SUPPLY BILL 2008

Adjourned debate on motion to note grievances.

(Continued from 30 April 2008. Page 3047.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:01): In the few minutes available to me, I want to focus on one particular piece of transport infrastructure in my electorate that has been the bane of the ratepayers of the City of Holdfast Bay for a number of years, namely, King Street Bridge. For the uneducated and those who have not had the pleasure of travelling in and around my electorate and visiting the numerous restaurants and cafes—and I note the member for Croydon has been there; and he is welcome any time—King Street Bridge crosses the Patawalonga River, just north of the Buffalo restaurant.

It is a vital piece of transport infrastructure in the council area and in my electorate. The bridge was built in 1954 and was extended under the South-Western Suburbs Drainage Act in 1970. It was built by the state government and it was extended by the state government. It was part of the Patawalonga works, carried out in conjunction with an amendment to the South-Western Suburbs Drainage Act which involved widening the Patawalonga River to an average width of 300 feet, the construction of three additional outlet regulators, an extension of King Street Bridge, dismantling of the bridge at Anderson Avenue, diversion of the northern end of Adelphi Terrace and realignment of Military Road adjacent to the Glenelg sewage treatment works.

Considerable works were carried out, and it is interesting to note that Adelphi Terrace and Military Road were realigned. I think that, even then, the state government knew it was a busy thoroughfare. King Street Bridge is really a state-controlled bridge. I do not know why local government took it on. I think it was a stupid thing to do because ever since then it has created a headache for the council because of the need to have it maintained all the time. The concrete and steel used in those days was not up to the standard we use now, so it has concrete cancer. Significant repairs have been done to try to maintain the bridge in a functioning form.

In 2005 the council prepared an engineering and environment committee report on the bridge and looked at the various options and costings of repairing or replacing the bridge. Arguments for state government funding were laid out in the report. The arguments were—and still are—that 80 per cent of the traffic is through traffic or regional traffic. The 31,000 ratepayers of Holdfast Bay are subsidising the bridge for traffic, 80 per cent of which is through or regional traffic. The report states that using the bridge provides relief and an alternative for Tapleys Hill Road traffic on busy days. We know when footy is played at AAMI Stadium there is a constant stream of traffic from the southern suburbs to Footy Park, and I would think also from the south-eastern suburbs when the Crows are playing. It is certainly not to be discounted as a major link for people going to the footy.

Emergency services would be severely compromised if the bridge was not available. I am told that response times from Camden Park Fire Station would increase from six to seven minutes (which is standard) to between 12 and 14 minutes because they would have to travel via Tapleys Hill Road and Africaine Road to the peninsula at Glenelg North where there are over 600 homes. In fact, there is probably more than that now because of the number of apartment blocks that have been built there; it is probably closer to 700 or 800 homes and apartments.

Regional traffic use is increasing much faster than local traffic, and it should be noted that the state government's emergency response plan for the Patawalonga in relation to King Street Bridge states that 'King Street Bridge provides access to the western part of the suburb that connects Adelphi Terrace south of Military Road, creating a major north-south road transport link'.

It is a major transport link and it should be funded by the state government. However, the minister seems to think the council should be made to abide by the decision it made years ago to take on the bridge. I understand that to a degree, but the circumstances and facts have changed. When facts change, one has to think about it and most people would think about changing their mind if the facts change, not just making people wear the consequences of what were then well-meaning and well-intentioned decisions.

The bridge is there and the problem is that it is decaying. The concrete cancer is getting worse. I understand that load limits will be introduced in relation to the bridge in the near future. There have been reviews of the load limits in order to ensure that public transport buses can use that bridge. Certainly, the emergency services will use that bridge. We need to keep the bridge in good repair and keep it open. The council is making some decisions in relation to short-term spending to ensure the bridge is able to carry the 20-tonne plus load limit that is required for public transport in order to say that the bridge is safe to use.

I have written to the minister, at least twice, probably three times, asking for the government to consider funding to replace King Street Bridge with a new bridge. I would be more than happy if it came in 50/50 with the council to help fund a new bridge—but even that seems to be out of the picture. The latest letter I received from the minister is dated April 2008. It states:

The state government has made its position clear on King Street Bridge and I do not see the necessity for a meeting at this time.

I had asked for a meeting between stakeholders and the minister to discuss the funding, but the minister said that it was part of the local road system and was the responsibility of the Holdfast Bay council. So, there is no budging the government's and the minister's current position.

On 17 April, I wrote to the council indicating that the bridge has outlived its lifespan and said that it was time to consider making a decision on a new bridge, which would have an expected lifespan of 60 to 100 years, and that any money that had to be borrowed could surely be borrowed over a term of 25 to 30 years. It was my suggestion that the council should bite the bullet now because the state government was not coming forward with any money at all and, at that stage, the federal government had made no commitment. I suggested that local government should make a decision and go ahead and borrow the money (I think $6 million to $8 million would be required) funded over 25 to 30 years. It should not have to happen but, unfortunately, the council will have to levy the ratepayers at a rate, I think, of about $20 a year (about 6 cents a day).

I also suggested that, as well as having the emergency services and natural resources levies on the council rate notice, they should also have the 'Mike Rann fix the King Street Bridge levy' on there to remind the ratepayers of Holdfast Bay that it is the council that is having to bear the cost when it should be borne by the state government.

To reiterate that fact, John Trainer wrote to minister Conlon on 24 April. John Trainer is a former speaker in this place and the Chair of the Western Adelaide Consultative Group, which is made up of the CEOs or mayors of the City of Charles Sturt, Holdfast Bay, Port Adelaide Enfield, Marion and West Torrens councils, as well as representatives of Adelaide Airport Limited, Adelaide Shores and the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. All these people agreed to seek state government funding for the running costs of maintaining the King Street Bridge. They recognise that the role of the bridge is not just as a local bridge; it has significant through traffic, and it has a role in relation to public transport and supporting tourism; it is also part of the State Emergency Response Plan.

So, it is not just the people of Holdfast Bay who are asking the state government to put its hand in its pocket. All the councils along the coast, the natural resources management board, Adelaide Shores Limited and Adelaide Airport recognise that this is a very important piece of infrastructure in the area. So, I ask the government to reconsider its position in relation to funding this bridge. Even partial funding would be better than nothing because at the moment the City of Holdfast Bay will have to do something about it, and it is going to cost the ratepayers in that council area a significant amount of money to replace that bridge (estimated to be between $6 million to $8 million).

Carrying out constant repairs is not the answer because the bridge is decaying and it will continue to decay. I ask the minister and the government to consider the electorate of Morphett for once. We do not get very much at all from this government, and we never have. Ratepayers down there deserve a bit of consideration in relation to this piece of infrastructure, which I would argue is state infrastructure and should be paid for by the state government, not the ratepayers of Holdfast Bay.

I look forward to a favourable response; a change of heart. I am not holding my breath on that, though. In this place you have to be an eternal optimist, but I am afraid I am a bit of a pragmatist now as well. I would settle for half funding, minister, if you are not going to pay for the whole lot. I look forward from a response from the federal Labor government as well, and the local member (Steve Georganas) is helping on that matter.

Time expired.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (16:12): Once again, the member for Morphett has shown the financially irresponsible actions of members opposite. He has come in here looking for the state government to fund a fix that is the responsibility of the local government. There are 47 members in this place and, if we all came in here with an $8 million project that belongs to the local council, that would be $400 million.

Members opposite are all about making these outrageous promises that would blow our budget. What do members opposite think councils are out there for? They have ratepayers and they collect the rates. The Onkaparinga council has just introduced a 10 per cent levy. The council has not been able to fix the stormwater problem, unlike the councils in the northern suburbs, which have done a fantastic job. Unfortunately, the people in the Onkaparinga council area have been let down by the council. The member opposite comes in here looking for funding for projects that are actually the responsibility of local government. We have infrastructure that we own, operate and maintain, and it is our duty to pay for that infrastructure and to make sure that those things are taken care of. But let's not start paying for all the stuff that is local government responsibility.

