House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Tram and Train Derailments TRAM AND TRAIN DERAILMENTS Mr HAMILTON-SMITH House of Assembly Waite Leader of the Opposition TRAM AND TRAIN DERAILMENTS Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:03): My question is to the Minister for Transport. Have the minister's statements to the house about tram and train derailments last year been at all times factual and correct? On 27 February 2008, the minister told the house that he was tabling rail investigation reports into the tram and rail derailments. Reports into rail safety must comply with nationally agreed Australian standards. An examination of the tabled documents shows that, in fact, the minister at the time tabled unsigned, undated and unattributed documents, comprising a three-page minute on the tram derailment and a six-page minute on the train derailment, not the full reports he claimed. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly Elder Minister for Transport Minister for Infrastructure Minister for Energy TRAM AND TRAIN DERAILMENTS The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:04): Good try, but I said I tabled reports on the tram derailment, and that is what I did. Mr Hamilton-Smith House of Assembly Mr Hamilton-Smith: Where are the reports? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The full report. This is what is given to me, okay? There are full investigations; there are documents drawn up in investigations. In fact, I understand the opposition (or someone) sought to FOI those and, on the very strong advice to me, I have given to you what is given to me. I do not go behind those documents and look at the investigations. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The allegation from the Leader of the Opposition is that those investigations do not support the claims: I challenge him to show that in any way, sense or form. The very strong advice of the head of TransAdelaide is that investigation documents should not be FOI'd because they cannot then— Ms Chapman interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —conduct an investigation in a full, frank and open way. I can have that advice given to you as it was given to me by the head of TransAdelaide for you to contest if you wish. Before we get too carried away with these recklessly duplicitous people on this side, let us make it clear who has actually been making utterly inaccurate claims about this. What happened was that a tram derailed. Within hours, of course, the member for Morphett said that it was because the tram driver ran a red light. He was the first one in South Australia to suggest that, but apparently subsequently I should not have suggested it. However, he was the first person in South Australia with no information. The Leader of the Opposition then went on to say that the tram had derailed because of a failure in TransAdelaide's computing system. That was his claim. But the next morning that was not good enough: he went out and said that the tram had derailed because we had had laid the track wrongly and it would all have to be torn up. What was subsequently found was that, lo and behold, the tram derailed because the driver ran a red light, and the only additional information was that they disobeyed an instruction to go back and went forward instead. An honourable member House of Assembly An honourable member: He should never have been driving it. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He should never have been driving it, now we are told. Can you explain that? Can you explain why he should never have been driving it? The truth is— Dr McFetridge interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What do you claim is in it? Dr McFetridge interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will do this for the opposition: I will offer briefings with the head of TransAdelaide. I will ask him again for his advice about whether investigation documents should be FOI'd. His advice has been extremely strong, and I will produce it for you. I will offer you briefings from him. If, at the end of the day, you contest his advice, you can continue to do so, but do not come in here once more completely dishonestly suggesting that there is something in those documents that is not in the report. You are not reflecting on me: you are once again— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —reflecting on the public servant who prepared it. You have what I have. The only thing you don't have is the short recommendation from him saying, 'You should not FOI the other material.' I am happy to give you that, too. You should put up or shut up, frankly. You have been completely recklessly wrong about this every step of the way. Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The Leader of the Opposition is a complete stranger to shame when it comes to the truth. He is not on speaking terms with the truth, because he— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport is debating. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I come back to the point. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting— Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting: The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: The bloke won't listen. He has an undeveloped personality, and he doesn't like being wrong. Unfortunately, in this job, I have to admit to being wrong several times, even if I am not. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order, clearly— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! What is the point of order? Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: The minister is clearly debating the question and reflecting on the Leader of the Opposition, rather than answering the question. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Quiet, please. The minister was debating, but he was responding to an interjection. I urge members on my left not to interject and ministers not to respond to interjections. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I come back to the point. If the Leader of the Opposition suggests that the information provided to me is not accurate and does not reflect the investigation, I am happy for him to have a meeting with the head of TransAdelaide, who supplies me with the information. He can tell him that, and he can ask him whatever he wants. My view is that I actually trust what the head of TransAdelaide tells me; I have no reason not to. I think that it is a disgraceful reflection. But I come back to the point: this Leader of the Opposition has been prepared to say anything about tram derailments. He has a terrible— Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order, we have been listening in complete silence to the minister on this matter, with no interjection— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: —and yet again the minister is reflecting on the Leader of the Opposition. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Yes, I agree. The minister must not debate. The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Whether or not he is prepared to say anything, I will say what he has said about it. He said that the tram derailed because of the wrong computer system, a bad computer system—utterly, completely wrong. He said that the rail would have to be torn up because it was laid wrongly—utterly, completely wrong. He now has a report that shows that he has said things that are utterly, completely wrong and without foundation. So, what does he do now? He wants to tell me that the people preparing the report have given me a report that is not consistent with the investigation. Well, I can tell you, I stand by the advice I have been given; I have no reason not to. I invite you to get a briefing, but I do invite you to try to disentangle your personal dislike for me from the way you approach your portfolio.