SHARED SERVICES

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:45): I move:

That this house—

(a) condemns the Rann government for the potential loss of jobs in regional South Australia through its shared services initiatives;

(b) recognises that regional South Australia is already under great stress because of drought and irrigation restrictions; and

(c) calls on the Minister for Regional Development, who is a country member representing the Riverland and leader of the National Party in South Australia, to abolish the initiative and replace it with job creation initiatives for regional South Australia.

I think this is a sad day for this parliament, and I personally am very saddened to move this motion. The government's proposal to axe jobs in regional areas of South Australia, compounding the problems of country people already suffering greatly from the drought, can be considered nothing short of uncompassionate and absolutely heartless.

This planned centralisation of services, to be called Shares Services SA, will be established under the Department of Treasury and Finance and is aimed at saving the government up to $60 million a year: but at what cost do these savings come and who is paying? The government appears to be cutting costs where it cannot be hurt, and they have not got any consideration for people's lives, which I find completely ludicrous, given the current climate of drought hardship being faced by families in rural and regional areas.

I find it particularly interesting that the government is proposing this shifting of jobs to central Adelaide, when its own Strategic Plan lists one of the targets as being to maintain regional South Australia's share of the population. Its plan states that when people leave rural industries and move to the city, 'Populations in regional towns can lose critical mass and suffer a decline in community services.'

What does the government think is going to happen with this plan—exactly the opposite to what they state their aims are. This crazy strategy flies in the face of what the Rann Labor government has been encouraging and supposedly stands for: regional development. I find it quite ludicrous that when the government is claiming to be acting for the regions it does the complete opposite. What it says and what it actually does are totally contradictory. This government is very strong on rhetoric, but the actuality always reveals a different story.

The government has said that there will be the equivalent of 250 full-time jobs to go from regional South Australia, but as many people work part-time, this figure equates to around 500 people who would no longer have a position of employment in their country towns. Positions coming under the plan's umbrella include the finance, human resources and accounts sections of departments and agencies, including hospitals. However, it is not just the 500 employees who would have to shift under this planned centralisation who would be affected, it is their families and children who will be impacted as well.

There will be an adverse effect on regional employment, and this will have a negative flow-on effect to those communities that come within the realm of the plan. As a town's population decreases, in the words of the government in its Strategic Plan, the towns will 'suffer a decline in community services', not to mention the local businesses such as supermarkets, chemists, hairdressers and contractors that would also suffered a decline in work, with people having to move away in order to remain in their current job.

The state government has said that their shared services plan is about improving efficiencies across the public sector and is not targeting regional areas. Let me just list the areas that will be affected by the proposed plan: the Eyre Peninsula, Whyalla, the Murray Mallee, the South East, Yorke Peninsula, the Mid North, the Far North, Kangaroo Island, the Fleurieu Peninsula and the Riverland. The Barossa Valley, which falls into my electorate, is part of the Mid North region which will be affected if this centralisation goes ahead. If they are not regional areas, then I had better go and check the meaning of 'regional' in my dictionary, because they all seem to be regional areas to me.

I think that, once again, the city-centric attitude of this state government is on full display. People from rural areas are saying loud and clear that they do not want to move; so why should they? Estimates say that maybe one in 10 employees would be prepared to move to Adelaide. So, what does this mean for people not electing to transfer? They will be surplus to requirements. In other words, they will not be needed and their jobs will disappear.

What about the cost of moving to Adelaide? Housing prices are somewhat disparate, and this would make relocation unviable for most. Why can't savings come from the administration of services in the city? That is right, I forgot: according to this government, South Australia stops at Gepps Cross! If we look at the electorates they represent it is not hard to see why their mindset is narrow. Only one regional member of parliament exists on the other side, apart from the minister herself, so that is two. I can assure you that if the plan does go ahead it will put the member for Giles' electorate in jeopardy as well.

Efficiencies and cost savings are the main reasons behind the Shared Services Initiative. I suggest the government has a look at other such plans it has presided over, with similar objectives, and see how successful they have been. Have they forgotten the mess they created with the NRM boards? What savings and efficiencies have been generated through the government's administration of that plan?

I am personally aware of what state Labor has done with its regional headquarters, because my home town is Crystal Brook. It was a large regional centre for both SA Water and Transport SA (the Highways Department). I see the member for Frome is here—it is also his home town. They used to have a combined workforce of, I am guessing, probably 300 to 400 people in their heyday. It was a very efficient outfit. What is there today? I am guessing, but probably 30 or 40. There is nothing left; just the admin people. There is practically nobody out in the workshops at all. Bit by bit the services were taken away.

I recall when I was the member representing Crystal Brook, the meter servicing division was taken away from Crystal Brook. Why would you want to do that? It was brought to Adelaide, and there was an immediate pollution problem with acid cleaning of meters in Adelaide. Why would you not do that in a regional area? No; the bureaucracy knew better, and they moved it and shut the workshop down. It is now a closed workshop. This went on and on and on, and now we see that the workforce is reduced to this level. Certainly, Crystal Brook has suffered very badly because of it. It was a very important key industry of the town, and I believe it was very efficient.

I find it interesting that the member for Giles, when being interviewed about her government shared services proposal, had this to say:

It is not as bleak as it sounds. First of all, nobody will be compulsorily required to move to Adelaide.

If that is the case, what guarantees will a person have if they decide that moving to the city is not for them? According to the member for Giles—and I will quote again from her radio interview:

If you particularly didn't want to move, then the job will be opened up to somebody else interested in moving to Adelaide and then you could move into their job.

Then the comment: 'People don't need to worry too much.' I believe that the member is naive about this, at least publicly. That sounds reassuring to country families, does it not? Maybe someone else will take your offer and then maybe you could have their job. There are not too many hard and fast assurances there.

