassment. You should be arrested for impersonating an opposition.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Does the member for Morphett have a question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.15. What is the current status of the National Transport Plan policy framework?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am going. Come on, mate; do some work! The National Transport Plan is ongoing. I will put this on the record: the current Minister for Transport is the best Minister for Transport the country has ever seen. Anthony Albanese has dragged people into national reform. Put this on the record: I am a huge supporter of greater uniformity in national laws. I think it is an embarrassment to our nation that, if you go to Europe there are different countries there which 50 or 60 years ago were at war with each other but which have greater uniformity of regulation than we have.

Unfortunately, we seem to be incredibly slow. I put on the record that Anthony Albanese recognises this and is trying to do more about it than any federal minister I have seen. Anyone who has ever been to an Australian Transport Ministers' Council would know that it is like Groundhog Day; the same things are on the agenda that were on the agenda a decade ago, because in this nation we are slow to move to regulatory reform. It is happening faster than it ever did, and that is because we have the best federal transport minister I have ever seen, and he is committed to it.

Let us be plain about this: while you are doing transport reform, glaciers whizz by; that is how long it takes. It is like Groundhog Day, I am telling you. I am happy to say that Anthony Albanese is a mate of mine; he is doing a terrific job, and he has recognised that we have to get our heads out of the sand and that we have to get greater uniformity in Australia. It is a very hard thing to do.

I think it is bad, and it reflects on everyone and our system of government in the past, but I think it is unconscionable that there is greater uniformity in Europe than there is in one country in terms of licensing and regulation. In short, what is happening is ongoing, and it should happen faster. I support wholeheartedly Anthony Albanese's moves to create greater uniformity and regulation of transport in Australia. I point out that Jim Hallion is chair of the Australian Maritime Group, for very good reasons: he sank his boat in the Sydney to Hobart, so they thought they would put him in charge of boat safety.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What long-term planning has been completed on the north-south axis, given that the federal government has now provided funding for this planning?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is kind of like, 'Please tell us what you have done well since you came to government.' When we came to government, the north-south corridor was not on the agenda. We put it on the agenda with funding and, as you well know, the Gallipoli underpass will be completed in about three months. Close after Gepps Cross, I think it is the worst bottleneck in South Australian transport. We did that. It was our money that put it on the agenda and, as a result of that, we got $70 million out of the commonwealth for planning alone and a commitment of $500 million.

I point out that when we came to government it was not on the agenda. We put it on the agenda, and we have achieved $70 million for planning and $500 million for capital works. Sorry; it is $500 million in total: $430 million plus $70 million. So far, in the planning stage I think we have spent about $12 million of that commonwealth contribution—around that. That will be complete. It is the most difficult challenge for road transport in South Australia. Geography has us pinned between the Hills and the sea. Are you not interested, mate?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am listening, mate. I was wondering what happened to the MATS plan. Do you still use it? Wouldn't that have been nice?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The MATS plan? Can I ask the member for Morphett that, if he is going to ask me questions, he bring them somewhere within the past 30 years? That would be helpful to me. Whatever happened in the dim past, we are the first government to put this South Road on the agenda. We have put our money where our mouth is and we are building works. As a result of the commonwealth contribution we will build new works. As a result of the $70 million for planning, we have changed the order of what we were going to do when we were doing it on our own and will build two overpasses in the north in the growth area of South Australia we talked about before; the place that moves the most freight: McCormack Road, Grand Junction Road and the Wingfield rail line.

As a result of our putting it on the agenda we will be spending our money and $500 million of commonwealth's money in improving probably the most difficult road for South Australians moving and moving freight. I am proud of that. I am happy to talk about it at great length, but it is ongoing and, as a result of our work, we have a funding partner in the commonwealth. We are quite proud of that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, what has been a result of the federal government's promise to complete a study into the rail bypass around the Adelaide Hills?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can you ask me questions about what I am responsible for? The federal government, in regard to your earlier plan, commented that our bids in Infrastructure Australia were funded because they believed they were part of a comprehensive plan. I just thought I would share that with you. That is a comprehensive transport plan.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes. But what you need to understand is that it is not about going out there and selling a document, mate: it is about building a future for our children. It is not about selling a bloody document. Okay? What was your other question? I don't want to waste a moment of this because I strongly suspect this is the last time I will ever get the opportunity to get asked questions by you. We have been told what is happening, and I probably should extend time today because it is the last opportunity I will get to be asked questions by you.

Can I point out that this is budget estimates for the state government? You are asking questions about a commonwealth study. If you like, I can get Anthony Albanese down here later and you can ask him questions. If you reckon I am mean, wait until you see him.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, what has been the result of the urban congestion studies? How is the Adelaide metropolitan area faring compared to other cities of similar population size? What is the government doing to reduce congestion?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mate, do you think about these questions before you ask them? We have put $2.5 billion into public transport because it is the future—to be exact, $2.64 billion into getting people out of cars and onto public transport, into getting the best planned city in Australia. What are we doing about congestion? We as a government have put South Road on the agenda and secured $500 million of funding from the commonwealth as a result of that. We are putting $2.5 billion into public transport, into our rail corridors. What is that about? It is about a better way of living; it is about getting people out of cars and onto high quality public transport.

Honestly, I am embarrassed by you. If you want to talk about this, we can talk about it all day. Can I compare what we have done as a government? Madam Chair, you used to be a minister for transport and started a lot of this and, whenever I drive through the Bakewell underpass, I am reminded that the Hon. Trish White was the minister who did it. I am grateful for it. This government has done so much more. In your nine years do you know what you did to improve congestion, for investment? Nothing. You sold ETSA—nine years, and they sold ETSA.

They say, 'The State Bank didn't let us do anything.' I have to tell you that we are the government of the same place as you were, and what a difference it is—nine years. Remind me what their big investment was in public transport in that time. That's right; I remember it—a one-way Southern Expressway. That was it. The only other project you ever did was entirely funded by Laurie Brereton up in the Hills. Laurie Brereton signed the cheque for it. So, mate, if you want to talk about congestion and what we do, just do me the credit of taking us seriously and stop asking dumb questions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is just the answers I shake my head over. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.22. Does the minister agree with his coordinator-general that trams should be allowed to run down Rundle Mall?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes? Interesting answer.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: And can I tell you why he raised that issue? One of the private sector developers who went overseas with us is angry with Rod Hook because he believes that Rod pinched his idea. We went to some cities in Germany—and it has changed the thinking of those developers, and I have to say it is changing the thinking of the department. We have always focused on rail corridors and separating those corridors from people. What we saw in some of the best cities I have seen in the world is that the trams run on a level surface and they mix with people, bikes and cars.

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Sorry, I forgot—you thought of all this before. Of course! Can I remind you about your travel report? You spoke glowingly of Bombardier trams until we bought them, and then you said they were wrong. You supported the tram extension to North Terrace until we decided to do it, and then you opposed it. You are on the record. I think, Ivan, you and the member for Morphett moved the motion in the house calling for the extension to North Terrace until we decided to do it, and then you opposed it.

I remember your story—the two stories you sold in 24 hours—about the tram accident. Do you remember that? How you were late for a meeting with the Premier—shall we go through that again? The two different stories in 24 hours? Can I tell you that the member for Morphett is a stranger to the truth. Do you want to go back? One day—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, so you know who represents you on the front bench.

