HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:03): I move:

That the Environment, Resources and Development Committee inquire into the current and future public transport needs for South Australia, and in particular—

(a) the development of an efficient and integrated public transport system incorporating all forms of public transport and necessary infrastructure improvements;

(b) the needs of metropolitan and outer metropolitan regions; and

(c) the opportunities and impediments to increasing public transport patronage with a view to reducing greenhouse emissions.

I have raised this matter with members of the ERD Committee, and I note that the chair is in the chamber at present. I believe that the government may seek to amend this motion. I do not have a problem with that, as long as the thrust of the motion remains.

South Australia's public transport system is in a state of utter chaos and disrepair. Every form of public transport in this state—trains, buses and trams—is suffering from constant problems. Trains and buses are continually running late. There have been timetabling issues and problems with passenger overcrowding, not to mention more serious issues that have occurred in the past six months. There have been train derailments, buckling of railway lines, signalling problems, computer breakdowns, doors opening during transit and excess grease on railway lines, and so on. No wonder our passenger transport user rate is the lowest in Australia—probably the world. It is quite clear that South Australians are fed up with having to deal with such substandard public transport facilities. Honestly, who can blame them?

South Australia needs a revolution in public transport infrastructure. The state has fallen so far behind that massive new investment is needed, not just typical annual funding. An efficient and integrated public transport system, incorporating trains, buses and trams, and servicing both inner and outer metropolitan areas, including Gawler—and I note the member for Light is present—is necessary to serve the needs of all South Australians. An inquiry into the needs of all travelling South Australians by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee would establish the requirements of South Australian residents in relation to passenger transport services and ensure that taxpayer-funded revenue and government funds are spent on upgrading and implementing public transport infrastructure that would benefit the South Australian community, both metropolitan and country, and that we have something long-lasting into the future for our tax dollars.

Increasing the patronage of public transport services will only occur if services are increased. The passenger rail network needs to be extended to the Barossa Valley, the southern suburbs and Mount Barker. I have been pushing for many years for the rail network to be extended to the Barossa Valley but up to this point the state government has refused to even trial a service. How the government can claim to know that extending the passenger line from Gawler to the Barossa is not viable without trialling it escapes me.

Two weeks ago, for reasons that are quite obvious, I travelled to the Barossa by train. I caught the train express to Gawler Central. It was quick and it was good.

Mr Pengilly: You should have driven, Ivan.

Mr VENNING: Well, I won't go on with the obvious, but it has been a good opportunity for me to use services that I would not normally use, without explaining to the house why I was not driving (but I think the house knows, anyway).

An honourable member: Shame!

Mr VENNING: The shame of it was I had to have someone waiting for me at Gawler to pick me up and take me on to Tanunda, when the railway line—the same railway line that I was on—goes right past my office in Tanunda. It really annoys me. It is the same line I travelled up on. There were approximately 20 people on that train who were doing exactly the same as I was. We caught the express train at 7:50 from Adelaide. It is a great service and I really enjoyed it. The member for Light is here and he agrees with me, I presume.

It is a good service, particularly the express train. It is there a lot quicker than I can drive. However, I was annoyed, because there were 20 other people who, like me, got off the train in Gawler and had people or other vehicles waiting to take them on to the Barossa Valley. So I wonder how many people would use this route if that service was available. We will never know, because the government does not want even to trial it. I ask this: apart from the member for Light, when was the last time members in this house travelled on a train?

Mr Piccolo: This morning.

Mr VENNING: You did, but of the 47 members here, I wonder how many have actually travelled on a train, tram or bus. It would be an interesting survey, wouldn't it? If you are like me, you do it out of necessity but, to me, it has not been totally lost time. An inquiry by the ERD Committee would provide an unbiased assessment of the viability of extending and further developing the public transport network into the outer metropolitan regions.

If the public transport system was extended and more services were offered, like me, more people would utilise it, and hence this would go a long way towards reducing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by cars. Catching the train to Gawler is not expensive. It is quick, and you can do some work on the train. It really is the way to go, if it is more user friendly. It is great to be able to get off the train and walk up the hill here to Parliament House. Nothing could be more convenient.

