PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: TEA TREE PLAZA O-BAHN INTERCHANGE CAR PARK

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:16): I move:

That the 471^st report of the committee, on the Tea Tree Plaza O-Bahn Interchange Commuter Car Park, be noted.

The estimated total project cost is $14 million. The Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure proposes to construct a new 700 space five-level commuter car park on the north-western corner of the Modbury TAFE SA campus, adjacent to the Tea Tree Plaza O-Bahn Interchange. The new car park will include 14 spaces for people with disabilities and four motorcycle spaces. Vehicular entry and exit from the car park will be provided from the existing O-Bahn access road. This will not impede existing O-Bahn services.

The car park will meet the expected commuter demand at the Tea Tree Plaza O-Bahn Interchange until 2021. The car park has been designed to integrate into any future upgrade of the interchange. Once the new car park is completed, it is proposed that the department of transport and infrastructure will seek expressions of interest for the sale and development of the existing commuter car park on the southern side of Smart Road for either a medium-density residential or commercial opportunity, or a combination of both, whichever will provide for the best use of this land and the highest return to the government.

Given this, and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:18): The opposition supports the project and is happy to get some of these committee reports through.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (11:18): I note that we are talking about something that has been very close to my heart and something that we have worked very hard for along with the member for Newland. He and I have worked, I daresay, tirelessly and passionately to see this come to pass.

We are very grateful that the first sod has been turned; we saw it happen, so we know it is on its way. We are very grateful that it is going to be completed very, very quickly. We are very grateful for the improvements to the concourse, particularly the public toilets that are going to be available, which has been something that the community has asked for for many years. We are very pleased that it is going to have so many spaces. We are a little concerned, however, that the land is to be disposed of without perhaps thinking to the future for extra car parking, but be that as it may, 700 spots is terrific and we very much look forward to seeing the community use these facilities.

We know it will be a great boost for public transport in our area and relieve the people who live in the streets surrounding Tea Tree Plaza who have had cars parking in their streets incessantly for years. So we thank the Public Works Committee for the final report and the tick, and we look forward to seeing you all up at Tea Tree Plaza. Catch the O-Bahn out—I think now the only cement rail busway in the world—and we will see you there on opening day.

The SPEAKER: Stuttgart.

Ms BEDFORD: I do not think they are still using it, sir. You might have been on that and seen it recently, but as far as I know, it is probably the only one now.

The SPEAKER: I stand corrected. The member for Kavel.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:19): I too am pleased to make some comments in relation to the final report that the member for Mitchell brings to the house in relation to the Tea Tree Plaza O-Bahn interchange commuter car park. Perusing the report, obviously it provides some background to the project. As the member for Mitchell said, $14 million is the estimated total cost of the project. At 3.1 on page 6, the report outlines the current proposal and there are 10 dot points that really describe what the project will consist of. I would like to make some comments in relation to this infrastructure and, if I may, some other infrastructure projects around the state.

Can I say that this particular project—this 700-space car park at the Tea Tree Plaza O-Bahn—is not before time. I notice in the report in relation to the consultation, a number of organisations and departments were consulted and the City of Tea Tree Gully has been listed as one of the local government sectors that has been consulted, and I know that the City of Tea Tree Gully has been screaming for this particular piece of infrastructure for quite a number of years. They have been calling on this government for quite a number of years to get this project on the drawing board and into the Public Works Committee and have the final approval made in relation to it.

As the member for Florey said, the local residents have been quite unhappy again for a number of years in relation to cars being parked in the local streets. My mother-in-law actually lives close to Tea Tree Plaza and I know from communicating with my mother-in-law—with whom, I will say, I have a very good relationship—she has been particularly displeased with the number of cars being parked in the local streets. If one was a cynic, one could view this in relation to political expediency. We are a year out from an election—

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Point of order, sir. If the member for Florey wants to contribute, could I suggest that she returns to her seat.

The SPEAKER: The member for Florey is not a frequent offender, but on this occasion she is offending by interjecting out of her seat, and I ask her to cease and desist. The member for Kavel.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: If one was a cynic, this could be viewed in the spectrum of political expediency because what do we have out in the north-eastern suburbs? We have seats like Florey, Newland and Wright—all marginal seats—and I think a number of those members are actually feeling quite nervous. This could be described as pork-barrelling for those north-eastern electorates.

This government is dragged kicking and screaming in relation to infrastructure projects, and a glaring example of that is in the Mount Barker district. I will ask for some latitude here, Mr Speaker, because we are talking about infrastructure projects and when members do speak to committee reports, I know there is some latitude provided in arguably expanding comments out in relation to broader issues.

Mrs Geraghty: Not really.

