HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

No-Confidence Motion

NO CONFIDENCE MOTION: MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): I move:

That the house has no confidence in the Minister for Transport, Minister for Energy and Minister for Infrastructure; that the house calls on him to resign; and that, if he fails to do so, the house calls on the Premier to sack him for his failure to safely and effectively manage the public transport system and for his incompetent oversight and failure of leadership across his portfolios.

Despite an extra $4 billion in GST money and extra revenue from passenger transport fares that have increased more than 20 per cent since this government came into office, we have a passenger transport system that is unsafe, inefficient—why don't you sit down, Premier, and listen? Why don't you sit down, because this affects you: it is your leadership that is in question.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: You're embarrassing.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, you're embarrassing. Our transport system is unsafe, inefficient and outdated, and we are the laughing-stock of the nation because of it. In the period since this minister has taken over the portfolio, there has been one failed project after another, one late train after another and one derailed tram or train after another, all of which he has blamed on someone else. It is a litany of disaster. He has left a trail of financial and organisational chaos from his first day as transport and infrastructure minister, in particular. He came to the post in March 2005, replacing former minister Trish White and former minister Wright.

Even today, we had a broken-down tram right outside the minister's office. There it was as a signal and a beacon to his achievements. Not only that, this morning we have The Advertiser telling South Australians—wrongly informed by the government—that the board of TransAdelaide was to be 'sidelined' because minister Conlon's department would be 'seizing responsibility' for all operations. Well, heaven help us. By 8am the minister had his minders ringing around on radio saying, 'No, that's wrong, pull the story,' and we have just had a—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. No-one is making noise on this side, so could the Leader of the Opposition please not yell, it is very disturbing.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Get over it! The ministerial statement we have just heard bore no reflection on the story in The Advertiser this morning. Even today it is chaos. It goes back. We have had the minister damning TransAdelaide board member, Libby Kosmala, condemning her—a Paralympian and a recipient of the Order of Australia—saying she has got it all wrong; the board has got it all wrong. She was telling us what the board really thinks. On 6 November, a new tram derailment near South Terrace in the vicinity of Veale Gardens—and what does the minister do, he blames the driver.

It is all the driver's fault, without the investigation even having been conducted. Of course, if you went down there, it looked like Chennai in India. You had people on the switchbox manually operating the points. There were blue plastic tents over technology with people flicking the switches, and the drivers going through and being interrupted by other TransAdelaide staff as they attempted to safely drive their trams. All this is courtesy of this minister. What does he do? He blames one of his own workers. Here is an ex-union official who straight away says, 'It's his fault; it's not my fault.' It is cowardly.

On 27 October the Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union was warning that drug and alcohol abuse amongst TransAdelaide workers was spiralling 'out of control'. We had the big computer breakdown on 1 November, throwing the entire rail network into total chaos and leaving thousands of commuters stranded. The computer system, which has been in place for 18 months, has caused problems before—and we will hear about that shortly. On 9 October, from official TransAdelaide statistics, we heard that 100 commuters had been injured getting on or off trains and trams over the past three years. On 27 October eight train services were cancelled after TransAdelaide workers failed to clean excess grease off the Adelaide to Belair line.

On 25 October there were registration and licensing system failures at the department of motor vehicle registration. New car dealers who registered vehicles for 12 months were receiving handwritten stickers. A $14.7 million TRUMPS system descended into a costly farce with blow-outs of $5.2 million. There are problems with Fleet SA threatening to stop buying vehicles from some dealers. Drivers have complained that their cars have been wrongly recorded as stolen. The system is a mess; and the Auditor-General has reported on all these things.

On 27 September a Noarlunga-bound train derailed at Adelaide Railway Station, injuring passengers. The minister thinks it is a beat-up. He thinks it is not a problem having train derailments and it is not a problem for rail safety. I will tell the house what happens when trains derail. People get injured. Minister, sometimes they die in train and tram derailments. Derailments are very serious. They are not beat-ups or hysteria but rather warnings that the next derailment may be more serious. But the minister does not take it seriously. He thinks it is a beat-up. He says, 'No, we'll flick it off. It's a little malfunction when three carriages derail.'

On 15 June we were told that the supplier of the problem-plagued $9.5 million computerised central train system 'will be forced to fix it'. Members opposite walk around and try to make light of it. They are trying to convince the media that it does not matter. Well, Premier, it does matter. Your leadership is on the line. Are you going to stick with this bloke until March 2010, come what may, or are you going to do the right thing by South Australia and move him aside? The Deputy Premier should be taking note as well, because the computer system which this government claims is faulty has been faulty for some time. We were promised an audit and we were told that it was going to be fixed, but it has not been fixed.