Governments of both persuasions, here and all over Australia, are strong on their verbal support of regional development. In South Australia, we have set up regional development boards across the state, and they are funded by this government. How futile are their efforts when you consider this: we have a ridiculous situation where we actually have a minister for regional development—who is sitting in the house, and I respect that—and, would you believe it, she actually represents a country electorate. Could it be worse? Yes, it could be: she is actually the leader of the National Party here in South Australia. What does the National Party say about this initiative? It remains totally silent. It is an absolute disgrace. We are compromised again. Where are they on this? No opinion either way. I think the government is deliberately letting its minister swing on this matter, as it is on the water issue. It pushes her forward on these issues, and they are tough issues, and it is difficult. The government pushes her forward knowing jolly well that it is not causing it any pain.

Why can't the minister—the member for Chaffey—do what the member for Adelaide did on the Victoria Park issue and dissent from the cabinet decision? Why doesn't she do that? After all, she is not a signed member of the Labor Party, but she may as well be. I understand that she used to be many years ago. Maybe she is returning to her natural bent. There is no joy for the people of the Riverland. This is just another occasion when being a minister in this Labor government conflicts with the honourable member's country electorate, and that conflict is certainly causing some concern.

The issue flies in the face of common sense. Adelaide has huge problems: housing shortages, traffic congestion, infrastructure failures and problems, public transport failures—and this morning's traffic congestion was the worst I have ever seen. The list goes on and on; it is long. What does this do? Centralising jobs makes it even worse. Where is the common sense? I want to hear from the members on the other side. Why are you doing this? We are already the most centralised state in the most centralised country in the world. It is a big statement, but it is true. How ridiculous, how short-sighted is this? Some political bureaucrat in a city office makes a recommendation for gain without pain—at least to this government. Most country regions do not suffer the same degree of housing shortages, and most towns could do with an influx of people, not a decline. Most have capacity in their schools to take a few more students, and don't they get a good quality education.

I am sick of governments who verbalise on principles then do the opposite. The government should be doing the opposite: spending money and, in fact, subsidising jobs in regional areas, not axing them. What does it cost to have the regional boards—you might as well get rid of them, too. You might as well get rid of them and save some money, because they are not achieving anything if you do this.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Well, I am saying you may as well. I support them and I have always supported them. I support country jobs. The reason they were created was to do the opposite of what is being done here: to try to maximise the opportunities to keep jobs, families and communities in country towns.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: That is what we always try to do.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald: We are doing that.

Mr VENNING: The minister says that she is doing that. Well, what are you doing here? Let's hear what you have to say on this. What is this bill doing? It is blatantly doing the opposite—500 jobs. I am happy to hear what you have to say, minister. I urge the house to support this motion and send the government the message that, as a state, we need and respect the people who live in our regions. Those families who have invested in houses out there have a stake in their community, and you are going to take jobs away from many of them. It is no laughing matter.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I cannot believe it: the timing for this is absolutely appalling. You could not have picked a worse week in the year to do this. It is absolutely appalling. A lot of these farmers forced into off-farm jobs will find that some of them will disappear because they are going to be moved to Adelaide. I cannot believe this can be true. I hope I have this wrong. I am happy to hear the minister's comment about this. I hate to be personal; I hate to attack anybody personally, but this issue is just bad. I urge the house to support this motion and send this government a message to respect those regions and our country people. Particularly at this time, when they need our support, they do not need an issue like this.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:58): I commend the member for Schubert for bringing this motion to the house. My understanding is that this is part of the reforms that were introduced as part of the September 2006 budget brought down by the Treasurer last year. A lot of people from the regions have spoken to me, all very concerned about what their future will be. I have had a look at the website; I have read the regular electronic newsletters that are posted by the executive officer in charge of the department; I have looked at the regional impact statement that was prepared as part of that, and it paints a depressing figure for the people who live in the regions. Approximately 2,300 people will be affected by this reform and 256 full-time equivalent jobs will be taken from the regions, so the number is probably closer to the figure of 500 mentioned by the member for Schubert.

I think it is important to record some of the areas that will be affected by this proposal. The Adelaide Hills will lose 10.5 full-time equivalents; the Barossa area, 7.9; Eyre and Western, 56.3; the Far North, 23; the Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island, 22.5; Limestone Coast, 44.5; Murray and Mallee, 53.9; and, in the area that I have the great privilege of representing, Yorke and Mid North, 37.6.

I know that this matter has been discussed at council meetings which I attended recently. My most recent attendance was at a meeting of the Copper Coast council at which councillor Graham Hancock spoke passionately about this, and he will ensure that that council writes a letter of representation to the minister to see what can be done. On Friday of last week, I attended the Copper Coast community development forum where again the matter was raised. People around the table did not fully understand it yet. They had a look of shock horror on their face when they realised that the region (which they try to serve) would lose 38 jobs.

A lot of regional comment has been made on the radio and in the newspapers. I have been interviewed by the Yorke Peninsula Country Times and The Plains Producer, and I have been pleased to provide them with the information so that the community understands what is happening. All across the state, every member of the opposition who represents a regional area has been contacted about this.

I know that our leader has been outspoken on the matter and has issued media releases. People are asking us what we can do. Our great frustration is that it does not appear that we in opposition can do very much. I come from a rational perspective and I understand that it is important for the Public Service to have efficiencies in its work, but the dilemma is that this is more than just numbers—these are real people. I know many of these people in my area. I know people who work within the health system on Yorke Peninsula and who undertake jobs in payroll. Suddenly, their position will be gone.

They do not work full-time. That is the only job they have. They are involved in other activities with their families. Their position will be gone. It will affect the ability of those families to stay in the community which I serve. Last week, I asked questions of minister Wright when we were considering the Auditor-General's Report. I objected to a word that he had used in an answer during question time the previous week. He said that these numbers were 'in scope'.