The tramline extension on King William Street has caused nothing but headaches for South Australians since its opening. Enhanced traffic congestion, overcrowding, trams terminating early, along with the technical malfunctions, have been products of the Rann government's $31 million exercise. With the current extension being plagued by continual problems, coupled with a multitude of other problems within the public transport system, I find it absolutely ludicrous that at the start of the year Mr Rann should suggest extending the tram line to include a city loop—particularly when this was a suggestion which I made way back in early 2006 but which was not even considered. Secondly, the government cannot manage or correctly plan the extension that it has already put in place.

The Premier said on 8 January this year, 'I would like to see a city loop for a tram'. He continued:

What I think will happen is the next extension, if it goes through the budget process, could go down further through Bank Street, through Light Square and then do a city loop.

I suggested to this house in May 2006 that a single city loop tram should be considered. This is before you started the work, and before you started to plan.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I have been here for a while, member for Ashford. In a speech I made in this house, I said:

I am not opposed to using trams per se—

and the honourable member has quoted that to me ad nauseam; I have always been a lover of trams—

but we cannot just plonk them down and cause more traffic chaos.

Have a listen to these words. Is this prophetic or not? I further said 'Can I suggest an alternative?'

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I am quoting from Hansard. I said:

I suggest a single loop from Victoria Square to North Terrace. It would be via Trades Hall Lane, Bentham Street, Leigh Street and Bank Street and return via Gawler Place or, if that is not suitable, Charles Street, Arcade Lane, Wyatt Street and Flinders Street. It would be a single lane doing a loop.

Well, hello, hello! If only we had done that we would not have the mess we have got in King William Street.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Absolutely.

The Hon. P.L. White interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The honourable member should be on the front bench still. My speech continued:

There is much to commend this alternative option. It goes to the same place, but it has double the amount of pick-up opportunities for people, more space at passenger pick-up points on non-essential low-demand roads and a single track.

The government took no notice of what I said and look at the situation now—the Premier is suggesting that a city loop would be his ideal. Not only that, but the government has realised now that it probably bought the wrong trams (and we told them it did at the time) and that the platforms are too small. I have to say that if the tramline was a single loop (as I suggested then) overcrowding on platforms, which poses a danger to commuters, would not have been an issue.

I also said before this that the government bought the wrong trams. A cheap tram could have been delivered before the last state election. Why? Because they are not popular and there is low world demand for them, and that is why we could get them. They are too narrow, too rigid, too high and cannot be multi-hitched. We should have bought the French Alston tram—more expensive, yes, but a far superior product and more suitable for our requirements.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Much more expensive, yes, but they are very good trams. This government has shown a complete lack of foresight and has simply wasted the money of South Australian taxpayers. If it had been correctly planned and executed, the tramline would have been a good start to updating South Australia's entire public transport system. The result of this huge exercise is that South Australia has a new tramline extension that copes worse than the Bee Line bus it replaced. Obviously, the government did not even do basic sums regarding the passenger capacity on the trams. I know that the member for Morphett has. When they were coupled, two of the older trams provided 128 seats and room for 60 standing passengers.

These new trams cannot be coupled and have only half the number of seats and room for 109 standing passengers—this on top of removing the Bee Line bus, and Premier Rann and minister Conlon are surprised that the trams are overcrowded! I believe that if an inquiry had been conducted by the Environment, Resources and Development Committee prior to the tram extension being constructed regarding public transport requirements for South Australia, the $31 million spent could have been directed into another area of the failing public transport network.

You could also have included in the inquiry the future of the O-Bahn. Is it feasible to run trams down the O-Bahn line? Have you thought about that, Mr Speaker? Has the house thought about that? Could you run them together? Could you run trams and the O-Bahn together? All these things could have been discussed and considered at an inquiry. Taking into account all public transport users, tram commuters comprise only 3 per cent. What about spending money on bus and rail, which the majority of public transport commuters utilise? An unhappy South Australian said:

The government should remember that the public transport system in general and not just the trams needs a massive boost.

With the state's rail network and bus system in such disarray, I urge the state government to invest in upgrading existing public transport infrastructure and not waste money on badly-planned additions to the public transport network when, clearly, it cannot get it right. All South Australians deserve a public transport system that is reliable and safe; and, under this government, it appears that they will not get it. We need trains that can run on time, where every passenger can get a seat or a handle to hold onto, working PA systems correctly announcing each stop; clean carriages and clear windows. Adelaide desperately needs a greatly expanded and electrified rail network. South Australia is the only mainland state still running diesel trains on its metro network, and our Premier is talking about extending the already problematic tramline and building a new $1.7 billion hospital. Get real!

