ROAD OR FERRY CLOSURE (CONSULTATION AND REVIEW) BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I indicate that I am the opposition's lead speaker on this bill from the other place. I will not go on for too long but there are some important issues to raise with regard to this bill and I know that some of my opposition colleagues will speak on this bill as well.

Let me say at the outset that I compliment the Hon. Robert Brokenshire from the other place for bringing this bill forward. Essentially, it requires a statutory obligation to consult with identified stakeholders and local communities prior to a ferry or road being closed. Let me also say that the opposition strongly supports this bill, and that is for many reasons, which I will come to shortly but, just for the benefit of the house, I will read a few short excerpts which really do capture the essence of the bill. With regard to the closure of a ferry:

A public ferry service maintained by a ferry authority must not be closed by the authority otherwise than in accordance with this Part.

And this part deals with consultation, and I quote again:

(1) Where a ferry authority proposes to close a public ferry service maintained by the authority, the authority must give notice of the proposal to the following persons or bodies...

(a) the Commissioner of Highways;

(b) if the service is in a council area—the council for the area;

(c) each owner of land adjoining a principal ferry road at any point within 5 kilometres of a terminal of the ferry.

This part goes on to explain that a ferry authority must also give notice of the proposal to the public through a newspaper that circulates throughout the state and also a local newspaper—in fact, all local newspapers I think is the intent—circulating in the area in which a terminal of a ferry is situated. Very similar provisions exist for the possible closures of roads.

Why are we dealing with this at all? Why has this come about. It has come about, I suppose, for two reasons. It is a common sense piece of legislation. It is a common sense suggestion that if you are going to close a road or a ferry—and these would typically be in rural areas—you would consult with the local community and everybody else who might be affected by it.

So, I suppose it is common sense to have legislation that supports what you think you should naturally be doing, but the other reason it has been brought here is that the government did not follow that common sense path. The government did not consult with the local community or any other community—perhaps a community of public servants within the transport department, maybe, but broader than that there was no consultation whatsoever with any community when the government announced that it was going to close the ferry at Cadell.

Cadell is in the electorate of Stuart. It is a very precious and important part of the Riverland in the electorate of Stuart. As we all know, the member of Chaffey represents exceptionally well the majority of the Riverland, but Cadell, Morgan, Blanchetown and Murbko—that small section of the Riverland—is in the electorate of Stuart, and it is a very precious part of the electorate of Stuart.

I think every member of this house would agree that the government had absolutely no idea what they were doing when they tackled the small community of Cadell and told them that they were going to take their ferry away. They had absolutely no idea how hard those people would fight against that. They had absolutely no idea how much support the people of Cadell would get from other communities up and down the river and in fact all over the state.

I will share a very brief story with the house. I visited Lindon Station in the far north-east of South Australia, near Cameron Corner, right next to the New South Wales border. The people at Lindon Station were talking to me about a whole range of issues to do with their pastoral enterprise and business and succession plans and drought and fire and challenges, and many positives to do with station life on a very remote outback station.

During that visit they also said to me, 'What's going on with this ferry at Cadell? I can't believe it. I can't believe that the government wants to close this ferry at Cadell. That's outrageous.' That is how far and wide the anger with the government was that they would consider doing this. That is how far and wide the anger was with the government that they had actually made a decision to do it without consulting with anybody, outside quite possibly, as I said, a small community of public servants within the transport department.

I do not mind that the government considered it, because it is fair to consider all the options. If you are trying to save some money, you have to consider all the options. What I mind is that they progressed with the intention after considering it. They should have just considered it and said, 'Yes, we are thinking of all the different things we can possibly think of—the ones that seem very sensible all the way down to the other end of the spectrum of things we probably will not do—but let us just consider where we can save money anyway.'

What is absolutely crazy is that, immediately after that, they did not discount the possibility. They did not understand the importance of that ferry to the provision of emergency services to the Cadell community and the provision of emergency services to the surrounding community. They just thought to themselves, 'Well, there is a ferry at Morgan. There is a ferry at Morgan that can get you to Cadell as well.' They just did not think about the fact that the Cadell ferry was so pivotal to the provision of emergency services, was so pivotal to the provision of Meals on Wheels and was so pivotal to the movement of farming machinery across the river.

