Public Works Committee

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (15:24): I rise to inform the house of circumstances that led to the Public Works Committee being unable to adopt the terms of reference for an inquiry today. Seven days ago, the draft terms of reference for an inquiry into the Gawler Line Modernisation Project were tabled. I read those draft terms to the house:

That the Public Works Committee conduct an inquiry into the Gawler Line Modernisation Project (the Project) with particular reference to—

1. The circumstances surrounding the $46.6m write down in expenditure on the Project identified by the Auditor-General in the Auditor General's Annual Report 2013-14.

2. The circumstances giving rise to the $28.6m in expenditure incurred for the Project in respect of a section of the Project between Salisbury and Gawler identified by the Auditor-General in the Auditor-General's Annual Report 2013-14 as unlikely to provide any future economic benefit.

3. The efficiency and progress of construction of the Project, including—

a. Design;

b. Scope;

c. Project supervision;

d. Tendering; and

e. Mobilisation.

4. Any other relevant matter relating to or arising from the Project or the Auditor-General's Report.

The Presiding Member's notes accompanied the draft terms of reference, and they referred to the Auditor-General's Annual Report 2013-14, Volume 4, page 1287. At 8.56pm last night, the member for Light provided me with an email. I will read that email, and my response to that email, to the house:

Dear Mr Chairman

Just a short note to advise that both I and the Member for West Torrens will be an apology for the PWC to be held tomorrow morning as there are no substantive matters to transact.

The only matter likely to be before the committee is a proposal by the chair for an inquiry, which in our opinion, is an abuse of the committee system as the information sought is available from the Government.

Given the majority of the PWC members are members of the Governing party they can obtain the information sought direct from their Minister.

Members of the Liberal Party need to stop acting as if they were in opposition.

I hope there will be some real work before the committee at its next meeting.

I read my response:

Dear Mr Piccolo and Mr Koutsantonis

I refer to Mr Piccolo's e-mail of 6 June 2018.

There is no proper basis to assert that the proposed inquiry into the Gawler Line Modernisation Project (Proposed Inquiry) is an abuse of process.

The functions of the Public Works Committee are set out in s12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1992 (SA) (the Act) and the terms of reference for the Proposed Inquiry closely complement those functions.

It is clear that the nature and scope of informal inquiries as may be made by a Minister or the Executive are quite different to the nature, scope, powers and character of a parliamentary inquiry conducted by a parliamentary committee under the Act. Amongst other matters, the substantial powers and immunities available to the committee are not available to a Minister. Importantly, witnesses appearing before the committee are afforded certain powerful protections.

The Proposed Inquiry would examine serious matters raised by the Auditor-General in relation to certain public works.

All members of the committee have an interest in ensuring that the proper business of the committee is not frustrated.

It is disappointing that having more than sufficient notice of the Proposed Inquiry and of its terms it took [the member for Light] until after the house rose last night to raise the matters giving rise to this correspondence with the Presiding Member.

That closes my email. There is, as I mentioned in my correspondence, no proper basis to suggest an abuse of process. In fact, what has occurred is that the Labor Party is wilfully obstructing the proper business of the committee. They are preventing the committee from examining the circumstances that led to a gross waste of public money. South Australians expect this parliament to do its work and the committees of parliament to do their work.

The question is this: why are two former Labor ministers standing in the way of this inquiry? What does the former Labor government have to hide? On this side of the house, we believe in transparency and accountability. The Labor Party believes in cover-ups. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to stop us from getting to the bottom of how $46 million of public money was wasted by their incompetent administration.

Time expired.