Bills

Statutes Amendment (Barossa Rail Corridor) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 February 2021.)

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (10:33): I rise to make a contribution on this bill, as it quite clearly represents a longstanding issue in my electorate, and I figure that now is a good time to put on the record the chronology of events that have led us to today and the mischievous interventions of the member for Light.

The Barossa has had a rail corridor for a long period of time in South Australia, a rail corridor that wends its way out from Gawler through the southern Barossa, through to the outskirts of Tanunda and Nuriootpa, with a line that went up to Angaston—that no longer goes to Angaston—replaced by a shared use path some 15 years ago and a spur line that headed off to Penrice, where the quarry at Penrice was used to ship product along that train line down to Port Adelaide.

There were rail passenger services provided to South Australians and to Barossans that stopped in 1968, so we have not had a passenger train service in the Barossa for some 50 years. There are still many who remember that passenger service and some who remember the intermittent rail passenger services that were from time to time used to ferry kids down to the beach during summer holidays and the like, but certainly the passenger service as a regular feature to get people to and from Adelaide stopped in 1968.

For a brief period around the year 2000, a private tourist train did operate. Unfortunately, with 9/11 and the ensuing changes, or the reduction in international travel as well as increasing insurance costs, what was a service that was just getting to a break-even point was no longer viable and that train service stopped. Somewhere between 2002 and 2005, Mr John Geber from Château Tanunda bought the Bluebird, which used to be the vehicle that was used in that tourism service and, over the course of the next 15-plus years, has sought to put a private-for-profit tourism service back on that line.

Over the course of this time, there was a Penrice train that ran every day. It would pass through the Barossa at 6.30 in the morning. I know this because it would go straight past my house when I lived in Tanunda and we used to hear it at 6.30 or just after 6.30 each and every morning. That train service stopped in about 2014 when Penrice Soda essentially went into liquidation, into administration, and it was no longer needed. Then we come forward to 2020.

In 2020, we have a situation where we have an intersection that exists on Barossa Valley Way, the road that runs between Tanunda and Nuriootpa, at the intersection of Menge Road and Burings Road, a busy and very dangerous part of the Barossa. Being built at that time was a new chocolate factory, which is increasing traffic down Burings Road, and there is also a desire from local wineries to see improved freight access and heavy vehicle access in and around that intersection.

So the company Pernod Ricard put their own money on the table and the Barossa Council put their own money on the table and partnered with the state and federal governments to fix that intersection by putting in a roundabout, something that was going to improve heavy vehicle productivity and also, very importantly, improve road safety in the Barossa.

I was the minister at the time, and we had a difficult decision to make because that intersection had the Barossa train line run through it. We were essentially left with three choices: we do not undertake the upgrade and see the ongoing detriment to road safety as well as to heavy vehicle access; we put in a new roundabout but reinstate a train line that has not been used for passenger services for 50 years, has not been used for a tourist service in 20 years and has not been used at all for six years; or we build a roundabout, ensuring that there is future provision for that track to be reinstated if and when a viable proposal comes along wanting to use that line.

The cost to reinstate the line was roughly costed at somewhere around a million dollars. Again, as a minister under budget pressure and wanting to make sure that we get the absolute utmost for every dollar we have to spend, putting a million dollars there meant a million dollars less being spent on other road safety improvements or other regional road improvements right around South Australia. Hearing the calls, especially from regional South Australia, screaming for upgrades to roads that had been neglected for two decades, made it very difficult to contemplate putting a million dollars into a roundabout upgrade where that million dollars was very likely never to be used.

So what did we do at that point? We decided to put out an expression of interest process. The reason we did that is that Mr Geber and other proponents had suggested that a tourism train could be viable. That is something that has been talked about in the Barossa for some 15 to 20 years, and it has become something of a running local joke about whether or not we will actually ever get a tourism train back in the Barossa.

The difficulty is that we have this decision to make and it has to be made now, so the government is undertaking an expression of interest process to be able to flush out proposals and once and for all make a determination about whether or not there is going to be a viable proposition. That EOI process elicited four proposals, one of which was from Mr Geber, one from the Barossa Council and two other less well-formed proposals.