There is a ferry at Morgan and there is a ferry at Waikerie, so the small community of internal public servants who would have considered this issue would have just said, 'There is one up the road and there is one down the road. There is a good saving; we will shut it off.' But they did not fully consider the fact that, if you have got a significantly large piece of agricultural machinery on one side of the river near Cadell, and you need to move it to the other side of the river near Cadell, it is just not practical to go approximately 15 kilometres down the road to Morgan, or approximately, I think, about 25 kilometres up the road to Waikerie, to get onto that ferry, to then travel the same distance back on the road, on the other side of the river, to get back to Cadell. It is possibly excusable that the government did not consider that because they are not in sync and they are not in tune with the needs of primary producers across the state, but how could they possibly not have considered those sort of ramifications for emergency services at Cadell?

For me, all of the issues are important, but the most important issue of all was that of the school. I think, at the time, there were 23 or 24 children who went to Cadell Primary, and approximately five of them lived on the other side of the river. So, approximately five of them would come across on the ferry every day to go to Cadell Primary, which is an absolutely outstanding small school in South Australia. They do a really wonderful job in many ways.

These children were going to be brought to school from the other side of the river, and this is where I cannot accept that it was just an accident or an oversight, the way I can with regard to agricultural machinery. This is where the government thought to themselves, 'Goodness, if those kids do not have a ferry to go to Cadell Primary, they will have to go by road, either via Morgan or via Waikerie to their ferry, to get across the river and then back to Cadell. Goodness gracious! If they do that, why would you drive right past one perfectly good primary school to get to another one?'

Those kids would not have continued. It would not have made sense for them to continue at the Cadell Primary School, so they would have had approximately 20 per cent of their students taken out of their student population, and that would have quite likely led to the closure, a few years down the track, of the Cadell Primary School. Now, that is the sort of saving the government was really after. I have no doubt they wanted to save the $200,000-odd a year to run the ferry, but it was not only about the saving to the transport budget through the closure of the ferry, it was actually about trying to just get out of providing a whole range of other services—just sneakily get out of providing those other services. The government would have been very happy to just let the Cadell Primary School close.

Do you know what? If you had let the Cadell Primary School close, then the town would have shrunk and become very much more difficult to sustain itself. If you do not have people coming into town every day to take their kids to school, then the businesses suffer. If you do not have a school, young families cannot live there. If you do not have a school, grandchildren cannot live there, so grandparents do not want to live there, quite understandably.

The school is absolutely pivotal to small regional communities, and that is actually the target the government had in their sights—that and other services they provide in that region. The government was hoping that the ferry would be the catalyst: if they could get rid of the ferry, they could get out of their responsibilities to the community far more broadly.

Another issue in regard to the Cadell ferry, and the reason that we are debating and supporting this bill today, is that not only did the government not consult with the broader community, the government did not consult in cabinet. There is an expectation that these issues actually go through a full cost-benefit analysis in cabinet. I am sure they discussed it around the table, but not in the detailed, thorough way that they are obliged to do.

It was very unfortunate for the government that, shortly after this announcement was made, estimates came along and I was able to ask minister after minister after minister, or have asked on my behalf if I could not be at that particular session, 'Were you consulted? Did you or your department do a full cost-benefit analysis on the closure of the Cadell ferry?' Minister after minister after minister had to say no. They are on the record, in estimates, in parliament, on Hansard: no was the perpetual, repeated answer.

Not only did the Cadell community fight, not only did they show that they could not be pushed around, not only did they get support from other communities and councils up and down the river and around the state, not only did they refuse to submit, but the government had not done its own internal consultation properly. Mr Deputy Speaker, I invite you to check the Hansard of estimates a year and a half ago—two estimates ago—and minister after minister had to say, 'No, actually, we didn't do that properly.' That is why we need this bill.

We need this bill because we all know that the government does not consult with the community, particularly in regional areas, the way they should. This example shows us, proves to us and has it on the record that the government does not even consult thoroughly; it does not do the homework that it is meant to do and obliged to do internally before it makes these sorts of decisions to try to shut down regional communities.

That is why we need this bill, and that is why the opposition wholeheartedly supports it. You would think it would be common sense that you would do this anyway, but when you have a government that has proven that it will not do it, and that it will try to sneakily shut down a ferry, to sneakily shut down a school, to sneakily disarm emergency services, Meals on Wheels and a whole range of other services without doing its own thorough internal cost-benefit analysis of the broader impact on that regional community, that is why we need this bill.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (10:47): I too rise to support this bill, introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in another place as a result of the Weatherill government's attempt to close the Cadell ferry back in 2012. Along with the member for Stuart, in whose electorate the ferry is situated, I was absolutely outraged to learn that it was the intention of this government to close the ferry service at Cadell. Worse still, it was not just the Cadell ferry; the Lyrup ferry was next in line.

