HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

TRANSPORT POLICY

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:45): I seek leave to make a relatively brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, representing the Premier, a question about South Australia's transport revolution.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Some months ago Family First asked several questions on notice and lodged a number of FOI requests regarding the $2 billion transport revolution announced in last year's budget. The announcement last year focused on providing rail links to several entertainment venues such as AAMI Stadium and the Entertainment Centre, rather than assisting commuters to get to and from work.

In essence, Family First asked for details about what options were considered other than the announced plans. We have just had two freedom of information requests returned, obviously with my request for information denied, as is usually the case. Nevertheless, as required by law, we were provided with the titles of the documents refused. It seems to me that no other plans were even considered, apart from the rail link to AAMI Stadium, the Entertainment Centre and Semaphore.

There is an impact and an urban and property impact study on the current extension; a contributory parcel evaluation; one report (by SKM) which seems to have dealt with the Glenelg tramline; another report by InfraPlan which, according to the website, was simply an urban regeneration and property impact analysis into light rail investment; and a UniSA study into the city tramline. Recent answers to our questions on notice seem to back up the argument that no plans other than the announced plans were even considered. There were no studies listed regarding proposals to provide better rail coverage to the northern, eastern or southern suburbs or even to the Barossa Valley, which already has an under-used freight line going to it.

In answer to those questions on notice, we were advised that 'no formal feasibility reports' were completed into restoring a rail service to the Adelaide Hills line, no plans of 'any level of detail' were prepared regarding a renewal of old rail lines to the southern suburbs and no feasibility studies detailing the full costs and benefits were ever prepared into allowing the Gawler train to continue to the Barossa Valley railway stations. Therefore, my questions to the minister are:

1. How much planning actually went into minister Conlon's $2 billion transport revolution?

2. Have we, in this parliament, been railroaded into a scheme that was drawn up on the back of an envelope?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:47): They are obviously matters for my colleague the Minister for Transport. However, what I can say is that this government's $2 billion transport revolution has two key components and one, of course, is the total revitalisation of our existing rail system. Before you can expand the rail system you have to make sure that the totally dilapidated system that we have had, where there was a complete lack of investment over many decades, has to be refurbished and, in the first instance, of course, electrified.

First of all, $2 billion is how much it is going to cost to resleeper those railway lines. Some of the sleepers, as I understand it, have been in place since the 1950s. So, to develop an effective public transport system we have to resleeper most of our rail system. I think the Port Adelaide line is the only line (if I recall correctly) which has been resleepered in recent times but the rest of the lines are to be done. I understand that the line up to Belair is currently being resleepered. Once that task is completed we have to electrify the rail line, which will mean the purchase of new rail stock.

When that is done and we have brought our transport system up from probably more like the mid 20th century to the 21st century, then we can move. I am not surprised that there would not be studies about making new extensions until this absolutely vital restructuring work is under way. There is not much point in extending the service if the lines and the rolling stock being used out to those destinations are totally inadequate. I think that is probably the explanation for the question. However, if there is anything my colleague the Minister for Transport wishes to add to that, I will refer the question to him.

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