ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND FINANCE, $1,611,729,000

Membership:

Dr McFetridge substituted for Mr Williams.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr W. Gibbings, Chief Executive Officer, Land Management Corporation.

Mr M. Buchan, Chief Financial Officer, Land Management Corporation.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Rau): I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Portfolio Statement, Volume 1, part 3 and part 6. I call on the minister to make a statement, if he wishes to do so.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No.

The ACTING CHAIR: I call on the member for Morphett to make an opening statement, if he wishes to do so. In doing so, I say to him that his predecessor in that chair managed to clip 45 minutes off the session, so the challenge is there.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will not be making an opening statement. I am happy to get into the questions, which have been supplied by the shadow minister. I look forward to a relatively uneventful afternoon and should not—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: I agree with you totally, Tony. There are some bloody good questions here.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: Sometimes I wish I was, but he has done a good job. I refer to Budget Paper 3, page 6.4. Can the minister explain why the $35 million refunded from an industry development loan to Mitsubishi has ended up in the bank account of the Land Management Corporation? What is that money being used for? In an explanation on 5 February 2009, the Premier advised by a media release that this package of $35 million of commonwealth funding, $10 million in state funding and a $5 million contribution from Mitsubishi will help the 930 workers move into new jobs and establish an industry development package. I understand this was in last year's budget but not this year's budget and that it is in a bank account held by the LMC.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My understanding is that the LMC has been dealing with the land in question, looking to find a use for it. There is no great mystery about it; that is just where the money is held until it is expended. It is a good idea; it will continue to look at the issues down there. You have probably noticed that it has become a little harder in recent months to use industrial land. There has been a global financial crisis, and the money is held there until it is used for the purposes for which it was set aside, so there is nothing special about it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same reference, how much land does the LMC currently hold for the government? What size are the land holdings and what value has been placed on them?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: How much land have we got and what is it is worth? Wayne, how much land have we got and what is it worth? All of it, apparently; everything we own. I am sure there is a point to it. I think we can come back to you on the size, because I do not think anyone can add it up as we go along. We can probably give you a sheet of paper.

Mr GIBBINGS: We have about 1,100 hectares of industrial land and 1,700 hectares of residential land. Then we have various smaller holdings such as those taken up by Technology Park, the Port Adelaide project as we hand it over the consortium and others, totalling about 3,979 hectares of land.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, what is the role of the Land Management Corporation in the development of land packages at Hackham, Seaford Meadows and Evanston Gardens?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The role of the Land Management Corporation varies according to project. Its charter requires it to act commercially, which I think is wise. On any occasion it does not act commercially it goes to cabinet, and cabinet makes a decision about that. The role of the Land Management Corporation in one place will simply be to bring land to market; in another place, if it is charged by the cabinet with a different responsibility, it will do something else. For example, the Playford Alive project has the Land Management Corporation in as a principal developer, because there are a number of social outcomes the government is pursuing with that piece of land.

By and large, the role of the Land Management Corporation in those places is to bring land to market in a timely fashion, and that is something that we regularly talk to the industry about. I can say that a year ago the industry was telling us we needed to get more land to market; now it is saying something different because of the way of the world. The role of the Land Management Corporation will be to act commercially to get land to market, but there will be occasions where the cabinet requires it to do something different at a particular site. Its role will be what the government decides it should be.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, what is the government's exposure to the Port Waterfront development, given that the Auditor-General has highlighted that LMC is in a 50 per cent joint venture with Newport Quays?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not know where you get these things from. It is not an exposure: we have an opportunity to make revenues out of the Port Waterfront development. Other people think the requirements on them to pay us out of profits are pretty tough. It is not an exposure; there is no risk of LMC losing money down there. I do not know why you say things like that. It is just a nonsense.

I would point out two things. First, the LMC has been around since before we were in government. More importantly, regarding that land release at the Port and the arrangements that have been made there, we received return of the tender or whatever it was called in about March or April 2002; that is, it went out under the previous Liberal government. So, the arrangements that were put in place were largely the design of the previous government.

I am not criticising that; we have been working down there with them, but it is quite misleading for you to come in here and talk about exposures when it is not about exposure. It is about an opportunity to develop and for government to raise funds, but we are not exposed to any losses. It is irresponsible for you to say things like that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, what is the level of government debt held by LMC for the Newport Quays development?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not think we actually hold any debt in relation to that development. The original transfer of the land to the LMC had a $6 million debt attached to it, but that is not related to any specific part of the development or land; I think it arose from the original government arrangements for the transfer of the land, which I strongly suspect was done under you.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, what is the total cost of remediation work at the Port waterfront development, given the Auditor-General's findings regarding the lack of process and compliance with Treasurer's Instructions?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not think the remediation work has anything—you know, you ask pretty weird questions: what is the level of remediation required given the Auditor-General's comments? The Auditor-General's comments do not affect the level of remediation required. They are unrelated subjects.

From my recollection, the developer bears the bulk of the remediation risk up to a certain point. I will check that but, again, this was something we inherited when we got in. I am not complaining about that; I quite like the Port Adelaide development. It was all started before we got there.

Yes, Wayne has confirmed what I have said. The bulk of the risk resides with the developer. We are committed to up to $35 million, and that is intended to be recouped through revenues; ultimately, in the long term, we are talking about something like $1.8 billion. The total project will be about $1.8 billion. If it is anything beyond $35 million, the developer is up for that, not us.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, in June 2008, the Le Fevre Primary School raised concerns with the government regarding dust from the Port Adelaide development. Can the minister advise whether there were any children affected by dust, any health issues arising from the issue and what is the government doing to ensure—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Absolutely not and, again, I do not know why you raise these things when they have no foundation. Why is it that you want to convince me? I went to Le Fevre Primary School when I was young; it is a very good school. I turned out quite well in the circumstances. I have a connection with it. It is on the street on which I used to live. No child suffered anything from it. In fact, my understanding is that the work that was done, once the issue was raised with us, was done promptly, and I think the school principal was pretty pleased with the level of response. It is just irresponsible, again, for you to come here and raise questions about children being affected when it never happened. Can't we just deal with the facts?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am not making accusations, minister: I am just asking the question.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: With the greatest respect, you are. When you come into this place and raise the issue of children's health being affected by the dust, you do make allegations. You might like to word them in a lily-livered way, but that is what you do when you raise those things. It is not true, and you should not worry people when they have nothing to worry about.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, Le Fevre Primary School were wrong when they raised it in June 2008, were they?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Are you saying to me, member for Morphett, that the primary school alleged that we had affected children's health?

Dr McFETRIDGE: No; they raised concerns with the government.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: This is what you talked about, son.

