HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BAROSSA WINE TRAIN

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:30): I move:

That this house support the introduction of a trial tourist train operating between Adelaide and Angaston and further support the operator of the Barossa Wine Train in re-establishing the train service to cater for the increased tourism in these areas.

As members would know, the previous very successful wine train was launched in May 1998 by the previous Liberal government under then minister the Hon. Dr Diana Laidlaw, and I was the member involved in getting it there. It was a fantastic success. The train (which still exists) was the old Bluebird many years ago: we used to go to school in the Bluebird train. The carriages are still in very good order and have been totally refurbished, and it is a waste to see them not being used today.

The train consists of three carriages, 1950s Bluebird cars, built in South Australia. They are very strong and unique. The rest of them have been brought up as crew cars for freight trains; because they are built so strongly they can put them within a freight train and they can pull the rest of the freight. That is how well they were built, back in the 1950s. Between 1998 and 2003, this train operated three or four days per week and carried about 15,000 visitors to the Barossa every year. The train paid its way every time it ran, and that is a fact we should never forget.

The rack rate of a standard return ticket was $55, and a premium day tour ticket was $140 in 2003. A day tour ticket consisted of return travel from Adelaide to Tanunda; a complimentary drink on board; visits to three wineries, including a vineyard walk at one; a two-course lunch; and gourmet food presentation. Unfortunately, due to the high cost of public liability insurance, as well as September 11 and the SARS incident, the owners discontinued the service in April 2003.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The what incident?

Mr VENNING: SARS. Labor came into government a year earlier. I am not blaming that case for what happened, but it certainly did not help.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, why are you mentioning it?

Mr VENNING: If minister Laidlaw had still been there, I reckon we would still have had the train.

Mr Piccolo: Oh, crap!

Mr VENNING: I note the interjection of 'Oh, crap' from the other side. If you are going to interject in this place, you must be very careful, because this member, of all members, ought to be supportive of what I am saying and not say things like that. As he is the ex-mayor of Gawler and now the member for Light, I did not expect hear him interject with a comment like that. However, it has been done now and the member can follow me and cover that indiscretion if he wishes. I am sorry, but you did it.

Following this closure, there has been an uproar in the Barossa community. Many members of the community lobbied the government to step in and provide some support for the train so that it would continue to run. However, to date the train is still not in operation.

The Barossa Wine Train has since been purchased by a Mr John Geber, who is well known to many members of this house. He is an entrepreneur and the man who bought Chateau Tanunda, where the annual cricket match is held. Many members have been there and have been guests of Mr Geber. He is very happy to run the train without profit for up to three years in an effort to bring more tourists and money to the Barossa. He bought this train and saved it; it was going to scrap. These cars were going to be made into crew vans. Mr Geber rescued the iconic heritage train. The railcars had been languishing in open rail yards at Islington and had become covered in graffiti.

The train was well known internationally and within Australia as a premier tourist attraction, and it was brochured by all major tourism operators worldwide. I must have had at least a dozen trips on that train with guests from all over the world, including those here for the Australian bowling championship that I hosted here. I took them up there for one day, and that was a magnificent day.

The Hon. R.B. Such: The CPA.

Mr VENNING: The CPA also went on that wine train. It was so easy to entertain people from overseas when it was in operation. It was a day on the train. They were picked up in Adelaide and delivered back to Adelaide. There was no problem with drink driving. It was a great day. I cannot understand why we have not got it back.

Passenger numbers grew steadily from 2000 to 2003. In 2000-01 there were 11,000 passengers; in 2001-02 there were 12,000 passengers; and in 2002-03 there were 13,552 passengers (to be exact). The passenger wine train produced huge economic benefits to the Barossa Valley. A survey conducted in January and March in 2002 showed that, on average, each passenger spent $77.91. This meant that, based on the actual passenger numbers carried, total revenue in 2000-01 was $671,389; in 2001-02 it was $737,561; and in 2002-03 it was $1,120,160.

Queen Elizabeth, in fact, rode in the train during her visit to the state in 2002. So, really, what sort of an accolade do you need? In 2006, the Hon. Nick Champion, the then Labor Party president, wrote a letter to a strong supporter and campaigner for the Barossa Bluebird—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And now the member for Wakefield.