I could drive around the electorate with people from the Onkaparinga council, and they would say, 'Can you fix this road; can you fix that road?' No; it is the council's responsibility; they are not the state government's roads. So, that is the way it should be. We have lines there, and we have only so much money to spend on things that are state government responsibilities, and we spread that money right across this great state.

I congratulate the government on the money that has been spent in the seat of Mawson and in the southern area, in areas such as health. In relation to Family and Youth Services, we have seen the great work that has been done in places such as at the Hackham West Community Centre, where we feed money in to work with those groups in our community who are at the coal face looking after those most vulnerable South Australians. I congratulate the minister. Thanks to a huge investment by this state government, things are going along very well down there in other areas, such as health and education.

An amount of $80 million, shared between the state and federal governments, has been set aside because of the closure of Mitsubishi's Tonsley Park plant, and that money will be invested in infrastructure in the south, as well as to help those people who have lost their jobs to get into other jobs. I congratulate and commend the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister for the Southern Suburbs for the great work they have done.

I am someone who likes to get out into the regions of our state. I was in the Flinders Ranges just a couple of weeks ago, and the amount of money that has been spent up there replacing the roads that were washed out in the devastating floods in January last year is something the locals up there are very grateful for.

It makes you start thinking about all the different funding streams the state government is responsible for. When you visit national parks, you pay your fee and you pick up these wonderful brochures about all the different walks you can take in the Flinders Ranges. The walking paths, along with everything else, are immaculately maintained, and I thank the Department for Environment and Heritage very much for its contribution in that area to show off our great state. Thirty-five per cent of the visitors to the Flinders Ranges come from overseas. We met up with some Belgian and French tourists who said that, after being in Sydney and Melbourne and passing through Adelaide, they finally felt they were in Australia because they were in the Flinders Ranges—the gateway to the Outback and a marvellous part of our fantastic state.

The investment extends also across to the West Coast. This government does not just look at the Adelaide CBD when it comes to investment; we realise the importance of regional areas. It is wonderful to see growth in all regional parts of this state, and that is something that we want to continue to support, whether it is in the South-East (the place where I grew up), over on the West Coast or on Yorke Peninsula. Our job is to maintain the funding right across this state. It is not a time to take on the project and the responsibilities of local government: it has a rate base and it should use that money wisely and actually invest in the things that it owns.

I also want to commend the government for the enormous amount of money that it has put into emergency services in this state. In mid-March we had a fire at Willunga which threatened many homes, lives and livestock. It was wonderful to see the CFS, the SES, the Metropolitan Fire Service, the police and the Salvation Army—another organisation that the government helps fund—deliver food and water to those people on the front line, on the fire ground.

There has been an incredible increase in the amount of funding for aerial firefighting since the Rann government took over from the Liberal government, which neglected that area. I think the people of Willunga, and people in the district of Mawson generally, are very grateful for the fact that there were plenty of fixed wing and helicopter fire bombers on that day in mid-March. I am sure that the member for Finniss would also agree.

I spoke to people at 2 o'clock in the morning when they came down from the top of Willunga Hill, and they said, 'We faced an awful, awful day the next day with the forecast winds.' They said that if it got away it would go to the coast. It was not going to go to the coast in the Aldinga direction; it would go through the other way and burn right through Mount Compass on its way to the sea. Quite clearly, that would have been disastrous not just for the region but for the entire state.

All the money that was put into aerial firefighting allowed the fire bombers to really hit that fire hard in the hours between about 3.30 and 4 o'clock when the fire broke out and when the sun went down. It was the 500 or so CFS volunteers who were up there all night and into the next day, Saturday and Sunday. The work those volunteers did on the ground really needs to be commended. These firefighters deserve every dollar that the state government gives them, as do the other support agencies we need so desperately in times of fire, flood and other disasters that sometimes hit our state.

Another area that I have been very interested in since my time in parliament is the Department of Trade and Economic Development. I would like to pay tribute to the Agent-General's Office in London (funded by the state government) for the incredible work that it does right across Europe. I also want to pay tribute to our new Agent-General, Bill Muirhead, and to Maurice de Rohan, who went before Bill, as well as David Travis, our Assistant Agent-General, who—when I spoke to him last night—had worked about 55 days in a row.

I was with David in Russia just last month. The amount of money being put in by DTED for South Australia to get back an incredible amount of money through exports to Europe is fantastic. We have seen the value of exports of South Australian wine to Russia go from $3 million in 2006 to $6 million in 2007. We are hoping to see even further growth in that market when the figures come out soon. It is about tapping into these markets and spending a relatively small amount of South Australian government money to reap huge rewards, not only for the wine companies but for the people down the street to whom the wine company employees then go to spend their money—in the main street of McLaren Vale, in the Barossa or in Clare. I think this is a very good area in which to spend money to get a lot more back, and it is a great boost for jobs and for our local economy.

As I pointed out, the money supplied by the Rann government across this entire state goes a very long way to doing a lot of good things. The member for Finniss sits there, scoffs and shakes his head. Perhaps one day he could come into this place and say, 'Thank you' and show a little gratitude for the money that we spend on Kangaroo Island, that very beautiful part of our state. We are always promoting Kangaroo Island to tourists. It is really a fantastic part of our state. We put a lot of money into Kangaroo Island to supply services, not just for the locals but for the tourists who come to visit South Australia and Kangaroo Island.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:20): It is not a hard act to follow, is it! In my time this afternoon, I would like to raise some concerns about doctors in my area. There is major concern down on the South Coast at the moment about the number of doctors we have, and this matter has been raised in the local press. It is causing a fair bit of grief to the local community and to local authorities that doctor numbers seem to be decreasing through doctors retiring, or for whatever reason. We are just not going to have enough doctors.

We have quite an ageing population down there and medical care is at the top of the priority list for many people. In my electorate we are fortunate in that, at the moment, Kangaroo Island has enough doctors. That is because of extremely good management through the Southern Division of General Practice and the fact that the local business run by doctors there has been very good in recruiting doctors from elsewhere, including overseas, to fill the void.

The lack of doctors in the Goolwa/Victor Harbor area, only an hour's drive from Adelaide, is an issue that is certainly causing concern, and we will have to put a lot of work into maintaining the numbers that are required over the next few years. More to the point, after listening to the Minister for Health this afternoon, I shudder at what will happen to country hospitals in South Australia. We can only presume that the information, as the member for Bragg has indicated, has come from within the system. The information is that they are about to role change 25 country hospitals and they are about to take the acute services out of those hospitals and turn them into nursing homes. That will be a categorical disaster for many of those country areas, because the doctors just will not stay there. If they do not have acute facilities and acute care in the hospitals they will disappear; they just will not stay there. The last thing doctors in general practice want to do in many of these areas is have a hospital that is only a nursing home. They cannot further their professional expertise in those places. I think that is an horrendous outcome.

I do not follow the logic of the Minister for Health or his bureaucrats in what he was saying this afternoon about looking at it holistically. I think they will savagely and surgically destroy health in regional and country South Australia. It is all very well to boast about having good hospitals here, there and everywhere else. Look, for example, at the member for Hammond's hospitals at Pinnaroo and Lameroo, both with acute care facilities. One of them will go. Karoonda will go; they will dismember and emasculate it. Strathalbyn in the Adelaide Hills will go. These wonderful hospitals will be cut off at the knees, and we will face an impending disaster in country health in South Australia.

If the member for Mawson spoke about all the money they are spending, he might want to go out in about 12 months' time after these hospitals have been role changed and talk to some of the communities where they have lost their doctors, and he might get a bit of a different perspective on the world. It is just such a critical issue for rural South Australia to have close and handy high-care facilities and doctors.

