O-Bahn Tunnel

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. J.A. Darley:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the state government’s O-Bahn access project, with reference to—

(a) any alternative transport routes and/or proposals prepared by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, in respect of the O-Bahn extension proposal;

(b) any alternative transport routes and/or proposals in respect of the O-Bahn extension proposal, including any considered by the state government;

(c) any alternative proposals to save time for commuters, that do not include major road works, including pre-validation of fares;

(d) any investigations, undertaken by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, into road traffic movement in Grenfell Street;

(e) any cost-benefit analyses related to the O-Bahn extension proposal;

(f) the community impacts of the O-Bahn city access project proposal, including any adverse effects on local residents, local traders and businesses and, community events;

(g) the impacts of any likely disruption during the construction phase of the O-Bahn city access project proposal;

(h) any likely adverse impacts on Rymill Park after construction of the proposed busway tunnel and highway connection to Grenfell Street;

(i) any potential impacts of the O-Bahn city access project proposal on the current Royal Adelaide Hospital site, the Adelaide Zoo and other surrounding sites;

(j) how the O-Bahn extension proposal fits in with the state government’s Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan;

(k) the cost benefit of extending the O-Bahn to suburbs including Golden Grove and/or surrounding suburbs; and

(l) any other relevant matters.

2. That standing order 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 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 3 June 2015.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:33): I rise to outline the government's position on this motion. The O-Bahn city access project has undergone a substantial community consultation phase with feedback sought from commuters, stakeholders, businesses, residents and local councils, including the Adelaide City Council. On Wednesday 10 June, after the tabling of this motion, changes to the proposed plan were announced in response to the community feedback.

The revised scheme includes the retention of Rundle Road, addressing car parking in the East End of the city, reduced impact on Rymill Park, maintaining an increase in parkland, consideration for a future tram corridor, no net loss of trees, and better access for local residents on East Terrace and Grenfell Street. The Adelaide City Council, the lead stakeholder in regard to the Parklands, has supported the revised plan following its announcement.

The O-Bahn city access project is the result of an election commitment made by the government at the last state election. The government believes that it is important to deliver bus commuters to Grenfell Street faster and more reliably. We believe this will bring more people into the city via the O-Bahn. The state government is committed to ensuring this objective is achieved.

The project announced in February outlined many additional benefits the government has identified to revitalise the East End of the city, including the return of 3,000 square metres of road reserve to parklands and improved events space in Rundle Park and calmer traffic in Rundle Street itself.

Over the past few months, the O-Bahn project team has been gathering public feedback on that plan and consulting with key stakeholders, businesses and residents. The minister has stated that, wherever possible, the project team would seek to revise the project in response to community concerns. The changes focus on addressing the key concerns raised while achieving the improvements necessary to our public transport network:

addressing car parking in the East End of the city, with over 50 more car parks than currently exist along Rundle Road and East Terrace;

reduced impact on Rymill Park with a 140 metre longer tunnel (now 650 metres with only 40 metres at grade, and 120 metres of ramp), and the retention of Rundle Road in its existing location;

maintaining an increased parkland with a smaller road footprint, with Rundle Road reduced to one lane in each direction;

consideration for a future tram corridor along North Terrace, East Terrace, and Rundle Road;

a separated bikeway along Rundle Road; and

it endeavours to have no net loss of trees with a reduction of eight affected trees (including three significant) from the previous plan.

The revisions announced on 10 June address many of the issues raised in the motion by the Hon. John Darley and have received the support of the Adelaide City Council and positive comments from the Rymill Park alliance who have led the protest against the original proposal. All the relevant information will be presented to the Public Works Committee as per the normal parliamentary process. For these reasons, the government does not support the Hon. John Darley's motion.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:37): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the motion of the Hon. John Darley that a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into and report on the state government's O-Bahn access project with reference to a range of particular terms of reference. I will not go through them today because the members will have them all on the Notice Paper.

The opposition will be supporting the Hon. John Darley's motion for a select committee. I think the first time we heard about upgrades to the O-Bahn was when minister Patrick Conlon was a minister for transport and I think he and his good friend Anthony Albanese, the federal minister, flew around Adelaide in a helicopter and looked down and they made a decision that maybe that would be something that they could be involved in and could fund. Of course, we did not see that project go ahead and now we have had a number of other potential solutions to save a few minutes of travel time each time into the city with changes to the access to the city with the O-Bahn.

