HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAIL COMMISSIONER (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 April 2011.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:05): I rise today to confirm that I will be the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition on the Rail Commissioner (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. There will be other members who will make some contributions. We do recognise that it is a very short bill in nature, predominantly for an administrative purpose, but I will go into some discussion about it.

I note the presence of Mr Hook in the chamber today. I congratulate him on his appointment as CEO of the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. I know that appointment will be well received by many people.

The bill was introduced by the minister on 6 April 2011. I am grateful for the fact that a briefing was provided at very short notice, within five days, so thank you to the minister's staff who made that available. I must admit that after reading the second reading contribution I thought, 'What are we here for?' because it did not take very long to discuss the points contained within the bill.

The intent of the bill is to enhance administrative efficiencies by bringing legislation into line following the introduction of the Rail Safety Act 2007. In essence, the hard work was done then; this is just finalising some of the things that have occurred. I also note that it is, as I said earlier, purely an administrative issue and has no impact, as I understand it, on the provision of public transport services within South Australia.

These changes are part of a long-term restructure and integration of the state's public transport functions within the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. In this case, the bill provides for the Rail Commissioner to have the required accreditation to carry out the functions of the position following the consolidation of TransAdelaide and the Public Transport Division.

The roles of TransAdelaide and DTEI's Public Transport Division have been combined to remove the duplication of those functions, and that was effective as of 1 September 2010. The Rail Safety Act 2007 allowed that to occur. As such, South Australia's public transport functions are now coordinated under one management and business administration structure within the Public Transport Division of DTEI. This one entity is now responsible for the state's trains, trams, bus contracts and taxi services.

In effect, that is a very large responsibility. We in this chamber want to see continued growth in the number of people within South Australia—metropolitan and regional—who access public transport options. The consolidation of this into one structure, I sincerely hope, will improve that; will allow for a continued investment to occur; will allow for continued modification to occur within the services that are available, to make them available to as many people as possible, and to only improve the options available to the good people of South Australia.

I understand that, as part of the previous legislative changes, approximately 1,000 staff transferred from TransAdelaide and are now employed under the Rail Commissioner. I ask the minister if there is an intention for Mr Hook to continue in his role as rail commissioner and also as the CEO, or if that will be a responsibility taken on by another officer within the departmental structure?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Continued for the time being.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Continued for the time being, the minister confirms. There are, as I understand it, 200 people (mainly train and tram drivers) who are still employed under a federal award. The three key points of this bill are: to repeal the TransAdelaide Corporate Structure Act 1998, and this ends the formal responsibilities of the TransAdelaide Board. I was advised during the briefing that the board is no longer required, as the responsibility has been transferred to the Rail Commissioner as of 1 September 2010. However, the board was retained until early February 2011, but has not met since 1 September.

I will ask the minister if he can clarify, either in his contribution or, indeed, if there is a need to go into a committee—but probably not—if the board has met at any time since then? What was the need to retain the board from 1 September until a date in February this year? What has its role been in that time or has it been purely in name only and had no function at all? Have any of the board members received any level of remuneration for the continuing representation on the board, even though it had not met for some five months or so? Are those people being replaced in any way with some other advisory board?

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Has anyone on the board received remuneration?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, since 1 September, has the board met at all? Why was there a need to retain it until February? Has there been any level of remuneration? What has its role been since September until early February?

Another intent of this bill is to amend the Rail Commissioner Act 2009 for the Rail Commissioner to be accredited to run those services. That is not a point that we are concerned about. It is part of the transgression in responsibilities from the 2007 Rail Safety Act and we are certainly comfortable with that. Another intent, which is again an administrative one, is to amend the Rail Commissioner Act 2009 to allow the annual report of the Rail Commissioner to be included within the annual report of DTEI. That will be effective as of 1 July 2011. For the 2010-11 financial year, TransAdelaide will report only on activities between July and August, as I understand it.

The government advises that there has been some consultation with the rail, tram and bus union, and also Treasury and Finance for a costing comment about it. I am advised that it is a budget-neutral exercise. It is only a small administrative process to consolidate changes that occurred from the 2007 bill. If it works on the functionality that it actually improves rail transport and/or public transport options within South Australia, it is one that has to be supported. With those few comments, I confirm the fact that the opposition supports this bill without any need for amendment and looks forward to its swift passage through the house.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:12): I will make some brief comments. I think this is a useful measure because the more integrated our public transport is in terms of management and coordination, I think the better. I was never keen on the disintegration of the bus services under so-called competitive tendering when bus operators do not actually compete with each other. I thought that was a rather strange thing to do. That happened at a time when I was in the Liberal government. However, bringing in (via this bill) better coordination options for tram and train is a good thing.

