Motions

Oaklands Park Rail Crossing

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (11:31): I move:

That this house urges the Weatherill Labor government to prioritise the grade separation of the Seaford railway line where it meets Diagonal and Morphett roads at Oaklands Park, in order to—

(a) improve traffic congestion for residents living in the southern suburbs;

(b) provide efficient access for emergency services vehicles;

(c) support economic activity in the Westfield Marion precinct; and

(d) support the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre as a venue for state, national and international events.

I rise today to move this motion and I will get straight on with business. Oaklands crossing is a major issue in my area, and I support this motion very much. I begin by asking the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to come clean and answer the question that people of South Australia, the people in my community—the people who live, work and play in this region—want answered. What engineering designs does the government have for fixing the Oaklands crossing problem and will he outline the cost that will be involved?

These are the questions I have been constantly asking since I entered this place but the government has failed to give me any answers. It is clear after 14 years that this state Labor government has no plan for fixing Oaklands crossing. It is debated regularly in our community as to how long the Oaklands intersection has been an issue in the local area. I have had some people tell me that it has been on the radar for more than 60 years.

What we do know is that congestion has increased exponentially in the past decade, with the doubling in size of the Westfield Marion shopping complex, the building of the new state aquatic centre, the growth of the Marion Cultural Centre, plus the expansion of the medical precinct around the GP Plus, Red Cross blood bank, Centrelink, Medicare, and Service SA. I hear members opposite scoff about the issue being in this area for 60 years. It would be great if they came out and spoke to a couple of local people. In fact, the old MATS plan had the government of the day buying back property to help fix this project.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WINGARD: Again, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure scoffs at this and he has been down to the area fleetingly once. It is a bit of an embarrassment. I ask on behalf of my community and the state again: where is the government with the solution today? What work has the government done through DPTI over the past 10 years? Where are the costings and the engineering reports? What is the plan? A few pretty pictures are a sign that after 14 years the government clearly has no plan to fix Oaklands crossing. My community has lost faith in this government because all they have served up is a lot of talk, a lot of spin, but they have no costings, no engineers' drawings—the government has no plan.

Let me stress that this is the work of government. This is what they have thousands of staff in departments like the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure there to do, to sink their teeth into. They have engineers, planners and architects alike. As the local member and a member of the opposition, I do not have direct access to these resources. I have two sensational staff and a trainee who work tirelessly, but none of us are engineers, and I cannot direct DPTI to do this work. That is the job of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure.

I ask him again to show these detailed engineers' drawings and the costings to everyone so that we know what the options are to fix this problem. I note with great interest that my ongoing Fix Oaklands crossing campaign, which has been going for almost two years, has forced the minister to instruct DPTI staff to set up at Westfield Marion over the next three days, showing off some artist's impressions of an overpass or an underpass at the intersection. After 14 years, all the state Labor government has produced with all its resources at its disposal are a few 'artists' impressions'—nothing to scale, no whole-of-region concepts, no costings. Clearly, the minister has dropped the ball on this project. Back in 2012, the artistic pictures were of an overpass and now they are pictures of an underpass—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, on my right!

Mr WINGARD: —and still, I stress, there were no costings and no detail of cost. Which one will cost more, the overpass or the underpass? Which will be done more quickly, the overpass or the underpass? How will the various versions impact the whole of the community? The minister has no answers.

We have had a win in recent times with the federal member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint, and the Turnbull federal government committing $40 million to the project at the recent election. This is the first amount of cash assigned to the project ever. The state government had the opportunity to commit funds to the project in the most recent state budget, which they put off until after the federal election, but the Minister for Transport, the Treasurer and the Premier failed to do so. The minister was quoted as saying that this project was a medium-term project but that it will be escalated if the federal government put some funds forward. Well, the federal Liberal Government did, but the minister did not live up to his end of the bargain.

Remember that it is the state government that has control of the state purse strings and the state government that makes the decisions. The member for Elder also said in the media that she wanted funding for this project for the last state budget. It did not happen. In fact, I note that the member for Elder has not really mentioned this project much at all in our local community, and it borders the boundaries that I share in the seat of Mitchell with hers of Elder.

Going back through the Hansard records, I note that the member for Elder has spoken about the Oaklands crossing twice in parliament, once fleetingly, again, in her maiden speech. The member for Bright has spoken about this issue three times and worked with me tirelessly at different community forums as well. I checked my record and I have spoken on this issue 12 times since I joined this house.

It was an interesting twist in recent weeks after the state Labor government failed to commit any funds to this project in the state budget. The Premier and the state Labor government have been out claiming that they have a plan to fund the project. They claim that they have saved $150 million on the Northern Connector project—the bulk of which came from the federal government—and that they would like to flick that money across to the Oaklands project. They have stated that the Oaklands project will cost $190 million, so they claim that the $40 million election commitment from the Turnbull federal government, plus the extra $150 million, will get this project done.

Does that not raise some questions? Where did the $190 million figure come from? I have been asking for details for years and I have not received anything. Has the government given detailed costings to the federal government? I do not think so. The state government has put a price on the project, but they have not done any costings. How do you put a price on a project without doing any costings or getting any engineering drawings done? That makes no sense and, in fact, it is embarrassing to the minister.

Panicked, the government is holding listening posts at Marion, as I mentioned, over the next three days. They have released some artist's impressions of what the overpass and underpass might look like. These could be drawn up in a couple of hours by someone using a simple computer graphics program. There are no costs and no engineering reports. After 14 years, this government has no plan to fix Oaklands crossing. In 2012, there were pictures of an overpass. These were at the cost of $2 million. Now there are pictures of an underpass. Again, where are the costings and where are the engineers' drawings? Where are the plans and the figures to outline how this will be done?