The CHAIR: Has the minister finished his answer?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In short—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Ranting and raving—let me say this, just so it is on the record: the member for Morphett moved a motion in the Parliament of South Australia calling for an extension of the tram to North Terrace and, then when we announced that we were doing it, he opposed it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: No; I opposed some of the reasons for it, Patrick. I opposed the way you did it. You did it on the cheap. It was cheap and nasty. I just hope you are going to do the next bit properly, Patrick. Let's hope you do it properly, not cheap and nasty. Why don't you use booted rail, Patrick? Why don't you do it properly?

The CHAIR: You can both have a go, but one at a time.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can someone tell me what is wrong with the tram extension, because it has been marvellously successful? It has been hugely successful. You opposed it—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You changed your view as it was convenient. I come back to the point—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is your nickel, mate.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You're not a genius when it comes to this, Patrick.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The member for Morphett is right, I am not a genius, but I am smarter than him because I supported the tram extension from day one, supported it every step of the way. It was also commenced under the former minister for transport. I supported it. The member for Morphett supported it until we did it and then he opposed it. Then we went to St Kilda. Apparently, on the day we went to St Kilda for the history of trams, he always supported the tram extension. The truth is that the member for Morphett cannot keep a story straight for 24 hours. I am enjoying this because it is my last opportunity with the member for Morphett because I have heard the stories and he has, too. I regret to say that it is ta-ta for the member for Morphett from the front bench. Welcome, Ivan, looking forward to it, but I am enjoying this. I say to the member for Morphett: it is these little golden moments we share together that make the job worthwhile.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.22. Minister, what sites did you personally visit in the USA on your recent trip to investigate transport oriented developments?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will get you the itinerary.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Did you actually visit the sites in the USA?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You did?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, is that—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Did you visit the Oregon ironworks in Portland and see them building trams there—seven trams?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, I did not. I do not know what the member for Morphett is driving at, but, on occasions, my itinerary was not the same as those other people, for a very good reason. I had been to Portland before, and so had Rod Hook. On one of the occasions that the people in Portland were going to look at something, Rod and I were meeting with the people who run public transport there, because, having been there before, we thought that was a better use of our time. If your question is: did my itinerary absolutely match those of the other people—no, for the very good reason that we had been to Portland before. If you have some criticism to make of that trip, please make it, but be clear about it and do not invent things again, Duncan.

The CHAIR: Order! Before I call on the member for Morphett, I remind him that he must identify the line in the budget papers to which his question refers.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you for your advice, Madam Chair. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.22. Minister, what is the plan for the Tonsley rail line?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You would know that—courtesy also, I think, of the federal government putting in some money—we are doing a planning study of the Tonsley line and possible extensions to around the Flinders Medical Centre at Sturt Road, as well as looking at the future of Sturt Road and South Road. There is an ongoing study. I can say that our studies are backed up by money and I am sure something good will come out of it, but let us just wait for that to conclude.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 18, public transport ticketing. Minister, who are the bidders for the new public transport ticketing system; how many are there; and do they have a track record in Australia and/or even the Southern Hemisphere?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Can I tell you about bidding? I do not know and I do not think I should. I do not think ministers should award contracts. You guys used to muck around with that stuff when you were in government. I remember the Auditor-General's Report into the water contract. Do you remember that? The camera ran out of video tape; the bid came in late. We operate tenders in this government with the highest possible probity, and so I do not know who the bidders are. I may have been told but it—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Do you know how many?

The CHAIR: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not who they are but I know how many. The department can tell you that 13 organisations have so far responded. The evaluation of proposals will occur between June and August 2009. It will not be done by me, and nor should it be. It will be dealt with using the highest possible standards of public accountability because we are dealing with taxpayers' money. I contrast that with the water deal, ETSA, the Hindmarsh Stadium—blasts from the past. We deal with these matters with the highest possible probity. I do not know who they are. I can guarantee the member for Morphett that I personally will have absolutely no role in selecting the bidder. I will probably sign it when it goes to cabinet and that is about it because it will be done independently of me, and that is as it should be.

Mr VENNING: I refer to the same line, page 6.21, planning. In relation to the government's intention for the northern growth boundary, which is to the north and north-east of Gawler, has the department made any long-term plans concerning extending the electrification of the Adelaide to Gawler line to this new development area?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We have laid out an investment program for the next decade. We have no doubt that where you are talking about is a growth area and we have no doubt that, when we finish our investment program, there may well be new priorities out there, but I think what we have laid out is very clear. It is a 10-year program of investment in rail. It does not include extensions there at present. I believe in the future of this state and I have no doubt that we will do more in the northern suburbs in the future, but I also have no doubt that I will be safely retired by then.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I refer to page 6.22. In view of the fact that you say that the state is doing very well and that yours is the best government in the history of the state for transport infrastructure—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I didn't say that, but it sounds all right. I will live with that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Well, I think you did say that, minister. Perhaps we can look at the Hansard. Given your comments that yours has been the best government—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Minister, the member for Kavel has the call.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It is not our take, minister, it is your take: that yours has been the best government for transport infrastructure. What planning is being done to construct a second park-and-ride facility in the Mount Barker district given the fact that the current facility is at capacity? The second part of my question is: when will the government commit to funding to assist with the construction of the second freeway interchange at Mount Barker?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We will not be committing to funding for the second. We have done a lot of work with the council, but it is not our road and it is not our priority. We have done everything we can to help, including trying to secure federal funding, but it is not our road. The truth is that South Australia is a big place with a lot of roads, and it is not our priority, but we have helped every step of the way. In terms of the park-and-ride, in my view, Mount Barker is a great success story. They have got everything right, except their local member.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: They don't agree with you.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They will in the future, don't worry. You leave the colonel there and we will get you. It is in a growth area. We do not have plans at the moment. I can say that the investment that went into it has been a great success. I think it is much better than—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It's full.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes. It is full because it is good. The trams are full because they are good. People like to catch them and people like to use the service. For the benefit of the member for Kavel, I can tell you that public transport facilities being full is what you want. That is why we build them. The measure of success in public transport are the people who use it—and people use the facility. When will we do something in the future? Well, that is something that we will look at.

There is no doubt that we consider Mount Barker to be one of the growth areas. The two obvious big growth areas are north of Mount Barker. For the benefit of the member for Mitchell, my own personal view is that we have probably gone pretty much as far south as we are going to. The north is where the action is in the future. We have to put people where the jobs are—that is a very good idea; you just cannot keep spreading yourself out like margarine over the plains—but there is no doubt that Mount Barker is one of the growth areas and the investment will follow.

However, make no mistake, the system of contracting bus providers that your government put in place means that those investment decisions are not as simple as they would have been were it an entirely government structure, as it used to be. I am saying that we are not going back to an entirely government structure, but it is a different structure. It is a structure that you put in place, and it makes those investment decisions not just ours; they are investment decisions that are made in conjunction with service providers. In fact, I believe that Transitplus put a substantial amount of its money into the park-and-ride, which is a good thing—and good luck to it—but that is a different environment. The decisions are not all ours.

Mr HANNA: I refer to sub-program 2.1, Operating and Maintaining Roads. I note that there is nothing there about the Oaklands crossing, that is, the intersection of Diagonal and Morphett Roads and the Noarlunga railway line. Given the completion of the aquatic centre and the GP Plus community health centre, which is due next year, and the consequent increase in traffic, surely the Oaklands crossing grade separation will be bumped up further in the list of priorities?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I certainly hope so. Can I tell you as the local member that one of the great frustrations of being the Minister for Transport is that you cannot just ask for what you want; you have to listen to their list of priorities, and that is the case. I would make myself enormously popular if I were to direct them to invest there instead of their other priorities, but I do not.

