<!--The Official Report of Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) of the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Australia are covered by parliamentary privilege. Republication by others is not afforded the same protection and may result in exposure to legal liability if the material is defamatory. You may copy and make use of excerpts of proceedings where (1) you attribute the Parliament as the source, (2) you assume the risk of liability if the manner of your use is defamatory, (3) you do not use the material for the purpose of advertising, satire or ridicule, or to misrepresent members of Parliament, and (4) your use of the extracts is fair, accurate and not misleading. Copyright in the Official Report of Parliamentary Debates is held by the Attorney-General of South Australia.-->
<hansard id="" tocId="" xml:lang="EN-AU" schemaVersion="1.0" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xml="http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="hansard_1_0.xsd">
  <name>Legislative Council</name>
  <date date="2008-07-24" />
  <sessionName>Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)</sessionName>
  <parliamentNum>51</parliamentNum>
  <sessionNum>2</sessionNum>
  <parliamentName>Parliament of South Australia</parliamentName>
  <house>Legislative Council</house>
  <venue></venue>
  <reviewStage>published</reviewStage>
  <startPage num="3659" />
  <endPage num="3712" />
  <dateModified time="2022-08-06T14:30:00+00:00" />
  <proceeding continued="true">
    <name>Question Time</name>
    <subject>
      <name>Housing Policy</name>
      <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000317">
        <heading>HOUSING POLICY</heading>
      </text>
      <talker role="member" id="599" kind="question">
        <name>The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <questions>
          <question date="2008-07-24">
            <name>HOUSING POLICY</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2008-07-24T14:45:00" />
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000318">
          <timeStamp time="2008-07-24T14:45:00" />
          <by role="member" id="599">The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (14:45):</by>  I have a supplementary question. Will the minister detail for the council any consideration being given by the government to developing an extension of the suburban rail line east of the current Gawler Central station to provide ready access for commuters from this new subdivision area?</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574" kind="answer">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <electorate id="">Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business</electorate>
        <questions>
          <question date="2008-07-24">
            <name>HOUSING POLICY</name>
          </question>
        </questions>
        <startTime time="2008-07-24T14:46:00" />
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000319">
          <timeStamp time="2008-07-24T14:46:00" />
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:46):</by>  When I announced the urban growth boundary decision last December there were two areas: one is generally referred to as the Concordia area, which is north-east of Gawler, and the other area, which is referred to as Gawler East, is south of the main road into the Barossa Valley. That is what this government is rezoning first.</text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000320">As I have indicated on a number of occasions, the existence of the train to that area provides a long-term option in terms of providing good public transport services to the people of the north. Of course, that is why this government is taking action to electrify the railway, because that is a necessary step.</text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000321">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000322">
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY:</by>  One can understand the interjections of members opposite, given that their transport policy was so barren. In eight yeas all they ever did was sell the buses. </text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000323">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574" kind="answer" continued="true">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000324">
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY:</by>  That is pretty rich.</text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000325">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000326">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:  </by>Order!</text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000327">
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY:</by>  That is pretty rich when members opposite opposed the extension of the tramline, and they opposed the new trams. What they wanted were heritage 1929 trams ending in Victoria Square. As I have indicated before, the only consequence of Liberal policy would have been the closure of the Glenelg tramline. That is the only logical conclusion. It would have been the inevitable conclusion.</text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000328">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="574">
        <name>The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <page num="3684" />
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000329">
          <by role="member" id="574">The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY:</by>  'A load of rubbish,' the deputy leader says. Perhaps the deputy leader should give her great experience to the transport engineers and tell them how to keep patching up 1929 trams and keep them going forever into the future. That is nonsense. That sort of comment by the deputy totally reveals the shallowness of members opposite. They really do not know what they are on about. They will oppose anything and everything, but they will not come up with any good ideas at all—even if they do, they will not cost them.</text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000330">What this government has done through its planning review and through the budget announcements is to provide the basis on which public transport can be extended into the Gawler East region. Unless hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on resleepering the rail system of this state, unless hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on electrification, it will not be possible; the system will not have the capacity to be able to extend out.</text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000331">Of course, that is what members opposite do not understand. They were part of a government that invested absolutely nothing over its eight-year time in government, in terms of new investment in public transport infrastructure. It has been under-funded for many years and it needs hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars (as this government has committed in the budget), to be spent on it. Once we have that situation, once we have the electrification to Gawler, it then becomes a very easy possibility, from that point, to provide (at a stage in the future when the government's plans have been rolled out) the capacity to do those things. Unless we do the preliminary work first, we will not be able to do that.</text>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000332">
          <event kind="interjection" role="member" id="55">Members interjecting:</event>
        </text>
      </talker>
      <talker role="member" id="1704">
        <name>The President</name>
        <house>Legislative Council</house>
        <text id="20080724e02396ecbb2c4ffaa0000333">
          <by role="member" id="1704">The PRESIDENT:  </by>Order!</text>
      </talker>
    </subject>
  </proceeding>
</hansard>