Infrastructure SA Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 June 2018.)

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (11:23): I rise today to support this bill to establish Infrastructure SA. This bill represents another very clear example of the Marshall Liberal government delivering on the commitments that we took to the people of South Australia at the last election and is also another key plank in this government's economic reform agenda that will create more jobs and opportunities for South Australians.

Quality infrastructure is critical to the economic and social vitality of a society. Properly planned infrastructure leads to greatly increased productivity and greater potential to export goods and services to markets interstate and overseas. Unfortunately, though, under the previous administration's infrastructure, planning had become more about politics and clinging onto power than the state's future economic needs. Projects were more about marginal seats and electoral cycles rather than the jobs and opportunities for South Australians. These were poorly planned and often rushed to meet electoral time lines, leading to cost blowouts and enormous delays in the delivery of projects.

A classic example of this, of course, is the North Terrace tram extension, which is well overdue. It was initially put forward to be completed by March, which suggested that it was perhaps more about cutting a ribbon before an election and creating photo and TV news opportunities. Unfortunately, prioritising this has led to severe blowouts in time, which ultimately cost more money and cause unsatisfactory delays for commuters who are trying to use the city.

The previous government also had a really destructive attitude, seeing every opportunity as a possible opportunity to pick fights with the federal government. Rather than working constructively to try to get the support from the federal government that the state would need to fund many projects, they were more about stamping their feet and throwing a tantrum just to try to gain a bit of attention.

On top of that, there was a real lack of any homework needed to help leverage the kind of funding we would need from the federal government to support our projects. Right now, we are working—and the Minister for Transport and Planning is working very diligently on making up this lost ground—to ensure that our homework is done so that we are well placed to receive the state's fair share of funding from the federal government.

When we went to the election, we were committed to delivering real change for South Australians and rejecting the destructive behaviour with which the previous Labor administration conducted themselves. This bill will establish an independent body, charged with providing the South Australian government with independent, expert advice on the provision of infrastructure, including project selection, financing, delivery and project review.

Specifically, the body's responsibilities will include the development of a 20-year state government infrastructure strategy, to identify the substantive infrastructure needs of the state, as well as rolling capital intention statements to deliver upon that strategy. The objectives and functions of Infrastructure SA, as described in the bill, are as follows:

(a) to promote such efficient, effective and timely coordination, planning, prioritisation, delivery and operation of infrastructure as is necessary for the economic, social or environmental benefit of the State; and

(b) to promote the adoption and use of policies, practices, information and analysis to support sound decision-making in relation to infrastructure.

The functions of Infrastructure SA, provided for in this bill in order to meet these objectives, are as follows:

(a) to provide the Minister with strategies, statements and plans…

(b) to review and evaluate proposals for major infrastructure projects by public sector agencies;

(c) to assess the risks involved in planning, funding, delivering and managing infrastructure, and the management of those risks;

(d) to monitor the delivery of—

(i) major infrastructure projects and other infrastructure projects identified in strategies, statements, or plans adopted by the Minister; and

(ii) any other infrastructure project at the request of the Minister;

(e) to carry out reviews of—

(i) completed major infrastructure projects; and

(ii) any other completed infrastructure project at the request of the Minister;

(f) to provide advice to the Minister—

(i) in respect of infrastructure submissions that may be made by the State and its agencies to the Commonwealth Government and other bodies; and

(ii) on appropriate funding and financing models for infrastructure; and

(iii) on economic or regulatory impediments to—

(A) the efficient delivery of [specific] projects…

(B) the efficient use of infrastructure; and

(iv) on any other matter relating to infrastructure referred by the Minister;

Ultimately, what the establishment of this body will do is take the politics out of infrastructure planning by providing independent expert advice that is completely transparent. South Australians will be able to understand why particular projects are being taken on and pursued by the government.

As I described earlier, we will have a clear long-term vision for South Australia's infrastructure needs, which has been severely lacking in recent times. This lack of long-term vision is not just bad in terms of providing for the state's future prosperity and infrastructure needs but also in providing certainty, particularly for those industries that are involved in constructing this infrastructure. Instead, what our plan will do is allow for a pipeline of work that will really be focused on the longer term.

The body will also be quite important for enabling the state government to leverage as much support from the commonwealth as possible to ensure that we get our fair share and that our future infrastructure needs are met. This body will not replace the decision-making of the government but instead will provide greater transparency and independent advice on how to proceed with our future infrastructure priorities.

As a state, we do have limited financial resources, and as the custodians of that which is not ultimately ours, but which is collected from the people of South Australia through taxation, it is our responsibility to get the best bang for their buck. As a government, our infrastructure priorities will not be about securing our jobs in this place but will be about improving the productivity and capacity to export in order to secure the jobs of the people of South Australia. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:31): I rise to support the second reading of the Infrastructure SA Bill. Infrastructure SA is an example of the way in which this government can introduce real reform. We want to be a reforming government. As every great reforming government knows, in order to achieve higher standards of living we all need to be focused on infrastructure that supports productivity.

It is no accident that this government is focused on productivity and initiatives that will improve productivity. Productivity is the elixir that is sometimes looked to as the overall answer to improving standards of living not just in South Australia but, of course, elsewhere. It is the gritty and overwhelmingly necessary task of this new government to address 16 years of anaemic economic growth and low productivity in this state.

I mentioned that productivity is the elixir, but this bill, of course, at a very practical level, is directed at ensuring that provisions are put in place for the appropriate management of infrastructure for the benefit of all South Australians. I have been listening carefully to earlier remarks in this place in respect of the need to ensure that infrastructure planning in South Australia is not a political exercise but an exercise directed at ensuring that we have the future infrastructure to ensure productivity growth, to ensure that we have the transport corridors necessary to support exports, to ensure that we are allowing South Australians to move between the great towns and cities in this state with ease and to ensure that they have the infrastructure they reasonably expect as citizens in a strong and growing economy.

