HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-10-30 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: SOUTH ROAD UPGRADE TORRENS ROAD TO RIVER TORRENS EARLY AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:02): I move:

That the 486th report of the committee, entitled South Road Upgrade Torrens Road to River Torrens Early and Associated Works, be noted.

Delivering a non-stop north-south corridor for South Road from Torrens Road to the River Torrens aims to achieve a network-wide reduction in congestion levels, i.e., reduced network travel times; a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with north-south corridor travel; a reduction in the travel cost for freight and commuter traffic along the north-south corridor; a reduction in road crash frequency on South Road from Torrens Road to Torrens River; and greater travel time reliability for north-south freight and commuters. The total project cost is $10.892 million which is offset by a contribution of $2.607 million from Woolworths as a contribution to the improvement of the intersection at Ashwin Parade feeding its proposed redevelopment at the Brickwork Markets site.

An important element of the project is the upgrading of the intersection at South Road and Ashwin Parade-West Thebarton Road. This intersection will be widened to improve capacity and reduce delays, with a third through lane in each direction added on South Road. The intersection also requires upgrading to cater for the additional traffic generated by the proposed Woolworths development on the Brickworks site. These improvements include modifications to lane layout on both Ashwin Parade and West Thebarton Road, the most notable being a roundabout on Ashwin Parade. This work will be funded by Woolworths.

The total project cost is $10.892 million, which is offset by the contribution of $2.607 million from Woolworths as a contribution to the improvement of the intersection at Ashwin Parade feeding its proposed redevelopment of the Brickworks site. The project delivers an upgrade of 3.7 kilometres of South Road, including:

a new, lowered road under Port Road and Grange Road that will provide a non-stop route through the area for passing traffic and reduce delays to east-west travel;

a parallel surface road along the length of the lowered road to connect the majority of local roads and arterial roads to South Road;

a rail overpass of South Road from the Outer Harbor line, to ensure train services do not interrupt traffic along the new route; and

a dedicated off-road shared path for cyclists and pedestrians that connects to other local cycling and walking paths.

Early and associated works are required to commence in late 2013 for the following reasons:

collection of geotechnical data to further inform more detailed design decisions and support the project procurement stage in 2014; and

coordination of infrastructure work with the development of the Brickworks Markets site in 2014.

The project is part of proposed major works on this section of South Road, which was projected to extend into 2018. Given this and pursuant to section 12C of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Public Works Committee reports to parliament that it recommends the proposed public works.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:06): I commend this motion to the house with some qualification, and that is to say that the opposition fully supports any investment along the north-south corridor, and this is such an investment. The report to the house tabled by the Chair makes an observation on page 1 that, 'The South Australian and Australian governments have each allocated $448 million excluding GST (totalling $896 million excluding GST) for the South Road Upgrade (Torrens Road to River Torrens) Project.' Now, of course, that is no longer quite accurate.

The incoming Coalition federal government has made it very clear that their priority is to begin with the Darlington upgrade—that is, the southern sector of the corridor—and to get to the Torrens to Torrens section of the upgrade at a later time. So, already, to an extent, this report we are addressing in the house is at present slightly out of date.

The proposal, in the view of the opposition, had considerable merit, specifically because, although it is preliminary work to the Torrens to Torrens, a very important development by Woolworths was dependent upon it proceeding. The urgency of this intersection upgrade was in fact driven by that proposal for a supermarket at the Brickworks Markets site, which was anticipated for completion in December 2014, and it required an upgrade of the intersection independent of the South Road upgrade project if it was to proceed.

Combining the separate upgrades would minimise disruption to traffic. Service relocations needed to commence as soon as possible to allow for road construction activities to go forward so that the Woolworths proposal could proceed. We considered this most carefully. On this side of the house we are very pro-business indeed, and we would not want to see politics hold up an important bit of work that was going to create jobs and opportunity for the people of the west of Adelaide.

The opposition, the state Liberals, value and support all residents and all small businesses in Adelaide, particularly in the west. It is a vibrant part of the city and we really want to see jobs and opportunities for young people. There are some issues with youth unemployment, and we would not want to see a Woolworths supermarket proposal and the ancillary developments held up because of a political bunfight, if I can put it that way, over whether or not we should proceed with the Torrens to Torrens or the Darlington portion of the road first.

I think the federal government and the state Liberals have made it very clear what their plans are, and I commend to the house the excellent announcements made by state Liberal leader Steven Marshall on that very subject, when he announced the Darlington upgrade some weeks ago, because we believe that South Australians deserve first-class infrastructure and that is infrastructure that keeps traffic moving. We want to see the north-south corridor rebuilt from north to south, from Wingfield right through, ultimately, to the Southern Expressway and even beyond, and further north as well from Wingfield through to the Northern Expressway. We would really love to see the entire project proceed. It is most important, but we are of the view, and so was the state government until recently, that the Darlington portion of the road should be the first sector.

That north-south corridor is important for business. I have spoken to quarry companies that can save a lot of money by being able to move their quarry trucks from quarries in the south through to construction sites in the north swiftly without having to stop at traffic lights, as well as other small businesses, including high-tech companies, that I visited in Lonsdale and other areas that have issues with their employees being able to get to work swiftly and their products and vans being able to get to the north and the west of Adelaide swiftly. They have all cited to me the same problem; that is, the north-south road and congestion upon it is a real issue.

That is why we want to see Darlington completed first: 76,500 vehicles use South Road at Darlington every day and, of course, that number varies along the route. Labor promised Darlington in 2005 and then scrapped it. They said it was a priority at the last election and then they scrapped it. They announced an interchange at Darlington as a seamless connection with a duplication of the Southern Expressway and then they scrapped it, and now all of a sudden all we hear about from the government is the Torrens to Torrens section. Important though that is, we believe that is a part of the work that should be addressed after the Darlington portion of the road has been completed, and that is why we have signalled, and certainly our leader Steven Marshall has signalled, that we will be putting our money into the Darlington section of the road first, along with the Commonwealth, and we will get to the rest of the Torrens project at a later time.

That being the case, in my opinion and that of my colleague and friend the member for Finniss, it was not sufficient reason for the opposition to block this measure in public works—which we could have done by the way. We could have stopped this project by refusing to agree to it. We could have argued that it was a waste of money and that the project should be brought back to the committee at a later time because the Darlington section of the road was to be completed first, and that this should be put off and delayed for at least a year or two while that was undertaken. That could have been a pathway we could have taken.

I did speak to my friend the member for Bragg, the shadow minister for transport, about this issue. We discussed it, and we decided that the best thing for the state was to agree to this small component of work to go ahead in the Torrens to Torrens section to allow the Woolworths project to proceed, because it was the right thing to do for small business, Woolworths, workers and the residents down in the west. We believe that it is responsible to support the project. That should in no way be taken by anyone in the house, or outside of the house, to argue that we are supporting the Torrens to Torrens section of the work ahead of Darlington. That is not the case and I think our leader has made that crystal clear, but we are in the business of doing what is the right thing for South Australia and that is why we have been happy to support this particular project.

There are some issues with how the money will be managed. The government has created an awful problem for itself with the highest debt the state has ever seen and the worst deficit the state has ever seen. They have decided—even though they know that the Coalition is insisting, along with the state Liberals, that the Darlington project will proceed first—to go ahead with this nearly $11 million investment. Obviously, they feel they have the money for that. That is something for the government to explain and to justify, but we are certainly very happy to support it so that the people of the west (both small businesses and workers) can get on with some developments down near the Brickworks site that would be to their advantage.

What we now look forward to is seeing a project brought to the Public Works Committee that completes the task, and starts with the Torrens to Torrens project. My view—and I think it would be the view of all of us—is that we need to do the entire road. I do not think anyone is living in any doubt that the north-south axis is the principal infrastructure challenge that this state faces. I have heard various costings as to what it might cost to do the whole thing: I have heard $4 billion in four years, and I have heard bigger figures and extended timeframes. But, somehow or other, commonwealth and state governments need to find the money to do the entire upgrade from north to south so that we can move seamlessly through the city.

I note the Victorians have just put forward a request for something like a $14 billion infrastructure road project in Melbourne; $4 billion in South Australia is looking fairly modest by comparison. We need to do it all. Despite the dire financial circumstances the current government has delivered, I hope that some way or another state and federal government (present and future) can find a way to deliver that outcome for South Australians, because they deserve it.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:16): I support this project in a general sense, but I have a few queries. I think it would be useful if it was put in a more extensive context. By that I mean how it all fits in to a wider arterial road upgrade not only for the metropolitan area but also for the rural area as well. When you are looking at a project in isolation it is hard to get a grasp of the relative merits of the project, so in future reports relating to something like this it would be good if there was some background about what the total plan is for upgrading arterial roads.

I am sure what is proposed here has merit, including the improvement for access to the Woolworths' site. I cannot help but note that I think the contribution offered by Woolworths is probably about the same as the AFL offered for Adelaide Oval. I could be wrong about that, but Woolworths are offering over $2 million dollars to upgrade an intersection. I would not call it generous because they are doing it to facilitate their business. However, I think it is probably not much different from what the AFL offered for Adelaide Oval.

I am sure there is merit in this, in terms of reducing, as it says, congestion and so on. I hope we do not get into the silly business of whether Darlington is more or less important than the rest of the South Road upgrade. We need a modern arterial road system that delivers what our economy needs and what the people want. I cannot see in this report a cost-benefit ratio. We have whole life costs of the project, but normally with projects you want to see what the whole cost-benefit ratio is in terms expressed over time. Maybe there is one, but it does not seem to be in the report.

The other point I make, which I think is looming as a very serious issue for South Australia, is the need to have some construction projects in the very near future. The construction of Adelaide Oval is coming to an end, as is the duplication of the Southern Expressway. We have the Royal Adelaide Hospital underway, but South Australia will be facing a very real challenge in terms of keeping the construction industry employed if we do not have some projects in the very near future. They take a while to design, obviously, and then they take longer to implement, so I do raise that concern.

The other point is that it is good to see some new construction, but the Department of Transport has a serious problem in regard to maintaining the assets for which they are responsible. Someone in the department told me that they have a backlog of at least $400 million in maintenance and that they will no longer be doing the authorised graffiti on the road, marking areas that need to be repaired with white or yellow paint.

The legalised graffiti officer in that department has been told no longer to do that because they do not want road users expecting that those deficiencies are going to be rectified, as they do not have the money to do it. I make that as a passing comment. It is great to have new facilities, but it is also important that the maintenance of what we already have is not overlooked.

The SPEAKER (11:20): My constituent, Eileen Harris, is 83 years of age. When she was a teenager, she went to the cinema on what is now South Road; it may have been Government Road at the time. A widening and upgrade of the road was being canvassed then.

South Road, between the River Torrens and Torrens Road, is sclerotic. Traffic is often halted there for long periods. The road is not wide enough to accommodate the traffic of this era. The camber of the road puts the top edge of semitrailers within centimetres of Stobie poles, and sometimes those semis strike Stobie poles. The road is dangerous; it is ugly.

The whole of the Ridleyton, Brompton, Hindmarsh, Croydon, West Croydon and West Hindmarsh area has been on hold for years, waiting for an upgrade of South Road which Infrastructure Australia says will deliver a 2.4 economic multiplier. The Australian Greens campaigned on only one issue in their leaflet in Croydon at the last state election, and that was to stop the South Road upgrade because, in the opinion of the Australian Greens, the upgrade would only encourage people to drive and that was a bad thing.

It is, of course, disappointing for me, as the member for Croydon, to hear the member for Waite say that the Torrens to Torrens upgrade should occur only at a later time. Eileen Harris will be very interested to hear that. I note the member for Waite said that the opposition's support for this motion should in no way be taken as their supporting the Torrens to Torrens upgrade occurring before Darlington. It is all very well to say we need to do it all, but it has to start somewhere. On behalf of my electorate, I say it starts Torrens to Torrens.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: On a point of clarification or order, Mr Speaker, I listened carefully to your contribution and respect it greatly. Previous Speakers have chosen, when making addresses on behalf of their electorates, to do so from the floor rather than from the chair. I just wonder whether that will be your policy forthwith or whether you will make contributions as the member for Croydon from the chair on matters before the house.

The SPEAKER: I could only make a contribution from the floor in committee, and there is no committee stage on this motion. I thought I would speak last—the member for Reynell.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (11:24): I also wish to make a contribution on this matter because I am very pleased to hear the member for Waite committing to the Darlington upgrade first. I hope that his leader puts that in writing and distributes it widely in my electorate because that will mean we can probably halve the amount of expenditure we have to undertake in Reynell, Mawson, Kaurna, Mitchell and Fisher and we can direct our resources towards Dunstan and Adelaide. I have polled a group of citizens in my electorate and they are 2:1 opposed to the notion of a half-baked Darlington interchange, which is what the Liberals are currently proposing. That is what we get from reading what Abbott has had to say and that is what we get from reading what has been said locally.

The residents of the south are currently suffering the results of a half-baked expressway. It is incredibly inconvenient, and has been for two years. The promises of the previous Liberal government were that the bridges would be made wide enough, that the pedestrian overpasses would be long enough and that all that would have to happen to extend the expressway was a digger would come and dig out underneath the bridges. That was the commitment made in the Public Works Committee that I clearly remember, and it was the commitment made to the Lonsdale Business Association and other meetings of residents.

That did not happen, so we got a half-baked expressway and the residents of the south have had to suffer the upgrade. We welcome the upgrade—we want to be able to go in both directions—but the fact that Liberal governments do things in a half-baked manner is not what we welcome. They only wanted half a desal plant and now they want a half—

The SPEAKER: Point of order from the member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: Standing order 128. This is completely irrelevant to the motion at hand.

The SPEAKER: The motion is to note a Public Works Committee report on the Torrens to Torrens upgrade. The member for Morialta says it is irrelevant to introduce the Darlington upgrade.

Mr GARDNER: She wasn't talking about that. She was talking about the Southern Expressway.

The SPEAKER: So the member for Morialta says that Darlington is cognate but that the Southern Expressway is not?

Mr GARDNER: I make no comment on Darlington, sir.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully to what the member for Reynell has to say.

Ms THOMPSON: Thank you, sir. It just happens that the Southern Expressway intersects with the Darlington interchange, and I am speaking strongly in support of the upgrade of the Torrens to Torrens section and supporting that as the priority when that priority has been contested by a member opposite.

The southern community wants things done properly. We want a train line to Flinders Medical Centre, we want proper grade separation at Darlington and we want integration with the Southern Expressway. We are sick of having to go through roadworks. We are very happy to wait for a while to see the impact of both the upgrades of the expressway and the train line that are happening at the moment (the upgrade of the Tonsley line) and then wait for there to be sufficient funds available from wherever, and sufficient planning, for the Darlington interchange to be done properly.

We also have many residents who travel down Main South Road for their work, either to access work or as part of their work, and my constituents tell me that they recognise that that is a bottleneck and that they would like not to have to take so long getting through it. They would like to not have the risk of crashes and injury associated with that area but, most of all, they want to be looked after properly with a proper interchange.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:30): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Public Works Committee report to provide for the early and associated works of the South Road upgrade. Essentially, this is a project which has been recommended for support to spend some $11 billion for a roundabout and upgrades to facilitate a commercial development, namely, a Woolworths' supermarket, and associated amenity. The Liberal Party understands that this is an important project and that it needs to progress, and we are fully supportive of it.

When one reads the report, to describe it as some necessary preliminary as part of the government's announced Torrens-to-Torrens South Road upgrade is, I think, a stretch. Nevertheless, the content of what is being sought to be approved is fully supported and, for the reasons that other members of the committee on both sides of the house have indicated, we are supporting it. I will say, though, given that the member for Croydon, our illustrious Speaker, has chosen to contribute to the debate and give us some historical perspective, particularly from his constituent Ms Eileen Harris, whom I think he described as—

The SPEAKER: Mrs Eileen Harris.

Ms CHAPMAN: Mrs Eileen Harris, mature in years, has watched, apparently, with some, I suppose, dismay, if I can paraphrase, the position such a long time before there has been any widening or upgrade of this road corridor through the metropolitan area of Adelaide. Well, for Mrs Harris's benefit, let me say that it is very disturbing to our side of the house, as it is, I am sure, to her, that she was promised some seven years ago by the state Labor government a $140 million upgrade to develop the widening and the increase of amenity of the area along South Road which traverses north of the Henley Beach zone across to the Grange Road, Port Road and Torrens Road intersections, all of which is familiar to the house, necessary to deal with—

The SPEAKER: The railway line.

Ms CHAPMAN: I will deal with the railway line in just a moment, in answer to the helpful interjection from the Speaker. These are important and expensive initiatives which now need to be undertaken if the whole of that line is to be developed. We have heard from the Prime Minister, who is committed to that. Mrs Harris, let me say that we are with you in understanding the importance of the upgrade, but beware of what is promised by the government—your government, and the government of all of us—at the time, which said, seven years ago, that you were going to get this upgrade, and then it was abandoned. By the time we got to the election, it was too expensive to do. So, again, continued abandonment—and we now have this promise.

Let me also bring to the attention of the house that other members' residents living in the member of Croydon's area have contacted me—unsurprisingly, because I am the shadow minister for transport and planning—with their views on upgrades of South Road. In fairness, I think that anyone living along South Road is looking keenly to see some upgrade of service, but there are people who are being asked to consider, for example, the compulsory acquisition of their property before the resolution even of the timetable of the advancing of the South Road Torrens-to-Torrens upgrade. There are people who are in the process of having to think, 'Well, do you acquiesce to this demand to allow a valuer to go through my house, because I have lived here for many years?'

These are the sorts of concerns that are raised with me, Mr Speaker. I don't know whether you are still getting them, but these people are very unhappy. One of them, I bring to your attention, Mr Speaker, is someone who contacted me because he is concerned about the proposed rail bridge over South Road, which is necessary if there is going to be a grade separation of the rail transport service to Port Adelaide, to grade separate that from South Road.

I do not know whether people in the member for Croydon's area have read the recent transport plan that was announced by the government. Of course, they are not proposing to have a rail service down to Port Adelaide. They are actually proposing to convert that to light rail which means that we might need to look at a whole new plan as to what is necessary.

As I am sure the member for Croydon would be very familiar with, it is a very different overpass that is necessary for a tram as compared to a train. When he has read that document, which I am sure he has thoroughly, he will have to explain to his local people down there that all of these lovely glossy pamphlets which show a rail line traversing South Road in the government's Torrens to Torrens project is apparently now going to be a tram, so we are going to have a little thing.

Nobody has told the people living around the area who are waiting to either have their property obscured by some view of a rail line overpass or alternatively to have their property acquired if necessary to do a rail overpass which is now to convert to a tram overpass. Nobody has told them that. Some of them have said, 'Look, I am concerned about this. They are not going to buy my house but I am going to have this structure right next to me. I have gone along to some public meetings. I have been approached by people as to what is to be done. I have lived in this area a long time.' This is the theme of the complaints I am receiving.

Some of them are actually offered the opportunity to come onto local consultation groups. Isn't that wonderful! 'We know you are concerned. We invite you to come along and join the community liaison group and you will be able to have thorough input into the development of the planning for the purposes of the detail to go with these projects.' Fantastic! But let me tell you, in my electorate, we have seen what community liaison groups do. We saw what happened when the government insisted on developing the Glenside Hospital campus for mental health services into supermarkets and commercial buildings and private housing. We have seen what they do there.

Anyone who speaks out, anyone who is a dissident, anyone who has an idea different to the government hears, 'Look, we will offer you the opportunity, please come forward. We would like you to come to the community liaison group.' Do you know what they ask them to do? They ask them to sign a document, they are all so prolific. It reminds me of that poor boy who was asked to accept $30,000 to keep quiet when he got his payment for being falsely accused. They get a document of pages and pages presented to them to come onto these liaison groups and to keep quiet.

The SPEAKER: Member for Bragg, I will take the advice of the member for Morialta about this. Does the member for Morialta think this is cognate?

Mr Gardner: Much more cognate, sir.

The SPEAKER: It's cognate?

Mr Gardner: It's in relation to the Torrens to Torrens liaison groups.

The SPEAKER: Thank you to the member for Morialta for that advice.

Ms CHAPMAN: This person who is living in the Speaker's electorate who is going to be affected by the Torrens to Torrens project which has been announced by the government, which this is attached to in this report—and my word it is important because, Mr Speaker, your own constituents are raising real and genuine concerns just like they have in other areas, but what are they being offered?

They are being offered an opportunity to come into a liaison group and keep quiet. This is disgraceful. What should be done is that they should be able to go to you as the local member which I have urged them to do. Some have said, 'We have already been to him. He was useless. He hasn't actually helped us with this. He has just said it is an important program and you will agree that it is an important piece of infrastructure, so he has really dropped us in dealing with it.'

Mrs GERAGHTY: I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. I guess I seek your opinion. I always understood it was improper to reflect on members in this chamber. Certainly I think that the member for Bragg excelled herself in that.

The SPEAKER: I cannot possibly uphold the point of order. No-one will keep Arthur Karidis quiet. Moreover, it is true, I have been unable to promise him the cancellation of the project. Member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: What needs to be done by the government is, before they progress the other aspects of this project, to be honest with the people in the region about what they are doing, what the time frame will be and in particular what is going to be happening with the fact that the government have now abandoned a future rail service between Adelaide and Port Adelaide and are converting it to a tram service.

The SPEAKER: Outer Harbor and Grange.

Ms CHAPMAN: Well, Outer Harbor and Grange. We are talking about the rail line which runs down, which I think is still in your electorate—the Bowden complex for development—and which is currently the subject of a Torrens grade separation between the freight and passenger train service. Who knows whether that is ever going to happen. It seems that that is equally likely to bite the dust, but the important thing for this project is to understand that the people who are living around South Road who have been told that they are going to have an overpass with a train on it clearly are not going to have that, Mr Speaker, and your people deserve to have a say as much as anyone else.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:40): I rise to make a contribution to the motion that the 486th report of the Public Works Committee, entitled South Road Upgrade Torrens Road to River Torrens Early and Associated Works, be noted. I note the angst from across the way on the government benches with regard to things that have or have not happened over time. Let's go back a bit further in time. Let's go back to 1968 and the MATS plan—the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, now here they come. Here come the interjections. Here they come. The Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study—and this is for the sake of Mrs Harris, your constituent, as well, Mr Speaker, who would have been very keen to see this proposal go ahead inaugurated by—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Even their grandparents got it wrong.

Mr PEDERICK: Even their grandparents got it wrong—absolutely, the member for Waite. We see this contrived outrage still emanating from the government benches, when governments past of a Labor tinge—a red, red Labor tinge—killed off the MATS plan that was put in place by the Hon. Steele Hall and his government.

What we have seen today is all this outrage over things that supposedly Liberals have or have not done but one of the best plans for managing traffic throughout the greater Adelaide area was killed off by Labor governments—absolutely killed stone dead—and that land was since sold and then we end up with these massive billion-dollar issues with connecting traffic on a north-south corridor.

I urge students of history and students of the Labor Party to have a good reflection over history and go back to 1968 and events that followed 1968 with the sale of that land, which destroyed an extremely good plan for traffic throughout this city and this state.

Motion carried.

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Mitchell, who just caused all that trouble.

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