House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Oaklands Park Rail Crossing Oaklands Park Rail Crossing Mr WINGARD House of Assembly Mitchell Oaklands Park Rail Crossing Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (14:17): My question is also to the Minister for Transport. Given the government spent $2 million on a study, drawings of the train overpass at the Oaklands crossing, when does the government plan to begin work on this project? The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN House of Assembly Lee Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development Oaklands Park Rail Crossing The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:18): Can I thank the member for Mitchell for his interest in this particular matter, as I note his very keen interest that he has raised on numerous occasions within this chamber. Yes, a study was done some years ago—off the top of my head, 2011 or perhaps 2012—which indicated a solution in the order of I think $210 million off the top of my head (I do not have that in front of me), but of a very significant magnitude. The government released, before the election, a draft Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan which spoke about a series of transport improvements across central Adelaide, broader metropolitan Adelaide, and of course across the rest of the state over a series of time frames: within five years, five to 15 years, and 15 to 30 years. While the Oaklands crossing was identified as a transport issue that needed attention, it wasn't identified as an issue which needed attention in that most immediate time category. That has been the position of the government. I reiterated that in radio interviews when I first became elected, and I noticed that, despite there being newly elected MPs from the other side of the house who resided in that part of town and also represented communities interested in that particular crossing, there was no commitment or indeed an intention to take the matter any further in the transport policies, or lack thereof, that were taken to the election by the opposition. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Point of order. Mr GARDNER House of Assembly Mr GARDNER: The minister's characterisation as he sees another party's policy is certainly debate. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I will listen to what the minister has to say. As long as he is not excessive in making Her Majesty's Opposition the topic. Members interjecting: The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN House of Assembly The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, a manifest lack of transport policies presented to the electorate at the last state election by those members sitting opposite, and, of course, a blank space when it came to the Oaklands crossing. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: conversing the policies of the opposition is irrelevant to the question. The question was: when is this project going to advance? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Yes, indeed; the Liberal Party has not been in office since early 2002. Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: And further point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Further point of order? Ms CHAPMAN House of Assembly Ms CHAPMAN: The member was Mr Alan Sibbons. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Minister, please get on with it. The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN House of Assembly The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I thank the deputy leader for her interjection as well. She, much more neatly than I, has drawn the link between transport policy of the opposition and irrelevance better than I could. Mr PISONI House of Assembly Mr PISONI: Point of order: I believe the minister is responding to— The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Interjections. Mr PISONI House of Assembly Mr PISONI: —interjections, which is of course against standing orders. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Well there are two remedies to that, isn't there: first, the minister doesn't respond to the interjections; the second is you do not utter them. Minister. The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN House of Assembly The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Speaker, I think my point has been made. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Supplementary, member for Mitchell.