DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

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.

(Continued from 27 October 2010.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:09): I rise briefly to support the motion from the Hon. Tammy Franks to establish a select committee to inquire into the desal plant. In doing so, I move to amend the motion, as follows:

Paragraph 1(a)—Leave out this paragraph and insert new paragraph 1(a)—

(a) the management and administration of the project, including all issues relating to the cost and financing of this project;

Paragraph 1(b)—Leave out this paragraph and insert new paragraph 1(b)—

(b) the procedures and practices used to deliver the project, including those with regard to workplace safety;

Paragraph 2—At the beginning of the paragraph insert before 'That standing order no. 389' the words—

That the committee consist of six members and that the quorum of members necessary to be present at all meetings of the committee be fixed at four members and

We suspect that these issues would have been clearly covered even in the initial drafting but, out of an excess of caution, we propose these amendments, and I understand that the mover is relaxed and comfortable with that (to use a phrase). They make it clear that issues in relation to the costs and financing of this project, for example, would be a term of reference of the select committee if it were established.

The reason for that is that some of the allegations or claims made in relation to workplace safety obviously relate to issues of cost and financing, that is, the need for speed, perhaps the need to meet various contractual time lines or to meet financial benefits or prevent the occurrence of financial penalties under a particular contract. Clearly, they will be important issues. First, I guess we need to establish the extent and nature of the workplace safety breaches, although there has been much publicity about them already thus far, and, therefore, a fair bit of public information about them.

Having established that we will need to look at the issues that may have been a cause of workplace safety breaches, and it will therefore be essential to look at issues that relate to the contract. Obviously, to a very large part the contract governs the behaviour of the contractors and sub-contractors. If the contract says that certain things have to be achieved by a certain deadline or certain financial penalties will occur, that could govern a pattern of behaviour that may have led—and I say this advisedly—to workers being placed in a dangerous position. So the issues of the contract, and the costs and financing of the contract, clearly relate to workplace safety issues.

Regarding the second amendment, as I said, we believe that this is probably covered in the existing wording but, in an excess of caution, we make it quite clear that the procedures and practices we talk about cover all the procedures and practices used to deliver the total project, including those with regard to workplace safety. This is just to make it absolutely clear that those issues are covered.

The fact that the mover has very sensibly incorporated those wonderful few words, 'any other relevant matter' in the terms of reference—which are the save-all for all committee inquiries—would, we believe, have covered it anyway. The only other point I would speak to is that, upon discussion with the mover, we understand that there are two non-government, non-opposition members of this place who are very interested in serving on the committee.

With two Labor members and two Liberal members it necessitates moving an amendment to the motion to allow the committee to consist of six persons, which will facilitate that. I do not speak on behalf of the government, but I assume that government members will participate and will insist on the convention of two government members; certainly, the Liberal Party's view is that this is such an important committee that two Liberal members should serve on the committee as well. With that, I indicate my support for the motion, with the amendments I have moved.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.