Dr McFETRIDGE: They raised concerns with the government.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You raised children's health; the primary school did not. They were satisfied with our response. You are irresponsible. You make allegations all the time, and they are usually dishonest.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can the minister advise whether there were any children affected by dust? No. Next question. On the same budget reference, what does the government want with the land upon which the Glamocak family business resides at Port Adelaide?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not want anything from the Glamocaks. I know them well and I have to say that Mr Glamocak is one of the hardest working South Australians I have ever met in my life. He is an outstanding South Australian. It is an outstanding boat building industry. I have met with them a number of times trying to find a way where we could sell land to them, but there is an issue down there whereby if you break the land up we then have to do some work under the Coast Protection Act which would be very expensive. I have tried very hard.

The most important point that I would make to the member for Morphett out of this is that he is asking the wrong person. That land is handled by Defence SA, not the Land Management Corporation. We were involved a number of years ago; we are not involved now. But I can say this on behalf of the government: we value the work that the Glamocaks have done down there, and I am sure we will come to a resolution with them. Things are not as straightforward as they seem. But you probably need to do a little bit of work and work out which minister is responsible because it is not me.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That completes the line of questioning on the Land Management Corporation.

The ACTING CHAIR: That is excellent, member for Morphett. Unless there are further questions, we will begin major projects.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, page 6.20. Under the investments column, there is a figure of $2 million for the South Road-Sturt Road underpass in the 2008-09 estimates results. On 19 February, the federal minister and the state minister in a joint media release announced they will be constructing a flyover at the Sturt Road intersection. Minister, can you give us details whether it is a flyover or an underpass?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What are you saying we announced?

Dr McFETRIDGE: A flyover.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My understanding is that we have some money from the federal government to investigate the Tonsley line extension and that work there. I stand to be corrected, but I do not remember announcing anything with the federal minister about what would be built there, which would seem to me a bit odd, given that currently we are spending their money on an investigation. Maybe you could assist me and tell me where we announced this flyover.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The document I was given is dated 19 February 2009. It was a joint press release. I was surprised, and I think it might have been a typo in the press release that was issued. It listed the intersections on that part of South Road that I would have assumed, but then at the end it said 'Sturt Road'. I was really surprised to read that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Tell me what it says exactly.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I do not have it with me at the moment, but you can soon check.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There is a study. I do not believe that we ever announced anything. I would just love to see where you get this stuff from, because there is a planning—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: An email from Godwin Grech. I do not believe we have ever announced anything except a study, and there is no doubt that what we would be looking at as an outcome would be a grade separation. For the life of me, I do not believe that we have ever announced a flyover. I have to say, I am not even sure what a flyover is. It is an overpass, we assume. It would be really good if we could deal with this on the basis of some facts. You allege that I have put this out in a press release. You do not have the press release. Can we be serious?

The truth is this government has put South Road on the agenda. No other government has in the past. We put it on there. We have funded works on South Road. The Gallipoli underpass (which you have done everything you can to criticise) will be completed later in the year. We have $500 million now from the commonwealth to go into that work, basically because we put our hands up and committed our funds first. It is a very good outcome.

I know that both Lea and Tony are pleased that we will be doing some works up north, as a result of the $70 million we have in from planning. We have identified those things we will do next and they will be overpasses. I have to say that I do not know anyone in the department who uses the term 'flyover'. I cannot remember putting it out. I am happy to be corrected, but I do wish we could do this from a factual basis.

Darlington has a study at the moment. I think there is $2 million in the budget, but, from memory, it is $4 million in total for that study. It involves looking at the Tonsley line. It involves looking at whether we can extend the Tonsley line to near the hospital. I think it is a very good thing to do. It is bizarre to suggest that we would have spent $4 million on a study and announced what we will do before we have completed the study.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have a supplementary question. Minister, at the last state election the government got a front page announcing the Sturt Road-South Road junction upgrade. My memory is that it was an underpass. A previous budget had $5 million to start the investigation in relation to that project. As the local member—Flinders Medical Centre is just in my electorate, that junction basically being on the border of my electorate—can you give me any timetable as to when that project will proceed now that we have $500 million from the feds?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: To be entirely honest with you, I do not think it is likely to proceed in the near future. We also got $70 million from the feds for the whole planning study. I think we have spent $12 million of that $70 million so far. We had Sturt Road (I think) next on the agenda. What it has indicated is that we should be going up to Cormack Road and north of Grand Junction Road, and we will do overpasses up there. That is principally around freight movements. The study indicates that is the best move next. Eventually, the whole road will be done, but it is a massive undertaking.

We think that the Sturt Road stuff was worth another look, because when we originally started down the path—I think you were the transport shadow prior to the last election—we started it as a road project and, having looked at what we are doing in rail, it became obvious that we should look at whether we can do a project that has more benefit than simply a road project.

My knowledge of it is that it will be very expensive. It is a very big job, but we think there is substantial merit in attempting to get a road-rail public transport solution out of it. We have looked at options such as major park and rides, and the same sort of thing coming up from the south. What we have discovered in looking at it is that there are opportunities to do more than simply a kind of South Road project and that there may well be major public transport opportunities out of the job as well; and, at present, that is what we are looking at.

It is a big job. I have to say the numbers on it are large, but we are doing large jobs now, and I have no doubt it will be done at some point. Of course, the other part of the mix is the Mitsubishi site about which you asked earlier. We have $35 million in the account to do something with the old Mitsubishi site. We believe it is important to look at all those things and to try to get a good outcome. Personally, I think it would be fantastic to get the rail to the hospital. I think that would be great and it would be an opportunity for a really high-class park and ride coming up from the south. I am not promising that, but we think that would be a really worthwhile thing, but it is expensive.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I have been handed a copy of the press release and I was as surprised as you, minister, to read in the second to last paragraph where Mr Albanese said:

The Australian government will provide $500 million in funding between now and 2014 towards the construction of South Road flyovers at the major bottlenecks at Grand Junction Road, Cormack Road, the Wingfield railway line and Sturt Road.

And Sturt Road—so, that is why I asked the question, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have to tell you that no-one in our department uses the term 'flyover'. It must be something DOTARS uses. I just told you that that is what we are doing. The next steps are overpasses up north.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I know. I was just correcting the record because there was doubt about the veracity of my statement.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, mate, you started about Sturt Road and said that we were building a flyover. Let's be honest, you did not say—

Dr McFETRIDGE: I didn't say it; Mr Albanese said it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You did not actually say 'flyovers' or, as we would call them, 'overpasses' up north (because that is what we are doing next), and I have told you that. Anyway, let's move on.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will move on. I refer to the same budget reference, Volume 1, page 6.20. The South Road upgrade—Grange Road to Torrens Road—project was announced on page 50 of the State Infrastructure Plan as a tunnel under Port Road and Grange Road. Can the minister explain what is happening with this project now?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is very simple, and I have said this a number of times before. As a matter of fact, I said it a little earlier. When we started South Road, we put it on the agenda and we put our money in there. We looked at the two major intersections as we saw them at the time. As a result of putting our money in, we were able to convince the commonwealth to put it in, too. I note that John Howard also promised that, if he won the last election, he was going to put money in, too. It was a very good outcome for the state. The first step of getting that money—I remember that Martin Ferguson was the shadow before the election—was to get $70 million from the commonwealth to fund a planning study. I have already said that, of that $70 million, I think about $12 million has been spent, and that that planning study, with a new funding partner, has led us to a different approach than we had when we were funding it on our own.