Having been around there for a long time yourself, you would know, as a great example, that the people on Morphett Road have been looking for lights at Cliff Street for years. I think every local member has written a letter about it. I remember that, when I got the job as Minister for Transport, I thought, 'Finally I get my lights.' I went and saw them and said, 'So, what about my lights down there?' I think it was Mark Elford who said to me, 'Well, we could do it, but we've got a list of priorities, and that's about 100 on the list. If you want us to move it up to number one, we could do that.' I said, 'Okay, I get the picture. I better not do that because it would look like I was taking advantage for my local electorate.'

I would love you to be right, and that the guys in the department, as a result of those works, move it up the priority list. I have no doubt that there will be a grade separation at some point, as we have discussed in the past. There is some money in there for works in the meantime, as you would be aware. I think there is $1.7 million in 2011-12 and $10.85 million in 2012-13 to do some works around Prunus Street. It is an extraordinarily difficult intersection. I think from a traffic point of view, it is probably not as bad as it is from the point of view of the people using it. It is not a simple structure. I have no doubt that, at some time in the future, there will be a grade separation. I hope you are right—that the aquatic centre will move it up the list of priorities—because then I will be able to ask them to do it, but can I assure the member for Mitchell that I have not interfered with the department's list of priorities. I think that is for the best.

The CHAIR: The time for this session has now expired.

Membership:

Hon. I.F. Evans substituted for Mr Venning.

Mr Williams substituted for Dr McFetridge.

Mrs Geraghty substituted for Mr Piccolo.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr Vince Duffy, Director, Markets and Sustainability, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr Sean Kelly, Executive Director, Energy Division, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr Rob Faunt, Director, Energy Regulation, Energy Division, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Rau): I now call on the Minister for Energy. I refer the committee to the Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, Part 6. Does the minister want to make a statement in relation to this area?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; thank you.

The ACTING CHAIR: We are presently set down from now for a very long time. If the member does not take up all of that time, no-one will be outraged. It is a matter for you. Does the member for MacKillop want to make a statement and then begin his cross-examination of the minister?

Mr WILLIAMS: With regard to the time, having had the pleasure of conducting the examination of this minister on these budget lines for a number of years, I long ago came to the conclusion that two hours is more than sufficient for the examination of this portion of the budget. In fact, I sent an emissary to the minister several weeks ago suggesting that we cut the time in half and that some of that time be devoted to some of the minister's other passions, such as transport and infrastructure. However, the minister, to his credit, said that energy is so important, particularly now that the state does not own energy assets, that we should devote extensive time to the examination of what we no longer do. However, I will move on.

I have managed to find some things about which I am sure the minister will be able to enlighten the committee, and we will all be better off for it. Minister, in the first instance, I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 2.16, where it states that the operating initiative of the Australian energy market operator will receive reduced support, and the budget figure for this year is $1.737 million, going up to $1.837 million and then to $1.913 million in the out years. Minister, what is meant by the term 'reduced support'?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I can give you the detail. However, as you well know, because I think you dealt with the bill in the lower house, there have been a number of changes to the market operator; NEMMCO is being replaced by AEMO, and there are some changes in function. It is funded, of course, not just by South Australia; it is funded by everyone in the national electricity market and, I assume, in the gas market now.

I have to say that, from my experience with these things, the first budget is a difficult one because you do not really know what people will have to do before they start operation. That has certainly been the experience with the AEMC, whose budget has gone up and down a number of times, but I will have to get the detail. I know, for example, that the South Australian Planning Council role will be subsumed into AEMO and, as I understand it, some of its role will go, in six days, to Rob Faunt, who is the Technical Regulator for gas and electricity. However, I will have to get you the detail in relation to that. It is something that appears in our budget, but it is a matter that is governed by the ministerial council rather than the South Australian cabinet.

Mr WILLIAMS: Historically what percentage of the cost of maintaining the regulator, the old NEMMCO, is carried by the relative state governments? South Australia is different from New South Wales, where the state government owns the corporations that have been regulated, but in South Australia we do not. Does not the industry itself cover the majority of the costs?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is right and a lot of the things that used to occur in South Australia now occur nationally and were funded essentially by licence fees charged to the entity. It is a matter of some significant debate, and my view was that nationally the industry should continue to pay for the industry. The great champion of the alternative viewpoint was the previous Liberal federal government. I got along well with Macfarlane—I thought he was a decent bloke—but he had his instructions from Treasury. From memory, when we made some of these changes I was a strong supporter of industry continuing to pay for it instead of the taxpayer but, again from memory, Macfarlane pursued the view that the federal government would pay for the AER and not industry and that the states would pay for the other AEMC. I managed to get around that by finding a way of getting the industry to pay for it, but it is a little more roundabout than it used to be. We never paid anything for NEMMCO in the past.

This is a brave new world and most of the aspects I do not entirely agree with were the agenda of the previous federal government. At the end of the day the funds paid are not enormous by any stretch of the imagination; it is a very important industry and it is important that it be well regulated.

Mr WILLIAMS: I totally agree with the minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If you look at the pages you will see the revenues that match the outgoings. We still get the industry to fund it, but it is a little more roundabout now.

Mr WILLIAMS: So the revenues are collected through the licence fees?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes.

Mr WILLIAMS: The other part of the answer to a question I have probably not asked yet is that whatever it will cost will be charged as licence fees. I presume the licensing regime is such that there is flexibility for the government to cover whatever running costs are involved.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: This was a matter of some debate. To go back a step, for us to directly levy the industry would have required the commonwealth to do it under the new arrangements, whereas when it was a state regulator it was easier for us. The previous commonwealth government refused to do that because I think it had a view it might look unpopular. I do not know why it took that view, as the electricity industry should pay for its regulation. We adopted a system in South Australia where we continued to fund it through the industry, but it is more a question of catch-up now. You work out what you have paid and get it, but at the end of the day the taxpayer is no more exposed than they ever were.

Licence fees cover AEMC, ESCOSA and the Office of the Technical Regulator, and market fees cover NEMMCO and AEMO. From memory, the AER is fully funded by the commonwealth and with state regulators it used to be paid for. We have had this discussion before. To get a national scheme requires agreement from a large number of participants and not everyone gets everything they want, except the commonwealth because it has all the money and usually gets what it wants.

Mr WILLIAMS: The decision maker holds the cheque book. You mentioned the majority of the players involved, but did not mention ESIPC. Has that historically been funded by the state, and will that change now that it has been subsumed under the AEMO?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: ESIPC has always been funded by licence fees and will continue to be. Part of its role will go to the Office of the Technical Regulator, which is currently funded by licence fees, and part of it will go to the new market company. In a roundabout way they are eventually funded by licence fees.

Mr WILLIAMS: Will all the functions currently carried out by ESCOSA with regard to energy in South Australia be transferred across under the new arrangements, or will ESCOSA still have a number of functions, and what will be the cost implications, if any?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: ESCOSA will do less, but will still have responsibility in terms of retail. It will be doing retail pricing well into the future. You will know that the AEMC has called upon us to deregulate electricity pricing, which I have not agreed with, so ESCOSA will do that into the foreseeable future. If there is a change to government you will get to pick what you want to do, but that is our view. Even though the distribution reset is up with the AER now, there will be issues associated with licensing and reliability that will still be done out of ESCOSA. It will still have a body of work around electricity, but will not have the primary responsibility for the distribution reset. It is a big job of work that happens every five years and will still be done by the AER. It will still have a very strong role in retail and be required to license participants in South Australia.