I have said before and I will say it again: one of the best things (and it will be one of the things this government will be remembered for) is the improvement in the rail system, the electrification. I do not think the government got the kudos for that that it should. It is something that I have campaigned for, via this parliament and elsewhere, for probably 20 years or more. It has been a great initiative and it is still underway, with the electrification of some of the lines. The other great initiative has been the expansion and extension of the tramline. Contrary to some people who do not use public transport, it is a very popular mode of transport.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Very popular! We would not have had one if the Libs had been in power.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: That is probably true. I do not know what it is but there have been some people in the Liberal Party traditionally who were not great supporters of public transport but, hopefully, the new generation and the new Liberal Party in opposition are a bit more enlightened. The trams shift a lot of people quickly—barring an electrical fault or two. To conclude in support of this measure with the Rail Commissioner (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, I would urge the government to again look at the possibility of running the tram and extending it down past what I think will be a new Adelaide Oval development—I think that is pretty well on the cards. I think it makes a lot of sense. I have asked the minister previously, privately, and he has given me a fairly high cost figure for running the tram down King William Street past the oval, but even if it were flagged that that would happen, and then eventually run it out to North Adelaide and Prospect, that would be fantastic because trams, like trains, can move a lot of people very quickly.

We know that parking around the new oval will be a bit of an issue. I was only half listening this morning, but I suspect that a lot of people will come out if there is any suggestion of anyone putting a car on the Parklands; there would be an enormous outcry. However, running the tram down past the oval—or at least, in the interim, to the oval—would provide a fantastic option, and even an alternative to some of the parking which may be required near the oval. I know that money is tight at the moment, and the Treasurer is probably not sleeping too well at night, but no-one would expect it to be built straightaway—the oval extensions will not be built straightaway anyway.

I think what people are looking for is some direction, a vision that will eventually come to fruition. I know this is not a bill specifically about extending the tramline but let us hope that, with a better approach to integration and management of these public transport services, one of the outcomes will be an extension of the tram network—certainly at least to Adelaide Oval and preferably beyond, and likewise out to the eastern suburbs and elsewhere in the metropolitan area.

Rail and light rail (although there is probably not a distinction in calling them light rail), or trams and trains, are fantastic movers of people, but you have to plan for it. They are expensive, but perhaps the Rail Commissioner might be not just a good administrator but also a visionary who is supportive of an extension to the tram network at least, if not the rail network.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:17): I rise to speak on the Rail Commissioner (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. One of the matters I wish to reinforce in this restructure is the question of the continued existence of the board. The abolition of the board may or may not be a good thing, but the opposition needs some answers as to why it has continued in this role for so long. We have had a period of legislative reform from 2007 to 2010, and here we are in 2011 having the tidying up legislation. I think the parliament is entitled to some explanation for that, so I am not as generous in my praise for the restructure. We are yet to see whether the benefits will transpire, and for that reason the opposition supports it.

I, too, add my congratulations to the minister on having the good sense to appoint Mr Hook to take over this role with the department. I think he has shown some considerable benefit with his experience in previous roles he has undertaken for governments of both persuasions in this state, and he is a valuable asset. However, I note that his department is to go into accommodation in the city, in a building which was not good enough for SA Water. It will be cleaned up, on the basis that it gives an opportunity to flog off the Walkerville property. Of course, we heard repeatedly from the former treasurer in this house that there was not room enough, it was not good enough, it was not appropriate to buy out the tail lease on the property, that they had to send SA Water down to brand, spanking new facilities at a cost to taxpayers of over $40 million for the refit alone—the cabling, the carpet and all that.

Clearly, Mr Hook would be advised that this building is apparently good enough for him; he does not need a brand, spanking new building. I think he also needs to be fully aware—and I am sure he is, but we are yet to see how it transpires—that transport, which has enjoyed a high level in the pecking order of cabinet and in departments in this state, will now, as cabinet decided late last year, be under Planning.

Planning, of course, as we know, has now moved to the Deputy Premier's portfolio, and he of course sits second to the Premier. We know that Planning is going to oversee all of the other departments which attend to the vital services and instrumentalities that provide transport, energy etc., to the state. He needs to understand that he is under the pecking order there; nevertheless, they, of course, have a minister in transport and infrastructure, to which he will be accountable, who has been in there before and has come back.