Mr VENNING: —the name given to the wine train—and the now member for Wakefield—in which he said:

In regard to the Barossa Wine Train, if the Rann government is re-elected, the South Australian Tourism Commission will liaise with TransAdelaide to determine if there is a case for the line being restored to a passenger carrying standard. Should the current or future owners of the Barossa Wine Train wish to reinstate the service, the Rann Labor government would naturally work closely with all parties to achieve that objective.

The Minister for Tourism also made a similar comment about the Rann government support for the train in July 2006. To fund a new service of similar standard was estimated in 2006 to cost around $7 million. That figure would have definitely increased now. It is up to the government to show its support for this train as part of the state's tourism industry.

The Minister for Tourism, along with the rest of the government, is the first to bask in the glory of the Barossa's success. Look at this week's Advertiser. This was demonstrated just last week, when the Barossa was named as one of the top 10 wine destinations by the world's largest online travel community, Trip Adviser. That is the largest travel community in the world, not just local South Oz. But, what do they do to support the region? The minister issued a press release about the announcement last week, stating:

The South Australian government will continue to promote the Barossa's unique culture, heritage and acclaimed wine to the world. Being named as one of the world's top wine destinations shows just how marketable the region is as a tourism destination.

I agree completely with that statement, and I cannot understand that, although the state Rann Labor government is happy time and again to take credit for the results that the Barossa Valley attains with regard to tourism, it will not invest in transport to the region to make it easier for people to visit if they are staying in Adelaide. I wonder how well the Barossa would really do in the tourism ratings if the region was more accessible to tourists. The question is: will we ever know? How do people who arrive here by air and stay in a city hotel get to the Barossa if they do not drive or have an Australian driver's licence?

Finally, a person has bought this train, the rails are in place and used by a 3,000-tonne stone train every day, twice a day, but the government cannot allow this gentleman to run this train. It beggars belief when you read The Advertiser—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It is not our line. It belongs to the Australian Rail Track Corporation.

Mr VENNING: Access to the track is controlled by Genesee & Wyoming, but the legislation says quite clearly that they have to give third party access, which is negotiable through the body that does that for the government. It is the same body that does the single desk. What is it called?

Mr Pederick: ESCOSA.

Mr VENNING: It is negotiable through ESCOSA. They are happy to do the negotiations. Genesee & Wyoming has said it is happy to go into negotiations. The problem areas were access to the track and public liability. I understand the minister has had discussions with Mr Geber, and others, but we just do not get anywhere. Can someone agree that by putting this service back it would further foster tourism numbers in the region? Do you agree, or do you not agree? All I know is that nothing is happening.

When this service was put up in the first place, minister Laidlaw, at times, got up and said, 'We will do it,' and then made sure that she did do it. She went out and said to her advisers, 'Make it happen.' And, do you know what? It happened. I take my hat off to that person. Of all the ministers I worked with, she was a can-do, make-it-happen minister. We have too many ministers over there now, and we have heard about the duds. There are five of them who are absolute duds. I got another letter today from the minister, but there is never an offer to help. There is every reason why she cannot help. They do not answer their correspondence. It is no wonder you have got a backbench upheaval. It is arrogance in the extreme. She treats you as she treats us. I am happy to name the five, if you wish—

Mr Piccolo: Yes, go ahead.

Mr VENNING: The Minister for Tourism is one. She is so arrogant that she does not attempt to address this situation. All I can say is—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: And you are another one, Attorney-General.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I have a point of order, sir. I ask that the member withdraw and move a substantive motion if he wishes to make personal reflections on members.

The SPEAKER: No, I do not think that is a personal reflection.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have a point of order, sir. I ask that the member for Schubert not refer to me in the second person singular or the second person plural. He will refer to me by my parliamentary name.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I uphold the point of order. The member for Schubert, when referring to members opposite, should not use the word 'you' but refer to them by their parliamentary title.

Mr VENNING: I apologise, and I apologise for raising this matter. I did not intend to raise that issue. I was invited by interjections over there to name them, so I did. Check the record: it is in Hansard. There is nothing in my notes to refer to who the duds are.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Attorney!

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The two ministers in the other house, for a start—the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. Gail Gago. I cannot understand how you can sack a minister like the Hon. Steph Key, who was a good minister. She was one of the ministers who always helped us on this side. She found every reason to say, 'I will do what I can for you.' But you put in a person like the Hon. Gail Gago!

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Attorney! There is a point of order. The member for Newland.

