Grievance Debate

RAIL ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (15:08): Today we had answers—if you can call them that—from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. This minister is one of three, I think, who have been a minister in the Labor government over the last 10 years, and one would have thought he would be able to answer some simple questions, especially in the last few months since he has had a new assistant transport services minister who can take care of all the issues in relation to public transport, ticketing, and all the other disasters that are befalling that aspect of the portfolio.

But no, today, three simple questions were asked about the government's announced rail electrification project cancellations/suspensions/abandonments, and these are not just the rail electrification project to Gawler but also the Outer Harbor light rail project, totalling up in round figures of about $1 billion. You would think that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, with his experience, would be able to answer three simple questions: firstly, how much did you spend last year on these projects that have now been abandoned? Secondly, what, if any, has there been in respect of penalties as a result of cancelling these projects? Thirdly, what extra carbon tax will be paid in the event of us continuing to have a diesel-run system, rather than moving to this new clean, green electrification process? They are pretty basic questions.

What we have heard today is the minister say, firstly, in response to how much he spent, 'About $50 million.' There are other expenses in relation to the Gawler and Noarlunga lines that have been in the remediation of those lines, but net, for electrification, it is about $50 million. I asked the minister this last week. I ask him again today to look at page 123 of the budget papers, which lists out a number of rail revitalisation projects and the money that was spent last year—this year, I should say, the 2011-12 year rather than last year, but the last financial year for the purpose of the budget.

What he needs to address, I think, is to explain, when it has rail revitalisation, including projects such as the Gawler line upgrade and other expenses separate to electrification, why is it that, when it specifically has a line that says 'Rail Revitalisation—Gawler Line Electrification', it says $82,964,000? Why does it say on the rail revitalisation of Noarlunga, on line electrification, $69,048,000 and, on other projects, substituting for other expenditure, including the 'Rail Revitalisation—Railcars', which was spent last year, $36,779,000?

So, we do need some answers. How is it that he can tell us today that, of the expenses spent on these lines, the money spent is about $50 million, when there are specific provisions here, separate to the rail resleepering, separate to programs for the revitalisation of turnback arrangements, upgrades, etc.? Are the budget papers wrong—in which case he needs to tell us and to fix it up.

What are the penalties on cancelling? He says he is negotiating in relation to the contract for railcars because we are going to have an excess. Obviously, they are going to sit in the plastic unless we can cancel that. We should have had some answers on that. What is incredible is that he comes in today, having cancelled $1 billion worth of rail infrastructure projects for electrification, and he cannot tell us how much extra it is going to cost the government or, more particularly, the consumers in this state for the extra carbon tax that will be paid on that cancellation.

Of course we need to have some answers on that. We need to have some answers on, of all of the hundreds of millions of dollars, because it is a project of over $2 billion that has now been haemorrhaged to a halt, how much, if any, has to be paid back to the commonwealth under the acquittal process?

These are all fundamental questions that we need to have answered by this minister, who has clearly had the experience in cabinet. He ought to know what he is doing. We need to know what we are doing in respect of what the community can expect to have to pick up, prop up and pay for, as a result of what appear to be, at this point, decisions that are made purely on the financial salvation of the Treasurer to be able to balance his books, when there are clearly very significant financial consequences. We need to have the answers as to what the public are expected to pay, as a result of this poor administration.