This bill imposes a statutory obligation to consult with identified stakeholders and local communities prior to a ferry or road being closed. I was notified by Cadell residents that the department had sneaked into town and asked if they could have the keys to the town hall because they wanted to have a consultative meeting with the constituents of Cadell about the closure of the ferry. They did not actually mention the closure of the ferry; they just wanted to have a public meeting to talk to the locals about the ferry service, and that raised concerns with a couple of the community leaders in Cadell. It is only a small community, but it is a vital part of the linkage right up and down the river.

Cadell is a small town of about 460 residents, and it is a vital part of the infrastructure along the River Murray. It has a school, it has shops, it has a small but really strong community. It has been brought together over the issue of the closure of the ferry. They rallied—and they rallied really well. When the notification was put out that the meeting was to be held in the town hall, it rang alarm bells, particularly for the member for Stuart, as Cadell is in his electorate, as I said. Because of the linkage into the Riverland, into my electorate of Chaffey, the community in the Riverland was also outraged, and I congratulate the community in the Riverland on working with the people of Cadell to rally and make their voice heard.

The notification for the ferry closure was on 7 June, and they wanted to have the information meeting on 14 June, with the intention of closing that ferry at the end of June, 30 June. That was going to save $400,000 or thereabouts in the state budget. That saving was really not considered in terms of the long-term impact it was going to have on not only the local community but also the CFS. As the member for Stuart said, the people in Adelaide were consulted about the impacts on CFS, but not the local branch, the local people who are on the ground and who actually understand how vitally important that ferry service is for the CFS.

We looked at farmers who had property both sides of the river and how they were going to suffer in transporting their equipment and how they were going to be impacted on, but it was also about students getting to school and families who have to travel the river for their place of employment. It was about the tourism and the linkage of Cadell into the Riverland, or the linkage from the Riverland into the Mid North, which is critical for that linkage with tourism.

People who travel, particularly from the east coast to the west coast, use that road because it is part of that network. When people are travelling and touring around the region, and they want to have the experience travelling the river and the Riverland into the Mid North, that ferry service being closed would have had a significant impact on those people.

Along the way, those ramifications—the schools, the farmers—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Again, yes, the Cadell Training Centre would have been impacted on. All those considerations were not taken into account. Premier Weatherill said that he was going to disassociate himself with the tag of the previous premier—that he would not announce and defend, that he would consult and work with the people of South Australia. I remember that the president of the Murray Mallee Local Government Association, mayor Burgess of the Mid Murray Council, said that it had made a mockery of a recent agreement signed between the Local Government Association and the Premier, the agreement that councils and all state departments and agencies would work together to achieve better outcomes for South Australian communities, with better collaboration and cooperation. We saw none of that. We saw none of that at all.

To get a public meeting in Cadell attended by nearly 500 people I think was an outstanding result of the public voice. It was people power at that meeting, and they voiced their concerns with the government bureaucrats, saying, 'This is not on. We were not consulted.' For the department to come into town and sneak around and look for the keys to the town hall to have a public meeting to talk about ferries was an absolute clear deception of their intention, so it really did rub people the wrong way.

The people of South Australia actually rallied behind this announcement. They rallied behind the people of Cadell and the impacts the closure would have had. We saw huge pressure down here in Adelaide. The people of Adelaide thought it was outrageous that a government could take away one of the threads or one of the lifelines to that community, take away and close it, potentially putting that small town at risk and taking away a linkage from one side of the river to the other, the Mid North to the eastern side of the river.

In that rally, those people made their feelings heard. The two government representatives who were there did not have any answers. They had no answers to people's questions about the impacts, the consultation process, and exactly how hard they had thought it out. During estimates, I asked questions of ministers and departmental people, as did the member for Stuart, about the consultation process—who they had talked to and the decisions around the cabinet table.

How many people were aware that the Premier was going to close that ferry? I remember the Minister for Transport at the time being interviewed on radio, and he straight up and front acknowledged that there was no consultation, and no proper process put in place to go down the road, announce the closure of the ferry, and do it in the right way.