The outcome of that planning study so far indicates to us that the next step should be building overpasses in the places that I outlined earlier—up north. It is actually a good news story. It means that we can do more than we could before, and we have a funding partner that we did not have before—one with a lot more money than we have—and, as a result of that, we have identified the priorities.

When you get $70 million for planning and you spend it, you should actually do what it tells you to do, because that is why you spend the money. As I understand it, what it has told us to do so far is not go to Port Road next but to go up north. As the chief executive says, the reason that it has sent us there is that that is where the greatest delays are and that is where they move the most freight. They are very doable jobs in the immediate future, and we will be doing them.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.18: South Road Planning. You mentioned the Gallipoli underpass before: when will the roadworks associated with the underpass be completed so that traffic can flow at 60km/h again?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I think the timetable was September, and I think we are right on track to meet that. In fact, Rod points out that it was originally the end of the year, and it has been brought forward to September. I will point out that it will then go to a 60km/h speed limit but, from memory, the job is designed to be rated for 80km/h. Obviously, we cannot do that until we do the rest of the road. Ultimately, at some point in the future, when I am probably well retired, you may find that traffic will be moving through that underpass at 80km/h—once we get all the works done.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is there an extra cycle in the lights on Anzac Highway going east-west? You do not have to answer that, but I would just be interested to know.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not know about the cycles in the lights. I have to point out that there is obviously one less piece of movement that will be stopped at the lights. If you are going north-south, you do not stop—that is the whole point of it. I would have thought that, when it is completed, there will actually be less time spent at traffic lights. Inevitably there will be, because the majority of movement on South Road is north-south. It will be a very good outcome when we get it finished. There is no doubt that it is difficult, but it is worth the difficulty. I keep telling people that there are 40km/h speed limits and there are disruptions, because you cannot do South Road anywhere but South Road, and it is a very busy road. You cannot fix South Road somewhere else; you can only do it down there.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will just put on the record that I travel through that intersection frequently, and I would like to congratulate the people working on it, because they have actually done it quite well so far. I thank the minister for his answer: that it will be finished shortly.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is ahead of schedule and the people working on it should be congratulated.

Dr McFETRIDGE: They have done a terrific job. They have been working all the time.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It does help that it does not rain very much in South Australia.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.19: Port River Bridges. What further work needs to be completed on the Port River road and rail bridges, is there any legal action still pending over this project and is the government part of that action?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: My understanding is that the works are essentially complete. I think there is $3 million in the budget. I can find out why that is there, but the bridges are all operating, and they have been operating for a long time. I do not think you could say that there is legal action. I think there are—like many jobs out there—claims and counterclaims. I do not think there is anything in the courts. There is no legal action in the sense of a court action. We drive a hard bargain with contractors. They think they should have got more out of us, but that is the ordinary argy-bargy of building projects. My understanding, from memory, is that the contractor thinks they should get some more money and we think that maybe they should get less money. At the end of the day, we will resolve that.

The project is up and running, and it was done on budget. It has been a tremendous addition to the infrastructure down there. In fact, we have received compliments in regard to the time saving from people who travel from Gawler down to Outer Harbor, and that is something that is very unusual in politics. It has been a terrific outcome. It goes down to our 14.2 metre harbour, and it moves freight and rail, and it has been a tremendous addition to the infrastructure. In relation to having an argument with a contractor about what they should and should not get, I can tell you that I am going to keep arguing rather than give them money.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I must say that I do use those bridges frequently when I go from Glenelg to Salisbury to visit my mum. It is an interesting and quite smooth journey through there and along the coast.

I refer to the Capital Investment Statement, page 19. In relation to the new northern connector—the Northern Expressway—in March 2008, the government announced, via a media release, that the planning study and associated environmental impact statements are expected to be finished by the end of 2009. Can the minister advise the committee the status of the project, any possible land acquisitions and associated costs?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let me be clear: it is not the Northern Expressway; it is the connector to the Northern Expressway, which is currently being built. It is a massive job. It has very good cost-benefit numbers associated with it, and the commonwealth is interested. However, I hasten to point out that we are talking about something we will not commence until 2016, which is why we did the Port Wakefield/Northern Expressway the way we did.

My understanding is that there is a route virtually ready to go out now. When I say that, it is a preferred route, and we are talking about a job that will not commence until 2016, at the earliest. When I say that, I do not want to worry people that they will not have a road. If it is funded, it will, of course, be the commonwealth that makes that decision. I would think that, under the rules, it will be predominantly an 80/20 job from the commonwealth. The commonwealth likes the look of it, but who knows who will be in government in 2016. I would tip Anthony Albanese to be still there, but there is no great certainty in tipping in our business. I was talking to someone yesterday, and we are going to put out the preferred route in the next week or so.

I hope that people will not be frightened on the basis of that. Will there be land acquisition? Certainly; how on earth could we build a road without it involving land acquisition? In fact, we had the good sense to do a bit of land acquisition in relation to the Northern Expressway ahead of this, when we were going to Port Wakefield Road. Will there be land acquisition? Yes. Will it make everyone happy? No. Is it worthwhile to do? Yes. You cannot build projects of this scale without occasionally annoying someone. The best way not to annoy people is not to do anything, and that is not an option we will take.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Minister, will the government insist on a guarantee from the successful tenderer that a significant percentage of jobs on this project will be for South Australians?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Let me make something plain. Most jobs in South Australia have South Australians working on them. However, when you are receiving 80 per cent of the funding from the commonwealth, you cannot run around being some sort of small-minded protectionist. It is voodoo economics, in any event, to go down that path. We have had some issues on the Northern Expressway with people complaining—and, if we are honest, we know where this question is coming from—that they have not hired South Australian earthmoving equipment and that they are hiring Victorian earthmoving equipment.

There is no way on God's earth that, when we make someone take the risk on a price on a contract, we tell them how to do their business. The truth is that I found it hard to understand how it is economical for them to bring Victorian equipment over and not South Australian equipment, but we are talking about hire equipment. As a result of the commonwealth and state governments' infrastructure rollout, those guys hiring equipment will make a lot of money in the next couple of years, and that is not going to be an issue in South Australia.

I was surprised to see news reports talking about favouring New South Wales. I think it is a very dangerous path to go down. The South Australian building industry is one of the best in the country. Hansen Yuncken, which built Adelaide Airport, is currently engaged to build Cairns Airport, and I think it is building something in the heart of Melbourne. Alex Candetti Constructions is building schools and, I think, ambulance stations in Queensland.