On 16 April there was a train breakdown which caused major delays across the network. The media reports that almost one-quarter of the fleet of 100 railcars needs to be replaced within five years. TransAdelaide reports reveal 300 breakdowns in 2005-06 related to engine failure or brakes. Of course, in February 2007 we had the new bus timetables. Weren't they a smashing success! Commuters were left confused and rattled around the metropolitan area.

That was a great little cost-cutting exercise. Members should talk to the bus commuters who are not happy with the government either. Of course, one thing that the minister has forgotten is that 96 per cent of commuters use the rail network and buses; 4 per cent use trams. One would not think that when one looks at the government's priorities. They are the priorities of a minister who needs to go. If he does not go then he needs to be put aside by the Premier.

In relation to the Outer Harbor line and the spur line to Grange, 14 per cent of the trains were over five minutes late, and far more between zero and five minutes late, making connections virtually impossible. On 27 February 2007 an unacceptably high number of late trains was put down to an increased number of speed restrictions on an aging network. The rate had doubled in just three years. Guess who has been the minister for most of that time? Answers to questions on notice reveal that almost 20 per cent of trains (or one in five trains) on the Belair line were running over five minutes late. Well done, commuters might say.

On 6 February 2007, we found that more than 1,390 train services had been cancelled or did not complete their scheduled journey, during the past two financial years, all under this minister's lack of leadership.

In January 2007 I was asked to go to Mawson Lakes to look at a lift for the disabled out there. It is perpetually broken. The parents and family of disabled people asked me to go. I went out there. It is probably still broken today. I checked with the bus drivers. They told me it was a standing joke—a sick joke and a farce. The thing is permanently broken. They write to the minister. Nothing happens. It is broken the next week. These little things are just endemic and typical of the culture that is so wrong in this department, under this minister's leadership.

In November 2006 we had the farrago of the buses to the U2 concert at AAMI Stadium. It was absolute chaos; commuters fuming; he had to backflip; put on extra buses. It was crisis management, something which this department is very used to under this minister.

In October 2006, the mothballed 2000-class trains were returned to service to ease overcrowding. We have the only diesel rail system in the country. We are a laughing-stock. Everybody else has found the money to upgrade. No, but not this minister; no proposals going forward there.

In June-August DTEI contracts were found to be wanting. And remember the security camera systems that were going to go in the buses. He said 150 to 200 buses had been fitted, but he later had to admit that they had been fitted but none of them were connected up. None of them worked. He had just left that bit out. He thought people would believe him. Well, when he was pushed, 'Oh sure, they've all been fitted; now just go away,' but none of them worked.

This guy is an absolute star. He comes in here at question time. He waves his arms about, he goes red in the face, he prepares his little jokes, he comes in with his little jokes, and he turns around to everybody and says, 'Aren't I clever, aren't I funny?'. Well, you can get away with that if you are competent, but when you are foolish, when your department is a mess it does not wash the same. The Mr Funnyman.

Well, the Mr Funnyman needs to start getting some results. I remember the Premier: 'Mike Rann gets results.' Outside your office today, that broken tram, there are the results you have been getting, Premier. You're getting great results, and you are going to get worse results if you leave that minister in that portfolio.

In May 2006, and in fact throughout '06, we have had the tragedy of sexual assaults and attacks in our cabs. A number of women have been terribly abused in our cabs. Whenever it has been raised the minister says it is a beat-up, he says it is hysteria. What has he done about it? Effectively nothing. We had to come out with a policy of our own, while he is out there saying it is just a beat-up, it is hysteria, don't worry about it, don't talk down the cab industry. Go and tell that to the families. You didn't take it seriously then, you still don't, and you need to sort the taxi industry out.

We have raised concerns over faulty rail signalling systems. They are also failing. Do you remember in May last year he suspended drivers for allegedly going through red lights? Sounds familiar? It turned out it was a computer system. In fact, the union blew the whistle. They said the computer system had failed. The drivers had to be reinstated. It wasn't their fault. It was a failed computer. 'But what do we do, we blame the drivers, let's get the drivers, it must be their fault.' Sound familiar? It happened again just a few weeks ago: 'Let's blame the driver.'

Then, of course, we had the red-light cameras. Wasn't that a smashing success. On 22 May 2005 there was to be a $40 million program to make South Australian streets safer. Forty-eight new red-light cameras were to be purchased, for $35.6 million. The problem was they didn't turn up. And 19 of them had to be sent back to Germany to be fixed—a contract managed by this minister.