There were many individual stories about how people would be impacted, particularly the families who had to travel from faraway farm properties to bring children to school and to come into town to get their supplies and stores. It is about farmers moving equipment, particularly during harvest time. In that area, it is not just the horticulture, wine grapes, citrus and stone fruit that would have been impacted, it is the transfer of machinery from one side of the river to the other that has had people steaming.

The primary producer sector and the business sector in the area also generate a lot of employment and wealth for the region, and the Cadell ferry was part of that linkage. The Mid Murray Council, the council in which Cadell falls, received no correspondence at all, so it was clear that the government was sneaking around without the proper due process, and I think that they, justifiably, received condemnation from all areas of South Australia. I received phone calls from people right across the state because they used that ferry in that it travels from the east of the state to the west of the state, and they thought that it was absolutely outrageous that a government could make an announcement without any real justification, albeit a small cost.

I congratulate the people who rallied—the people power that got together at that public meeting—and I congratulate the member for Stuart, the member for Bragg, and Senator Anne Ruston, who came along to that meeting and let their voices be heard, as did I, because it was about endorsing that community, the people who relied on that ferry service, and we needed to make sure that the government consulted with them.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (10:58): I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting the bill. This bill creates inconsistent treatment for road closures and it requires parliament to consider road closures, whether they impact on the community or are purely administrative. The definition of 'ferry closure' is too broad and the consultation provisions will apply even when closures are due to a falling river level during a drought.

The bill imposes two major requirements: firstly, it requires public consultation and consideration of submissions before a determination to close a public ferry service could be made; secondly, the bill requires the closure of a ferry service and any road, other than the road closed by a local council under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991, to be approved by both houses of parliament.

In the case of a ferry service, in broad terms the ferry forms part of the road network, and there is no objection to consultation on a proposed closure. Indeed, such consultation is already required for the closure of a road under section 27AA of the Highways Act 1926, which requires consultation between the Commissioner of Highways and landowners substantially affected by the road closure. However, rather than a stand-alone bill as proposed here, the Highways Act, which already provides the power to establish ferry services, could be amended to include similar consultation requirements where the permanent closure of a ferry service is contemplated.

Roads closed by local councils under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act or by the Commissioner of Highways under section 27AA of the Highways Act both require notice and consideration of submissions before they can be made. There is no clear reason that the bill differentiates between local councils and the Commissioner of Highways, as similar processes are involved if these powers are exercised.

It was said in the second reading explanation that the powers in section 27AA relate to major developments. This is incorrect. It is a general power to close roads and is likely to be the only power the commissioner could rely on to close roads outside a council district. Where a mandated process for consultation on closures is imposed, it should not be necessary for parliament to be required to consider such closures. Community views arising from the required consultation can be brought to parliament's attention in the normal way.

Many road closures are carried out for administrative purposes, for example where a road is moved and the old road is no longer used. Consideration of these closures is not a good use of parliament's time. In other cases where the government is closing a ferry service or a road for strategic reasons, requiring confirmation by both houses could prevent the government making effective financial decisions about the network and its strategic development.

In the case of ferry services, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is responsible for operating 12 River Murray ferry crossings at 11 locations, with two ferries at Mannum, the busiest crossing, which operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Ferry services are currently provided by the state government free of charge to the public. Seven of these crossings are on the arterial road network, which is under the care, control and management of the state government. Four crossings—Narrung, Purnong, Morgan and Lyrup—are on the local road network, with these roads under the responsibility of local government. These councils make no contribution to the operation or maintenance of these ferries.

The government spends about $5.2 million each year operating ferries and a further $2.9 million per annum maintaining them. Refits of the ferry fleet are additional to these costs and $960,000 has been allocated for that purpose in 2013-14. A total of $82.4 million has been spent operating, maintaining and upgrading the River Murray ferries over the nine-year period from 2004-05 to 2012-13.

Despite this investment, there are significant cost pressures associated with increased operator costs and the maintenance of the ferry fleet. There are five timber-hull ferries in excess of 60 years old that will require replacement in the next one to five years. Replacement ferries are estimated to cost $3 million each. The current level of River Murray ferry services cannot be sustained without investment and replacement of the five timber-hull ferries. The 2013-14 budget included $6.1 million over three years for the replacement of two timber-hull ferries with two steel-hull ferries. The replacement of two timber-hull ferries will contribute to a sustainable ferry service for community access, tourism and the efficient movement of freight across the River Murray. The first of two new vessels is expected to go into service by the end of 2014-15.

