Hove Level Crossing

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:20): A supplementary to the Premier: can the Premier confirm whether the pine trees close to the Hove crossing were planted during the Second World War commemorating South Australian soldiers?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (15:20): I am not sure if it is a question around infrastructure or as a local member, but the trees that you refer to, of course, are alongside the Hove crossing in my community. They are greatly valued. I don't have or know the dates when there were planted. If you are referring to the Hove crossing intersection that is being looked at by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, I made it very clear in the public that from my perspective, as far as that piece of infrastructure is concerned, impacting the minimal number of homes has always been my preference.

The department has actually gone away and done a lot of work. I need to put on record that the Labor Party when they were in government committed to doing this in 2018 but never actually did the works or the planning works to determine whether they would go rail over or rail under. So in looking at those trees, the Labor Party—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —when they were in government didn't make any commitment and/or, from my recollection, budgeted under $200 million for the project, which would mean they were set to put rail over. I know the—

Members interjecting:

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

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Standing order 98: the question was—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond is called to order.

Mr Malinauskas: Where are you working this Christmas?

The SPEAKER: Order, the leader! The member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The question was very specific, about the origins of the planting of those pine trees in that location, and the minister is doing everything but address the substance of the question.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. I direct the minister to the substance of the question. The minister has the call.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Interjections will cease.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, sir, and I do appreciate it because in referring to those trees that are at this intersection I do make the point that when in government they actually didn't do the work to determine (1) how old the trees are, because clearly they don't know, and (2) the impact that any infrastructure build would have on those trees. They committed to doing this project and they don't know the impact it would have. We went away and we did that work—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —to have a look at what impact it would have on the local community. Again, I haven't been asked a question by the member for West Torrens, the shadow minister in the space, as much as he has been out in the community agitating around this project.

The fact is that we have gone and done the work and had a look at all four options and the impact they would have on things like the trees there and the local community. We have obviously been made aware through the department's work and what they have done that, if rail is to go under, it would take some 46 homes—between 25 and 46 homes depending on the configuration—and rail over we know would only impact five properties. Road over and road under I think would impact some 50-odd properties as well.

Ms Cook: How many properties are at No. 14? There are 16 properties at No.14.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, the member for Hurtle Vale, who thinks she is an engineer now, isn't listening to that engineering advice.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Hurtle Vale will cease interjecting. The member for Lee rises on a point of order.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Once again, standing order 98. Are you still comfortable that the minister is addressing the origin of the planting of those trees?

The SPEAKER: The member for Lee raises a point of order as to relevance. I have been listening to the minister's answer. The minister has addressed the trees that are the subject of the question. The question was quite specific. I will give the minister one further opportunity to address himself specifically to the subject matter of the question. The minister has the call.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, sir. Again, at your last point, I did refer back to the trees and the intersection that is in discussion. What happens at that intersection will obviously impact the trees—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —and that is what needs to be considered. The member for Hurtle Vale talks about the Housing Trust property that is there with a number Housing Trust homes on it. Again, when they planned to do this project, they would have been impacted. We did the work and we found out that if they did that work—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —they would have impacted the trees and the properties. So again, the fact that we have gone and done the work and found out what Labor would have done had they gone ahead with their project is really important that we do take that to the community.

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The time for questions has expired.

Ms BEDFORD: A point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

Ms BEDFORD: Yes, under 127, sir. I believe the Attorney-General has made a personal reflection on me today in question time, and it is unfortunately not the first time she has done it, in relation to the introduction of her real-time petrol pricing scheme. She obviously feels I should not have insisted on full probity in the tender process and, if it was not necessary, then why on earth did she do it? So I would ask her to think about withdrawing the remarks.

The SPEAKER: The point of order is raised pursuant to standing order 127, that is in circumstances in which the member for Florey indicates objection to the Deputy Premier having made a personal reflection. In the circumstances, I accept the point of order and I invite the Deputy Premier to withdraw those remarks in the context in which they were made.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Firstly, can I just clarify the nature of the concern that has been raised by the member and certainly if she has taken offence. But to be absolutely clear, her statement suggests that I had asserted that I had made a decision—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier will resume her seat for a moment.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: This is not an opportunity for some other form of contribution from the member for Bragg. We have traversed this frequently over recent days in this place and she is merely seeking to take some objection to the point the member for Florey has made.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lee will resume his seat. The Minister for Innovation and Skills on a point of order.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: This is not an opportunity for the member for Lee to give a speech.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Innovation and Skills will resume his seat. I have invited the Deputy Premier to withdraw remarks to which the member for Florey has taken as a personal reflection in accordance with standing order 127(3). I invite the Deputy Premier to do that succinctly.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: My understanding of the offence taken relates to an assertion purported to be made that I had made a decision in respect of the need to tender as a result of matters raised by the member on Informed Sources. She takes offence at that. If I had said that, I think that is fair. What I had said was that the—

The SPEAKER: It is a matter of personal reflection rather than offence. The Deputy Premier I invite to withdraw those personal reflections.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: So if the member has taken offence at that, I am happy to withdraw that concern but I would like to inform her that it is the commissioner for business services who made that decision and not me.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Premier has withdrawn. The Deputy Premier will resume her seat. The member for Lee will resume his seat. The question before the house is that the house note grievances.

Ms BEDFORD: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER: The member for Florey on a point of order?

Ms BEDFORD: Before we continue, I do not think that that is actually satisfactory, in that the Attorney has asserted on more than one occasion that it is actually my fault her 30-minute real-time fuel pricing petrol app was delayed and that it was my fault because I insisted on a tendering process which, if it was not necessary, she did not have to perform. So I am not certain how it is my fault it is delayed, and you have said it more than once.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is the context in which I understand the point of order.

Ms Bedford: Well, that's the context in which I heard her apology.

The SPEAKER: I accept the observation, member for Florey. That is the context in which I understand the remarks have been interpreted and, very particularly, the point of order is raised pursuant to standing order 127(3), as distinct from standing order 125. To the extent that the Deputy Premier has not already withdrawn those remarks by reference to what the member for Florey has now more particularly described, I invite the Deputy Premier to do so and to do so succinctly.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I apologise for any concern that has been raised by the member if she feels there is a reflection on her in respect of the tendering process. I confirm the statements I have made in respect of the delay as a result of the period in the lead-up to the establishment of this mandatory service.