I remind members that the O-Bahn was, of course, an initiative of the Tonkin government in 1979-82—so, some 30 years ago it was an initiative of a Liberal government. I think it is testament to their foresight that that is still an extremely well used bit of public infrastructure and has served the north-eastern suburbs extremely well.

It always concerned me—particularly in the proposal which now has been changed—but the initial proposal, I thought, lacked a lot of community engagement. Some of the restaurants in the East End in Rundle Street, and one in particular which I will not name, told me that if car parking was removed from Rundle Road, they would shut up shop and move somewhere else. It would have such an impact on their business they did not believe they could sustain their business with the impact on car parking.

There is a revised plan, but I still think it is an opportunity for the select committee to actually sit down and talk to those people who actually go out and borrow money, put their house on the line to grow a small business, work seven days a week and long hours, and have a number of staff who contribute to the population and jobs growth in South Australia to ensure that any new bit of infrastructure does not impact on those businesses. In a time when we are seeing jobs being shed all over the state, any business that is actually employing people should be regarded with absolute importance and we should make sure that no bit of new infrastructure has a negative impact on any business at all.

I am interested, in particular, in term (k) which is the cost benefit of extending the O-Bahn into some further suburbs, including Golden Grove and other surrounding suburbs. We are going to spend $140 million or $150 million, but every project this government puts its hands on goes over budget, so I think it will be somewhere between $150 million and $200 million we will spend.

I wonder what the benefit is if you actually spend $150 million or $200 million at the other end of the line to give more people some opportunities. I accept that you are not going to get those time savings at this end of the journey, but you may actually give an increased number of South Australians an opportunity to access that public transport as well.

I noticed yesterday that The Advertiser had an online poll where certainly there was not unanimous community support for the saving of time at the end of the journey. There was a whole range of other options posed. I think this select committee gives an opportunity to have an indepth look at the proposal. The Hon. Gerry Kandelaars has said it will go to the Public Works Committee. Of course, that is the Public Works Committee that is dominated by the government and the government has the numbers. This gives us an opportunity under, I assume, the chairmanship of the Hon. John Darley to have a close look at this particular piece of proposed public infrastructure.

I reiterate that no bit of public infrastructure in this sort of jobs crisis environment that we have now should have a negative impact on any particular job or business. We have a whole range of very good businesses in the East End and I think we need to hear from them to make sure that anything that is done in the future supports and enhances their businesses and grows them, not has a negative impact on them. With those few words, I indicate the opposition would be delighted to support the Hon. John Darley's motion.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:42): The Greens too will be supporting the creation of this select committee, and we congratulate the Hon. John Darley for the initiative to bring it before us. The fact that we are supporting the select committee does not mean that the Greens are opposed to public transport infrastructure projects. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

At a personal level, I was a founding member and public officer of the group, People for Public Transport SA Inc., and I am also a member of the Adelaide Park Lands Preservation Association. I am a firm believer in the principle that you can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can have a better public transport system and we can protect our Parklands from inappropriate intrusions, and that is where I see this select committee having a valuable role in exploring all of the different options and hopefully coming up with some consensus recommendations that give taxpayers value for money and, most importantly, improve our public transport service and protect the Parklands.

A number of people have said that they do not support this particular public transport project on the basis of how little time it saves. I will remind members that back when what is now called the Southern Expressway was first being mooted—the third arterial road was the sexy title it had back then—that was going to save seven minutes, exactly the same time saving that has been foreshadowed for this one. I do not think that that is the be all and end all of it, because when it comes to public transport, if we are to encourage people to use more public transport, then it does need to be competitive with private car travel and therefore we do need to take options that make public transport travel faster.

So the Greens strongly support public transport and we want to see a much improved public transport network and system in Adelaide. However, there were elements of the government's O-Bahn City Access Project that did cause some concern, and at the top of that list was the impact—what we say was the unnecessary impact—that it would have on Rymill Park; in particular, the construction of a new multi-lane road through some of the most important parts of Rymill Park, very close to the recreational lake and one of the most popular picnic precincts in that park. We thought the government could do better, and I am very pleased to say that the government has come back with some different plans which, whilst we have not examined every aspect of them, do appear to be better.