I note the two pictures the government is displaying at the shopping centre today. The overpass is a rehash of the old drawing from 2012 and the underpass is just something they have dodged up that says 'artistic impression'. There is no science to the drawings they are displaying. The government has claimed that they have saved $150 million from the reduction in cost of the Northern Connector under current market prices and that they want that to be used on Oaklands. Again, on the figures they have released, they will not show the savings they have made. In fact, they have not released any figures.

It has also raised questions in my community about the 2012 price the government put on the Oaklands overpass. They are claiming that they are saving $150 million on the Northern Connector because the cost of putting on a project now is cheaper. Back in 2012, the cost they had on the Oaklands project was $100 million, but today it has gone up to $190 million, so the Northern Connector project has come down and the Oaklands project has gone up. Will the government just come forward and show the figures to the community so that we can see what is going on? It really is quite unbelievable.

What we need is a plan. We need a vision, and we need the government to start working on that immediately. They have had 14 years and they have not delivered. A couple of pencil drawings that can be done on a computer in a couple of hours is not a solution, and money has not been budgeted, has not been put forward. Not one cent of the state budget was allocated towards this project, and the member for Elder knows it.

I will keep pushing the government to get the department to come up with a holistic plan, one that is costed and one that better links the community together. I will continue to fight, and give the government an opportunity to put forward what its plans are, but it needs to do it and it needs to do it quickly. I fear this will not be a quick fix. I know how important this is to our community, and I will keep putting pressure on the government until we get a proper solution. South Australia deserves a whole-of-community solution that fixes the Oaklands crossing problem, one that can be costed and have full engineered drawings fitted around it.

My community has been supportive of finding a solution, and they have joined my campaign to fix Oaklands crossing. I have had listening posts in the community every month for the past 12 months, and I have often been joined by the member for Bright as well as the federal member for Boothby, Nicolle Flint. I have held transport forums, as well as a specific one focused on the Oaklands issue in my area. With that I have formed a group of 'Oaklands champions', who have been incredibly supportive of the campaign that we have run.

They have joined us at these community meetings, they have stood at listening posts and they have explained to people the problem that we have. A few of them are here with us today—David Woodifield, Gillian Bell and Ron Leak—and a number of others who could not be here today have been highly supportive: Ross LeCornu, Judy Watkins, Frank McCorry, Brenton Martin, Matt Richards, Judy Morphett, Karen Beins, Peter Brown, Jim Davidson, Robert and Maureen Amos, Bruce Roberts, John Young, Mos and Diana Matters, and Amanda and David Tovell. I thank them for their support, as well as all the others who have joined our campaign to get this problem fixed.

We know it is something that the government has shelved, has talked a lot about but has not delivered on. It does not have a plan to fix this problem. A few months after I started my campaign the council also joined in with the campaign to add weight to the cause, which was greatly appreciated. I mentioned the information we have been trying to get from government, and I have been trying incredibly hard to get this information. I have put in FOIs and I have written requests to the minister, but it has been like drawing teeth—probably harder—to get any of this information out of the government. Everyone wants to know what the cost is, what the plans are, what the best solution is, but the government has no plan.

In September 2015, I submitted a freedom of information application requesting access to planning documents and traffic modelling around the Oaklands crossing. After several months I received access to several traffic surveys dating back to 1985, but was denied access to a further 10 of the 20 documents. I appealed the decision and took the request to the Ombudsman in December last year. During that process it became clear that the government did not disclose all the relevant documents, and was forced to go back to the drawing board and disclose all relevant documents. The second search returned 73 documents and over 5,300 pages of information.

You can imagine how pleased I was to have finally got this information, despite the long and drawn out process I had to go through. I was amazed, though, when I received the information because it was sent to me on a CD-ROM from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. Unbelievably, just a few months before they had removed all the CD-ROM drives from our office—as they had done right across the board—so we received the information on CD but they had taken all the CD-ROM drives out of the offices so we could not read the information. That does make people chuckle.

After locating an external hard drive, it was even more disappointing to find out that the majority of the document was either blank pages, redacted information or thousands of pages of raw data that made absolutely no sense. So 5,300 pages, and more than 4,000 pages—in fact more than four and a half thousand pages—were redacted information, blank pages or raw data. It is quite unbelievable and very disappointing to all and sundry. Many people in my community have concerns that the state government is playing politics, and that is a clear example.

When this campaign was starting to take off, and when the government realised it was an issue, it started to do robocalls into the area—well, you would think into the local community. The government's robocalls (automatic phone calls) that were going from the Premier to people, you would think, in and around the area—or potentially even just within South Australia, because we know it is an extended issue—went to Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland. Again, this is a government playing politics and missing the mark—desperate measures for desperate times. It was embarrassing and we are still trying to find out who funded that project because a lot of calls were made to very distant parts of the nation.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Davenport!

Mr WINGARD: We are also aware, though, that this project goes beyond the local community, and I have tried to stress this to the minister a number of times. Within the local area we have a number of clubs and organisations. We know that this precinct is growing dramatically. We have the growing and expanding Westfield Marion complex, we have plenty of services like Centrelink, Service SA, Medicare, the blood bank and GPS Plus, just to name a few, but we also have the state aquatic centre.

When we speak to people in and around this area, it is not just the local community that is impacted by this; it is a number of other sporting clubs and organisations and people who come from far and wide to use this central hub service centre—and the crossing is a big detractor. I was speaking to a family the other day who do diving at the state aquatic centre. Their son actually schedules his training outside the peak times at the Oaklands crossing interchange because he knows the stress it puts on his family.

