Hove Level Crossing

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:45): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Was the member for Boothby assured by you or your office that an Oaklands-style underpass could be built at the intersection of the Seaford line and Brighton Road at Hove? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The federal Liberal member for Boothby told 891 radio in relation to the Brighton Road, Hove, level crossing upgrade that, and I quote:

I was assured we could do another quick neat and value for money underpass at Hove to get rid of another rail crossing for my local community, as its turned out the State Government and the Department of Transport have said it’s not so straightforward at Hove Crossing.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (14:46): I thank the member for the question and note that, when this announcement was made, I wasn't the minister at the time, but what I—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Because what was done—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my left!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This is interesting, because at the last election—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a moment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Let's talk through the process—

The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Interjections on my left will cease. The minister has the call.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, sir. What was said at that time, I wouldn't be aware. But what I can say—let's go through the history of this project, because I am interested that this is the first time the member for West Torrens has raised this, given he has been campaigning against the project, yet before the last election they were for the project. It is another Labor flip-flop.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Badcoe is called to order.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Anyway, as the history shows, this was put on the table and the minister did push forward with the plans for this. We sat down and spoke to the federal government and had $170-odd million put on the table for this project.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, it is a transport project that the member for Reynell wants to hack on about—

The SPEAKER: The minister will not respond to interjection.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —but we are very much getting on with delivering projects in South Australia. Public transport projects are very important. If I can get back to the time line of this, again, Labor promised it and now the member for West Torrens is anti the project, or so I am told. We went away and did the work because, typical of Labor, they didn't do the work when they were in government. We had a look at what were the options. We had a look at how we could do it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Would it be road over? Would it be road under? Would it be rail over? Would it be rail under? Of course, when we actually did the work—again, the cupboard was bare when they left office. They didn't do any of that work—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Reynell is warned for a second time.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We had a look at it all and we took all that to the community and we showed them what the options might be. Of course, we know the road over and road under projects would have been in the vicinity of $300 million—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Reynell will cease interjecting.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: —and would have taken quite a number of properties. What we did find, though, with rail over was it is $290 million and only five properties would need to be acquired. In fact, the government owned four of those properties. For rail under, it would be up to some 46 properties that would be taken. They were all the things we had to have a look at and we have to assess and that is what we have been doing.

We have been talking with the federal government about the rail under option. It is some $450 million, so it is quite excessive. We need to weigh up all those situations and then go back to the federal government because more money will be required. That has been reported publicly, so exactly what was said to Nicolle Flint I don't know; I wasn’t part of those conversations but, clearly, it would be hard to make those commitments, given that no work was done by the previous government.

That work had to be done so those assessments could be made. Any assessment that was made until that work was done would have been just broad scoping studies and scoping work. That detailed work has been done, we know where we stand now and we can discuss that with the federal government and make a decision in time.