Why should rural people have to drive one, two hours or three hours to find an acute care hospital? Why should they not have the same capacity to go to acute care facilities in the country like they always have? I think it is a gross injustice. It will happen. They have done it before and they will do it again. There are 25 on the hit list. It has fallen off the back of a truck; it is all out there. The people inside the health department are leaking information like sieves, and woe betide this government when it does it, because it is not too good.

Similarly, in my electorate in particular, the lack of money put into arterial road funding and the assistance to local government to get decent roads put in place is alarming. This government is absolutely drowning in GST revenue. What has it done? It has employed an extra 12,000 public servants. That money would have been pretty handy out in the paddock. I know that the councillors in my area—Yankalilla, Alexandrina, Victor Harbor and Kangaroo Island—are screaming for assistance with their rates. They simply cannot cope with their income. They have had everything else thrust upon them.

You only have to read the Hawker report on cost shifting, which was done by the federal parliament two or three years ago, to acknowledge what pressures are now on local government due to unfair cost shifting put onto them by federal and state governments. Local government has always been about roads, rates and rubbish—that is basic. The fact is that they have had to deal with everything else that has been unloaded on them quite unfairly without any revenue source. Governments say, 'Put the rates up.' Well, the poor old ratepayers are at about the end of their tether, and they cannot take anymore.

As a result, council roads in rural areas and, more to the point, in my electorate of Finniss, are deteriorating and falling apart at the seams. For example, we have 1,100 kilometres of dirt road on Kangaroo Island, most of which is absolutely appalling. How do I know? I live on one of them, and it is just dreadful. I was the mayor and could not get my road bituminised—I failed dismally. I do not know whether Mr Piccolo got his done when he was mayor. The fact is that you have to reinvest.

The member for Mawson talked about the Rann government putting money into Kangaroo Island. The local council over there has absolutely pleaded for money for the community, and they got what Paddy shot at. In relation to tourism, under minister Lomax-Smith the Tourism Commission has cut the marketing budget, as I said last night. You can hardly say that they have showered the island with gifts. Down on the Fleurieu and the South Coast they are also feeling the pinch in tourism numbers, particularly around Goolwa, which is struggling with the negative publicity about the lakes and the amount of water down there. That community is struggling as well. It is just absolute poppycock to suggest that money has been poured into tourism in my electorate. It has not happened. The mayors down there will give you another story to what has been thrown around this chamber at this afternoon.

Along with road funding, there are water issues. The Fleurieu is a rapidly growing area for people to live in, and the increased population needs reticulated water. We have a swag of it in Myponga dam, which could be used a lot more than it is at the moment. It is being used as a back-up to supply Adelaide. I think the latest figure is that it is 70 per cent full. There is limited capacity for water to come back to Happy Valley; so I think this government is pooing its pants over what will happen next year if it does not rain. We will see B-double loads of water being brought in to supply members opposite with something to drink. Everyone in this chamber knows that there are plenty of ways to create more water and to take the pressure off the Murray.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Yes; fresh water. It's called desalination.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Okay; I reckon you've missed your plane, Rory, you'd better get going. On top of that, the impost of high taxes to the South Australian community is grossly unfair. You only have to talk to small business and people with investment properties about land tax to know that what is being preached from the other side is arrant nonsense. Taxes are going through the roof. This is the highest taxing government we have ever had in South Australia. It is an absolute disgrace and in my view it is a debacle.

Despite the attempts by members opposite to paint a rosy picture, I have an alternative view. When these high interest rates kick in and when the wheels fall off a lot of employment around Adelaide and South Australia, then perhaps we will hear the member for Mawson say, 'Oh gee, perhaps I was wrong. I think we've stuffed it up.' I reckon he is auditioning for a job, because he will be looking for one on 21 March 2010. He wants to get his old one back, and I wish him well.

Time expired.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:30): I am delighted to be able to grieve today. There are a number of issues I want to talk about, principally concerning matters in my electorate down in the South-East, but I might also get the opportunity to get onto a couple of matters of grave concern to me which are involved in my portfolio areas. First, I will talk about Meatworks Road at Bordertown.

Meatworks Road runs past the Tatiara Meat Company, the meatworks just outside of Bordertown. It employs 450-odd workers and is a brilliant little business. It is the biggest export lamb kill works in Australia. Meatworks Road has been extended through to the Dukes Highway and is used as a bypass for people travelling particularly north-south past Bordertown.

For many years the local council, the operators of the meatworks and me as the local member have been lobbying the current government to have the speed limit outside of the meatworks reduced from, I think it was 100 km/h or 110 km/h down to 80 km/h, because of the number of people who were driving out of the town for a couple of kilometres and then pulling into the meatworks for their employment and the amount of heavy vehicle traffic coming in and out of that works.

With the meatworks killing something in excess of 8,000 lambs a day, you can imagine the number of trucks carting those lambs in and then the trucks taking the finished product out. It is a brilliant business. We were trying to get some action from the government and, eventually, after literally years of lobbying, the government has apparently recently reduced the speed limit to 80 km/h.

I have not been on Meatworks Road for a few weeks but a story was related to me by a young woman, who happened to be a guest of my family, who recently drove from the Riverland to the South-East. She drove down Meatworks Road and was pulled over by a police officer and charged with speeding. This person uses the road regularly but she did not see the 80 km/h sign. She pleaded with the police officer to warn her, as she had been travelling the road for years and it had always been 100 km/h and it was quite inadvertent.

The police officer's response was, 'I'm sorry, ma'am, I would love to give you a warning, but the instructions are that we give no more warnings.' If you are 6 km/h over the speed limit you get a bluey—no more warnings. The reality here is that this is a tax measure. The Treasurer is so desperate for money that he has forced the Police Commissioner to send the message down the line that there are no more warnings, it is bill them every time.

So much pressure has been put on police officers. I was talking to a country police officer earlier this week and he told me that even police prosecutors—I presume members of the government understand what they are, they are the ones who actually work in the courts, prepare the cases and carry them through the courts on behalf of the police when a charge has been contested—get a 'please explain' notice from their superior officer if they do not get at least one booking per month.

I said to the country police officer, 'How does a prosecutor book somebody?' He said that the argument is that they are on the road, travelling back and forward to work, and surely they would see somebody doing something wrong, pull them over and book them. I say to the government: if that is the way it is going to police the community, if that is the way it is going to expect police officers to react and interact with communities, particularly in country areas, the communities in which they live, God help the security and safety of our police officers in the future.

No wonder morale in the police force is as low as it is. No wonder that, when you go to local service areas in country areas—and it is probably the same in the city—as few as half of the number of people who are supposed to be operating in that local service area are actually operating there. That is the reality that is happening in South Australia, and I think it is pretty obvious why. It is the way that the police force has been turned into a tax arm of this government. It is destroying morale within the police force. That is a very serious matter in my electorate, and I am absolutely certain that it is a serious matter right across the state.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Can I remind the member for Torrens, who has plenty to say, that it is May Day today, it is workers' day. I suggest to her that because of her government there are not too many workers in this state who are very happy this May Day. They are probably not out there celebrating in the streets; they are probably still very concerned about why their Labor members have let them down over WorkCover. The member for Torrens might spend a bit of time contemplating that rather than interjecting.

I concur with the points that the member for Finniss made a few minutes ago about country health. I am very concerned about country health. I have been concerned about country health since before coming to this place. I have seen nothing but a reduction in services in my electorate. Again, I can only assume, and I am certain it is the case, that we are getting the same treatment right across regional South Australia—a reduction in services.

In question time earlier this week the Treasurer spoke about the health inflator and admitted that it is up around 9 per cent, yet we are seeing increases in the health budget for country health as low as 3 per cent, which is supposed to cover inflation and everything. We are getting a real reduction in the money spent in country health, a very serious reduction, and it is impacting on health services. In question time today the Minister for Health acknowledged that the health outcome for country people is lower than the health expectations and outcomes for city people.