Read what the Auditor-General has had to say about the internal functions in management and inventory control in this minister's department and you will start to see why. I think the Germans are the same people who were responsible for providing the transponder that probably led to our derailment the other day. Perhaps if that had been in place, and we did not have blokes down there flicking switches all day, it might have been avoided. So, in that case, it was Germany's fault.

We heard today that we are to have a reorganisation. Well, won't that be sweet? When the minister took over, he sacked half of his most experienced people in the department: he got rid of senior managers, he replaced people on the board, and he got rid of CEOs. He sacked people right, left and centre. That is what you do when you are a belligerent, aggressive bullyboy minister. You get in there and finish up surrounding yourself with yes-men, because the people who stand up to you either go or you sack them, and you finish up with a group of people who do not know what they are talking about and who say, 'Yes minister, yes minister, yes minister. You know everything, minister. Off you go.' Well, what do you get after that? You get the results that we are getting.

The minister needs to look at himself, not his department, when it comes to change. And there have been warning bells. There have been freight carriage derailments on the Belair line, which could have resulted in serious loss of life, and trains have hit each other on that line. These are all matters that have been investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. They are warnings that there could be more serious accidents to come. But no, it is all hysteria; it is all a beat-up, according to the Minister for Transport.

Then, of course, we have the famed infrastructure blow-outs. Let us just consider that for a moment. Quite apart from the safety of our public transport system, we have the Bakewell Bridge, which we were told would cost $30 million. Then we found out that it was $41 million, and that is without counting the $2.5 million that the commonwealth put in: $43.5 million. Then we had the Anzac Highway underpass along South Road.

That was going to cost $65 million, then it went up to $118 million—but we budgeted for $140 million. No, it was not going to go over budget, but, 'Oh, we need $28 million more for a tram overpass,' because we had forgotten to listen in the Public Works Committee and during the public debate when everyone said, 'This won't work, because you have a tramline right next to the intersection.' Bang, in goes another $28 million. So, that is $148 million. It was supposed to be $65 million. The mathematics is simply stunning.

Then we had the underpass along South Road under Grange Road and Port Road, which started off at $120 million. It is upwards of $250 million—probably $50 million more than that, to $300 million, given that ETSA pointed out to the minister that moving the substation would cost an extra $50 million. I do not know whether we will ever get this project or how much it will cost. Another brilliant effort by the Minister for Infrastructure!

Then there is the Northern Expressway, which was going to cost $300 million, and there were to be two parts to the project. I think we are now heading towards $600 million, and there is only one part to the project—we axed the southern part. Heaven knows where that project is going, or what it will ultimately deliver. We found the minister secretly planning a new extension out to the west through Penrice salts to finish the job that he could not complete for $300 million. This is a travesty of incompetence from start to finish with respect to our trains and trams, infrastructure projects and fiscal management. Everything this minister has touched has turned bad and it has turned ugly.

There is a $200 million backlog with respect to road maintenance. There is no plan for the future. We got an infrastructure plan. Wow! The only trouble was that it did not tell people what was going to be done, when, where, how much, or in what sequence. Apart from that, it was a brilliant plan. And all this courtesy of the Minister for Infrastructure. Of course, there was a transport plan draft, but this minister put it in the bin and, despite repeated requests, will not pull it out. So, there is no plan or sequence—no plan for the future.

Why are we surprised that things are going wrong? Transport and infrastructure management under this minister is simply a mess. Every project has exceeded its budget, and we are not talking about hundreds of millions of dollars; we are talking about possibly more. He has blamed everyone but himself. It is not competent management and there needs to be change. He has left a trail of unhappy transport commuters and his failure on major projects has left a trail of fiscal ruin.

I make this point: Labor legend Gough Whitlam had something to say just recently about governance, when he co-signed a letter with Malcolm Fraser on Monday 12 November, as follows:

Ministers should be held accountable for their failings of their policies or administration...This principle is a bedrock of responsible government.

He also said:

This is a matter that transcends party politics. It goes to the very heart of the way we are governed.

Labor needs to listen to its luminary because it strikes at the very core of the Westminster system. This particular brand of incompetence that we see from the Minister for Infrastructure is not flowing from a lack of knowledge, although a lack of experience is at point in the transport area. It is not even flowing from a lack of ability. I believe it is flowing from a belligerent, bellicose and bullying attitude as minister towards his staff, people, responsibilities and duties.

