HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RAIL NETWORK, SEAFORD RISE

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:30): I move:

That this house condemns the Rann government for the failure to extend the rail network to Seaford Rise.

This motion would come as no surprise to members in this chamber. It has been discussed at length and raised quite regularly in the two years since I was elected a member of parliament. However, the issue will not go away. The fact is that tens of thousands of people, who live on the other side of Darlington in the southern area, are loud and clear in their desire to have a far better public transport system than that which now exists and which is serving the south. Indeed, they have a great desire to have it extended as far as possible.

There seems to be a well-used cliché 'the forgotten south', which is relevant in this argument. It has been bandied around for quite some time. I think the government has totally forgotten about the south. The south stops at Darlington and that is about as far as it wants to go, despite the fact that there are a number of Labor held electorates down there. We have a Minister for Southern Suburbs and local members have been there for some time.

It is a social justice issue. Quite clearly, the people of the south are not getting treated properly. They should have the capacity to get on a decent, reliable, safe public transport system to come in and out of the city—as do many other people in the metropolitan area—but that is just not happening. There is no fairness in the system. There are no plans. Lo and behold, perhaps we will get a wonderful announcement this afternoon in the Treasurer's budget speech that the government will extend the rail south. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to soak that up at 3 o'clock this afternoon when the Treasurer delivers his forecast for the next 12 months. I have sincere doubt that will happen. In fact, I am sure it will not happen.

There is a total lack of respect. Onkaparinga council and Mayor Lorraine Rosenberg (who used to be in this place) have been advocating strongly and speaking out loudly on behalf of the large constituency in the south.

Mr Hanna: She is a very good mayor.

Mr PENGILLY: She is a very good mayor, as the member for Mitchell says. Felicity-ann Lewis is another good mayor. These people are strong and powerful advocates for their community. They are saying loud and clear what they desire for their area and their population. They are getting things thrust upon them. Local government is being required to be more accountable. I do not have a problem with that, and I am sure they do not have a problem with it, either. The fact is that while they are accountable this government is not accountable for what it is not doing for the people of the south.

The growth down there is enormous. In the past 12 months the Minister for Urban Development and Planning has announced the extension of the urban growth boundary. The Onkaparinga council is shaking its head and wondering how it will cope with the influx of more people and less money to deal with it. The population at large would like the ability to hop on a train or light rail service (or whatever) to come into the central metropolitan area, whether it be to come into the city centre or to sports fields or to visit family.

Many people in the south do not have high incomes. Public transport is a must for them and at present they are restricted. In my view, the Rann government has absolutely failed to deliver any meaningful, good service to people in the southern suburbs, extending through to Sellicks Beach. It has failed to deliver the goods. It regularly pooh-poohs it and it has not come up with a plan for the future down there, despite the best efforts of people in the area, whether it be through progress associations, councils, pensioner associations or as individuals.

Individuals contact me by email and telephone me. They are saying they are not happy; 'Who is going to do something about looking after the people down south?' This government does not care. Everything is being done in the north of the city. Enormous amounts of money are being spent in the northern suburbs. We have had an announcement about $100 million for a roof over Football Park. Well, I am a football fan and it would be nice to sit there with a roof over my head but it would be even nicer to be able to catch a tram from the south to go to Football Park. So $100 million is being spent at Football Park, but we cannot get anything done to extend the public transport system over the Onkaparinga River into the southern suburbs.

I think it is an absolute disgrace, and I am sure most members in this place would agree with me. Even some government members may agree with me—but I will not hold my breath waiting for that. The time is rapidly approaching when we want to hear from the Rann government. More to the point, we would like to hear those members who represent the south tell us what the plan is for a good public transport system to serve those thousands of people—because it is just not happening.

Mitsubishi closed and hundreds of jobs were lost. Now that it has been shut for a few weeks, we need to know how many of those people have found jobs. They live in that area. They do not want to go north but, if they have to, if they have to travel from their homes and those northern environs, they need a public transport system. We do not need to see more and more traffic on the roads. These people should be able to catch a decent, clean train, where one can see out of the windows, instead of the disgraceful things that we have at the moment, which are unbelievably antiquated. I think our trains are an embarrassment to South Australia. I travel along Morphett Road and I am regularly stopped at the Oaklands crossing when trains go past, and I shake my head.