I tried to enforce to him that we were not just talking about numbers being 'in scope', but people. It is people who contribute to sporting clubs, schools and the community. They make their town a better place in which to live because they use their skills to help them run many of the community groups. If those people are forced to move from those communities so they can protect an income, that will be a sad loss for all our areas.

I have also noted a few things from some of the radio commentaries, too. My recollection is—and I will apologise, if I am wrong—that minister McEwen (who represents the Mount Gambier area) has talked on radio about whether there was an opportunity for his community to attract a cluster of operations as part of the shared services to keep jobs in his area. I have read the media précis of both the member for Stuart and the member for Giles when they commented on this matter.

The member for Stuart was exactly right. The sort of comments that he made are the ones that I am also receiving from people who are concerned about it. It was a surprise to me when I read that the member for Giles said that no-one would forcibly lose their job. They might not be forced to give up their job, but they might have to move to Adelaide to keep it, too. If they do not want to move to Adelaide, what will they do?

It is interesting that the member for Colton, namely, the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, was in here yesterday talking about the success of the SA Works program, that 27,000 people have been involved in that over the past 12 months and it has created opportunities for 7,900 people to go into jobs. That is wonderful. Much of that focus happens in the regional areas. That is where the government is demonstrating that it is putting resources into the regions, but this decision will gut that.

It has come at the worst possible time, too. The drought was been growing for over five years. You can see it in everyone's faces—it is in their eyes. It affects the psyche in every possible way. It is creating disharmony within families. It is making people become very competitive in how they do business. It is forcing people to put off staff. They would love to keep them as they have been loyal to them for many years, but the revenue is not coming through the door to justify their continued employment. It is making it terrible for the community.

I know that all of us in this place recognise the terrible effect of the drought—there is no doubt about that—but add the impact of the drought and the impact of the shared services decision together. Five hundred jobs might not sound a lot, but it is 500 people; and 256 full-time equivalent positions might not sound a lot, but it is a hell of a lot when a community needs every person pulling together.

I am very frustrated with this decision by the government. My understanding is that the first move will occur in the first quarter of 2008. This is when people will have to rationalise their position. I know that the government has attempted to have a lot of consultation with staff who might be affected. That is reflected in the newsletters that are available on the website and the regional impact statement. You might consult with people, but they are shell-shocked by it.

They have worked within the Public Service for many years and they have tried to do good things within their community. The people who live in the regions do not want to move to Adelaide to keep a job. They do not want to buy very expensive property in the outer suburban areas and then be forced to travel an hour on the train to reach their job in the CBD. They want to stay in the communities that they know and love and contribute to those communities for many years to come.

I condemn this decision by the government. I commend the member for Schubert for bringing the motion to the house.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (12:05): For heaven's sake, what absolute nonsense I have been listening to from the other side of the house today. The figures that they are quoting are very interesting, as is the doom and gloom that they predict. I am sick to death of hearing gloom from the member for Schubert and the member for Flinders—and today from the member for Goyder. We are talking about some of the most affluent areas of the state. We are not talking about the whole workforce, we are talking about 0.11 per cent of the regional labour force in South Australia.

I have listened to them today talking about how unpopular the Labor government is in regional South Australia etc. I would like to know how unpopular we are considering the amount of money that is being spent by the Liberal Party on the campaign for Grey—it is absolutely mindboggling. Members opposite say that is a federal electorate, not a state electorate, but, hey, we are all Labor. I have never seen so much money get pumped into a country electorate as is being pumped into Grey at the moment during this federal campaign.

We must be pretty popular in the electorate and some polling must have been done for them to be sinking that amount of money into the electorate. Today there are four pages of ads for Rowan Ramsey in every regional newspaper. There have been ads every week for probably the past three months in every newspaper in the electorate of Grey. They have spent an incredible amount of money on advertising on television in the electorate of Grey. Rowan Ramsey ads are played every night on regional television in the electorate of Grey. This week we have Rowan Ramsey and the former member Barry Wakelin—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Giles, members have indicated they are having problems hearing you.

Mr VENNING: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I ask you to rule on relevance? What the Liberal Party is spending in this election campaign has nothing to do with this motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Ms BREUER: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry but earlier in the week I could not be heard. I am sorry if I blasted your eardrums, but we have been blasted for the last three months in Grey with the propaganda that is coming from the Liberal Party, and it absolutely surprises me. My point of relevance is: if we are so unpopular, why is the Liberal Party spending so much money in Grey? Rowan Ramsey this week is up in the APY lands chasing around the Electoral Commission aeroplane. That is surely desperation, trying to get some Aboriginal votes for his campaign. So people up there must be looking to Labor in that part of the state, and I think it proves the point that there is no issue with the state Labor government out there.

We are talking about 250 FTEs in regional South Australia. In my part of the state we are talking about 56 FTEs. I do not particularly like seeing jobs being pulled out of country areas, and I have already stated that. I do not like it very much. But the fact of life is that it is happening, and it is not as though it will break our parts of the state. We are all doing fairly well at the moment in most of our areas. I know a lot of our areas are affected by drought, but in the towns where these people are based they are not doing too badly at all. No-one will be forced out of their job; no-one will be forced to move to Adelaide. It is just not going to happen.

If they do decide they want to go to Adelaide, they will get very good support. They will get their relocation costs paid for, storage costs paid for, reimbursement for conveyancing fees if they sell and buy a house, and they will get all their utilities reconnected. That will be covered, so there is not a big issue if they decide to move to Adelaide. If I were one of those people I would not want to move to Adelaide. I do not particularly like living in Adelaide. In fact, I do not like the time I have to spend here now because of this job. So, I do not blame them if they do not want to go, but they will not be forced out of their jobs. Through natural attrition they will be found other jobs. They will be found other jobs through redeployment. Other jobs will be found for these people. Other people may decide that they want to move to Adelaide and take those jobs and they will be able to move into their jobs.