When he can come in here and say that the health outcome for country people is equal to that enjoyed by our cousins in the city, I think he can then say, 'Well, maybe we can look at having some rationalisation of the services in country health,' but until he can do that I would suggest to the minister that we should be putting more money into country health and building services, rather than taking money out and cutting services.

Another issue was raised with me by one of my local councils last weekend when I was at a function in my electorate at Kingston. The chairman of the district council told me that the council wanted to open a road. It is a declared road and has been for 150 years, but it has never been actually used as a road. The road that a group of farmers were using has been closed and the land joined to some neighbouring land which is owned by a local Aboriginal group. The council and the local neighbours do not have a problem with that, but that was the roadway that was used by a group of local farmers, particularly to drove their stock back and forwards between several properties.

So the council said, 'Well, we need to provide a service access for these farmers, we will open this other road,' which has never actually been fenced and cleared to allow access through, 'but we will have to remove a few trees.' They did the right thing and applied to the native vegetation people under the relevant act and said, 'This is what we want to do. We have got to give access to these people.' The attitude of the native vegetation people was completely different. They said, 'We can't have you taking these trees out, we won't allow that.'

We have a government agency that has closed one road and denied access through one road and will not allow access through another gazetted road, which has never been used, because of a few trees. Not only has the native vegetation branch said to the council, 'We won't allow you to take the trees out, we want you to pay for us to go out and do a survey of all the native vegetation on your roadsides. We're going to do a survey and, by the way, it will cost $83,000.' So that is the answer that the local council got back.

A few minutes ago we had the member for Mawson talking about local councils knocking on the door of state government for some funding. I can tell the member for Mawson that the shoe is firmly on the other foot. This state government is always transferring costs from state to local government. This is a classic example where the native vegetation branch wants the local council to contribute $83,000 to the cost of employing some of its people so, ostensibly, they can go out and do a survey. This is bureaucracy gone mad, it is government gone mad. It happens when you have ministers who are either incompetent, or do not care. Take your pick, I don't care whether you call them incompetent, or you just acknowledge that they don't care, but it is not good enough in a modern state like South Australia.

Time expired.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:40): I would like to address the house on some of the issues affecting my electorate in Unley. Since we are coming to the end of the debate on the Supply Bill, I would like to take the house back to the days of the turn of the century, around about the 2000s, when there was a very thorough consultation in relation to what we can do with Unley Road. Unley Road is a very busy traffic area. It is a multiple use road. It is a road that has evolved over the years. It used to be the local centre, if you like, for corner shops and services, and it has evolved and grown over the years. It is one of the few suburbs in Adelaide where we have a good chunk of strip shopping.

But it also happens to be a major arterial road out to the southern suburbs, particularly those in the hills face zone, and we are seeing a continual increase in traffic on that road over the years. In 2000, an extensive study was done and a number of plans were drawn up for Unley Road, under the former minister for transport, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw. It was a very thorough consultation process that involved all the stakeholders. It involved residents, business owners, building owners, the council, and a number of options were put forward.

Surprisingly—and I say 'surprisingly' because it is not very often this happens—the cheapest option was to deal with the traffic flow, to ensure that we kept the vibrancy of our strip shopping and to ensure that people could still shop on Unley Road. They need to be able to park, of course. If the parking were taken away on Unley Road the shops would die, and it would cause a major problem for Unley residents as well, because one of the attractions of living in Unley, of course, is the strip shopping on King William Road, Unley Road, Fullarton Road, George Street and Duthy Street. There is plenty of character in that strip shopping, and we only have a very small shopping centre there. But we do have a lot of traffic on Unley Road.

This plan enabled there to be two lanes in in the morning and one lane out and the reverse in the afternoon. What we did get from that is we also had dedicated right turning lanes, which is very important for Unley Road. The way it is currently you only need to have some cars parked on the side and someone turning right but not quite pulled to the right and you simply cannot go anywhere. So this plan was still going to enable car parking during the hours of 9 and 4 on either side of the road, enabling the vibrant shopping area to continue and residents to continue to have access to the shopping. In peak hours it would move traffic quickly through the suburb to get people into work. Of course, people using buses, too, would not be held up and would not be delayed.

After all that work was done, all we needed was some funding. However, unfortunately, we had a change of government and the funding was declined. A request was made for the funding through the department to the minister and it was declined. So we are still waiting in Unley for the upgrade of Unley Road, and the Unley Road situation is even worse since that initial plan was set up. But I did mention buses earlier and I would just like to speak about the problem that we are having with them in Unley.

Unley is, of course, close to the city, and for those residents who live towards the centre of my electorate in and around Parkside, Malvern and Unley, trying to catch a bus from bus stop 4, 3 and 2 in Unley is becoming a very difficult task these days. In early April, I was talking to a number of commuters at bus stop 2 in Duthy Street, just near the corner of Young Street, and I was surprised to see that although there were a number of people there who arrived at the bus stop at 10 to eight, a bus did not turn up until 10 past eight, and then it did not stop because on the sign it said, 'Sorry. Full. No pickup.'

They had to wait for the next bus, and the next bus did not arrive until 20 to nine. So they spent 50 minutes at the bus stop, and you can understand why, while I was standing at the bus stop talking to constituents, a number of people walked past. They had given up on the bus and they were walking past thinking, 'Well, I might as well walk into town. I am going to get there quicker anyway.' Fortunately it was a nice day, but it still causes lot of concern.

Of course, we are seeing increased patronage in the buses because fuel prices are escalating enormously. Despite the promises Mr Rudd made when he was in opposition, we are still seeing continual increases in fuel prices. What is extraordinary about that also is that on 29  February the transport ministers all got together and decided to reintroduce indexing on the road user charge. Since 2001—and I know that the member for Hammond would be interested in this—we have had no automatic indexing on fuel excise, and at the very first opportunity we see a united effort by governments all of one party across the country in reintroducing fuel excising on heavy vehicles.

From 1 January 2009 we are seeing an increase from 19¢ to 21¢ a litre and then every year, automatically—bang! This will not involve the CPI increase; the increase on infrastructure will be the percentage increase applied for automatic indexing, and we know it is always higher than CPI. So here we see a federal government that has set up an inquiry into grocery prices, but then it is putting up the excise on the very trucks and vehicles that deliver that food from the farm gate to the supermarket. It is going to have an inflationary effect, and every single person who buys groceries will be paying more because of the new unity of the combined Labor governments. That is the price that we will pay.

Another very great concern in my electorate, of course, is urban consolidation and I express my concern that over the last 15 months, 65 pre-1940 homes have been demolished within the city of Unley and we are seeing a threat to the character of the area and, believe me, it is a very big issue there. People are very concerned, because they are investing enormous amounts of money. The average purchase price of a house in Unley now is getting up to nearly $800,000. People are making significant investments and the attraction that they have to Unley is the character, the older homes and the larger blocks. Of course, the Unley council has put together an amended development plan that will allow it to have some control over demolition. It will not stop development at all because it will actually enable additional development to happen in the corridors to deal with the demand for high density housing.

It will also give council the ability to designate certain areas in Unley to be heritage and character zones that will have specific requirements, and it will require demolition approval where necessary. You will not just be able to put an application in and demolish without waiting for approval from the council. The problem is that we do not have that in Unley, because Paul Holloway, in the other place, will not sign off on the heritage provisions on stage 1 of the changes to the development act for the City of Unley.

That is in spite of the fact that in the lead-up to the last mayoral election when his Labor mayor, the unsuccessful Labor candidate for the seat of Unley, was running for re-election for mayor, minister Holloway came out and said, 'We will sign a memorandum of understanding about preserving the heritage of Unley', with a big fanfare and a big media release, and here we are 18 months later and the minister is caving in.

The CEO and the mayor have visited the minister, trying to get him to sign this piece of paper so that they can have endorsement of this policy and have the teeth to start preserving the heritage zone, but he will not sign it. He is backing down and saying one thing in an election climate and something else when he is asked to deliver. That is a very serious concern for my constituents in Unley.