The Premier, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, and the Minister for Planning released South Australia's first Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan on 21 October 2013. This has identified the replacement of five new vehicle ferries to support ongoing ferry crossing operations along the River Murray in the short to medium time frame. The plan has also identified the long-term need to investigate the potential future arterial road bypass at Renmark. This is likely to include a new bridge across the River Murray and replace the requirement for a ferry service at Lyrup.

This bill imposes an unrealistic and time-consuming requirement for both houses to approve all road closures made under many different pieces of legislation, except a road closure by a local council under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act. This near blanket application of this requirement is unnecessary and, in some cases, not beneficial. There has not been proper consideration of the need for this requirement to apply to all the captured road closures. Other road closures which will be subject to the agreement of both houses of parliament are:

the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act—closures made by the Development Assessment Commission or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation if they are the relevant development authority and it is part of or directly associated with a development under the Development Act 1993.

part 7 of the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act—closures made by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure if all the land adjoining the road is crown land or if it is a road not within a council area where the minister is satisfied that the road is not in public use and will not be required for such use in the foreseeable future. This can only be used in very limited circumstances.

part 3A of the Highways Act (Authorised Transport Infrastructure Projects)—closures made as part of an authorised transport infrastructure project. This power is rarely used and the project must be defined by regulation which allows parliamentary scrutiny of the project.

section 71 of the Crown Land Management Act 2009—closures made by the minister if land ceases to be comprised in the town may close roads on that land. This is presumably a rare occurrence.

Requiring the agreement of both houses of parliament is an unusual step and currently it is only required in 11 acts: for example, the Marine Parks Act 2007, regarding a decision to exclude land from a marine park; the Linear Parks Act 2006, where land ceases to be included in the linear park; and the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, where land would cease to be included in the Adelaide Parklands.

These decisions would not occur frequently and are likely to be associated with areas that have been directly established by parliament. This is not the case with road and ferry services. It has been claimed by the bill's proponent in another place that there is only one reason you should be permitted to close a ferry, and it is the reason the state government closed its ferry services on Hindmarsh Island, Berri, Kingston-on-Murray and Blanchetown, because the state government built a bridge to replace the ferry.

Unfortunately, the bill's poor drafting means that, if the government does close a ferry because it has been replaced with a bridge, that ferry closure will still be subject to the prescriptive consultation and confirmation processes in the bill. This is just one example of the bill's deficiencies regarding what constitutes 'closure' of a ferry service. Clause 3(2)(a) of the bill specifically sets out that the closure of a ferry service does not include 'a closure reasonably required for the purposes of inspection or repair of the fairy or associated structures or equipment'. This leaves the issue of closure for maintenance purposes unclear and, therefore, subject to uncertainty.

Of greater importance is the failure to exclude closures necessitated by a drop in water levels; for example, on the River Murray during the most recent drought and the Cooper Creek on a regular basis. Flooding may also necessitate closures. In addition, a reduction in services based on a reduction in the demand for those services is not excluded from clause 3(2)(a) of the bill. This means that a decrease in the frequency or number of ferry crossings is treated as a closure for the purposes of this bill. I would simply say that this is another example of the longest prescriptive consultation and closure process defined in this bill. For all these reasons, the government considers the bill to be flawed, and opposes it.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:07): I rise, too, to speak to the Road or Ferry Closure (Consultation and Review) Bill 2013. I note the comments that have just transpired in this chamber from the member for Little Para. I think what is indicative here is the citycentric mindset of the Weatherill Labor government. They still go on with these announce and defend policies that Premier Jay Weatherill made out were a thing of the past when he was elevated to the role of premier after he knifed Mike Rann, the former premier—well, he got his henchmen to do that job.

It is absolutely disgraceful that we should even be here today discussing this bill. We hear the comments from the other side about why it should not happen. Well, there are plenty of comments coming from this side and in the other place about why this bill is being debated. It is being debated because you have a Weatherill Labor government that takes no notice of country communities. In fact, the notice, as the member for Chaffey indicated, went out that the closure for Cadell was going ahead a week before anyone was going to be told about it. That is just simply, simply wrong.

