Bills

Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous No 2) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (11:37): I also want to say a few quick words on this bill as it pertains to rail and rail infrastructure. As I am sure my ladies will attest, rail is a big part of our community in Davenport, so I just want to use this opportunity to say a few words about current passenger efficiency, park-and-ride facilities in my electorate, of course the freight line and the ongoing problem with boom gates in my electorate.

The rail line—the Belair line and the freight line—of course, cuts through Davenport. The Adelaide Metro line provides a passenger service to Belair, between Belair and Adelaide, and the freight line travels along the corridor on its way through to the eastern seaboard. As a result, there is huge use of the line through Davenport and the Mitcham Hills. In terms of Adelaide Metro, it is a great passenger service. I caught it in this morning but, too often, it is underutilised, and it is an underperforming passenger service. There are always ongoing issues around efficiency and access to this service.

Earlier this year, the member for Mitchell and I undertook a comparison of travel times along the Belair line between 1951 and today. It is revealing that there is approximately zero change in the time it takes to travel between Belair and Adelaide today, compared to 1951. Of course, in 1951, the line was a steam line. Today, for a teenager on the commute from Belair to the city, that train will not reach its destination in Adelaide any faster than it did in the time of their grandparents or great-grandparents, so this is something we have to look at in addressing the Belair line and the efficiency of that passenger service. Adelaide Metro note on their website:

On time running of services are monitored against the following performance thresholds [for trains]:

…no more than 5 minutes and 59 seconds after the timetabled arrival time at the destination…

In the past two weeks, only 86.6 per cent and 87.8 per cent respectively of the Belair line trains ran on time. Indeed, if we want people to use this system, we need people to know that the system is going to run on time. I do appreciate that there are glitches every now and then, but the Belair train line is consistently one of the most inefficient, and it is not meeting the existing benchmarks.

There have been improvements in recent times, and I think we are running at around 90 per cent, but are barely hitting that 95 per cent target, which is what I understand the government is looking at. For me and many of my constituents, running more than six minutes late during the morning commute is not good enough. As I said, based on those previous statistics, around 10 per cent of all passenger services failed to meet the requirement of running on time.

The Belair passenger line is a single track. This means that trains travelling in opposite directions must share the single line and pull into crossover loops to allow freight trains and other trains to pass, which causes some delay. To me and to many on this side, providing a fast, punctual and accessible train service is a paramount role of government.

If we can improve the efficiency of the Belair line, as well as access and the commute for the users, we will see less congestion on the main arterial roads out of Davenport (Old Belair Road and Shepherds Hill Road) which are both an absolute bottleneck in the morning. Passengers are not currently using the service and are therefore driving to work and causing further congestion on the roads because they are concerned about the efficiency of the line.

In recent weeks, we have seen the federal Labor opposition promise that, if elected, over time they will put trams up Unley Road and Belair Road. I can see this leading to further congestion along those arterial roads; it would not improve the service. I can also see fewer people using the Belair train service. The question that needs to be asked is: why would a government invest in a tram line up Unley Road and Belair Road running alongside an existing passenger train line? I would rather see—as I think would many residents in Davenport—an upgrade and investment in the existing passenger service than a tram coming up Unley Road and Belair Road.

Another big deterrent to people using public transport in Davenport is the lack of parking at park-and-ride facilities at the train stations. If you drive to the Eden Hills train station to catch the morning commute and you have not parked your car by 7.30am, you are not going to get a car park. Inevitably, if you cannot get a car park at the park-and-ride facility, you will turn around, jump back into your car and drive down the hill to the city, further leading to those congestion issues that I have talked about. An additional park-and-ride and an expansion of the current park-and-ride stations along the Belair train line are both critically important.

In the lead-up to the 2014 election, the Labor government pledged funding for a scoping study for park-and-ride facilities across various locations in Adelaide, including Bellevue Heights. This project would deliver significant benefits for the Mitcham Hills. Unfortunately, to date, we have not heard anything from the minister in terms of progress of that park-and-ride facility at Bellevue Heights.

I do know that an additional park-and-ride facility—and hopefully, in time, an additional station at Bellevue Heights—would be seen as a positive step by this government. It is certainly an initiative that I would support, and it would be supported by many residents in Bellevue Heights, Eden Hills and within the broader Davenport community. If we want people to use public transport, we need to provide a service that is accessible to them.

Freight traffic also causes a lot of concern to the residents of the Mitcham Hills. As I said before, the freight line connects the Sydney to Melbourne corridor to Adelaide and through to Perth. The freight traffic passes through the Adelaide Hills on its way to the Port and sorting yards north of Adelaide. The Adelaide to Melbourne freight corridor is one of the busiest in the nation. Rail movement through the Hills is ever increasing, and from approximately 2012-13 to 2013-14 Australia's total freight tonnage increased by about 25 per cent, and this is expected to continue, as the member for Chaffey touched on.

Rail movement through the Hills is an issue of great concern, and if we were to redraw the freight line to Melbourne today we probably would not go through the Adelaide Hills. There is a steep gradient, there is the 'wheel squeal' issue and there is the ongoing risk, and a concern to many residents especially during summer, of the potential in the worst case scenario of bushfires and freight train derailments, which have occurred.

As the ARTC want us to go to 1.8 kilometre trains and double-stacking down the track, a 1.8 kilometre train going through the Mitcham Hills would close off the crossings at Glenalta, Blackwood and Coromandel all at the same time, creating absolute gridlock through those main roads through the main part of Blackwood and the Mitcham Hills. The traffic congestion caused by lengthy waits at rail crossings is significant. I have met with the minister and the Rail Commissioner about grade separation at these stations, especially at Glenalta and Blackwood stations.

One issue that cannot seem to be resolved at the moment is the ongoing boom gate failure, particularly at Glenalta. Local residents have suffered as a result of repeated boom gate failures at Glenalta and Blackwood. On 2 January 2015, the level crossing at Blackwood failed and it was closed for 25 minutes. This was the same day that the Sampson Flat bushfire started. If that Sampson Flat equivalent were to happen in the Mitcham Hills and the boom gate was down for 25 minutes on that day, it would have certainly caused a lot of pandemonium through the Hills.