Time expired.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. R.J. McEwen]

The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Frome) (16:51): Today I would like to speak about an issue in my electorate where the Port Pirie community are probably the victims of one of the biggest acts of bureaucratic disobedience that I have ever seen. Hammill House has always been the aged care facility at the Port Pirie Hospital, and it is very highly regarded in Port Pirie. It has 32 beds and it was realised back in about 2000 that an upgrade was necessary.

At the time, there were people in the department who did not want to upgrade Hammill House. They wanted to outsource the beds. They spoke to Helping Hand and, rather than proceeding with an upgrade of the hospital, they actually came to government and said that they would rather get rid of the aged care beds, hand the licences over to Helping Hand and get out of the game. At the time Dean Brown was health minister. We met with the community on several occasions. The community of Port Pirie, the council, the mayor—everyone—made it absolutely clear that they wanted to keep Hammill House.

We saw some backsliding within the department: obviously it did not agree. I think some of them thought that it was not long until an election, that they would try to stagger it and then they might be able to talk a new government into doing what they wanted, rather than what the government wanted. Having experienced that, Dean and I called in the department. We had it out with them, and they were instructed to go ahead with the upgrade of Hammill House, as had been announced in the budget. With that, the election came and went and, of course, the Labor Party took over.

After the election, the Labor government reannounced that the work would be done. Its first budget stated that the commencement date was December 2002, completion due December 2003 (which is 4½ years ago now), upgrade of 32 aged-care beds currently provided in Hammill House. In 2003-04, again the department had stalled. It had gone into hiding from the minister on this one. In the 2003-04 budget, completion was due June 2004, the upgrade of the aged-care beds. Again nothing happened. Completion was due June 2004, but when May 2005 came around, still nothing had happened. The budget for 2005-06: completion due June 2006, upgrade of the aged-care beds.

By this time, as members can imagine, the people of Port Pirie were getting very anxious. They had been promised the upgrade of the 32 beds. Ministers had constantly reannounced the fact that it was to happen, but a group of people within the department did not agree that that was the best way to go, so they snubbed their nose at the various ministers and did absolutely nothing. Countless inquiries have been made and a very weak excuse is always given by the department as to why nothing has happened.

After a question in this house in early 2006, the minister agreed to meet with me, and I think the general manager of Country Health at the time. It was made clear at that meeting that it was going to go ahead. There was some apologising for the fact that it had gone off the radar. Very soon afterwards minister Hill put out a press release stating:

The State Government has approved a $2.27 million refurbishment of the Hammill House aged care facility in Port Pirie. Minister Hill said a decision four years ago to involve a private, not-for-profit aged care provider in the running of Hammill House was opposed by the Port Pirie Regional Health Service and the community, and today's announcement will be welcome news.

'The local community wanted its health service to continue overseeing the aged care provision, and the State Government and Department of Health and Country Health SA have worked hard to accommodate those wishes,' he said.

These refurbishments will bring those areas of the aged care unit to current national nursing home standards and ensure the provision of quality aged care services for the community.

In the 2006-07 budget (which members will remember was delayed somewhat), it was noted that money was put aside for completion of Hammill House, due February 2007, upgrade of aged-care beds.

This has appeared in six budgets. The minister needs to tell the bureaucrats to do it. It is not fair on the people of Port Pirie. There is now great fear in the community because new standards came in this year for aged-care beds. The state government's facility at Port Pirie at Hammill House for aged care does not meet the accreditation standards, which leaves us in a very difficult position. The community has constantly made its point of view clear. I have had so many assurances from the government that something is happening. After each one, you will hear that an architect has visited or whatever, then the issue goes away for another three or four months. You stir it up again: it just goes away again.

Quite frankly, the department is not doing what it is told to do: it is absolute disobedience. A couple of people in the department did not agree with the initial decision and, seven years later, they are still thumbing their nose at ministerial instruction after ministerial instruction, which is nowhere near good enough. After a question being asked in October last year, what worried me was that the minister said, 'I think we followed up that commitment to the letter. I will get some further advice for the member because I do not have all the details in my memory at this stage.' I am just worried that the department is now saying that, as it has spent some other money at the hospital, it has filled the commitment.

Both the former government and this government committed to 32 upgraded aged-care beds at Hammill House at the Port Pirie hospital, and that has not happened. I wrote to the minister in March last year. I received a reply in March last year saying that the matter was being addressed and I would receive a reply very soon. Fourteen months later, still no reply. We are seeing people in the department absolutely thumbing their nose at the authority. It is time the minister got on top of it and ensured it happens. This is defiance of the minister of the greatest order.

As I said, it is seven years since it was first mooted and it is 4½ years since it was supposed to be completed. The families of the residents are becoming very annoyed at what they view as an absolute mess. On top of that, today I was interested to hear the minister's refusal to deny the downgrading of 25 rural health units to aged-care units. I think that would be an absolute disaster. Again that decision is not driven by any political agenda: it is driven by bureaucratic agenda, which is what has happened with health for the past couple of years. We have bureaucrats in the Health Commission who do not want to listen to ministerial instructions. They have had a long history of it and it is about time the government got on top of them and made them do what they are told.

When the Labor cabinet has allocated money to Hammill House at Port Pirie four times and the department has thumbed its nose and done absolutely zero about it, you have to ask where is the discipline to make that department do what it is supposed to do. This is a disgraceful situation. Some of the people who initially raised this matter with me in 2001, 2002, 2003 are no longer with us. It is a totally unacceptable situation, and I hope the minister finally gets firmer and ensures the bureaucrats do what they are being told.

The Hon. L. STEVENS (Little Para) (17:00): I want to spend my time this afternoon talking about a very important report undertaken for the City of Playford by Professor Dick Blandy from the University of South Australia's Centre for Innovation. The report is entitled, 'Assisting economic activity in the City of Playford: a quantitative assessment of the Playford economy'. While my electorate comprises parts of the City of Playford, it also contains a similar amount of the City of Salisbury, and much of what is said in the report applies to the City of Salisbury, as well as to part of that long sweep of the northern suburbs.

I congratulate the City of Playford for commissioning the report from Dick Blandy. The report is part of its strategic planning for the area over the next 10 to 15 years. The executive summary states:

This report estimates Playford's gross regional product (GRP) at just under $2.1 billion. This represents about 3.4 per cent of South Australia's economy. Over the 1991-2006 period Playford's economy grew at an estimated average rate of 2.7 per cent per annum, compared to a figure of 2.5 for South Australia as a whole. Over the last five years, however, Playford grew faster than the state economy (4.9 per cent per annum compared to 2.5 per cent per annum).

That statistic for the most recent years is what is so important in terms of the future. Dick Blandy mentions that a better than state employment performance was more related to lower paid jobs than before because the rest of South Australia caught up with Playford in productivity terms. The report continues to make important points about workforce. He talks about Playford's economy being heavily dominated by manufacturing activity to the extent that measured by an unpronounceable index 'Playford can be assessed as having a major lack of economic diversification'. The report states:

...Playford's economy has been diversifying rapidly over the past 15 years as manufacturing's dominance has retreated and other sectors have expanded fast. Sectors that have a large share of the Playford economy or that have a medium share and are growing at least as fast as the average for Playford (and that are not essentially driven by local demand) are:

Manufacturing (40 per cent share, falling rapidly),

Property and business services (6 per cent share, increasing rapidly),

Agriculture, forestry and fishing (5 per cent share, increasing rapidly), and

Government administration and defence (5 per cent share, increasing rapidly).

Dick Blandy makes the point that these sectors are Playford's economic drivers. They are very significant in that they are main sources of economic growth because their markets are not confined to the local economy. He also mentions that other industry sectors are non-driver sectors but that they are still economically important. He makes the point that these sectors provide much economic activity and employment and are very important in consequence, but they cannot expand faster than the Playford economy itself because they are essentially dependent on the local economy. He points to the Lyell McEwin Hospital, which is a very large organisation and a big employer. The report states:

...if the Lyell McEwin Health Service were to become the focus of a regional health precinct serving a community stretching beyond Playford, health and community services...would become a significant economic driver for Playford.

Interestingly, of course, that is exactly the plan for that hospital and health service. It continues:

Similarly, the mooted development of an intermodal freight exchange on the border with Salisbury could accelerate the growth and size of the transport and storage sector, sufficiently for it to become an economic driver.

The report goes on to talk about workforce skills in relation to locals and outsiders, as follows:

Playford's economy has been up-skilling fast...The pattern of economic development in Playford has been such that the growth of jobs for less qualified people, while positive, has not nearly kept pace with the growth of jobs for more qualified people. There is a broadly based prospect that high-level skill shortages could emerge in Playford.

Of course, Playford will not be the only place in Australia that is affected by that. It continues:

People without a post-school qualification living in Playford have faced a difficult task in gaining employment over the past 15 years and that task will become even more difficult in the future.

In relation to the future, the report states:

Irrespective of whether Playford faces fast or slow growth in the future, the possession of post-school qualifications will be a major influence on a person's chances of getting a job in Playford (or anywhere else, for that matter).

Dick Blandy then makes some recommendations in terms of the strategy that he recommends for the future. The report states:

Easily, the most important strategy for Playford is to take all possible measures in conjunction with other levels of government to ensure that as many of its citizens as possible acquire post-school qualifications...One possible approach is that being considered in the City of Salisbury to expand the educational role of local libraries into community learning centres linked to schools, universities and the vocational education and training system through expanded internet services and support activities of various kinds.

I guess this very significant recommendation gets back to education and to making sure that every citizen has the best possible chance. I believe it behoves us to absolutely focus on education, and it is really pleasing that some of the money for the new super schools is becoming available and is targeting this particular community. However, there is much to be done right across the board in terms of every citizen.

The other area of importance relates to the very beginning, that is, the early childhood development strategies that Thinker in Residence Fraser Mustard has outlined, such as the importance of ensuring that every child has every chance of developing their potential by understanding that brain development occurs while a child is in utero. However, the most significant development occurs in the very early years of a child's existence.

So, the state government's strategy of introducing early childhood development centres (there is one set up now at Elizabeth Grove; another one is on the way at Parafield Gardens; and there is one at Wynn Vale and one in Gawler) and the support and nurturing of young children and their parents are very, very significant in making sure that every one of those kids has the best possible chance through to their education and, finally, into the workforce.

I want to mention that there was local consultation by members of parliament Tony Zappia and Mike Butler prior to the 2020 summit, and the issue of early childhood development was a high priority for the people at that consultation, and it was taken up by the Prime Minister at the summit.

I congratulate the council on this report. I look forward to working with the council and encouraging the partnerships, which I hope one day might end in the amalgamation of Playford and Salisbury councils. I believe that, if those two entities combined, their power in the north would be very significant indeed.

Time expired.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (17:10): I have 10 minutes today, and I want to outline some of my views on water issues. As I go around doorknocking, I find that one of the issues that repeatedly comes up is water, water supply and the nuisance of water restrictions.

I will just briefly put this into context by referring to what is happening at a national level. We have recently had the announcement from the federal Labor government that $10 million is going to be spent on water initiatives, and a lot of that will benefit South Australia. There has been a fair bit of political debate about who really came up with the ideas. It is true that this funding is built on the National Water Initiative instituted under the Howard government, but this current Labor government is the one that is actually coming out with more concrete proposals as to how the money will be spent.

I am very pleased to see that, of the money that has been the subject of the announcement, $3 billion is set aside for water buy-backs. For years I have believed that this has been part of the solution; that the market will help us to decide who should and who should not stay in the business of irrigation, agriculture and other farming. When irrigators find that they cannot afford water at the sort of price that should be paid if we had a truly rational water pricing system, they will go off and do something else. If they can sell their water allocation, they can actually leave the farming market with some dignity.

The trade-off in the deal is that nearly $6 billion will be spent on upgrading irrigation infrastructure. There are other smaller amounts—for example, $1.5 billion for urban water initiatives, and that is great. If there is going to be more money for rainwater tank subsidies, that certainly fits into the scheme I have been pushing for. If it is going to assist us in harvesting the water that comes out of the sky and stormwater generally, that will be a good thing.

However, I do have criticisms of the federal scheme, particularly as it effectively has a 12-year implementation plan. We are reassured by minister Wong that a lot of the money will be spent early in the next decade, but we need the money right now. Mike Young, I recall, described the federal government measures 'as a plan to have a plan', and I think that is a good description. Of course, we in South Australia can have only a very limited influence on how things are carved up at a national level. We just have to remain hopeful and forget any resentment that Victoria has held out for a particularly good deal for the northern Victoria farmers.

I quote from an article by Bill Nicholas, which was provided to me by my friends at the Murray-Darling Association. The article states:

Did you know that carrying buckets of water to keep your garden alive won't make a skerrick of difference to the death throes of Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert or the Coorong? That's because Adelaide takes less than 0.7 per cent of water out of the Murray Darling Basin.

The nine million households from Adelaide to Brisbane use negligible water compared with rural users. This was outlined to a water seminar by Ross Young, executive director of the Water Services Association of Australia and a former general manager of Melbourne Water.

Giving yourself a hernia lugging water to the roses is a purely symbolic gesture foisted upon you by a government that is running a public relations campaign in its purest form—making you feel like you're part of the solution. The lower Murray is in crisis with the lakes and the Coorong is drying.

I endorse those remarks by Bill Nicholas.

I want to now turn to what I think should be happening in South Australia. Obviously, there are two approaches that can be taken: one is to increase the supply of water for our users in South Australia; and the second is to decrease the demand.

In terms of supply, I deal first with the topical issue of the desalination plant. In my view, although it could be of tremendous benefit to Adelaide water consumers, a number of hard questions need to be asked. I have written an extensive letter to the Minister for Water Security with questions relating to energy consumption, the means of delivery of water and the risks to our precious gulf waters that might arise as a result of building the desalination plant, but more on that later.

In terms of increasing availability of water, I note that some fantastic work has been done in Adelaide to come up with the Waterproofing Adelaide program, but far too little of that program has actually been implemented. The statistics on the rain that falls on Adelaide, and the amount that runs out to sea, are shocking when one considers that we are restricted to one day a week for the watering of our gardens.

This leads me to the question of the demand for water and the way that the government has gone about restricting the watering of gardens. It needs to be borne in mind that household consumption is about 9 per cent of the state's water consumption, and garden use is considered to be about 40 per cent of that. So, we are talking about, at most, 3 per cent of South Australia's use of Murray River water. Given that there is some watering still going on, perhaps the decrease could only ever be 1 or 2 per cent of all of the water that we are taking out of the River Murray.

If one considers the entire set of extractions of water from the River Murray, we can come up with figures like 0.001 per cent that is actually going into our gardens, and one wonders how much difference those restrictions are really going to make. On top of that, discussions with people in my community suggest that probably more than half the people are no longer adhering to water restrictions, and those who are adhering to the restrictions are building up resentment of the government for the continuing restrictions and also of their neighbours who do not follow the rules.

However, when more than half the population is disregarding the rules, you have to question whether that lack of respect actually implies that something is wrong with the law in the first place. In fact, I think the current restrictions are unnecessary. If we had a proper water-pricing system in South Australia, we would not need the water police going up and down the streets checking whether or not hoses are on.

If we scrapped the annual supply charge, we could have people paying for the water they use. In the recent survey I carried out throughout my electorate, I found there was tremendous support for this notion. It is also not something entirely original. Out of the 25 or so water utilities throughout Australia, four already have a system whereby they have no supply charge but an increasing level of charges per kilolitre as more is consumed.