We have heard all the stories. We have heard about the bullying that goes on within the Labor Party. We have heard about the showdowns in the house here with Nick Xenophon between the Deputy Premier and the minister; they have been belligerent showdowns. We have seen all the posturing—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Here he goes. Don't go there. During debate last year, he came over here and said, 'Come on. Come outside.' All I could do was laugh. He was like a little chihuahua biting your ankle and going 'Woof, woof, woof'. It was an absolute joke. But as minister, he went out there throwing his weight around. I can tell you that you have a lot to learn about leadership, minister, if that is the way you treat your people. What your people say to you as minister is, 'You know everything, we will let you go,' or they leave you out on your own, and that is what has happened. That is one of the reasons that things are going so wrong.

The minister's problem is belligerence, complacency and a lack of ministerial leadership. He is dangerous to himself and others. There are some warning shots here for the Premier. The Premier cannot allow him to continue in the post until March 2010. Public safety and sound administration demand otherwise. If this minister remains in situ, when further problems arise, they will fall at the feet of the Premier, and we have over two years to go.

There have been important warning signs. The safety and integrity of our public transport system and our major infrastructure projects depend on the Premier making the right decision, and the right decision is to find a minister for transport and infrastructure who can do the job and who can lead the department forward. Premier, you need to either back him or sack him.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (14:49): Can I say at the outset that I ask those on the other side that I be allowed to speak with the same lack of interference that the Leader of the Opposition did, because I welcome this debate today. It is my opportunity to deal with what has been hyperactive and frantic dishonesty on the part of the opposition. Not only has it happened for the past week, it has happened again today. In the calmest fashion possible, I would like to point out the absolutely frantic and repeated dishonesty of the opposition.

I will start with recent comments about a tram derailment last week. The accusation was that I was blaming the driver. The truth was that, no sooner had it happened, the Leader of the Opposition was out there saying that the track had been wrongly laid and should be pulled up without any investigation. This is the Leader of the Opposition and what he would have done immediately, as leader, would have been to pull up that track and relay it. Of course, as it turned out—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Not true.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, it's not true. I have to say this, too, about some of—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I actually have it here. I can run through it, if you want. I actually have your words here, if you really want me to run through it. I will go through all the dishonest things that the Leader of the Opposition has said, but I will say this: I will check what he claims I said about sexual assaults in taxis; that they were a beat up in hysteria. If that is what he has said—and I will check the Hansard—I will put him on notice. Either he withdraws or I will take a matter of privilege, because it is simply untrue. If that is what he said, he will withdraw tomorrow or I will take a matter of privilege, because it is simply too dishonest, even for this mob. What else did they say? The shadow minister said that the driver in question had been instructed to proceed through the red light, and that was the problem—simply untrue. Again, simply untrue.

Mr Hamilton-Smith said that the driver had done everything that he had been asked to do—simply untrue. Faulty switches were to blame according to—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, it was human error. I am not on a witch-hunt for the driver. I have spoken to the union about it, and I will come back to the union in a moment. Faulty switches were to blame—simply untrue. He could not resist. He said today that a tram broke down out the front—simply untrue. Not true. It is an invention, a fabrication. Then, best of all, during the week—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: No, they won't. They won't let anyone debate this quietly. They will not let the truth be told. During the week, in the most spectacularly bizarre thing I have ever seen, the opposition spokesperson rang media outlets telling them that the general manager had resigned—a reckless fabrication, a complete invention. It actually follows on the same member in this place making the same sort of allegations. He accused a public service officer of changing the route of the Northern Expressway to suit a family member—utterly untrue; and, of course, there is this most recent egregiousness. Above all, this is the most spectacularly irresponsible thing I have ever seen from someone who claims to have the interest of the public at heart in terms of public transport. After the train derailment—caused by human error—he amazingly sent an email to the secretary of the union. That email says in its operative parts:

To allow the driver to cop the flak is not what I would have expected. I am surprised you have not called your members out until Conlon apologised. Watson has to go, but so does Conlon; we both know it. Rann does not have the guts to sack Conlon. He needs his factional support, so you need to stick up for your members.

We have the opposition spokesperson urging the union to go on strike.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, it's in your writing—and he handed it out to union members. Since then, I have met with the union, and I will tell the truth about this, regardless of what he has said. I met with the union, and do you know what they said to me? They were outraged by it, but they have complete confidence in the general manager and they have complete confidence in me. Because of my natural humility, I do not really want to say this—and with the greatest respect to the members for Wright and Taylor—but the current secretary of the union said that I was the best Minister for Transport he had ever worked with, and he said that I could quote him.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That's right; now he's attacking. When a union does not agree with him, he attacks it. The complete farrago of dishonesty continued from the Leader of the Opposition. He said that our transport system is unsafe and outdated. Of course, in 2002, when we got it, it was brand new. How could I have let it decline so much in such a short period of time? It has become outdated since then.

