Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I associate myself with the remarks that have already been put on the record by Senator McKenzie in relation to this disgraceful exhibition of a lack of accountability by those opposite.

The questions that this chamber should be asking the minister, in coming in here and claiming a public interest immunity on the basis—if you will believe it—that it may damage the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia, are: what are you hiding, Minister? What is your government hiding? What is the South Australian government hiding? Does the South Australian government know that you're actually impugning them, in your decision not to provide this information, suggesting that they too are somehow involved in a cover-up about a project that is being funded entirely by taxpayers' money from both my home state of South Australia and federal taxpayers? It's $250 million. It's a quarter of a billion dollars worth of taxpayer money and apparently nobody has the right to see any information about the arrangements that are being put in place in relation to this particular project. One would have to assume that there must be something to be hidden here, because you would think that a government that was prepared to commit this kind of money to a project would be proud to tell the people of Australia, proud to tell the people of South Australia, what they were investing $250 million in.

The reality of the decision today by the minister to come in here and claim a public interest immunity on this project is that it insults not only this Senate but every single member of this Senate and the fact that this Senate has actually voted for this information to be released. It insults the parliamentary process that we all come in here for and hold so very dearly. Those opposite are all well and good to get up there and talk about parliamentary process when it suits them, but right now, when it doesn't suit them, all of a sudden parliamentary process apparently doesn't matter anymore. So you also insult parliamentary process. Do you know who the people are that you're insulting the most by doing this? You're insulting the people of Hahndorf. The people of Hahndorf have long waited to have a remedy applied to their town. It has caused them massive inconvenience and exposed them to potential accidents and fatalities.

As Senator McKenzie said, I come from South Australia, and I was only in Hahndorf last week with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley. We sat in the main street of Hahndorf for a few hours, talking to the locals, and watched what went up and down that street. There were B-double logging trucks backward and forward while tourists were there trying to enjoy the amazing ambience of that community. I think the people who should be most insulted by the response from the minister today are actually the people of Hahndorf.

You have to then have a look underneath all this. Why would the government be seeking not to provide information about this project? We respect the public interest immunity system. There are times when there are reasons why information shouldn't be made public, and we absolutely respect that. But the minister has failed to even come into this place and give us any explanation as to what kind of information is contained in the correspondence that exists between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia that would actually be considered by their legal team to jeopardise the relationship between the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia. If there is, I think the minister can come in here, present that and prove that in a reasonable explanation. I'm sure those on this side and others in the chamber would accept that. But to come in here and just say, 'We are not going to tell you anything about the expenditure of $250 million, $200 million of which was promised through the process of this particular parliament,' is really just saying there is no transparency. This is a government that apparently was elected on transparency and accountability, but there is no transparency and no accountability. They just don't care.

But the thing that is most concerning to me as a South Australian and as somebody who takes a great interest in the region of the Adelaide Hills, particularly in this instance, is the promises that were made no the people of Hahndorf about dealing with an issue that would improve accessibility and connectivity of the roads in that area—and we know that they are significantly lacking—and also to improve road safety for everybody who is impacted by the proposal.

The proposal was to take the traffic off a particular road, which is the main street through Hahndorf, Mount Barker Road, and redirect it in such a way that heavy vehicles would bypass the town. That is what the project restriction was, and everybody in the Adelaide Hills breathed a collective sigh of relief when the project was announced. However, on 27 Septembers last year, the South Australian transport minister, Tom Koutsantonis, completely blindsided the town of Hahndorf by coming out and saying that the intention was to scrap the much-awaited bypass and interchange at Hahndorf, leaving a massive hole in the benefits that were proposed to be delivered by this project.

Hahndorf is absolutely united, almost to a person, in the desire to have the heavy traffic removed from that road. Anybody who has done anything in infrastructure would understand that it is very, very rare that a town would seek to have traffic bypassed from its main street, because in many instances it will have a commercial impact on that town. The people of Hahndorf see that this will have a positive benefit to them. They believe that the heavy vehicles going up and down their main street is actually a deterrent to the main, core business of that town, which is tourism. However, in his decision to scrap the long-awaited bypass for Hahndorf, the South Australian Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Mr Koutsantonis, said that it was after public consultation with the people of Hahndorf that they had made the decision to scrap the bypass, because the people of Hahndorf didn't want it. I wonder whether Mr Koutsantonis bothered to speak to the Hahndorf Business and Tourism Association, who speak on behalf of the businesses and the tourism operators that exist in that main street. To quote them following the announcement by the minister, the proposal that's put forward by the government, who claim that it's somehow going to solve the problem, will not: 'The upgrade that has been proposed will not solve traffic issues on Hahndorf's main street.'

In the absence of understanding why the minister is choosing not to provide the information as to what is going on here, and given the fact that the South Australian Minister for Infrastructure and Transport has made the decision that they are not going to continue with the project as originally announced and celebrated by the community, one could only imagine this is a protection racket that is being run here, because what is now being proposed is going to cost less than the $250 million that was previously allocated. That is a quote that's come from the minister in South Australia.

They are scrapping the most substantial component of the development, according to the people of Hahndorf. They're doing it on the premise that the people of Hahndorf don't want it, and yet the people of Hahndorf are on the public record as saying that they do want it. And then today we see the minister walk in here, hand on heart, and tell us that the reason they're not providing this information is that it would damage the relationship between the Commonwealth and the South Australian government. I would contest that the reason this information is not being released today is that it will damage the relationship between the South Australian government and the people of Hahndorf, and it will damage the relationship between the Commonwealth government and the people of Hahndorf.

Those of us who are somewhat more cynical would suggest that the member for Mayo, Rebekah Sharkie, who has been a very strong advocate for her community of the Adelaide Hills, is no longer of any value to those opposite, 'So no longer are we going to provide any support to the community of the Adelaide Hills; what we're going to do instead is run a protection racket for the South Australian government.'

We have no transparency about where this money is going to go. Is it just disappearing back into general revenue? We have no transparency about what the South Australian government is required to do in the expenditure of taxpayer funds that have been allocated to it by this particular parliament. Instead, today we see the minister come in here and basically ignore us. It may only be a small thing, but, after the minister dropped his PII claim in this chamber 15 or 20 minutes ago, he didn't wait for Senator McKenzie—the first person to respond to his requirement to be in the chamber—to say one word before he upped sticks and walked out the door. He has not listened to one word we've had to say. This is so disrespectful.