I can go on—and there are more points that need to be made—but I know that others want to speak on this issue. I want to see a solution to this issue, but my community, sadly, is saying to me that they can see that after 14 years this state Labor government has no engineers' reports or costings for this project. After 14 years, the government has no plans. They talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk and they must start delivering.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:46): I move an amendment to the motion:

Remove all words after 'That this house' and before '(a)' insert:

1. Notes that the Coalition election commitment of $40 million would not appropriately fund the necessary upgrade required for Oaklands crossing;

2. Supports the Weatherill government proposal to redirect the savings from the Northern Connector project to properly fund and deliver a genuine solution for Oaklands Crossing; and

3. Calls on the commonwealth government to support the Weatherill government proposal and immediately commit to redirecting its share of savings in order to—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you going to speak to your amendment?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, thank you. Well, what a dreadful contribution from the member for Mitchell. You could even hear him battling to fill out the 15 minutes so little did he have to contribute on this issue. He filled his contribution up with deliberate mistruths—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —on this issue. Let's get the record straight in Hansard. This has been—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a moment, there's a point of order.

Ms Chapman: No, you're not allowed to say that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is interjecting out of her seat and she would not interject anyway, would she?

Ms Chapman: Sorry, I was helping him.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are helping him—just get your hand out of his jacket then.

Mr GARDNER: Standing order 127: the minister breached subsections (1), (2) and (3) in the last 10 seconds of his comments.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In essence, I think if we examined what the member for Mitchell had to say, he was impugning motives as well, was he not?

Mr GARDNER: The member for Mitchell never accused the minister of giving deliberate mistruths to this parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not know. If you reread what he said, it was pretty much in there.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am talking to the member for Morialta. I am inclined to listen carefully and ask the minister to be mindful of 127.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I am very aware of how sensitive the member for Morialta and the member for Mitchell are on this issue, but the fact is that what was said by the member for Mitchell, canvassing the history of this issue, was completely incorrect—completely incorrect—and he knows it is incorrect.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is how this issue has developed over the previous years. This was an issue which the former member for Mitchell, Alan Sibbons, campaigned on assiduously.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop the clock. Members must be mindful that I am in charge of making sure they all have equal opportunity to speak and are heard in silence. We can do the 'up and down' and 'stop the clock' all morning if you wish. We can be calling people to order and warning people, but it will be in everybody's best interest and the best interest of the business of the house if we could try to progress the debate without loud interjections. Minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, based on that strong advocacy from the then member for Mitchell, the then transport minister made $2 million available for a study into the Oaklands crossing to develop a solution.

Mr Wingard: Where is it? Show the people.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And the member for Mitchell asks, 'Where is it?'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stop the clock. Minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Let's pad out the conspiracy theory of the member for Mitchell. He asked where the report was. Let me be honest: we hid it.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We hid it on the internet and we hid it on public display—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —at the council offices at Marion council—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't respond to interjections.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It was made publicly available in 2012. Now, I understand that that is a little early for the member for Mitchell because, as he has been the fist to admit, he did not start paying attention to this issue—as he said earlier in his contribution, he did not become active on this until less than two years ago.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The house is in your hands. If we are going to have noise, we cannot continue. All I am asking for is some order. If you can assist your members with some order, that would be really welcome. Did you have something to say, member for Morialta?

Mr GARDNER: There is a question of clarification on your ruling, ma'am, because—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: It's a point of order or it's not. Which is it? Which standing order?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let me hear what he has to say.

Mr GARDNER: I am answering the Deputy Speaker's question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just let me hear what you have to say.

Mr GARDNER: There were interjections during the member for Mitchell's speech as well and, while there will be order in the house as we comply with your ruling—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have done my best to maintain order this morning. If the member for Mitchell thought he was being regaled this morning, he would have let me know, I am sure. I have allowed him to say whatever he wanted to say. All I am asking is for you not to interject as much as you are. Minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As the member for Mitchell himself said, he did not become active on this issue until less than two years ago. That is when he commenced his campaign, many months after he became the local member. That is when he just admitted he commenced his campaign—

Mr Wingard: You didn't read my maiden speech, did you? You didn't read my maiden speech.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mitchell!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —in the second half of 2014.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mitchell!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: We have just heard it out of his own mouth. That is just what he said. Contrast that with the government's efforts in this area—

Mr Wingard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mitchell is called to order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —funding a study, hiding it in plain view for public consumption and then, when we were putting together our 30-year transport strategy—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is warned for the first time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —including this project as one of the grade separations for rail crossings—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you have a point of order, member for Finniss?

Mr PENGILLY: I have not heard myself called to order, actually.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is why you should be listening. You cannot hear yourself over your own voice.

Mr PENGILLY: I have not heard it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You were called to order and when you ignored me, I warned you for the first time. It would be mindful for everybody to listen to the member on his feet and not to interject. That is all we are asking for.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. When, in 2013, we released our 30-year Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan, the Oaklands crossing formed one of the other rail crossings which contributed to the initiatives of grade-separating rail and road crossings in the greater metropolitan area, building on the work that we have done in removing the tram crossing over South Road, the rail crossing at the Port River Expressway and South Road Superway and the ones that are currently underway at the moment by virtue of the Torrens to Torrens Project and the Torrens Junction project. And now—

Dr McFetridge: Federal funding.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: And the member for Morphett says, 'Federal funding.'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you shouldn't listen. Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: There was not one dollar of federal funding—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You know the standing orders regarding interjections and responding to interjections. Member for Morphett, do you understand that?

