<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>House of Assembly</name>
  <date date="2017-03-01" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>53</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>House of Assembly</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="8703" />
  <endPage num="8773" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>South Road Tram Overpass</name>
      <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000525">
        <heading>South Road Tram Overpass</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="3124" kind="question">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Unley</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-03-01">
            <name>South Road Tram Overpass</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-03-01T14:55:04" />
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000526">
          <timeStamp time="2017-03-01T14:55:04" />
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI (Unley) (14:55):</by>  Did the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure evaluate the bridge design before awarding the contract, and what was the outcome of that evaluation?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <electorate id="">Lee</electorate>
        <portfolios>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Transport and Infrastructure</name>
          </portfolio>
          <portfolio id="">
            <name>Minister for Housing and Urban Development</name>
          </portfolio>
        </portfolios>
        <questions>
          <question date="2017-03-01">
            <name>South Road Tram Overpass</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2017-03-01T14:55:12" />
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000527">
          <timeStamp time="2017-03-01T14:55:12" />
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:55):</by>  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.</text>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000528">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—</text>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000529">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="3121">Mr Pengilly interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000530">
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:</by>  —the member for Finniss is still here—that it's the fault not of these independent contractors who were contracted to—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3121">
        <name>Mr PENGILLY</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000531">
          <by role="member" id="3121">Mr PENGILLY:</by>  Point of order: I believe the minister is debating the question.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000532">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  I will listen carefully. I have upheld points of order about debate before.</text>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000533">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="633">The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000534">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  Yes, the Treasurer is right, I have listened carefully to what the minister has to say.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000535">
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:</by>  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—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <page num="8739" />
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000536">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  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?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000537">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  So the question is relevance?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000538">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  Exactly, sir, and I am just reminding the minister of what the question was.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000539">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  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.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="4842" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000540">
          <by role="member" id="4842">The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN:</by>  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.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000541">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  Point of order: improper motives. The minister is in breach of standing orders—</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000542">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  That's a separate standing order.</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="3124">
        <name>Mr PISONI</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000543">
          <by role="member" id="3124">Mr PISONI:</by>  —and he's debating the answer to the question. The question was: did his department evaluate the design before it was awarded?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker kind="speech" role="office">
        <name>The Speaker</name>
        <house>House of Assembly</house>
        <text id="20170301ee9eaab12b4347dd80000544">
          <by role="office">The SPEAKER:</by>  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.</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>