PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Mr PISONI (Unley) (15:09): My question is to the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. Why has the government used its numbers in the Public Works Committee to gag an examination of how and why the department is now having to let a multimillion dollar tender to rip up and replace half the tramline laid just two years ago? By statute, the Public Works Committee must consider any capital works project in excess of $4 million and has the authority, under section 16(1)(c) of the Parliamentary Committees Act, to reopen investigations into any project. This morning, at the Public Works Committee, the member for Norwood used her casting vote to prevent any scrutiny of this failed project.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (15:09): That would be terrible if it were vaguely true. If the allegation made by the member for Unley were vaguely true, that they were tearing—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If the allegation made by the member for Unley were vaguely true, that they were tearing—

Mr Pisoni: Here is the tender.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley will come to order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Here is the approach of the opposition: say something that is not true and then yell so no-one will correct it. It is the same approach to every question. It is pretty sharp and smart.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: This matter has been discussed previously. What occurred when the rail upgrade was done—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members will come to order. I warn the member for Unley.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is sad because he is normally such a charming fellow. As Mike Rann would say, he has all the charm of a Changi prison guard. The truth is that at the time of the upgrade it was made well known that a substantial proportion of track was replaced.

Mr Pisoni: It says 25 per cent in here.

The SPEAKER: Order! I have already warned the member for Unley.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: On advice from the independent consultant at the time—and this matter is already on the public record—it was suggested that some rail should not be replaced but, rather, should be reused because it had substantial life left in it. One does not throw out an asset before it is gone. This notion that it has been done wrongly is just untrue.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They did throw out Iain fairly quickly. I think they might have made a mistake there. I think he had a few years more life left in him. What has happened is that all the rest of the upgrade has been done. The new materials have gone in and it has been compacted. If members remember the old one and have driven over the level crossing, they will know how superior it is. This is old news. What has emerged is that some of the rail that they thought would last 15 years has lasted only a few more years and it is time to replace it. That means we have had a couple of extra years out of the rail. They will take it up and put it down on the new laid ballast. It is not a problem or an issue at all. It is not something that was done wrongly being torn up—as the opposition leader and the honourable member have said. If you are going to go to the Public Works Committee with a completely dishonest allegation do not be surprised if the vote is against you.