We want South Australian firms to compete and win because they are good firms. We cannot start down the path of insisting that we will employ only South Australian firms or South Australian equipment. If you hit someone with a little stick, they will hit you back with a bigger one, and that is a very bad path to go down. I think it is quite irresponsible to go down that path. We have had an outstanding outcome on the Northern Expressway in terms of the quality of the job for the taxpayer, but they also had obligations opposed on them to employ local youth and indigenous people. They have exceeded those targets, and they are doing very well. There are a lot of South Australians working on that job.

I point out that 80 per cent of the money is from the commonwealth. Commonwealth money is being spent employing lots and lots of South Australians. You cannot think that we could, like some version of Hicksville, go to the commonwealth and say, 'Look, give us the money, but we're going to employ only South Australians, and we're going to rig it so that it is not competitive.' It is not going to happen. It is a nonsense. If you are ever in government, I hope you never think that you can go down that path, because you cannot.

We should be proud of the fact that South Australian building firms and civil engineering works are ferociously competitive and get a lot of work interstate, and that is the way it should be. Malcolm Kennard and those guys started that engineering firm as apprentice draftspeople out of, I think, the engineering and water supply department in the old days, and they built an international firm that was eventually bought by, I think, KBR. That is a better future and that is the way to go. Making South Australian firms better is the way to go, not some sort of cheap, knee-jerk protectionism that, ultimately, would hurt South Australia. I have said this to the people from Kennards, the hire firm, who have complained. It would be good cheap politics to insist upon something like that, but it would hurt South Australia, and we should make the decision that is best for South Australia and not one that is good, cheap politics. It is cheap politics to talk about guaranteeing that South Australians will get the work on a major job.

We went off to Canberra and talked with Anthony Albanese, from almost the first day his party was elected as a government, about our public transport investment. They saw it before the public did, for good reason. We convinced them on the merits of our argument and not on any share that they should contribute in South Australia. As a result, South Australia got $1.2 billion from the Infrastructure Australia Fund, including I think $640 million for public transport, for the first time since federation. You cannot win deals like that if you go up there with some sort of mickey mouse, cheap political protectionist scheme—it will not work. New South Wales got $90 million out of the IA Fund and we got $1.2 billion because we put up good cases that were thought out, and we did not run some dopey, cheap, snake oil protectionism politics—you cannot do it.

When we let the job on the Northern Expressway, our first priority was to get a good outcome for the taxpayer in terms of a road. We also wrote into the contract requirements on employing locals, youth and indigenous Australians. But, make no mistake, if you are ever in the job, your first priority in letting these jobs will be to get a good outcome for the taxpayer. If you think you are running an industry assistance department, you are in the wrong job. We have departments for that: we build roads and procure them at the best price. The winning tenderer takes a risk on the price. The construction is for $300-odd million, and they take a risk on the price. You cannot expect people to take a risk on the price and then tell them how to do it. You cannot do that and, if you think you can, I hope you are never a minister.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand where you are coming from. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.18—the Dukes Highway program. I understand this is for safety measures. What work has been done for the $10 million, and what does the minister expect to achieve with the $16.5 million this year, given that the RAA has called for the construction of a four-lane divided carriageway for this road?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I assure the member for Morphett, if he is ever a transport minister, of one thing: he will never satisfy the RAA. It is a road lobby and wants perfection. He will never be able to give the RAA perfection because we have a small population, a very large state and a lot of roads for which we are responsible. We run priorities and not perfection. We have so much money going out the door at the moment that it is a little hard to keep all the projects in mind. With the Dukes Highway we have a number of overtaking lanes. The $4.4 million of works will be completed this year and is for rest areas, pavement reconstruction, extending overtaking lanes and roadside hazard treatments.

Another $4.75 million is programmed for 2009-10, and the RAA's recent Towards 2020 gave us six out of 10 for the road, which is a big pass from the RAA, which usually gives us two out of 10. We are doing work there, it is prioritised in the right direction and the money is being spent. I will give you a guarantee: I will not make the RAA happy. I am not going to duplicate the Victor Harbor Road—you can promise that again if you want. We have an election coming up and you promised it last time, but we will not do it. There will be an election in March, and I am looking forward to it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Under the same budget reference, will the minister explain how much of the old SA Water depot and the parklands along Port Road will be affected by road widening for the tram extension to the Entertainment Centre?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mate, breaking news: we are actually giving the SA Water site back to the parklands. The parklands come out with a net increase from this project. That is not a bad story, is it? When we decided to give back the parklands, half jokingly I said, 'Don't give them back for nothing—swap it for something because no-one will appreciate it if you just give it back to them for nothing.' The truth is that the government decided to give the SA Water land back to the parklands. We have taken out a snip for a tram extension.

Public transport is the greenest thing we can do. For a net improvement to the area of the parklands we are putting in a public transport system, which will get more people out of cars and into public transport. For my money that is a net benefit to the environment: more parklands and more public transport—what is there to complain about? It is a net gain, end of story.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.18, dealing with the railyards site. Will the minister advise when the site for the Royal Adelaide Hospital will be cleared and handed over to the Department of Health for the building of the federally-funded research facility and the new Royal Adelaide Hospital?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They will get it as soon as they need it. It will be available to them when they need the site. We are ahead of our original timetable and it will be progressively released from 2010 onwards. If we can guarantee anything in this world, I guarantee that it will be available to spend the lovely $200 million from the commonwealth. You never want to let commonwealth money sit around for too long, in my experience. It will be available in time for us to spend the commonwealth money, and it will be a great outcome.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How many people are now in the Office of Major Projects and Infrastructure?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am glad you asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to put on the record the tremendous work that office does, because I think there is still hardly more than 17 or 18 permanent people in there. They have been rolling out the biggest jobs this state has ever funded, and they do that with a small number of people. Rod Hook (on my right), can I say in an unusual fit of modesty, is far more important to this government than I am, and I am very important. Rod has been doing a tremendous job.

I put on the record that South Australia, through Rod Hook and the Office of Infrastructure, is recognised not only in Infrastructure Australia but also in the federal government stimulus program as the gold standard. That is the consistent feedback from the Prime Minister's office and from the Office of Infrastructure. If I could ever give advice to anyone who is thinking of becoming a minister, keep it small, get good people and do not make it too big. That has been the secret of the success of the Office of Infrastructure.

Your friends in the Legislative Council will not allow our executives to have the right of hire and fire—and I could go on about that at some length. I cannot believe that you call yourself the conservative party in this state and refuse to do what is a fundamental reform in industrial relations that Labor is doing and you will not support. I cannot believe it. What I will say is that, until you guys wise up and allow us to make the changes, you are better off keeping a government department small and making sure that you get the right people in there. It seconds people from agencies and sends them back. Occasionally it brings in outsiders. I know that Rod has brought in Bob Boorman. Most people in South Australia would know that Bob Boorman has been around for a long time.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What is his position? What does he do?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He is a consultant on project management. You have to understand that, over the next four years, we are putting out $3 billion worth of projects. You need good project managers. The commonwealth stimulus package requires us within 18 months to complete—not just start—around 590 jobs worth between $500,000 and $3 million. South Australia will do better at that than any other state, I give you an ironclad guarantee, and it is as a result of the quality of the people in the Office of Infrastructure.