That does not mean we should abandon this select committee. In fact, I think the parliament should be taking more opportunities, not less, to look at public infrastructure projects. I accept, as the Hon. David Ridgway said, that the Public Works Committee is a poor substitute for genuine multi-party scrutiny of major projects; we just do not do enough of that in this chamber. I do not think the changes to the plan removes the need or the desirability of having a select committee and I have offered, to the Hon. John Darley, to serve on that committee if it is established. This is a complex project and is deserving of scrutiny.

One other aspect I will touch on briefly is the latest plan, which involves leaving Rundle Road as it is, thereby retaining it as a throughway and retaining the on-street car parks there. One thing I would like this select committee to have a look at is to perhaps look at what the government was originally proposing in terms of Rundle Road, because it strikes me that there were some other options that could have returned some or all of that land to parklands yet still provide good access and a good East End business and visitor experience.

One thing we were quite interested in exploring was this notion that Rundle Street, if Rundle Road were closed, would effectively become an isolated length of street that served little purpose as a through road. If that were, in fact, to occur, then traffic-calming Rundle Street, perhaps turning it into a one-way road, widening the footpath, increasing the footpath dining areas—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Perhaps, as the Hon. Rob Brokenshire says, closing it to cars and making it a pedestrian/restaurant precinct. There is a range of options which I think are well deserving of exploration, and I would like to think that this select committee could have a look at some of these options that might flow from an O-Bahn City Access Project.

I think this select committee is a good initiative. I think it does serve a need. The community is certainly asking lots of questions, including whether the money might be better spent on another part of the public transport network, such as extending the O-Bahn further from the city. The Greens have an open mind about whether that would be a better project; maybe it would be an additional project. Certainly our position has long been that, given the billions upon billions of dollars that have been spent expanding the road network in Adelaide and South Australia, spending on public transport has not been sufficient, and we think the government could be doing much better.

Our support for this select committee should in no way be interpreted as somehow being critical of public transport. As I have reminded members on probably about 25 occasions, I have written only two short books in my life, and one of them was Greening Adelaide with Public Transport, now sadly out of print. However, I do recall that then transport minister Diana Laidlaw bought 10 copies of my book at $7 each, so no doubt there are copies in the transport department library.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order!

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: With those brief remarks, the Greens will be supporting this select committee.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:49): Dignity for Disability, of course, joins other members in supporting the establishment of this select committee and in welcoming this initiative because, as with almost any project of this size, there are many options available as to how it might look—but previous speakers have described what those options might be, so I will not go into detail. With a project of this size and with as many options available for how it might roll out, I think it is only right and proper that alternatives are examined and the process is examined and those options are weighed up.

The minister put the government's case for the O-Bahn extension to me in a briefing that my office had with him as a way of 'stopping buses taking up space from cars'. South Australia purports to be getting with the times, and certainly I think in some ways we are. One example is our uptake of alternative energy as being something that has drawn positive feedback, but private vehicle use certainly in general has to decline if we are to meet our environmental obligations into the future. As policymakers we cannot just keep saying that we need to make room for cars.

Adelaideans—and I will confine my comments to the capital here because public transport outside of this city is woefully inadequate and, in some ways, another matter altogether—by and large, seem to have been slow in comparison to residents from other cities in Australia and the world to take up public transport. I believe that we are now seeing an increase in patronage, and certainly the use of smart phone technology, I think, has increased commuter confidence from what I can tell in using the public transport network. Bus journeys, I am told, currently make up 80 per cent of Adelaide's public transport trips and mass transportation is the only way we can look to the future to move large numbers of commuters in and out of our CBD.

I think it is something of a mixed message to be blaming the bus for taking up road space when, in fact, we want to encourage more people to take up public transport options. Dignity for Disability would certainly like to see a study on reducing car usage to create an equal or improved travel time for the O-Bahn. In relation to the proposed extension of the track, perhaps there are some more effective solutions—and for such a short distance the amount of money envisaged seems to be somewhat obscene.