It is incredibly important that the government and its maintenance team get on top of the boom gate failures because at the moment, and I think my residents will attest to this, the Glenalta boom gate seems to be down almost every week, and they have not been able to solve the ongoing problem. I have asked the government to look into this. There is a petition in my office that is collecting an incredible number of signatures on this matter of urgent upgrades to the boom gates, especially at Glenalta. Stuck boom gates cause serious problems: they obviously hold up traffic and cause frustration. As governments should, we should plan for the worst and hope for the best. Should the worst ever happen when the boom gates are down, it is going to be truly catastrophic for the Mitcham Hills.

In conclusion, we need the state government to listen to the residents of the Mitcham Hills and the Adelaide commuters in terms of their needs in regard to the Belair passenger line and the freight line. We need a government that is committed to improving the infrastructure on these lines. It is time that the government started addressing the transport problems in the Mitcham Hills area. We need a committed effort to provide better infrastructure and improved passenger services to encourage more people onto public transport and off our congested local roads. There is a need for a long-term plan for rail freight through the Hills. Freight volumes are ever-increasing and demand will exceed the existing capacity for the freight line within the next 15 to 20 years. Without action, I believe that South Australia is at serious risk of being cut out of the national freight network.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:48): I would like to make a few comments on this matter because I think rail is a very important piece of infrastructure in our society and also in our economy. I would like to start by supporting what the member for Davenport said in one regard. He said, quite rightly, that we need a government which is committed to public transport. It is interesting that in recent times the Abbott Liberal government said that they would never fund public transport. So, if you want a government that actually funds public transport, obviously you do not look towards a Liberal government because at the federal level they have made it very clear that they are not committed to it.

Having said that, I notice that the new Prime Minister has indicated perhaps some support for some projects, but he has not gone far enough, in my view. He has not committed to working with the state government to electrify the Gawler rail line. Certainly, this state government is committed to it and, with the appropriate co-payment from the federal government in partnership, I am confident it will be built. The only party to make a commitment to the Gawler rail line at this point in time is the federal Labor opposition. So, if for no other reason, I am quite happy to support them coming into the election, but there is a whole range of other reasons I would support them as well.

I support the member for Davenport, and I look forward to him supporting a federal Labor government because that is the only way we are going to get federal funds into public transport in this state. I am a regular user of the Gawler rail line and, contrary to what has been said this morning, I find the service reliable. At certain times of the day, I can get to Adelaide quicker by train than I can by car and with a high level of comfort.

In recent times, the state government has invested huge sums of money upgrading various stations and rail crossings. The track has been upgraded and the sleepers have been replaced, so it is actually quite a good, reliable service. I can get from Gawler to Adelaide during peak time on an express or semi-express train in about 45 minutes—you certainly cannot do that by vehicle—and I can also spend the time doing some work. In fact, I have been a rail user since 1978 in various ways and I can still recall the old red hens, which had two forms of air conditioning in summer: the windows open or you held the doors open with your foot, but you cannot do that today. We also had smoking carriages in those days.

The Gawler line, certainly when I am using it, is well utilised. I use it in peak times, late at night and early in the morning, and the trains are always very busy, so certainly trains are supported by people in the north. The line is used not only by commuters going to work but also by people who use it for shopping, going to doctors, etc., and that raises a very important point. Public transport has to be an integrated system. We use our trains, and the way our buses are configured these days enables people to go on and off a bus and train to get across the city, across metro Adelaide and also in and out of the city, which is very important.

As I said earlier, if you want improvement in public transport and if we want a partner for public transport in this state, you do not look towards a federal Liberal government. Prime minister Abbott made it very clear that he was not committed to it, and now with prime minister Abbott lite in government at the federal level we will probably get the same sorts of policies.

I would also like to mention that I am aware that over a number of years there have been discussions between government and a number of investors about the upgrading of the Gawler Central railway station, which I think is an important upgrade which will occur. It will also help to integrate the northern part of the town, the commercial part of the town, with the station. That will provide not only a better experience for the people using it but also improved safety and a whole range of other things, and I think that would lift the area and provide an investment boost for the town.

The member for Davenport mentioned park-and-rides. I am glad he mentioned them because this government actually had a proposal to increase the number of park-and-ride stations. We also had a mechanism to raise income to pay for these park-and-rides. It is interesting that the member for Davenport talked about these but said nothing about where the income was going to come from to actually pay for them. One of the park-and-ride stations identified by this government was the Tambelin Station, which is in my electorate. I fully support that and make no secret that I have had a discussion with the Treasurer and other ministers about the chances of actually getting this station on the list.

Mr Whetstone: More pork-barrelling.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The member for Chaffey says pork-barrelling—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject, as the member for Chaffey well knows, and it is unparliamentary to respond.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can tell you that the hundreds of people who use that station do not think that. If you go to that station on any match day in Adelaide, it is chock-a-block with people who park their cars there, hop on a train and go to the footy, cricket or whatever it is. These days, a number of students use the train as well. So, I see it as a valuable addition to public infrastructure that provides that good experience. Contrary to what the Liberal Party thinks, I think providing a good rail service and good amenities is important for public transport, so I support that and lobby for it.

It is also no secret that as part of the Concordia development an additional railway station will be provided just east of Gawler. It will be important for two reasons: to provide public transport to the new development when it occurs in Concordia and to provide a very important point for people in the lower Barossa area to park and ride there as well. It will improve transport there. Gawler Central Station, which is one of our most historic stations, is actively used. It has a kiosk, and it is also used on a Sunday by the Lions Club as a market, a very popular market. We are making good use of public infrastructure for community good, and all the moneys raised go to local projects.

Genesee & Wyoming have a lease over a number of the railway corridors in my electorate. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that those rail lines will carry carriages in the short term. It is a loss that over time they have been removed, but I have been working with Genesee & Wyoming to make sure that any issues arising from the disused rail corridors are addressed very quickly for the benefit of the community. With those few comments, I would like to support the bill.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:56): I rise today to make a contribution to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous No 2) Amendment Bill 2016—quite a long title. We have had some wonderful contributions, and I was particularly pleased to see that the fine member for Davenport had some guests in today and that they were able to see him talk about the rail issues in his electorate.

