HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROAD OR FERRY CLOSURE (CONSULTATION AND REVIEW) BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:45): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide processes of consultation and review in relation to the closure of roads or ferry services; and for other purposes. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I think everyone in this chamber will remember well the embarrassing situation that confronted the state Labor government and the widely celebrated triumph of people power that occurred when the former transport minister decided that he was going to close the Cadell ferry in the Riverland. My colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC, moved a motion calling for the release of the cost benefit, family impact and social and economic impact statements received by the government before it made the decision to close the ferry. Soon after the motion was moved, Premier Weatherill realised this was a bad look for his new 'consult and decide' mantra, so his government withdrew the closure decision.

It was a result celebrated in Cadell and congratulations to all of them for their grassroots campaign to retain the ferry. In fact, I want to put on the public record my utmost respect and support for the community there which championed the cause and did a brilliant job. Given the circumstances had changed, I moved to amend the Hon. Mr Hood's motion, congratulating the government for its backflip, condemning them for failing to consult properly and calling for full disclosure of past, present and future expenditure, and their plans, for the future of all River Murray ferry services at Lyrup, Waikerie, Cadell, Morgan, Swan Reach, Walker Flat, Purnong, Mannum, Tailem Bend, Wellington and Narrung.

This brings me to the text of this bill, because the debate revealed to us that we cannot trust this government to consult and decide in regional communities. It took a sustained campaign to convince them in 2008 not to proceed with their country health plan to close country hospitals, and even though they got a nice big front page headline on their backflip on that issue, they refused to accept Family First's country health guarantee bill. All it was doing was codifying what the government had promised on the front page of The Advertiser. But they would not do it. To the Liberal opposition's credit, they supported that bill but due to the government's numbers it has not gone anywhere in the House of Assembly.

Here is another opportunity, using the same model as the country health guarantee bill, by mandating an extensive consultation structure if a ferry or road is to be closed. When we researched how the transport minister could simply close a road, it became clear to us that a loophole existed in the powers possessed by the transport minister to close country ferry services and roads. Compare that, for instance, with the debate over Barton Terrace in North Adelaide. The legislative situation on that road is complex and honourable members have previously received lobbying on that issue. Perhaps because it is only five kilometres from Adelaide, not 185 kilometres from Adelaide, there are more safeguards and there is more consultation on that issue.

I quote retired professor of politics, Dean Jaensch, in his opinion piece on 19 June 2012, because he summed the situation up very well:

The decision will cause a high level of pain for the local community. Tourism will be seriously affected and the local store will face a bleak future. Getting children to and from the Cadell school will be much more difficult.

A second issue: Who should decide when a public service becomes unviable? In the final analysis, it is a political decision. In such cases, especially when it comes to bad news, a minister should front up and face the music. The closure will affect other public services. The CFS, for example, has raised the most compelling argument against closure. The end of the ferry will mean up to half an hour extra for emergency vehicles.

Cadell people have no opportunity 'to do a Keith', where the hospital was saved from closure by a long and strong campaign, lateral thinking and real pressure. Like Keith, Cadell is a small town—about 460 residents in the area. Small populations do not have much clout in the political and electoral world. So they need to have time to build up wider public support for their case in the rest of the state, which will pressure government. Keith managed to do this very effectively, but Cadell had a major problem: the ferry will close on June 30. Not much time for a campaign.

Compare Cadell with the proposed footbridge across the Torrens from Adelaide Oval to the delights of the south bank. That is costed at approximately $40 million, to save people from having to walk just a little bit farther across the existing bridge. Forty million dollars to slightly increase the level of comfort for Adelaide people needs to be carefully compared with much more important implications for the people using the Cadell ferry. That $40 million would keep the Cadell ferry running for the next 100 years. The comparative public service is interesting indeed.

The bill does not affect closures under part 3 of the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991 as that grants the power to councils to close roads temporarily or permanently. One of the glaring omissions in the Cadell ferry debate was the government's failure to consult with the Mid Murray Council. When it comes to opening and closing roads and ferries, which is why this has to be a standalone bill to capture ferries also, then I will trust the council before the state government every time.

To be clear, this is about permanent road closures, not temporary ones. Councils, under the act I have explained, or the Police Commissioner under section 32 of the Road Traffic Act or even section 29 of the SA Film Corporation Act 1972 allows temporary road closures. These will all be able to continue as is the case now. Some other forms of permanent road closure that will be affected by this bill and require consultation as prescribed in the bill include:

section 27AA of the Highways Act 1926 which allows the Governor to close the road as part of a major development;

where various agencies can close roads under part 3A of the Highways Act for authorised projects;

the minister's ability to close roads under section 71 of the Crown Land Management Act 2009; and

for various local roads under relevant legislation such as section 7 of the North Haven Development Act 1972, section 8 of the West Lakes Development Act 1969, or a closure by the Commissioner of Highways under regulation 10 of the Highways (Port River Expressway Project) Regulations 2004.

The Weatherill government admitted it did wrong by the Cadell community by announcing the closure and reversed its decision. Former minister Conlon told the ABC on 21 June:

I have discussed with my people that I do not think we did enough consultation with the locals. I don't think we did as much as I would have liked.

The key reason for that was the public condemnation by many in the community and in Adelaide and the very bad look it created for a government with a new leader who said he was not going to announce and defend like his predecessor Mr Rann but instead consult and decide.

I made a speech in amending my colleague the Hon. Mr Hood's motion. When you get a runner during a Barossa football match giving the Premier a spray about closing Cadell's ferry, and if you were to have heard the communication that came to our office from across the state outraged at the decision, you realise that country and city people knew this was an important issue, like the Keith Hospital. They know that if we allow this, what next?

We are, therefore, doing no more than the Premier has committed to do in decision-making. The power to close roads does not mandate consultation under the existing legislation whereas, for instance, category three developments under the Development Act require proper consultation. We think that a ferry closure in particular, and road closures, can be of such impact upon a community that there should be consulting before there is any deciding. With ferries on the River Murray, it is important to remember that they have operated longer than any member in this parliament has been alive. There is only one reason you should be permitted to close a ferry, and it is the reason the state government closed ferry services at Hindmarsh Island, Berri, Kingston-on-Murray and Blanchetown: because the state government built a bridge to replace the ferry.

The South Australian reaches of the River Murray are unique with their ferry services, whereas in Victoria and New South Wales the river is crossed by bridges, 33 bridges, in fact, for over 1,500 kilometres of River Murray, an average of a bridge every 45 kilometres. The 700-plus kilometres of South Australia's River Murray is crossed by six bridges, an average of a bridge every 116 kilometres.

The Berri bridge was opened in 1997 and at that time cost $17 million to build. The Cadell ferry closure was meant to save $400,000 per annum. Victoria and New South Wales would have maintenance costs with their bridges, but once they got on with building the bridges over the last century the recurrent cost of a ferry became a non-issue.

The people of Cadell and other River Murray communities should not be punished for a failure to invest in infrastructure and, at the very least, deserve to be consulted on the closure of their major community connection to their neighbours and regional community. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

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