If we had this sort of system, we would not need police officers or water police driving up and down the streets; people will police themselves. Most of the water used by domestic consumers is used within the house. So, people will decide for themselves to save water in the toilet, in the kitchen and in the laundry if we were to have that sort of water-pricing scheme.

Finally, I will make some perhaps controversial remarks about the use of recycled water. It is a classic case here of the government taking a populist approach rather than an educational approach. We know scientifically that recycled water is actually safer to drink than the water we currently get out of our taps, yet there is a so-called 'yuck' factor. People do not like the idea of drinking effluent that has been treated, even if it is cleaner and more free from bacteria and minerals than our current tap water. One day we will have to face this issue, and I wish that the state government would get on with educating people about the benefits of recycled water rather than just giving in to the 'yuck' factor.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:20): I wish to make some comments as shadow minister for social inclusion. In particular, I want to just float the notion that the state government is not looking laterally enough at the issue of prisoner rehabilitation in relation to the current economic conditions and future economic opportunities.

I note with interest that the government has Monsignor Cappo from the Social Inclusion Board looking at how the mining boom can help those less fortunate within the community. Why Monsignor Cappo, and not a minister, needs to look at that is an interesting question. I put on the record—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Attorney-General, in his typical smart fashion, suggests that Monsignor Cappo is a minister. Of course, he is not an elected minister and he is not accountable to this parliament in any way, shape or form. However, I wish to say that, as a former minister for corrections, I have an interest in prisoner rehabilitation. I put to the Attorney—when he finds time and is not reading the TAB form—that he might want to put to cabinet—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, of course they do. The Attorney might want to put to his cabinet colleagues that there is an opportunity for the government to get together with the mining industry and retrain some of the prisoners to become truck drivers for that industry.

Let me expand on this. The Premier and BHP are on record, I understand, suggesting that the Roxby Downs mine (just one mine) will require the largest truck order in the world's history. That is what we have been told. Common sense dictates that if it is the largest truck order in the world's history you will probably need a lot of drivers. A lot of the prisoners tend to be low-skilled and they tend to have very poor literacy and numeracy rates. It seems that a lot of them go back into prison because they reoffend. When they leave prison they are still low-skilled, still have poor literacy and numeracy rates, and there are poor link programs between the prisons and the community sector.

It does seem that a lot of them reoffend because they end up in a poor financial position on leaving prison because of a lack of work opportunities for those who have been in prison. I refer to the new prison to be built in Murray Bridge. There is a lot of space and an opportunity to build a facility (possibly funded by the mining sector or certainly from the royalties you will get from the mining industry) to teach the prisoners how to drive these trucks. That will give them a high value job, it will give them a sense of meaning, it will reconnect them to the community and, I think, there will be a far greater chance of less reoffending from those who are trained.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Quite possibly it might also help them to make their next ram raid better.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I thought some idiot would suggest what the Attorney just suggested, that it would help them with their ram raid skills. That was the nature of the Attorney-General's interjection. The problem with the Attorney-General is that he has a smart answer for everything except prisoner rehabilitation. If he spent as much time trying to correct and improve prisoners' skill sets as he does in thinking up smart arse interjections we may have a lower crime rate in South Australia.

I took the opportunity to raise this informally with BHP during my short time as leader. I think it is something that the government should pick up, because this opportunity will come but once. When it finally signs off, BHP will place the world's largest truck order. If is the largest number of trucks being ordered, common sense says that you need the largest number of drivers. Most of the prison population is male. Most of them already drive. Most of them have low literacy and numeracy rates. One of the easiest jobs to train them in is driving.

We will need a significant number of drivers for the mining industry. The mining industry tends to be in the outback areas of the state. There are fewer opportunities for them to reconnect to the old criminal elements that tend to harbour in the metropolitan areas. I think it is a fair policy, for Monsignor Cappo and the Social Inclusion Board to have a look at getting the mining industry together and saying, 'How many drivers do you need; what skill sets do you need; and can we assist in delivering those skill sets?' Just as the airline industry builds a model, if you like, of the inside of a plane and places trained pilots in a simulator, I see no reason why one of those cannot be built to get around the Attorney-General's concern about ram raids. Build a simulator out at Murray Bridge or anywhere else.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Simulator.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That as well. Train the prisoners so that we have less chance of them reoffending. Whilst I acknowledge that the government has taken a step to have Monsignor Cappo do some thinking—because none of the ministers can—I float the idea for the parliament and the government to consider, because I think it is a unique opportunity that is presented to the state. It is a way of sending a message to the prison population that the parliament is concerned about their skill set, which has in part delivered them to the situations in which they find themselves.

We owe it to the community generally to try to reduce the crime rate by improving the skill set of the prison population, so that when they come out they have a better chance of not reoffending because they find themselves in better economic circumstances. The mining industry is an opportunity. If you believe the Premier, 30 mines are about to be approved over the next period. With 30 mines there will be a good opportunity for this type of skill set to be used, and it is an opportunity that I think the state should take to train prisoners in truck driving and other skills for the mining industry. I encourage the Attorney to take this idea to his cabinet and have some work done on it.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:28): I am pleased to make a contribution to the 10 minute grievance debate as a consequence of the Supply Bill process. I would like to continue some remarks I was making yesterday when I spoke to the Supply Bill, particularly in relation to infrastructure and the incredible need for infrastructure to be built in the electorate of Kavel, which I represent in this place.

As I stated yesterday, land is being continually opened up for residential development. A recent parcel of land has been opened up on the southern boundary of the township of Mount Barker that will see, at the latest count, at least 835 new homes built. If you calculate how many people on average live in a home, that would be close to (if not more than) 2,000 new residents coming into the township of Mount Barker.

There is continued residential development in Littlehampton, which is only two or three kilometres from Mount Barker, across the other side of the freeway. And then only a hop, skip and a jump a few kilometres further along the road is the township of Nairne, which is continuing to develop in a residential way.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I don't think so, Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No, I doubt it very much.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, you are invincible?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am not saying I am invincible at all. I am just saying that I think people view me as a good local member and as such I garner the majority of support throughout the length and breadth of my electorate. The Attorney, being a scholar of polling booth results, will know that I won every booth in my electorate at the 2006 election. We all know that the Liberal Party did not fare very well as a whole in this state, but I was able to win every booth in the 2006 election, compared to the 2002 result where I did not win the majority of support in every booth. I will have had another four years of incumbency when the 2010 election comes around and I am reasonably confident that I will hold my seat.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I will not respond to any more interjections from the Attorney. It is an unnecessary diversion. I will continue with my remarks concerning the real need for infrastructure in supporting that significant residential development. The main infrastructure build requirement is that of a second freeway interchange. Those people who are aware of the lie of the land, so to speak, in that district will know where the second freeway interchange is required.

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: A very good direction from the Government Whip to the Attorney. Full support for that direction. What has occurred through the District Council of Mount Barker with these 800 plus new homes is that the council has been forced into imposing what it calls a developer contribution on each one of these particular residential blocks that are coming on to the market. That is a result of the lack of commitment from the state government in providing the necessary infrastructure that it is responsible for.

Part of the cost in building the new freeway interchange is the responsibility of the state government but, because the government has not been prepared to commit to this significant piece of infrastructure, the council has had to devise an alternative form of funding through developer contributions. What the result of that will be is that the cost of these contributions will be passed on to the end consumer, which are those people who are going to purchase those home sites, those vacant blocks of land on which they propose to build their home. So, it goes to the very core of the significant issue of housing affordability.

We have heard the Minister for Families and Communities speak in the house just this week about housing affordability and how these particular projects are taking place in the outer northern suburbs of the Adelaide metropolitan area. The lack of commitment by the state government in providing the infrastructure, which is their responsibility, will certainly have an adverse affect on housing affordability in these particular areas of land which have been opened up in the Mount Barker township for residential development.

The Minister for Families and Communities says one thing—that they are providing incentives and the like to assist with housing affordability—but there is no coordination, there is no consistent approach across government in addressing housing affordability in other districts. On average, I am advised, the developer contributions will increase the cost of these blocks by $15,000. That means the potential purchaser has to borrow an additional $15,000 from their financial institution (usually a bank) to be able to support the purchase of the land and then they will look to borrow an additional amount of money to build a home on it.

We have talked about long-term finance arrangements in relation to the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital and how flawed the proposed financing arrangement is for that. What the government is forcing on to new land and home package buyers is having to pay an additional $15,000 over a 30-year term. That is the maximum home loan term usually written in home financing arrangements these days. If one adds $15,000 to a 30-year term loan and amortises it over 30 years it will probably be close to $70,000 or $80,000 (I would have to calculate it out and look at the table books that I have kept from my banking days). They are additional funds that prospective home buyers have to find.

The government must have a consistent approach to housing affordability. It cannot say that it is embarking on projects in the outer northern suburbs and then not support local communities, such as Mount Barker, by providing a level of affordable housing. That is one example but there are other examples of the critical need for infrastructure.

I have spoken about one other issue in the house on numerous occasions (and I will continue to raise it in this place until something is done about it), and that is the Nairne Primary School crossing. I have been advised that the Minister for Road Safety has finally engaged with the District Council of Mount Barker in an endeavour to find a solution to this problem. However, I am advised that the minister's expectations of the council are extremely onerous, to the point where, if one looks at the costs related to resolving this issue, what the council has to bear and what the government has to bear are incomparable.

Time expired.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:38): I propose to continue my remarks from yesterday in which I outlined my concerns at the lack of consideration by the government towards the provision of housing for the some 30 per cent of the community who will never have access to private rental or to the acquisition of their own home.

Housing does matter. What we live in does matter because it is not only a place of shelter, but it is a place of security and comfort, a feeling of being part of a community, and it is very important. One of the aspects that I considered of concern was the massive sell-off of Housing Trust accommodation that is proposed over the forthcoming 10 years—800 a year—and the plight of the some 30,000 people who are on the waiting list for supported or subsidised housing.

There are initiatives that have had the benefit of assisting private rental owners through subsidies available from commonwealth funding. For as long as that is available that is an important initiative. We would be suggesting to the government, though, that a way of securing the opportunity for accommodation for the other 70 per cent of the population is to ensure that there is adequate land release, that homes are affordable without the heavy burden of stamp duty rates, and that they are comparable to other states in the country. Otherwise we are going to have a continued exodus of our young people seeking to acquire property interstate. It is hardly surprising that we have a net 3,500 loss of population in this state every year comprising those who go interstate, and that Queensland has a plus of 18,000 a year. When you compare the stamp duty obligations, there is about a $10,000 difference in stamp duty if one were to buy a $300,000 home in each of those states. Ours, of course, is at the negative end.

One matter that has been of concern over the last 18 months is the government's attempt to recover funds from those who simply cannot afford it. I go back to those who are living in Housing Trust accommodation. One measure was to impose new obligations in the September 2006 budget in respect of aged residents and single parents. The formula applied to the rental they paid, it was changed and their rents went up. As if that was not miserable enough, over the last 18 months the government has decided that it is going to charge tenants for water rates and water consumption. That, in itself, would not bring a howl of opposition from the Liberal Party, except that the government insists upon charging them even though it will not provide them with an independent meter to their property.

So, if they live in a dwelling of a cluster of, say, 20 and there is one meter for the property, the government has announced that it will simply divide the cost of the water consumption between the dwelling owners. It indicated initially that it would do that with a formula that would provide assistance for those who were in financial need. The government has made a couple of attempts to indicate that it has listened to the concerns expressed about this matter, and I will list the fundamental concerns. Why should someone be paying for water consumption where they have not been using it? Why should a single occupant in one property be paying for the same water as someone living in another property with half a dozen occupants? Why should a person who is water conscious be paying for the excesses and waste of a neighbour?

These are fundamental questions. It is quite unjust and inequitable for those people to be paying for anything other than what they are consuming. Every other householder or property owner has a meter and is obliged to pay rates either for consumption and any excess, but Housing Trust tenants—the people who are most often unable to afford this—have been expected to accept this inequitable formula. I have received dozens of letters on this matter, and here is one from today:

Dear Ms Chapman, I am a 72-year old pensioner, single tenant in a group of 24 units. Some of these units have two or more tenants as well as illegals who come and go. I have lived here for 15 years in a block of six. Only two of us in my block are single.

Then she goes on to say that she has received two letters about the recent announcement of how this water rate is going to apply. She says she has had two letters from Ms Fulcher, who is the Director of Housing SA, and she states:

The first letter she stated: not always a single person uses less water than two or three; household size was not a reliable indicator of water consumption. That statement is absurd.

Then she goes on to say:

A few days ago I received a letter from Ms Fulcher, informing tenants about water meter changes. She stated: meters will be installed specifically where there are different size properties, because of greater variation in tenant water use. A blatant contradiction.

That is the tenor of what I am getting, notwithstanding the other letters that go on to say how unfair and inequitable it is. We have tenants who have announced publicly that they will not pay the rent because the government intends to take it out of their rental accounts. We have absolute chaos in this area and yet the government refuses to deal with it. Organisations which are also concerned about this include the Housing Trust Tenants Association. They have recently written making a plea to the Hon. Jenny Macklin, who is, of course, the new federal housing minister, and I will read from the correspondence that went out recently on 11 March, as follows:

We are the Housing Trust Tenants Association, the original advocacy group for tenants. We were formed in the early 1980's to be a voice for the Housing Trust Tenants and we were unanimously endorsed twice by the UTLC but were defunded in 1997 because of our close ties with the ALP, which was the then party in opposition. We are the only Tenants Association that achieved establishing our own community legal service.

So, it is quite open about its ties. The correspondence goes on to say that the association is very concerned about the plight of refugees, and their not having access to housing and the community confrontation that is resulting from it. The association states:

We did bring our concerns to the state government years ago that if something wasn't done we would have racial problems and we are now living in the very environment we were trying to avoid. We cannot blame the refugees—

and it goes on to say that the state government is not providing them with any assistance. On public housing in South Australia, they write of the big fire sale, the sell-off of houses and the obligation to pay the debt each state has to pay the commonwealth. The association also pleads to the federal minister:

We also ask for a moratorium on selling public housing to private landlords or investors on the open market. The only option for the purchase of public housing should be to the owner/occupier. We believe in more public housing and not less.

These are the very things that, during previous elections, this organisation complained of about Liberal governments. The wheel is now turning. I will give an example of some of the material issued during the 1993 election by the Housing Trust Tenants Association. One notice states:

Warning: Protect Our Homes

The Liberals spending cuts to Public Housing mean nearly 1,000 Housing Trust Tenants homes would be sold each year.

This was written 15 years ago. It continues:

Some of us would be forced into renting in the private market which means not only would your rent skyrocket but you may have to move each year as the house lease expires or become homeless as in the USA.

We may be feeling the pinch under Labor but we'll really feel the squeeze under the Liberals...Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

The notice concludes with a Hewson quote. This is all coming true, as it is exactly what the Labor Party is doing. In 1997, the association issued this notice:

Warning: Danger Ahead.

When we warned you that the Liberals would sell 1,000 houses a year they said it scare-mongering.

When we said they would introduce market rents for Housing Trust tenants they said it was scare-mongering.

However, it has all happened.

Now we fear they plan to privatise the Housing Trust.

We will be voting for Patrick Conlon, Labor candidate for Elder, because he supports public housing! Don't take a chance!

Here we are, ladies and gentlemen, just over 10 years later, and what have we got? We have a privatised Housing Trust; 8,000 houses going on the market; people are being charged for water consumption without having equity in even their own meter; and we have a situation where 30,000 people are alienated from any possible access to affordable housing and shelter. How the wheel turns!

Time expired.

Motion carried.

Bill taken through its remaining stages.