Ian Gilfillan – Speeches and Questions: Thursday 2 June 2005

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Industry and Trade, representing the Minister for Transport, a question about the cycling budget for 2005‑06.

Leave granted.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Minister for Industry and Trade cannot resist the temptation to answer questions which are addressed to another minister, which sometimes lands him in error of fact. For example, in respect of his accusation that I had moved an amendment regarding DNA, he is distinctly in error. Earlier this week he answered a question I asked about cycling as follows:

I remind the honourable that, while the Cycling Action Plan may have been completed, the Rann government continues to support cyclists within this state.

I will not continue on with the answer. The Bicycle SA web site and Advocacy Update, the newsletter of the largest cycling organisation in South Australia, dated 31 May this year, says:

Since its peak of $2.7 million in early 2000 and its slashing soon after the Rann government came into power, Bicycle SA has been working towards the government recognising its responsibility to the most vulnerable road users. Bicycle SA believes that this government should spend at least the Australian average through its transport department. This is not the case. In fact, we continue to be the lowest spending state by a significant amount.

I will now give the facts. This government currently spends $1.4 million on cycling through its transport department. Cycling spending at its peak in the year 2001 was at a level of $2.7 million. To bring South Australia in line with the average national spending, we would need to spend around $5.2 million a year through transport. The excellent news­letter goes on:

Cycling for transport is an accessible form of physical activity and an excellent method of achieving the recommended level of physical activity required to give health benefits. A Denmark study involving 30 000 people found that over 14 years cycling to work decreased the risk of mortality by 40 per cent. In Finland, a similar study found that cycling for 30 minutes a day caused a 40 per cent decrease in the likelihood of developing diabetes.

I ask this question of the Minister for Transport, but maybe the Minister for Industry and Trade, as is his wont, will choose to answer:

1. Has the minister studied and responded to the excellent targets outlined in Advocacy Update dated 31 May 2005?

2. Will he make his response available to parliament?

3. Does he agree that South Australian government funding to cycling has been substantially cut since the ALP came to power, which will prevent South Australia’s attempt to secure the prestigious Velo Mondiale International Cycling Conference for Adelaide?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Industry and Trade): First of all, I will address the matter in relation to the honourable member’s preamble. I suppose I do need to apologise to the honourable member. Yes, in my answer the other day it was not about DNA testing; it was about fingerprinting of bouncers. The amendment was moved by the Hon. Nick Xenophon, but nevertheless the honourable member warmly supported it.

The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: I hardly spoke to it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Nevertheless, I was simply referring to the exchange.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes he was, but the honourable member is correct and I am happy to apologise to him for that. In relation to Bicycle SA, I will refer the question specifically to the Minister for Transport. I point out that not all of the money spent on cycling in South Australia necessarily comes specifically from the transport budget. As I said the other day, of the significant amount of money that has been provided recently for the coastal park, much of that will be for either the preparation or construction of a dual trail along the coastal park. Of course, capital investment over the past few years—

The Hon. Ian Gilfillan: Landscaping.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is part of it to make the shared trail a worthwhile experience. To make it attractive for cyclists is obviously part and parcel of it. I take the point the honourable member is making, but I point out that it is not just the money that goes through recreation and sport or the money that is specifically targeted at bicycle groups that is being spent. A significant amount of money, through the Planning and Development Fund in my department, has been allotted to improving those sorts of trails and facilities. However, I do not know whether the minister in another place has that aggregate data. I will refer the question to him and bring back a reply.