The desecration of our parklands seems unnecessary and the benefits to both O-Bahn passengers and other road users seem to have been exaggerated. We certainly appreciate that there have been some negotiations and improvements to these plans in recent days and we welcome those based on community feedback, but we do think that we also need to take a project of this size very seriously. With those few words, Dignity for Disability commends the motion to the chamber.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:52): The O-Bahn is the most highly patronised public transport corridor in the metropolitan area, carrying approximately eight million passengers per year. The Infrastructure Australia Audit report has identified:

Congestion on Adelaide roads will get worse in the next 20 years without investment in vital transport infrastructure.

If no action is taken the travel times in Adelaide will increase by at least 20 per cent—and some trips could more than double.

By 2031 delay costs of Lower North East Road/Payneham Road and North East Road transport corridors will reach $2.74 million (an increase of 74 per cent) and $2.3 million (an increase of 91 per cent) respectively.

Bus patronage from Tea Tree Gully would surge 37 per cent by 2031 as well.

As part of the 2014-15 state budget, it was confirmed that $160 million will be provided by the state government to improve access into the CBD from the O-Bahn track at Gilberton. I am going to outline some of the current congestion on the current ring routes. The current vehicle movements per day at the Botanic Road/Hackney Road intersection is 79,000 per day. This is near capacity; it must be fixed. At Rundle Road/Dequetteville Terrace, 44,900 vehicles per day; Hackney Road, 44,600; Rundle Road, 14,500; and 25 per cent of travel time due to delays at these intersections.

With the O-Bahn buses, there are currently over 31,000 O-Bahn commuters on an average working day and over 1,000 O-Bahn buses per day. Between 7am and 9am, there are 150 buses coming out of the exit point on Hackney Road. That is one bus every 48 seconds—less than one minute. If you are standing there, one bus will come out every minute.

At peak periods, buses can be delayed up to 30 minutes. I know honourable members have mentioned the seven-minute mark, but if you are looking at delays in peak periods, it can get up to 30 minutes. These are the problems that commuters on O-Bahn buses and people who are driving around that area are facing every day. This is not some kind of ALP conspiracy that we dreamt up. These are the facts, and the fact is it will get worse if we do not fix it. In 10 years time, it will multiply.

Rundle Road can certainly cope with 15,000 vehicles per day, so it does not need two lanes. Once completed, by reducing one lane in each direction, the project will actually increase parking space and there will be more parkland. Currently, there are 218 car parks around Rundle Mall, which are made up of 150 on Rundle Road and 68 on East Terrace. In three years' time, hopefully, when the project is complete, there will be at least 50 more car parking spaces, and I believe the minister's office is currently working with the Adelaide City Council on that plan.

Congestion on the ring routes will be reduced by separating O-Bahn buses from the general public. Very often, people have complained that, during the Clipsal period, when they have to drive into the city, the O-Bahn on Hackney Road is holding up and congesting traffic. This project will fix that problem. Buses will go straight underneath, through the tunnel to Grenfell Street.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. T.T. NGO: In peak time. Currently, the 150 buses that come out between 7am and 9am come out into full-on heavy traffic. By the end of this project, those problems hopefully will be alleviated. Rymill Park currently has 145,000 square metres in park space; once the project is completed, I believe that the parkland space will actually increase to 149,121 square metres. Rundle Park currently has 65,696 square metres; this will stay the same. One important point that needs to be pointed out is that this project will create 450 jobs over the construction stage.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: How long will that be?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Three years. As honourable members would know, we are not doing too well in this state regarding employment. People are screaming out for projects like this to create jobs, and the government is actually doing something about it. This project should be encouraged so that more jobs can be created for the people of South Australia. There should be more of these kinds of projects to unlock economic activity for this state. This project, I am certainly sure, is being welcomed by thousands of people who are looking for work at the moment.