Not only does our inner and outer metropolitan train system need expanding and upgrading, but our interstate rail terminal and services offered are also in need of an overhaul. South Australia needs convenient interstate and intrastate rail travel and, to be convenient, it needs to leave from and terminate at an inner-city location, not on the outskirts of the city.

The bus services currently offered are woefully inadequate. Constant timetable changes and altering of routes have left many members of the public disillusioned by public bus services in our state. Many areas are not serviced at all by buses, and in some areas people are faced with long waits at the bus stop due to infrequent availability of bus services.

Whilst it is all well and 'feel good' for the government to buy bio-diesel buses to be environmental friendly, we need buses that can make the journey. Where else in the world would bus passengers be asked to alight and walk up a hill because the buses struggle to climb up steep inclines? Surely, this cannot be true, it is just nonsense! Apparently, it is true.

It seems that this government has no long-term plans to fix the problem, and without any action, the situation will not get better: it will only get rapidly worse. The state government has failed in its responsibility to the South Australian public to provide adequate public transport. It has neglected and underfunded the system for too long. The whole public transport system, including the new tramline system, needs a complete overhaul. The many recent problems experienced by commuters illustrates the need for development of a new integrated system. I just hope that, if this government undertakes any action in regard to public transport while it is still in power, it properly plans it and does not waste any more taxpayers' funds.

An inquiry would prevent this from happening, or it would at least highlight the options for the government. I believe that, if the Environment, Resources and Development Committee undertakes a full inquiry into the state's public transport needs, it will not only reveal what the public of South Australia wants in regard to public transport but also reveal the shortfalls and strengths of the system; where government funds should be spent; and how patronage can be increased. I have a lot of faith in the committee system of this house, particularly this committee, having myself chaired it for some years. I think we have a very good record of crossing the political bounds, and we have come up with some very good recommendations to the house.

The use of passenger transport needs to be optimised and, to be optimised, the system needs to be convenient, safe and easy to use. As global warming and climate change continue to worsen, an increase in services, and hence patronage of public transport, will result in massive environmental benefits.

I call on the government to support this motion for the benefit of all South Australians. If it needs to be amended, as long as the core of the motion is not changed, I am happy to listen to and support any such amendment. I urge the house to support this motion, and I look forward to the contribution of other speakers.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (11:17): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete all words after 'inquire into the' and substitute the following words:

opportunities and impediments to increasing public transport patronage with a view to reducing greenhouse emissions and other relevant matters.

The SPEAKER: I just interrupt the member for Giles here to point out that we need a copy of that amendment brought to the table. The member for Giles.

Ms BREUER: I congratulate the member for Schubert on his motion. It is a good motion, and he is very passionate about public transport issues and also about our committee. I am always very glad to see that, but he does get a little carried away at times. The committee felt that if it went into the inquiry as the motion stood, it would have been a bit like War and Peace—we could have been there for the next five years trying to deal with that particular motion, because the amount of work involved in it would have been phenomenal. I do not think that our committee has the resources or the time—

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I have a point of order. I do not believe that we have amended the motion. Is the member for Giles speaking to the amendment or to the motion.

The SPEAKER: As I understand it, the member is speaking to the amendment. She has moved the amendment and is speaking to it. The member for Giles.

Ms BREUER: Yes; I do not think that our committee would have the resources or the time to cope with the vast expanse of the member for Schubert's motion. I am very comfortable with the amendment, because I believe that we can get a considerable amount of work done with this wording. I know that the member for Schubert is passionate about public transport. I believe that he has recently had some experience with public transport, which is good; he knows what he is talking about. But I believe that next week he may not be looking at the same issue again.

However, I believe that we do have issues with our transport which we need to consider and which the committee would have the ability to examine. For example, at our committee meeting this morning we started talking about carbon trading and whether we need to do something about that, but I believe that this inquiry will bring out some of those issues, and later on we may be able to look at other issues.