The Premier has earlier remarked that the quality of a society's infrastructure is critical to its economic and social vitality. As I outlined to the house, sound investment in infrastructure can boost the productive potential of the economy and the growth of exports. Of course, this government also wants to ensure that South Australia boosts its export growth. Our export performance over the last 16 years has been nothing short of a painful disgrace and we all wear the consequences of that.

I say to the house that we are very focused on investment based around not political considerations but, instead, what is necessary. We want to replace a decision-making process in terms of infrastructure that was based around political considerations with one that is based on economic imperatives and need where that need arises. There are political risks to such an approach. It is not easy to take that path, but it is the path that we are taking.

For those members who represent substantial growth corridors, a new model for infrastructure planning is welcome, and it is particularly welcome in Kavel. Mount Barker is at the heart of the Hills and Fleurieu growth corridor. It is expanding rapidly. The need for infrastructure and infrastructure planning over the next 20 years is acute. There is no doubt that the previous government, after rezoning large portions of agricultural land for large-scale housing development, effectively abandoned my community and did not have the political will to plan for that growth.

That is something I am particularly focused on. I know that members of this government are equally focused on it. I stand in the house today beside the member for Heysen, who faces similar challenges brought about by a failure to properly address long-term planning issues for, as I say, the Hills and Fleurieu growth corridor. No more, Mr Speaker—no more. We are focused on appropriate infrastructure planning in this state, and I commend the bill to the house.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (11:36): I also rise to make a contribution on the Infrastructure SA Bill 2018. It rolls on from a long list of new initiatives that this government is bringing in. We have now tipped over the first 100 days of government; nevertheless, our desire is to continue to reform, to bring sensible legislation to the house and to change the trajectory of government policy that has come in off the back of 16 years of failed Labor policy in so many areas. Today, with the debate on the Infrastructure SA Bill, this Marshall Liberal government is once again showing the right leadership in essentially bringing South Australia to where the rest of the nation is.

Infrastructure Australia does a very important job in looking at the funding of infrastructure projects at a national level across the federation. There is Infrastructure Victoria, Infrastructure NSW and finally, hopefully with the passage of this bill through the parliament, we will have Infrastructure South Australia. Infrastructure SA will be established as an independent body to develop a 20-year infrastructure strategy for South Australia. I think it is so important that government, public policy setters, departments and especially private investors and those who generate and provide private capital to fund projects know the funnel and the pipeline of infrastructure being proposed by government, industry and various sectors, as it is across the board.

A really good question is: why are we doing this? The reason we are doing it is to get funding certainty and to get project certainty as well. I am reminded of the debate we have had over the last 12 to 18 months about the on-and-off funding of the electrification of the Gawler line, a very important line. I recall sitting on the other side of the house last year when the then Labor government was whingeing and complaining that no money was being allocated by the federal government to the electrification of the Gawler line only to find out that no business case in regard to that project was put to Infrastructure Australia by the then minister and the Labor government.

We all know that the model the federal government works on for the funding of large infrastructure projects is by and large through Infrastructure Australia. There is an expectation that government does a body of work to put a proposal forward. Obviously, that is then allocated on a needs basis. Infrastructure Australia, an independent body, then makes recommendations on the way projects are funded.

That is the sensible way to do it because it does not lead to pork-barrelling. One only wonders, if we had had Infrastructure SA last year, the year before or the year before that, whether the $160 million investment in the O-Bahn would have passed that feasibility study back then. I do not know if it would have or would not have, but it would have been interesting to see.

Infrastructure SA will promote the provision and management of infrastructure for the benefit of the South Australian community and economy, and that is why we are establishing this body. Infrastructure SA will look at the funding of road, rail, port, airport, water augmentation and electricity augmentation. Future infrastructure for the state needs to be justified and sustain long-term economic growth.

The bill proposes to appoint an independent Infrastructure SA board to oversee the development and implementation of the state's infrastructure strategy. The body will have the ability to maintain its independence and ensure that the politics is taken out of infrastructure planning and development. As I said, that is so important in terms of the needs of the investment community and finance authorities to ensure that there is not that politicisation of these important decisions.

I think it also focuses us, importantly, on the need to spend taxpayers' money wisely. Quite easily, on big infrastructure projects, every now and then they do get carried away while delivering those projects. Having that rigorous assessment proposal ensures—or plays a part in ensuring—that taxpayer funds are used in a wise and conservative manner. Essentially, we want to take the politics out of infrastructure investment decisions.

As I have constantly said in this place, jobs are the most important things that a government can oversee, especially jobs creation. I think that the delivery of an infrastructure plan will deliver more investment, more jobs and greater prosperity in the long run for South Australians. Our infrastructure plan will be renewed every five years and will set the long-term vision for South Australia's infrastructure, providing policy advice relating to infrastructure planning, delivery and use. This will also include advice on appropriate funding and financing models.

As part of this obvious assurance role, Infrastructure SA will be able to provide advice to government on unsolicited infrastructure proposals as well. There are quite a few powers within the bill to allow for this. In the establishment of Infrastructure SA and in the drafting of the legislation before us, the new government has sought advice from Sir Rod Eddington, who was the first chairman of Infrastructure Australia, and former Victorian Liberal minister the Hon. Mark Birrell.

Mr Picton: Oh, but there's no politics in it.

Mr DULUK: No, actually. The member for Kaurna interjects. Though it is very unparliamentary to respond to interjections—

The SPEAKER: Order! As it is to respond to interjections, member for Waite.