I think as a council honourable members need to really have a good think about whether we need another select committee established to look at another inquiry, which to me is really wasting the council's resources and its staff. Some of the terms of reference that the honourable member moved make it some general inquiry, whereby honourable members can write to the minister or seek a briefing.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Or do nothing.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Or do nothing, yes. So, there are a number of other standing committees that can also investigate these issues raised by the Hon. Mr Darley. For example, the O-Bahn issue is currently being dealt with by the Public Works Committee in terms of the cost-benefit analysis. The Budget and Finance Committee, chaired by the Hon. Mr Lucas, a very good Chair, can certainly call in witnesses and ask these sorts of questions.

The ERD Committee, on which the Hon. Mr Parnell, Michelle Lensink and myself currently sit, deals with planning, land use and transportation. This committee is better equipped to deal with this matter raised by the Hon. Mr Darley. It probably would have more influence than the select committee to be set up under this motion. We do not need to set up another select committee to find answers on the terms of reference as proposed; it is really unnecessary.

I believe the continued establishment of select committees is denigrating the good committee structure that our parliament has at the moment. Our parliament only has so many resources. I must congratulate the Hon. Mr Brokenshire for moving the issue of outsourcing the MAC to the Statutory Authorities Review Committee. I hope he will speak next and be able to convince other honourable members that maybe that is what they should be doing. We are talking about a large project like MAC and he has referred it to another standing committee, which should be the way to go.

I acknowledge the Hon. John Darley's interest in this issue, but prior to the March 2014 state election the Labor government gave the commitment to the people of South Australia that, if it was re-elected, it would build a tunnel to fix the O-Bahn congestion along the ring route. The public and the opposition have been demanding for years that the congestion be fixed. Let me pull up some of the media releases that the opposition has put out. I have one here that has been organised by my staff. It is the media release by Vickie Chapman, MP, Deputy State Liberal Leader, shadow minister for transport and infrastructure, released on 8 May 2014, and it states:

Weatherill must commit to O-Bahn upgrade

Shadow Transport Minister Vickie Chapman has called on Premier Weatherill to recommit to his Labor Government's O-Bahn upgrade before the release of the State Budget in June.

One of the Weatherill Labor Government's election commitments was a $160 million O-Bahn upgrade from Hackney Road into the CBD.

'Let's not forget that This State Labor Government has spent 12 years making and breaking promises', said Ms Chapman.

'Of course, Mr Weatherill has been a Cabinet Minister for 12 years.

'Mr Weatherill must tell South Australians before the June state budget whether or not his $160 million O-Bahn upgrade still stands'.

Last month, L-plate Transport Minister, Stephen Mullighan, made an embarrassing gaffe about the completion date of the upgrade—bringing the project forward to 2017 when Labor's final election costings confirmed it would not be completed until at least 2018-19.

A previous proposal to extend the O-Bahn was announced and then scrapped by the Weatherill Labor Government.

'South Australians deserve to know whether or not this O-Bahn upgrade will go ahead in its current form, before the state budget is delivered in June,' said Ms Chapman.

'Why should South Australians trust Premier Weatherill to deliver this project this time?

'South Australians deserve a Government that delivers what it promises'.

I have another press release that was put out:

Talk is cheap and it is time for Mr Koutsantonis to put his money where his mouth is and fund the projects he personally promised South Australia that a Labor government would build…

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Gee, you have been getting Michael to do some work for a change.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. T.T. NGO: No, mate, I did it. The people of South Australia can trust this Premier, and this 'L-plate minister', if that is what the opposition wants to call him, and this government to deliver on this project. We are a government in the business of keeping our election promises. So I urge honourable members to follow the lead of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and refer this issue to an existing standing committee so we can deal with it. I urge members not to vote for this motion.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:05): I want to put Family First's position on this motion on the public record. We are probably coming from a different angle to some of my colleagues. Whichever way people feel about this, I do not believe we have $164 million at the moment to spend on this particular project to save three minutes, and I want to highlight why. In particular, we do not have a strategic transport plan. If it had not been for the Abbott government, as an example, funding the Darlington triangle upgrade then, whilst it is great to have a duplication of the Southern Expressway, it would come straight down to a bottleneck. This is the problem with this project: it is going to save 3½ minutes, but I wonder what the true net cost-benefit analysis is.