The train system in Perth is absolutely magnificent. The stations are clean and the trains are modern—they are electrified, they run on time and they are quiet—however, in Adelaide we have these ancient, clapped out, dirty, scruffy looking trains. No wonder the drivers and the staff who work for the department of transport are leaking like sieves. How would you feel about getting out of bed in the morning and going to work to drive one of those things? One has to shake one's head in disbelief.

Why on earth has the government not done something to provide an efficient, up-to-date, modern rail service that has been extended south to Seaford, at least—and perhaps we can even look at other options to support public transport to and from the south coast and the Fleurieu Peninsula. But first and foremost—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: There is a cracked record on the other side, I think, going 'Wha, wha, wha.' If the member wants to get up and have a go and say something positive, that is fine—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: —but the reality is that I am speaking up for people in her so-called electorate down south who are not getting a fair go. They do not have a decent public transport system anywhere near far enough down south. What is the government going to do about this issue?

As I said earlier, this is a social justice issue and, quite frankly, this government is failing the people south of Darlington. As I also said earlier, perhaps the Treasurer (Hon. Mr Foley) will come in here this afternoon and make a grand announcement on a southern rail system; I do not know. I guess government members already know whether that will or will not happen. I suggest, member for Fisher, that by the looks on their faces on the other side: 'No, there ain't nothing happening.'

I took the opportunity to speak on this matter because it is important. I rest my case by saying that it is time the government showed some leadership and a desire to assist the people of the south. Public transport is the way of the future—it has to be the way of the future. Because of the increase in oil prices we will see a reduction in the number of vehicles on the road, particularly large vehicles, and people are looking for the option of good, reliable, safe public transport. The people of the south should be at the forefront of having a brand new system with the electrification and extension of rail to those areas.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (11:41): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Delete all words after 'That this house' and insert 'notes the report 'Extension of the Noarlunga Rail Line to Seaford' and its recommendations, in particular, that the Seaford rail extension be retained as a potential public service transport project and that a rail corridor to Aldinga be identified'.

Mr HANNA: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister's amendment fundamentally changes the tenor of the proposal, and it should be the subject of a separate motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The amendment is in order. It deals with the same subject matter.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am surprised that the member for Mitchell would try to interfere with the nature of the debate in this way. If he wants to advocate for the Liberal Party in this place, that is fine with me. Many people in politics and in the local community have spoken about the proposed rail extension. It is not surprising that the member for Finniss has now joined that list. He joins a fine list of Liberals who have spoken on this topic.

The former member for Kingston, Kym Richardson, raised this issue on his first attempt to stand for that seat at the election before last. He made a lot of noise about it. He wrote to me after he was elected and asked to be involved in some sort of process. I wrote back and said, 'Well, tell me how much money the federal government wants to put on the table.' Not once did I hear back from the federal member for Kingston. He raised the issue very prominently in the community and he campaigned around it, but there was not one single dollar or one single commitment. At the last federal election there were no promises from Kym Richardson on the issue of the railway. I note in the paper today that he is now standing as the Liberal candidate for Mawson, so it will be interesting to see how he raises the issue yet again. But there were no promises.

I note in the contribution today by the member for Finniss that there was no commitment by members of the Liberal Party to this railway extension; there was no promise by them. There was not even a vague suggestion that if they were in government they would build this. It is all about: 'Why hasn't the government done something?'