The Labor government obviously did not foresee the community outrage—not just in the Riverland—that transmitted right through to Adelaide and the greater South Australian area. It just showed that people power can get a result. At the end of the day, the good citizens of Cadell and the surrounding areas, the tourists, the farmers, emergency services, still have access to that ferry service that Cadell.

Unlike members opposite, for those of us who live near the river and use those ferry services very often—in fact, when I am out in the electorate, I use them every week—they are vital parts of the road network whether it is shifting wide loads (because sometimes it is the only opportunity for wide loads to come across) or whether it is vineyard operators and harvest operators who operate at all hours. It is vital to shift that equipment, so they do not have an extra hour on their trip in light of the Cadell situation to go from property to property, because they have properties on either side of the river.

It beggars belief that for $400,000, the government imposes pain not just on the people of Cadell and the surrounding areas but on the people of South Australia. It shows how little understanding they have of the river and how it works. We saw that evidenced in their management of the River Murray throughout the drought in a whole range of areas.

With regard to the ferry, yes, we have been told today—and it is on the public record—that the ferries cost $5 million per annum to operate and about $3 million per annum in maintenance, but what is the other option? Build some bridges? Yes, that's great. The last bridge—I think it was Berri in 1997—cost $17 million and it will be a lot more than that now. If you want to get across the Torrens it costs $40 million, so I would hate to see what it costs to get across the River Murray.

An honourable member: And that's just to walk across.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, that's just to walk across. I hope it is a fair while to go yet, but when I leave this place, I am going to go into the bridge building business because it sounds extremely lucrative.

Mr Griffiths: You can get Ivan to paint them.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, I will get the member for Schubert on as painting crew.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: That's right. What I do want to acknowledge is what happened in the drought, and we saw the work of the ferries working group that was chaired by the Hon. Dean Brown. There were ferries that went out of service and it was the work of that group at a local level, —and I stress, at a local level—that made sure we got those extended flaps put in place so that people could commute from one side of the river to the other. I note that at Wellington they sat there on the bank and Wellington did not quite get there. There was just enough water to keep that ferry going and those flaps are stored somewhere close by at the moment.

Also, in this whole debate, we need to remember what the government was trying to do with regard to the replacement of the five timber-hulled ferries that do need replacement. They have tried to just put the cost back onto local government. That is what they did. They went out to the local government and said, 'Find a way to pay for these ferries or you run the risk of losing them.' They were just going out for blatant cost shifting and, quite rightly, our local councils and our Local Government Association in the Murray Mallee were outraged at this idea.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Is that right?

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely, minister. They were outraged that they would have to put their hands in their pocket to pay for something that is a state-based funding arrangement. That is exactly what it is. We have a government that is so urban-focussed that they forget that there is another world out there and that actually some of the urban dwellers—some of those people who do actually live in their seats—travel to the Riverland for a lot of their recreation time and down into my electorate in the Lower Murray.

There has been comment made about what happens with maintenance on the ferry under this bill. I was on a ferry the other day and one of the hydraulic pumps had blown up. The operator said, 'We can still operate it with one,' because there is one on each cable on each side and he said, 'I've got one coming.' I said, 'Well, it won't take long to change that over,' and he said, 'No, it might be 20 minutes.' That will happen quite quickly and obviously instead of trying to fix a hydraulic pump on the ferry, it is a lot easier just to change it right out. That is a common-sense attitude. In no way known will this bill impact on that level of maintenance, I believe.

There are comments about river levels dropping and that sort of thing. We understand in the Lower Murray what happens when river levels drop. I would like to think that through negotiations with the states and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for extra water that it should be in storage. That water has been negotiated through buyback or infrastructure upgrades in the eastern states, and I would like to think that we would never get to the stage that we are in. If we do, that means that all this talk about water for the river has been wasted.

In regard to the ferries, when the minister of the day was working out which ferries they were going to close I wonder whether they just looked at the simple numbers. If you look at the simple numbers, in 2011 the annual average daily traffic count was for Lyrup 258, Waikerie 608, Cadell 98, Morgan 434, Swan Reach 317, Purnong 119, Walker Flat 252, Mannum (upstream) 439, Mannum (downstream) 712, Tailem Bend 400, Wellington 496, and Narrung 81. You can only think that once Cadell was going to get the big hit from the government that Purnong and Narrung were next in line. That is what the government would have done; they would have just looked at the numbers.