Mr KENYON: Sir, I suspect the member for Schubert has strayed somewhat from the substance of the debate on this topic.

The SPEAKER: I think the member for Schubert has been responding to interjections, which he should not do.

Mr VENNING: Can I also say the Hon. Lea Stevens, who as a minister for health was up against arguably one of the best shadow ministers in this place (Hon. Dean Brown), was sacked. I thought, to be fair, rather than sacking her, you should have given her another portfolio, because she was a good minister. She did a bloody good job against a very experienced ex-minister who still had all his contacts there. And you sacked her! I do not think it was fair that you did that. I believe in being straight and fair. Before my time expires, I mention the Hon. Jennifer Rankine. How did she get a ministry in front of three or four very good operators? How has the member for Enfield missed out?

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert needs to start talking about the Barossa Wine Train in the next 30 seconds.

Mr VENNING: I will be relevant.

Mr RAU: I have a point of order, sir. I do not know whether the honourable member was seeking to say something about my grey hair, but I am not his uncle and I am not old enough to be, I don't think.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr VENNING: All I am asking is that the government give us ministers who are cooperative, who make things happen and who are honestly diligent. I support the motion.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (11:45): I rise to speak on this matter—

Members interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I do not have enough time actually. I have only 10 minutes. I move an amendment to this motion. I move:

That the house expresses its willingness to work with the owners of the Barossa Wine Train to see its return to service.

The Rann government supports the return of the Barossa Wine Train. However, it believes it should be owned and operated by private enterprise. Having said that, it does not mean that the state government does not have a role to play in bringing this iconic train back into service. Clearly it does.

In recent years the government has provided advice and assistance to the Barossa Wine Train owners. I take this opportunity to stress that nothing has changed and that the government will continue to offer support to facilitate the train's return to service. As usual, Mr Venning's motion is ambiguous because it does not make clear whether the trial tourist train is intended to be the Barossa Wine Train or some other train. The only other rail vehicle option in South Australia that might come into consideration would be the use of TransAdelaide railcars, which are limited to suburban operations because of the lack of onboard toilet facilities.

Mr Venning should note that all Great Southern Railway's carriages operate on standard gauge wheels, effectively eliminating them from broad gauge Barossa Valley line. Tourist trains should not be confused with suburban rail services. Both are mutually exclusive, catering for entirely different markets with different motivations to travel and differing expectations, and focusing on different times of the day. In this light, it is reasonable to assume that Mr Venning's motion relates to the reintroduction of the Barossa Wine Train. This ceased operations in April 2003 when public liability insurance premiums spiralled to unaffordable levels.

A state government project team was established in 2006, comprising representatives from the Department of Trade and Economic Development, Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet—and I can see Mr Venning is very interested in this debate—and the South Australian Tourism Commission, with the intention of assisting the owners in getting the wine train back on track. The honourable member has left the chamber: that is very unparliamentary because I am not supposed to say that he has left the chamber.

In 2006 funding of $50,000 was offered to the train's operators by the Premier on a one-off basis. Up to $30,000 represented a previously committed contribution from the South Australia Tourism Commission to the train's owners towards a mutually agreed cooperative marketing plan. Subject to committing a clear return to service, the South Australian Tourism Commission would work closely with the train's owners, with a view to assisting in the development and distribution of the product and devising cooperative marketing initiatives to promote the experience, both locally and interstate.

I understand that the remaining $20,000 (sourced from the Department of Trade and Economic Development), initially intended towards storage of the train, would now be renegotiated. While the government is keen to support a private operator resurrecting the Barossa Wine Train, we are now at the point where the onus and commercial incentive lies with the train's owner rather than the government.

The house should also note that the line beyond Nuriootpa to Angaston is currently not in good condition and has not seen any rail movement for several years. Some resleepering would be necessary and the rail in the vicinity of the—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I am sure it would be; I am happy to—Angaston Cement Works is reported to be in poor condition. In the interests of the taxpayers, no investment in track rehabilitation should be contemplated for a trial service to operate as far as Angaston. However, I am advised that pivotal matters, such as track access, insurance, railcar storage and overall condition of the train, are hurdles that can be cleared.

I am advised that the key outstanding issue is achieving accredited rail safety status—something which Mr Venning neglected to mention.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Didn't talk about it.

Mr PICCOLO: No; we do not want to deal with the facts.