It is not like there are no jobs at all out there for them, the way things are going in some of our areas; for example, the electorate of Goyder. I love the member for Goyder's area. It is a particularly good area and, when I go there now, it never ceases to astound me how much is happening there. I spent a lot of my childhood around the Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta area, and we used to go down there coming from Whyalla, which was booming at the time, and think, 'Poor old Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta. They are just dying.' When I go there now, I wish my grandparents were alive to see it. They would not believe the boom that is going on there. You cannot tell me that people in that area who do perhaps lose their job because of shared services will not be able to find another job there. There is just an incredible amount of work and employment going on in those areas.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Ms BREUER: Well, I would like to know how many people in those areas are going to lose their job. I do not think we are talking about hundreds of jobs; we are talking about a few jobs. It is not good in the country when we lose jobs and we do not like it particularly, but people are not going to be left on the shelf and we are not talking about a major impact on our workforce out there.

For heaven's sake, look at what we have got. We are going ahead in South Australia. There are areas of South Australia that are doing extremely well, and the mining industry is covering those areas. We have all sorts of jobs out there. We have building going on; we have everything going on out there. It is not doom and gloom. From listening to the member for Flinders talk, I do not know why she bothers to live where she does if it is so bad. She goes on and on every time she gets on her feet about how miserable it is down there. I tell you what: if you go down to Port Lincoln you will see some of the richest people in Australia living there. It is an extremely affluent area. But she whinges and whines on her feet all the time and I think, 'Just emigrate! Just go somewhere else if it is that bad.' It is absolutely ridiculous listening to the member for Flinders and her whingeing, whining and carping. I tell you what: I think that part of the state would be a lot better off with a new member with a bit of drive and who does not whinge.

So, I have listened to what people are saying on the other side and, yes, it is not good when we lose jobs from our country areas, but we are not losing a major part of our workforce. It is not going to happen. We will find that there are plenty of other jobs there. Rowan Ramsey, the candidate for Grey, said at a public forum the other day when we questioned him about someone who had to sign a workplace agreement and would be getting $10 an hour and losing lots of her benefits, 'Well, she can go and find another job.' We were pretty horrified at that but, if that is the ethos of the Liberal Party, what are they whingeing about—they will be able to find another job. So, this is absolute nonsense. I am sick of this doom and gloom and carry on. We will save $60 million out of this. It is happening all over Australia. It is a fact of life. Stop whingeing about it because it is going to happen. We will find some other solution, as we always do in country areas.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:13): We have listened to a rather interesting explanation of apology on behalf of the government. The honourable member for Giles did not really want to talk about the issue for a start. She went off on some irrelevant thing in relation to the federal election and indicated that the candidate is in the Pit lands. That is not correct. She has not even got her facts right there.

But let me bring her back to the issue before the house—that is, people have had an expectation that they will be able to continue to live in Burra, Port Augusta and Booleroo Centre, and in other places where people have contacted me. They have had a clear expectation that they would be able to maintain the jobs they have had for many years. The member pointed out that people do not want to come to Adelaide but, if their job is abolished and they are trained in that particular area, there may not be other opportunities in those small rural communities for them to get similar employment. But why should we pull everything out of rural South Australia and centralise it in Adelaide because Sir Humphrey Appleby, or other bureaucrats, do not like decisions being made at a local level? That is what it is all about. And this is just the beginning.

If the government gets its way with the new proposals for the health system in rural South Australia, there will be even more job losses. I say to the member for Giles: tell me how many people will lose their jobs at the Port Augusta Hospital? Is it five, 10 or 22? Where will they get future employment? Why should people who want to live in those rural areas be forced to go to Adelaide against their will? A constituent from Burra who is employed at Clare wrote to me. They have lived most of their life there and they have a nice house. If they have to sell up and transfer in order to have a job based at Hindmarsh Square, the cost of replacing their housing will be astronomical. It does not affect Sir Humphrey Appleby, who sits in the Health Commission and who is the highest-paid public servant, but it will certainly affect my constituents who will be drafted off to Adelaide. The member for Giles talks about how well people are doing; well, it is no thanks whatsoever to this state government.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It is all right for the member for Mawson. It is no thanks to the state government. The honourable member's electorate is benefiting from the great boom at Roxby Downs—which the Premier tried to stop. One talks about being hypocritical—

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The honourable member is an apologist; we know all about him. I am proud to say that I am the only person left in this house who voted for the Roxby Downs Indenture Bill. I well recall the Star Force in the corridors of this building when Norm Foster was going to support the indenture bill. It is an absolute nonsense for the honourable member to claim any credit for that. We were told that Roxby Downs was 'a mirage in the desert'; and there are other great quotes from former premier Bannon. The Premier wrote a book about how bad it was after he came back from overseas with then premier Dunstan. The motion put forward by the member for Schubert is not only timely but also appropriate. It is sticking up for people in rural areas.

The honourable member talked about campaign spending. At the last state election I challenged the member for Giles to tell the people of South Australia how much the ALP spent on its failed candidate in the electorate of Stuart. Was it $300,000? The Labor Party not only spent money but the government established a special office and gave him a motor car and a couple of staff.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, I am reminding the honourable member about her hypocrisy in having a go at the Liberal Party for explaining, most appropriately, its policies to the people of the electorate of Grey. Obviously, she does not like it. She is a bit wounded by it. I understand she is trying to run the campaign for the Labor Party. No wonder they are not doing anything—it's because she is the campaign manager.

I commend the member for bringing this matter to the house because my constituents are most upset that they will be drafted to Adelaide. People have been coming to me from the Public Service, and often they are people who would not want to be associated with this side of politics. It is the first time for a long time that I find myself agreeing with the Public Service Association. I support the motion. I sincerely hope that the house will bring into effect a sensible policy which will protect regional jobs and not transfer them to Adelaide.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests) (12:20): So much huff and so much puff. It is the want of nobody to find themselves as a backbencher in opposition, and so they put all of these notices on the Notice Paper and come in here and speak to them, but not with any conviction—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: Not with any conviction, because the one thing they have not done today in this debate—

Mr VENNING: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the minister is imputing improper motives.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: Madam Deputy Speaker, they—

Mr VENNING: I dissent to your ruling, because I believe he is imputing improper motives on a member of parliament, and I move that your ruling be dissented upon.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr Venning: You're wrong and so is the Clerk.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The reason I did not uphold the point of order was that the remarks of the minister were general in nature and in proper debating points.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: The reason why I say that I do not believe those opposite speak with conviction is because the same people went to the last election with a platform that said they were going to cut 4,000 Public Service jobs, and I have not heard any of them today give any indication as to how they intended to implement that policy. I would love to hear from them in terms of an alternative strategy to save 4,000 public servants—a position they took to the last election. And how did they justify it? They said that you need to do things more efficiently. What is shared services about? Doing things more efficiently. I put a challenge on the record now for them to justify the policy they took to the last election, and at least as part of a motion, which says they do not like shared services, please tell all South Australians how they intended, without shared services, and without other strategies of this nature, to honour their commitment to cut 4,000 jobs, because, if they cannot, this motion comes without any conviction.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the member for Hammond.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: Might get an answer now; this is the first one.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:23): If the minister has finished. This state Labor government obviously does not take the views of its regional members into consideration when they make any decisions throughout this state. It has been proved with the lack of water security management and proved in relation to what they are doing as far as looking after people in regional communities is concerned, when we are in the grips of the worst drought we have seen in history. They are quite happy to see families split up when they are having terrible times in the Riverland. There might be a wife or a husband or a partner working in a government office supporting the vineyard, supporting the orchard, or whatever, and the next thing they will lose their job and take the double whammy. I will be very interested if the Minister for Regional Development decides to—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The Minister for Regional Development likes to interject a lot; I would like her to get up and give her views on how she wants to cut the guts out of the seat of Chaffey. She does not look after her constituents, and that has been proven. But it is obvious that the Premier has deemed the country members irrelevant in his party, because the Labor Party obviously does not know that the boundaries of South Australia exist beyond Glen Osmond and Gepps Cross. It is obviously an accountant that has worked this out. It will split up the families and we will take up to $164 million out of the regional economy.

The minister for primary industries is making a lot of comments about Public Service jobs. I would like to reiterate on the record the 12,000 Public Service jobs that this government has put on since 2002, and 10,000 of these jobs were totally unbudgeted. So, they are quite happy—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: If the Minister for Regional Development wants to make a contribution, I challenge her to make a proper contribution after I have made mine.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The primary industries minister appears not to realise that he has finished his official contribution, as he seems to keep going. What does this unbudgeted 10,000 public servants cost the state a year? Is it $500 million, $600 million, $650 million? It is totally outrageous! They probably do not even know what they are doing.

As far as jobs in regional communities are concerned, people feel bullied; they are frightened to speak out, but they are coming to MPs on this side. I want to make a couple of points in my contribution on this. Where are the redundancies to be offered to these people who will leave their jobs? They will not move to Adelaide; they want to stay in their local area. People in Murray Bridge with partners want to stay and work locally. This is the Labor Party which supposedly champions workers' rights. The members will get up and carry on, as we have seen in this federal campaign.

They have campaigned about WorkChoices; they have just gone to town. If they get back in—we have seen our ads—'They'll be back'—those union thugs. Where are the union thugs looking after workers now? I challenge members on the other side. Where are they? Why aren't the unions looking after these people? Because they just do not care. No redundancies will be offered to any of these people—none, zip. If there is, I would like to hear about it. Let us see if someone can pull that up. I think regional members of cabinet on the other side should be utterly ashamed of what this government is putting onto regional communities in South Australia.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (12:27): I just heard the member for Giles attack the people of Eyre Peninsula, particularly Port Lincoln, so I put on record what her own people think about the shared services proposal. An article hot off the press from The Port Lincoln Times today states:

With 6.1 full-time equivalent jobs set to be pulled from the Port Lincoln Health Services in the first half of next year, Public Service Association general secretary Jan McMahon visited yesterday to speak to those who may be left jobless.

A further 1.37 full-time equivalents [jobs] have been earmarked from the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board while Lower Eyre Health Service is facing 2.78 job cuts.

Across Eyre Peninsula and West Coast 56.3 [full-time equivalents] will be pulled and relocated to Adelaide as part of the State Government's shared services reform aimed at saving $60 million.

'It could be 12 people because often people work part time,' Ms McMahon said about the 6.15 FTEs from the Port Lincoln Hospital yesterday.

It is a significant amount of people when you look at the 56.3 FTEs in the Eyre Peninsula and West Coast.

That might equate to over 100 jobs in this district; these are jobs that support people in this district.

Health is going to be hit hard across regional South Australia with job losses.'

Ms McMahon said she had visited many regions in South Australia and found many people did not want to move and follow their jobs to Adelaide.

Already some people had left jobs to move to other agencies that would not be affected by the reform, but some skills would be wasted as 'there's no way' everybody could find jobs.

Ms McMahon spent Tuesday and Wednesday talking to association members and Port Lincoln and would be taking their concerns to the State Government, with hopes that it would reconsider the move.

And I urge them to do so.

The jobs are in accounts payable and receivable, and payroll.

The fact is that there is no way that these clerical positions will be filled. It will affect mostly women. These women often have two or three small jobs that they put together to make a decent income for themselves and their families, and now those jobs will be hit. How are they going to pay the rent and find employment in our country regions? We need the skills in the work that is mainly done by men: diesel mechanics, for instance. These people are not going to be able to do those kinds of jobs. We need them in the mining areas; we do not need them being removed from positions that have been there for many years.

The member for Giles suggested that I was whingeing about this, but I am not whingeing. We are feeling it right across Eyre Peninsula. Eyre Peninsula is 55,000 square kilometres through to the Western Australian border. It is not Port Lincoln. Port Lincoln may have a group of very wealthy people at the top but below those people there is a huge number of people who are less than advantaged, and to wipe off Eyre Peninsula, as so often happens in this place, as if it were just the domain of the wealthy people at Port Lincoln, really makes me mad.

The policy we put to the last election proposed to cut 4,000 public servants. That number of public servants from the 10,000 unbudgeted public servants that have been put in place in the city (not the country areas) has nothing to do with these long-term positions which, as I said, are mostly for women and mostly small, part-time jobs in the country areas. I urge, as Jan McMahon has asked, that this government reconsider the jobs that it is going to remove from the country areas.

I use a multiplier of one in six for jobs removed from country areas, and I do that because a job lost in the country cannot so easily be replaced. If you lose a job in the city, there is an opportunity to find another job in the city. You do not have to relocate your family or leave your friends. You do not have to leave your spouse and the other people who have jobs in the country to go to the city.

I feel so angry, because I think this will mean that about 1,500 jobs in the country will be affected, not the few jobs that they are talking about. It does not sound like very many but, if you say one to six, it takes into account the flow-ons. It means that the people concerned have to find houses in the city; it means that they leave a house empty in the country. It means that I have already lost two schoolteachers from one of my school communities, reducing the job options.

If I lose a family with children, that can often mean in these small country schools that that school will be without those extra two or three children and, in turn, that will mean that one or possibly two teachers, as in the case of one of my small schools, are no longer required, thus reducing the subject options. The parents then have to consider whether they will send their children away to school in Adelaide to give them the opportunities that people in the city take for granted. I need every job I can get in the country towns in the electorate of Flinders or we will lose more of the 72 schools that I have there and we will lose more of the families that support those small businesses.

The country stores need every bit of business that they can get, or they fold. I have bought Vegemite and margarine in Coles at cheaper prices than my little stores in the country can buy it for, and I have taken it up in the boot of my car so that these small businesses can survive a little longer in the country regions. If they fold, then again it means that the quality of life for the people in the country is reduced.

This government should be looking at how it is going to get more businesses and more people back into the country regions, not taking out long-term existing jobs that are there supporting our community and our volunteers who are manning our ambulances, emergency services and other community services and also those who are raising funds for our hospitals and schools. Every one of these people who goes means that the pressure is put back on the few who are remaining, and those few who are remaining are beginning to burn out. I know that, because I see them in my office. My staff and I are feeling a bit the same way. The pressure that this government is putting on rural communities I think is unforgiveable.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Small Business, Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Trade) (12:35): I rise to contribute to this debate on the basis of my role as Minister for Regional Development and also as the member for Chaffey in the Riverland. I think it is important to note some of the inaccuracies that have been put on the record by opposition members to try to distort what shared services reform is all about. What the opposition is tending to do over and over again at the moment is to put misleading information out there into the public arena to try to make the maximum political gain it can by hurting communities under stress, and I think it is unconscionable.

Let me correct the record: the shared services reform is not about targeting the regions, it is a whole of government initiative stretching across the entire Public Service. It is inaccurate to suggest that the government is putting pressure on drought-affected communities and, in fact, it is quite the opposite. We are investing enormous amounts of resources in supporting drought-affected communities. No-one knows that better than a former premier of this state, Dean Brown, who is working very closely with us to ensure that we can maximise all the opportunities to support our regional communities during this time of drought.

The shared services initiative represents approximately 0.11 per cent of the regional labour force in South Australia. Let me make that clear: 0.11 per cent. The transitioning of the staff will be a gradual process, commencing late February 2008. The gradual reduction of workforce numbers will be managed through natural attrition, redeployment of excess staff and reducing contract staff usage.

The government would hope to maximise the number of regional staff who will take up new positions in shared services, but where it is clear that employees do not wish to relocate a range of options can be explored in conjunction with the relevant agency. This may include the restructuring of duties and seeking expressions of interest from other suitably skilled employees who wish to relocate. Any workforce reduction will be conducted in line with the government's policy of no forced redundancies for ongoing employees.

I again refer to the matter raised by the member for Mount Gambier in relation to the opposition's policy, coming into the 2006 election, to cut 4,000 Public Service jobs. We have just heard from the member for Flinders, who said they were going to be all in the city; nowhere else, just in the city. We have also heard that she has a one in six ratio multiplier effect, which means that there were 24,000 jobs that the Liberal Party were focusing on in their policy prior to the last election.

What the opposition fails to understand is that this particular initiative is about redirecting resources into frontline services, doing what we need to do to do the hard yards to make sure that this government continues to invest in improving services to South Australians, whether they be regional or in the city. In the regions in particular, the kind of services that are being improved are substantial.

We have increased jobs in regional development right across the regions. We have just completed the appointment of five decentralised Department of Trade and Economic Development officers out into the regions. We have employed seven food industry development officers. We have employed small business development officers out in the regions. These are frontline services that are actually out there providing the services that our communities demand. We have increased the number of teachers, we have increased the number of police, we have increased the services in our country health system and we have increased the funding, substantially, every single year in country health to deliver services. We have invested in the establishment of the regional hospitals. We also have the establishment of trade schools, one of those being in the Riverland.

These are all about redirecting the funding from state government, from taxpayers' money, ensuring that the duplication is minimised and the service outcomes for regions are maximised. We understand, as a state, that we have to do things differently in the future. We have to ensure that the taxpayers' dollar is well invested and that the services that are provided to our communities are what the communities want in regard to service delivery.