Mr DULUK: Extremely unparliamentary to respond to interjections, but if I could just elaborate on the need for this body not to be politicised. That is exactly the reason why we are getting these two very well-respected people. In fact, I believe that Sir Rod Eddington—

Mr Picton: A Liberal minister!

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr DULUK: —when former prime minister Kevin Rudd set up Infrastructure Australia, headed up that body. Sir Rod Eddington is a very well-respected person on both sides, as is the Hon. Mark Birrell, who I believe actually plays a role in Infrastructure Victoria as well, within the socialist Labor government that we have in Victoria—the one that the member for Kaurna loves to support.

It is bipartisan, and it is important that governments actually get the best advice. It really does not matter where that advice comes from, as long as it is good advice. I have no doubt that there are some members opposite and across the nation who at some point may have a positive contribution to make to public debate. When that is there, I think any wise government would take it. But, as I said, Sir Rod Eddington and former Victorian minister Mark Birrell, who were longstanding and well-respected chairmen of Infrastructure Australia, have been providing their guidance and advice on the establishment of this body here.

So the question is: why? Why do we need this, and what are we looking to get out of it? As I said, economic growth and job creation are important, and I believe we need to have modern, efficient and reliable infrastructure if we are to grow this state, if we are to grow our reputation within the federation and if we are to see growth levels that we are seeing on the eastern seaboard, whether that is infrastructure growth or population growth as well. Investment in infrastructure improves our ability to trade as well and provides especially our farmers and people in the regions the ability to export.

The member for Flinders knows how important export is for his community; providing that ability to expand markets is absolutely critical. In the lead-up to the election, we listed a number of projects that we would be referring to Infrastructure SA as a bit of a priority. They include the completion of the north-south road corridor through metropolitan Adelaide and a grain/minerals port on Eyre Peninsula to ensure the optimum location for this facility.

Of course, there is also our proposal to get rail freight out of the Mitcham Hills and the Adelaide Hills and, in the long term, to get heavy trucks off Cross Road and the South Eastern Freeway. It is a big policy. It is going to be a big outlay of capital, but if we do not get a plan for our long-term infrastructure right in terms of exports, with respect to road and rail freight, we are going to be behind the rest of the nation.

Other projects include the completion of the Gawler rail electrification, and we are going to look at the extension of the O-Bahn between Tea Tree Plaza Interchange and Golden Grove, which I would have liked to see as the first step of the upgrade of the O-Bahn because it is actually the step that increases the most amount of patronage, which is vitally important.

Another project is grade separations at major metropolitan area intersections to enable removal of level crossings. Grade separations is a big issue in my electorate and my community, obviously with the ones at Cross Road, Hawthorn and up through Blackwood and Glenalta as well. There is also infrastructure development on Lefevre Peninsula, including light rail, commercial, retail, residential and recreational development, to accommodate the needs of the naval shipbuilding program at Osborne; the sealing of the Strzelecki Track; an underground rail link in the CBD between the northern and southern train lines; as well as a long list of non-transport infrastructure projects in terms of affordable housing, increased capacity of South Australia's prisons, and looking at new technologies and the like and how they can be incorporated into infrastructure flow.

More capital means more infrastructure investment for the future, and we cannot expand our ports, our roads and our rail infrastructure if we do not have capital. Access to capital and to markets is so important, and Infrastructure SA will play its role in ensuring that there is a pipeline of work for people to invest in and for long-term funding projects. As we are looking at new financing and new projects, I think this is a good way of looking at what the role of the superannuation industry is in funding long-term assets, and the return there, and the investment of public funds in infrastructure through superannuation financing of low-risk government-backed projects as a way of accessing what is now a $1 trillion superannuation industry, which the retirement savings of Australians and South Australians have been locked up in. We are looking at that benefit and accessing that flow of capital.

As I mentioned earlier, the federal government obviously has Infrastructure Australia, and the federal Coalition, through that body, has been investing in our state. We have seen recent announcements around federal government funding for the Pym Street to Regency Road section of the north-south corridor, $220 million for the completion of the Gawler line electrification, $160 million for the Joy Baluch Bridge and another $1.2 billion for further sections of the north-south corridor. These are all issues that have come through Infrastructure Australia and that process as well.

So what happens across the federation in other jurisdictions? Well, in Victoria, they have Infrastructure Victoria, which is an independent authority that provides expert advice on Victorian infrastructure needs and the like. The Victorian model looks at nine key sectors. Within that body, they look at energy; water, including wastewater; transport, including public transport, freight, ports, airports, cycling and walking and roads; education and training; human and health services; justice services, including courts, police, corrections and emergency services; cultural, civic, sporting, recreational and tourism services; science; agriculture; and ICT. So it is a very broad body with a 30-year infrastructure plan for Victoria.

Queensland also has a state infrastructure plan that outlines the Queensland government's position. New South Wales established an infrastructure body in 2011 to develop their 20-year state infrastructure strategy and five-year infrastructure plans. We are not reinventing the wheel here in South Australia; all we are doing is recognising what is best practice. We are saying that projects over $50 million in value will go to Infrastructure SA. I am not sure what this does for the member for Kavel's Public Works Committee, but in reviewing that I know that there is a statutory function as well. The importance of public works and working together will be so important.

As I said, the composition of this board is as an independent board appointed by the government and responsible to the Premier and his team. I am really looking forward to being able to promote Infrastructure SA: going to the market, to industry, to the big corporations and construction firms and to those who employ and build and sitting down and saying, 'Come work with government. What is your 30-year plan for South Australia? What is your vision going forward? How can we work on this together? How can we get these projects funded? What are our priorities?'