If they are serious, if they are fair-dinkum, if they are convinced that this is the right way to go and the right way to spend money, they should put it on the table that, if they are elected at the next election they will build it, in what time frame, how much they will invest and where is the pathway. If they do not do that, people will see through them and realise that they are insincere and are just playing politics. As opposed to other members who have raised this issue, I have done something about this proposition. I live in Seaford; I live in the southern suburbs. Unlike those others who from time to time speak about this issue, I know the—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I would not talk too loudly on the other side. I have lived in my electorate for the entire time I have been a member. I am a proud resident of Seaford—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Yes, that's true. I am a proud member of the Seaford community and I am very committed to having the extension of the railway to Seaford. That is why I was pleased to be able to advocate for the review that was done by the government into the extension of the Seaford line. We did not commit to building it. We said that we would have a proper investigation. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the extension of the railway line to Seaford through examining the proposal's economic and engineering feasibility and its impact on the objectives in South Australia's Strategic Plan.

The South Australian government is aware of the value of an improved metropolitan public transport system in terms of ecological sustainability, social justice, health, the economy, urban planning and community building. The government has set the strategic context for improving public transport by making the growth of public transport patronage one of the 98 targets in our State Strategic Plan. South Australia is the only Australian state to have such a plan and, of course, it is being monitored regularly by the government.

The proposal incorporates a grade separated double track alignment except for a section of the single track rail line over the Onkaparinga Valley. Two stations are proposed, one at Seaford Meadows and one at the proposed Seaford rail terminus. Two rail bridges are proposed, the main one being over the Onkaparinga Valley and River Road and the other over old Honeypot Road. Three road bridges are proposed at Goldsmith Drive, Seaford Road and Lynton Avenue. The rail alignment crosses the Onkaparinga Valley estuary across a 1.2 kilometre single track viaduct and bridge.

The main conclusion from the feasibility study into a passenger rail line to Seaford is that it is technically feasible but does not yet justify the major initial expenditure. The current cost is estimated to be $175 million, with a single track viaduct and bridge over the Onkaparinga Valley, and $215 million if the viaduct and bridge accommodate a double track. Additional rail cars would need to be acquired at a cost of more than $50 million to operate the extended rail services to Seaford.

The report shows that extending rail services to Seaford provides a preliminary benefit cost ratio (BCR) between 0.5 and 1.0. There is a significant improvement in the economic result if rail services are extended to Seaford after the separate project of concrete resleepering of the Noarlunga to Adelaide rail line. This would provide faster train services and increase the benefit cost ratio from 0.7 to 1.0. This is a significant first step that needs to happen before the line is extended. The second next important addition is the electrification of the line.

I will go through some of the recommendations. The Seaford rail extension should be retained as a potential public service transport project. The proposed rail extension would have significant benefits across the community—improving accessibility, local environment benefits and job opportunity benefits. It would encourage TOD developments; a shift in journeys of up to 2.3 per cent from private transport, benefits to car drivers who remain on the road network and a whole range of other issues. One of the recommendations is that the 1980s alignment, the most direct route from Noarlunga to Seaford, be the adopted route for a future rail extension to Seaford.

Studies were carried out in the 1980s by the Office of Transport Policy and Planning to consider alignments for road and rail from Noarlunga to Seaford. A display was exhibited at the Noarlunga library and the then Noarlunga council chambers in 1990 to enable public comment on a number of short-listed options. The recommendations from that review resulted in land being reserved for a public transport corridor through the area now known as Seaford Meadows.

The City of Onkaparinga invited Professor Peter Newman of Murdoch University to inspect the state of transport in the outer south ahead of a public forum that was held in July last year. Following the forum, Professor Newman and representatives of the City of Onkaparinga met with officers from DTEI to request re-assessment of a more westerly alignment which reduces the length of the viaduct and bridge over the Onkaparinga Valley. This was agreed and the alignments were compared for the report.

The westerly alignment traverses privately owned land north of the Onkaparinga River. The 1980s alignment is the most direct route from north to south, and the report found that it performs better than the one promoted by the City of Onkaparinga. The westerly alignment underperforms in key areas: it is more costly; it requires more land from the Onkaparinga River park; and it requires the acquisition and demolition of 30 to 40 private properties. This is the proposition that the Onkaparinga council was promoting. The City of Onkaparinga commissioned Professor Newman to review the report 'Extension of the Noarlunga Rail Line to Seaford', notwithstanding its adverse findings on the westerly alignment.