I am glad you asked the question. It is rare that we get the opportunity in here to recognise the work of the people that we have. I personally take full credit for everything they do because I get the blame for everything that goes wrong, so that is the way it should be. They are doing an outstanding job for South Australia through the Office of Infrastructure and its Coordinator General, Jim Hallion. I can tell you that Jim Hallion is the only public transport bureaucrat in Australia on the Infrastructure Australia Board. Rod Hook's department is the gold standard for rolling out a stimulus package. These blokes are doing great work, and I am very proud of them. When I retire, I am going to drive around the state, boring my wife, saying, 'See that, honey, we built that', and she will say, 'Yes, dear; yes, dear', but it will be worthwhile. Thank you for the question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Under the same budget reference, was any advice received from Planning SA—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am sorry; 20 to 30 people were seconded to the capital program. When you consider that we are talking about $3 billion, I reckon they are going all right with that number of people.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister. With reference to the same budget line, was any site proposed for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital from Planning SA, transport planners, the three Thinkers in Residence who specialise in architecture or planning the government has employed in the past, or any other town planning specialist?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Just so we understand it, I am responsible for moving the railyards out, not putting the hospital in. That is the responsibility of the Hon. John Hill and Treasury. My understanding of it—because Jim has been involved and, I think, Rod also—is that sites were looked at and it was the best. There is no mystery about this. Other sites were looked at, and this was the best. It is not my responsibility but I do want to make this point because I cannot believe there is a debate about this in South Australia. If you took 100 of the people we deal with in the private sector who have built hospitals and who have been involved and you asked them, 'Is it better to build on a small brownfield site or a large greenfield site?', you will get 100 answers exactly the same. It is absolutely brain dead to consider going to a small brownfield site. Let me tell you this—

Dr McFETRIDGE: They do it elsewhere.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No; you asked a question and I will answer it. You cannot build a new hospital at the RAH site. You cannot build a new hospital there. You can refurbish an old hospital, but you cannot build a new one. There are patients, and they have to stay there while you are doing it. You will start at one end, refurbish and—

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will ask the Hon. Mr Hill later today.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I don't care what you will ask about later; you are getting an answer. This is one of the big debates in South Australia. This is apparently the point of difference for you so let us have a debate. Let us—

Dr McFETRIDGE: The question was whether there were any other sites, not this argument about whether it is there or there.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mate, you can talk and it is your time, but I will come back and answer this question. Let me tell you this: you refurbish that old hospital and what you will end up with is a refurbished, old hospital with six people to a ward sharing one toilet with all the risks of cross-infection. That is what you will get. You build a new greenfields hospital, it will be cheaper and every patient will be in a single room with their own toilet, not because we want them to live a life of luxury but because it is a better health outcome.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is not right, minister. You know it is not right. Other people are doing it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What happens in a modern hospital that you cannot do in the Royal Adelaide Hospital is that, since they built the Royal Adelaide, they have invented a whole load of machines, and there is a whole load of new services. The Hon. Lea Stevens, a former health minister, knows this inside out.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Then why are you spending the money on other hospitals?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What happens is that, because the RAH was not designed as a modern hospital, you move the patient something like seven times in an average five-day stay, which increases the risk of injury and cross-infection. What you do is build a modern hospital, you put everyone in their own room, you give them a toilet each to reduce infection and then you take the services to them. I am so happy you asked me this question. That is why building a hospital on a greenfields site is the only way you can build a new hospital.

You cannot build a new hospital, no matter what the media tells you or anyone else—or the doctors who are scared of not running the joint anymore—on an old site. You can only build it on a new site and you can leave the patients in the old hospital while you build the new one. That is why you would do it. It is absolutely brain dead that we are having this debate in South Australia.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I can guarantee that the debate will continue.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Because you are not interested in patients. You are not interested in health care. You are not interested in the future. You are interested in dragging your way somehow dishonestly intergovernment. Well, good luck to you; you are not going to get in.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Absolute rubbish. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.26, sub-program 2.3. This may be some simple mathematics, but you can explain it anyway. The Belair line, which is 21.5 kilometres long, will be closed for at least three months while resleepering is being undertaken. The Gawler line is 42 kilometres long. How long will it take to undertake the resleepering? Will it be six months?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The question is: how long will it take to do the Gawler line?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes. The Belair line will take three months for 21 kilometres, and the Gawler line is 42 kilometres, so is it double that—six months?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is a simple equation, is it not? It is twice the length.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is about right, is it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Do you think there is any difference between the Gawler line and the Belair line that might be relevant?

Dr McFETRIDGE: One goes north and one goes south, and they both carry interstate freight.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, come on. You asked the question, genius. Is there any other difference that might be relevant?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is it going to be six months or three months?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: There are two sets of railway lines to Gawler. How many other—

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, it is going to take twice as long. It is 12 months, is it?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You do not get it, do you? You have two pieces of infrastructure you can use, not one. Belair is closed down completely while it is being done. I suspect—

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, you are going to do only one line at a time, are you?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mate, you are embarrassing yourself. Are we going to do only one line at a time? No; we are going to stop it and close it all down. What we are going to do is do the job in the most efficient way we can while moving people. Do you know why you do that? Because people get grumpy if you do not. When you are the government, you try to avoid people getting grumpy with you. The best way to do Belair, given its nature, is to close it completely for three months.

Rod can answer in a minute, but I suspect that the best way to do Gawler is to close it on weekends, little bits at a time, which you can do because you have two pieces of rail and not one. What I say to you is this: while you are so desperately trying to find a negative in the biggest investment in rail, what you could do is just once like what we are doing. It is the biggest investment in rail the state has ever seen, and it is the future. This is the future. Public transport, transport oriented developments, sustainability and excellence are the future—and we are going to deliver that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.19. Why was only $2.9 million spent of the allocated 2008-09 budget of $8.85 million, a shortfall of $5.875 million, on long-life roads?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not know. I will get you the detail. We have a massive capital program. Things go in, things go out and some things slip. Sometimes things slip for reasons that are beyond your control, such as the weather, for example. We will get you an answer, but the other side of the equation you ask about is the Northern Expressway, where we brought all the work ahead, hundreds of millions of dollars ahead. So, you have $6 million slips somewhere, but we have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new road brought ahead.