With this bill and our productivity bill, which we discussed in the last sitting of parliament, I am very excited that these two key pieces of legislation are being brought through the parliament, and I know that they will have a long-term economic benefit for this state.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:52): I rise to speak to the introduction of the Infrastructure SA Bill 2018. I think this is something that has been sorely needed for so long in this state. Infrastructure planning has gone out of the window in past times, with priorities being made on political levels with political one-upmanship on whether a project should happen just because a particular government thinks it will be popular.

This will put a 20-year strategy in place that is reviewed every five years, but it also has the potential for Infrastructure SA to add additional projects along the way so that they are not locked into the initial 20-year plan. Obviously, things change, and with those five-year reviews things will change as well. There will be far better input into planning for bigger projects, and when I think of big projects I think that the Adelaide Oval has turned out pretty well but that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital has not.

It is no reflection on the staff there, but there seem to have been some oversights because of the rush to get the hospital planned and built. I think the planning was done as they were building it because of political expediency. This is the problem: you get poor outcomes where major infrastructure is built without the appropriate planning in place. So we will have the legacy issue of $1 million a day for 30 years for whichever party will be in power. There will be several changes of government over that time, which will be a shame, but it will happen.

What has happened is a real pity, and it is reflective of what has happened with the planning around the whole so-called Transforming Health and what has happened with health outcomes across the state. I understand that we found a $250 million plus hole in health since we came into power, and that is on top of the $470 million to $500 million hole with the failed electronic patient record-keeping so-called service called EPAS. It was a disaster when it was purchased and it was a disaster in Canada, yet it had as much money buried in it as an Adelaide Oval, if you take away some of the debt from the South Australian Cricket Association.

Especially in light of the decisions that were made in regard to the $2.4 billion build was the simple fact that, because of the political tie the former Labor government had with this electronic record-keeping service, they did not make the floors strong enough in the hospital so that you could have paper records. That is just outrageous. You have to wonder for a start why they purchased a system that did not work where it started. I do not believe that anyone else has taken it up, and we have now paused it because it has been such a monumental flop being rolled out. I have witnessed it firsthand and talked to nursing staff about it. That is just one part of the health infrastructure scenario.

Getting back to the build of the hospital, there was poor planning where switches were not in place, where some of the emergency services were put into walls and had to be pulled out and replaced and even with regard to where light switches were put—it is just terrible. Now we find out that ambulances have had to keep ramping, which we on this side of the house are working through to fix up 16 years of Labor's mess in the health portfolio. The Hon. Stephen Wade from the other place is doing a great job.

Another thing we are addressing from this side is the backlog in health facilities across the regions, which are near and dear to my heart. There is a number touted of a $150 million backlog of funding in just general maintenance in country hospital. I think you could gobble that up very quickly and it would disappear in the blink of an eye just about. But we are getting on with it, and we are doing better with facilities with our promises in Strathalbyn around Kalimna, and we will deliver for all of South Australia instead of just concentrating on the suburban areas. That is something that Infrastructure SA will do: it will be a body that looks after the whole state in a productive capacity manner to get the right infrastructure in place.

This bill enables the establishment of Infrastructure SA as the statutory authority, reporting through the Premier as the responsible minister. Infrastructure SA will be charged with developing a 20-year state infrastructure strategy to identify the substantive infrastructure needs of the state, whether public or private, as well as providing rolling five-year capital intention statements to deliver upon that strategy.

Because this was an election commitment, this bill enables the establishment of Infrastructure SA as an independent body charged with providing the South Australian government with independent expert advice on the provision of infrastructure, including project selection, financing, delivery and project review. The objectives and functions of Infrastructure SA as described in the bill are:

1. To promote such efficient, effective and timely coordination, planning, prioritisation (which is really important), delivery and operation of infrastructure as is necessary for the economic, social or environmental benefit of the state; and

2. To promote the adoption and use of policies, practices, information and analysis to support sound decision-making in relation to infrastructure.

The bill provides for Infrastructure SA having the following functions to further its objects:

1. To provide the minister with strategy statements and plans.

2. To review and evaluate proposals for major infrastructure projects by public sector agencies.

3. To assess the risks involved in planning, funding, delivering and managing infrastructure, and the management of those risks.

4. To monitor the delivery of (a) major infrastructure projects and other infrastructure projects identified in strategies, statements or plans adopted by the minister; and (b) any other infrastructure project at the request of the minister.

5. To carry out reviews of (a) completed major infrastructure projects; and (b) any other completed infrastructure project at the request of the minister.

6. The body is to provide advice to the minister (a) in respect of infrastructure submissions that may be made by the state and its agencies to the commonwealth government and other bodies; (b) on appropriate funding and financing models for infrastructure; (c) on economic or regulatory impediments to (i) the efficient delivery of particular infrastructure projects or infrastructure projects of a particular class or (ii) the efficient use of infrastructure; and (d) on any other matter relating to infrastructure referred by the minister.

7. To administer the act.

8. To perform any other function conferred on Infrastructure SA under the act, or others.

9. To do anything incidental to any of the preceding functions.

So the powers of the bill are quite broad.

The bill sets out the establishment of the board, its executive leadership and general operating parameters, including the development of the 20-year state infrastructure strategy and five-year capital intention statements, which are there to deliver upon the strategy. Cabinet has obviously approved the introduction of the bill. It is a bill that will deliver on a commitment contained within the 100-day plan of the Marshall Liberal team.

You get some interesting comments on policy proposals, as we did during the election campaign in regard to GlobeLink. That was obviously an announcement preceding the setting up of Infrastructure SA, which I and all members on this side think is a visionary project. It is a project that will take time and a lot of money (it will be in the billions), but it will do a lot to ease bottlenecks in freight coming into Adelaide and will also provide the opportunity for freight to bypass Adelaide that does not need to go through the city.