So, I am very comfortable that we do go ahead with this. I think that it is something we can inquire into and subsequently give to the government to seriously consider. I think that with this inquiry other issues may come out for us to examine in the future. I would urge the parliament to support the motion.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:21): I rise to support the initial motion, but having heard the amendment I think it actually gives the committee a wider range of issues to look at. Certainly, if the member for Schubert is happy with the amendment then I would have no problem with supporting the amended motion. There is no doubt that in South Australia we do need to look at the future of public transport. It is a huge issue, and in my opinion, as the shadow minister for transport, it is an urgent issue that this government has not planned for and has neglected in the past, with South Australians now paying the price of a poorly managed public transport system.

When I was a vet student we had a subject called integration. We did anatomy, physiology, pharmacology and biochemistry: there was a whole range of subjects that we did as individual subjects. We looked at all the parts, but all of those parts make a whole. There was one exam that we looked forward to with some degree of trepidation at the end of each year, and that exam was called integration, where we were asked questions about the whole of the animal. The obligation was on us to bring in to that answer all the various parts of the animal—the various systems that made up the animal, and made a healthy animal.

It is the same with the public transport system: it needs to be a healthy system, a working system, and to make it work everything has to be integrated together. Going out onto North Terrace this morning and seeing the tram having to back up at the corner of North Terrace and King William Street, go through the switches and go back south down King William Street, you start to think that there is a bit of a problem here. Let us try to diagnose that problem.

Certainly, there is a need to ensure that when the trains pull into the stations the bus is not just departing, or that when a bus run by one operator is pulling into a bus interchange the bus which is run by another operator is not just leaving. We have to make sure that everything is going to work smoothly and seamlessly and that it is going to be a healthy system. It is all about getting people onto public transport so that we can have all the benefits of less congestion on our roads, less pollution and less effect by way of greenhouse gas emissions. It is all about making sure that South Australians are getting continuous improvements to their lifestyle.

What I am really very concerned about is the fact that this government does not have an integrated transport plan. We have an infrastructure plan, which is a series of projects—one-off individual projects. As yet, I have not seen how all these projects are going to be integrated into a public transport plan, or a plan for public transport so that it integrates even with freight or private passenger transport, for that matter.

In 2002, the Labor government came into office without a transport policy. We saw a draft transport plan in 2003, which was shredded. Now, when you ask about the transport plan, you get diverted to the infrastructure plan. It is great to have an infrastructure plan because, as the mining companies will tell you, there is $20 billion alone worth of infrastructure that they need. In Adelaide you ask the South Australian Road Transport Association and they will tell you that the freight transport in Adelaide will double in the next 10 years.

You need to ensure that public transport will not only be integrated and working well but will also be integrated with South Australia's freight needs (particularly in the metropolitan area) and also in terms of private passenger transport. If you want passengers to use public transport, there has to be a service that is, first, safe and, secondly, reliable.

If you are having to wait for trains, trams and buses because of delays in the timetables, if you are having to sit on trains that have broken down or are not functioning properly, that is not something that will attract people. If you have ticketing machines that are not working, that is no way to ensure that you know how many people are using public transport, and it is no way to entice people onto public transport if they are having problems as soon as they come near the trains, trams or buses.

In this morning's Australian I read about a senior public servant who has resigned in Victoria because its proposed ticketing system—I think it was a $1 billion ticketing system—has been scrapped. The same thing has happened in Sydney where the ticketing system has been scrapped. I just hope that this government is actually working on something that will ensure that, if people do use public transport and do want to buy a ticket (and they all should), the ticketing system works so that we know how many people are using our trains, trams and buses.

The cost of petrol is a big issue. Obviously, emissions from petrol-driven cars is a big issue in South Australia. Caltex, in an industry release not long ago, predicted that within 10 years petrol will cost $3 a litre. I suspect that it will not be three years. My daughter is living in New Zealand and paying $1.80 a litre for petrol already. It will not be long before we are paying around that price, perhaps $2 a litre.

People with tight budgets and with interest rates going up will want to use public transport, but it should not be a last choice; it should be a first choice. The government needs to look at integrating the public transport system and making sure that it works. With expanded urban growth boundaries, the need to go to a modern light rail public transport is absolutely vital. Electrified rail, whether it is heavy or light rail, is a must.

I encourage this government to look at light rail trams and light rail trains, because they are different animals and they both have significantly different uses and benefits for the travelling public, and they will certainly cut down the cost of the infrastructure that is needed to carry those particular vehicles. I have even had a look at some proposals to use freight trams in Amsterdam. At night, when passengers are not using the tram network, they are experimenting with freight trams. All these sorts of options should be on the table. These are the sort of options that the opposition will be looking at when we put all our policy proposals down.

