South Road Tram Overpass

Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:55): Did the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure evaluate the bridge design before awarding the contract, and what was the outcome of that evaluation?

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:55): As the member for Unley has been briefed, it's the role of the department and its project managers to coordinate the different work streams which were provided to the government in the course of procuring and installing an infrastructure project such as the South Road tram overpass. It was the requirement of the design and construct contract that was awarded to McConnell Dowell that they would be responsible for both the design and the construction of the tram overpass.

There was also an additional stage, which was the independent certification of the bridge and its design, by another different firm, Walbridge and Gilbert. I think the member for Unley, as he said in some of his media comments, is trying to establish that this was not in fact the result of—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —the member for Finniss is still here—that it's the fault not of these independent contractors who were contracted to—

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order: I believe the minister is debating the question.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully. I have upheld points of order about debate before.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Yes, the Treasurer is right, I have listened carefully to what the minister has to say.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I was saying, it appears that what the member for Unley was suggesting in his question was consistent with what his comments have been outside, and that's that it's the fault of the department rather than the contractors who were engaged by the government to undertake these works. His previous question very clearly was about whether we have sought crown advice to see what liability lies with those companies that provided these works for the government. Not only have I answered that question and made it—

Mr PISONI: Point of order: I ask that you bring the minister back to the content of the question, which was: did the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure evaluate the bridge design?

The SPEAKER: So the question is relevance?

Mr PISONI: Exactly, sir, and I am just reminding the minister of what the question was.

The SPEAKER: If you were doing that that would be out of order, but it is a point of order and I think your point of order is relevance and, having interpreted your point of order, I now uphold it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As I was explaining while the member was standing on his feet, he is trying to establish that it was not the fault or indeed the resultant liability of those private sector contractors. He is instead trying to establish that it was the fault of the department. His previous question goes to the heart of why his current question is completely wrong.

Mr PISONI: Point of order: improper motives. The minister is in breach of standing orders—

The SPEAKER: That's a separate standing order.

Mr PISONI: —and he's debating the answer to the question. The question was: did his department evaluate the design before it was awarded?

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley will now be seated. I don't think it was a case of imputing improper motives on such a scale that the Chair would have to intervene. The member for Schubert.