Every single one of those proposals called for significant state government money. I know that there are some out there in the public sphere, including Mr Geber, who suggested that is not the case. I am not going to use parliamentary privilege to name the figure that was used in that expression of interest, because I think that is an inappropriate use of parliamentary privilege, but I can reassert in this house that there was a very substantial sum of money that was asked for as part of that proposal to get a Barossa wine train underway, and anybody who suggests different needs to take a good hard look at the facts of that EOI process.

Having made the decision that there was no viable proposition and not wanting to waste $1 million on a private enterprise, which by the way, had we undertaken, would have drawn calls of wasted spending from sections of the community, we decided to go ahead with the roundabout as planned. That is where we see a process that has been begun by the member for Light, interestingly well after any of this has been undertaken. Maybe it could have been a result of a boundary change. We will let the member for Light answer that question himself. But I would like to take this opportunity to read a small passage. It states as follows:

Let me put the record straight from the outset: the government positively supports the notion of a tourist passenger train operation to the Barossa Valley. However, it is the government's view that it is not prepared to compromise on considerations of sustainability and viability.

In keeping with the approach to other project proponents, the ball is in the court of Mr Geber to submit a feasibility study that would incorporate a proven and compelling commercial business case for a Barossa Wine Train service to the Barossa region and, importantly, a business plan that will demonstrate research into: expected product demand, anticipated costs, covering both return to service and also recurrent outgoings (return to service is very important, because the line is not of a standard that will enable passenger train services to recommence immediately); pricing structure and policy; expected return to investors; and governance model.

The onus has always been on the Barossa Wine Train's owner and the project proponent, Mr John Geber, and not the government, to prepare such feasibility studies and business plans to underpin and make a strong case for the Barossa Wine Train product. Pivotal to the project proceeding is the need to recognise and acknowledge that there are a series of mandatory return to service requirements that must be met before the Barossa Wine Train turns a wheel in revenue service. It is that to which I refer to in making sure that the line is upgraded to meet the passenger transport needs of today.

Further—

maybe this is a hint—

minister Conlon's office has advised that, while the necessary track access framework is in place for a private operator to provide a service to the Barossa Valley, this is subject to meeting necessary rail safety accreditation requirements.

The passage I just read is the exact words of the member for Light in this place on Thursday 29 March 2012. All of those comments that Mr Geber just made are comments I agree with, that this is a private proposal. It is a proposal that I as an MP would love to support, but I do not think it should be subsidised by government money even in the creating of a feasibility study. This is a private proponent with a private operation that should be funded privately.

I would question why it is now that the member for Light has changed his mind in regard to this proposal. One can only consider that it is politics and political expediency as to why we now have this bill before this house with the changed attitude of the member for Light, as distinct from the exact words he put on the table back in 2012.

Over my time as minister, improving road safety was perhaps my number one objective in this house. In fact, the thing that I am most proud of is the record amount of spending that this government has put into fixing up our regional road network in South Australia. Too many people—in fact, two-thirds to three-quarters of people—who die on our roads die in regional areas. I am very proud to have been part of a government, as a minister and a local MP, that has prioritised road safety above all other objectives to help keep South Australians alive on our roads.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (10:44): I thank the member for Schubert for his contribution and his advocacy in relation to the importance of road safety in South Australia. I certainly confirm that is a priority of the government.

The idea of reviving the Barossa train service as a tourism operation is clearly not a new one. Of course, the Barossa rail line has not been used as a commuter passenger service since the 1960s, which was probably before the member for Schubert was born. However, the Barossa Wine Train did run for approximately five years, ceasing operations in 2003. Since this time, there have been a number of attempts to revive the rail line as a tourist offering but nothing has eventuated. The member has outlined to the house some history in that regard.

This bill seeks to insert a new section 20A into the Highways Act. New section 20A would prevent the Commissioner of Highways, subject to ministerial approval, from acquiring land forming part of the Barossa rail corridor or any interest in such land, whether by compulsory acquisition or agreement, unless it is approved by resolution of both houses of parliament.