The SPEAKER: Well, I will be the judge of that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you, Mr Speaker—I know, but you are a very fair person. Mount Barker is a glaring example of the neglect that this government is showing in relation to the provision of infrastructure. I have been in this place for 11½ years, and I have been continually calling on and lobbying the government to address those infrastructure and services needs in the Mount Barker district, particularly with the decision made in December 2010 to rezone 1,310 hectares of land for residential development—and that debate continues in the local district.

But what do we see the government spending money on in relation to infrastructure works? We have a few large projects—we have the RAH upgrade, and we have the Adelaide Oval. We also have the superway on South Road, and my personal belief is that that piece of infrastructure is actually being built on one of the best parts of South Road.

It is a three-lane carriageway on either side, so I do not know why the project was not moved several kilometres south, where you come up through a bottleneck off Regency Road, run through Port Road and into Thebarton and those suburbs. We have the Southern Expressway and the electrification of the rail line down to the southern suburbs. Where are all those projects focused? They are all in Labor's territory—nothing in Liberal territory, nothing in Mount Barker.

I turn now to where the report talks about the background to the project. There is obviously some money being spent at Tea Tree Plaza and also at Klemzig, but what about Paradise? What about the government addressing issues in Paradise? It has been our policy—Liberal Party policy—actually to increase car parking spaces in the Paradise interchange area. It is the Liberal Party's initiative to focus on Paradise.

At the moment, it is my understanding that the government hires car parking spaces from the Paradise Community Church. That is all very well, but what happens if the Paradise Community Church, for whatever reason, decides that they do not want to continue that arrangement? You are going to have the same situation you had at Tea Tree Plaza, where there is going to be more cars parked in the local streets, making the local residents unhappy.

I come to this issue with some experience. For nine years, I worked in the CBD, in the city here, and I was pretty much a daily commuter on the O-Bahn, so I have some personal experience of parking at Tea Tree Plaza. I actually had a car stolen from the Tea Tree Plaza car park. I also parked one day at the Klemzig interchange and had a car stolen from there. I recovered my car from—

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, they were both locked; they were both secure. I recovered my car that had been stolen from the Tea Tree Plaza O-Bahn. The police found it for me at the back of the Fairview Park shops. The police came across the car stolen from Klemzig, and I understand that, unfortunately, there was a pursuit. The thieves crashed the car into some brick walls and it was a write-off, so we had to claim through the insurance in relation to that.

The Tea Tree Plaza interchange, and the north-eastern suburban shopping precinct, is used by part of my constituency. It is used by the northern part of the electorate of Kavel. I know that the local residents of the townships of Lobethal, Gumeracha and Birdwood travel down into the north-eastern suburbs to do some of their shopping, so this piece of infrastructure does have an effect on my constituency as well.

As the member for Finniss, who is a member of the Public Works Committee, has stated, we support this for obvious reasons but, as I have said, it is not before time. We know that this government is dragged kicking and screaming to fund infrastructure projects.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Once one starts, so do all of them.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:29): I rise to support this project. Any infrastructure which helps facilitate greater use of public transport is to be welcomed. The O-Bahn has been successful. It is unfortunate, in a way, that the original plan for a tram did not occur. I do not know whether members have read their history, but the original proposal was to have an underground tram in King William Street, with that tram to go out to the north-eastern suburbs. It is a pity that did not happen because I think it is better to have an integrated system rather than what we have now, which is a hybrid (a mixture of different systems). We are one of the few places in the world that has the O-Bahn because it is a very expensive system, especially when you have to replace all the concrete supports.

This is a worthwhile development. I make the point that throughout the metropolitan area where you have rail lines, the government needs to make sure there is commuter car parking. We have issues, and I am sure the member for Davenport would agree with me, around the Coromandel, Blackwood—that has been improved somewhat—and Eden Hills stations. All of the stations on the Belair line are under pressure for parking. The councils wage a continual battle against people who park where they should not near those railway stations.

I support any initiative like this and encourage the government to keep providing and expanding the car park provisions. What they do in Perth, and I have raised this in here before, is in the larger car parks they have a security officer there all day and the people who park pay $1 for the privilege. When you multiply that by about 400 or 500 cars that is more than enough to pay for a security guard to be there, which not only helps protect cars from vandals, it also gives security to not just female travellers but they in particular are often concerned about their safety arriving in a railway station car park, especially when it is dark.

So, I think we can go further with what is being done here and follow the West Australian model of having security guards at the larger car parks, and people pay $1 or $2 a day, which is fairly insignificant for most people, knowing that their vehicle has someone watching it and that there is someone there to help increase the level of personal safety. I welcome this initiative.

Motion carried.