The third point is that the costs and benefits of providing a station at Seaford Meadows or the relocation of the Seaford terminus to Seaford Heights be reviewed. The study found the Seaford and Meadows stations are too close, so that is being reviewed. The report recommends that the feasibility and priority for funding the project be reviewed:

after concrete resleepering of the Noarlunga to Adelaide rail line is complete—and we are doing that now;

if high frequency and high speed rail services and other public transport priorities are approved; and

once the population increases in the southern areas of Adelaide.

If I had more time, I would go into that last point, but that is an important point. The community in the south needs to understand that they cannot have all the development infrastructure they want if they are opposed to having population growth. Those two things go together, and that is a conundrum particularly for people in the Port Willunga and Aldinga area. I will not go through the details of that, but there are plans to increase population growth in the south.

The next point is that the rail corridor over the Onkaparinga Valley be secured in the name of the Minister for Transport— and I understand that is happening—and also that a rail corridor to Aldinga be identified so the railway can be extended. The government is committed to doing that. That is a positive development which indicates our commitment to this overall project. It would mean that it would go further than would have been the case otherwise.

The extension of the railway line to Seaford is a worthy project and one which I will continue to support. Over one-third of Adelaide's population lives in the southern suburbs, with significant differences between its outer and inner areas. Most people in the outer south travel to work in private vehicles. Given the cost of oil and climate change issues, of course, public transport needs to be improved, and we are a government that is committed to doing that. We are committed to:

upgrading the Noarlunga rail line to providing faster and more reliable rail services;

defining the rail corridor from Noarlunga to Aldinga to allow structure plans for the development of land to be integrated with future rail services; and

continually reviewing the supply of bus services in the outer south. There were some recent improvements in that area some months ago.

These initiatives will improve the economic, social and environmental value of the proposal. It will be reconsidered in the context of the need for other significant long-term investments in health, education, water and other infrastructure and services. This government is committed to extending the railway to Seaford and beyond, and we are going through the processes that are the essential precursors to that—securing the land and also upgrading the railway line to Noarlunga.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:52): The whole subject of improving the public transport system and, in particular, introducing an electrified standard gauge system to Adelaide has been a cause of mine in this place for many years—so long that I cannot even recall when I first raised it in here. Putting the politics of this issue aside (and we understand why that arises), Adelaide is the only mainland capital now that does not have a modern electric rail system. I believe the option is to move to a standardised light rail system, and it would integrate, as I said yesterday in this place, with the Glenelg tram. You can have light rail trains.

I think that one of the deficiencies in the report to which the minister just referred is that the government did not adequately—and even in any substantial way—consider the option of light rail trains to Seaford and beyond, and I think that it needs to do that. The reason it is important is that if you go for light rail you do not have to spend so much money on bridges, which you must provide if you go for heavy rail. You can use pylons across the Onkaparinga estuary; it is far cheaper. You could even use for the short section across the Onkaparinga a single track arrangement to save money, because you will not be running trains every two minutes (I cannot see that ever happening). You can therefore cut the cost drastically by having a single track across the Onkaparinga estuary on pylons.

I believe this is where the state government should be banging on Mr Rudd's door, because the federal government has an incredible surplus in excess of $20 billion. We know that it is cautious at the moment, and it should be, because the last thing we want is to stimulate inflation. However, if the federal government committed some of that money towards extending the rail system in the metropolitan area of Adelaide (light rail, standardised, electrified), it would not cause any problems in the short term in regard to inflation, because it takes years to do these sorts of projects. The resleepering of the Noarlunga line will not be completed for about three years.

If the federal government commits to this extension (and I have always argued to extend light rail out to Norwood and other parts of Adelaide), it will not be inflationary in the short term, because you will not be doing anything much in the short term other than planning and making sure you have the land and so on. You can do these projects in stages, just as is happening with the resleepering of the Belair line and then the Noarlunga line. People put up the argument that this will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Yes, it will, ultimately and collectively, but you do not spend all that money at once. You do one line at a time and one section at a time, but you have a plan which you seek to implement.