Dr McFetridge: Yes, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Consider yourself chastised.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The assertion that these projects were funded federally is completely wrong. Not one dollar went towards the tram overpass over South Road from the federal government and not one dollar for the Port River Expressway bridges—not one dollar. This is how easy the opposition finds it to provide false information to this chamber. It is just for base political purposes. That is why they engage in providing false information to this chamber. Having outlined that this is a priority for the government—

Mr GARDNER: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Morialta has a point of order.

Mr GARDNER: Standing order 127: 'false information to this chamber for base political purposes' could not be more 'imputing improper motives' and 'making personal reflections'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I said earlier, the member for Mitchell had a completely free hand in everything he said. If he had felt that he had not had a free hand, that would be a different story.

Mr GARDNER: The member for Mitchell had no points of order accusing him of imputing improper motives or making personal reflections during his speech. Any point of order should be taken on its merit, surely.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am allowing the minister to continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: In 2013, having identified this as a priority infrastructure project—with, of course, the caveat (and I will give the member for Mitchell his due credit here) that it was a medium-term as yet unfunded priority—it remained important for the state government to pursue this infrastructure project as and when we could when funding became available. What other projects were medium-term priorities for the state government that we have been able to bring forward as and when funds have become available? Well, let's just think of a couple: the Northern Connector project, for example, or perhaps the Darlington project. All have been able to be brought forward to be delivered in the short term—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Davenport!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —because we have successfully convinced a federal government to co-invest in these projects. What is our suggestion now to fund this project, to make real a solution that the state Labor government and their local MPs have been pursuing for many years? It is to identify some savings from a state and commonwealth-funded project and deliver it into fixing this issue in the southern suburbs.

All throughout this time, as we have been continually saying that this is a priority, advocating for it to be fixed, and doing the hard work designing it, releasing those designs and now calling on the federal government, at no further cost to itself, to enable the reinvestment of funds to deliver this project, at no point have we had the member for Mitchell or the state opposition say that they support this solution. Even Nicolle Flint, as a first-time candidate in these same southern suburbs who had previously written decrying investment in the metro area, could convince her party to make this an election commitment—not the member for Mitchell; it was not important enough for him.

There was nothing in their 2014 state election campaign, not one dollar, not one commitment, not one plan, not one study—nothing, absolutely nothing even this morning on radio, even today in this chamber not one word of support or commitment. My message to the member for Mitchell is: do what Nicolle Flint is doing—put your shoulder to the wheel, pick up the phone, talk to the federal government and convince them to make the easiest, non-budget-impacting of decisions, and reallocate this funding for this important project.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Finniss, you're hearing me now, aren't you?

Mr Pengilly: Absolutely, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't move those lips again. Minister.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is so important for the member for Mitchell that he cannot bring himself to find the time to pick the phone up and make that phone call. It is so important to him, yet he claims he does not have the resources in his office to avail himself of the plans. While he says that there are no plans, he then crows that 5,300 pages of material and information have been released to him. That clearly demonstrates that no work has been done, does it not? Can you think of a more vacuous, tenuous argument put by the member for Mitchell? The challenge to him today is: put up or the alternative.

Mr Pengilly: What's that, Stephen? What is it?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Presumably unparliamentary.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is absolutely easy for everyone sitting on that side of the chamber to get in behind Nicolle Flint and support her efforts to get this crossing upgraded. The money is there, the solution is there, the council is on board, the whole community is on board, except the community's representative sitting over there, the member for Mitchell. It is absolutely unbelievable.

What hollow words does he speak to the community that he represents in the southern suburbs: 'I support this project so much that when it is finally funded, when there is finally a solution, I don't support it.' Unbelievable—absolutely unbelievable. There is only one party playing politics with this issue and that is the opposition. We have done the work, we have found the money, we are ready to invest it and it is only the member for Mitchell and the Leader of the Opposition, and all of the others on that side of the chamber, who are unprepared to support this project. That is outrageous.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:00): I rise to oppose the amendment. As a bit of history on the Oaklands crossing, it was on the south-east corner of the electorate of Morphett for the first six years I was there. I have been travelling that crossing for over 20 years now.

Just to remind the current transport minister—and we have had a number in here, and we have seen them come and we have seen them go because they have not been able to produce long-term solutions for long-term problems in South Australia—the first options for the Oaklands crossing were put up many years ago. The member for Mitchell said 60 years ago. I understand that 27 years ago the first proposals were put up by government costing $1 million. As a candidate, I remember going up against the then transport minister, Patrick Conlon, at public meetings down at Oaklands to discuss the future of the Oaklands crossing.

What did we get? We came up with a brilliant plan for a triangular-about around Diagonal Road, Morphett Road and Prunus Street. It did not solve the problem. It did not provide long-term solutions for long-term problems, and that problem has become worse and worse. If you were to do a cost-benefit analysis (a time and motion study, as they used to call it) of the time, the fuel, the personal time that is used up by the thousands of people in their hundreds of cars, sitting at that crossing every day, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, waiting for the trains, waiting to get through those lights, waiting to get across that crossing, it would be in the billions of dollars, I am sure.

What we have seen this government do is blame everybody else. Now they want to again shift the priorities, shift the responsibility and shift the blame to the federal government. They have done it every time. They have come out with more and more mistruths, more Labor lies. Let's call it what it is: more Labor lies. That is all we are getting from this government. That is all we have had for 14 years. They are blaming everybody but themselves.

They had rivers of gold when they came into this place; they could have done so much for this state, but what did we see? We saw them blow it. They blew the opportunity just as they have blown the future for South Australia because of their mismanagement. They cannot come in here and try to blame the member for Mitchell, the member for Boothby, the federal government, but what do they do? They try to do that. Why do they do that? Because they know they failed. They know that the budget is in disarray. They know they have no money for the future of South Australia. They have no money for planning for projects like this. So, what do they do? They go and try to shift the responsibility and shift the blame to the federal government.

It is time to stop the blame game because we know where the blame lies: it lies with the state government here. It is the state government's sole responsibility. What was their solution all those years back—2010, I think it was—for this crossing? They came up with a $4 million plan to move the railway station 300 metres. It complicated the whole future of that crossing by making it more difficult to put an overpass or an underpass there. What have we got? We have a hospital handpass to the federal government again and again and again, whether it is health, education or now transport. 'It is not our fault'.

I need to correct the member for Mitchell on one thing: the correct term for an architectural impression of a drawing is a 'cartoon'. That is what it is. It is a cartoon. We have only had cartoons drawn up by this government. They are treating this as a joke. They are taking South Australians for a terrible ride, down a very rough road to their future, because they are just using the blame game all the time. Every time they get up in here: 'It's not our fault. We didn't do it. It wasn't us. Don't look here.' Where is the Premier? He is down in the nuclear bunker. He is not here facing the royal commission on child abuse. He is not here doing what he should be doing. He is not here supporting the people of South Australia on settling down the traffic issues, the transport issues, the health issues, the budget issues. He is not here. What have we got? We have the second-rate front bench.

I had high hopes for the member for Lee to be a future leader, but after today the jury is back out again. He is not providing any future, any hope or any long-term solution for a long-term problem. What he is doing is dragging out that old cartoon, and I am surprised it is in colour because it probably should be in black and white. We have the transport minister saying, 'It's not our fault, we didn't do it. Let's get onto the federal government, let's get them to fund it, let's get them to dig us out of a hole again and again.' It is about time they took responsibility.

What did Kevin Scarce, the serving Governor of South Australia, say about this government on Proclamation Day three years ago? He said that there is no ministerial accountability, that the executive ignores the parliament, and he said that the Public Service has been highly politicised. A serving governor said that—that there is no ministerial accountability in this place. We have seen it with child protection, we have seen it with health, and now we are seeing it with transport: 'Don't blame us; blame the federal government. They have the money. We need the money because we are broke; let them get us out of this.'

It is an absolute disgrace that we have had this amendment moved today to once again try to shift the blame because 'the feds don't give us the money, we can't do it, it's not our fault'. Well, it is your fault because those 27 years ago, when it was going to cost $1 million, we should have done it. Whether it was Liberal or Labor, it should have been done. Moving a railway station 300 metres, putting a bus interchange in there, putting more traffic lights in there and then coming up with a 'triangular-about'—give me a break.

I am no traffic engineer, but let me tell you, having travelled that road day after day and sat in that—I think it would be days and days I have spent sitting at that crossing, along with thousands of other motorists, waiting for a solution. That solution only comes when there is a brief break in the lights, the trains are not going across the crossing, or you are not sitting halfway back to Glenelg in the line-ups there. That relief is not coming.

I do not see any future for this government if they are going to keep going down this path, laying the blame game. You have nothing left to sell, or perhaps you have. Perhaps you are thinking about selling WorkCover; perhaps you are thinking about selling so many other things out there. Who knows? You are selling the farm. You know the worst part, though? Where is the former member for Napier, the honest Michael O'Brien? The current member for Napier is a good bloke. Michael O'Brien told the truth to South Australians—he told the truth. He said that this government, if it was a business, would be insolvent.

They are spending money to pay recurrent expenditure. You cannot do that. They think they have sold the Motor Accident Commission and they are in surplus now. That does not work.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Morphett, we have a point of order.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The member for Morphett does seem to be straying off the topic of the Oaklands crossing into privatisation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is going to come right back to it. Member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: This government really needs to take a long, hard look at itself and see what its long-term legacy is going to be. It is certainly not going to be a crossing at Oaklands, there where it is so badly needed. The minister admitted in his speech that it is a priority that is needed, it is something that has to happen. What do we get from the minister? What do we get from this government? Blame the feds again. I am sick to death of hearing that lame blame game all the time in here. It is not true: this government is getting more money than they have ever had before, and that is indisputable.

This government is just not doing what it was put in place for—I nearly said 'elected', but they did not get the majority of the vote—and that is laying out the future for South Australia. I have regard for the current member for Elder, but she needs to stand up for her constituents and get this crossing fixed now, but not with federal money. If the feds are already putting in $40 million, put some state money up. You know what? I do not think that state money is there anyway. I feel sorry for the member for Elder because she is between a rock and hard place, trying to move the immovable. You have this massive boulder that is the state debt and the state finances that have been mismanaged by this government for so long.

The only thing that will be happening at the Oaklands crossing in the near future and in the distant future, as far as I can see, until a Liberal government is elected in 2018, is there will be more stalemates, more traffic delays and more people waiting and wasting their time when they should not be. This could have been fixed many years ago. It should have been fixed when the local member was the transport minister. They had rivers of gold coming into the place, but now all we have are roadblocks.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (12:10): I support the amendments to this motion.

Mr Gardner: To say you support the Repat.

Ms DIGANCE: We are talking about the Oaklands crossing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject and equally unparliamentary to respond. The member for Morialta is called to order, and I remind members of the standing orders, which require that members be heard in silence, and there are several of them.

