Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (14:31): A supplementary question again to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport: has the Greater Adelaide Freight Bypass planning study been delayed?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Minister for Energy and Mining) (14:31): Not that I'm aware of. If it has been delayed, I would like the member to show me some evidence of that, because we are doing a lot of work in planning. In the most recent federal budget, there was a $200 million fund announced by the commonwealth government to assist state governments in their planning, because one of the great tragedies of infrastructure spending and freight planning is that we don't do sufficient planning in advance.

For example, on coming to office in preparation for the 2022 election, the then opposition leader, the current Premier, asked of all his shadow ministers, 'What are the deficits in the portfolio areas you represent that can be improved upon?' Like all good shadow ministers, I went around and did my diligent work—when we weren't having inquiries into the Deputy Premier and other things, balancing a lot of things all at once, distractions—one of the things I noticed was that South Australia was the only state in the federation not to have a freight policy, a freight strategy. We had no freight strategy. I thought, 'That sounds important. I think we should have a freight strategy.'

As part of the Treasurer's first budget and an election commitment, we have funded the work to be done for a freight strategy, and we will be announcing more about that very, very soon. We are working with the commonwealth government on all these studies to make sure we have the appropriate planning in place.

I have no advice before me that I'm aware of that says that any planning studies are delayed, but I do demand this of my department: proper planning studies, not planning studies that come up with solutions that are fit to meet a political timetable. For example, the previous government of blessed memory conducted—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister, there is a point of order from the member for Morialta, which I will hear under 134.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The minister, having answered the question, is now debating. Standing order 98: setting up a straw man argument, saying 'for example', and comparing something the previous government did or did not do, is very much in the wheelhouse of standing order 98.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! There is some merit in the argument or, rather, the matters that the member for Morialta puts to me. I remind the minister of the standing order and bring him back to the substance of the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It's straw person.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You know how I feel about these things.

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner: Your backbenchers' faces are showing me.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If they are amused. There are planning studies and there are planning studies. There was one planning study done by the previous government about a rail corridor to the Adelaide Hills. That planning study came back and, surprisingly, told the then government, who had promised a rail corridor to the Adelaide Hills, that it was unaffordable and unachievable.

We have come to the election saying that we are going to do a proper study about whether we can deliver mass transit to the Adelaide Hills or not—and not a study that is self-serving, that is going to come back and give us the answer we want. We want the difficult answers. We want the answers that mean that we have to consider actually what is required.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: Can the tram turn right?

The SPEAKER: The member for Mawson is on two warnings.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Can the tram actually turn right? Can we actually have a mass public transit system to the fastest growing city on the outskirts of Adelaide that will eventually overtake Mount Gambier as our second largest regional city? Is that achievable? According to the previous government, in their three-month study, it's unachievable.

What we want is a proper study, so our studies are being done properly and they will take the time that is needed to conduct them. If they need longer, they will get longer. That's how you do proper studies. You trust the public servants, the independent experts, to go away and do the work and inform government without bias, without prejudice, and give us the difficult questions to answer, to pose the difficult questions, to say, 'This will be expensive,' or, 'This is unachievable,' or, 'This is what you would need to do to achieve this outcome.' That is what we want of our public sector—to give us the proper answer, the independent answer, to speak truth to power, not to give the government the answers it's looking for.