As has already been indicated, we will be supporting this bill. The background to this bill is that in December 2009 the Council of Australian Governments implemented national rail safety reform, creating a single rail safety regulator, and developed a rail safety national law. The Rail Safety National Law commenced operation in January 2013. With Queensland recently also adopting the law, the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator now operates in all jurisdictions. The Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator was established as a body corporate under the law and facilitates safe rail operation through accreditation of operators, industry guidance, education and training, etc.

The National Transport Commission identifies legislative amendments in cooperation with the regulator and participating jurisdictions. I remember when the first amendment bill came to the parliament, maybe in 2011 or towards the end of 2011 or 2012, the then minister for transport was quite surprised at the number of contributions that came from both sides of the house, but particularly from this side. We decided in the end that everybody loves trains and that everybody is keen to talk about trains and has their own particular train story—and train issue, I might add. So, here we are again, talking about trains.

The amendments are administrative in nature, clarifying language and definitions within the national law, and as such are supported by the state ministers, infrastructure council jurisdictions and rail industry stakeholders. Included is clarification that infringement penalties and court-imposed penalties can be paid into the regulator's fund for use in safety improvement. However, over the past two years there have been no infringements or fines.

With that introduction, I would like to take time now to talk about the rail network in the electorate of Flinders, which encompasses most of Eyre Peninsula, almost all the agricultural areas, and perhaps talk a little about the history, the development and the future for rail on Eyre Peninsula. The Port Lincoln division of South Australian Railways was built to open up the inland areas of Eyre Peninsula for agriculture. The lines were pushed into virgin bushland which was devoid of established settlements, and the people followed.

It was very much a railway that opened up the inland of the peninsula of the wheat lands for the settlers to come along. Only Port Lincoln, Ceduna and Penong, which are now on the railway line, were townships that existed prior to the survey and laying of the track. The many towns and sidings which now dot the landscape along the line were built for one reason—because of the railway. The railway was also built to what is known as pioneer standard. What was used were second-hand rails, with little or no ballast and following the surface of the land.

I think what they did was quite extraordinary, and the unsung heroes in all of this are the surveyors and the work that the surveyors did, not just across Eyre Peninsula but right across the state. They surveyed roads, farms, towns and, of course, rail corridors. To think of these gangs of men—almost always men—cutting their way through virgin Mallee scrub, for the most part with just a gang of axemen and a chain measure, and surveying the countryside so that it could be opened up for settlers is quite extraordinary.

The railway on Eyre Peninsula was built by the government-owned South Australian Railways, which was the exclusive operator until 1978. Its successor organisation was the Australian National Railways (ANR), and the railway infrastructure and services were sold to Genesee & Wyoming Australia (then known as Australian Southern Railroad) in 1997. The track is owned and operated by what is now known as Genesee & Wyoming Australia (GWA).

As with many other early narrow gauge railways, of course this was just a three foot six railway, officially termed narrow gauge. The Eyre Peninsula line started out as isolated lines connecting small ports to the inland, opening up the country for settlement and economic life, including the export of grain and other produce in an environment with few roads and only horsedrawn road vehicles. Towards the south of Eyre Peninsula, often the winters were wet and there were sticky clay soils which became very boggy in the wintertime. As the line progressed and roads progressed further north, of course they ran into the dune and swale landscape which is so prevalent on Eyre Peninsula and there were many sandhills to be traversed.

The first of the railway lines was authorised in 1905, from Port Lincoln to Yeelanna. Ultimately, it was built and completed as far as Cummins in 1907 and to Yeelanna in 1909. It was authorised by this parliament for extension to Minnipa in 1909, with a branch line from Yeelanna to Mount Hope authorised in 1912, which opened for traffic in 1914. In fact, the farm on which I grew up is adjacent to that very line, from Yeelanna to Mount Hope, abutting the siding of Yeltukka. The name of that was loaned to our property. Yeltukka was one of the very first sidings to close in a progression of winding back the entire rail system.

A proposal to extend the line in 1923 north to Talia was not pursued, as it would not provide any economic benefit. Of course, the governments of the day were all about providing economic benefit to the economy of South Australia. That particular line to Mount Hope was truncated at the siding of Kapinnie in 1966, and the last train on it was in October 2002. We all gathered at the local siding to watch it go past and it was a significant moment.

I know my father tells a story of when he was a boy. As I said, we were adjacent to Yeltukka siding. His cousins lived two sidings further out, through Kapinnie and adjacent to Kiana, so he went for a holiday one school holidays on the train. He hopped on at Yeltukka and got off at Kiana. It took about two hours. He was sure he could have ridden his bike quicker than that, but he enjoyed the holiday and had a train ride.

In 1912, the government authorised the construction of a railway from Decres Bay to Minnipa, so working back from what is now known as Thevenard. The regional line west to Penong from Wandana on that line was authorised by parliament in 1917, with construction eventually completed in 1924. By then there was already a proposal to add a spur line to a station in the Hundred of Kevin, 6½ miles south of the Kowulka siding, to facilitate the export of gypsum from mines at Lake MacDonnell.

Of course, that mine was developed and is still in operation now. The most regular train traffic on the entire Eyre Peninsula is the three trains a day from the siding of Kevin into Thevenard, where gypsum is exported out of the port of Thevenard and primarily to the east coast for use in the building industry. That proposal finally was acted on in 1948, when the government authorised building the line under an agreement with Waratah Gypsum Pty Ltd, as it was then known.

In 1966, a new line was built on a more direct route from Penong Junction near Ceduna to Kevin. This new line, plus the spur from Kowulka to Kevin, then became the main line to Penong, and the original line was closed from Wandana to Kowulka. The last grain train from Penong operated on 3 March 1997, and the line from Kevin to Penong is now closed. Gypsum, as I said, continues to be transported from the Lake MacDonnell mine to Thevenard.

So, it is quite an interesting history, and with those lovely names that roll off the tongue, names like Wanilla, Edillilie, Pillana, Kapinnie, Kyancutta, Wudinna, Minnipa, Kowulka, and the names of sidings that go up to the eastern line: Cockaleechie, Moreenia, Moody, Ungarra, Mount Hill, Balumbah, Toopoora, Kimba and, ultimately, terminating at Buckleboo. The eastern portion of the line, truncated now at Kimba, did extend originally to Buckleboo. I understand there were plans originally to take it even further than that, but the better rainfall and better soils ran out eventually, so the surveyors decided, as they were good judges of land as well, that the railway line should be terminated at Buckleboo.

