Parliamentary Committees

Public Works Committee: City South Tram Line Replacement Project

Mr CREGAN (Kavel) (11:44): I move:

That the 13^th report of the committee, entitled City South Tram Line Replacement Project, be noted.

The proposed works on the City South tramline aim to improve safety for tram passengers and road users, and reduce tram delays, as well as improve the accessibility of the City South tram stop through achieving compliance with the commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

The existing tram track along King William Street, between South Terrace and Victoria Square, is the only remaining tram corridor in Adelaide's central business district shared with motor vehicles and, consequently, experiences tram delays. The proposed works involve replacing a total of 1.2 kilometres of track. The tram tracks will be realigned to maximise space on King William Street for road users while also providing a dedicated tram corridor.

Creating a dedicated tram corridor in this area is expected to significantly improve the safety for community members using the City South tram stop. This is because the section of track near the tram stop has been identified as a high-risk location for vehicle-tram collisions and near misses. Mr Speaker, as you would know, the upgrade to the City South tram stop will include shelters and platform furniture to improve passenger safety, comfort and accessibility for users of that tram stop.

The estimated total cost of this project is $17.5 million and the indicative time frame for completion is the third quarter of this year. The Public Works Committee has examined written and oral evidence in relation to this project and the committee has been assured by officials from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure that acquittals have been received from the departments of Treasury and Finance, and the Premier and Cabinet, and the Crown Solicitor's Office that the works and procedures are lawful.

The committee is satisfied that the proposal has been subject to the appropriate agency consultation and meets the criteria for examination of projects as described in the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991. Based on the evidence considered and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:46): I commend our very diligent Chair for the work he did in preparing those remarks and the work he does in chairing the committee. I was at this committee meeting. I have to say that the Public Works Committee operates as a very collegial committee. It is not as partisan as one may think some committees are; we work relatively well together.

This is a project where I think the committee came together on some issues that we were quite concerned about. I think it is fair to paraphrase the view of the committee that we were pleased this was going ahead, we were pleased there would be upgrades, but we were concerned about the impact on businesses on King William Street.

My memory of that meeting, and I stand to be corrected, is that we were assured by DPTI and the government that local traders and the council had been consulted and that everyone was relatively happy about this proposal. On behalf of the opposition, I made some statements on the day it was announced supportive of this upgrade. It is important that we give disability access to our tram stops. It is important that we make sure that our infrastructure that carries public transport and public patrons is fit for purpose.

We were told by the agency that there would be some loss of car parking but that local businesses were being consulted and were quite happy about it. Some were not as happy as they might have been but, by and large, everyone was getting on with it. We were told there would be some right-hand turns and driving on tram tracks that would be taken away but, overwhelmingly, we were told that was supported by all those consulted. That is not the case.

Indeed, the Adelaide city council in media reports had motions from councillors quite concerned about this upgrade. The opposition is not voting against this. We do not want to halt this project; we want this project to go ahead. But if the Liberal Party cannot take into account the concerns of small business, then perhaps their claim as being the party of small business is not warranted.

I refer to a media report by Simeon Thomas-Wilson, City Editor at The Advertiser, talking about the axing of right-hand turns for motorists and 50 car park spaces being taken away by the tram being opposed by the Adelaide city council. Worryingly, I understand that one of the people supporting the motion is councillor Knoll, who is the father of the transport minister. That has no merit in itself as an issue. I just point out that I do not understand how the committee can be told one thing by the agencies and then we read the opposite in media reports.

Does that say that this parliament should slow down this work? No, it should not, but it goes to another point: the Public Works Committee is not a rubber stamp. I can say that I have the confidence in my colleagues on that committee, that they are diligent in the work they do. I say that about not only the honourable member for Light but other members of the committee as well, including our Chair, the member for the City of Holdfast Bay or whatever it is called. Is it called Holdfast now?

Mr Patterson: Morphett.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Morphett. Just be happy you are not on our radar. It is good stuff.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is not on our radar so do not worry about it—and the members for Davenport and Kavel, who I think are very diligent members who work very hard. But it concerns me when we get these glowing references in the Public Works Committee that when you pick up the paper a few days later it is the opposite. My political instincts are that if you are taking away 50 car park spaces and stopping right-hand turns, you are going to upset someone. There are a number of businesses on that road that rely on those types of parks and they are going to be impacted.

The question for us as a parliament and as a committee is: how much tolerance do we have for this type of mixed messaging from agencies? I think the answer should be: zero tolerance for that type of mixed messaging from agencies. If agencies cannot be forthright with the parliament, then they should be made to be so. There is no grey area here.

All of us parliamentarians, as we speak, are approving the Supply Bill in another debate, which allows agencies to expend money in the public's name from taxes we raise from them. When the committee is told that this piece of infrastructure is ticked by every consumer group and it is not, especially with a stakeholder like the Adelaide city council, that gives me cause for concern. The cause for concern is not so much that the agency may not have done its job, but where was the minister?

I had the privilege of serving for 13 months as transport and infrastructure minister in a previous parliament—not in the last parliament, the parliament before—and I know how difficult it can be to manage a very large agency with lots of projects going on, spending billions of dollars, but I will not countenance committees being given information that is not accurate. I have to say that if the Adelaide city council is not happy that is not a problem in itself.

There is nothing wrong with upsetting a council. Sometimes you need to upset councils to get things done, but do not tell us that everyone is on board when they are not. There is nothing wrong with telling us that the council has grave concerns about what the government is doing. That is appropriate in a democracy. It is okay to have divergent views. It is alright to tell the committee that the council may not be okay with this.

The agency also told the committee that building this in winter is also okay—no problems, weather will not be an issue. It gets down to the point again that, if they are not going to be forthright about the council's views, why are they forthright about everything else? What I think enrages committee members in the parliament is when we are told these things but then we pick up the paper and think, 'Okay, what we were told wasn't accurate.' I would say to the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure: 'Lift your game. Don't tell the Public Works Committee,' and I am paraphrasing here and stand to be corrected, 'that everyone is okay and we are losing 50 car parks and the right-hand turn'.

The member for Davenport raised concerns about the right-hand turn, and rightly so, because he is a man of common sense. If you are driving out of King William Street and you are used to turning right and someone takes it away, you are going to notice. But somehow the department has been able to consult all those people who turn right and has deduced from those consultations that we are all okay about it; we find out, of course, that we are not.

So I will be a lot more doubtful now of the evidence that DPTI give us at Public Works. I will give them the benefit of this doubt: perhaps some councillors, being new to the council, had not been consulted on this matter. Perhaps, hopefully, views had changed from when consultations occurred and that can explain the divergence between what we were told on the committee and what we read in the papers and the public comments made and the motions moved in the council show.

If that divergence is because of timing, that is perfectly okay. If it is not about timing and it is just to try to rush along a tip by the Public Works Committee, then I know that the committee will not be pleased and that the committee will in future be a lot more demanding of agencies, ask a lot of questions and perhaps even delay some projects until answers are given to the reasonable questions that we ask.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (11:56): I rise also to speak on this report of the Public Works Committee on the City South Tram Line Replacement Project. The contributions by the Chair of that committee, the member for Kavel, outlined what was being done in the upgrade. The member for West Torrens is also on that committee, and it is true that we work in a collegial manner and investigate these matters fully. In this case, we did have questions that were asked.

In terms of what was looked at being done, the existing tram tracks along King William Street at the intersection of Gouger and Angas streets, between South Terrace and Victoria Square, are to be upgraded. The committee heard evidence from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure that these tracks were constructed in the early 1980s and that they were towards the end of their useful life. The members of the committee examined that and were prepared to accept that evidence as given.

Included in this section is the existing City South tram stop on King William Street on the corner of Halifax Street or Sturt Street, depending on whether the trams are travelling in a northbound or southbound direction. This was also constructed in the early 1980s and unfortunately now does not comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 requirements. The current platforms do not have signage, ramps, tactile ground surface indicators or enough space for wheelchair access. Certainly, that was an appealing aspect of this upgrade.

I think all in the Public Works Committee accepted that upgrading this tram stop will allow it to meet the DDA requirements and improve the comfort, capacity, accessibility and safety for passengers using that stop. Mindful of the time, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.