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Well, putting rocks on the train and putting people on the train are two different things in terms of required safety standards. It should be stressed that direct government intervention would be inappropriate at this time. It is something to which the owner has to devote energy and resources in order to achieve the required status. For its part the Rann Labor Government remains committed—as do I as a nearby local member—to assisting with both funding and advice in order to get the train on track.

Mr Venning: Nothing happens.

Mr PICCOLO: Nothing happens? It was a rhetorical question, rather than a statement, Mr Venning. With this in mind I move an amendment to the motion. I cannot support Mr Venning's motion in its original form. It is lacking clarity and reflects Mr Venning's lack of knowledge of what is required. He expects the government to write a blank cheque. His motion means that the government would write a blank cheque. The government is not opposed to writing a cheque, but it wants to know what the numbers are. Mr Venning has stood up, as he always does, and asked the government to write a blank cheque.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICCOLO: I have got the opposition excited: it is nice to see.

Mr Venning: Say something encouraging, something helpful.

Mr PICCOLO: You are upsetting the gallery, Mr Venning. Just to remind the house, the track from Nuriootpa to Angaston does not meet passenger train standards and therefore it cannot be used. The owner is at liberty to re-establish a service—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Resleeper it. We will add that to the list. There's another one—k'ching.

Mr PICCOLO: K'ching, that's right. I reiterate that the government stands ready to work with the owners to facilitate and support the reintroduction of the wine train, but we need to do it on sound terms.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:53): I will make a brief contribution. I think this is worth exploring. I know there are difficulties with insurance and so on, but I think it is something worth exploring. The Barossa wine train was great and it would be good to see it reintroduced. I will briefly comment on a proposal to reintroduce steam trains on the hills line. I originally wrote to the Minister for Tourism and Minister for Transport, and the answer came back, 'It is too difficult on the broad gauge because you can't turn them around at Belair anymore', even though there is a watering point at Blackwood and there are some railway stations which have bypass infrastructure. Essentially, you get a negative response.

I then wrote to the CEO of Great Southern who said, 'Look, on the standard gauge, you could run a steam train from our Keswick terminal'—Parkland Station as it is now called—'up to Tailem Bend where there is a turntable.' I also wrote to the CEO of Australian Rail Track Corporation, who said, 'Look, there is no problem in running a stream train on the standard gauge line.'

I am waiting to hear back from the government in detail, but the preliminary response has been, 'We do not want a steam train in the Adelaide Hills because that might take people away from steam trains elsewhere.' That is a silly response, because the people who will use a steam train on a Sunday or a public holiday in the Adelaide Hills are not the same people who will use the Pichi Richi or any other steam train.

The point is: I have to ask whether the government is fair dinkum about promoting tourism in this state and providing opportunities not only for tourists but also for locals. What we get back is a can't do approach. The government says, 'Oh, it's too difficult,' but when you talk to the private sector—Great Southern, Australian Rail Track Corporation—they say, 'Yes, you could run it on the standard gauge.' The government does not seem to be interested in doing anything for Adelaide. It wants it to remain a retirement village, and it is very much in that category at the moment, in my view. We might as well all sit around knitting or doing a bit of crochet, because any time there is any suggestion of something to be investigated it is too difficult; not now; not interested. The Hills train would be a fantastic thing and very popular and, likewise, the Barossa Wine Train.

We find this is happening increasingly in South Australia, and I think it is because the bureaucracies run the government and control most of the ministers, although there are a couple of exceptions. Most of the ministers are just a mouthpiece for the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy says, 'Can't do it; too difficult.' The ministers let the bureaucrats run them and so, if the bureaucrats say, 'We can't have tourist trains: too difficult, too messy,' then we do not have tourist trains. I believe the government should take control of the Public Service. The Public Service is meant to answer to the government. It is supposed to act in response to what the government wants, but at the moment what we get is, 'Can't do; too difficult,' and so we all sit around watching ourselves gradually get older.

I believe this motion from the member for Schubert needs consideration, along with the introduction of a steam train in the Adelaide Hills, but both require some effort and a commitment from the state government.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:57): I rise to support the member for Schubert's motion. I think it just smacks of the government's utter disregard for the regions. I mean, you would think the Barossa Valley, somewhat like my electorate—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We hold the federal seat.