There is an agreement in place now between GWA and Viterra to carry approximately one million tonnes of grain per year, and that is essentially from Wudinna south to Port Lincoln and from Kimba south to Port Lincoln, going and collecting grain from silos that are dotted up the line. Originally, there were sidings in place every five or so miles, and the original intention of the government was to have no farmer on Eyre Peninsula further than seven miles from either a port or a siding, bearing in mind that some of the smaller ports, such as Port Neill, Arno Bay and Venus Bay were serviced by ketches, so the idea was to fill in the gaps with a railway line.

Sidings occurred all the way along, and there were always wheat stacks at those sidings. In the early days, freight and produce was carried both ways; it was an important transport corridor to deliver goods, services, produce and mail to the settlers, and the grain came back, the exports, often eggs, cream and other farm produce as well. Of course, it carried passengers as well in the early days—initially behind the old steam trains in a carriage, often an open carriage in the early days.

As if life was not tough enough for the settlers, they had to sit in an open carriage and be transported to Port Lincoln, whereas if they were going to Adelaide they got on a boat. It was always known as heading to the other side, or heading to the mainland, because it was a very isolated part of the world and serviced primarily not over land but via coastal steamer from Port Adelaide to Port Lincoln and then the railway line.

The agreement exists now: it is solely a grain train that runs. For the most part, it is one train a day, depending on the shipping program going out of Port Lincoln. It is a very important transport corridor still because it is a million tonnes a year on that freight line; of course, if it was not to be, then all that grain would be transferred to road. My understanding is that the agreement between GWA and Viterra exists until 2017, which is coming up very soon, and my concerns now are for the future of the railway and the future of grain transport on Eyre Peninsula.

I am a big fan of railways. It is an incredibly efficient way to transport grain but, of course, at the same time our road transport capacity is increasing. The member for Chaffey talked about B-triples. Certainly, road trains are very much in the majority on Eyre Peninsula, and road trains do travel up and down the east coast, the West Coast and up and down the Tod Highway—a road that is not in great condition, I might add. Should for some reason the rail freight corridor not continue, then extra pressure will be placed on that highway.

I see that Grain Producers SA is undertaking a survey, and I urge all the residents on Eyre Peninsula who have an interest in the rail corridor to take part in the survey, through SurveyMonkey. They can go onto the GPSA website and contribute to that. It is about having input into the key grain supply chain infrastructure on Eyre Peninsula to lobby the government, I am sure, when the time comes for expenditure into this railway line, and it will ultimately come.

Approximately 10 years ago, there was a $43 million road and rail upgrade. It was a combination of state and federal funding at that time and there was also a levy imposed on the grain growers of Eyre Peninsula. Out of a total of $43 million expended on that upgrade, the farmers ultimately contributed about $2 million—or exactly $2 million because, in fact, a ceiling was set at that $2 million mark.

Even though it was a relatively small contribution from the farmers, it was important and, really, it ensured that that road and rail upgrade could go ahead, but you do not get much for $43 million these days, as the minister well knows. I am sure that at some point GWA and the residents of Eyre Peninsula will be looking for some more funding—government funding and private sector funding, too, probably—to go into improving this railway. Throughout its history, it was always upgraded using second-hand material and there may still be the opportunity for that to go ahead.

There are other proposals, particularly in relation to mining projects that have been put forward. The one that comes to mind, and certainly the one that has progressed the most, is the Iron Road iron ore development at Warramboo. They are proposing a rail corridor from Warramboo to a newly developed port at Cape Hardy. That corridor would include rail, water and electricity. I do not know if or when that is likely to go ahead but, almost certainly, it would be a standard-gauge railway and the opportunity then, if you take it to the next step, would be to standardise the entire network on Eyre Peninsula and, ultimately, have it linked into the national grid.

It may be fanciful or wishful thinking on my part but, certainly, that is what people are starting to talk about. Should this port development go ahead and should the standardisation of the rail corridor progress, it will open up the whole of the north and the west of the state to deep sea Cape-class vessels in South Australia. At the moment, we do not have a port with the capacity to manage or handle or fill a Cape-class vessel. There are a lot of ideas at the moment. There are a lot of balls in the air on some of these developments and, ultimately, some of these balls are going to come down. It will be interesting to see how it all develops.

One of the real thrills for me a couple of years ago was the opportunity through GWA—and I am sure I would not have had this opportunity had I not been the member for Flinders—to travel on a freight train from Port Lincoln to my home town of Cummins. I live at Edillilie now and, of course, Cummins is the service centre. It was a real thrill for me because the passenger services ceased in 1965 so, even though I was just a small boy at that time, I did not ever have the opportunity to travel on the train. Being such a train enthusiast, I took up, and much appreciated, that opportunity.

In the closing minutes, I would like to talk briefly about three books that have been produced detailing the history and highlights of the Eyre Peninsula railway. I particularly want to pay tribute to Peter Knife, who is the author of these thoroughly well-researched and well-written books, ably supported through all of this, I am sure, by his wife, Margaret. The first one to be released was Peninsula Pioneer, followed by Peninsula Pioneer Revisited—really an update and annexe to the original book—and also Peninsula Memories, which is a collection of anecdotes from those who worked on the railways on Eyre Peninsula in the early days.

In fact, my great-great-grandfather originally went to Eyre Peninsula prior to World War I to work on the railways, and his son continued in that tradition as a carpenter on the railways. He raised his family in Cummins, where in those days, and right up until the 1930s, there was a huge railway workshop in place. Of course, Cummins was where the line dissected. There was a single line up from Port Lincoln to Cummins and then it went north and west to Wudinna and ultimately to Penong, and it also went north and east up through Rudall, Kielpa, Kimba and Buckleboo. That workshop was most important, and of course the steam trains took a lot of maintenance, as did the rail line itself.

In my childhood, I remember that each and every town had gangs of railway workers. There were railway cottages in each and every town and there were half a dozen families who were responsible for their section of line. It was a really important part of our community and provided a lot of work and a lot of jobs for those people and those families. Those days have gone and times are changing, but I remain optimistic about the future of rail on Eyre Peninsula. I signal to the minister that at some point, and I suspect probably in the near future, there will need to be further upgrades to ensure the ongoing capacity of the railway line on Eyre Peninsula.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (12:16): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Flinders, who is very passionate about rail issues in his electorate and particularly matters relating to Eyre Peninsula. I will come to some of the substance of his comments in a minute, but can I start by congratulating him on the agricultural nature of his tie, which is very focused on the livestock section of the primary producers in South Australia.

