TRAM DERAILMENT

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:04): My question is to the Minister for Transport. Was TransAdelaide notified prior to the Melbourne Cup Day tram derailment that the poor positioning of signal 31 at the South Terrace tram stop was a danger and a safety risk to staff and the public and, if so, why was action not taken to rectify the problem? Documents tabled by the minister confirm that the driver's line of sight from his cabin to the signal was obscured. The opposition has received advice that TransAdelaide was notified of this safety risk at least two weeks before the accident but the signal was not moved until immediately after the derailment.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (15:04): I thank the member for Morphett for his question. I did not think I would get the opportunity to clear up some of the absolutely—it is a shame the cameras are not here. I have been assured by the acting general manager of TransAdelaide, through one of my staff, that the tram report that has been attacked today by the Leader of the Opposition reflects absolutely accurately the investigation report. Can I say for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that the person I am talking about, the acting general manager, was of course a ministerial staffer to ministers Armitage and Lawson? I do not think he is making it up for us. I am assured by him that the report absolutely accurately reflects the investigation report.

In regard to the question raised by the member for Morphett, he has been going around trying to sell a lot of stories about this tram derailment, and one is that this was a cause. I refer him to the report and explain what was explained to me by Mr Randall Barry. The culture of rail investigation is to look at an incident and, wherever possible, look at every systemic matter that might contribute to it. My understanding is that what has happened is this. The driver ran a red light. He afterwards conceded to the investigation that he ran a red light.

Subsequently, I think in an interview two days later—and, not surprisingly, because of course the member for Morphett had been running around saying they are under too much pressure and that is why he did it; and, of course, that was one of his stories, but another story was he was waved through and another story was it was the track that was at fault—the driver did raise the view that there was a bit of stress keeping up with timetables. Subsequently, the reporter went through and talked to a lot of operators and other people, and one of the operators—I will be absolutely accurate and say that I do not know whether it was the operator or someone else—raised the issue that perhaps some of the signals would be obscured by certain things.

But I think the key for the member for Morphett is this: there has only ever been one derailment there. There has only ever been one time that a signal there was ignored, and that was this occasion. For the benefit of the member for Morphett, you would think if there was a structural problem it would have happened more than once. It has happened once. As I said, the culture of the reports is to go through and look at everything that might contribute. But, honestly, I say again, sometimes members of the opposition are simply strangers to embarrassment when they are caught out.

Can I quote the report that the member for Morphett will not quote for the house? It says that 'other factors that may have contributed to the driver not obeying the signals are as follows', and it talks about layout of signalling and signage and a few other matters. That is because the culture is that you go and look at an incident and put everything in there that may contribute. But, do you get it? It is the only time it has ever happened! If the signage was a problem, you would think it might have happened more than this one solitary occasion. Those matters are raised by people and put into the report because they want to make sure, as would any good investigator.

What it does not say, and this is where the member for Morphett and the Leader of the Opposition should be so embarrassed, is that the driver was waved through, which is the allegation of the member for Morphett; it does not say the computer system did not work, which was the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition; and it does not say that the track was improperly laid, which again was the allegation of the Leader of the Opposition. If he had his way he was going to tear it all up and lay it all again. That is a smart move. It does not say any of those things. It does not bear out any of the ridiculous claims made.

I know I upset the bloke. I do become a fixation with some people. It is a burden I have had to carry all my life, really. But the allegation made today that the report I have given the house does not reflect what is in the investigation is again utterly untrue—absolutely, utterly untrue. There is a time in life when sometimes the opposition should be just a little embarrassed by the things they are prepared to say that are proved to be wrong. But we know how it works, because the member for Morphett said previously to a member on our side when he was taken to task about the silly allegations he raised, 'Well, I only have to get one right.' That is the approach. It is not the approach we take here. We talk about Westminster standards, but he said to a member on our side, 'Don't worry; I only have to get one right.'

Well, I tell the honourable member: no, you have to get them all right. The standards in this place are that you have to get them all right—not that you can make them up and hope that one day one of the slurs sticks. You have slurred public servants; and you can slur me all you like because, frankly, mate, I have dealt with more important people than you in the playground. You can slur me all you like, but do try to leave the public servants alone.