There will also be the opportunity for a freight-only airport at Monarto. I think that Monarto, in the heart of Hammond, is the right spot for that. Freight options around the state include having to travel all the way to Mount Gambier for horticulture and other crops and produce or to places like Port Augusta, where there are other major projects in the field of horticulture. It would be about a 4½ hour journey from each end to a 24-hour airport at Monarto. The airport would have to be put in the right place, and that can be done to make sure it does not upset the zoo, which is world class. There is lots of work happening there into the future, with private investment as well as some government investment.

As far as GlobeLink is concerned, to bring two dual-lane highways around the back of the Hills and come in somewhere around Two Wells way—and there are infrastructure corridors that could be utilised, including the old Apamurra railway corridor, but that is all up to projects that are ongoing at the moment with our policy of $20 million to investigate the progression of the GlobeLink policy, which will bring a whole host of freight around Adelaide. Yes, it might be a bit further, but a lot of the freight yards are to the north and north-west of Adelaide itself and it saves those loads coming down the freeway to the Glen Osmond Road corner, where, sadly, we have seen some terrible accidents and some deaths. The more freight we can keep off there the better.

With regard to rail, a lot of freight from the east is destined for Perth, and that could go right around Adelaide and keep going on its merry way to Perth and save coming down a railway line that was built many, many years ago and is not really up to speed, especially in light of issues around double stacking. We have been through the farce of having different gauges across this country, which upset things like even troop movements during World War II, just to get troops ferried north for embarkation to the war. The rail bypass will be a real boon.

It was interesting to note that the South Australian Freight Council came out with a whole lot of negative noise about these outcomes and this policy. Guess what? Adelaide Airport is a major member of the South Australian Freight Council, so that is why they did not want to hear about someone else who might have 24-hour freight options, which obviously Adelaide Airport cannot deliver because of where it is located. It is a good central airport with good access, but it has curfews.

So, when people are analysing those making issues of infrastructure, just check out the vested interests—that is what you need to check out. I am happy to talk to the South Australian Freight Council any day of the week, but they certainly have a vested interest in not progressing this policy.

With regard to infrastructure and issues around water delivery, there is never enough water to go around. In my electorate, in some of what was going to be the satellite city of Monarto all those years ago under premier Dunstan, former member for Norwood, there are some pipeline systems that could be well and truly looked at. They were brought to my attention again in the lead-up to the election—a lot of private infrastructure systems with multiple people hooked into one meter, and you get arguments about how they split the account and this kind of thing, and the delivery of water. Some of that could be addressed into the future.

An Eyre Peninsula port—a grain and minerals port on Eyre Peninsula—is absolutely vital for this state. A lot of work is being done on various sites on Eyre Peninsula, but we need to open it up so that not only can we export the valuable grain grown on the West Coast but also any mineral operations that do get going. Yes, they do take time, but that would be the most viable way to do it on Eyre Peninsula, with a port that handles both grain and minerals.

Just a few other things with regard to ports: Thevenard, as the member for Flinders knows only too well, needs a lot of work on it to get sizeable ships in there. He will be able to correct me on this when he makes his contribution, but it is probably one of the busiest ports in the state, with the amount of different loads of product that go out of there over one belt. It is a multi-use belt with grain and minerals. Obviously, Thevenard would need dredging to get larger ships in, and that certainly needs to be looked at.

Just before the election, I went to the Mount Barker council chambers to discuss the fast train project from Adelaide to Mount Barker. People can say that it is too visionary and too pie in the sky. It would cost a lot of money for a project to get a train from Adelaide to Mount Barker in 22 minutes. That is not bad, as it would take a bit longer than that now. I do not know how much time it takes to Mount Barker, but I know the time it takes a train from Adelaide to Murray Bridge is two hours and 17 minutes.

It used to take the Bluebird three hours to get to Coomandook when that ran every weekday from Adelaide. It left Adelaide at 8 o'clock in the morning and got there at 11 o'clock on its way through to Melbourne. The Mount Barker fast train concept would certainly open up a whole heap of travel options for people heading towards Murray Bridge or Tailem Bend, where The Bend Motorsport Park is gearing up for the first V8 race in August, and plenty of action on the weekends. It would also link in to connecting lines through to the south coast, down to the member for Finniss's end of the world.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: It is not 'the' end of the world. It is a very nice place down there. I looked after Goolwa and Currency Creek for eight years and it is very beautiful country, but it is in good hands now.

All these things need proper analysis. You do not want things rushed on a political whim. As I see the clock count down, sealing the Strzelecki Track would do so much to connect our oil and gas industry to Adelaide, just like the Cooper Basin is connected to Queensland through that bitumen road. It is only 24 kilometres from Innamincka, and you can go all the way to Brisbane on bitumen. That is what we need to do to get the economy moving in this state. This bill will institute the Infrastructure SA board, which is the right thing for the state.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:12): I am pleased to rise to contribute to the Infrastructure SA Bill 2018 because it does, after all, initiate a key economic reform that the Marshall Liberal government took to the election. As you can tell from the contributions that have been made on this side, it is a particularly important bill and an area in which we see much improvement can be made, particularly the way in which sound investment in infrastructure can boost the productive potential of the economy and the growth of exports. Whether it is growing our economy, building our schools, hospitals or roads, protecting our environment or enhancing our cultural and sporting facilities, we must plan and provide for the long term.

We have seen only too well what can happen when plans are short-sighted, ill-conceived, badly implemented and driven by short-term political motives, rather than by what is best for all of us now and into the future. Those of us who represent regional communities have seen, almost with disbelief, the amount of funding that has gone into infrastructure in the metropolitan area and in marginal seats—blatant pork-barrelling, particularly in the lead-up to the last election.

We have seen such projects as the O-Bahn extension, which was done in an attempt to secure seats in the north-east for the Labor Party. The list goes on. The infrastructure spend has been quite extraordinary over the last 16 years. I do not want to name them all. Some have been relatively good and worthwhile projects, but the one that really stands out to me as an extraordinary white elephant is the desal plant at Port Stanvac. The Liberal opposition at the time flagged its intention to build a 50-gigalitres desal plant and take away the reliance of metropolitan Adelaide on climate-dependent water supplies. That was our intention and our plan.

Of course, while that discussion was going on we were in the grips of what is now known as the Millennium Drought. As a primary producer at the time, I saw firsthand the impact of those dry years over an extended period of time. The headwaters of the Darling and the Murray are in the Eastern States and they were even more severely impacted by those years of drought than we were here in South Australia. The rain-fed systems that supply our rivers and reservoirs were impacted so, in essence, we were running short of water here in Adelaide. So it was not a bad idea to build a desal plant, and I will talk about the opportunities for a desal plant on Eyre Peninsula in a little while.

However, the Labor Party decided in its wisdom, or lack of it I should say, to enlarge the build of the desal plant to a 100-gigalitres capacity—twice as big, twice as good you would expect, but of course it was way beyond the capacity required and meant that the cost of the build was about four times the original cost, which was quite an extraordinary amount of money. I think by the time the North-South Interconnector was included, the project ran into excess of $2 billion. Even though some federal funds went into it, ultimately, it was funded by the taxpayer in South Australia and eventually we began to see the cost of that build come through in higher water prices.

There is no way you can ever justify that sort of expense in this sort of situation. That is one of reasons that I highlighted this particular project, because I think it was misconceived and taxpayers' money was not well spent, particularly when you consider that for most of the time that the desal plant has been operating it has been running at about 10 per cent capacity. It was just an extraordinary waste of money. Had something like Infrastructure SA been in place, it would have been reviewed properly and appropriately. It would have been assessed and money would have been made available on a project which stacked up.

The Infrastructure SA Bill will establish an independent body called Infrastructure SA, which will develop a long-term state infrastructure strategy and ongoing infrastructure plans that prioritise major projects. As a party, we short-listed major projects in the lead-up to the election. I was very pleased to see that, on that short list of about 10, there was a deep sea multicommodity port on Eyre Peninsula. It was not too specific about the site and there was much speculation as to where it might be built, and there are still a number of options as to where a suitable site might be for a multi-user commodity port on Eyre Peninsula.

I think the frontrunner at this stage is probably Cape Hardy, but there have been other propositions along the way. The member for Giles, no doubt, is going to have his two-bobs' worth for the Port of Whyalla. My issue with that, member for Giles, is the distance to deep water. We can talk about that at a later stage.

Certainly there has been a history of port proposals in the last decade when Centrex first came on the scene. They were going to mine iron ore at Lock and ship it out over the wharf at Port Lincoln. Centrex came and went. They were reincarnated in a way and became known as Eyre Iron. They also had a magnetite project north of Port Lincoln and were looking at a new port development at Port Spencer, Lipson Cove, just north of Tumby Bay. That was a frontrunner for a time, but Eyre Iron ultimately could not make its project stack up, so Port Spencer really dropped off the radar.

Cape Hardy certainly is top of mind at the moment. The Eyre Iron project potentially is a huge magnetite project in central Eyre Peninsula. There is not a skerrick of infrastructure in place at this point in time. There is a significant capital-raising exercise underway. I am not sure whether that will be successful or not, but certainly it is a major deposit. Should the mine and processing go ahead, obviously there will need to be a way to get product to market—a pathway to market. That is what exporting commodities is all about: getting a pathway to market.

Iron Road have also been in discussions, I know, with various farming groups about the possibility of a multi-user wharf facility to put grain, potentially, out over a new wharf facility at Cape Hardy. Cape Hardy is just south of Port Neill on the Spencer Gulf side of Eyre Peninsula. It is certainly a good site. There is within I think 600 metres of the coast water deep enough to allow a Cape-class vessel to berth and load fully, and I think that is the key. It is relatively protected from the strong south-westerly winds. That project continues to be worked on.

The other one that is certainly on the go at the moment is the development of a barging facility out of Lucky Bay. It was in the electorate of Flinders up until the last election; it is now in the electorate of Giles. I will be speaking with the member for Giles as we watch this progress. The developers at Lucky Bay are anticipating that they will be able to put grain out following this upcoming harvest. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. It is certainly an optimistic ambition, and a lot of work needs to happen between now and then. The idea is to use a barge to transfer grain from Lucky Bay just north of Cowell out into the gulf and load it onto a grain vessel. Often, they are Panamax-size vessels, so up to around 70,000 tonnes.

Just as an aside, seasonal conditions are not all that great on Eyre Peninsula at the moment, so the expectation of even an average harvest is probably diminishing, particularly in what you would identify as the catchment for Lucky Bay. There is a front coming through later this week, so we certainly hope that it is more than just showers this time around because, of course, these projects will rely on committed tonnage to work.

There are also ideas being floated for the West Coast of Eyre Peninsula. The member for Hammond mentioned the port of Thevenard, which was closed for a time late last year due to the unsafe condition of the wharf. Sadly, we have been watching it deteriorate over some years now. It is the second busiest port in the state. It is the farthest west, but it is the second busiest. It ships out vast quantities of gypsum generally for a coastal trade that goes into the building industry on the east coast and New Zealand. It also ships out salt and mineral sands from the mine at Iluka, which head west and are processed in Western Australia. This again involves coastal shipping.

Thevenard also exports a quantity of grain over the belt. All these products go over the same belt. That adds to the cost of trans-shipment because, obviously, particularly after mineral sands and prior to grain going out, the belt needs to be fully washed so there is no risk of contamination. I was sad to see the Thevenard wharf close, even for that short period of time. Without casting any blame, I think it was obvious to even the casual observer that the infrastructure around the wharf was deteriorating. It is privately owned.

Flinders Ports have ownership and authority over it, so that will need to feature in their maintenance projects. I understand there is a plan due to be completed in June this year, so it would be finalised by now, for the ongoing maintenance of the Thevenard wharf. We talked from time to time about dredging the channel into Thevenard. That would certainly allow larger grain ships in, but it would be at significant cost. It would be one of the things, certainly, that could be put to Infrastructure SA.

There are other serious questions around freight transportation on Eyre Peninsula. We are talking about grain essentially as a commodity. The railway line has now been terminated at Wudinna and Kimba. The rail scheme has contracted significantly from what it was some 15 years ago. One has to wonder about the long-term future of that. My great-great-grandfather arrived on Eyre Peninsula to work in the railways, so I have a long affinity with the railways, and I am a great fan of trains.

Being a fan is not enough in itself to ensure its survival, but I do think, deep down, that the competitive tension that can exist between railway and road is a good thing for farmers delivering grain to port, particularly in the southern half of the peninsula. It would take a bit more to convince the farmers out west of that advantage, but there you go.

Later this week, I will be receiving a briefing from SA Water on the state of the Uley Basin. I have talked about the Eyre Peninsula water supply here before but not for some time, and I think it is opportune for me to talk about it again now, particularly in relation to the dry season conditions we are seeing. Eighty per cent of Eyre Peninsula's reticulated water supply is extracted from the Uley Basin and the other 20 per cent is courtesy of a pipeline that was extended in, I think, about 2007 or 2008 from Iron Knob to Kimba. It actually hooks the Eyre Peninsula community into a supply of water from the Murray. There was much discussion about that. Ultimately, I think it has been a good thing; it ensures our water supply and is secure water, given it is water allocated to SA Water and is available for Eyre Peninsula.

However, the history of SA Water in managing shallow lenses as a water resource is not great. Over past years, we have seen the complete collapse of the Robinson Basin at Streaky Bay and the collapse of the Polder Basin inland from Elliston. There are a number of lenses or basins that exist south and west of Port Lincoln, from all of which extraction has taken place. If one is to believe local anecdotal evidence, then it is only a matter of time before we see further collapse of those basins.

It is not that water disappears; it is extracted to a point past where adequate recharge can occur. These are rain-fed systems, so in dry years extraction exceeds recharge and the resource is under pressure. In 2002, the then Labor government promised the former member for Flinders that it would build a desal plant to supply Eyre Peninsula with water. That has not occurred to date. We are now 16 years on, and I think it is something we need to put back on the table.

I do not know what form that might take, but there has certainly been a lot of preliminary work done already on an appropriate site and how it might fit into the broader context of water supply. Of course, with desalinated water comes additional cost, but I put to the parliament that expensive water is better than no water at all. It will be interesting to see how that conversation unfolds, because I think it is time to reignite it.

If the Iron Road mining project goes ahead, they will certainly have a requirement for water. I suspect that in their plans they are intending to desalinate their own water; possibly sea water, but most likely it will be from an underground reserve adjacent to the mine site or between there and the coast. I believe they have come across a body of water which is saline—so it would need desalination—but which is more than adequate for the requirements of running a mining operation. So who knows? We may be able to negotiate with a mining company about the provision of extra water into Eyre Peninsula. That is an ongoing conversation.

Ultimately, none of us knows whether the Iron Road project is going to go ahead or not; there are a lot of balls in the air. These are all discussions to be had, all topics for the Infrastructure SA board. The board will undertake four key activities. Infrastructure SA will develop a 20-year state infrastructure strategy for adoption by government using consistent and robust analysis from public sector agencies and infrastructure providers. This plan will be renewed every five years and will set a long-term vision for South Australia's infrastructure.

Of course, contingent upon a lot of these projects will be some federal funding, and if we have a strong and robust application model and strong and robust assessment, that gives us a good submission to go to the federal government with. Many of these big infrastructure projects will rely on federal funding as well. The bill reflects the fact that infrastructure provision is not the sole province of the state government. Significant railways, roads, ports, hospitals, schools and utilities are owned and operated by other tiers of government or the private sector, and I have talked about some of those in relation to the electorate of Flinders today.

A 20-year state infrastructure strategy will need to reflect a whole-of-state perspective rather than just that of the state government as an infrastructure provider. I talked earlier about the significant number of big projects we have seen in the metropolitan area, particularly over the last 10 years. We have seen Adelaide become a government town. Many of those companies that have delivered projects have been private companies, obviously, but they need to win government projects.

Ultimately, they have relied upon the state government—in this state at least—for their very survival, their work and their jobs going forward. It is not a great situation. The state government in the past has had too much control and too much authority over where the infrastructure spend has been made, and a much more robust and transparent arrangement needs to be made. With that, I commend the bill to the house because Infrastructure SA will deliver all of that.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (12:31): I join my colleagues in rising today to support the Infrastructure SA Bill 2018. The introduction of this bill fulfils another of this government's key election commitments and is part of a strong reform agenda this government is taking forward. I believe that this particular policy will be greatly beneficial to South Australia. It will deliver positive outcomes for our economy, both in the short and in the longer term, and will also show the people of South Australia that our government is planning for the future.

We know that our cities are growing and that our infrastructure must grow to support them. In the coming decades, South Australia, and Adelaide in particular, will each experience fundamental shifts in their structure and day-to-day operation. Establishing an independent body such as Infrastructure SA that will develop a long-term state infrastructure strategy and ongoing infrastructure plans shows that our government is making the decision today to be ready for the future of tomorrow.

To meet the demands of growth, the capacity and efficiency of our infrastructure networks will need to be increased, but in a way that is effective and also well planned. This means that our road and public transport networks will need to be upgraded in line with that demand. Our utility infrastructure—namely, water, telecommunications and energy—will need to be understood and accounted for. The capacity of key social infrastructure facilities, such as hospitals, schools and green space, will also need to be increased, and with the guidance and forward planning of Infrastructure SA we will be in a position to deliver on these requirements in a timely and, importantly, sustainable manner.

We have seen what happens when projects are rushed, poorly planned and have not taken into consideration the longer term. There have certainly been many examples of such projects over the last 16 years. We as a state have suffered because of this, and that is why Infrastructure SA, as a new independent body, will assure the people of South Australia that any future projects undertaken by a Marshall Liberal government are justified, are well planned and serve a purpose in the longer-term growth of South Australia.

In the spirit of forward planning, our government has already outlined a series of projects that Infrastructure SA will analyse as a priority. These projects may include the completion of the north-south road corridor through metropolitan Adelaide. The north-south corridor is Adelaide's most important road corridor for commuter and freight traffic, and it is vital that this project is completed to alleviate pressure on our arterial road network and to support much more efficient movement of local, interstate and international freight.

Other projects will include a grain and minerals port on Eyre Peninsula to ensure the optimum location for this facility. As members have said, Eyre Peninsula is one of South Australia's most productive regions and generates over $4 billion in revenue annually. Sourcing an optimum location for a grain and minerals port will give the region better accessibility and encourage growth in the community. There is also the GlobeLink upgrade, an envisaged generational upgrade of a freight export infrastructure, which is required to provide our companies with the competitive advantage they need to get premium quality South Australian products to markets across the globe.

Other examples of projects include the O-Bahn extension between Tea Tree Plaza Interchange and Golden Grove, and grade separations at major metropolitan area intersections that will enable the removal of level crossings, prioritising projects based on their capacity to reduce traffic congestion and boost productivity. There is also infrastructure development on Lefevre Peninsula, including light rail, commercial, retail, residential and recreational development to accommodate the needs of the naval shipbuilding program at Osborne, as well as the potential for an underground rail link in the CBD between the northern and southern train lines.

In addition to these, a Marshall Liberal government will ask Infrastructure SA to analyse major non-transport infrastructure projects, including the rollout of additional affordable housing opportunities, increased capacity of South Australia's prisons and new court infrastructure, including the use of modern technology and satellite courts. Infrastructure SA will not only investigate the viability of these projects but also undertake the following key activities:

Develop a 20-year state infrastructure strategy for adoption by government using consistent and robust analysis from public sector agencies and from infrastructure providers. This plan will be renewed every five years and will set the long-term vision for South Australia's infrastructure.

Develop annual capital intention statements for adoption by government that will prioritise potential major projects for government decision-making over a five-year time horizon. This will be based on input from public sector agencies consistent with the state infrastructure strategy and sound business cases and will feed directly into the government's annual budget processes.

Maintain oversight of delivery and performance for all projects with a capital value of $10 million and over, with a greater level of risk and performance reporting applied to major infrastructure projects valued at $50 million and over, including an ex-post evaluation.

Provide policy advice relating to infrastructure planning, delivery and use. This will include advice on appropriate funding and financing models.

If we look at the bill and the clauses outlining what is to be introduced, the establishment, objects and functions are outlined in part 2 of the bill. The powers to be given to Infrastructure SA and, importantly, the statement of expectations from the body are also outlined in clauses 6 and 7.

I want to bring particular attention to clause 8, which is around independence and ensuring that this body is independent of government. That is one of the key elements in maintaining and ensuring public confidence in this body and in the forward planning of infrastructure in South Australia into the future. Further, division 2 and clause 10 and onwards outline the construction of the board and other relevant matters and requirements for the board to meet.

As the Premier has mentioned, the success of Infrastructure SA will be its ability to maintain its independence and ensure that we take the politics out of infrastructure planning and development. The bill proposes to appoint an independent Infrastructure SA board to oversee the development and implementation of the state's infrastructure road map and strategy. The Infrastructure SA board will combine the expertise of the public and private sectors in developing our major infrastructure plans for the future. The board will be free to speak out when it disagrees with the infrastructure decisions made by the government.

The board will be led by a suitably eminent and experienced independent chair and three independent non-executive directors, all with industry experience and relevant qualifications. These members will be selected on the basis of experience, insight and good standing. The board will also include chief executives of core agencies—Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Department of Treasury and Finance and the current Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure—as ex officio members.

In conclusion, we must have better infrastructure planning and more transparent decision-making to support long-term economic growth, more jobs, and better and more affordable services. We must make decisions based on what our state needs, not on short-term political imperatives to ensure South Australia maintains and upgrades important public infrastructure that supports our communities, growing jobs and the economy more generally.

As well as the practical applications of this bill, what I believe to be the most important is the increased degree of public confidence in infrastructure decision-making that will result from the introduction of Infrastructure SA, as infrastructure, as has been noted by many members so far, has such a large impact on the social and practical amenity and quality of life of many of our residents.

I also want to note the contributions of our country members regarding infrastructure in the regions. I think sometimes potentially glossed over to an extent is the economic impact that such infrastructure has to the whole of our state's economic prosperity into the future, and the impacts and outcomes from that infrastructure are not just felt in the regions themselves but more broadly by those in the metropolitan area and right across our state. I could speak at much greater length on the importance of delivering sustainable and well-planned infrastructure, but for now I commend the Premier, I commend the Liberal Party and I commend this bill to the house.