Ms DIGANCE: I will remind members that we are actually talking about the Oaklands crossing even though we have heard about a number of other topics, such as privatisation and the previous member for Napier. So, thank you for that whole history and storytelling session we have just had. As the member for Elder, my electorate is on the northern side of this particular crossing but, more importantly, I have lived and driven over this crossing for well over 2½ decades, so I actually know and have experienced the changes in this crossing.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Ms DIGANCE: Pardon?

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, order! Sit down. Do I need to remind members again of the standing orders of—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Everybody. I am talking to everyone in general.

Mr Gardner: They are the ones interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Goodness gracious me! Member for Elder.

Ms DIGANCE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I will do my best not to be diverted by other comments. I know this crossing. I have experienced it for a number of years over a number of decades, so I understand what it is that local people are talking about and the grief they have at this crossing.

There are times during the day, not just at peak hour, when this crossing is very congested and you can find yourself waiting for quite some time, but more serious than that are the risks some people will take when they are parked at this crossing. There are times when cars will drive up the back of other cars to try to nudge them across the line. There are times when traffic tries to run the lights and run the rail signals as well, and also when pedestrians actually walk through the closed gates when trains are coming.

I acknowledge that this is a big problem for this particular area, and it is a growing problem as well because we have the Marion shopping centre, which has expanded just recently with more planned and underway. There is also the SA Aquatic and Leisure Centre, which is a very popular and well-known centre not just for that area but for the whole of the state and also interstate, so the traffic is a growing concern. Not for one minute do I not understand what the situation is. I have campaigned on this particular issue for quite some time. I was there when the previous member for Mitchell physically brought out the plans that he had lobbied for, showed them to public groups and had them on public viewing. I was there.

Mr Wingard interjecting:

Ms DIGANCE: He had them. He had indicative costs and plans of how this particular project would go, so I contest the fact that there is a conspiracy theory going on here. This has been considered. It is actually in the government's 30-year plan as well. Things take time. Things need to be prioritised. Not everything can be done at the same time. Testament to that is the fact that there are so many roadworks happening in South Australia due to this government having a vision and an ability to move things forward.

Thank you to the member for Morphett for his sympathies. I will accept his cards and bouquets of sympathy any day and appreciate them, but heaven help us if we had a Liberal government at the present moment or, in fact, in 2018. I have actually been at some of the public meetings that the member for Mitchell has convened, and we have been at similar events, so I know this for a fact. When pushed and asked what his plan is for this Oaklands crossing, guess what he says? He is just going to campaign.

There is nothing that the opposition has promised for this particular crossing ever—nothing, not a thing, absolute silence. Now, the state government is giving the opposition the chance to support a real solution for this crossing, and I say to you, 'Don't be silent, get on board, get behind this campaign,' to make sure this happens, not just for the local people, but make sure that it happens for the whole of the state and for those who come from interstate to this area as well, so there can be ease of flow of traffic.

So, get on board, stop with the silence, stop with the games. This is not a political issue. This is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and you have the ability to support this project, get on board and get on board now. We have a good and probable solution, but what have we heard from you? Hang on, what have we heard? Ssh, listen! What have we heard? That is what we have heard: nothing, not a thing. Since the candidate for Boothby came out with a bit of a contribution to this particular crossing and then she became the member, we have heard nothing, not a thing.

You know what is more? With this campaign that the member for Mitchell has been running to fix Oaklands crossing, even the people who have been letterboxing and attending these actual forums, do you know what they are saying now? They are saying, 'We're not doing that any more because nothing happens.'

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley has something to say?

Mr PISONI: Thank you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, she hasn't finished. I am just waiting for the chamber to return to order.

Ms DIGANCE: But, wait, there's more. I suggest that you now get on board with this campaign and really give the people in this area and the rest of South Australia the opportunity to have a decent crossing at Oaklands crossing. So, today at Marion shopping centre, and tomorrow and the next day—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Finniss, I need to make sure you are hearing me—member for Finniss.

Mr Pengilly: Hello!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on a first warning, and we would certainly hate to lose you for question time today. The member for Mitchell has only been called to order. I have been very lenient with the member for Mitchell, but I do ask members to respect the house and to listen in silence to the member on their feet.

Mr Pengilly: Well, we're getting shrieked at.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss knows that if I call him to order for the second time—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I don't need help from the right.

Mr Pederick: He's not in his seat, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you are interjecting, and I am not happy with you.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kavel! The member for Elder has the call.

Ms DIGANCE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. For those who did not hear it, I will make sure I go through this again. At Marion shopping centre today, tomorrow and Saturday, make sure that everyone knows to get down to the Marion shopping centre and be involved in the DPTI display so you can have your say.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Ms DIGANCE: Yes, we're hiding those secret plans down there. Have your say because, you know what? This is the time for people to be engaged; this is the time to make sure this happens. It is time for you to lobby the federal government and to start acting, stop stalling and come together with us, the state government, to fix Oaklands crossing. Your time is now!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not sure I can protect you, member for Unley, but you can start and we will see how we go.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:18): Thank you, I was waiting for the member for Elder to ask us if we want fries with that. I rise to move an amendment to the government's amendment, as follows:

Exclude all words after 'That this house' and replace with:

Supports the upgrade of the Oaklands crossing being a priority for all levels of government in a bipartisan way

It then continues:

to—

(a) improve traffic congestion for residents living in the southern suburbs;

(b) provide efficient access for emergency services vehicles;

(c) support economic activity in the Westfield Marion precinct; and

(d) support the State Aquatic and Leisure Centre as a venue for state, national and international events.