While I am speaking of ties, this is an opportune time to issue a bit of a shout out to the member for Unley. It is usually left to him and to me to do the heavy lifting when it comes to wearing paisley and bringing paisley back into common circulation amongst politicians, so I congratulate him on that. However, I digress and I will come back to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) (Miscellaneous No. 2) Amendment Bill 2016.

As most of the contributors from the opposition have said—and I thank them immediately for their support of this bill—this is the second package of legislative amendments that we have made to the Rail Safety National Law (South Australia) Act 2012. That act was passed, as its name suggests, in that year of 2012 following what had been an extensive amount of work over several years at the national level amongst transport ministers of Australian jurisdictions and, in particular, a COAG decision of 2009 to establish the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator.

Fortunately for South Australia, not only was that established but it was also decided at a national level that that regulator should be based in South Australia. That is terrific and we are very pleased to have a representative from the Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator here with us today. It is also part of a broader reform package that has been occurring and is still underway at the national level when it comes to transport regulation.

As the member for Unley would be aware, given that we have just enjoyed some hospitality as well as a conference for the South Australian Road Transport Association, there has been a lot of focus on the heavy vehicle industry as well and not just on the national rail industry. When it comes to the achievement of national consistency in how we regulate these industries and, in particular, the establishment of central national regulators and seeking states and territories to hand over their regulatory responsibilities from their agencies to the new national regulatory bodies, that is still in progress and not yet complete in the rail area.

Other states are still to come on board and we are very much looking forward to those other states coming on board. That is also the case with the heavy vehicle industry, because we still do not have all states signed up to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, but we are progressing and we are seeing from time to time more and more states put their hands up to participate in the national scheme, and that is a very positive thing.

This is perhaps the latest and, troublingly, one of the last national micro-economic reforms to benefit major transport industries. The other one that I would mention is the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. That is a reform due to come in again as a decision by transport ministers in their national forum (now called the Transport and Infrastructure Council) that meets every six months, and that is further to these changes that have occurred in the rail and heavy vehicle industry. It is for the national regulation of commercial maritime vessels so, as you can imagine, not just shipping vessels but, of course, fishing fleets and other commercial maritime operators.

I have to say that, from my perspective, these sorts of reforms are incredibly important. As I mentioned, these are important micro-economic reforms, reforms aimed not just at having a centralised regulator but also at having consistency across the country for industries, particularly these sorts of transport industries which by definition must operate across state borders. That is certainly the case for rail freight, for heavy vehicle freight, and, of course, quite often for maritime commercial vessels.

Having national regulation means simplicity for the businesses engaged in each of those different areas. I think it builds on a body of work that first started under the Keating government—the competition policy reforms—and was continued by the Howard government, still progressing and pursuing those competition reforms, and they are important reforms. They are reforms that unlock productivity benefits. They unlock benefits for operators throughout those industries, reducing the cost of compliance and the cost of doing business. They enable those businesses in those industries to become more productive and/or more profitable and, we would hope, seek to employ new technologies or employ more people. That is an important tenet of national micro-economic reform.

I think it is incredibly disappointing that the recent and current Coalition government has walked away from that important area of national coordinated micro-economic reform. We are missing out on a tremendous number of opportunities across all different industries—I am sure not just in transport, but also primary production industries, across the agricultural sector and across the water sector, seeking to achieve further benefits. It is not for want of trying.

Certainly, as the transport minister I have raised a number of opportunities at the Transport and Infrastructure Council forum on how we could seek some national consistency across different areas—a national consistency which would ease in simpler regulation, consistent standards and practices across the country, if nothing else not just to reduce red tape but also to enhance the mobility of labour. That is important for a state like South Australia, where we want to continue to attract people to come and live and work.

As the deputy leader would know, being a keen supporter and proponent of the state having a population policy all those years ago back in 2003 and 2004, it is important that we continue to attract, particularly, skilled migrants and business migrants into South Australia. A national micro-economic reform giving businesses a consistent set of rules across state borders is one way of doing that, and it is certainly one of the aims of the Rail Safety National Law.

As I said, while we do not yet have complete national take-up of participation in the regime, either for rail or for the heavy vehicle area, we are making progress. Those organisations—the National Rail Safety Regulator and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator—continue to make the case, and a compelling case I have to say, to those jurisdictions that have not signed up to participate in this area, and I think that is a good thing.

Some of the speakers prior to this contribution have mentioned the aims of this bill, and they are perhaps by themselves small but important changes. They make sure that any penalties imposed under the act are paid into a dedicated fund, giving the rail safety regulator greater flexibility in recognising competencies across the country and also enshrining and enhancing the powers of authorised officers.

Importantly, given there is a lot of work going on, particularly as we see in this federal election campaign a lot of work being promised here in South Australia, whether it is the re-railing of the freight lines in the north of the state or whether it is that important state government initiative to extend the Tonsley rail line up to Flinders University, there will be more works in the rail corridor as well as the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of our rail lines, making sure that the notification requirements of works in and around the rail corridors are better established in law, and of course making sure that the course of the proceedings, which are taken against a person or a corporate entity under the act, is better set out under the act.

I want to make some comments in relation to some of the contributions that some members made in the course of the second reading of this bill. Certainly, the member for Hammond was quick to locate his contribution in the context of the importance of rail to the regions, and he is right to do so. He, just like the member for Chaffey, would know how important rail freight operations are in their electorates, and that is not taking anything away from the member for Flinders, who of course made a substantial contribution on that.

I was interested to hear the member for Hammond not only say that these rail networks are important for the movement of freight within his electorate but also suggest that there might be a project, a proposal, which might better move freight to and from the port of Adelaide, not necessitating the freight to travel through the metropolitan area of Adelaide.