The reality with respect to good public transport is that if you provide a modern, electric light rail system you will attract housing and you will attract population near those rail lines. That is a well-established fact in transport planning. Good transport systems attract residential development and they attract increased population. The lack of a modern rail system to Seaford Rise falls at the fault of governments over many years. As I understand it, the federal government many years ago offered Adelaide some electric rail modernisation package, and at the time that offer was declined. I think that Mr Virgo was the minister for transport at the time. People can challenge the assertion but, as I understand it, the government of the day said, 'No; we'll stick with buses', and if that assertion is correct, it is most unfortunate.

We are in a new era now. There is no point in trying to score political points off people with 'Who did this? Who did not do that?' The issue is that it needs to be done, and it is up to the state government to do it from its own resources or, I think, heavily lobbying Kevin Rudd. People talk about commitment to the environment and reducing greenhouse gases, but we know that electricity and its production in South Australia contribute to global warming, but it is much more efficient than having thousands of people commute each day from the south in motor cars or even in buses. I would continue, but it has become almost like a record.

The government needs to get on with this. What it is doing in terms of resleepering is good, and I commend the government for it, but it really needs to get hold of this issue. I lobbied before the last election both the federal Labor and Liberal parties to make a commitment to do this for the south. I said that whoever does it would get tremendous political support in the south. They chose not to do anything, but the challenge is there now for the government to act and to bring the Rudd government on board. That government has the money, and it would be a good investment on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia to contribute to Adelaide having a modern, electrified light rail system.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:59): I rise to make comment on the proposal for extension of the rail network to Seaford Rise. Indeed, it would be ideal if we began talking about extension further than that as well. I note that the member for Finniss (the member whose electorate covers the Victor Harbor area) has moved the motion, and an amendment put forward by the Minister for the Southern Suburbs is a milder version which refers to the report and recommendations on the extension of the Noarlunga rail line to Seaford.

The extension of the rail line further south is something that is, in fact, very important to me. It does not make a lot of sense from the point of view of the electorate of Mitchell as such—even under the new boundaries that will finish down at Sherriffs Road—but it will have an indirect benefit, I suppose, in that, if more commuters from the deep south take the train, there will be less congestion on South Road and the Expressway—and my residents would certainly appreciate that.

However, it is really from the point of view of considering the public transport needs of Adelaide as it grows that I support the member for Finniss in his efforts here today. This topic is something that I have explored considerably. I have read the report to which the minister has referred and I have had some detailed discussions with the Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga and the Chief Executive, Jeff Tate, about the issue.

The minister raises a fallacious point when he says that there needs to be more population before a definite commitment to continuing the rail can be made. The reality is that, if a commitment is definitely made to have a rail line continuing to Seaford Rise (particularly if it is even further than that), then it will be a tremendous spur to population growth.

In any case, it is a little bit rich for the minister to put that forward because population growth, in a sense, is being foisted upon the south. When the state government, just within the last year, redrew the urban growth boundaries for Adelaide, it allocated huge areas of land at the southern end of the Adelaide metropolitan region and said that these were designated as future suburban development.

If the government is going to do that—encourage population growth down south, subject to all the planning requirements which need to be addressed first—then it really needs to have the infrastructure to go with it. We do not want to see a repeat of Sheidow Park and Trott Park—suburbs with which I am very familiar—which were set up in the 1970s and 1980s without a great deal of government commitment to the infrastructure that they needed to function well as a community. They became dormitory suburbs, where people would use their cars to go in and out—to shop, to work and so on—and where literally hundreds of young people grew up and had very little to do in terms of recreational opportunities or even access to transport to get them where they wanted to go.

Things have improved over time, but there is still an element of that dormitory suburb character in those two suburbs. We do not want to see the same thing repeated further south, where suburbs grow up without adequate infrastructure. So, start the planning now. The minister in his speech said that there was a commitment to the rail line being extended. That, at this stage, is a little vague, but I thoroughly welcome that commitment. I am looking for both parties to commit most definitely before the next election to the extension of the rail line at least to Seaford Rise, and ultimately I think we need to do more work to have an efficient rail line down to Victor Harbor as well.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:04): I support the member for Finniss's original motion, 'that this house condemns the Rann government for its failure to extend the rail network to Seaford Rise', because the amended motion put forward by the minister for the south states:

That this house notes the report 'Extension of the Noarlunga Rail Link to Seaford' and its recommendations, in particular, that the Seaford Rail Extension be retained as a potential public service transport project and that a rail corridor to Aldinga be identified.