Can I just come back to the member for Giles' amendment to this motion. It is really going to focus on the effects of greenhouse emissions from a better public transport system. I have an advert from a rail magazine in my office. It has a picture of a tram on it and the words 'zero CO2 emissions'. When I was in Austria looking at trams, I got to drive a tram drown the main street in Linz. That is how easy and safe to drive these new trams can be—they trusted me with it—but there are adverts all over the place showing pictures of trams with zero CO2 emissions.

I will meet with a chap from Flinders University in the near future to talk about electrification of rail. One of his arguments is that there are not zero CO2 emissions. From the actual vehicles that is the case, but how you produce that power is the question. In South Australia, with our gas-fired power stations at Torrens Island we have an opportunity to produce cleaner power, and the increasing use of green energy provides an opportunity to ensure that we have a public transport system that is friendly to not only users but also the environment generally.

I visited the Leigh Creek coalmine last week with the Hon. Graham Gunn and other colleagues and I was concerned to find out that the local coal supplies are dwindling at a great rate and that the only alternative on the horizon is to import coal from the Eastern States. We all know that coal-fired power generation is not the cleanest form of generation at the moment and if we can go to renewable sources of energy that would be greatly desirable. It costs more, but if we are to pay heed to the experts out there who are predicting outcomes for the planet and also for South Australia, of increasing environmental change, then we need to make sure that we are not ignoring all the possibilities of at least reducing our impact on the changes that are predicted.

We also need to make sure that, in the process, the quality of life of South Australians is not dragged down and degraded. There is no doubt about it: having a clean, green, friendly and integrated public transport system is an absolute must. What we will be looking for from the ERD is a thorough inquiry into the public transport system—that we have a clean, green public transport system that people want to use. It is not the transport of last resort; it is a transport system we should all be proud of because, unfortunately, I am not proud of our transport system in South Australia.

I say that with a heavy heart because the people who work in our public transport system, from the minister's office right down to those who do what are quite menial tasks, do an excellent job. It is not their fault. They are handling a system this government is not managing well, not funding and has no plans for. So, let us hope that the ERD Committee comes up with some recommendations that do provide the state and the taxpayers with what they deserve.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:32): I commend the member for Schubert for the original motion, and I am pleased to support the amendment moved by the members for Giles.

This has been a hobbyhorse of mine for a long time in this place. Years and years ago, I started raising the issue of improving public transport. I am not interested in the blame game because, if you look at the record of both major parties over time, there have been errors in judgment in relation to public transport. I was a member of the Liberal government when, under minister Laidlaw, a decision was made to split the bus system into areas. It was done under the heading of competition but, of course, it is not competitive when you do not have a choice of buses going down a particular street; it is competition in name only.

What we have is a fragmented public transport system in Adelaide and also, I guess, in rural areas as well. We have an O-Bahn that, if the Labor government had not lost the election in 1979, would have been a tram system, which I personally prefer over an O-Bahn for a range of reasons.

The original plan was to run the tram under King William Street, but that was scrapped when the Tonkin government was elected in 1979. The Tonkin government went for an O-Bahn which, as far as I know, is still the only O-Bahn outside of Germany. I think Germany has only two systems because they are very expensive to construct and, whilst they have a degree of flexibility, they also have some other issues, one of which we are confronting now, that is, getting suitable buses to replace the ageing buses on the system.

We have a light rail tram system and a heavy rail system and then we have a disintegrated bus system with different operators running different areas. So, I think that one of the first things that needs to be looked at is to create a totally integrated public transport system in this state.

The member for Schubert made it appear that our public transport system is totally chaotic; it is not. I am a frequent user of public transport; I came in today on the train, as I normally do. Our public transport system is not the best and it can be improved, but it is certainly not, as some people suggest, at the level of a system in a Third World country. However, it can definitely be improved, and one of the things to improve it would be to have management which looks after the whole public transport system. What we have now, as the member for Morphett said, is a situation where buses are departing from a station just before the train arrives. That is because we have two different authorities running those systems, where the bus operators answer to one management and the train operators answer to a different management and that, in my view, is crazy.