Mr PEDERICK: —with the town of Murray Bridge, were at Birdsville, or somewhere, the way this government acts. All the funding that this government provides is dovetailed directly to votes. The odd Labor voter in the regions does not even get a crack. This government was not even going to select a candidate in the seat of Mayo at the federal election, if you want to talk about federal politics.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think the member opposite has started debating the motion at hand at this stage. I hope he comes to it very shortly.

The SPEAKER: It has been a wide-ranging debate covering a number of issues. I will listen to what the member for Hammond says, and if I think he is straying from the topic of the debate, I will pull him up.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will refer to railroads and the fact that so many backbenchers over there have been railroaded in their ambitions to come forward. What I would like to say, getting back to the Barossa Wine Train, is that I think it is disgraceful how this government just ignores—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are such a talent. You make Peter Lewis look balanced.

The SPEAKER: Order! That is a reflection.

Mr PEDERICK: It's all right, let him carry on, I don't take any notice of him, Mr Speaker. I would like to say that it is an absolute disgrace the way this government treats the regions. If it is above Gepps Cross or below Glen Osmond, they do not even know it exists because only one government member lives in the regions, the member for Giles, and it would be too far for the Attorney-General to cycle his bike. I do support the member for Schubert in his many endeavours in that seat. Apart from trains, it is hospitals, ferries. I support his enthusiasm. I can understand why the Labor government does not wish to put any money into his area. He has made it such a safe seat, and I commend the member.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:00): I want to get into this very, very interesting debate and touch on a couple of highly relevant matters that were raised in particular by the member for Schubert, who was really, really on the money all the way through his contribution; he was very, very relevant and whatever.

I know that he cares a great deal about his electorate. I have had the privilege of going out there. I remember I was there with the member for Fisher on a parliamentary trip very soon after I entered parliament. We were met by the member for Schubert, who was fulsome in his description of the marvellous area. It is to his credit that he takes every opportunity to boost his electorate. He is a real booster; I think that is what you could say. He is a booster for Schubert. He really is a booster for Schubert. If there is anything in the Barossa Valley that he can give a bit of a run and run it up the flagpole to give it a boost, he does it. I know that his electors are very appreciative of what he does.

Mr PENGILLY: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I have been waiting for the member for Enfield to actually talk about the Barossa train.

The SPEAKER: Order! I think the member for Enfield is responding to things the member for Schubert said in his speech and, in that case, he is in order.

Mr RAU: I'm building up here; I'm building up. This is what you might call the pre-oration. So, where were we? That's right: we were in the Barossa Valley. The people there are very, very appreciative, I am sure, of the work done by the member for Schubert. He has been there for some time, and he has been very consistent. I know he is genuine in his wanting to see the wine train re-established and to have tourists coming through the area. I know he genuinely wants to promote the many magnificent sites and vistas that one can enjoy in the beautiful Barossa Valley, and I have a great deal of respect for that. Some of my forebears lived in the Barossa many years ago, so there are many reasons why I think it is a great place.

I have thought about this very deeply and listened very, very carefully to the points made by the member for Schubert—and he made a number of points, but actually not a great many on this point, so I have put the other points aside, and I am just focusing on the things he said about the train. I think we have some agreement, actually, between the member for Schubert and the amendment moved by Mr Piccolo, and it is really this: both of you reckon it is a good idea for a train to be going out there to the Barossa to bring in the tourists. I think both members would agree on that.

This is almost like a mediation! Imagine you are in Reykjavik, and you are sitting across the table, and you two blokes have a flag in front of each other. You know, it is Reykjavik: Mr Piccolo can be Ronald Reagan if he likes; Mr Venning can be Mr Brezhnev or Gorbi. You are sitting there across the table, and you have the two flags stuck in front of you. We are trying to remove the points of difference. We are starting to build consensus, Mr Speaker; I can feel it. It is evolving; it is sort of oozing out of the substance of this.

The great point of consensus is that everyone loves the Barossa; everyone thinks that the member for Schubert loves the Barossa; everyone in the Barossa who votes Liberal, or at least most of them, love the member for Schubert; and the member for Schubert would love to see lots of tourists come to the Barossa in a train to see the great sites, drink the great wine and go safely home without having to drive through a few radars. The amazing think is that we have complete consensus here, don't we?

Mr Piccolo: We do; we do.

Mr RAU: The honourable member who moved the amendment agrees with all of that. I can just feel an ecumenical moment building. Look; what you two gentlemen might care to do is to adjourn the debate, go off and have a glass of the magnificent product that comes from the member for Schubert's electorate—he can select it because he knows more about that than any of us here, except possibly the member for Elder, who is well known for his—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: And then I could take the train home.