I think that, yes, there are some difficult decisions that are made and, yes, there are some difficult issues that have to be dealt with in relation to managing the Public Service, but the shared services initiative is a good one and it will make substantial savings right across the state. It is not targeted just at regional areas; it is targeted right across the public sector workforce. It is an important initiative that will enable this government to have a better and more targeted approach to spending taxpayers' money in the delivery of services to our regional communities and, indeed, to all South Australians.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:40): I rise to speak in favour of this motion. I would like to bring a city point of view to this argument. We see a government here that is fixed on centralising. At the same time, we have a government that tells us that by 2050 we will have two million people in the state of South Australia. That figure has since been revised by the Minister for Population and the Treasurer, and the date has been brought forward to 2030.

At the same time, we have been told that our urban boundaries for the City of Adelaide have only about three years growth in them. Then we had minister Gago from the other place telling the council that part of the reason for selling off the land at Glenside was to manage the urban growth boundary. I say to members who sit in those inner suburban Labor seats that this is an unnecessary pressure on urban consolidation in our inner suburbs.

We have minister Gago telling us that we need to sell our open land (our open space) in the inner suburbs to deal with our urban consolidation and then we have a government that is centralising its services—it is pulling them out from our country areas, where we have plenty of land for sale. It is a little bit like North Korea—Phnom Penh. Once you get out of the square mile of Adelaide, it all starts to deteriorate. All the resources are put in the middle, because that is where the tourists come and that is where the business leaders come.

The Premier can then stand on his soapbox and say, 'Look at Adelaide. Look at these buildings. We've got public servants over here and public servants over there.' We are seeing a huge development on Victoria Square for a government instrumentality—more centralisation of government services. What is that going to do for the inner suburbs? It is a threat to our open space and it is a threat to our lifestyle. Already we are losing private open space in our inner suburbs.

Minister Gago is now telling us that we have to sell off any additional open space that we have in the inner suburbs to deal with the urban growth boundary. To me, it would make sense to utilise our country towns and cities and encourage people to spread out in this huge state. Can you imagine a population of two million on the transport system we have now? Can you imagine it, member for Hammond? We will have trains breaking down every week, buses that do not turn up, trams that do not stop because they are full; yet we have a government that is intent on centralising.

This is completely different from the views that they had when they were in opposition. The then member for Napier, Ms Hurley, before she was pushed out by the current member for Napier—

Mrs Geraghty: I have a point of order.

Mr PISONI: He experiences the pressures of urban consolidation as he drives from Springfield all the way out to Smithfield to his electorate—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Unley, take your seat.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Unley has clearly made an incorrect statement and therefore has misled the house.

Mr Williams: It's a debate.

Mrs GERAGHTY: You still have to have some basis of truth in what you say, and the member for Unley has misled the house regarding the statement he made about the member for Napier being pushed out. He must retract that statement.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. If the member for Napier wishes to take offence, he can make a personal explanation. The member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: We have a very sensitive member for Napier. Perhaps if he lived in his electorate, he would have some understanding of the services that will suffer in his electorate. The point is that the centralisation of government services and moving more of the population of South Australia into Adelaide will put greater pressure on urban consolidation and the open space in our suburbs. Labor members holding seats in the inner suburbs are stamped all over this policy of increasing urban consolidation in Adelaide. They are the ones who are supporting this policy to centralise government services, and hence centralise the private sector services that feed off those government services. They will have to come into Adelaide. Adelaide will be a bigger place. We already have pressures on the urban boundaries. Consequently, we will see more pressure on urban consolidation and more pressure on our open space.

Getting back to what the former member for Napier said, I refer to a question she asked of the Hon. Mr Lucas during estimates in 1996. She said:

I am concerned about the lack of open space in some highly urbanised inner areas and wonder whether the minister shares this concern over the open space being swallowed up by further development.

That was a Labor member of parliament 10 years ago, but now we have minister Gago in the other place telling us that we have to sell our inner suburban open space to deal with the pressures on our urban boundaries. This is a consequence for metropolitan Adelaide, particularly those in the inner suburbs, of this centralisation policy of this government. I support the motion.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:47): I rise to support the motion and I congratulate the member for Schubert for bringing it to the house. Interestingly, there have been many contributions from this side of the house supporting this motion. There have been two contributions from the other side from rural-based members supporting the government's position. I find that quite amazing. I find it quite amazing that government members who live outside metropolitan Adelaide would be supporting this because of the impact it will have in their constituencies. I find that remarkable because, by and large, those same people, over the years that I have been in here, have been constantly calling for more people to be employed, more public servants to be employed and more jobs to be created in those constituencies, whether it be in the private or public sector.

We have heard quite a bit of nonsense spoken this morning. A few moments ago, we heard from the minister. The minister is one of those with a country constituency and who is out there in the federal constituency saying what a vote for a National Party candidate in Saturday's federal election will do for rural and regional South Australia. It is a very different story from what she is putting to the house this morning. She is saying that the National Party will be out there fighting for the electorate. Here this morning she is an apologist for a centralist government. She is an apologist for a government that wants to draw all the money that it spends on employment via the tax that it raises into the city; that is, back into the bureaucracy where it can control it and concentrate power. That is what this is about. The member did say that this is not specifically targeted at rural communities, and I accept that.

However, I think the point the opposition is making is that the impact of this in rural communities is vastly different from the impact in metropolitan Adelaide. It is not unique to South Australia, but one of the reasons communities outside major cities tend to suffer is they pay the same rate of tax but the rate of expenditure per capita (per taxpayer) is much less. That is excusable, and there are good reasons why we concentrate more tax expenditure in our capital cities—where we have the seat of government and our administrative centre. That is understandable, but I think it is incumbent on governments to understand the impact that has on rural communities, no more so than in South Australia.

