Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Road Or Ferry Closure (Consultation and Review) Bill ROAD OR FERRY CLOSURE (CONSULTATION AND REVIEW) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 6 February 2013.) The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS Legislative Council The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:22): I rise on behalf of the government to oppose this bill. The bill imposes two major requirements; firstly, it would require public consultation and consideration of submissions before a determination to close a public ferry service could be made. In the case of a ferry service, the ferry, in broad terms, forms part of the road network and there is no objection to consultation on a proposed closure. Such consultation is already required for the closure of a road under section 27AA of the Highways Act 1926 (the Highways Act) and under the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991 (the roads act). Rather than a stand-alone bill as proposed here, the Highways Act, which already provides the power to establish ferry services, could be amended to include consultation requirements where the permanent closure of a ferry is contemplated. Secondly, the bill would require the closure of a ferry service and any other road, other than a road closure by a local council under the roads act, to be approved by both houses of parliament. This requirement is opposed. Roads closed by local councils under the roads act or by the Commissioner of Highways, under section 27AA of the Highways Act, both require notice and consideration of submissions before they can be made. There is no clear reason why the bill differentiates between local councils and the Commissioner of Highways, as similar processes are involved if these powers are exercised. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire says in his speech that the powers in section 27A relate to major developments. This is incorrect. It is the general power to close roads and it is likely to be the only power the commissioner could rely upon to close roads outside a council district. Where a mandated process for the closures is imposed, it should not be necessary for parliament to be required to consider such closures. Community views arising from a required consultation can be brought to parliament's attention in the normal way. Many road closures are carried out for administrative purposes; for example, where a road has moved and the old road is no longer used. Consideration of these closures is not good use of parliament's time. In other cases where the government is closing a ferry service or a road for strategic reasons, requiring consultation by both houses could prevent the government making effective financial decisions about the network and its strategic development. In the case of ferry services, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure is responsible for operating 12 River Murray ferry crossings at 11 locations— The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Name them. The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS Legislative Council The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: —with two ferries at Mannum (the busiest crossing)— Members interjecting: The ACTING PRESIDENT Legislative Council Hon. R.P. Wortley The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. R.P. Wortley): Order! The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS Legislative Council The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: —which operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Ferry services are currently provided by the state government free of charge to the public. The government spends about $5.2 million each year operating ferries and a further $2.9 million per annum maintaining them. Refits of the ferry fleet are additional to these costs, and $800,000 has been allocated for that purpose in 2012-13. Despite this investment, there are significant cost pressures associated with increased operator costs and maintenance of the ferry fleet. There are five timber hull ferries in excess of 60 years old that will require replacement in the next two to five years. Replacement ferries are estimated to cost $3 million each. The current level of the River Murray ferry services cannot be sustained without investment in the replacement of the five timber hull ferries. Other road closures which would be subject to the agreement of both houses of parliament include: Under the Roads Act: closures made by the Development Assessment Commission or the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation if they are the relevant development authority and it is part of, or directly associated with, a development under the Development Act 1993. Part 7 of the Roads Act: closures made by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure if all the land adjoining the road is crown land or it is a road not within a council area where the minister is satisfied that the road is not in public use and will not be required for such use in the foreseeable future. This can only be used in limited circumstances. Part 3 of the Highways Act (Authorised Transport Infrastructure Projects): closures made as part of an Authorised Transport Infrastructure Project. This power is rarely used and the project must be defined by regulation which allows parliamentary scrutiny of the project. Section 71 of the Crown Law Management Act 2009: closures made by the minister; if the land ceases to be comprised in a town the minister may close roads on that land. This is presumably rarely used. Several special purpose acts or regulations for developments which are now complete. Rather than a general requirement for both houses of parliament to approve a closure applying to all road closures except those accepted, it would be recommended to include a requirement in specific acts or parts of acts. This would allow proper consideration of the need for the provision in each case. Only 11 acts require agreement by both houses of parliament. For example: the Marine Parks Act 2007, regarding a decision to exclude land from a marine park; the