As members would be aware, particularly those members who have taken an interest in these things or who have served on the Public Works Committee, the commonwealth and the state governments have been investing and continue to invest in rail freight projects in the metropolitan area, particularly the Goodwood junction project (which the member for Ashford was keenly interested in as that project unfolded) and of course the Torrens junction project. Together, they seek to give rail freight coming into the metropolitan area of Adelaide around Keswick better access to longer and more highly productive trains. It will not just be the 1,500-metre trains that we experience still coming in from the north but we will also be moving to those 1,800-metre trains coming in from the south into the metropolitan area.

It is a really significant boost—300 metres in the context of a 1,500-metre train—and we are seeing a productivity benefit in the order of the high teens or approaching 20 per cent. That is an admirable aim that futureproofs the use of this rail freight line for many years to come. However, those people who live along the line who have a very keen interest in the operations of rail freight along that line are quite often concerned about how those rail operations are conducted within that corridor.

The issues of wheel squeal or vegetation management are commonly raised with the ARTC, who manage the operations along the freight line in that corridor. While I do not think any of us could say that those issues have been completely addressed, I like to think that there has been some substantial progress in addressing both those issues—the wheel squeal and vegetation management—and also access to the corridor for people wanting to cross the corridor. Of course, it remains a significant concern for all rail operations when pedestrians and other vehicles are able to cross the rail corridor from time to time. We need to make sure those crossings are appropriate and contribute to safety as much as possible.

The project I mentioned before that the member for Hammond raised, that concept of a rail bypass around metropolitan Adelaide, while it may be attractive for those people who live along the corridor, it comes at a very significant cost. There was a report done at the behest of both commonwealth and state departments I think back in 2012, although I might be a year or so out with the year, outlining a cost to choose a new alignment for rail freight around the metropolitan area in the order of $2 billion to $2.3 billion, I think it was.

That was in dollars of the day, not escalated dollars, and the day, as I said, was 2011, I think, or maybe 2012. So, you can imagine how that figure stacks up now. How does that measure up in terms of the productivity benefit? Quite probably not particularly well, and that is why it has not really had much currency, either at a state or a federal government level, particularly in the instance where both governments have committed substantially to that Goodwood and Torrens junction project.

Hot on the heels of the member for Hammond was the member for Chaffey, and he spoke with similar passion on the importance of rail and rail freight in his electorate. Of course, he was quick to jump to the issue of the use of the Mallee rail lines. You may recall that this has been an issue of considerable concern for not just his community but also the rail freight industry generally. It is perhaps the first—hopefully last, but certainly first—instance where we have seen the company responsible for moving grain around our communities and getting it out to market (Viterra) make a decision that they no longer wanted to use those Mallee rail lines and that they wanted instead to put that grain (somewhere between 130,000 and 170,000 tonnes of grain per season) onto trucks to move it around communities to Tailem Bend.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The deputy leader asks why did the state government—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She should not have, of course, because that is an interjection.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Of course, and one would think, given her experience, why would she?

Ms Chapman: I'll come back.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, coming back won't help you. You mustn't interject.

Ms Chapman: He can talk about Thomas the Tank Engine for another couple of hours.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just ignore that, minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, she is best ignored.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She's never held the house up, has she?

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: That is a whole new line of inquiry.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is, and one I look forward to prosecuting after grievances, I think. Thank you, deputy leader. She is quite influential, Deputy Speaker. I remember saying once at the closure of the last amendment package to the Rail Safety National Law that I did not want to speak for too long at the conclusion of that bill. It was getting late in the day, notwithstanding the fact that we have deputy leaders of both sides, the Deputy Premier and the deputy leader, who are well-known for giving lengthy and some might say—

The Hon. S.W. Key: Tedious.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —somewhat unfairly at times—'tedious' was the interjection that was made. I do not think that is a fair reflection. But I did say at the time, 'Where would we be without the deputy leader?' The answer to that question is: we would be home with our loved ones. That is where we would be if we did not have her extensive contributions to the chamber.

Nonetheless, we were talking about the member for Chaffey and the Mallee lines. It was a disappointing decision, I think, that Viterra made in regard to moving all of that freight off rail and onto road. The member for Chaffey is exactly right when he asks, 'What does this mean for our road network?' Given that we went through this process after the Second World War of massively expanding our regional road network, bituminising what were previously unsealed roads, and then for the next 40 to 50 years not putting as much into road maintenance as we could have, when we have roads like the Mallee Highway and the Karoonda Highway, which are not in great condition, what does that mean when we suddenly have all of these additional truck movements?

In isolation, the additional number of truck movements per day, even during harvest, may not be that many. It might be an extra dozen or two dozen per day, but these are large, heavy vehicles, quite often in multiple combinations. The local communities along those roads do not like the fact that, when they have an unsealed road in pretty average condition, sometimes only six metres wide, particularly when you get around curves or bends there is not much passing distance coming the other way. There is not much room for error, should a driver of any type of vehicle coming in either direction not stick within their road space.

That is why, when that decision was made, rather than take the unparliamentary interjection from the deputy leader seriously and spend money on upgrading the rail lines, what we did was spend money upgrading the roads, because we knew that if we spent money upgrading the rail lines then we might be only putting off the inevitable decision from Viterra.

That is not to say that I think the Viterra decision was justified. I think that when they were being questioned in the agriculture forum—which is hosted by the Minister for Agriculture, and we invite regional members from both sides of politics to attend, from both this place and the other place—when ministers, members of parliament, Grain Producers SA and Primary Producers SA have put the heat on Viterra, if it is so much cheaper to put grain off rail and onto the road, what is happening with those savings? Are they being passed back to the farmers whose grain is being transported?

Unfortunately, we have not had that confirmed from Viterra. I have to say that is pretty unreasonable and pretty unfair on those farmers who are having their grain transported via a different mode when they cannot be confident that they are going to be in receipt of some freight savings. That is still a large, unresolved query for the government, the opposition and grain producers across South Australia: what Viterra is doing with that money.

Of course, what has made it more difficult in recent times is the amount of money that we have to spend on road maintenance. If you cast your mind back to that first budget of the then Abbott Coalition government, $130 million over five years was removed from road maintenance funding between both local government and state government. The state government lost $9 million a year. Disturbingly, local government lost their assistance grants of $18 million a year. It is galling, I think, for local government across regional areas because they knew how important that money was to maintain roads in their communities.