The government is of the position that the bill is simply not necessary, given that road and infrastructure projects that require the removal of a section of the existing railway track within the Barossa rail corridor can be designed to allow for the reinstatement of the removed section of track should it be required in the future. This has been seen most recently with the Kroemer's Crossing Roundabout Project.

Secondly, the proposed amendments to the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 are not necessary, as any applications for development are assessed against policies in the Planning and Design Code which are subject to parliamentary scrutiny under section 74 of the act through referral to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. So parliament has oversight of planning policies and any proposed policies that could provide for development in the rail corridor to be disallowed by this parliament.

Furthermore, the bill may prevent or hinder the government carrying out road projects and infrastructure upgrades in the Barossa Valley that aim to deliver improvements to road safety and heavy vehicle productivity as well as creating jobs during their lifetime. An example of a project that could be affected by the bill is the planned replacement of the Altona Bridge on Barossa Valley Way. Additionally, the government has already considered the potential future use of Barossa Valley line by way of an expression of interest for the rail corridor between Gawler Central and the Penrice quarry which was issued in 2019. On the basis of the responses received, the decision was made to abandon the process.

Also, the bill sets out a precedent for fettering the Commissioner of Highways' land acquisition powers under the Highways Act 1926 as well as other powers of the commissioner under section 20(1) of the act. Such a precedent may result in others seeking to have similar legislative fetters placed on the commissioner's powers in the future in order to protect their own interest. This is a precedent which should be resisted, and I will refer to an example shortly.

In addition, the definition of 'Barossa rail corridor' in the bill includes the rail corridor between Nuriootpa and Angaston. This section of the rail corridor is now a shared use path and, if railway services were to be reintroduced in this section of the corridor, the shared use path would have to be removed and the railway reconstructed. I also note that the Barossa Council owns land located within the Nuriootpa to Angaston corridor and obviously consultation would need to be undertaken with them. I would hope that had happened before this bill was introduced.

Finally, the honourable member stated in his second reading contribution that the bill is a holding mechanism until the feasibility of a Barossa tourism train service has been assessed and a final decision on its viability is made. However, the bill does not contain a sunset clause which means the amendments to the Highways Act and the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act will be permanent unless repealed by parliament in the future.

Let me refer to an early rail line in South Australia which was on Kangaroo Island in the late 1800s. It was established to join the salt pans of the southern part of the island to American River, a port to export salt. It was established by the Commonwealth Salt Company to transport the salt from the end of the tramline, as it was described in those days, by trucks, and then a 40-foot motorboat vessel took the salt around to Kingscote and Hog Bay.

Why do I mention this? It traversed miles and miles, in those days, of the island. It was important and efficient for its purpose. Salt was no longer required in the tonnage that was exported from the island in the early part of the settlement—whaling and sealing became last century's industries—and obviously other industries flourished.

My point is this: had we had a situation of requiring that that line, which had been carved out across the island for the purposes of this venture, be kept in some perpetuity and requiring the parliament to deal with the matter, for both houses of parliament to resolve, we would have cut across an area that is now conservation park, is now productive farming land and provides other transport services, and impeded the Commissioner of Highways in relation to the very reason that position that is usually held by the head of the transport department is there. It has enabled the Rail Commissioner and Commissioner of Highways to deal with the roads and rails, to access stone for road building, etc, and has of course enabled rail to support the infrastructure of these ventures.

But things change, and we need to accommodate that and we need to employ the best use and the best opportunities for South Australians for that purpose. I urge members not to support this resolution. If there is to be a bigger discussion in relation to the reasons we have a Rail Commissioner and a Commissioner of Highways in this state, then let's have that discussion, but please do not introduce bills that simply try to throw a hand grenade into a local political issue for the advancement of those who might see this as a worthy option, and destroy and undermine the very structure of what we have for the rest of our infrastructure in the state.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (10:51): I have listened very closely to the two speakers who have preceded me today, both of whom have made very useful contributions. Let me say, as did the member for Schubert, that the suggestion of a Barossa rail trailer train that actually works on a commercial basis, put forward with private money for the benefit of those shareholders and of course those who use the rail potentially, and those who would benefit from it in other ways whether they be bakeries, tourism offerings, motels, pubs, etc., is a fantastic ambition and I fully support that ambition.