He said that the rail, tram and bus union had talked about drug taking and alcohol. I just had a note passed to me from the secretary of the union saying that they sought a retraction of those comments, and they were retracted—of course, again a reckless disregard for the truth. The trucks blow-out that does not exist and a cost-cutting exercise on new routes—utter dishonesty. There was no cost cutting; in fact, there were more services put on, and we had increase in patronage in some areas of 10 per cent. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: if he wants to be the premier—the 'alternative premier', as he calls himself—he will not be able to do it on a complete tissue of lies on all occasions. It simply won't wash.

He said that he cared for disabled people out there with the lift. I will check (apparently there were 6 million letters on this), but twice it has been raised. I will tell you this: what would have happened if this government had not won in 2002 and the opposition were still there? One thing is right: we would not have had a tram extension. We would also still be riding H-class trams that were over 80 years old. H-class trams are what we would be riding on—so much for his regard for the disabled, because they would not have got on those trams. The elderly would not have got on, women with prams would not have got on, and we would still be riding H-class trams.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: We know that because you said you would not have bought the trams we did, but you never said which other ones, and there are no other ones to purchase. That was the tender.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I will protect my record.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I ask you this: would a visitor to this city rather see 80 year old trams running to the heart of the city or see what we have now—something absolutely—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Mr Speaker, this fellow was heard in silence while he told a farrago of lies. I would like to be heard in silence while I tell the truth. Do you think that a visitor to this city would rather see 80 year old trams running to the middle of Victoria Square or this wonderful tram running through all the way to here? Can I say that Harbison—your former candidate in a state election—was on the radio praising the government for its courage. I will stand by that tram extension through thick and thin.

What would we also not have if the Liberals were still in government? We would not have the Bakewell underpass, we would not have the underpass on South Road and we would not have a list of South Road projects that now even the federal Liberal Party, as well as the federal government, have signed up to. We would not have any of those things. We would not have had a balanced budget because we never did. I tell you this: the minister would not have had any trouble with TransAdelaide because it would have been privatised by now—the reason it was corporatised in the first place.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That is the alternative vision for Adelaide they have put forward. Let me come to more recent times. I say in all sincerity that the standards of honesty have dropped dramatically since this Leader of the Opposition has come to office. I do note that, under Rob Kerin and Iain Evans, there was a standard of honesty. Do you note that they are the two not wearing 'Fix it Pat' badges today? Is there a message in that? They are not part of the dishonest campaign by the Leader of the Opposition. Standards have plummeted under this bloke.

Can I say that for this incompetent Leader of the Opposition to take advantage of a competent campaign run by a media outlet will not make the Sunday Mail very happy. You have to give them credit. The Sunday Mail has had an intelligent if, I think, overblown and far too robust campaign on this. These guys ride on the back of a media outlet. They get their questions reading the paper. They ride on the back of a campaign, and it is pathetic.

Above all, what would be different if they were in power? I thought that they said that it should be electrified and upgraded and that it needs more money, but I must have memory problems. I tried to remember what they promised on public transport because we have heard it is outdated, so I got the 2002 election promise of the Liberal government. Of course it will be talking about electrification, it will be talking about how much more you are going to spend on public transport. That's what it would be, wouldn't it?

Ms Chapman: Very poor defence.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Very poor defence. What we have seen today is that this guy first promised a no-confidence motion in me on 22 December last year. He has moved it today. I think he is a bit worried. There is a marvellous opportunity today, because tomorrow it I will be debating the federal minister, Mr Downer, who is already on record saying that he would like to come and get the Leader of the Opposition's job. I think this is a marvellous opportunity—I urge the media—for people to watch. Mr Hamilton Smith today—wasn't he good? A little hysterical, I thought, but plenty of passion—not much honesty, but plenty of passion. I did think the barking was a bit over the top, but tomorrow they can look at Mr Downer, and they can make a good judgment about who they would like as leader of the opposition.

Can I say that I do not think that Mr Downer is going to bark tomorrow. I recently saw the Leader of the Opposition with a doll with my face on it, and he was poking it. I do think the barking might be a symptom, because that is pretty odd behaviour by anyone. He did like to poke the little doll, but I have to put on notice that if he starts sticking needles in it I am getting an apprehended violence order—I am not going to put up with that sort of thing.

This is the standard of debate under this Leader of the Opposition. Members opposite are prepared to tell any dishonest story they can to get up. You will hear next, I suppose, from the shadow spokesperson. Do you know what he said when he was taken to task by an independent person—not me—about why he tells so many porkies? He said, 'Oh well, I only have to get one right.' That is his attitude to this chamber. 'I only have to get one right'; that is what he said.