They are not even worried about communities, they would have looked at the bare numbers and said, 'Well, it is only this many people using a ferry service, we will just shut it down,' with absolutely no regard for the community, no regard for public service access, no regard for emergency services access and no regard for the good people of the country in the Riverland and around the Cadell area on how to get their children to school. That is why this bill has come into this place and was introduced in the other place. That is why we are debating it here today.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Not by you. Not by the Liberal Party.

Mr PEDERICK: You will have your turn, Mr Minister. That is the reason we are here today, because we have a Labor government that under its Premier, under its minister, does not know the basic meaning of consultation with communities. They do not have any idea. The simple fact that anyone would come up with this decision just shows how far disenfranchised this Labor government is with the good citizens of this state, especially the good citizens of our country areas.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:18): Well, what an eloquent speech that was! It is hard to follow.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, that is what I was about to say. Isn't it interesting that the party that privatised ETSA without so much as a by your leave are now wanting consultation on road closures after promising full stop never ever ever—

Ms CHAPMAN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That's right, they don't like hypocrisy being brought up.

Ms CHAPMAN: If the minister wants to have a discussion with the member for Fisher, he is entitled to go outside and do it. But he is not, in contributing to this debate, entitled to go off on some tangent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I will listen carefully to the minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is a Greek word for this sort of behaviour and it starts with 'h'.

Ms CHAPMAN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Now, of course, he is treating you with absolute disrespect in talking about your behaviour in making these determinations. I ask you to get him to either contribute to this debate or alternatively sit down.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Ms CHAPMAN: Relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relevance? I think the minister is covering—

Ms CHAPMAN: I am not sure how he is going to produce Greek history into the Cadell ferry but frankly it is completely off track.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Liberal Party was so concerned about the consultation period about the opening and closing of roads that they are supporting someone else's bill. Not one of them has proposed this bill themselves. If they are so concerned about it, why doesn't Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition move this bill themselves? Is it perhaps that they do not have the imagination to do it themselves?

I have to say, given that members opposite support the commonwealth government's ripping of moneys out of urban rail without any consultation whatsoever with the local community, Gawler and Tonsley, I find it utterly hypocritical that a party that supports without any consultation money being taken out of state co-funded infrastructure projects that improve road access—that is okay but, when the government reverses a decision to close the Cadell ferry, they want to entrench prescriptive measures that make it almost impossible to govern.

I think it shows that they are not fit to govern because they are supporting a bill that would make it almost impossible to govern the state's road network, which shows really that they are not interested in governing: they are just interested in opposing. The member for Chaffey was so passionate about the replacement of timber hull ferries in his community: do you know how many times he wrote to me about it leading up to the government's budget? None.

Mr Whetstone: What's this?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: None.

Mr Whetstone: What's this? It's a letter from me to you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will stop interjecting, particularly when he is out of his chair.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: After the government made the announcement, the member for Chaffey wrote to me.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Excuse me?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I look forward to it. The four crossings at Narrung, Purnong, Morgan and Lyrup are on the local government network, and the state government funds those ferries.

An honourable member: So they should.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member opposite says so we should. These councils make absolutely no contribution whatsoever to the operation and maintenance of these ferries, not a dollar on local government roads. The government spends $5.2 million each year on operating ferries and a further $2.9 million per annum on maintaining them. Indeed, a total of $82.4 million has been spent since 2004-05 on the maintenance of our River Murray ferries.

We have been accused of not listening to the local community about the Cadell ferry. I would remind members opposite that the government did listen and it reversed its decision. So by the measure they are setting, by listening, we failed; by replacing ferries, we failed; by investing $82.4 million, we failed. There is no measure that the opposition can set that we can pass, because they are not interested in outcomes: they are interested in opposing, complaining and whingeing. They want to tear this state down. They do not want to see any progress whatsoever on our local road networks. In terms of community consultation, what about Barton Road? Where is the community consultation with the residents of the western suburbs who want to see Barton Road reopened? There is silence from the members opposite.

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: relevance, number 98. Barton Road has absolutely nothing to do with the ferry, and I think the transport minister understands that Barton Road is well over 100 kilometres from the ferry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister is talking about consultation and providing an example of it. He is in order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Last time I checked, sir, Barton Road was a road, and this bill deals with road closures. Perhaps they have another definition for 'road' that I do not know about. When it comes to consultation, the Liberal Party wants consultation in areas they represent but, in areas that they do not represent, they are quite happy for the status quo to remain.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have just heard that the Liberal Party has reversed its position and now supports the opening of Barton Terrace. It is an interesting turnaround. It is important to note that the government takes its role in road closures very, very seriously. I believe in free passage on Her Majesty's roads. I do not believe in tolling roads. I do not believe that the government should be arbitrarily closing roads, unless there is a very good reason to do so.