South Australia is the most urbanised community in the world. More South Australians live in metropolitan Adelaide as a percentage of the total population of this jurisdiction than any jurisdiction, on my understanding, on the planet. Why is that? Because South Australia happens to be very good at sucking in those taxes and forgetting to spend some of it in the communities where the taxes are generated. That is what is happening here today.

We have the two rural non-Labor Party members of this government (the member for Mount Gambier and the member for Chaffey) both arguing that this is all right and the opposition members are all hypocrites because we went to the polls last election with the policy of cutting some numbers in the public sector. We did go with that policy, and the only difference between us and the current Treasurer and government is we were honest enough to tell the people of South Australia that that was the target we had set. We were honest enough to say that is what we wanted to do.

The Treasurer has been struggling to do it since he was returned to the treasury bench but, because he is incompetent, he has not been able to achieve it. But his target is to do that, just as Kevin Rudd has publicly stated that he wants to cut Public Service numbers in the federal sphere if he is elected prime minister—and for the exact same reason the Liberal Party opposition at the time of the last election argued that case. It is about efficiency and redirecting resources. It is not about cutting public servants: it is about redirecting resources. The same number of people would be employed because the same number of dollars would be expended. It is just about where you spend them and what you get for those dollars. That is why this sort of program, so-called shared services—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, I know. I have a problem. If you can help me out, I will accept any help you give me. This is why the shared services program will have an incredible impact on regional South Australia—because the dollars that are taken out in taxes from regional South Australia that are currently being spent on government services and employment of government employees in regional South Australia will not be spent back in regional South Australia on some other program, in spite of what the member for Chaffey (the minister) said.

We will not be spending that money back in the regions. She said we have just employed seven FIDOs (Food Industry Development Officers) in regional South Australia. Well, hello, minister, why have we employed seven, because we used to have 15? We used to have 15, and the government in the last budget cut them and replaced the 15 with seven. In my mind that is not an increase in expenditure and front-line services. She said we have an increase in the health budget in country areas every year under this government. That, in real terms, is just not right. In recent weeks the Treasurer has admitted that the health inflator is running at about 9 per cent. He is always talking about the problem of meeting health expenses. The increase in the health budget in country South Australia has been well below 9 per cent during the life of this government. There has been a real cut in health expenditure in regional and rural South Australia under this government.

The most amazing thing is that I have a letter written by the member for Mount Gambier when he was an Independent. He wrote the letter to Dean Brown (whose name has already been mentioned in this morning's debate) when Dean Brown was the minister for human services. The letter written in 1998 states:

Too often the immediate reaction to any pressure to be more efficient is to rationalise and that means withdrawal of all services and consolidate centrally. The view is that remote regional offices are a barrier to proper management and coordination. Such a myth must be dispelled. We have the technology to operate efficiently, irrespective of time and place...For the sake of regional South Australia we need to move more public servants out of Adelaide, not the reverse.

That is what the member for Mount Gambier used to think before he got the white car and the increased salary. At the same time he was quoted in The Border Watch as saying.

The state government has got to accept that it is responsible for rural communities to remain viable. I am fed up with seeing bureaucrats always taking the soft option and always ripping something out of rural areas first and protecting their own little metropolitan empires.

I happen to agree totally with what the member for Mount Gambier said on this subject in 1998 when he was a true Independent, and what I know he believes in his heart. He knows that this is a mess; he knows this is bringing a mess to rural and regional South Australia. I have always supported my constituency.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (12:57): I rise today to ask opposition members why they come in here, time after time, and sell their regions short. Some great things are happening in the regions. In Whyalla there is an increase in jobs and an increase in housing. Someone said earlier that we are a centralised city-state; and to a degree we are. Whyalla, which once had a population of 33,000, our second biggest city, has shrunk over the years as a result of losing the shipbuilding industry but, thanks to this government and the great work it has done in mining and other industries, we are seeing the regions grow and prosper.

I have spoken to a lot of people on the West Coast who are investing in Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Tumby Bay and Ceduna. The regions are going very well, indeed. As a government we are proud to support the regions. We do not govern just for the metropolitan area of Adelaide. We are out and about. We take the community cabinet to all the regions in South Australia. We listen to what the community wants, and we are there for them. We enact support for them, and we are seeing the populations in the South-East, as well as on the West Coast, grow. There are some really good economic indicators out there that things are thriving in our regions—and will continue to do so.

We are here to support regional South Australia. I do not think it does the regions any good when their local representatives come in here and put down the regions. There are wonderful success stories out there. These people are doing a fantastic job. Our hearts are with those who are relying on rain at this time of drought. It is terribly sad to see the heartbreak that is happening in the country. As a government we are there to stand side by side with these people in order to help them through these difficult times. It is not an easy time for anyone.

As a state we are suffering with them because the regions are the backbone of our economy. When we have droughts and our production falls, we all suffer in South Australia. We appreciate the enormous wealth that comes into this state's coffers from regional South Australia. We do put back into the regions. We are very proud of our regions. Some of our opposition members in here should have that same level of pride in the areas which they represent. There are fantastic stories. I think that putting down their own regions is not a good thing to do.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:59): I move:

That the motion be now put.

Mr Bignell: I am still speaking.

Mr VENNING: I object.

Mr Bignell: You can object all you like; you have had your chance your speak.

Mr VENNING: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have moved that the motion be now put. It is a procedural motion and must be abided by.

The CHAIR: Member for Schubert, the motion to put the question can only be put once a member has concluded their remarks. The member for Mawson is still on his feet.

Mr VENNING: I sought advice, madam, and that was not the advice that I was given.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Clerk has advised me of the same thing. It is the convention that things are put when a member resumes their seat. However, you have moved it while a member is on their feet, so I am now advised that I am obliged to hear your motion. The question is that the motion be now put.

The house divided on the motion:

AYES (12)

NOES (26)

PAIRS (2)

Majority of 14 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 13:07 to 14:00]