An honourable member: That's not true.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He said that, and two people heard him, one of whom is in this chamber. So I would be careful about saying that it is not true. I have had meetings with the board. I will come back to another piece of arrant dishonesty from the Leader of the Opposition. He said that I sacked senior members and got rid of board members. I have not got rid of a single board member since I got here—not a single one. It is simply an invention. I have not sacked senior managers because I am not allowed to. It is on the record. When I first got in I replaced Tim O'Loughlin, who went to another job, and then subsequently I did get rid of one chief executive, James Horne.

I have never sacked a senior manager. He says I am belligerent and bullying, and he comes back with all these sleazy stories. If you want me to talk about what we were told by TransAdelaide people on the Thursday night of the derailment when you came to visit them, I will do it, but I do not engage in the sort of sleazy things you do. I only mention it because you are prepared to go anywhere, but I tell you that some of them had very interesting stories to tell about you. It was Melbourne Cup Day, if you remember that, and they had very interesting stories to tell. But, I do not like to do that because we can debate it on the facts; you cannot, and that is why you always go for it.

I will close on this. When I see Alexander Downer tomorrow, I do not think he will be waving his arms in the air red-faced. I do not think that he will be barking like a dog. I am pretty certain that he will not bring a doll of me and poke it at the debate. What I will say is that he is going to have to do pretty poorly before people will recognise him as being a better candidate for the leader of the opposition than you are.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (14:58): If that was a defence of this minister's reputation, well, God help South Australian public transport users! Mr Speaker, if you want a classic example of the mess, disappointment, accidents and incidents under this minister, you cannot go out the front there now because of the broken down tram—sorry, it is not broken down according to this minister. Well, why, minister, is Bill Watson quoted on the Adelaide Now website saying:

A tram has broken down. It has now gone back to Glengowrie for further inspection. It was the same tram as on Melbourne Cup Day.

It did not happen; it has not broken down.

Mr Pengilly: Blame Bill Watson.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Bill Watson is being honest about it. Mr Speaker, if you want an example of the litany of errors and examples of mismanagement, just go and talk to the people out there, read the papers, have a look at what this minister has done. Tram 111 did break down out the front today. It is the same tram that derailed on Melbourne Cup Day. Thank goodness it was going slowly out the front of Parliament House, because, had it been going at speed with all the kids on pageant day over the Glengowrie Bridge or Sturt Creek—what could have happened then? It is absolutely atrocious.

This minister seems to want to say that it is all a beat-up and it is all just a lot of rubbish. We know what the Premier said today on FIVEaa radio. He said, 'It is a brand new tram; brand new infrastructure; brand new rolling stock. Everything is brand new.' We know it is not all brand new because they have just let a tender to re-rail almost half the track. It is not new. That lot over there will say anything and do anything to try to discredit this side. We know that because let us look at who this minister blames. Last year, when the signal system failed, he blamed the drivers. When a board member of TransAdelaide blamed lack of ministerial direction and resources for the decline in our rail system, he said that she was spouting rubbish. When the train derailed last month, he blamed old software. It is new software: it is software that cost nearly $10 million.

I saw an advert in the paper on the weekend for a new signalling engineer to ensure that it does not happen again. Last week, at the Australian Railway Association dinner, I was told that a new signalling engineer will cost about $250,000 a year, if you can get one. We should have bought a system which was not going to break down and which was reliable. But what have we got from this lot? We hear it all the time—I hear it all the time—'The minister wants it done, the minister gets it done, and make it cheap.'

That is what I hear from TransAdelaide people all the time because this minister has a reputation for being a bully. That reputation will get out there. He tries to charm those whom he can. He tries to charm them and this bloke has many people fooled. But this bloke, if you test him, he is just a bully, a thorough, through and through bully. I will not be bullied, the opposition will not be bullied and certainly the people of South Australia will wake up and realise that this man is incompetent and should not be in this position.

The only person who seems to have any faith in this man is the Premier, because I note that the Premier will speak after me. If the Premier is able to do a better job of trying to defend this minister, I will be very surprised. The minister could not even defend himself. It is just absolutely atrocious that the minister is still in his position. We know that he remains there because he uses his faction to hold the numbers and to hold the Premier at bay.

Let us look at some of the things for which this minister is responsible. Let us look at the Northern Expressway. The opposition leader spoke about the blow-out. We know about that. Let us look at what has not happened yet, that is, the safety audits. Have the safety audits been carried out yet? No. To get federal government funding, the safety audits have to be carried out. What am I hearing from engineers: who the hell organised this alignment? The safety audits will reveal that there may have to be a realignment and more land may have to be purchased.