Once again, the member for Morphett mentioned the problems with ticketing in Melbourne and Sydney where I think the public servants involved in that process have been told to get on their bike. If members have been to Singapore (and I am sure members have), they will find that the electronic card system there works very well and, as I understand it, the company that was developing the system for Sydney is the same company that helped develop the one that is used in Singapore. I think it is a bit unfair for people to point the finger at that company because, as I understand it, the design brief kept changing, making it very difficult for that company to deliver what was being asked of it.

Our current ticketing system (the Crouzet system), which is more integrated than many of the other states, is coming to the end of its working life. It has its limitations in terms of flexibility because the system cannot cope, for example, with giving people a one dollar ride into the city on a Friday night or a weekend as part of a package to stimulate the city centre. The system cannot cope with that and they are the sorts of things that a modern metrocard system can do. The one in Singapore will tell you instantly how many trips you have left. You do not have to put it in a machine, you just walk past the machine and the machine will read it electronically and tell you that you need a new ticket or whatever.

We need to address other issues, for example, that we are still running diesel trains, and this is an issue I have raised before. Those trains' diesel engines run continuously from about 5am until just after midnight. Whether or not they are moving, just by sitting in the station they are churning out enormous quantities of fumes. Some people think that diesel exhaust is good. It is actually not good for you because the small particles are very bad for your lungs and, increasingly, I think people will realise that we do not want diesel fumes, certainly not where you have a lot of people nearby.

I am pleased the government is re-sleepering the Belair and Noarlunga lines. That re-sleepering will allow for standard gauge conversion, which we need, and it would also allow for light rail usage. That process is about to be under way, if not already, and I welcome that. I think the government needs to move in stages to electrify the metropolitan network. It does not have to be done all at once. You hear people say that it will cost $1 billion. Yes, it will—it would probably cost more—but you do not do it all in one year. You do one line, then the next line and so on. It needs to be standardised. It needs to cater for light rail; that can be light rail tram or light rail carriages (modified rail-type carriages). We need to look at extending the line, not just down to Aldinga but to other areas out past Norwood and north-east. You could easily run a light rail to Aberfoyle Park and other suburbs that currently do not have a good public transport system.

I was surprised and disappointed that the recent study into extending the rail line to Aldinga did not look at the option of light rail. I cannot understand how you can commission a study of the transport options of extending a rail line to Aldinga without looking at all the options, but that was the case. If you implement a light rail system down there, you can put pylons across the Onkaparinga—you do not need a $100 million bridge—or you could use the existing road bridges. But that was not even considered by the people who put together that report, and I think that is a great deficiency.

It would be useful, too, when changing transport arrangements, if those involved actually consulted the people who use the system. In my electorate, the bus services have been changed more often than most people change their underwear. I do not know how many times in recent months the system has changed, only to change again, and it is done without any consultation either with me as local member or the local commuters. We get an edict from someone running the transport system saying what will be the new timetable. A lot of people have ideas about how to improve it, and it should be done through consultation rather than edict by those running the system who think they have all the answers.

Currently one deficiency in our system is the lack of bus shelters. I am pleased that the Minister for Transport has made a commitment to have a look at this issue, although he has not said that he will pick up the tab. State governments used to contribute to the cost of bus shelters but it was pushed totally onto local government, and that is unfair and unreasonable. Local government is currently trying to upgrade bus shelters to meet disability standards, and many of those bodies are not doing any work whatsoever in terms of providing new bus shelters.

On a day like today, imagine a person (male or female) in a lovely new outfit going to work who is drenched before they even get on the bus. How much of an incentive is that to use public transport? Only a fraction of our bus stops actually have shelters. I urge the Minister for Transport to really (pardon the pun) come on board in relation to providing bus shelters and to help local government provide comfort in winter and summer. During the recent hot spell, elderly people were standing waiting for a bus because there was no seat there. How can you expect them to use public transport in those circumstances?

Offsetting or reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a very complicated issue, as the member for Morphett said. There might be a tram that is not emitting but the power station certainly is. All of those issues need to be looked at. However, if we go about this in a constructive way, as I am sure the ERD Committee (of which I am a member) will, I think South Australia could be a winner and we might end up with an integrated system. We might even be able catch a suburban train to Keswick to get on an interstate train.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:41): I am pleased to support the amended motion that has been put today. Quite frankly, the government has failed the people of South Australia who have a desire to use public transport. The system is weak at the knees and is not coping. It is obvious that the antiquated diesel rail system that we have needs consigning to history. In fact, as the member for Fisher pointed out, it does not have to be done all at once and it is ridiculous to suggest it does. Indeed, I would like to see the electrification of that system started for the southern suburbs, extending down to Seaford and that area, because it is very badly needed.