It is galling because it was a conservative prime minister, John Howard, who made those assistance grants available for South Australian local government. He did so for a good reason, and that is that, while we have a little more than 7 per cent of the population, we have in excess of 11 per cent of the roads of the nation and we receive a little over 5 per cent of the road funding. That is clearly inequitable and is an easy reason and a clear justification as to why former prime minister Howard made that decision, when he had the reins, to provide that extra money to local government here in South Australia.

What was even more galling was when the campaign was run, particularly by the member for Frome and regional members on the other side of the chamber, what did the member for Barker do in response? He claims he cajoled, he needled, he lobbied, he coerced the decision-makers in his caucus to try to make more money available. Instead of just returning those grants to local government for regional road funding, and returning some money back to South Australian taxpayers so that we can invest more in regional arterial roads, they made a large national pool of money available so South Australian councils have the privilege now of competing against their Eastern States counterparts in some sort of road funding Hunger Games.

Thanks very much, Tony Pasin, member for Barker. Just one more black mark of poor achievement by you. That is why I always refer to him as a shadow of the former member, Patrick Secker, because he is letting down that community in the South-East like no other member of parliament before him. But I am pleased to say that, despite that $130 million over five years which was cut from the state and local government road budgets by that first Abbott budget, the Weatherill government put more money into road funding. We have put in an extra $110 million over four years—$70 million for road maintenance and $40 million for shoulder sealing.

Of course, the vast majority of that gets spent in regional areas, and that is terrific. I think it is great that we recognise that, yes, whilst we have a concentrated population here in greater metropolitan Adelaide, it is often those roads that are carrying freight and transporting goods and services. A lot of tradespeople move between regional communities and support lots of jobs and economic activities. They need good roads, and that is why more than 60 per cent (over $300 million) of our combined road maintenance and upgrade budget over the next four years—in total $530 million—goes into the regions, and that is a good thing.

When the hollow cry of, 'We should not be investing in public transport infrastructure,' like the O-Bahn, comes from the member for Chaffey, it puts his contributions into perspective, that more than double of what we are putting into the O-Bahn, we are putting into regional roads over the next four years. The member for Hammond was not the only one who came up with a new and ambitious project for freight here in South Australia. The member for Chaffey would like to see no trucks coming down the South Eastern Freeway, and he said that perhaps a bypass, using the communities of Loxton, Truro, coming through the Port Wakefield Road to Outer Harbor, would be a better routing for that heavy vehicle traffic.

For those people who are not overly familiar with the movement of freight down the South Eastern Freeway, throughout metropolitan Adelaide, it would be reasonable for a lot of them to think the same thing: is there some way that we can take these trucks off the road? That is notwithstanding, of course, that the Heysen Tunnels were built, and the South Eastern Freeway was upgraded, to specifically provide safer access into the city for heavy vehicles.

It is also taking nothing away from the argument, of course, that those roads link Tailem Bend, Loxton, Truro and Outer Harbor—and that river exists for trucks that want to go to Outer Harbor and do not need to go through the metropolitan area. But the fact of the matter is that 60 to 70 per cent of trucks coming down the South Eastern Freeway have business in the metropolitan area, and that is why an expensive upgrade project in that regard is not something that we are pursuing either.

Just before I finish on the member for Chaffey's comments, he made a further erroneous claim that there was nothing for regional rail in the state government's 30-Year Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan, which I think just demonstrates that he has not read it. There is reference to upgrades of rail not only in the Mallee region but also in the Eyre region, the Far North and the South-East and Limestone Coast regions.

When you are coming up with a large policy document, particularly one focussed on transport, it is important to have an understanding of what is important and then make some commitments to that, and we have certainly done that in our 30-Year Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan. Certainly, the ultimate approach taken by the opposition in the 81-page dossier of nothing, the '2036' document, does not have any of those projects; in fact, it does not even have any metropolitan projects in that I think all it says is we should have good transport networks.

Well, you do not need to spend years and years climbing the greasy pole of local preselections getting into this chamber and then aspiring to government to come to that conclusion. I think that is obvious for anyone who uses a road network, a public transport network or a rail network. It is unfortunate that whilst we have put out a comprehensive document in that respect, there are still some frontbenchers from the opposition who clearly have not done the research.

The member for Davenport, of course, spoke very parochially about his local constituency, in particular the Belair line. He said, somewhat confusingly, in one sentence, 'It is a great passenger service, but it has got ongoing issues,' and he came up with what I have to say is the laughable contribution that he and the member for Mitchell did a comparison between a 1951 Belair timetable and the current timetable, and they were flabbergasted to find that there were very few or perhaps no improvements in travel times over that period.

Perhaps he would do well to ring up one of his Liberal Party predecessors, the Hon. Di Laidlaw, and ask what happened in the mid-1990s to the Belair passenger rail line, and perhaps his memory might be refreshed that the Liberal Party then, here in South Australia, when they were in government, handed over the second rail line of the Belair passenger rail service to rail freight. So, now we have a single line operating on the Belair line. This means that as trains are travelling up the line and coming down the line, quite often one has to stop and give way at a rail crossing, at a rail loop, so that the other train can pass before it sets out again.

I am willing to suffer the slings and arrows of signalling issues and rail crossing issues—which, I should add, we have committed $12 million to fixing and, indeed, there was quite a significant amount of work in the preceding three months on the Belair line dealing with those two issues—but I am not willing to cop from the member for Davenport that we have somehow superintended a denigration of the Belair rail passenger service because, of course, it was the Liberal Party of South Australia that made that contribution to his constituents.

I was pleased to hear that he spoke with some interest in the AdeLINK light rail network proposal which has been put forward by this government and which, indeed, has already been funded to some extent by this government. We have had two rail extensions of the tram network: one to the Adelaide Railway Station and, of course, the second one to the Entertainment Centre. It is good to have runs on the board when it comes to talking about these issues publicly because it makes people understand that these projects can be delivered, that they are real and that there is an opportunity for the public to engage with these projects and to understand what it means for the local communities, and what the alignment of these routes might be.

Of course, as the member for Unley would be aware and as the member for Davenport said, there will be a lot of contention in their local areas, particularly when it comes to Unley Road and Belair Road, about if you were to run light rail up there how you would achieve it, how you would balance that with traffic. Is it, indeed, Unley Road or is it one of the alternate parallel routes? These are all matters the government is looking forward to interrogating, and interrogating in partnership with the local councils. I was pleased to meet with the Mayor of Unley last week, who reaffirmed his support for the AdeLINK proposal.