This is a very important issue and the reason why I want to send a strong message from this parliament is that this is a bipartisan issue and it does not matter who the government is, we want this to happen. The nature of politics is that it is an adversarial business, but this parliament needs to send a strong message to Canberra. I can tell you that Canberra will need a strong message. They will need to know that this is not a political instrument, that this is an important project for the people of Mitchell, the people of Elder, the people of Bright and the people of Morphett, the people who use that crossing every day.

I have met with Paul Fletcher, the federal Minister for Urban Infrastructure, specifically on this issue. I was very pleased that he came to Adelaide to meet with me and with the member for Mitchell and Nicolle Flint, the federal member for Boothby, on this particular issue. Not only did we meet here in Parliament House on this issue but we also met in Nicolle Flint's office and we went down to Oaklands crossing so that the minister could see at firsthand the problems that we have with that intersection.

I know that the minister is very sympathetic to coming up with a solution for the Oaklands crossing. I do not want this to be jeopardised because it can be perceived, or otherwise, that it has been an instrument for political purposes. The reason for my amendment to the government is so that we can stand together as members of the South Australian parliament, acknowledging that we are serious about this and that whoever the government is in 2018 we will be committed; whether it be a Steven Marshall government or a Labor government after 2018, this parliament is committed to getting a solution to Oaklands crossing.

We do not want there to be some unrealistic time frame that will see compromises in this outcome. We want to get the best possible outcome. This is our one and only opportunity—our one and only opportunity—to get this right and not to only fix that crossing but to improve the entire amenity of the district that surrounds the Oaklands crossing. There is no doubt that this project fits in with the federal government's improving urban cities project. There is no doubt that it is long overdue.

By sending a strong message that, regardless of who the government is in South Australia, whoever the minister talks to, whether it be an opposition member of parliament or whether it be a ministerial member of parliament, this has bipartisan support and there is no political objective here other than to get an outcome to this situation. I think it is fair to say that, regardless of which side of the house you sit on in this place, you are in here for the right reasons, you want to get an outcome, you want to get the best schools, you want to get the best health system, you want to get transport solutions for your constituents.

Politics is how you achieve it. The message that this motion will send to minister Fletcher, helping support his cabinet submission, is that there are no politics in this. The solution is a united outcome from the entire parliament. This is a message coming from 47 representatives of the people in South Australia that this a solution that we want dealt with, and we want help from the federal government in order to do that.

I urge members of this chamber to support my amended motion so that we can work together. We can work with the member for Elder, we can work with the member for Mitchell, and we can work with their constituents. We can work with the federal government knowing full well that the only outcome we are interested in is an outcome for the people who use that intersection on a regular basis. We are not interested in a political outcome. We are interested in a practical outcome for the people of South Australia.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:26): I rise to support the original amendment moved by the Minister for Transport because this is a very important project for South Australia and particularly for the southern suburbs. While it is a bit further north than my electorate, people in the south who happen to go around the Marion area certainly know that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I am very supportive of the fact that this government has a plan to address it, that we have funding available, that we have a plan and that we are going out consulting on this plan with the community.

In fact, at the moment there are people in the Marion shopping centre consulting with people on our proposals to fix this intersection. We have worked out a solution for funding this. Through savings that we have made on other infrastructure projects, we are able to fund the upgrade of this intersection, which will be a substantial improvement for people in the southern suburbs. We are the only party in this house that does have a plan to address this intersection, the only party that does have the funding on the table and the only party that has made a commitment.

There is no commitment from those opposite to upgrade this intersection. There is no funding that they have identified and put on the table. In fact, we have heard some comments from members opposite saying that they do not want the federal government to approve this funding going into this project, that they would rather other state funding were used instead. I think that very much undermines our negotiating position with the commonwealth government to get this approval done. We should all be coming together to ask the federal government to approve this funding, which they have already budgeted for. We have made savings on our Northern Connector project and we would like to see it spent here in South Australia and not go to other states. You would think that that would be something that we would all be able to agree on.

The other point to make is in terms of some of the contributions that have been made in this debate already. The member for Morphett made the comment that we have whittled away rivers of gold in this government, as though the massive number of infrastructure projects that this government has delivered had not occurred, whether it is the duplication of the Southern Expressway, the previous embarrassment of a one-way freeway, whether it is the Northern Connector, the Torrens to Torrens, the Anzac Highway underpass on Main South Road, the Northern Expressway, the Adelaide Oval, the new hospital, the extension of the Lyell McEwin Hospital, or the upgrades to our other hospitals, such as the Flinders Medical Centre.

We have seen a massive amount of infrastructure investment in this state, significantly more than any other government has done before, and we are guaranteeing a minimum level of investment in infrastructure over the next four years, which is almost three times as much as happened under the previous governments. That is a huge boost to productive infrastructure in this state, but also a huge boost for jobs and for our construction industry.

I think the Oaklands crossing, if we can get this agreement done with the federal government, will be the next step towards making that happen. Full credit needs to go to the member for Elder for her advocacy on this issue. The previous member for Mitchell also advocated strongly on this issue, which saw the plans done, back in 2012, and publicly available for everybody to see. They were publicly available on the website. They were in plain sight on the website for people to see what the plans were, what the costs were. Now that we have the opportunity to fund it, we are going ahead to fund it, and I am absolutely supportive of that.

It is something that is needed for the southern suburbs. We are the government that has the plan—the only party in this house that has a plan—to fix this issue, and luckily we have members like the member for Elder who are campaigning strongly on this issue and have been the ones who have really pushed to see this funding achieved. All of us need to lobby the federal government now to make sure that they agree to our proposal to make this upgrade happen.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:30): I rise very briefly to notify the house that the government will be opposing the amendment of the member for Unley. We will be supporting the amendment of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. The reasons are very simple. The minister and the government have identified a number of savings from the Northern Connector project that can be made available to the Oaklands crossing project, requiring only the approval of the federal minister.

To their credit, the federal government has identified $40 million of new money and we congratulate them on that, and we think that, combined with the savings that have been identified by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, that will be more than enough to go either over or under the crossing at Oaklands. It is a sensible solution. It requires bipartisan support from those opposite as well as from us on this side of the house.

The member for Unley's amendment tries to absolve the opposition of all responsibility for a solution that exists. It tries to provide some sort of bipartisan support without accepting that there is money available and that there is a solution ready to roll and all it needs is the approval of the federal minister and the support of those opposite. So, we are not prepared to allow them to squirm out of that.

We are not prepared to allow them to get past the fact that the member for Morphett has opposed a bipartisan solution around the identification of savings. He came out and opposed the amendment of the minister which identified very neatly the savings that can be identified and a solution that can be provided and the relative administrative ease with which it can be provided. For those reasons, the government will be opposing the member for Unley's amendment, supporting the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure's amendment.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:32): I rise to support the member for Unley's amendment. I point out that my campaign has always been bipartisan and that it is about finding a solution to the problem. We want to make sure that the community and the public are taken on this journey and that it is very clear and transparent as to what is going on, unlike what we just heard there from the member for Newland and the member for Kaurna.

The member for Kaurna pointed out that in 2012 there was a plan to fund it and it was all done even though it is incredibly hard to find on the internet. The minister would not send me that information. He said the plan was done, yet the member for Newland—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, on my right!

Mr WINGARD: —said the solution is ready to roll. So, the plan is done, the solution is ready to roll, but today they also point out that the department is at the Marion shopping centre talking about whether we have an overpass or an underpass. That is the exact question and clarification that I am looking for. What is the solution? If there is a solution there, can we please have it? Can we please see it with the costings, the engineers' reports? Let's put it forward. They say there is a solution, but at the same time they say the department is out there consulting with pictures of an underpass and an overpass, and that is the concerning thing.

Ms Digance interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WINGARD: There is no clarity here. They say there is a solution, but they are out asking, 'Which one of these do you want?' There is no pricing on the solution either. What is the price of the overpass? What is the price of the underpass? The member for Elder could not answer those questions. I know it was embarrassing for her, but we need to get those answers from the minister as well. To the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, I said very clearly when I started here that the clear question was: what engineering designs does the government have for fixing the Oaklands crossing problem, and will he outline what the costs will be? He prattled on for a long time, and that was lovely, but he gave no answer. There is no plan with engineering plans and costings attached, and that is disappointing and the clarification is not there.

They have a price. They know how much they want to spend ($190 million), but they do not have plans and they do not have engineering reports or, if they do, they are out searching for more. That is what we need clarified, and we want to do that in a bipartisan way. We want to get the solution, I have no doubt, but we want to see and need clarification for the community. That is what I have been asking for. That is what I want to see, and that is what the community want to see as well.

The minister raised the issue of the work I have done in my community, and the member for Elder raised it too. They both know the work I have done in my community. My community knows the work I have done. The minister mentioned how many times I have talked about this. When I started my campaign, I mentioned this in my maiden speech. I invite him to go and read it and have a good look at it. He will probably want to correct his words because he was a little bit out of line, and that is fine because we need to make sure we get a solution to this.

I want to work with the government. I stress the point that I have been asking for two years for the minister to come and have a look at the situation. Let's talk it through. Let's get all the plans on the table. I have stressed this point over and over again. Together, we need to have a look at this, find the best solution, talk to the community and get the answer. That is what needs to happen—a holistic view of what the solution might be.

This is a community. I know it separates my electorate from that of the member for Elder, but that is totally irrelevant. This is a community. This is a suburb that is divided by this intersection. People are held up there. There are some little solutions, too, that I have talked to the minister about in the immediate term. The member for Elder raised them, and I would love her support to work with us to try to fix these in the short term.

We talk about the crossing being dangerous. When you go to the crossing and you want to cross the road as a pedestrian to get to the train station, if you are coming from the southern side to get to the northern side you can only cross on one side of the road. What that means is that if you are going to catch the train in the morning you have to cross over the train line, cross over the road and then cross back over the train line to get up onto the platform. I know that sounds confusing, but it means that there are pedestrian crossings stopping the cars before the train gets there to enable people to get onto the platform.

Potentially, if we could get another pedestrian crossing on the other side of the road, that would limit the number of pedestrian intersections and the number of times cars are stopped at the traffic lights. These are little things we have explored and things I have asked the minister to explore. He has the department and he is in charge. I would like support from the member for Elder so that we can work this solution in a bipartisan way. That is just a little example, but there are plenty more.

I want to continue to work this in a bipartisan manner and that is why I support the member for Unley's amendment. We need to find a solution and I think the community wants to see what the plans are. They are sick of seeing pretty pictures and pretty diagrams, but not having concrete costings and concrete engineers' reports so they know what the plan will be. I could go on for hours and hours and more, if the Minister for Transport would like me to, but I know that we want to get this to a vote, so I will close my remarks and continue to work hard to fix Oaklands crossing.

The house divided on the amendment to the amendment:

Ayes 13

Noes 21

Majority 8

Mr Pisoni's amendment to the amendment thus negatived; the Hon. S.C. Mullighan's amendment carried; motion as amended carried.