Linear Parks Act 2006, where land ceases to be included in a linear park; and the Adelaide Park Lands Act 2005, where land would cease to be included in the Adelaide Parklands. These decisions would not occur frequently and are likely to be associated with areas that are directly established by parliament. This is not the case with roads and ferry services. The bill is also deficient regarding what constitutes 'closure' of a ferry service. Clause 3(2) of the bill specifically sets out the following: (a)	the closure of a ferry service does not include— (i)	a closure reasonably required for the purposes of inspection or repair of the ferry or associated structures or equipment; or (ii)	a reasonable reduction in services based on a reduction in the demand for those services; I understand that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire has an amendment to remove this clause. There are occasions where ferry services have to cease due to a drop in water levels, for example, on the River Murray during the most recent drought and the Cooper Creek on a regular basis. Flooding may also necessitate closures. Such closures should be added to the list in clause 3(2). Given this specific exception provision, there is a risk that, without this, a closure associated with a flood or drop in water levels would be considered a closure for the purpose of the bill. Expanding the definition would put beyond doubt that these are not closures. As I said, the government opposes this bill. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council Leader of the Opposition The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:31): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Road or Ferry Closure (Consultation and Review) Bill 2013, which was introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. The opposition has always had a concern with the lack of consultation from this government on a whole range of issues it has thrust upon the community, and it has come to a head. I think that it was in this budget that it was announced that the Cadell ferry was to be closed, but we have also seen the Keith hospital, the Parks Community Centre and the wind farms DPA, which was not part of a budget measure but, again, there was no consultation of the statewide development plan amendment. I will not speak for terribly long because I know that it is private members' day, and we do wish to clean up the Notice Paper before parliament rises for the election. I think we have only six or seven sitting days left. The opposition is happy to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill in the context that we want to send the government and the rest of South Australia a message that we have not been happy with the way in which the government has treated the community and the arrogant way the government has made decisions, such as the closure of the Cadell ferry, without consulting, in this case, the local council, but also without consulting the local community. We have read the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill and, in a sense, I am saying that we are supporting it because we support in principle his notion that the government has been arrogant and negligent in its role and in its duty to keep the community informed. If we were in government, we might draft a different style of bill. Nonetheless, we would have something that provides some confidence to the community that we would consult and negotiate with them if at any point in the future a future Liberal government wishes to do anything in relation to roads or ferries, not that at this point in time we are likely to. Nonetheless, the indication we want to give the community is that we are not happy with the government. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire's bill includes some aspects in relation to representation and consultation. In clause 6—Consultation, the bill provides: (1)	Where a ferry authority proposes to close a public ferry service maintained by the authority, the authority must give notice of the proposal to the following persons... (a)	the Commissioner of Highways; (b)	if the service is in a council area—the council for the area; (c)	each owner of land adjoining a principal ferry road... The bill then goes on to provide that the ferry authority must also advertise in the local newspaper they are going to do that. Also, clause 6(3) provides that they must also specify: that representations on the proposal may be made to the authority by a date that is not less than 28 days from the date of the notice... So it is a fairly comprehensive way in which the community is informed. Then, of course, in clause 7—Order for closure, it provides: (1)	After considering any representations made in accordance with section 6— that is the one I have just quoted— the ferry authority may— (a)	determine not to proceed with the proposed closure; or (b)	make an order that, subject to confirmation under section 8, the ferry service be closed. Clause 8 is confirmation that an order for closure under section 7 will not come into operation until it is passed by both houses of parliament. It can be seen that this bill proposed by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is one that will force the government of the day to inform the community—and for roads he has a very similar process. As I said earlier, the current opposition supports the intent of what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is saying; that is why we are happy to support his bill today. We may look at the drafting, if we are fortunate enough to be in government after the next election, to draft something that suits the new government but also gives the community some confidence that we will not be forcing things like ferry closures upon them without any consultation. With those few words, I indicate that we will be supporting the bill. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:35): I rise first and foremost to thank all colleagues who have contributed to this debate. I thank the honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr David Ridgway, for his support. I thank the Hon. Mr Gerry Kandelaars for his contribution. Unfortunately, he is a puppet for the government and the minister, and I would be surprised if he even believed all he read on behalf of the government, but someone had to put the government's case. I found a couple of interesting points in the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars' contribution; one is that if he says that the statutory requirements are already there in law then, frankly, the minister must have been breaching the law, so the minister needs to come in and explain why he was prepared to breach the laws of this parliament. The Hon. D.W. Ridgway Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: That's the minister who works for Minters now, so he has gone. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: So he might need to get some legal advice on explaining why he, basically, must have broken the law, according to the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars. Having said that, I have done my homework, and we would not be debating this bill today if the legislation currently enshrined were adequate. With the lack of consultation, the appalling behaviour of the government, I think at the end of the day even the Premier was embarrassed by what his government proposed with the closure of the Cadell ferry. All this is about is having a proper process for consultation. I am not a fearmonger, but I do fear now for what may or may not happen under this government with ferries in the future because I heard some warning signs from the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars when he talked about these wooden hulls that need replacing at $3 million each. He talked about the annual costs, the running costs, the maintenance costs, etc. It sounded to me like they had done a lot of homework on what it was costing to run these ferries. If they are not happy with the cost of running the ferries then, rather than closing a ferry service, I suggest that it might be best to look at building some more bridges across the river, as has been done in many other states and as we saw done very successfully at Berri. I did make comments when I introduced the bill, so I will not spend too much longer on summing up. Colleagues made speeches on the bill on Wednesday 27 June, as we had seen the government backflip on the issue. I want to place on the public record again the excellent work done by the Cadell and Riverland communities in fearlessly, and without fear or favour, fighting to save the Cadell ferry. I also acknowledge the member for Stuart, Dan van Holst Pellekaan, who worked with his constituents in that unique River Murray corner of Stuart to campaign to keep the ferry open. The loophole I described in my second reading explanation on this bill whereby the minister can simply close a ferry service or road without any consultation does still exist, contrary to what the government is saying. Family First wants to close the loophole, not the ferry services, as this government once wanted to do. It is worth noting that ferries are only mentioned by statute in the Highways Act as allowing the Commissioner of Highways to open and operate a ferry service, but the law is silent on what happens when you close one. The only other legislative references to ferries are generally the penalty provisions that apply for offences on ferries. We have seen other threats in country South Australia and our regions and the only way to give peace of mind is to look at supporting this bill. I want to finish by saying that the razor gang that made the recommendation to close the ferry service at Cadell should have also looked at the annual traffic volumes because those annual traffic volumes show that that particular ferry service is not the least used at all. These services are also important for tourism, and the fact and reality are that a lot of city people appreciate the opportunity of using our ferries, including clearly the Cadell ferry. I think that weight of influence on the government also caused the backflip because not only was there a revolt in the Riverland and Cadell but also a serious revolt in some of the marginal Labor seats. With those few remarks, I commend the bill to the house. Bill read a second time. Committee Stage Committee Stage In committee. Clauses 1 and 2 passed. Clause 3. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move: Amendment No 1 [Broke–1]— Page 3, lines 15 and 16 [clause 3(2)(a)(ii)]—Delete subparagraph (ii) The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars very articulately explained why I was moving the amendment. In short, the LGA was very supportive of the consultation process for the ferry and road closures but were concerned about that particular aspect of the bill. In order to facilitate that, after consideration I move this amendment. For the record, and while I am on my feet, for the benefit of the Hon. John Dawkins, who travels all across South Australia on these ferries, there are 13 River Murray services operating in South Australia: Lyrup, Waikerie, Cadell, Morgan, Swan Reach, Walker Flat, Penong, Mannum, Tailem Bend, Wellington and Narrung. The Hon. D.W. Ridgway Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: That's not 13—it's only 11. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I can't count. The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY Legislative Council The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition is happy to support the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment. We are bending all the rules: usually, the opposition would take amendments to the party room. It was only tabled yesterday but, in the spirit of goodwill and trying to get the Notice Paper somewhat cleared before the end of the parliamentary session, we are happy to support it, but only this once—we will not let him get away with it again. Amendment carried; clause as amended passed. Remaining clauses (4 to 10) and title passed. Bill reported with amendment. Third Reading Third Reading The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:47): I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Bill read a third time and passed.