Of course, it will have to collect that money so that we can pay for the other regulatory bodies. I know that, as recently as this week, I received a letter from Pat Walsh in which he talked about a new retailer. It continues to do those roles. It has a very strong role in consumer protection. I think that South Australia probably has the best consumer protection in the electricity industry. I know that some of that was by regulation and some by agreement. Sean Kelly, on my right, used to work for AGL before he saw the light and became a good person. There are plenty of roles.

I suggest that the opposition should probably have a meeting with Pat Walsh to get his views on the role into the future, because it is a major change and no-one understands it better than the regulator himself.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will pass that advice onto the shadow minister. Another change that is happening is that the Technical Regulator will come in-house from being established in a relatively independent position. The Technical Regulator will now become in-house within your department. Are you assured there will be no perception of conflict?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The Technical Regulator is governed by statute; there are laws, and those will not change. The Technical Regulator has new responsibilities as a result of the end of the planning council, but there is no doubt that, by law, the Technical Regulator will remain independent in terms of decision making, and that role should be independent. I can guarantee you that, having been in this job since March 2002, the Technical Regulator does make decisions completely independently and we are advised of them. We are not asked about them, but we are advised what those decisions are, as it should be. It is a very important role in terms of safety, apart from anything else.

Mr WILLIAMS: As you said, we recently debated the legislation for the establishment of the AEMO, and one of the regrets I expressed at the time when it was debated in our chamber related to ESIPC. I think you have said that it was one of the few things the former Liberal government got right. We disagree in that we think that we got many things right. Certainly, we believe that was done well. I understand that we are losing ESIPC as an independent South Australian statutory authority and that a number of the functions will be taken over by AEMO.

Will AEMO establish a state presence or a state office? Can the minister give the committee some details of that? Where will those offices be situated? Will they be situated in the CBD in Adelaide? What are the time frames and what sort of transition will we have?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is staying right where it is, basically. It will be called something different, but it will stay where it is.

Mr WILLIAMS: With basically the same staff?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Obviously, some of the staff that do the stuff of the Technical Regulator will, I assume, stay. I am advised that all the staff are going to AEMO and that the Technical Regulator will be resourced by us. All the staff, apparently, are going to AEMO. It has some very good staff, and Mr Swift is very highly regarded nationally. With respect to the point you make about losing ESIPC, in my view one of the good things of this reform process is that we are not so much losing ESIPC as, I think, improving the national planning capacities.

I think that the work that ESIPC has done for South Australia, some of those people will now be doing it nationally, and I think it is best for the nation. I think that they have done a very good job. The new Managing Director of AEMO is—I think he comes from Vincorp—Matt Zema. The member for MacKillop would know that name. He is part of the Zema family from the Coonawarra. I am very proud that South Australians are punching above their weight, yet again.

Mr WILLIAMS: For the sake of those thousands who will be following this closely in the Hansard, I point out to the committee that my next series of questions more appropriately refer to a different page in the budget. My questions now refer to sub-program 5.2 on page 6.34 of Budget Paper 4, Volume 1 under the heading 'Technical and Safety Regulator'. Under the AEMO, the program will assume the monitoring and investigatory roles in relation to major electricity supply interruptions. The kinds of interruptions experienced throughout the summer of 2009 would arguably constitute a major electricity supply interruption, and warnings about under-supply have been coming for several years from ESIPC.

In its 2008 annual report it warned that the combined Victorian and South Australian region would not have as much of a safety margin as the industry would like. Are you aware of the total payments made by ETSA pursuant to the Electricity Code for interruptions throughout the past financial year?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am aware that it makes them, not what they are. I cannot tell you. I can tell you that its performance has actually improved in terms of payments for interruptions on the previous year. Some changes were made to that. I will put this on the record. I know that Lew Owens, the former regulator running ETSA, is retiring this year. ETSA's performance in the massive heatwave in February was very good. In the 15 days straight of overnight temperatures staying at something like 30 degrees, it was putting out record demand and the system stood up.

I know that the shadow minister knows, but not many people understand that, in terms of supply, there have been only two instances of load shedding for suppliers since 2002 for half an hour each time. The majority of outages are, of course, associated with the networks. We were rightly critical of ETSA a few years ago in the big heatwave in January or early February (I remember that it at the time of the Tour Down Under), but the performance of the network in those circumstances was very good.

We quite rightly criticise people when they get it wrong, but I think it behoves us also to recognise when they get it right, and that was a good performance. My understanding of the payments for interruptions is that they were less in the last financial year than they were previously.

In regard to the matters raised about supply, I met with the planning council people about a fortnight ago, and they were very comfortable with the state of supply in South Australia over the coming summer. You would be aware that Origin has put an extra 120 megs in the quarantine station for a peaker, as our growth remains in summer peaks.

As you would well know, we have more than enough capacity for average demands; the summer peak is the issue. I note with interest that South Australia continues to forecast a growth year on year in electricity demand, which is a good thing. I read in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago the forecast that this year electricity demand worldwide will fall for the first time since World War II. That tells you something—that electricity demand is very much associated with the strength of the economy. So, we are happy that demand continues to grow in South Australia because the state continues to grow.

In terms of supply, I am confident that the planning council is correct in its view about the coming summer, that is, there is enough supply in the region. Having met with various people, one of the things I am certain of is that the issues that arose in the previous summer—which, I hasten to point out, were predominately outside South Australia and were Victorian and Tasmanian network issues, not South Australian—I am absolutely confident that the relevant bodies are treating those very seriously. They have looked at a number of issues, in particular those raised by South Australia.

We are looking at a more flexible reserve trader role. I know that the AEMC is also looking at the issue of the regulatory system becoming more directly involved in interruptible contracts with industry, as well. That is something that retailers do at present, and I think you have one in the South-East. A major user down there has an interruptible contract, and that is something it is looking at, too. So, it has taken those issues very seriously.

I put on the record that, although we have had difficulties now and then, I think that Australia's network management is as good as any in the world. The Australian transmission system has stood some tough tests, compared with what we saw in North America—quite probably the most civilised and advanced economy on earth—where, If you remember, they went to a black start down almost all the eastern seaboard.

I think it is important to recognise that, while occasionally the system gives difficulties, Australia's electricity system is by and large very well managed. Of course, it is helped by the fact that we have very good positive unions and union leaders in the electricity industry in South Australia, and one name comes to mind. Can you remind me, Robyn, who it is?

Mrs GERAGHTY: I think it might be Bob Geraghty.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Bob Geraghty, that is right. It is a good industry. I think I had better stop or the Acting Chairman might name himself.

The ACTING CHAIR: Yes, that is a real threat, too, and I do not want members to take that lightly. I will name myself if you misbehave. I am warning myself now.

Mr WILLIAMS: You should have done that this morning before you came here.

The ACTING CHAIR: I will not be able to come back here for a day, so just think about that before you push me further.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR: Exactly. You may go on.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. Minister, I think you hinted that you have been active in lobbying the national regulators and that you are happy with their response about what is happening.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have no doubt that they have taken absolutely seriously the events of summer and that they are looking at various bodies. Of course, the AEMC is looking at the real changes I talked about in terms of the reserve trader and the interruptible contracts. I know that NEMMCO is taking it very seriously, and I am confident that it will do everything in its power to improve the system. In particular, I know that NEMMCO has taken on board our comments in regard to the provision of information to people in those circumstances. Of course, its primary responsibility is to manage the grid, and we talked about that earlier. Having had the meetings, I have no doubt that it takes all these issues very seriously.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is interesting that it is talking about interruptible contracts. At the time we had those rolling blackouts in January or February, I was somewhat surprised that the uptake of interruptible contracts in South Australia, particularly in Adelaide, seemed to have been put aside. I was surprised at the way we had the rolling blackouts. When I looked at the situation, I realised that the disruption was something which was unexpected and which had happened quite quickly.

Notwithstanding that, as you mentioned a moment ago, earlier that morning and before we had the problem with the Basslink, Kimberly-Clark as I think the second biggest electricity consumer in South Australia contacted those businesses through its supplier and asked them whether they were happy to activate the interruptible part of their contract, and they shut down their plant that afternoon. That was a pre-emptive action taken by its supplier earlier that day, but it seems that that is not common place across South Australia. Are you suggesting it is something that is being looked at again?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You have to understand that there are two systems at work. One is the reserve trader system run by the regulatory body. Usually it is operated as a result of the forecasts for the summer, and we have suggested that it should be more flexible. The other, which you are talking about, you have to understand is a market based mechanism. It is not a regulatory mechanism and, while it can operate for the benefit of supply, it is predominantly a benefit to the retailer in terms of price.

What I mean by that is that, if they write an interruptible contract, they will charge less to the body that takes that electricity, and in times of very high pricing—not supply—they can take that supply out of there and put it into their portfolio. What the AMC is saying is that that could also be done from a regulatory perspective, not about pricing but about supply. That is what they are looking at at present.

I have to say that it would be important that any interruptible contract does not double dip in the future; that is, they do not get a benefit from their retailer and the regulatory system for doing what they would have done with their retailer anyway. It is important to be clear about the motivation of the retailer in the market: it is about pricing, not about supply. It is about having that supply in their portfolio.

The final report on these matters I think will be coming down from the AMC in October. From my perspective, I think the stuff on interruptible contracts was done at the initiative of the AMC rather than its being asked to do it. Our jurisdiction asked it to look at more flexible reserve trading. What it does show is that, whatever failings the system has, the regulatory system is responsive and quite nimble compared with what it used to be. If anyone thinks back to the national electricity code authority (NECA) and compares that with now, they will know that there is a big difference. I put on the record that there were a lot of good people at NECA—I think David Swift used to work at NECA—but as a body it was completely useless, and it is a much better system now. Let me be blunt: completely useless.

Mr WILLIAMS: I thought you might have chosen to stop altogether there, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: John Kelly, who was an industry insider at the time, agrees with me.

Mr WILLIAMS: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.33. On 5 June the Treasurer was asked on public radio in Adelaide how the extra pressure of running a desalination plant and rail electrification would affect the reliability of power. He responded by saying the planning council is 'right on top of this'. What additional investment do you expect will be required, probably more particularly to provide electricity for the desalination plant for which construction has started and which I understand will be quite energy intensive?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There is no doubt that desalinisation is very energy intensive. We were talking about it: you can round off a gigalitre to a megawatt, essentially; so, if you are making 100 gigalitres you will use about 100 megawatts.

It is important to remember that it is so much easier to plan for a regular demand than it is for summer peaks, which are hard to forecast. I have to say, BHP has a big increase in electricity use; those matters are very easy for industry to invest in, because you can write a contract with the people who will buy electricity, and in the electricity industry it is essentially the offtake agreement that funds any investment.

The hardest thing is building capacity for a summer peak that in some years may not occur. We have become used to heat waves in the past few summers, and the truth is that it is entirely plausible that we will have a very mild summer one year and the big risk will be winter flooding, which everyone seems to have forgotten about, but I have not, because I have been involved in it in the past, and floods are difficult things. It is far harder to plan for the vagaries of our climate than it is for those large projects.

Oddly enough (it seems counterintuitive), the more of those large projects that come on, the more secure your supply becomes, because it is very easy to write an investment for them. The real issue for South Australia would be to get our average demand somewhere closer to our peak demand, because that would be a far more manageable system. As you know, last summer I think we had 15 days in a row; we had the administered price cap for the first or second time since the market started—the second time it has ever been used. That is a very difficult thing to plan for, much more difficult than the capacity in a desalinisation plant.

I point out another issue. The question was raised about whether there is enough green power, because there is a commitment to use green power in there. I am advised that by the end of this year we will have about 800 megawatts of installed renewable energy in South Australia, so there is far more than is necessary for the desal plant. I am very comfortable. The reason I am very comfortable is that I had a meeting with John Eastham and David Swift last week, and they told me they are comfortable. If they are comfortable, I am comfortable. We will need a whole lot more electricity when we electrify the rail system, too, but it is all manageable.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am sure it is manageable, minister, but you made two comments in the answer to that question. One was saying that these sorts of investments are generally made and it is easy to make an investment when you can write an offtake contract, and then you talked about the total amount of renewables installed in South Australia, I think, by the end of the year. I can only assume that most of that investment has been associated with offtake contracts at the time of the investment. I certainly know that—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: By and large, if you don't have an offtake agreement, you don't get a wind farm up.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes. So, that gets back to the question about green energy for a desal plant. We are most likely going to need, on your back-of-a-postage stamp calculation, something like 100 megawatts of new renewable because all the existing renewable is probably already spoken for.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; you have to understand that the offtake agreement is with the retailer, not the user. So, the retailer is there to sell it. Let me assure the member for MacKillop that it is dead easy in this world that, if somebody has something to sell, you just offer them a price and they sell it to you. Make no mistake: the fact that a wind farm relies on an offtake agreement does not mean that that offtake agreement is with an end user; it is almost invariably with the retailer. Retailers are in the business of selling electricity to whoever will take it.

Mr WILLIAMS: Just a small point—and you may argue that you do not have the responsibility—but, as the lead person in cabinet for energy matters—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I just point out that, in this government, I am actually the brains of the organisation. I will take responsibility for most things.

Mr WILLIAMS: Of course, minister. That's why I thought I could digress a little from the line that I quoted.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: And that has been said by a number of people in my direct family.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, in regard to the desal plant, I understand that your government has written a contract with a company to design, build and operate the desal plant on a 20 year contract but SA Water, in fact, is managing the energy supply contract.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: SA Water is managing the project. I would have thought it would be odd for them to manage the project and not manage all of it. The allocation of responsibility within government is for SA Water to manage the entire procurement of that project. There are two things you have to do, if you are going to do a desal plant: you have to procure the infrastructure and you have to procure the energy.

Mr WILLIAMS: It just seems odd to me, minister, that the business that will operate it—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mitch, I have enough to do. While waiting for you, I have signed today something like another $10 million worth of school projects. We are building roads; we are building public transport. I am quite happy for SA Water to run the desal plant. Our blokes are busy enough as it is. As you know, I do not do much myself. I just go to the office, put my feet up and watch the others work, but they are all very busy and I don't want to give them too much more to do. For the record, that is not true; I work very hard.

Mr WILLIAMS: The point I was making is: why is it necessary that SA Water manage the energy contract and not the operator? I would have thought the operator should be responsible.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is an interesting question. I will ask you: who do you think is the biggest user of electricity in the South Australian government? It is SA Water.