What we have at the moment is a big challenge. We have the biggest infrastructure spend the state has ever seen, and the truth of the matter is that it is hard getting the money out the door sometimes. Today, while sitting here listening to dopey questions, for the most part, people have been bringing in contracts for me to sign so that we can get to work on the stimulus package. That is the scale of what we are doing at present. I have to tell you that some capital projects will slip; sometimes they will slip for reasons that are beyond your control, and sometimes they will slip for very good reasons. We will get the detail for you.

Dr McFETRIDGE: In relation to the Building the Education Revolution, I understand that the Office of Major Projects and Infrastructure is responsible for that and not the Department of Education. I am happy to be advised on that, but that is my advice.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We have the overall responsibility for it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.15: targets and highlights, the Coordinator General, which I think is Mr Hook's role. He should have epaulettes and a big hat with that sort of title. Why are country schools being charged 25 to 30 per cent loading by the state government for work being undertaken through the BER?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We are not charging country schools anything; we are giving them commonwealth money. How do you frame your questions? Is your question, more reasonably: why does it cost more to do a job in the country than in the city? Is that your question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is a management fee being charged by the Office of Major Projects or the state government?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, that is right; we are skimming the dough. Come on!

Mr HOOK: The funding for the administration of the program is a separate 1.5 per cent, payable by the commonwealth to the state government—1 per cent of that is going to the education department, and .5 per cent is going to the transport department—and that is the sole administration fee for the running of the program. No commission is taken by the state government of the funding that is available and allocated by the commonwealth to the schools. There is no regional loading.

It is just a fact that it does cost more to deliver some of these projects in some regional areas, and the cost to deliver the project is the cost that will be charged to the schools out of the allocation of the funds. The state government's commitment is that 100 per cent of the funding provided by the commonwealth for works in schools will be used for works in schools. We have a commitment to put 95 per cent into the actual school.

There is a little bit of overs and unders that we can manage by moving from one school site to another, but there is very limited flexibility. There is no regional loading. We talk about regional loading only in the context of putting an estimate together, because it will cost more to build in, say, Cleve or some regional areas than it will in the city. That is giving estimates: it is not the actual costs.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If you do not believe that, go and look at the cost of building a house in the APY lands compared with building one in Salisbury. It is about 2½ times the cost.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: In answer to your earlier question about slippage in that program, there is usually a very good reason. The bulk of that is the Penola bypass funding which the state government has provided. My understanding is that a number of legal issues were agitated down in the South-East which prevented us from commencing any work. It will be because of seasonal requirements that we will now not be able to commence that work, but they were certainly issues way beyond our control.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: As a supplementary question, following Mr Hook's remarks: my local council tells me that, in relation to these school projects, because the planning system has been set aside, if you like, and the approval process is different, when the planning regulations were set aside they set aside the requirement for them to be sent to the CFS. I want an undertaking that the school buildings being built in the bushfire prone area will still go through the normal CFS approval process.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Rod can answer for himself, but the only reason we are doing the planning we are is that the commonwealth has given us an absolutely heroic timetable to build these things. If we did not do it this way they simply would not be done, and South Australian schools would miss out on that funding. I have every faith that Rod takes into account everything he should in those circumstances. One of the things I am absolutely confident about is that Rod can answer it for himself.

Mr HOOK: We have had discussions with the CFS on every project that is likely to be in a bushfire prone area. Part of the submission of the proposal is what we actually ask the commonwealth to fund and how we deliver, so the CFS has been involved with and consulted on the total program, not just on individual projects.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget line: what provisions are being made by the state government in terms of recurrent funding for ongoing maintenance of the new facilities that have been built under the BER economic stimulus plan? If schools are currently struggling to deal with the maintenance—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am not the education minister, for goodness sake!

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is there any funding at all for that?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Do you think I have any knowledge of the maintenance arrangements of the education department?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Have there been any discussions around this at all? It is an obvious thing.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I assume there are, but I would not be the person having them. There is an education minister.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I would have thought the Coordinator-General's office would be doing something along those lines.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The Coordinator-General is building capital projects, getting them out the door and getting commonwealth money spent in South Australia. The Coordinator-General is not going to become the chief executive of the education department. We are not going to run the schools forever: we are just going to build things on them. The education department will remain the responsibility of the education department. I cannot say more than that. I do not get it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is a real issue out there; we will ask the education minister about it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I suggest you ask the education minister.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will do that. I will give those questions back to the education minister. I refer to Budget Paper 4, page 6.19. Why has the government failed to spend its budget allocated on regional roads projects, and which projects were not funded?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Oh, goodness me! Which projects were not funded? What sort of question is that? The projects that were not funded were the ones that were not funded. I have been to every corner of this state over the past seven years, and I have enjoyed doing it. I have not been anywhere where someone does not raise road funding. Everyone wants a road, no matter where you go, and you cannot give them all to them. It is a nearly impossible question to answer.

In regard to what you suggest is a slippage in funding, we will get you the detail. I point out to you that recently we got extra money from the commonwealth for road maintenance that we are spending as fast as we can. We have increased our funding, and the commonwealth 'son of AusLink' (whatever it is called now) has included increased funding for maintenance. We are going to do more maintenance than you ever did when you were in government.

As I said earlier, I will take your word for it that some capital program has slipped. Capital programs slip. It is a fact of life, because there are things, like the Penola bypass where someone else takes legal action against the council, which are beyond our control. I have to tell you that it will be like that forever. If you set aside three months to do a piece of road maintenance, it would be excellent if it rained for three months, but you would not get it done. It is a simple as that. That is capital works.

If you would like to be more specific about what you think has or has not been done, please do that, but we will try to discern some meaning from your question and get you some detail. It is pointed out to me that the additional maintenance money from the commonwealth in the stimulus package had to be spent by 30 June, and it has been. You will forgive us if our priority was spending its money. There is nothing more pleasant than spending commonwealth money.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.26, sub-program 2.2 regarding marine facilities. What was the reason for the land swap between the Land Management Corporation and Flinders Ports; what was the value of the land; and under what contractual agreements was the land swap negotiated?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: From memory, it was a good idea for us and it was a good idea for them. I think we were talking about No. 2 dock. It was some land around the grain conveyor belt for the new terminal. I point out that that is a world class 14.2 metre facility to bring about a very good outcome—and I wish Ivan was here—for the grain growers of the state. We can get you the details. Down there we deal with Flinders Ports. We own land, they run a port; we do things that suit each other, and my understanding is that we got a very good outcome for the state out of it.

As I pointed out earlier, there was some land around Dock 2 which is beneficial to us in terms of the Inner Harbor land development. There was something in it for Flinders Ports, something in it for the grain growers, something in it for us—a good arrangement.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.19 regarding heavy vehicles. Can the minister advise the committee how many rest stops are needed for the heavy vehicle industry? How many have been built since the fatigue laws came in?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will get you that detail. South Australia, again, got larger than its ordinary share out of that commonwealth fund. We committed our own funds (about $5 million) but the commonwealth, as a result of introducing the new fatigue laws, provided a body of funding for rest areas. Our share of the first round of that was something like 15 per cent, from memory, which is way beyond any percentage we have ever got out of a federal fund before. Usually it has been about 6.8 per cent, from memory.

