HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-07-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ADELAIDE OVAL FOOTBRIDGE

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Minister, apart from not doing a footbridge at all, could you tell the house what was the cheapest option investigated by the government for the footbridge from the southern side of the Torrens to the Adelaide Oval?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Elder—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (14:57): We did have some suggestions that would have been cheaper. I do remember one kind lady on talkback radio suggesting that we could take people across on the Popeye boats, but we—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: That was true; they did. That would need a flotilla bigger than that at Dunkirk, but the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A similar situation for Port supporters.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate that I am deeply hurt by that remark. It would help the member for Bragg if I could explain the process that we took. We first modelled—using Atkins, an international company—pedestrian movements and what we would need to move the number of pedestrians that we are seeking to.

I would remind the member for Bragg, as I understand it, the Liberal opposition supported an amendment in this very place for us to attempt to ensure that 70 per cent of people attending the oval did so by public transport. So, we modelled what you would need to do with that, but we then set out—because we are building a bridge which will be there not just for us but for the next and many generations to come—to find the best possible design and gave those designers our budget parameters.

What that came back with was something like 18 participants in the process, which was later reduced to four and then subsequently reduced to two. There is no doubt that some of the designs would have been cheaper, but the design team does not actually cost the construction. What they do is work within the parameters we have given to give us the design to select and then we go out to a tender for a construction cost. So, it is—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Sorry, you find that ridiculous? How would you have done it?

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Yes, the indicative cost, for the Leader of the Opposition, was as I have said. We asked them to keep it within our parameters and we have some indications. There is no doubt that the bridge that we have is not the cheapest model. There would have been—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Well, actually, that wasn't the question, but—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: What I have tried to explain to you is that we know that other designs would be cheaper but we did not ask the designers to cost the bridge other than—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —other than to keep it within the—

Mr Marshall: Come on, Pat. You can do it.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I certainly can, as soon as you stop talking.

Mr Marshall: You used to be able to.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I used to be able to. The member for Norwood interrupts with his has-been stuff again. Can I say, if I were asked—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If I were asked to sum up—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: If I were asked to sum up—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Madam Speaker, I am going to say it when he stops. If I were asked to sum up the member for Norwood's political achievements in one short sentence, I'd have to filibuster.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: So—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will sit down. Point of order, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I think, Madam Speaker, you will appreciate that it is not only irrelevant but it is entirely debate—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I have no idea what your point of order is. I can't hear it, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: My supplementary, if I may, Madam Speaker, is—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! You have got 47 seconds, minister.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I look forward to the member for Norwood screwing his courage—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order. The minister will sit down.

Ms CHAPMAN: Clearly, I haven't asked any questions about the member for Norwood. My question was clear, and I think the minister is now defying your ruling to deal with the substance of the question.

The SPEAKER: I think we will move on to the next question. Member for Bragg.

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