TRANSPORT EMISSIONS

The Hon. A.L. EVANS (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Police, representing the Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change, a question about motor vehicle emissions and the State Strategic Plan.

Leave granted.

The Hon. A.L. EVANS: There are two targets in the State Strategic Plan that recently caught my interest. One target calls for an increase in the use of public transport to 10 per cent of metropolitan weekday passenger vehicle kilometres travelled by 2018—which I understand equates to a near doubling of public transport use by that year. Another target calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 60 per cent by 2050. These targets are related, because an increase in public transport use results in decreased greenhouse gas emissions—and I note that the report into the proposed extension of the rail line to Seaford estimated that that move alone would reduce emissions by 9,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

Despite these targets, little appears to have been done to achieve them. Indeed, even though we continue to build more and more roads for cars, budgeting for mass transport options continues to stagnate. Indeed, rail operations and maintenance budgets have declined from $107 million in 2005-06 and $106 million in 2006-07 to $98 million in 2007-08. Total mass transport boarding has been almost static for the past 10 years, from 46.37 million boardings in 1994-95 to an almost identical 46.38 million boardings in 2004-05. The number increased marginally to 49.43 million boardings in 2006-07.

However, that modest increase goes nowhere towards meeting the State Strategic Plan target. Family First has estimated that a saving of 200,000 to 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide could be saved if South Australia had an integrated mass transit network, which is the equivalent of shifting approximately 50,000 people to 100 per cent renewable energy. My questions to the minister are:

1. Does he agree that significant emission savings are possible if the government were to implement a comprehensive mass transit scheme for Adelaide, along the lines of the one proposed yesterday by the Hon. Dennis Hood MLC?

2. Does he agree that Adelaide desperately needs such a scheme?

3. Does he envisage meeting either strategic plan target without budgeting or planning for an integrated public mass transit system?

4. If the government does not support a public mass transit scheme, doe he simply concede that the targets have no hope of being met?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (14:51): I certainly would not concede that those targets have no hope—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Look, the opposition transport spokesman, the member for Morphett—whose electorate covers Glenelg—actually opposed the extension of the tramline into the city. It is one of the rare cases I can recall where a local member acted actively against the interests of his constituents. It is probably the worst example of a local MP letting down his electorate that I have ever seen.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No wonder you are getting excited! You should be ashamed of him. He should be ashamed of himself for so badly letting down his electorate. Every day he is attacking the trams. Every day he is in the newspaper attacking the trams that he opposed. What we faced when we came to government were trams that were built in 1929 when the system opened, and they were not integrated; they ended in Victoria Square.

This government has taken a number of steps towards integration. For example, they link up now with the railway station as well as go past the O-Bahn bus stop. That is at least the first level of integration; the first step has happened under this government. Also, this government has put significant money into the resleepering of our railway system.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is all very well for members opposite who are interjecting to talk about these things—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Of course, The Advertiser—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That's right. That is why I am equalling the balance in here by talking about how the member for Morphett has badly let down his electorate—a shameful example!

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, yes, but so what? At least this government is delivering. At least I will go home and sleep easy tonight. Okay, the Adelaide Advertiser might decide to help members opposite, it might decide to suppress good news, it might decide to highlight stories for whatever reason, but the reality is that there have been more advances in public transport in this state in the past six years than there were for many years. How long was it since there was an extension to the public transport system?

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, before your time. And why did we have that? Because you put no investment into it at all. This government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into resleepering our rail lines. Sleepers on our rail system have been there since the 1950s and 1960s. Unfortunately, the backlog has been so extensive that it will not happen overnight, but this government is spending tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars on resleepering, which is the basis for extending our railway system.

That is why we have these goals. Yes, we do have goals, to get back to the honourable member's important questions. I am pleased that the Hon Andrew Evans has read the State Strategic Plan. He mentioned that we have targets for 2050. He also talked about targets for increasing the use of public transport.

What members opposite are attacking at the moment is the fact that our policy has been so successful and that too many people are using the trams, which they opposed. They opposed the tramline extension; the Hon. Andrew Evans did not, and neither did the Hon. Sandra Kanck and, I think, the Hon. Mark Parnell and others, and that is why we got it through. The Liberal opposition opposed that tramline extension. That was even though the transport spokesman himself represents the seat that is most advantaged by that; he acted directly against the interests of his constituents. It is a shameful case.

The question is important. Yes, these targets are to increase that use of public transport. It will be difficult, and it will involve hundreds of millions—if not billions—of dollars of investment over the coming years. We have begun the process of correcting the massive neglect that has occurred over decades not just by the previous government but also by governments before that which allowed our public transport system to run down. In relation to that, we also need changes in our planning system and, as I have indicated, those will be announced at some stage in the future. It is an important question; yes, this government does recognise the need for greater public transport, and it has already begun the process.