I am advised we allocated $10 million over four years. We got commonwealth funding. Those delivered in 2007-08 are Adelaide-Port Augusta Road, Sturt Highway, Mid North freight route, Warnertown to Peterborough Road and Riddoch Highway: and 2008-09 will deliver the Barrier Highway, Mallee Highway, Flinders Highway and Lincoln Highway. As I said, it is one of those rare cases where South Australia got more than its share out of the federal fund for rest stops, and we are very pleased about that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: One particular question for the Office of Major Projects—and Mr Boorman's name was raised the other day—is a local issue for me, as the member for Morphett, and also the member for Bright about the Brighton Secondary School Performing Arts Centre. Will DTEI be able to assist with the establishment of a project team to allow Brighton Performing Arts Centre to go ahead within the time frames?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: As I understand, it was raised with us two days ago, and we will get it fixed. It is an opportunity to spend money in a school and we will take it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I thank the minister for that answer. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.3, regarding Dry Creek. What types of contaminants have been identified as occurring at Dry Creek? What processes or structures have been put in place to ensure that any waste water from the Dry Creek site will not discharge into the Barker Inlet once the new maintenance storage sheds are built?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: First, knowing your track record, I am not going to take for granted that there is any risk of it going into the Barker Inlet. You may be right, but I am going to check. You have made so far today some ridiculous and specious allegations, including health risks at Le Fevre Primary School that do not exist, so I will make sure that we check that. I assume that hydrocarbons will be one of the issues. If it is an old railway site, it could be anything. The railway sites around the country have all sorts of things in them. We would need to get some details from the people who do that work.

As has been pointed out to me, we would probably need a little more detail about which site in particular you are referring to. I can tell you this: we, as a government, own land that we cannot give away at Peterborough, and places like that, because it is old railway land, and there is no doubt that railway land is often contaminated. But if you want specifics on a particular site, being the responsible and open government we are, we will get that for you, if you tell us specifically which areas you are discussing. As pointed out to me, if what you are referring to is Dry Creek land where we are going to move the rail yards, it is a rail site now and it will be a rail site in the future. That is what we will be doing with it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is just that the activity will be a lot more intense. That was the only concern, with more shedding and so on.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You cannot say things like that, Duncan. Modern rail activities are not what cause the contamination of land: it is what used to go on years ago. We do not do that stuff any more.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I haven't said that. I was concerned about the run-off. You are building sheds out there, so there is going to be run-off from the sheds. What are you going to do with the stormwater run-off from the sheds? That is all I was after, Patrick—nothing more, nothing less.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You cannot talk nonsense.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are you building sheds out there?

The CHAIR: One member at a time.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are you building sheds out there? If there is run-off from the sheds, I am just concerned that—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, you are not concerned. You love making things up.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am just seeking information and you cannot provide it on that issue. I am disappointed but that is—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I assure you that every piece of infrastructure that we build will meet all the EPA requirements—

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is all I wanted, minister. Easy.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, it is not, Duncan. You just make things up.

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, I do not, minister. You are building sheds out there. Am I making that up?

The CHAIR: Order, member for Morphett! The minister has the call.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I assure the member for Morphett that, if we build a shed at Dry Creek or Port Lincoln or Port Augusta, we will do it according to the standards that are required in the modern world. What happens on railway land now is not a problem; it is what used to happen years ago. That is the problem at Dry Creek. Again, it is typical of the member for Morphett to invent—just simply invent—fears and issues that do not exist. So far today we have had children at risk at Le Fevre Primary—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Absolute rubbish, minister; you know that.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Go back and get the Hansard, mate. That is what you said. You asked me what health risks there were for those children. There are none.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You just keep rewriting the history of this place, so let's just move on.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You make it up.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am glad. That is what the question was all about. You gave us an answer, so that is fine.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: You and the truth are never in the same postcode.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett, do you have another question?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I do, thank you, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: What is it?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I do not think I will be getting answers to some of these, that is the only problem. This is an easy one—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Oh, you poor thing. Come on, it is your last one. You will not be here soon.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Where are you going? Are you going somewhere else, are you?

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Morphett, ask your question.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You are going to the Senate, are you? That's what I heard. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.26, 'Managing Public Transport Infrastructure Assets'. The government announced, in John Hill's ministerial statement of 9 October last year, that resleepering of the Noarlunga line has commenced. How long will it be before it is finished and when will the electrification of the line commence?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We will certainly commence the works this year. The resleepering works and the preliminary infrastructure works will go through until 2010-11, I think. In that time, of course, you will understand that we also have to extend the rail to Seaford—not Seaforth, as the Leader of the Opposition would have it, but Seaford. We cannot find a Seaforth, but apparently it is in Western Australia—it would be some extension.

We will be commencing that work as quickly as we can because again it is commonwealth funds. We will be finishing the electrification in about 2012-13. We will be purchasing rolling stock, from memory, in about 2012. Of course, you buy the rolling stock and you have to run it for a while to ensure everything works, but I reckon by about 2013 we will have electric trains running on the Noarlunga line, and it will be a fabulous thing.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions on the Office of Major Projects and Infrastructure Development, we will now move to ICT, Land Services and Building Management.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr K. O'Callaghan, Executive Director, Land Services Division, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr A. Mills, Chief Information Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Mr N. Bray, Valuer-General, Land Services Division, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Ms J. Carr, Executive Director, Building Management, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.38. Minister, can you explain the tender process for the ICT outsourcing, the result of the tender process, the costs of the process to the South Australian taxpayer and the current situation of the current ICT outsourcing contracts?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Would you like me to do that off the top of my head? If you want to break those up into individual questions, we will attempt to answer them. If you are going to ask what is a massive omnibus question, we will have to bring you back the details.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am happy to break it up, minister. First, the tender process for the ICT outsourcing.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: How do you break it up?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can the minister explain the tender process for the ICT outsourcing and the results of the tender process?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is an open tender process.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The cost of the process to South Australian taxpayers and the current situation of the ICT outsourcing.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That will depend on what they tender for. It is an open tender. You go out; they make a competitive bid; and then you pick the best one and pay that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same budget reference, page 6.38. How many staff are in the Office of the Chief Information Officer?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Eighty.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How many IT staff in other government agencies?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Goodness me, mate, how do I know? Tell me what an IT staff is just so I can check.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Information technology is what it stands for, so I would imagine people who associate with providing information technology services—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: People who work in exclusively IT services. Mate, there is hardly a person—even Mike Rann can use a computer these days—in government who does not have a relationship with IT. If you are asking me how many people in an agency are specifically dedicated to IT, I cannot tell you because I am only the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. I am not the health minister or the education minister. We will see whether we can find some meaningful way of giving you that information, but, for the life of me, you have me from 9 to 5 to talk about the things I am responsible for; maybe we could do that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is the same budget reference, minister. What has been the cost of delivering the ICT services to the government's Shared Services initiative?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Shared Services is the responsibility of the Treasurer but, in relation to the part for which we are responsible in ICT procurement, we have made significant savings in unit prices. We have delivered $30 million back to Treasury—to my friend Kevin Foley over there. We have delivered $30 million back out of those savings. What we have seen—and it is the modern world—is that we have achieved dramatic reductions in unit prices, but the volumes have gone up dramatically as well. That is a fact of life. ICT has increased functionality year on year and people use more of it. We have achieved very significant savings, but the problem is that the volumes have continued to rise year on year.

