HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:20): My question is also to the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for Energy. Does he agree with the Treasurer, who recently told an investment forum in Adelaide that governments are not very good at delivering public infrastructure on time and on budget and, if so, why is he drawing into his department further responsibility for the ownership and control of metropolitan transport assets? After the Treasurer told an investment forum in Adelaide on Friday 9 November 2007 that governments are not very good at delivering public infrastructure on time and on budget, he then went on radio that same day and said, 'No-one delivers a public piece of infrastructure worse than government. We are not very good at delivering projects on budget on time.'

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Energy) (15:21): I am more than happy to tell the member about this, because I do not think there have been two greater champions of the public-private partnership approach than the Treasurer and I in government, for some very simple reasons—and I have said it before. When we go out to procure a piece of infrastructure, we do it by way of a tendering process with companies that know two things: they know that the project will have to be built and they know that we have endless funds.

One of the really important reasons we wanted to go to public-private partnerships, where it is appropriate, is to transfer that construction risk to the private sector, so that it is taking the risk of controlling construction costs. It is a very good model: it has been used in many places, and we have been happy to move to it. However we have also said (and this is the distinct difference between us and the opposition) that some pieces of infrastructure should be owned and operated by the government in the interests of the public—things such as the electricity system, for example. We know that when you set up—

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, I know.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is their time they are burning up—there it goes. We know that, when the previous opposition corporatised TransAdelaide, it was the first step to privatisation. That is why the model was created that way. We have no intention of—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: They really are pathetic. There is no other way to describe them: just pathetic.

Mr Williams: You spent most of question time talking about the truth and dishonesty.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: So, why is that not consistent? It is entirely consistent. We have said that, where we can use the private sector in cooperation—in partnership—to transfer risk of construction costs, it is a very good idea. But we have also said that fundamental government services should be run by government. That is one of the reasons we took the assets back out of TransAdelaide, and I think Kevin and I are entirely consistent on that point.

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