The idea, though, that I would support this bill is very farcical, to be honest. This is a bill that has been put forward, perhaps mischievously, perhaps by a member just trying to endear himself to a part of the state that he at one point in time thought he might have the opportunity to represent. There are a range of reasons why the member might bring this forward, but I do not support this bill. I support the principle of anybody who is inclined to seek the permission, seek the investment, seek the business case, on and on, to make a project like this work. That would be terrific.

This is not common only to the Barossa. There are people in my electorate of Stuart, and people outside my electorate of Stuart, who have an interest in similar types of development within the electorate of Stuart. Every time I have said to them, 'That would be terrific. Let me wholeheartedly support you in what you want to do, but you will need to find the money to do this. You will need to find the investors and the backers to help you do this. Good luck, and let me know what else I can do to try to help you,' but I am not supportive of the extraordinary amount of taxpayer funds going into the proposal, as has been proposed by some, for a project like this. The idea that we need a bill like this to change the legislation that applies is not something that I personally support.

There are closed rail corridors all over our electorate of Stuart and they are used overwhelmingly for very good purposes—some might argue not as good a purpose as reinstating a rail line and running a train on it and, as I have said before, that is for others to make a case for. Certainly there is land that is leased for grazing, there is land that is set aside for walking trails, there is land that is set aside for cycling trails, there is land that is set aside necessarily, unfortunately, because it is contaminated and needs to be cleaned up at some stage, but usually this land is being put to some useful purpose at the moment.

Could it be transferred back to rail? Hypothetically, yes, it could but, as the Deputy Premier said, there are some things that have changed. It is not likely that we are going to have freight demand in the volume that will be necessary to justify an investment like this. Very close, about 25 kilometres or so from where I live in Wilmington, is a very small town called Hammond, a very lovely town on the Willochra Plain. I think there are now four homes in this town and it used to be a thriving centre. The people who live there now love it, and they are terrific people. It is a lovely quiet place to live not too far from Wilmington and a few other towns like Quorn and Booleroo.

I raise this because at one point in time Hammond had the record for the highest grain loading from any railway siding anywhere in the state in South Australia, a terrific record to have, but of course that was back when grain was loaded by hand into sacks which were stitched by hand and carried—'lumped' as was the term back then—and that was technology as they knew it at the time. That was the best way to take grain delivered in bulk: pour it into hessian bags, hand stitch them and then carry them on a person's back onto the train. It was a thriving centre at that point in time and there was every reason for the rail to be there, but that is not the world we live in any longer. The idea that grain would be handled that way is long gone.

Gladstone, about 80 kilometres south of Wilmington, is now the largest inland grain handling facility, certainly in Australia and I think it might even be in the Southern Hemisphere, but that is the largest inland one that we have at the moment. It operates entirely differently, and there is rail access to that receivable site. So the world has changed. That is the freight side of things.

On the passenger side of things, whether that be passenger transport or passenger use with regard to tourism and bringing people into a region, it is very attractive to think that Adelaide people could get on a train and come up to the Barossa or further north into the electorate of Stuart, into some of the most beautiful country anywhere in the world as far as I am concerned, but would there be enough of them? Would there be enough of those people? It could not be people getting on the train just once; every single person could do it once, and that still would probably not justify the investment. It would have to be something that people wanted to do time and time again to keep up the volume of demand that would be necessary.

I am not an expert in this area. My hunch is that that is not going to be the case, but my hunch is quite irrelevant. My hunch does not matter: it is actually up to the people who would like to put their money forward into a project like this. I really would love them to be successful but, as I have said, to bring a bill into this place to try to address this issue for not, in my mind, the right reasons, certainly does not fly with me.

Part of our electorate of Stuart, including my home town of Wilmington, is actually on the old rail line. The towns are all about 20 or 25 kilometres apart, because that is what was needed for the trains to run through to pick up water and coal and other passengers and things. That was about the right distance for a train to go to a station for all of the different reasons that it might need to go to a station. So we are blessed in my part of the world to have beautiful towns in the Southern Flinders Ranges—so close, fantastic communities, beautiful places and ever-growing tourism opportunities in those areas.