I point out to you that, a few years ago, we never talked about 'ICT'. We talked about 'IT' and there were computers. Now we all run around with one of these, which is why we call it 'ICT', because the phone has merged into a computer. I have a phone now that does more than my laptop did three years ago, and it does it quicker. It is very hard to give you an answer. We can say that $30 million has gone back in savings to the budget and we have achieved dramatic drops in unit price but, because of the increase in volumes, it is hard to disentangle the actual savings, but we are no different from anyone else in the world in that regard.

Dr McFETRIDGE: My question relates to the same budget reference. Minister, what projects have gone to tender for state government work, which companies have been successful and what is the cost of each of these projects?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I told you earlier that, if you are going to ask questions like that, we are just going to have to bring DTEI in. You cannot ask—

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am happy to take it on notice, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It would be more useful for us if you asked questions that make some point in my being here.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same budget reference. Has the chief information officer developed and implemented an ICT strategic plan?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes; two years ago. It is called 'Ask Just Once', and soon—we will even let you see it—we are going to show you our website, the single point of entry. We are going to be world leaders. We are going to be ahead of the commonwealth government soon. It will mean that if you are a customer, a client or a constituent, or whatever you want to call yourself, dealing with the South Australian government, you will start and finish at one place. At present, we have 20-odd networks and several hundred websites. Our target is to have a single website if you ever want to deal with the government, and it is coming along very well. It looks very impressive. It is the biggest government website in Australia, or it will be. It may be second to the commonwealth one.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.46: Land Services. What is the total cost of the rural property addressing system to the government; what were the initial cost estimates and time frames; and where has the system been implemented?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The District Council of Loxton Waikerie is the first to have all addresses allocated and signage installed. We will have to come back to you on the rest of it. It is not something that I keep a day-to-day watch on. As has been pointed out to me, it will be very hard for us to tell you the actual cost, because it will be spread among individual councils and individual landholders as well. So, it will be a very hard thing. We will try to provide as much information as we can, but I am not sure that we can give you what you have asked for.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.39: Building and Management. You will probably want to take this one on notice. How many government buildings and other office spaces have been refitted over the past 12 months, and what was the cost of each one?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, I will take that on notice.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same budget reference. How many government-owned buildings have vacant office space and what is the total cost of the unoccupied space? I am happy for you to take that on notice as well.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is impossible for us to tell you that. You are talking about hospitals, schools and buildings. That is not the level of detail that the Department for Transport and the Land Management Corporation go into. We do not know who is in what office. If there is a way of telling you that, I will try to find it, but I do not believe there is. Do you think I can actually tell you how many empty offices there are in a school or a hospital, or something? I do not know, and I never will, because no-one tells me.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How many leases is the government currently paying for office space that it does not occupy? You can take that on notice and we can move straight onto the same budget reference.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, Duncan; just so that you understand, I am not saying that I will take the earlier question on notice: I am telling you that it cannot be answered. It is silly. I cannot tell you which agency has empty offices and which agency has full ones. How on earth could I? I do not know what you think it is that we do.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.39, relating to the Walkerville building. When will the government sell the Transport SA building at Walkerville; when will staff be moving into the CBD; and where will the staff be housed?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They were going to start this year progressively. It should be finished by about February next year, but they are starting this year. We are preparing for the sale process at Walkerville. I have to say that we will probably be better off selling next year rather than this year, but we will see.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same budget reference. Are any outstanding negotiations taking place with developers who previously showed an interest in the sale of the Walkerville building, with land being purchased for development in the CBD on the strength of the proposed Walkerville sale?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am not aware of any at all. The property has not been put on the market yet.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the same budget reference. Has the government had to enter into any arrangements with staff from the Transport SA facility at Walkerville in terms of car parking when they move into the city, given that the staff currently have free parking at Walkerville?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I have to tell you that I do not really know. I do not really know about these car parking arrangements. We are rolling out a $3 billion infrastructure budget. I do not know about car parking. I assume that the department is talking about getting car parking when it moves into the city. Moving into the city probably means that they may not need as much car parking because there are forms of public transport, which I think is a good thing for a department of transport. Do you honestly think that I work out the car-parking arrangements for staff?

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will move on to the next question. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.44: Government Employee Residential Property Management. How many government employee houses are to be sold, and in which areas of the state are they? It may be hard to nail that down at present; I think we are still doing work on it. Judith, do we have this nailed down completely?

Ms CARR: No; there are two issues here. We have an ongoing program of selling houses that no longer meet our requirements, and that is a steady program each year. There is also an initiative to look at reducing our asset ownership in the government employee housing program, where we are working jointly with Treasury. At the moment, I cannot give you numbers on the houses that will be sold.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What will be the total number of employee homes held by the government when these homes have been sold?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I do not understand what you are saying.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Your officer, Ms Carr, in her answer said—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I need to hear what you are saying, though, so that I can decide—

Dr McFETRIDGE: We will move on to the next question, because that question is redundant. What programs has the government put in place to address water and energy efficiency in state-owned housing?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Government employee housing, not Housing Trust housing?

Dr McFETRIDGE: No.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: All new housing meets the appropriate standards. We introduced about a year ago, I think it was, certain planning standards for new housing, and all new housing has to meet those standards. We have spent $1.7 million refurbishing existing housing. All new housing meets the standards, and the old houses probably do not, because they were built under old standards. As we replace the housing, they have to meet our building standards, which require environmental sensitivity.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 6.18. There is a line for police headquarters relocation of $6 million. Commercial and General is building it for $100 million. When will the building be completed, and does the $6 million in the budget come out of the $38 million already announced by the government for the fit-out of the building?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes; it is part of the fit-out costs. I am not entirely certain of those facts, so I will get that answer for the member.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What will the government pay in lease payments for the building?

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will find out for the member.

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure adjourned until 29 June and the proposed payments for the Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance adjourned and transferred to committee A.

Membership:

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

Mr Venning substituted for Mr Goldsworthy.

Ms Chapman substituted for Dr McFetridge.

Hon. S.W. Key substituted for Hon. L Stevens.