Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Motions Desalination Plant Project DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:21): I move: 1.	That a select committee of the Legislative Council be appointed to inquire into and report upon the Lonsdale-based Adelaide desalination plant project including the following matters: (a)	the management and administration of the project; (b)	the procedures and practices with regard to workplace safety; (c)	the related matters of worker deaths and injuries; and (d)	any other relevant matter. 2.	That standing order No. 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only. 3.	That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council. 4.	That standing order No. 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating. This motion, as members may be aware, if they have been watching Today Tonight or have seen the front page of The Advertiser, moves for a select committee of the Legislative Council to be appointed to inquire into and report upon the Adelaide desalination plant project. That inquiry would look specifically at the management and administration of the project, the procedures and practices with regard to workplace safety and, in particular, the related matters of worker deaths and injuries. I am sure members would agree that that would be a very worthwhile inquiry indeed. I raise this issue because I and other members here have had drawn to our attention many issues from a variety of sources with regard to the Adelaide desalination plant. Some of those issues go to worker safety, and I will say from the outset that those worker safety issues are my primary concern. Allegations have been made regarding deaths and injuries that have taken place on the site and questions raised as to whether or not there have been adequate measures in place to minimise the chances of these deaths and injuries occurring or whether in fact there has been adequate reporting of those injuries or deaths. Members would be aware of one particular death on the site that caused the site to close down for some time. I refer to Mr Brett Fritsch, whose death was associated with the use of the controversial soft slings. I and other people have raised in this place concerns about soft slings, and members would be aware as well that the CFMEU has long campaigned against their use. There have also been allegations and concerns raised regarding simultaneous construction and installation of electrical wiring, overly tight scheduling, vehicles being driven inappropriately and without escorts, and inadequate security on the site, including potentially a non-functional CCTV equipment set-up. Also, concerns have been raised as to whether injured workers have been forced to return to work early or face dismissal or discrimination if they do not. We would like to know whether, in the event that these injured workers have lodged a workers' compensation claim, their employment has been terminated. There were, working in the tunnels, 216 tunnelling crew whose lives, it is alleged, were potentially at risk through substandard tunnelling procedures and standards that perhaps did not comply with what we would expect in this country. Specifically, the degrading of the specifications of the tunnel boring machinery, the quality of the ring welds and the increase in barometric pressure above safe levels have been raised as grave concerns. There are also questions around lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) figures and whether they are an accurate reflection of the safety standards applying on the site. One particular concern that was raised by the Hon. John Darley earlier today was why SafeWork SA was not informed about the death of a worker. That worker was offsite, but it was connected to the site, and we still do not know whether or not that death was in fact an industrial accident. I am sure that Mr O'Neil and his family would appreciate some answers and some more respectful treatment of that particular death. I have also had concerns raised with me with regard to whether or not explosives sheds are compliant and within Australian standards; whether they have always been stored in a compliant way or whether that has only been a more recent occurrence; and, if so, whether or not this is putting any lives at risk in Adelaide both in the general community and also with the workers. On another note, there have been many concerns raised with regard to probity and possible corruption: whether or not AdelaideAqua is indeed a properly constituted entity and whether its affairs as the desalination plant joint venturers have been structured in a certain way to perhaps avoid any negative ramifications, financial consequences or legal liabilities. We certainly heard about that in this morning's Public Works Committee where questions were asked by the opposition. We have a long way to go before we get some real answers. I certainly know that there are many more questions to be asked, and the Public Works Committee will be resuming in a couple of weeks time, because we did not even get past the tip of the iceberg—sorry to make the water pun. We also need to know whether or not harassment, bullying and victimisation of whistleblowers is occurring. Certainly those who have stood up and been whistleblowers have been subject to allegations of improper behaviour. As we know, whistleblowers are vital to our democracy. We are all here because we believe in a democratic system, so I would hope that we would believe in the protection of whistleblowers. I have had concerns raised with me with regard to whether or not penalty rates have been used to pressure workers to cut corners on safety and to meet deadlines, and whether moneys have possibly been inappropriately spent for an unnecessary tower crane. I understand that tower crane was named Favco. The accusation has been made that it has been placed on the site because it can be seen from far away and used to publicise the project for political gain. Whether or not that is true, I do not know; however, I think the South Australian people and certainly this parliament deserve answers. The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting: The Hon. T.A. FRANKS Legislative Council The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: When SA Water responded to that accusation, they said that Favco had been placed there to eliminate the need for ground cranes. Now, I have pictures of the site over a period of time and I am willing to share those with members who would like to have a look. It certainly did not eliminate the ground cranes. There are dozens of ground cranes there at any stage during the project. We are doing a count to see whether perhaps it minimised the ground cranes, but it certainly did not eliminate them. We look forward to getting some answers. We would also like to see whether there have been alleged breaches of the Fair Work Act and whether correct information has been provided all the way along with regard to the delays. We heard today in the Public Works Committee that the reason that the 'first water' timeline has been put out by some many months is because of Mr Fritsch's death. It was stated categorically that that was the reason today in the Public Works Committee. I find that offensive, and I know that members of Mr Fritsch's family and his colleagues and co-workers do too. We would like to see whether or not there has been proper scrutiny of financial arrangements that this state has entered into with such a major project. I am not saying that all of these allegations are true. I do say that they go some way to reducing public confidence in this project, and certainly, if the responses to the media reports and the correspondence and calls to my office are anything to go by, then public confidence is not as it should be in this project and in this government. I would think that the government would in fact welcome this opportunity to see its project put out to public scrutiny and to come through it with flying colours. I would imagine that the opposition will welcome the opportunity to scrutinise those claims. The Greens are putting this forward because we think that South Australians deserve some answers on this project and that we deserve full and comprehensive democratic processes in our society, so we commend this motion to the chamber. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.