Would we like to have a train coming to our area again to support tourism? Yes, we would. Would the people of the Barossa like to have a train again in their area to support tourism? Well, I expect the answer would be, yes, they would. So as the member for Schubert said and as he said that Mr Geber, who I have met and had some very positive conversations with, also said, let this be a case for private enterprise to develop, with the government's support to develop, but not in the massive financial way that some have suggested. Let this be a private enterprise opportunity which our government would want to support in many ways other than putting money forward.

But let this not be derailed by an opportunistic private member's bill by a member who hoped at one point in time that he might represent this part of the state and so wanted to endear himself to people in this part of the state. Let me say that given that that opportunity has passed this member by, I suspect that his heart is actually not in this bill or this topic anymore either.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley—Minister for Innovation and Skills) (11:01): I always enjoy the opportunity to speak about trains and rail. They are something I am quite interested in. I do not know where that puts me on the spectrum, but it is something I have always been interested in. It takes me back to the days when I was living in Salisbury and starting my apprenticeship and leaving home at six in the morning to catch the 6.25 train into Adelaide to clock on at about 7.20 in Wright Street in the city.

Of course, when I was on the Salisbury station it was chock-a-block full, and the train would turn up with about 10 carriages on. There would be plenty of room until everybody from the Salisbury station got onto the train, and then for anyone who got on after Salisbury station it would be standing room only. These were the golden days of metropolitan rail.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Back when you were an apprentice.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Back when was I was an apprentice, I am reminded by the minister. Not long into my apprenticeship I used the rail system on the way home, past Salisbury station off to Smithfield station, where I used to go to the gym. I would spend two hours in the gym four nights a week, buy my iced coffee at the deli after the workout, wait for the train, get off at Nurlutta station and walk 20 minutes home to Barnett Street, where my mother would have a bowl of pasta ready for me at about 8.30 at night. So I have very fond memories of the rail system.

Also I paid a lot of attention to the closure of quite a big section of the metropolitan rail system by the Bannon government. We all remember the Northfield line. Imagine how wonderful it would have been to have the Northfield line, particularly for the electors of Playford now. That is the line that used to turn east at Dry Creek and end up going past the abattoirs, crossing Main North Road and finishing just before Hampstead Road. That was closed in the 1980s and the tracks were ripped up.

Beyond the Salisbury station was Hildra railway station, which serviced the Housing Trust homes in Salisbury North, not far from Salisbury High School. That was a very interesting station. It had just a few steps, not even a platform—just a few steps—and the train driver would very skilfully stop the train at the steps, where the door was, so you could get from the train down to the ground.

It then went on into the old WRE site, where there were three stations with very imaginative names—Penfield 1, Penfield 2 and Penfield 3—and that would finish in a loop. I always noticed that they had the best toilet facilities of any railway station in the metropolitan system in Adelaide. The infrastructure was quite extraordinary. It was closed down and the tracks were ripped up as well in the Bannon days.

So I think we can see what is in the DNA of the Labor Party and we can see how opportunistic this bill introduced by the member for Light is. Remember, he wanted to be the member for Schubert. You could see that the shoppies union were desperately looking for a state seat for Nick Champion, who has been in the federal parliament for 13 years and never been on the front bench. They thought they could give the member for Light an honourable shift.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Light rises on a point of order.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Relevance. The minister has to at least try to talk to the bill before us. Up until this point he has not mentioned the bill once. He is now going even further astray. I know he is trying to filibuster, but his behaviour is quite insulting to the people of the Barossa—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —because he has not even touched upon the bill itself, which is quite insulting—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —to the people who support tourism in the Barossa.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Light will resume his seat. The opportunity to raise a point of order is not an occasion to provide a speech or to participate further in the debate. The minister, in addressing the broader context of the bill, has made some observations about the context in which the bill might have been first brought before the parliament. I remind all members of standing order 127 and I otherwise draw the minister's attention to the subject matter of the bill. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Thank you very much, sir. This conversion on the road to Damascus by the member for Light came about when he was pushed into the seat of Schubert and thought he may have had a chance with 5.4 per cent. What a political genius, to make a decision to shift seats prior to the final redistribution being delivered based on margins. But, as we all know, it was not his decision. It was a push because they were looking for somewhere for Nick Champion, the very lacklustre backbencher in the federal parliament who is desperate to be on the front bench. You can see the massive opportunities in the Labor opposition over there, with so many lacklustre front bench spokespeople.