One of my staff members lives in the north-eastern suburbs but does not have the opportunity of using the O-Bahn, she has to use the other basic bus services. There is an absolute bottleneck in Grenfell Street and the fact is that the government does not have a plan to fix the bottleneck problem. If you are serious about a public transport plan, go to Perth and have a look at what they have there. They have a transport plan where they all come in underground and they go straight through to the CBD.

The key reason we are supporting this is motion is that, if you have a look at $164 million, the people of the north-eastern suburbs by and large with respect to this O-Bahn extension from The Advertiser poll—the absolute majority of them do not support this project. We have a lot of constituents in the north-eastern suburbs and we will always stick up for them, but they want bigger park-and-ride opportunities back out in their own suburbs. Part of the problem at the moment is that they do not have the park-and-ride facilities out there. They want night services. Vouchers for access cabs for people with a disability are short in number and they are continually running out of them.

Consider the horrendous and tragic fatalities in the last few days. I will start with the one at the intersection of the Yorke Highway and the Copper Coast Highway near Port Wakefield. We lost a lovely 14-year-old lad and two beautiful parents; their children are now orphans. That intersection needs an overpass. We are going to have a situation where people will not go on to the Yorke Peninsula as tourists to the extent that they are now because they are fed up with what is happening and the safety issues with the roads there. That intersection needs an overpass. As one of my constituents said to me the other day, you could build an overpass at Port Wakefield for similar money to the overpass that the commonwealth mainly funded at McLaren Vale—probably about $20 million or $25 million. You could then have a proper bypass and integrated infrastructure put in at Port Wakefield to overcome the bottlenecks and the safety issues.

Have a look at the tragedy last night on the Swanport Bridge. If you drive across the Swanport Bridge, it is a single lane each way and it is getting busier and busier with B-doubles. It is actually quite scary. It needs to be two lanes each way on the Swanport Bridge, then maybe the tragedy last night may not have occurred.

What I am trying to say in a nutshell is that, if the government have got a lazy $164 million at the moment, put the $164 million into broader public transport improvements like park-and-rides and better bus and access cab opportunities, and start to fix up some of our busted up roads that are causing road trauma and tragedy. I was told that we have gone from around about $200 million of backlog road maintenance, mainly in the country, to $1 billion worth of backlog road maintenance now and a lot of urgent infrastructure.

So, from those points of view, we actually think that the priorities at the moment should be to spend the money wisely and better and provide a much broader opportunity for South Australians to be safe when they are travelling on our roads, whether it is public transport or main roads. We therefore commend the Hon. John Darley and, if there is a division, we will be voting with the Hon. John Darley to support a thorough and transparent investigation through the select committee.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:10): I just want to make two quick points as a result of the debate. The first one is I would urge members, if the committee is established, to look at the evidence given by former CEO of DPTI Rod Hook about two years ago in relation to one of the earlier versions of the O-Bahn tunnel plan.

His evidence, in summary, was very significantly that you had to cater for, as part of your costing of your project, changes and the impacts on Grenfell Street. He said it made no sense just talking about digging tunnels, building bridges or whatever it happened to be and dumping all of this extra traffic, buses in particular.

He outlined in some detail what needed to be done on Grenfell Street. It had not been finely costed and done, but he certainly outlined the important part of the work that would need to be done. I would urge members, if this committee is established, to look at his evidence. It would probably be sensible to get Rod Hook to come and give evidence to the committee, I would have thought.

The second point I make was just to put on the record my response to the Hon. Mr Parnell's assertion that a fair comparison of the seven-minute saving on the O-Bahn was the same as the claimed seven-minute saving on the original Southern Expressway. I did interject at the time. I just want to place on the record that I suspect, without having had a chance to check, that the seven minutes, if that was indeed the correct claim at the time, might have related to the travel time one way into the city or whatever, whereas the seven minutes which is being discussed here is a two-way calculation of savings both going in and out.

I understand there are different calculations for going in and different calculations for going out. I accept all of that, but I just wanted to place on the public record that I did not want an implied criticism of a fine infrastructure project at the time to stand on the record uncorrected.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:12): I would like to thank the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. David Ridgway, the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for their contributions, and I look forward to all members' support on this motion.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. Terry Stephens, the Hon. David Ridgway and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 29 July 2015.

Motion carried.