HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:59): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question on the issue of public transport planning for a future sports stadium in Adelaide.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The future location of a premier football stadium in Adelaide is being hotly debated. Many people contrast the ease of access by patrons to the Docklands Stadium in Melbourne with the car-choked roads around AAMI Stadium in Adelaide. This ease of access comes primarily through the location of the stadium in a central location next to major fixed line public transport infrastructure—both train and tram.

According to sports minister Michael Wright, over 1 million patrons attend AAMI Stadium each year, with the vast majority of these travelling by car, despite the footy express bus service. In the face of the twin challenges of climate change and peak oil, not to mention the massive traffic snarls and delays on game days, the potential to influence the movement of 1 million South Australians per year should be of critical concern to the state government. To put this in perspective, patronage on the Belair line is not much more than 1 million per year, and any fixed rail service to West Lakes could also pick up more patronage from the shopping centre and people commuting from adjacent suburbs.

Currently, the Grange train line is only about 2 kilometres away from AAMI Stadium, and members might recall that the old Hendon branch line was, in fact, ripped up to make way for a road to West Lakes in only 1980. My questions are:

1. Will the government commit to ensuring that any future sports stadium built in Adelaide is located next to pre-existing fixed-rail public transport?

2. If West Lakes remains the home of AFL games into the future, will the government commit to extending a fast and efficient fixed-rail public transport service to the revamped stadium?

3. Should it be left to a private body to decide the location of a major piece of public infrastructure that influences the travel of 1 million South Australians each year, or will the government actively intervene to ensure that a major sports stadium is in a location that enables the majority of footy lovers to get there via public transport?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:01): In relation to the last question, is the Hon. Mark Parnell suggesting that taxpayers should fund the billion-dollar cost of any new sports stadium? If that is what he is suggesting, I think I can tell him that he is dreaming. Otherwise, I would have thought that it was a decision for those sporting codes, such as the SANFL, which developed Football Park back in the 1970s, as to whether they want to play their sport at a particular stadium.

It is interesting that the honourable member mentioned Docklands in Victoria. Of course, he is someone who has been going around opposing, first of all, some of the high rise developments like those at Docklands. He does not like those, and of course he omitted from his question that they are part of the attractiveness of Docklands. Of course, you could not have that.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Of course, he would. He would probably have had those rusty tin sheds on the heritage list, as he would probably want down at Port Adelaide. I think we could say that that would be his view.

The point I want to make about Docklands is about the extension of the tramline into that region in Melbourne. Anyone who has used the old City Circle in Melbourne would know that it used to go down Spencer Street. It has now been extended out through Docklands. I think that shows how the extension of the transport system can promote urban redevelopment, and that is something that is dear to the heart of this government. When we release our planning strategy fairly soon, clearly those philosophies will be central to that document. I would welcome the Hon. Mark Parnell's support for that but, I guess, like all Greens, while he will be—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is the policies. I am not getting personal at all. I respect the Hon. Mark Parnell as a dedicated member of the parliament, but we know that the Greens' philosophy is to essentially oppose all development. You cannot have it both ways if you are going to have urban development—and this is a challenge for members opposite as well. Maybe, with the future debate we will be having on planning, the opposition can work out what its own views are. First of all, does the opposition want Adelaide to grow and, if it does, does it want it through high rise, through urban growth expansion, through infill or through some combination of each and, if so, what is the combination the opposition would suggest?

The government is happy to answer those questions, but I suggest that opposition members will not, because we know what a disorganised rabble they are. We know what the politics are like. We have some members of the opposition running around opposing any development whatsoever, and then we have other members running around suggesting that we should have development everywhere else.

I am sure the Hon. Mark Parnell would be pleased by the broad direction of this government in relation to ensuring that we do have a better public transport system. If the opposition had had its way, we would still be using 1929 trams terminating at Victoria Square.

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