What bureaucratic nonsense! We are going to note a report—another report. This bureaucratic nonsense has been going on for 25 years and yet we have no action. We hear about all the action with public transport and we hear about the issue of climate change, but we know how serious the Labor governments of this country are about climate change, because they are all as one as far as means testing the installation of solar panels on houses is concerned.

That really goes to show how serious the Labor Party in this country is about offsetting the effects of climate change. They get elected federally on some false premise—'We're going to be the government for climate change'—and the first thing they do is start chucking initiatives out of the window. Frankly, I cannot see a couple earning a combined income of less than $100,000 being able to fit solar panels.

The government's attitude to public transport smacks of the same arrogance. The reason that the Premier had to announce the massive use of solar panels at Wayville was because the Solar Shop and others would have had massive orders sold off and he would have got them for half price, I believe. The government has basically destroyed an industry in one fell swoop. However, I digress from the main tenor of the motion.

An honourable member: But only a little.

Mr PEDERICK: Only a little.

An honourable member: In the same state.

Mr PEDERICK: And in the same state. There is a lot of talk about whether we have growth in the southern suburbs. Certainly, there is a lot of potential for growth down there. There is plenty of building going on in the Willunga area and further south towards Seaford Rise. There is also major growth in the north of the city. We have a little place called Freeling, where my grandparents came from years ago, that used to be prime farming land, and when I see an area such as Freeling being opened up for, basically, urban housing, it just about makes me shudder. It is no different from the fact that we probably have the best farmland in this state—we are probably standing on some of it, actually. It would be no less productive than those golden soils of Goyder on the Yorke Peninsula.

Be that as it may, I think we need to be more proactive, and that is something this government certainly has not been in terms of enhancing transport options for people in the outer country areas. When I say 'the outer country areas' I mean the outer suburban/country areas, I guess you could say—places such as Langhorne Creek, Strathalbyn, Clayton and Goolwa. If I am successful (and I hope I am) in the 2010 election, I will represent Goolwa, and there would be plenty of people down there who travel to Adelaide; and also people travelling from Victor Harbor in the member for Finniss's area. There should be a park 'n' ride facility built in conjunction with a rail extension to Seaford Rise, and it would cut down on many hundreds of vehicles having to clog up suburban streets, especially with the price of fuel and with people wanting to cut back on carbon emissions. It is an absolutely sensible idea that we should have a rail extension to Seaford. I note the member for Mitchell also talked about an extension to Victor Harbor, and I believe in the longer term that should happen also to give the people concerned better access to the city.

The Minister for the Southern Suburbs' amended motion just notes a report. It is a little like the budget announcement last year about the resleepering of the railway line down to Noarlunga. It is basically a maintenance upgrade. Yes, I note that we will need it for electrification, and we may hear about that this afternoon, because there would have to be standardisation work done on the concrete sleepers. Essentially, you have to lift the sleeper and move it in a few inches, and if you do not have the concrete sleepers you basically cannot do it. I note that this was the main premise of a budget reply speech last year by the member for Bright, who went on for five or six minutes about resleepering rail. What a classic! I was waiting for the next little gem to come out but there was nothing there. It was all about putting in concrete sleepers.

I think we need to get proactive, and I have a fair idea that we will hear some grand plans for transport this afternoon, but will it make it any easier for people in the south—the people of Langhorne Creek and Strathalbyn who should be involved in the Metroticket system? Murray Bridge is a classic case in point, where we will be putting up state facilities. We will be putting up a new forensic mental health facility and also the new women's and men's prisons. They are state facilities.

Mr Koutsantonis: You're welcome!

Mr PEDERICK: I did not welcome them on the announcement, with no consultation. The government needs to commit to its own earlier commitments to the Rural City of Murray Bridge and make sure that it has in place the appropriate public transport systems which it promoted in earlier talks with the council but which it is madly backing away from. With Labor, it is all about reports. They want to put their prisons in a country electorate. The seat of Hammond is prepared to take it on and the Rural City of Murray Bridge is prepared to take it on, but they are not going to do it without the appropriate government support.

The government is backing away seriously; it is backing away from the appropriate road infrastructure for the entrance to the prison and backing away from the appropriate public transport connection, because they just do not want to fund it. They want to stick it out there when they could have built it in the Premier's electorate: I believe that is where they had land set aside for the new prison. But, no, they would not put it there. It would not affect the Premier very much, because he does not live anywhere near his own electorate.

They have already had to extend the plans for the prison and, by the time they have built it, it will be full. They started with 760 inmates and I believe the male prison is up to 1,000 inmates now. They need to get on with the job and make sure they follow up their earlier commitment to the Rural City of Murray Bridge on public transport access and make it a Metroticket area, because Murray Bridge comes up in urban planning as a growth area. But I digress somewhat. I commend the member for Finniss's motion—

Mr O'Brien interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Now we are getting on to the route for the rail line. I love it! The member for Napier has just given me another contentious issue involving rail lines, and this would need major funding. This would be related to the Seaford Rise line, but the fact is this would have to come through the Hills to Murray Bridge in order to improve access. People, quite frankly, would not be prepared to travel for two hours on a train from Murray Bridge into the city, so it needs some foresight by the Labor governments (both federal and state) to set up a new route straight up the freeway, with some tunnelling, and we would then have decent public transport access via rail. I acknowledge that would be a major project, but it could be done.

Time expired.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:14): I think I much prefer the member for Finniss's motion to the minister's amendment. The member for Finniss's motion reads:

That this house condemns the Rann government for the failure to extend the rail network to Seaford Rise.

That is the motion I prefer. The minister's amendment to that motion is another do nothing approach, the hallmark of this government over the past six years. We see a media announcement, a song and dance, a bit of froth and bubble, but no action. Accepting a report will give the government another opportunity for a media announcement but no commitment to action. We have seen the way this government operates: it responds to a bit of pressure from the media. It will make a response, usually in a hurry, but let us hope it at least pays attention to the concerns of those living at Seaford Rise.

I support the motion, particularly in light of the high price of petrol—yesterday it was $1.66.9 a litre at many service stations, despite the fact that Kevin Rudd promised to reduce petrol prices when in opposition, but since coming to government he told the people of Australia less than a month ago that he has done everything he possibly can to help working Australians. Forget about Kevin 07: let us remember Rudd the dud.

In my electorate of Unley one should try to catch a bus into town from about bus stop 4. I will talk about my experience at bus stop 2 back in April on a rainy April morning. I was talking to some constituents about the difficulties they were having catching a bus and one constituent arrived at that bus stop at 7.50 a.m., a bus went past about 20 minutes later (they are supposed to be every 15 minutes), but it did not stop because it was full. Instead of having a destination point it said 'Sorry, no pick up' because it was full. It is full of people travelling in from the southern suburbs much further down from my electorate—people living south of the Noarlunga rail line. This is an indication of how tired our transport system is and how there is no plan to deal with the increase we are seeing in the use of public transport because of the high price of petrol.

I would like to see transport hubs developed where people can come in on a train and leave their cars parked in an area. I would like to see more reliable services. People expect a bus to turn up every 15 minutes as advertised, and when it does turn up that it is capable of picking up people rather than driving straight past. This is a major issue right through my electorate: Goodwood Road, Unley Road and George Street, which continues into Duthy Street. Those low number bus stops in my area are suffering from the lack of foresight this government has had in public transport policy.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: On a point of order, there seems to be a spelling mistake in the motion: the member for Finniss has called it 'Seaford Rise'. I thought it was Seaforth Rise.

Members interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Are you sure, because the Leader of the Opposition called it Seaforth Rise on the radio?

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.

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