I am constantly reminded by emails and phone calls from people in the south that they are sick of being dismissed in this regard and are fed up to the back teeth with a very poor train system. Quite frankly, our train system belongs somewhere in Zimbabwe with Mr Mugabe. He and the minister could leave together, because the system is a disgrace. It is not the fault of the drivers or anyone else who works in the system; it is the fault of the government for not getting stuck into it and doing something about it.

When these trains go over crossings and I have had to pull up in my car, I look at them and shake my head in disbelief. I have been to Perth several times in the last couple of years and seen the fantastic rail system there which is a delight to travel on. The trains are modern and airy, they are clean and not covered in graffiti. The whole thing seems to work just so much better, and the trains are always on time—or, at least, I have never travelled on one that has not been on time. Indeed, if you catch the train from Central Perth and go down to Fremantle, it is a pleasurable experience, just as it is if you go the other way, and the train stations are good.

I think that South Australia is being left behind in the public transport arena, and this motion will perhaps investigate some of those aspects. You only have to look at the absolute chaos just out here on North Terrace that has been created by the trams coming along, and this morning was an absolutely classic example. It took 23 minutes to get from the Newmarket Hotel to Parliament House—23 minutes! It is absolutely ludicrous. We have lost car lanes in North Terrace and King William Street, and the whole city is being jammed up.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: You cannot turn right, no; you cannot do anything any more. I come in on the tram, which I catch at East Glenelg. Generally speaking I try to catch a tram at about 20 or half past seven to get in here, and even then you are standing the whole way. That is fine, it doesn't worry me to stand—when you sit on your posterior in here all day a bit of standing on the tram is not such a bad thing—but the reality is that the trams are crammed full of people standing. You just cannot get a seat, and it seems to me that no-one respects anyone else any more because I have seen pregnant women standing in those trams, I have seen children having to stand, and I have seen elderly people having to stand all the time.

Quite frankly, I just do not think it is good enough. It is a disgrace, and I think it is something which this motion could accommodate and the committee could have a look at. These trams look terrific but they are just not fulfilling the role for which they were purchased—you cannot get enough people on them, they are uncomfortable inside, and we know the rest of it. I guess history will bear that out in due course.

The bus system also needs a bit of fine-tuning, and I think that is something the membership could pick up on in committee if this eventually comes about—which I think it might. The member for Schubert indicated earlier that he came in on the train this morning, but I suggest to him that he would be much better off getting a pushbike. It would be much better for his health, getting right into it—

Mr Venning: It was raining.

Mr PENGILLY: It does not matter; it is better for your health. I was out walking at 6.15 this morning—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I did not get wet, no. However, I think this committee can have an in-depth look at this. I am becoming greatly disappointed at the direction we are going in this state, because it all seems to be driven from the top down, from government departments, instead of from the bottom up. We have lost track of everything. It is all coming from senior bureaucrats who are running their own agenda and there is no direction from the government. It is just a shambles at the moment.

I would also like to see a bit more fairness and equity given to people in the country regarding public transport. In my electorate there is no public transport whatsoever—there is a bit of council-subsidised public transport in and around some of the towns, but there is no public transport—and I have increasing numbers of elderly pensioners and others who live down south in Victor Harbor, Goolwa, Middleton, Port Elliot and over at Yankalilla who really have no means of getting back and forth to the city. They struggle with it, and are constantly coming to me asking what is happening. I have made representations to the government and have basically been told that nothing is happening. Quite frankly, I do not think that is good enough. Premier Buslines does its best but it is still, I think, about a 2½ hour trip by the time you go here, there and everywhere.

Country people are being absolutely dudded. Once upon a time there used to be a train service to Victor Harbor (although that is a long time ago now), and they ask whether the government will look at another train service. I suspect that will not happen either, but we need to come to grips with having a decent, reliable, good, clean and efficient public transport system in South Australia—and of course it has to be a combination of rail, light rail, bus services and whatever.

As has been said, correctly, the price of fuel is going up and more and more people want to use public transport. If it is good, if it runs efficiently and on time, if it is affordable, they will use it; there is no question about that. However, at the moment people have been turned off in droves and are most reluctant to use it—particularly the trains. I shudder when I see trains go past with only a couple of people in them.