Mr WILLIAMS: Historically, they have been; but they will not be pumping much water over the Mount Lofty Ranges in the future.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: With the water debate, there is a lot of nonsense, and you guys are spruiking nonsense about stormwater: the truth about water is that the world is made of it. If I might turn a phrase, there are bucket loads of water. It is either in the wrong place or in the wrong shape. Water is about three things, when you include price: it is about infrastructure and energy, and the price is what controls how much infrastructure and energy you can put in.

So, water is in the wrong place or it is the wrong shape. It is virtually indestructible. The water we drink today might have been drunk by Christopher Columbus 500 years ago. The world has its own system of moving water around and, unfortunately for South Australia, that water is in the wrong place in the wrong shape. To get the water you want, you have to use infrastructure and energy. As you are correct in pointing out, SA Water has used a lot of energy in the past. It is the biggest electricity user in government. What will occur in the future is that they will use electricity in a different way to make water instead of pumping it around; they will have to move it around.

People get very muddled in their thinking. They see a desal plant and say that it uses a lot of electricity and that is not good. I can tell you that water uses a lot of electricity. It does not run around by itself; you have to move it. So, I am confident that SA Water are the people best placed to manage an electricity contract for desal because they are the biggest contractors in government for energy and always have been. It would be peculiar if we were to give the job to someone else.

Again, I am indulging you, as it is not my responsibility. I take everything seriously, though, and I take the member for MacKillop seriously. He is a lot smarter than that last bloke who was here but, then again—coming from a low base. The acting chair can name someone if I don't behave myself. Let's be plain: these people have been contracting for electricity for years and years. They are the biggest contractors for electricity in government, and I am sure they are well placed to do it. If they are not, we are all in trouble because they used to be the biggest contractor of electricity when you were in government, too.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, minister. I think we will get back onto the area of your responsibility.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What about the football?

Mr WILLIAMS: I asked you. The first question was about what was going wrong down at Port Adelaide, and you chose to ignore me.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, it is a cunning plan.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, a cunning plan.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Rau): Member for MacKillop, when you get to the point where you reach the omnibus questions, feel free to read them straight into Hansard.

Mr WILLIAMS: You are trying to give me a hint, aren't you?

The ACTING CHAIR: No, it is up to you.

Mr WILLIAMS: I do have a number of questions that my colleague has given to me. The minister does not need to be quite as verbose. He can be a little more succinct, if he wishes. ETSA is trialling devices that will allow interruptible supply particularly to domestic situations. Can you update the committee on where we are with that?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: ETSA has responsibility for it. My understanding of the trials is that they have been very successful. My own personal view is that it is a much smarter idea than smart meters, which some people around the country believe in for no good reason. To my understanding, it has been very successful. Of course, the cornerstone of its success is that it is voluntary—no-one has signed up unless they want to. My understanding is that it has proved to provide benefits to users and ETSA.

Going back to those interruptible contracts, we are talking not only about being able to manage supply when it is in high demand but that it is extremely expensive. If we can save money at those times, the benefits flow on to all users. My understanding is that it has been very good. I suggest you get ETSA to give you a briefing on it, because I think it is a smarter idea than some of the other things I have seen and, as I point out, it is voluntary—

Mr WILLIAMS: I did not ask you about smart meters.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am a generous man; I am giving you a bigger answer than you asked for.

Mr WILLIAMS: In an earlier answer you talked at length about how easy it is to provide for known loads. However, you also made the comment regarding retailing that, if someone has the chequebook, they can buy the electricity available. With regard to the desal, you are suggesting that, if the green energy is out there, we can buy it because we have the chequebook—I paraphrase what you said. With regard to the Olympic Dam proposal, it has the potential to make significant differences to South Australia's electricity sector per se. Is it the government's expectation that BHP will contract someone to build a new power station or do the consuming public in South Australia need to be reassured that there is no risk that BHP has a bigger chequebook than the householder in suburban Adelaide and it will buy all the electricity?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We have to be clear about what we are talking about here. The average demand in South Australia is around 1,500 megawatts; peak demand is about 3,200; installed capacity for 3,000, plus an interconnect. The ordinary use is never an issue; it is only summer use. How BHP deals with that is a commercial decision essentially. My understanding is that its first option (because of what I have talked about) is that there is more than enough in the contract market for it simply to contract. I think ETSA, on behalf of ElectraNet oddly enough, built a new 132kV line up there. Its first response will be the contract.

It is a commercial decision. Ultimately, long term, I have no doubt that the project will see more generation investment. I come back to the point—and as I said before—that this is better for the system. It makes your system more secure. I would have thought that the likelihood is that you will see a big gas burner around Port Augusta, because the coal burning facility is now running out of fuel. You have the transmission line there, and you have the gas pipeline going past. The infrastructure is all built. I would have thought that, at some point in the future, you will see people thinking it is a wise decision to build a big gas burner near Port Augusta. However, that is a decision for the private sector. It is a market based private system—as you well know, you sold it—

Mr WILLIAMS: Great decision, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You stick with that and I will stick with mine. I am always entirely comfortable with the industry being able to deal with regular steady demand. It is a much easier thing than irregular demand. I am confident that South Australia is going well. I also point out that South Australia is doing very well in terms of energy investment, largely because of this very good government and probably the longstanding most excellent energy minister in Australia, really—that's me, incidentally.

Mr WILLIAMS: I refer to page 6.15, Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, where it states that the department 'delivered safe, reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity to 2,600 customers in 13 remote townships'. The crux of the question is: is that business as usual or has anything special happened?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No. There has been a little growth. New towns have not been added, but there has been some growth in some of the towns. Andamooka has had extraordinary growth in recent years, I think arising out of Roxby Downs becoming too expensive for some people. There is growth and demand. We have not added a new town for as long as I can remember. It is business as usual. It is a tough thing, because, if you are on that scheme, you get significant discounts in the regions as opposed to those who have to supply their own.

I know you come from a rural background. I have had people complain about the price of energy in the remote area scheme, but I have to tell you, if you are on a farm running your own diesel generator, you know the difference in price between what we charge and what you have to supply yourself. There has been no increase. We have had some cost pressures with the price of diesel in recent years. One of the few good things about the current financial crisis is that it has taken the heat off that, but, no, it is business as usual.

Mr WILLIAMS: I now refer to the technical and safety regulations sub-program at page 6.34. It shows that the budget revenue in 2008-09 was $3.5 million, and it is estimated that next year it will be $4.09 million. From where does that revenue come?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is predominantly licence fees to users. The whole system works on money in money out. They get enough to pay for themselves and they do not charge any more than that. Believe me, there is nothing left over at the end of the year. The industry's licence fees pay for the technical regulator, and that is as it should be. It plays an extremely important role in safety. I know that we have a very good record in that regard, and I think it is money well spent.

Mr WILLIAMS: Similarly, the budget line for the energy policy and programs sub-program on page 6.33: the budget has dropped from $14.56 million to $12.2 million, which is a reasonably substantial cut in the budget.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will check it, but you will find that the energy division operates a number of federal programs as well. So, if there is a change in a federal program—if it is cut or increased—I think that appears in our line.

Mr WILLIAMS: In fact, the figure that I quoted was the net cost. It is actually the expenditure that has dropped from $19.5 million to $15.7 million.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I mentioned that diesel costs have gone down but, as we discussed earlier, there are functions that ESCOSA would have performed in the past that will go to the Australian Energy Market Commission. There are functions that ESIPC used to perform which will go to the new AEMO. We will get you the detail, but there is a flux at the moment in terms of energy management. We actually gave additional funding for fuel in 2008-09. It will be pretty hard for you this year to draw a base with previous years because of the major changes in the nature of electricity regulation.