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister, I draw your attention to standing order 128(1) and I call attention to the point of order raised by the member for Light and I draw you back to the subject matter of the bill. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: It is important that we look at the intent of the bill. There is no doubt that you in your profession as a barrister, Mr Speaker, would have often gone to Hansard, gone to the committee process, to try to understand the intent of a bill, and that is exactly what I am expressing here: the intent of the member for Light in bringing this bill to the house. He was looking for something to be relevant in his push into the seat of Schubert from the—

Ms BEDFORD: Point of order.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Florey on a point of order.

Ms BEDFORD: Again, relevance. The member has been brought up twice. I have received information about the Barossa rail and I have an opinion on it, but it does not mean anything untoward, and I just think we need to get back to the bill.

The SPEAKER: I understand that to be a point of order on standing order 127(2). I stand to be corrected, member for Florey, if that is not the case. I remind all members that a member may not impute improper motives to any other member. I am listening carefully to the debate and so far as there is a reflection upon the reasons why a particular member may have been focused on a particular area of the state, I am not sure it arises so far as to be an imputation of improper motive. I do draw the minister's attention to the subject matter of the bill. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: There is no doubt that the focus of the member for Light was on the Barossa. After nearly 15 years in the parliament all of sudden there was this interest. Why is there interest in the Barossa? Because there was a political pathway for the member for Light to attempt to stay in this place—

Ms BEDFORD: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —and so this is a—

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Florey on a point of order.

Ms BEDFORD: It is again 127, sir. He has already had three goes at this. We have other business on the Notice Paper. Can he not finish?

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Florey rises again on a point of order. I have ruled insofar as the point of order might relate to standing order 127(2). The member for Florey might indicate if there is a point of order on standing order 128; I am happy to hear it.

Ms BEDFORD: It is repetition, sir, is it not? We have heard the same thing four times now. Can we not move on to the next part, which is about the actual substance of the bill, which is the railway itself?

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. I have drawn the minister's attention to that matter now on more than one occasion. The minister has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Mr Speaker, if I was not interrupted as often, I could continue with my remarks. The whole reason that we are in this place is to debate the merit of the bill. To debate the merit of the bill we need to understand the motivation of the bill. You cannot dispute that. There are motivations for legislation that we want in this place that come from the community for all sorts of reasons. Just because a bill is in this place does not mean it warrants being supported.

Consequently, my argument is that this is a poorly thought-out bill by the member for Light for the wrong reasons. There was an opportunity, when the member for Light had access to cabinet ministers, when he sat around cabinet ministers, for this to be raised in a proper manner, with the resources of the Public Service to support the member for Light in doing that, but he chose not to do that. I do not know what the reasons are. He has not explained that in his contribution to this place so far.

It is important that we identify the reasons for bills being brought to this place and whether there is a genuine community benefit or whether a bill has been brought to this place for a perceived political benefit to the person who brings the bill to this place. I do not think I am an orphan here in suggesting that. There are many people in the community who have a very cynical view about politics and politicians, so I think it is our duty as members of this place to ensure that we look at all of the merits and the motivations for bills to appear in this place.

I expressed earlier in my remarks how excited I am about trains. I like to go down to Victor Harbor to see the Cockle Train as it leaves the station. I have even been known to take photographs of the Cockle Train for my album, both stationary and moving, so any changes to legislation that has an effect on train or rail corridors and the use of the train infrastructure here in South Australia is of interest to me.

I am always very interested in those thoughts being shared and legislation coming to this place for debate. I am also very interested in the motivation for that. My only motivation is for a good public transport system and an honest debate on why change is needed.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (11:16): I, too, would like to speak on this bill and reflect on rail that affects my electorate, such as the Gawler electrification. The electrification of the Gawler line, which goes through my electorate from the city through to Ovingham, Dudley Park, Prospect—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Point of order: I think the minister has to at least attempt to actually debate the bill, at least know what the bill is about.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, members on my right!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Relevance, Mr Speaker: she has actually started her whole speech about something totally unrelated to it. I know the government would have talked us out because they would not have got to a vote—

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: —but they should at least try to know what they are talking about.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond will cease interjecting. I draw the member for Light's attention to standing order 127(2). I have the point of order. The Minister for Child Protection is, to my observation, less than 30 seconds into her contribution. I am listening carefully. The Minister for Child Protection has the call.

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very relevant. We are talking about the Barossa rail corridor bill, and I believe it would be quite relevant to talk about Labor's track record on rail and how hypocritical it might be that a member of the Labor Party sat there for 16 years of government, the entire time this railway line was not functioning, and did nothing. Now suddenly it becomes important.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Light!

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: What is important to the people in my electorate is the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. R. SANDERSON: —electrification of the Gawler line, which was announced three times by Labor and cancelled twice. It was announced in 2008 and 2013 and cancelled both times, and then announced again in 2018. To quote from my own words through the Public Works Committee:

The cancellation of the Gawler electrification project meant the loss of $76 million of commonwealth government funding, an approximate cost penalty of $70 million if the government should restart the project, and a write-down of over $40 million by the Auditor-General as underutilised infrastructure. This is a total loss of over $186 million, yet the reason for abandoning the project was supposedly a lack of funds.

In the lead-up to the 2014 election a figure of $160 million was [somehow] found for the O-Bahn project and was announced by transport minister Stephen Mullighan in February 2014, only weeks [if not days] prior to the election, just to save a few minutes for the users of the O-Bahn.

Obviously a political move, as this is today regarding the Barossa train.

Again, Labor members do not think about the whole state: they think about electorates and winning electorates. Well, my electorate of Adelaide did not want the O-Bahn through Rymill Park and they fought against it. It happened. The Gawler electrification was cancelled as a consequence because they did not have the money, but they found the money to help the north-east suburbs. I am just making the point that this is always political, unfortunately, when it comes to Labor.

I would like to put on the record the amazing work of residents, particularly Kate Barrett, who lives in Prospect and has a great fondness for the railway line. In fact, she set up the Friends of the Dudley Park Railway Station and co-opted, with my help, the Prospect Blair Athol Lions. I have been involved in many of the tree plantings and working bees at the Dudley Park Railway Station, and Kate has been a very strong advocate for the greening and beautification along the whole railway corridor. She even puts out her own newsletters to keep all the residents informed, and she is doing an amazing job to hold both the state government and the council to account.

The state government has put in $500,000 to the greening and improvement of the streetscape along the corridor, particularly in the Prospect council area, which is the Ovingham and Dudley Park stations. Kate is keeping a close eye on what the council does with that money, because the grant was given to the Prospect council to protect the trees.

Unfortunately, there were trees that did have to be cut down for the electrification because of fire danger and they were overhanging the railway lines. Originally, around 300 trees were going to be cut down and, through the advocacy from my office, via people such as Kate Barrett and other residents putting pressure on DPTI and making sure they relooked at the plans and relooked at the plans, that was reduced to approximately 64 trees, from the original figure of 300.

Thank you to the community for their hard work and effort in lobbying, and to my electorate office for taking all the calls and emails and passing that onto the minister, who has listened. I am really pleased that we have minimised the removal of trees because people in my electorate, particularly in Prospect, love trees. They love greening and they really care for the environment.

Again, further improvements have been made along this railway line, with the announcement of the Ovingham overpass, which will stop the traffic hazards. Currently, the interstate trains, the freight trains that carry all the goods, hold up the traffic there for up to 10 minutes at a time, so it is important to fix that intersection. I believe, from talking to staff in the department, that this has been on the books to be an overpass for over 20 years. I have spoken to people who have been in the department that entire time.

It was always going to be an overpass under the Labor government, for their 16 years, and it still continues. They have looked at an underpass and all the different options. However, again playing political games, the member for Croydon, the Leader of the Opposition, suggests that it should be an underpass. He does that just to cause trouble in my electorate, of course, and to grandstand.

The unfortunate thing for people in his electorate of Croydon is that running a railway line under Torrens Road at Ovingham would require 109 properties to be demolished, at a further cost of $61 million, and those 109 properties are actually all in the member for Croydon's electorate. But he does not care about that, because all he cares about is political pointscoring and game playing, and making it seem as if an underpass is a better idea.

It is not; it would be very disruptive and a lot of people would lose their houses and their businesses should this be an underpass, despite the difficulty. You would have to reroute the train, the freight, you would have to build two extra lines temporarily, and then you would have to move them back. It is a complete nightmare and not even possible. Again, it just shows that Labor is motivated by politics, and politics only.

The concept plans for the Ovingham crossing, the things that we have heard and that have been included, include rain gardens for sustainable management of stormwater, realignment of Napier Street for safety and improved access to residential areas and schools, landscaped bush tucker walk, retention of as many trees as possible to provide a buffer for housing, new fencing with acoustic treatment to rear of housing, nature play space with re-used timber and natural materials, landscaping for enhanced amenity and buffer to housing, additional landscaping along old Churchill Road, reinstatement of Guthrie Street access to Torrens Road, local road connections under the bridge to provide improved access in and out of residential areas, and increased visual surveillance for safety.

There will be a plaza area to be used for small events and activities, including opportunities for the creation of public art. In the concept plans, there are community courts to meet local open space needs and create active safe places. There will also be additional car parking for businesses and increased footpath width for outdoor trading, along with improved access in and out of residential areas and protected left and right-hand turns into Chief Street and Napier Street for safety.

There were five community consultation meetings after there was a concept plan because having community meetings when there is no plan is pointless. Labor held them very early, again for political pointscoring, just to make it look like we were not doing anything. There was nothing to consult on at that point. Once there was a concept plan, there were five different public consultation meetings on both sides of the tracks, in Ovingham as well as in the member for Croydon's electorate at Brompton Primary School.

I attended all those to hear the community's concerns and to make sure that DPTI, or DIT as they are now called, were listening to the concerns of residents and coming up with solutions. I am really pleased that they have. There are some amazing improvements based on feedback, because of course it is the people who live around the area who know the impacts of a local project. Having access to the staff in the department is invaluable and really gets that feedback through. I am really looking forward to seeing the amazing improvements that will come from the Ovingham overpass as well as the Gawler electrification and the beautification along the railway corridor.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:27): I rise to make a contribution to the Statutes Amendment (Barossa Rail Corridor) Bill. I want to make the point that my grandfather Clarrie Dutton worked out of Gawler railway station. He lived at Freeling and used to ride his bike from Freeling to Gawler so he could be a guard on the trains—and we had guards in those days.

When the minister, the member for Unley, was commenting on his rides into Adelaide, I was fondly remembering going on rides on the Redhens from the Gawler station. The air conditioning always worked. They slid open those big side doors, which I think would have been at least six feet wide in the old language, or nearly two metres. They may have been a bit bigger, I am not sure. They were very open things and you could just sit there and take in the breeze. I do not think they would allow that these days with occupational health and safety.

Certainly, as has been expressed here today, Labor do not win any prizes when it comes to managing rail in this state. In reflecting on this bill and its significance to the Barossa, I want to talk about the relevance of some rail lines in my electorate in comparison to this, that is, the Mallee railway lines. One goes up through Karoonda to Loxton and the other one goes to Lameroo and Pinnaroo—and look what happened there. I remember commemorating the century of rail on the Mallee lines in 2006. After over a century of rail, in 2015, under the Labor government, those two lines were closed. No longer could grain freight be moved along those lines.

When we see the Barossa rail corridor brought forward, I agree with the member for Schubert, who knows better than anyone the history of that Barossa railway line. There were discussions around it when it closed in 1968 regarding its future viability and whether or not it could go ahead and have a department put it out to tender. But what everyone wanted was government money, millions and millions of dollars of government money, to make sure that it went ahead, and that just does not happen in the real world. I get it: people come to us for grants, and governments of all colours have grant processes, but people think that grants fall out of the sky. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.