I was criticised by this minister for raising the fact that the Gawler River flood plain management people were looking at buying land for that particular project. The minister said that I was not telling the truth. Well, it turns out that this state government has given $7.75 million to them and the Gawler River flood plain management people are buying land upriver and they are also acquiring land for easements along the NExy. Once again, this minister is not being truthful. He sits over there. He has gone to hide behind the Premier. He sits there and tries to say that we are not telling the truth. You can be wrong in opposition because you have such limited resources. That is what I said: you can be wrong. The minister offered extra resources. Give us some more resources and we will show you how wrong you really are.

Let us look at the Port River bridge: $100 million out of the air by the Treasurer. Did it go to cabinet? We do not know. Certainly a public meeting was held down there and $100 million was spent like that. What for? For a few sets of rags and sticks to go out there a couple of times a day, if they time it right. Even HMAS Adelaide (which is coming next year) will not come inside that bridge. We know that. We are still waiting to find out why the opening of that bridge has been delayed. Down the Port it is colloquially known as 'the big crack'.

The opposition leader spoke about the South Road underpass. In relation to Anzac Highway I talk to property owners. Some of them get a lot and some get nothing. Poor old Horst had a business there for 35 years. Don Dunstan was one of his clients. What has he got? He got nothing for his business from this minister. The minister sent out the deputy minister, Rod Hook—he is known as the deputy minister—because this bloke knows he cannot do it. He has no people skills whatsoever.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I have a point of order, sir. The shadow minister continually refers to 'this bloke'. That is not the correct way in which to address another member of parliament. I ask that he address the minister correctly.

The SPEAKER: I do not think it is unparliamentary. Perhaps the member for Morphett should refer to other members by their title.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, sir. Some 170 metres from the underpass there is a $28 million tram bridge. This is in the minister's electorate. He goes past South Road. Did he not look left and see the tram and think, 'What are we going to do about that?' No—we will spend $28 million building a bridge there, on top of the five kilometres of re-railing. How many millions of dollars will that cost? Is it $2 million, $3 million or $4 million? They will keep it under $4 million so it will not go to the Public Works Committee—they do not want an investigation by that committee.

We heard the opposition leader talk about Port Road. It is $300 million-plus but they forgot the $50 million ETSA substation move. The Sturt Road underpass has disappeared. We did hear that there may be a resurrection of the Liberal Party's policy for the Bedford Park interchange. We did hear a whisper about that last week. I hope they do something. I hope there is a plan. They tore up and scrapped the draft transport plan which had nothing in it. What do industry leaders say?

The SPEAKER: Order! The opposition's 30 minutes have expired. I call the Premier.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Ramsay—Premier, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Social Inclusion, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change) (15:11): Here we have a motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition (who barked like a chihuahua) and which was seconded by his vet. That is the standard that we have got to in the house. I do not think that we will see this featured in the media, but I am quite prepared to table a letter from Dr Duncan McFetridge MP. I believe it is an extraordinary attempt at industrial sabotage, which may be in breach of federal law, not only the Trade Practices Act and the law of torts but also, believe it or not, WorkChoices. Can members imagine this? If a member of parliament on this side of the house had written to a union leader urging strike action—'Take the boys out'—there would be federal government-funded ads featuring people in braces. You are doing exactly the same. I will table the letter from Dr Duncan McFetridge, which states:

...to allow the driver to cop the flak is not what I would have expected. I am surprised you have not called your members out until Conlon apologises.

In other words, it is an attempt at industrial sabotage during a federal election campaign. I table these documents.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Shame, shame, shame!

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Clearly, this has been arranged to assist the federal Liberal campaign in terms of its ads about unions featuring the Minister for Transport. It is a precursor to the debate tomorrow—'the things that matter' debate—which will involve Alexander Downer and the Minister for Transport. I am sure that that debate will deal with issues such as whether the Prime Minister gave a non-core apology over interest rates that rivalled his non-core promises. I am sure that we will see massive TV and radio interest. In the interests of open government and open media, I hope that we will see Alexander Downer agree with The Advertiser to allow the media to be present, so that there can be no closed shop, nothing like the National Press Club.

I want to look at some words from the Leader of the Opposition. In his maiden speech to this house on 3 December 1997, he said:

I hope that our debates are more about how to do it rather than what needs to be done. I hope that we give credit to one another for good ideas and good achievements. I hope that we concentrate on the issues that are important to South Australians and not to the trivia of personality politics and intrigue. I also hope that the men and women of the media help us in this endeavour and that their reporting of events aims to inform people rather than to simply entertain or amuse them. And I hope, too, that the opposition lets the government govern and that the Leader of the Opposition—

that was me, by the way—

does not let the affairs of this house become a fiasco.