Mr WILLIAMS: Does one of the functions of this area include the $20 million renewable energy fund?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is operated out of the Premier's fund. It is run by the sustainability people out of the Premier's budget.

Mr WILLIAMS: So it is in the Premier's budget line?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes.

Mr WILLIAMS: And that fund is totally managed? You do not have any role in it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If people have an idea about the fund, they will talk to us, because we have expertise in electricity and energy. There was a suggestion for expenditure of the fund and, naturally, the Premier would talk to me about it, because we have a major role in terms of energy. They even talk to us about desal. Incidentally, Jim Hallion is on everything in government.

Mr WILLIAMS: I draw your attention to the performance indicators on page 6.33. I am delighted to see some of the numbers here because, for a couple of years at least, I have been asking you questions similar to the one that I am going to ask you. It is about the proportion of renewable electricity generated. I see here that you have an estimated result for 2008-09 of 15.9 per cent and a target of 16.9 per cent. The reason I ask the question is that it is very easy to become confused when we start talking about renewable energy, particularly when we talk about wind power. Is that what I have referred to as the main plate, or the installed capacity, of renewable energy relative to the total installed capacity across the state?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, it is.

Mr WILLIAMS: The fact is that wind generators tell me that, notwithstanding their installed capacity, they have about a 34 or 35 per cent operational capacity.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let me correct that. The figures go to the actual output. If you look at installed capacity, it is actually much higher than that. I think South Australia's installed capacity is about 2,800 megs and, by the end of this year, it will be something like 800 megs of wind. That is obviously a bigger proportion. It will be 1,000 within a couple of years. I think the highest world standards for availability of wind would be about 30 per cent, and South Australia is very good in that regard. Those figures—

Mr WILLIAMS: They refer to operational capacity?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They refer to the actual output. If we were to do it on installed capacity, we would have a marvellously better number.

Mr WILLIAMS: Similarly, in the next line where it talks about the proportion of renewable electricity consumed, I assume that is consumed within South Australia.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Here's the thing: people who buy green electricity do not necessarily get green electricity. The nature of the electricity market is that it is instantaneous. It is electrons. The consumption of green electricity is a notional thing. What you will find is that all green power made in South Australia is probably consumed in South Australia, but that does not necessarily mean that they were the people who bought it.

Mr WILLIAMS: That is exactly the point that I have been trying to make for a number of years.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What is the point? What is wrong with that?

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, it is the consumption that actually drives the investment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I assure the member for MacKillop that, as clever as I am, I cannot make electricity perform differently. It is an agitation of electrons and it happens instantaneously. I know that you have made this point, but I do not understand what it is. That is the way electricity works. I cannot control that. I am very good, but I cannot control that. Isaac Newton—a smarter bloke than me—could not make electricity behave differently.

Mr WILLIAMS: The question is: what does the 18.1 per cent target for the 2009-10 year refer to? Does it tell us that 18.1 per cent of the electricity purchased in South Australia is purchased via a green purchase agreement and, therein, that 18.1 per cent of the electricity purchased in South Australia is purchased at that price?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We are not at all embarrassed by the fact that we sell green energy to other people. I think it is a good thing for South Australia.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, I am not suggesting that you should be embarrassed. I am just trying to find out what the number refers to.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Are you talking about the selling of green energy as opposed to the proportion of the total consumption of energy?

Mr WILLIAMS: Consumption.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What other target could you use? How do we measure who buys what?

Mr WILLIAMS: I can tell you that the total output from the Lake Bonney stage 1 wind farm is consumed by Country Energy in New South Wales; that company purchases it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is nice to say that, but I can guarantee you that, when Country Energy buys the wind power from Lake Bonney, it does not get carried in some sort of truck over to New South Wales.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am absolutely aware of that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: When you set targets, you have to work with the realities of physics: this is the real way of measuring. Just for once, can we be proud of our state? We have done extraordinarily well, and we should take some pride in it.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, you are being overly sensitive and you are reading into my question that I have some ulterior motive.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You are the opposition; you only have ulterior motives!

Mr WILLIAMS: No, minister. We both know that we are all here for the good of the people of South Australia.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I take your point, Mitch, but how else would you measure it? What else would you do?

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, I do not know what you are measuring, minister. Surely, if the figure above that says that 16.9 per cent is a proportion of the total energy produced in South Australia—is produced by some renewable source—how do we get a figure of the total energy consumed in South Australia being 18.1 per cent of the total energy consumed in South Australia?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is transmission losses. The further you send electricity, the more you lose. It is a very simple engineering equation.

Mr WILLIAMS: You made that up, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; I didn't. Do we have an engineer here? Do you lose electricity over the transmission wires? The officer from the Office of the Technical Regulator is nodding. So, yes, you lose energy when you send it a long way.

Mr WILLIAMS: I accept the bit about transmission losses. The bit you made up was suggesting that that is the reason the figures are different.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Figures will be different for transmission losses. I am not making it up. Vince, would you like to answer it? He does not believe me; he might believe you.

Mr DUFFY: My understanding is that the two numbers are the total production of renewable energy. The first one is divided by total production of energy in the state, and the second one is total production of renewable energy over the total consumption in the state. The consumption is different from the production through losses between producing it somewhere and consuming it within South Australia.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Pretty much what I said.

Mr WILLIAMS: It is nothing like what you said, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Where do you think it gets lost? Do you think someone nicks it along the way? It gets lost in the transmission system.

Mr WILLIAMS: I fully understand that the difference is that the second number takes into account the energy that comes in across the interconnect. I understand it, minister, and, if you want a better understanding of it, come and see me one day and I will explain it to you over a cup of coffee.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My God! If my performance relies on your advice, I pity the state.

Mr WILLIAMS: It does indeed confirm, minister, what I have always believed: notwithstanding that we have a lot of investment in wind power in South Australia, the drivers for that investment are principally the MRET schemes in other jurisdictions.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; it is predominantly a national scheme. So what? What is the point of that?

Mr WILLIAMS: I am just trying to work out what your figures mean, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You do not like the MRET scheme or you do like it? What is the point?

Mr WILLIAMS: I love it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, there you go. And we have done very well out of it.

Mr WILLIAMS: I can almost see most of it out of my back window.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You should sit back and say thank you, then.

Mr WILLIAMS: Whenever I come across the people responsible, I thank them; you just do not happen to be one of them. With regard to the feed-in tariff, is there any proposal from your government to apply a feed-in tariff to electricity fed into the grid from sources other than PV cells? I ask that question, minister, because you have been saying that you want to know the motive behind my questions. Your government has installed a number of mini wind turbines, and I presume you have installed them as a demonstration of what can be done. If I put a mini wind turbine on my building, I do not get the benefit of a feed-in tariff.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is completely plain and obvious on the face of it—and we said it at the time—that it is a residential scheme. The truth is that renewables in a residential setting are almost invariably going to be photovoltaic cells. It is not aimed at renewable energy. As you have pointed out, there are schemes for the broader renewable industry. This is a residential scheme. To put it in context, we were the first government in Australia to do it—we have been followed by others—and it has been a success. However, it is a residential scheme. It is a scheme for people in their homes, and that is why it is shaped as it. As you well know, there are MRETs and renewable energy certificates for the industry, and this is for residential properties.

Mr WILLIAMS: In relation to the feed-in scheme, I understand that ETSA has written to those people who are proposing to put in a PV system and connect it to the grid informing them that they will need to upgrade their meter and that there will be a cost to the consumer of some $434.50. The opposition has been informed that in Queensland this service is provided for about one-quarter of the cost and that in Tasmania it is provided for free. Has your government any intention of subsidising the cost—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: First, I do not think that is correct. Secondly, can you believe the hide of the bloke? Do we intend to subsidise the cost? Let me explain to the member for MacKillop. A few years ago, a previous government decided to sell ETSA to the private sector, and it is now a company that operates with a profit motive. That is a decision you have told me earlier that you are proud of. Do you seriously say that, you having sold it, the taxpayer should subsidise the electricity companies?

Mr WILLIAMS: No.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is what you are talking about at the end of the day. You sold it, they operate on a profit motive and they charge. I do not believe your figures are correct in regard to Queensland and Tasmania where the government owns the joint. So, you want us to sell it and then pay for it. You have a hide! You country Liberals are all socialists—you have a bloody hide! You are right wing one day and left wing the next.

Mr WILLIAMS: The government owns it: the taxpayer is subsidising it. Whether it is doing it through a private company or not is making no difference; it is still subsidised by the taxpayer.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The taxpayer, the electricity user, subsidises the photovoltaic owner already as that is the nature of the feed-in laws. ETSA is a private company since you sold it. Oddly enough it wants to make a return on its investment, so it charges people. That is the scheme you created. It is not good for you to come in and whinge about it now: that is what you created. You want the taxpayer now to pick up the bill, having sold the assets. There are no revenues, the private company makes the money and you want the taxpayer to pick up the bill. It is a nonsense, Mitch.

Mr WILLIAMS: I simply asked whether you had the intention, minister. I did not say it was my intention to do anything. I am here asking you the questions, minister. I understand the minister's government gave approval for a wave energy pilot plant near Elliston on the West Coast. The Port Lincoln Times recently reported that the proponent, Wave Rider Energy, has further growth and export plans for its wave energy operations in South Australia. Do you have any information about what potential growth and export opportunities there are for that company?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Not that particular company, no. I understand our role is a little similar to the geothermal issue and created a way for the companies to secure property on a lease on the seabed so that they can have some security about their future. After that it is a question of the company itself operating in a commercial marketplace. I can get information for you on that, but there is no doubt that we are considered to be a leader in this area nationally.

The Carnegie Corporation down your way has a plant in WA, and there is no doubt that what they are doing is cutting edge, ahead of the pack, and if they get it right I have no doubt they will be successful in selling it elsewhere. At the end of the day we attempt to make an environment where it is safe for them to invest and they make their decisions about how commercial or otherwise the product is.

Mr WILLIAMS: Reverting back to solar panels, particularly photovoltaic solar panels, can the minister provide to the committee the total expenditure of his government on the provision of solar panels?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not think our department has ever bought a panel. We do not have a large budget, we just do work. I think we have put some on the tram stops. The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure's expenditure on photovoltaics would be very small—it is not funded from our lines.

Mr WILLIAMS: From that answer, I take it that all of that expenditure comes out of the Premier's budget line.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You can take that if you want—it is not what I said. I said that we do not do it and I am not responsible for what other people do. We will find out for you, because, as you well know, I am an extremely courteous man and will find out, but I know that the education department has spent a great deal on photovoltaics in my electorate in Edwardstown. It is a good idea. For example, I know that the Museum and the Art Gallery have spent money—they are all different lines. There is not a central photovoltaic fund; it is just a different way of buying electricity.

Mr WILLIAMS: We have schools putting them in, there are some on the roof of this building, we have the airport—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They are all different budget lines and none of them are ours. We never give away anything, mate.

Mr WILLIAMS: My last question before the omnibus questions is about your policy for energy efficient hot water systems, mandating that new hot water systems and the replacement of old hot water systems must be either gas, solar or the new electrical heat pump systems. Some of my colleagues get a stream of complaints, particularly from the hills areas, where there is no reticulated gas and the solar systems do not seem to work well because of a number of factors, including the cold temperatures. One plumber informed one of my colleagues that in the past 12 months they have had 75 solar systems fail due to, I think, frosts and the material on the roof cracking. Is it still the government's insistence that under these circumstances people cannot source a traditional type of hot water system in those areas?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We will get the details of that scheme, but it does not require anyone to do something that cannot be done.

The scheme takes into account where people are, the availability of gas and such like. Unfortunately, it is a complex thing to explain to people, and I think that, more often than not, it is not really an issue once it is fully explained. It is a new scheme. People are not completely aware of what they can and cannot do. I am happy to provide the honourable member or any of his colleagues with a briefing on how it works. I would say that it is very important that people take advantage of finding out accurately what their obligation is and not assume things.

My view is that many of the problems arise with people assuming their obligations and not really understanding them. Make no mistake, and you must understand the motivation for the policy, in terms of greenhouse emissions and the use of energy, this is the big ticket item. This is the biggest ticket item in the household. If we do this better, we take the biggest step we can in households about reducing emissions. The policy is a very good idea.

We are sympathetic to those who find it difficult in regions. I will point out what people do not understand: people have to do this only when they need to replace a water heater. They do not have to go out and replace it before their existing water heater is out of service. It is important that they understand fully what their obligations are and are not because, as I said, there are more assumptions about obligations than there are actual obligations in those areas. We are happy to give you or any of your colleagues a briefing on how the system actually works.

I point out, too, that we have been extremely careful about the introduction of it and phasing it in over time so that it is not too terrifying for people. It is not responsible for us not to do this. I point out that this is the big ticket item in households, so it is important that we do this. I know that some on your side are greenhouse sceptics. I know that. I know that you have more of them than most but, at the end of the day, if you are wrong, we are all in big trouble, and it is important that we do what we can to preserve our futures, and this is a very important scheme.

It might be awkward for some people. I think, as I say, they are probably more frightened of it than they should be. It is a very important thing to do and we will not apologise for doing it.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, you have been much more generous than I ever expected. You covered a lot more ground there than was proposed by my question. I will take the opportunity to read the following omnibus questions into Hansard:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the baseline data that was provided to the Shared Services Reform Office by each department or agency reporting to the minister, including the current total cost of the provision of payroll, finance, human resources, procurement, records management and information technology services in each department or agency reporting to the minister, as well as the full-time equivalent staffing numbers involved?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors in 2007-08 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, listing the name of the consultant and contractor, the cost, the work undertaken and the method of appointment?

3. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many surplus employees will there be at 30 June 2008, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the employee and the total employment cost (TEC) of the employee?

4. In the financial year 2006-07, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2007-08?

5. For all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what is the estimated level of under expenditure for 2007-08, and has cabinet already approved any carryover expenditure into 2008-09? If so, how much?

6. (i) What was the total number of employees with a total employment cost of $100,000 or more per employee, and also as a sub-category the total number of employees with a total employment cost of $200,000 or more per employee, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister as at 30 June 2008; and

(ii) Between 30 June 2007 and 30 June 2008, will the minister list job title and total employment cost of each position (with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more):

(a) which has been abolished; and

(b) which has been created?

7. For the years 2006-07 and 2007-08, will the minister 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 and the purpose of the grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurers Instruction No. 15?

8. For all capital works projects listed in Budget Paper 5 that are the responsibility of the minister, list the total amounts spent to date on each project.

The ACTING CHAIR: Before we conclude this quite exhilarating session, the very good news is that we are now running approximately 40 minutes ahead of schedule. If we can notify this afternoon's participants, we will tentatively resume at 2pm.

[Sitting suspended from 13:06 to 14:01]