I am also very concerned about the powers that have been exercised in the past by both Labor and Liberal ministers in terms of road closures. They have a very large impact on the local community. I have exercised my discretion, as has the Commissioner of Highways, very delicately since I have come to this office, but I have to say that this bill would basically tie the hands of the government completely.

What if, for example, the government wanted to build a new road on a completely new path and close the other roads for efficiencies and the local community objected? What if, for example, we wanted to do some major piece of infrastructure work on, say, the Britannia roundabout and the local council, of which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is very fond and probably shares her views with the world, wanted to stall government expenditure on infrastructure because of local interests?

I have to say that support for this bill shows that members opposite are not preparing to govern. They do not expect to win the next election: they just want to oppose. If a government wants to govern, it needs tools to govern with. Rolling out infrastructure in a state of our size versus our population requires the government to have tools in its arsenal to roll out that infrastructure quickly, but also listen to the community. What members opposite want to do is support a bill from a minor party in the upper house which will completely hamstring the government in its ability to roll out infrastructure.

When the government does reverse a decision and then enters into discussions with local councils, it does so in a completely voluntary way. All discussions with councils are based on a voluntary acceptance. There is no compulsion in any way with this at all. We talk to local councils about how we sustain the long-term life of these ferries, because we are not going to build bridges, and they accept that. Members opposite have made no commitments to build any bridges across the River Murray either.

How do we sustain the long-term use of these ferries? The reality is this: the long-term sustainable use of these ferries is going to require a greater contribution from the commonwealth and local government, because the state cannot keep on doing this, especially with the volumes that are there. The government will not close the ferries, but we need to have a new funding model.

If you are serious about governing, you will talk to the local councils and come up with a plan that will work—not tolling. I am not talking about tolls, but perhaps a better model that can work going forward. I think what everyone in all these communities wants and accepts is that the ferries are the lifeblood of these communities, and taking the ferries away is unacceptable. We accept that—that is why we are replacing ferries in the latest budget—but you need a new funding model because the funding model is broken.

If you want to govern, you will engage local councils and you will talk to them about the best way to maintain these ferries. Perhaps, just hypothetically thinking out loud, it could be that we put up the capital infrastructure and councils run the ferries. What would be wrong with that, especially on local government roads? Members opposite have ruled that out already. Why not have that as a solution? Local metropolitan councils have to do that; why don't regional councils?

Mr Whetstone: Is that policy?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have a policy about ferries. We are replacing the timber-hulled ferries with steel-hulled ferries. I am saying, hypothetically, why would we not enter into discussion with councils about this sort of thing? The government has no plans to do this, but why would you not, over the long-term, work out a new funding model? Why does the commonwealth get away with spending nothing on River Murray ferries? Why is the commonwealth not part of this picture as well?

Ms Chapman: Grow up.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Bragg's solution to this is to say, 'Grow up'. 'Do not ask the commonwealth to spend anything. They are a Liberal government now. They must protect their budgets.' That is the difference. We will stand up for South Australia while members opposite stand up for Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane and New South Wales. The reality is this: only this government has the courage to stand up for Canberra, and only this government can say no to Tony Abbott—members opposite will not. How many questions and how many letters has the member for Chaffey written about ferries before the last budget decision?

Mr WHETSTONE: Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind the minister that I have written to him on the ferry issue and it has taken him nearly five months to respond.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): What is your point of order?

Mr WHETSTONE: Relevance.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): The minister might like to clarify—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He wrote to me after the budget decision.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): —and the minister's time has expired. Member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:28): I rise to close the debate here. The government tells us that everything is okay. They oppose this bill because everything is okay. We know from the Cadell experience that everything is not okay, and that is why we support this bill.

Let me just compliment the Cadell community, particularly Mr Danny McGurgan, Deputy Mayor Kevin Myers and Mayor Dave Burgess, for standing up to the government and for beating the government. It is not true that the government listened, consulted and change their mind. The community beat the government. We supported them and we support this bill.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 6 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.