Mr RAU: And then take the train home; that's right. In the moment of enjoying the berry, you might be able to work out a form of words you are both happy with and present it here as the communiqué—you know, the thing you sign at the end of a summit. That is my suggestion.

If that does not work, I am supporting the amendment, because I think it takes into account a more realistic funding model that does not involve the government in giving a blank cheque to whoever might wish to be the operator. Having said that, I have to say that that is very much my second option. My first option is the ecumenical moment; the communiqué. They have these semicircular things they rub over the signatures. They are like a rolling pin with a bit of blotting paper on the bottom of them, so the moment is properly preserved.

I can see the two honourable members there with this resolution, both of them signing it—I am happy to officiate with the blotting paper if that will help—and bringing the thing together, and I think we will have an outbreak of consensus. That is my suggestion. I think both members have emphasised too much their points of difference. After all, they agree on almost everything, and it is lovely to see it; it really is. I am so moved, Mr Speaker, I cannot go on.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:07): I thank those who have participated in the debate. I do apologise for getting off the track during my presentation, but I was not only provoked but I was also invited to do so.

Mr Pederick: You were right on track, Ivan.

Mr VENNING: Yes, I was on track; pardon the pun. I have no problem with the amendment, really. The amendment states:

That this house expresses its willingness to work with the owners of the Barossa Wine Train to see it returned to service.

I have no problem with that. I congratulate the member for Enfield on his fine speech a moment ago. I know you could say that some of it was tongue in cheek, but I take all accolades—whether they are from the member for Enfield or the member for West Torrens, I don't care. I remember when the previous deputy leader (the Hon. Ralph Clark) used to call me the lion from the Barossa. I know that it was all tongue-in-cheek, but it does not matter; I will take it all. I am happy to put it on my resume.

I appreciate the words of the member for Enfield. The member for Light and I basically have the same premise. I get so frustrated, because we have a person here who has had the courage to buy this train and save it from the scrappers. As I have said, he is happy to run this train without profit for some time just to re-establish it. It will not be instant overnight success—we know that. It will probably take 12 or 18 months to two years to get up to steam—pardon the pun, again.

This guy has bought this train. The rails are there; we do not have to lay any track or do any work. We just have to get through the red tape and the bureaucracy with ESCOSA and negotiate access with the owners, Genesee & Wyoming. They understand that. We can negotiate that. We can put a speed limit on the train for safety. We can re-sleeper the line between Newry and Angaston, if we wish to get there, but we can get to Newry without doing anything. If we want to go to Newry and then Angaston, the track has to be upgraded—as the member for Light correctly said—and that does not need to be government money.

I apologise for picking on five ministers. It is all about the 'can-do' mentality, and we have ministers with that mentality. I will mention one: the Hon. Paul Caica. He is a 'can-do' minister. He is helpful and he has the right attitude. When one makes an inquiry, he will try to help, and he will give you options. If he cannot help you, he will give you advice. Other ministers do not even answer their correspondence.

If the Hon. Jane Lomax Smith had the same mentality as the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, I am sure that this train would be back on the rails by now. I am happy to support the amendment which would now become the motion—anything in a bipartisan approach to achieve the goal, and that is to get the train back on the tracks. It would be lovely to have the train back on the tracks before the next Barossa Under the Stars, which is a major event in the Barossa. We really do need a train like this. We could run three or four services on that night, because people do not want to drive, and accommodation is not available for all the people who will be there.

I thank members for their contribution, particularly the member for Enfield. I hope that the member for Light and I, in a bipartisan way, have a similar interest here, because it involves his electorate as well as mine. I must say that I love my electorate with great passion. I recently spoke to the media who were doing a piece about those of us who live in our electorates. I come from Crystal Brook, which is a long way from the Barossa. All I can say is that the system dealt me this electorate, and I am so pleased and proud that it did, because I have an opportunity to represent people from elsewhere.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: Do they love you, though?

Mr VENNING: They do love me, because they keep voting for me. The opportunity to represent one of the greatest electorates in Australia has been fantastic, and I have done so with some gusto. As the member for Enfield said, I do it with passion. All I can say is that, if we can fix this, I will be very pleased. I urge the house to support the amendment.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

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