Of course, the member for Davenport ripped the top off the argument about park-and-rides. I always find it fascinating to hear a member of the opposition talk about the need for more park-and-rides in their electorate, particularly when we took a policy to the election that we wanted to massively expand the network of park-and-rides. We wanted to put them as far out from the metropolitan area as possible—although not exclusively, but ideally that is where you would locate them to try to ensure that we had as great a mode shift as possible from people out of their single-occupant vehicles into public transport to travel the greatest distance possible into and out of the city—thereby reducing congestion on our roads.

Not only did we have a package of initiatives at the last election but we also had a funding stream for those projects, the transport development levy. This, of course, was something which was vociferously campaigned on by the Liberal Party at the behest, I think, of a few select people with a few select interests. However, we see the feigned horror of the member for Davenport, hot on the heels of the feigned horror of the member for Hartley, as they have lost the opportunity to have park-and-ride facilities upgraded, whether it was at Bellevue Heights in the member for Davenport's electorate or, of course, in relation to the real need, the real bugbear, the Paradise Interchange.

Somehow, the penny only dropped for them after they voted against the transport development levy as part of the budget bill in 2014. They voted their communities out of having better public transport infrastructure. You could see the blood drain from the member for Hartley's face as the consequences of his actions became clear to him and what he had just done to his constituency. However, I have to say that it has provided us with a terrific opportunity. The number of DL-size flyers we have been able to hand out in the electorate of Hartley on those windscreens of cars parked on Darley Road certainly remind people of what went wrong there.

I was glad to hear the contribution from the member for Light, particularly about the electrification of the Gawler line, a project which regrettably has not proceeded as quickly as we would have liked for a range of reasons. First, as even the member for Unley pointed out, the onset of the global financial crisis and the $2.8 billion reduction in state revenues over a four-year period (I think that was the figure of the 2012-13 state budget, I believe, but do not quote me, as it might have been a year either side) meant that we had to make some difficult decisions about reprioritising projects. The electrification of that line and, of course, a line very close to my heart and the heart of my constituents, the Outer Harbor line, has not been delivered as quickly as possible, and I think that is a great concern.

It has been exacerbated, though, by, of course, having an on-and-off-again relationship with a federal government willing to fund rail infrastructure. I think that no-one was more disappointed than the member for Light when the former assistant minister at the federal level made the decision to remove $76 million of federal funding that would have enabled us to get on with the Gawler project with a lot more haste. However, be that as it may, we are still battling on. We have money in the forward estimates to recommence the electrification of the Gawler line, and that is what we intend to do.

I know that we are starting to run short on time, so I will conclude my remarks by referencing some of the contribution of the member for Unley. The member for Unley, of course, gave us quite a history of the state government's commitment to the electrification of the passenger rail lines here in Adelaide. It is a welcome contribution in that respect because, of course, it is the government, it is the Labor Party that is the only party that has a commitment to the upgrade and the electrification of our rail lines, let alone any expansion of the tram network through the AdeLINK proposal.

We still are waiting in 2016, this month, in June—in fact, it may even be this very week; in fact, it may even be this very day, 7 June, which would mark eight years since the release of the state budget in June 2008. It may well be a coincidence that the then transport minister, as well as the government, made the announcement of the upgrade and the electrification of our rail lines. Eight years on, here we are still without a commitment from the Liberal Party to what it would like to see done in any part of public transport, I have to say, but certainly with regard to the upgrade of these rail lines, and I think that is a shame.

We have had some leaders of the opposition who have been very forthcoming in making their views known about what they would like to do should they be in a position of governing South Australia. In particular, I remember when the member for Waite was the leader of the opposition and, seemingly week after week, he announced a detailed manifesto of what he would like to see should he be in government. I would like to think that it was the lack of policy and the malaise in the thinking of the opposition as to why he made the judgement to come over to the Treasury benches after the most recent state election to get with the team that wants to do things in South Australia. I think that was very broadly what he wanted to do, and of course the member for Frome made that decision even earlier.

I still remember the full detail of the policy manifesto that I received in my mailbox during the last state election campaign. It was a fold-out, DL-size pamphlet—two-sided A4 once it was completely folded out—dominated on the front by a photo of the new young blood of the South Australian Liberal Party. It was Rob Lucas, followed by Iain Evans, followed by the member for Bragg (the deputy leader), followed by Steven Marshall. You can imagine how uncomfortable he felt during that photo session. Was there a fifth? I cannot remember whether there was a fifth. But, of course, we opened it up, and indeed the only transport policy in there, I think, was to reject the transport development levy, which of course was a rejection of the improvement of our public transport networks, but I have already gone into a significant amount of detail on that.

So, it is a shame that we are still waiting for a contribution in that respect, but the remainder of the member for Unley's contribution of course tried to highlight some of the faults and deficiencies we have unfortunately experienced on the Seaford line. Certainly, we deeply sympathise with those people who have been inconvenienced by those faults that have occurred on the Seaford line. It is very frustrating when the government of whatever persuasion contracts with a globally recognised, very professional firm only to have the products and the infrastructure that is provided to the taxpayer fail. I can assure the house that we are certainly doing all we can not only to get to the bottom of the problem but to try to ensure that the problem does not recur.

I was very heartened by the comments from the member for Unley that were quite separate to his comments he made on the radio, when he assured listeners that, had we had a second substation, services to the Seaford line would not have to have been interrupted. Contrary to those comments, which of course are wrong, he clarified his comments for the benefit of Hansard, and that is very welcome. He clarified them by saying what the report he was referring to actually said, and that is that only a reduced level of services would be able to be provided. I am glad that the member for Unley has clarified his comments for the record in Hansard and agrees with the comments I made in the media at the time to that same effect.

I have gone on at some length to address the comments of those who have made contributions to this debate, and that is really important. Rail services are incredibly important here in South Australia. Whether it is for those communities the member for Hammond and the member for Chaffey spoke about or whether it is for those communities that rely on rail services for public transport the member for Davenport and the member for Light spoke about, making sure we get the regulatory framework right for rail operations across the country and also here in South Australia is incredibly important. I thank the opposition not just for their deliberations at some extreme length, I have to say, about this bill but also for their fulsome support.