So, what I would like to convey to the minister, in the presence of his CEO, is my continued plea that when the Attorney-General and planning minister has announced to this parliament that he keen to get along with the inner-metro planning plans, and increase the provision of high-density accommodation in the inner ring—and this has the support of cabinet—he understands that, now he is back at the wheel, we need to have Britannia roundabout fixed up. When he was in the job before, he axed the decision of the minister before him—minister White—and decided that we did not need it. Well, let me say that the department has given briefings of—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Acting Speaker: this is an administrative bill about bringing TransAdelaide back into the department. It has nothing to do with accommodation, nothing to do with planning the metro route and nothing to do with the Britannia roundabout.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Bedford): Yes, I had discussed this with the Clerk—but now that the Speaker is actually back in the chamber, I shall leave the decision to her.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I will uphold the point of order, and I ask the member to come back to the subject of whatever she is talking about.

Members interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, I will make it absolutely clear: this bill is going to completely abolish the TransAdelaide board. I do not have anyone else to complain to anymore. So, the minister is there, and the newly appointed, restructured CEO has got the job, and he needs to hear—under the new restructure that is proposed in this bill—what I have to say about it. And what I have to say about it is: notwithstanding the current minister's decision to cut out the Britannia roundabout program, which had been announced, of about $8 million, but is now languishing in the back rooms of the transport department, if they want to get on with this planning proposal for increased density of housing on the inner-metropolitan route, then we need the infrastructure that goes with it, and that includes an upgrade of the Britannia roundabout. We cannot even get trucks around it at the moment.

I have had briefings—minister, I hope you are listening to this—from the department of transport, who have sent along very good people to keep me briefed about what they were going to do with the buying of Chapley land on the corner of Glen Osmond Road and Fullarton Road, to facilitate what was to be the transport exit out of the state, out of the metropolitan area, along that road and out along the highway out to the east. That is now all axed, and we are now not going to be developing that, but the department of transport has in mind to ultimately go back along Cross Road—which is a very old project—to link up with the infrastructure of projects going north and south.

That may be a very good idea, but that has clearly left us with a situation where Britannia roundabout and its renovation is hanging in the breeze, and if they want to go ahead with planning proposals, we need to have that issue remedied—amongst other things. So, while he is here, and while you are here, minister, and I do not have a board to complain to about these things, I would like to have this issue resolved.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: The board does not have responsibility for it—

Ms CHAPMAN: They may not have, but you are axing that board, and you are bringing those issues in-house—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: You are restructuring the department, and you are moving them into the Pirie Street office. I gather they have some other offices as well still at Roma Mitchell House—goodness knows whether that is going to continue or not. Who knows? All I know is that Pirie Street was not good enough for SA Water, but it is apparently good enough for your department.

May I also add that, in relation to the other transport projects, I sincerely hope that the new administration, the new structure, will deal with the continuing issues of heavy transport through metropolitan suburbs, including along Portrush Road. Its priority might be more trams or things other speakers have spoken about, but let me say this: more than 2,000 trucks go down Portrush Road, past schools, and continue to pose safety issues to schoolchildren and residents along that major exit from the western and port areas, around to the east and out to the South Eastern Freeway. We need to have these issues remedied, minister. You have abandoned the Glen Osmond Road exit and the refitting or re-appointing of the Britannia roundabout; whatever plan you have in mind, we need to sort these issues out.

I am looking forward, of course, to this year's state budget to see what you are actually going to do for infrastructure and transport. I have read the recent ETSA annual report. They are telling us that they have all sorts of infrastructure projects, via your government, that are supported for the providing of power for the desal plant. I have read SA Water's reports—those that are public, because of course they will not give me the contract or anything else, even under FOI—in relation to the desal plant and what they are going to do for water infrastructure there.

I accept that there are big projects on the go, but unfortunately we have a government that is not very competent at actually managing them financially. Nevertheless, they are in train (pardon the pun), and I want them to be done properly, and I want Portrush Road and Britannia roundabout fixed up.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:27): I also rise to speak to the Rail Commissioner (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2011. I note that these changes are part of a long-term restructure and integration of the state's public transport functions within the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI). In this case, the bill will provide the Rail Commissioner with the accreditation required to carry out the functions of the position following the consolidation of TransAdelaide and the Public Transport Division. I, too, pass on my congratulations to Rod Hook, who performs his roles admirably.

I note in the discussion from the briefing that the shadow minister (the member for Goyder) received from the department that the roles of TransAdelaide and DTEI's Public Transport Division have been combined to remove the duplication of functions. Legislation was introduced a few years ago to allow this to occur. As such, South Australia's public transport functions are now coordinated under one management and business administration structure within the Public Transport Division. This one entity is now responsible for the state's trains, trams, bus contracts and taxi services.

I need to make some comment about bus contracts, especially in regional areas where there are area rights or route rights in place, when certain companies own stretches of road or areas of towns. This has caused significant difficulties for competition in its purest form to operate in the transport sector. The only way an operator that does not have the area or route right for a certain area can get access is to get what I think is called a 4A exemption. In that, the operator that is operating in that area right has to agree to it.

If the person with the area right wants to dig their toes in, they can renege on access for anyone else into that area. I think that deletes from business opportunity and from how a true transport system, in my mind, could work in a truly competitive nature. I know that when the contracts were renewed a few years ago on area rights—and I have certainly had plenty of meetings with bus operators within my electorate of Hammond—I went over to the minister and said in an offline conversation, 'Why did you keep up that policy, minister?' He said, 'We would not have enough buses.' I differ from that.

I think plenty of buses would turn up in the competitive market. Certainly no-one is going to invest upwards of $500,000 in a coach if they do not think there is going to be any work around. I think that a truly competitive market would ensure that we could have transport functioning in a far better way—and this is mainly in the regional areas, obviously.

We would not have the angst. I have seen someone, who owns an area, refuse bus companies to go into a town to even transfer students on a school bus. It is absolutely ridiculous. All this had to happen outside the town and they were not allowed access to change students over. It is even where buses, instead of crossing bridges on the river, had to use ferries so that they did not upset the area rights process. I urge the commissioner to have a look at this policy; I urge the government to have a look at this policy. I believe that in the longer term it will be better off for this state for true competition to make our public transport system work in this state, especially in line with buses.

I note that consultation in the bill was undertaken by the government with the rail, tram and bus union and the Department of Treasury and Finance. They were seeking a costing comment—and I can imagine they were because they are pretty nervous in Treasury and Finance, I believe—and the Crown was also consulted. The shadow minister was advised that no concerns were expressed and the changes were budget neutral, so I guess that is a good sign for everyone in this state when we see money getting frittered away. I, too, support the bill and wish it speedy progress through the house.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:32): I thank the opposition for their support of the bill. I will answer a few of the matters raised. In terms of the board, the board was in operation until February when their terms expired. Can I say, I think it would be churlish to begrudge them having been kept around to that time. We got great cooperation from the board in effectively what was an operation to wipe themselves out, so I think they did a very good job with the transition from the structure we had to the one we have now. I do not begrudge them finishing the terms they were originally appointed for, but they were gone in February. They will not be replaced.

The whole purpose of this is to bring this back into a government department run by government executives, so we will not have an advisory board. We still do have a number of groups to assist us in some of the responsibilities we have. The Passenger Transport Standards Committee has a large number of people on it, so on specific issues we will still have some independent advice, but there will not be an advisory board.

I can assure the member for Bragg that Rod Hook is not moving anywhere. He has an office near me on the 12th floor, and I would like him to stay there so that I can run through and give him a job from time to time. I like that arrangement. I am not sure about the rest of the member for Bragg's self-indulgent, stream of consciousness, semi-demented rant; I think I will just leave her to it. I can assure her that there is nothing to do with ring routes, higher density, the Britannia roundabout or anything else that happened to pop temporarily into her mind during her discourse. In terms of the points raised by the member for Hammond, I am always happy to keep talking to the member for Hammond about the matters of rural bus services. We do not suggest that what we have is perfect. We believe it is the most workable solution we have found, but we are always happy to continue a conversation about how it could be done better because it is an area where we do expect to see change.

Particularly, I think some of the councils in the area that the member for Hammond represents have been very active in developing plans for future development of the area. I think three councils participated in a plan up there, and I thought it was very good. We are always happy to see what we can do to improve that, and the member for Hammond knows that my door is always open to him if he wants to come and talk about these issues and that is as it should be. I do not think there is anything else.

Can I say in relation to a point that the member for Bragg made about a delay, this is merely the tidying-up of a process that involved decorporatising a very large group of people. The accountants, I would say, are the people who required the most work on this because it was a matter of shifting large numbers of assets back in from a corporate structure. There were all sorts of issues around that. It did take some time and it was a matter of dealing with people who were facing major change and feel threatened by major change.

I can say that I think it has been a very smooth process in which the department's employees have cooperated strongly and have built a better structure for the delivery of services. If it did take longer than the member for Bragg likes, what I can say is that I think taking the time to do it properly was the best way to do it, and I will defend that and I will defend our performance in that. Without anything further, I thank members of the opposition for their support and commend the bill to the house.

The SPEAKER (12:37): At the conclusion of the debate, may I just say congratulations from the chair to Mr Hook. I think the number of members who actually commented today on his new job shows the esteem this place holds him in. Congratulations.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport, Minister for Infrastructure, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:37): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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