That is what he said in December 1997. But by March last year he had changed his tune dramatically. Here is what he told this house on 5 March last year:

It is much more interesting to be in opposition, where you can sit at home on Sundays making Molotov cocktails and deciding who to throw them at on Mondays.

That is not the words of an officer and a gentleman, let alone someone who wants to be premier of South Australia. Yet we saw him today getting very red faced, and quoting Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser, who are urging Kevin Andrews to resign. Clearly an endorsement, so I do not know what is happening—another break-out.

But let us go on to some other issues. We have rail and bus figures from the budget of 2007: the government will invest more than half a billion dollars in transport infrastructure over the next four years; and a major commitment to revitalise the state's public transport system; a $542 million package, including initiatives that will deliver a faster and more efficient transport system for commuters, and provide for the relocation of the Adelaide railyards.

And there is another $115 million over the next four years to revitalise our public train network, including a massive project to involve concrete re-sleepering 64.5 kilometres of rail track on the Belair and Noarlunga lines to deliver faster and more comfortable services, which in turn will allow greater frequency of services. Also included, $157 million to relocate the railyards as part of the new hospital works.

There is a whole series of initiatives; a massive increase in the transport infrastructure budget, compared to when the Liberals were in power. When we saw the issues in terms of the tram last week, we heard people saying, 'Oh, this is because of a failure to invest in new infrastructure.' It was a brand-new tramline; we got new trams. When we had the computer failure last week we were told that this was because of a failure to invest in new systems. It was a new computer system. That is how phony this Leader of the Opposition is and why he has to resort to barking like a chihuahua and making up things, for which you will be called to account before a privileges committee.

We have seen these things from a leader whose party privatised our public buses, who privatised the Modbury Hospital, who tried desperately hard for years to privatise the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, who privatised the Mount Gambier Prison, who privatised the TAB, for a price that was less than one year of its earnings. You talk about having some sort of corruption commission; that would be No. 1 on the list, following their water deal and what happened with the lodging of those documents and why some were opened and others weren't, and followed by the fact that you paid $100 million to the people who privatised ETSA—against the will of South Australians.

That is really what this is all about. Because this Liberal opposition, who wants to have tolls on our roads, is very interested in privatisation of the public transport system. Now we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that that is totally untrue. Let me remind him of what the member for Morphett—who is trying to engineer a strike during an election campaign—said publically. He is on record of telling former colleague Craig Bildstein at the Adelaide Advertiser on 9 October this year that the government must:

As a matter of priority be looking to provide a modern new fleet either in partnership with the private sector or in full private ownership.

When I mention privatisation, the Leader of the Opposition says, 'That's not true.' And that is the fact that you don't speak to each other. Let me tell you this: that the Minister for Transport has not only our total support but he has got a darn sight more support than the Leader of the Opposition has from members on his own side. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who, of course, pledged to support Rob Kerin and Iain Evans. He was right behind them. He sure was—with a knife in his hands.

We are very proud of the fact that, unlike the Liberals, who promised repeatedly that they would bring in a tram extension but never did, we are the ones who delivered a tram extension. We are very proud of the fact that we are the ones who are building the roads and the infrastructure and re-sleepering the trains, because members opposite, when in government, basically sat on their hands with only one policy, and that was privatisation.

We totally reject members opposite in this motion. We also admire the fact, though, that we have a Leader of the Opposition who stands up here and is prepared to say anything (although he is red-faced in doing so) and, not only that, but who then proceeded to bark like a chihuahua—vision that will be used, I promise members, in the next state election campaign with the words, 'Do you want this man to lead our state?'

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (15)

Chapman, V.E. Evans, I.F. Goldsworthy, M.R.
Griffiths, S.P. Gunn, G.M. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. (teller)
Kerin, R.G. McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S.
Penfold, E.M. Pengilly, M. Pisoni, D.G.
Redmond, I.M. Venning, I.H. Williams, M.R.

NOES (29)

Atkinson, M.J. Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Ciccarello, V.
Conlon, P.F. Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C.
Geraghty, R.K. Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R.
Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, T. Lomax-Smith, J.D.
Maywald, K.A. McEwen, R.J. O'Brien, M.F.
Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M.
Rann, M.D. (teller) Rau, J.R. Simmons, L.A.
Stevens, L. Thompson, M.G. Weatherill, J.W.
White, P.L. Wright, M.J.


Majority of 14 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT