Bills

Statutes Amendment (Barossa Rail Corridor) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 March 2021.)

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:33): I move:

That this order of the day be postponed.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 22

Noes 22

Majority 0

The SPEAKER: There being 22 ayes and 22 noes, the Speaker exercises a casting vote in accordance with standing order 180. I exercise that vote with the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:41): I wish to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Barossa Rail Corridor) Amendment Bill of the Hon. Anthony Piccolo, member for Light. The whole proposal of this statutes amendment has some merit but, as the member for MacKillop and a member for the Limestone Coast, I can also see a lot of difficulties with such a proposal where the bill seeks to amend the Highways Act as well as the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016.

We have a number of old railway lines down through the Limestone Coast, which is probably like the area we are talking about here, the Barossa rail corridor, where the rail used to run and obviously does not anymore. It is a difficult situation, and I am very much proactive regarding rail and freight and transport. I think there are many opportunities for these rail corridors to be utilised and accessed into the future, and there may not ever be another rail corridor again as our country laid down the rail in its development and infancy over 100 years ago, if not further back.

We have to be careful with the proposal to lock this land up and make it even more difficult with other infrastructure programs and projects, like highways and roads around these rail corridors, in the sense of locking away these corridors subject to bigger and more expensive developments for roads and highways when there may never be another train on these corridors.

The ironic thing about this proposed amendment by the member for Light is that Labor were in government prior to 2018 and they were not able to instigate any development on a tourist rail proposal or any type of rail proposal up into the Barossa, and suddenly it has come to light that they may wish to do so or perhaps they think the opportunity may be out there for some sort of proposal. It may be possible and it may not be.

This amendment proposed by the member for Light has some merit in that, yes, it could be more expensive if a rail proposal were put up, but I think that is even more reason that, if any rail proposal is put up through this corridor to the Barossa or any other old rail corridor around our state, it has to stack up and it has to be economical and viable.

Obviously, when rail is re-instigated on these old lines it is an expensive process. It impedes the travel that we are all accustomed to, and that is road transport. All the road crossings need electrification, you need crossings and red lights and so forth and then, obviously, you need good infrastructure around these proposals. This is what makes rail so hard. We have moved on. It is a form of transport that is quite difficult and expensive to maintain, and so it does need to stack up.

With the old rail corridors on the Limestone Coast, there are a couple of scenarios regarding all the rail corridors down from Mount Gambier and Bordertown and the old railways that used to go elsewhere from those destinations. Rail stacks up in the sense of freight, if the rail system is up and going and still working, hence we see a lot of rail freight between our state capital cities.

We are talking about a new rail corridor between Melbourne and Brisbane through the centre, up through Victoria and into New South Wales and Queensland, where there is a major freight route that can be accessed, but these smaller type routes that are being proposed here, like the Barossa and the Limestone Coast, do not seem to stack up, particularly for the transportation of tourists or people.

One reason is that it is a slow form of transport. If you see where passenger trains are used for any tyranny of distance around the world, you will go to some Third World countries and see that rail is still a major form of transport, but we are not a Third World country by any means or imagination. We will require rail transport to be of high speed if we are going to bring rail in over any sort of distance.

I have heard that there have been some studies on high-speed rail from our state city capitals. Depending on the efficiency of air travel, there may be a time in the future when we can emulate what happens in Europe with high-speed travel, because it is well supported, it does carry a great number of people, it can use electricity and it can be a green form of energy. There are many reasons why I think in the future, if any type of rail transport is used for moving people around, high-speed rail would be the option.

This proposal, and keeping the Barossa open for these sorts of things, is not on the radar. It would be a long stretch to make it economically viable. It is a bit ironic again, I think, that this rail system has been closed for a number of years. It has been proven that it would be very expensive to upgrade, and the numbers of people who would want to use such a transport route would make it very difficult economically to do so viably.

Coming back down to my region, the Limestone Coast, what other alternatives are there for these rail corridors? We are talking about bike tracks down in our neck of the woods, turning these rail corridors into bike trails that are of significance. These are bike trails that can take you from town to town. They may be the next best use for these rail corridors. If you think about this Barossa rail corridor potentially being a bike track, for example, then the road network and the rail route that they are trying to protect can work in unison. They can work together. You do not actually need to protect this rail corridor as is being proposed by this amendment.

Coming down to my region, with these bike trails on the old rail corridors, there has been talk of bike trails that go from Goolwa across the barrages, down through the Coorong National Park and on to our rural towns on the Limestone Coast, and that is when we can actually start using these rail corridors in unison. There has been good evidence that there is a demand from tourists to access these bike trails, which could, as I already have highlighted, use these rail corridors. There is no doubt that a bike trail could potentially use the Barossa rail corridor up that way, if the numbers so desire and the moneys can be found to make it work.

I know that most of these rail corridors in my neck of the woods are still intact. But when a road has been upgraded and it has been made safer, it is there to carry a greater volume of traffic. We are talking about traffic, particularly heavy transport, where we are looking at trucks that are bigger than the B-double capacity. Roundabouts need to be made bigger, and this is my understanding of exactly what has gone on in the Barossa where a major traffic intersection has needed to be upgraded and has imposed itself on the Barossa rail corridor.

I can see no reason why we would stop these developments taking place for road transport because that is the form of transport today that is meeting our society's needs. Wrapping it up, putting it in mothballs, making it harder for our road transport network to get around and making these sorts of builds even more expensive for perhaps a hypothetical rail corridor, I think is too long a bow to draw. This is one of the reasons I cannot support this proposal.

In regard to rail, it would be good to see the rail network first of all maintained to what is being used around the state already because I think it does have a place for heavy transport and freight from other states around Australia. But, secondly, I think that there may be a really good purpose to address high-speed rail into the future that would work in parallel with our freight lines. They may need to be separate pieces of infrastructure. I think that is the only future development I can see at this stage as a proposal that would work for passengers on rail other than what is in place already.

I know we still have the Overland between Adelaide and Melbourne. There is probably rail that would take passengers all the way to Melbourne right up north of Brisbane, and they are still being used. I think the numbers that were on those trains 20 to 30 years ago were greater than today's because we obviously have buses now. We have airline tickets that are very competitive, or they were before COVID. This is why I think this rail corridor should not be proposed. It is not worthwhile mothballing and making it difficult for any sort of infrastructure in the future.

The SPEAKER: Member for Elder.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sir, I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: The member for Elder has the call. The member for West Torrens—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So we are going straight to the government every time for the call, are we?

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens will resume his seat and the member for West Torrens is warned.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: There is a precedence in this house.

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens is warned for a second time.

Mrs POWER (Elder) (11:52): I rise to add my voice to this debate in regard to the Statutes Amendment (Barossa Rail Corridor) Bill. I have wanted to talk on this debate for some time. We have had it before us for a number of Wednesdays. For me, it is quite important, particularly given that I have a number of train lines going through my own electorate. Ensuring public transport and particularly rail services are safe, affordable, reliable and accessible is something that I am really passionate about. I believe it is absolutely fundamental to our local communities. Fortunately, it is a priority of this Marshall Liberal government.

The new Flinders train line in my electorate of Elder is a 650-metre extension of the former Tonsley rail line. It includes an elevated single track over Sturt Road, Laffer's Triangle and Main South Road, linking Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University to the passenger rail network. The $141 million Flinders Link Project was jointly funded by the Australian and South Australian governments.

The new line and new Tonsley and Flinders railway stations opened for passenger services from the first service on Tuesday 29 December 2020 and are now operating under an enhanced timetable developed after extensive consultation. When I was out doorknocking, even prior to being elected, the services along the Tonsley line were an issue that many people raised with me on the doorstep. To them, fundamental to the increased services was an opportunity for them to be consulted and engaged about what that service would look like. We did deliver an increased timetable after listening to the feedback from local residents who were not only interested in the service timetable but also keenly interested in being involved in the location of the new Tonsley station.

The Tonsley line previously only operated on weekdays, with a 20-minute peak frequency and 30 minutes at all other times until 7pm. One of the biggest things that people talked to me about was how frustrating it was for them to have a train line right next door to where they live and it was not operating in the evening or even on the weekends. People raised with me that, if there was a Showdown in the city, they could see the train line but there was no train running on it. As the local member, I fought really hard for increased services.

Since delivering the new line, the Marshall Liberal government has extended these services on the Flinders line until midnight on weeknights and provides a 20-minute peak frequency on weekdays and 30 minutes at all times. A new service is also running on the weekends for the first time from approximately 7am to just before midnight. This is a massive win for my local community. These additional services are greatly enhancing the public transport options for those living around the train line and also right across our state.

In addition to great services for the train line, features of the new line and station include better station access through shared use paths and activated pedestrian crossings; new station locations, providing increased access for more residents; and improved safety, security and customer satisfaction in terms of the amenities. I think safety is an issue that certainly we are all talking about and acutely aware of in a different way this week, particularly from a women's perspective.

Having that shared path and stations that are open and provide a sense of safety is really important. I noticed that at the Tonsley train station there is an emergency button should anyone feel unsafe. If they need to contact emergency services, they can do so quite easily. I think that is a very small but important detail and feature that I would like to see rolled out in a number of our future train stations.

As proof that the service is improving the public transport offering in the area, patronage data for the new line shows the investment is already attracting more South Australians to use public transport, with a 10.9 per cent increase compared to the old Tonsley line. That is fantastic news. It is a 10.9 per cent increase on the Tonsley weekday average at a time when patronage has been down across the Adelaide Metro network due to COVID-19. This is all part of getting on with the job and building what matters.

The South Road upgrade through my electorate is the largest road safety infrastructure project in the state's history. It will also help increase heavy vehicle productivity and will create around 4,000 jobs. Residents in my electorate are delighted at the news delivered in last year's state budget that we will deliver the final section of the north-south corridor. The Torrens to Darlington section is the final piece of South Australia's world-class, multibillion-dollar north-south corridor and the key to unlocking Adelaide's traffic network while delivering important economic, employment and safety benefits to the state.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What an abuse of parliamentary process. What an abuse. Talk to the bill.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs POWER: It will see a combination of tunnels and lowered and ground-level motorways as well as overpasses or underpasses at key intersections to successfully complete the free-flowing transport route. While those opposite seem to be calling out that this is not relevant and will not improve the lives of people in my electorate, I think that they would absolutely agree.

Ms Hildyard: We want to talk to intervention orders. It's pretty important for women. It's pretty important for women to talk about intervention orders.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Reynell!

Mr Brown: When are we getting the intervention orders? Is this more important?

The SPEAKER: Member for Playford!

Mrs POWER: Importantly, the Torrens to Darlington project will not only improve traffic flows, complementing the Flinders line, but also help to preserve heritage buildings and iconic places. This is really important work for my local residents. These are important government projects and infrastructure upgrades that aim to deliver improvements to road safety and heavy vehicle productivity as well as create jobs. Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate to discuss public transport and rail corridors and to share with the house what it means for local residents in my area.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:59): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

Ayes 23

Noes 21

Majority 2