The fact is that you will never have a public transport system that pays for itself—we acknowledge that, everyone knows that—but, while I have not used public transport in Europe for many years, I quite clearly recall the public transport systems in Paris and London many years ago and just how good they were and the extent to which they were used. They were just crammed full. I also remember travelling on the underground in New York a long time ago and seeing how popular and efficient that was.

There is no reason why we cannot do a lot better than we are doing at the moment. I think it is pathetic. I think we have absolutely failed to deliver a decent, reliable, clean and satisfactory public transport system for the people of South Australia. And I say South Australia, not just the metropolitan area, because it may come as a surprise to some members of the Rann cabinet that if you go north of Gepps Cross, east of the toll gate, or south of Darlington, there is actually quite a bit more to South Australia.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Unley, I know, appreciates that. From time to time, he actually goes across the border, and we have taken him out, and I think it is about time that a few others did. I am pleased that that member for Schubert's motion will get through. I think that a good look at the public transport system is well and truly in order, and it can be done on a bipartisan basis across the parliament and attended to; so I support the motion.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:51): I rise today to support the motion of the member for Schubert; I believe it is an excellent motion. I believe the member for Giles has just made the motion as broad as it was, and all relevant matters should be picked up, but I am really concerned with regional passenger transport needs. Years ago, as a child we could catch the Bluebird through to Adelaide from Coomandook; you cannot do that any more. You can catch the train coming either way from Melbourne to Adelaide if you get on at Murray Bridge; so, you are halfway to Adelaide by the time you can access it if you are heading towards Adelaide.

One thing that does cause a lot of angst in regional communities is the subject of area rights. I note the minister is in the chamber at the minute, and he and I have had various discussions about the issue of area rights for a regional operator to take over the right of passenger services in a region. If the operator wants to run hard and fast to the rule, this can make it very hard for any one else to supply a run, even if the operator who owns the area rights does not wish to operate that run. At the end of the day, one of the things that happens with area rights is that, if the owner of the area rights does not operate the run and another bus service operates a particular run, the original operator gets the concessions. I find that a ridiculous argument, which can cause serious harm to the income of the person who is actually out there supplying the service.

You realise just how unprofitable some of these services can be when the owner of area rights gets to operate the run and starts dictating how far down the road they will go and how much more they will charge. There are certainly issues in my area with people accessing schools in Murray Bridge in particular, whether they be private or public. The Liberal Party is a party of choice, and I believe that the whole area rights shemozzle is championed by bureaucrats in the Department of Transport, who obviously do not know much about private enterprise to realise that if area rights were open to public tender—if the whole regional bus service was open to public tender—private operators would fill in the gaps, because that is how it works in the private world.

People take the opportunities to supply those services. Last year I was stunned when area rights came up for renewal, to see that, I believe, a five-year plus contract was signed in around August or September, which put impediments on the freedom of choice for operators in areas. It works all right where there is a little bit of goodwill between operators, but if people want to play hard ball, as I said before, as I believe happens in my area, it makes it very difficult and inequitable for a lot of people who want a decent bus service just to access, for example, their school of choice. So, that is the main reason for my angst. However, I must remind people that, per head of population, city passenger transport users receive, I believe, about 14 times the subsidy of those in the country. Public transport in the country is just a joke. I commend the motion.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:55): I support with great vigour the motion that the member for Schubert has brought to the house. Public transport in South Australia is a mess. If one goes to any other capital city in this nation, or any reasonable city anywhere in the world, one will find efficient, clean and good public transport systems. I think that Adelaide suffers from probably the worst public transport system in a sizeable city that I have encountered anywhere that I have ever been. It is a mess—and the word 'integrated' really glares at me.

The only problem I have with the motion is that it ignores our regional centres. As my colleague the member for Hammond just pointed out, public transport is basically non-existent outside metropolitan Adelaide. We have a few schemes in a couple of the major regional cities, such as Mount Gambier and Whyalla and the like, but in other country towns and major country centres public transport is a need that has not been met. Also, we must not forget the problems that country people have with school buses. I think that is an issue that this parliament also needs to look at.

I know that time is short, and other people want to do some things with this motion, so I will end my comments there. However, I ask that we not ignore the public transport needs of rural and regional people.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT