APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

(Continued from page 3744.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:58): I will conclude my comments by talking briefly about superannuation and a few more things. Superannuation unfunded liability has grown enormously in the last financial year, from $5.075 billion to an estimated result in 2007-08 of $6.91 billion. I know we have had a downturn in the market—the subprime collapse has caused a downturn in all economic indicators in the last six months—but this substantial increase of nearly $2 billion must be a big concern to the government and no doubt a big headache for the Treasurer as to where he is going to find the money from.

During estimates we asked some questions about when it was intended for the maximum unfunded liability for the Public Service to be identified. In previous years' estimates it was identified that it was going to be 2010, and then in response to a subsequent year's question it was pushed out to 2012, but now we find that it has gone out even further to 2014 before the maximum level of unfunded liability is reached. We know that that liability is intended to be fully funded by 2034, but this is an enormous challenge. It is interesting that, when the government came to office in the 2001-02 financial year, the liability then was a fraction under $4 billion. The Treasurer might give the impression that he is a very strong financial manager, but one of the largest liabilities in the state—unfunded superannuation—has grown enormously: there has been a 75 per cent increase over the last seven years. So, it is a big challenge for him.

I had the responsibility during estimates of deputising for other shadow ministers, and I spent a very interesting two hours with the Minister for Urban Development and Planning. He emphasised the review of the planning system that has been undertaken by the government over the last nine months, to ensure greater certainty of applications being approved in a much quicker time frame when they are lodged. I recognise that it is a very important area, but I wanted to emphasise to him that you can create all the plans in the world but you still need the people on the ground who can consider the applications within a reasonable time frame.

Having worked in local government, I know how hard it is to attract planners, building surveyors and assistant building surveyors, and the people who can consider applications and get them approved or know what to do with them are just not out there. Unless we get that sort of skills set into the state I cannot see that it will happen as quickly as the government would like. Let us hope we get that, because it is one skills set that we need to import.

I asked a very important set of questions of minister Caica, who I am directly shadowed against, with respect to employment, training and further education. A good day was spent with him. We certainly both recognise the fact that skills development for South Australia is of critical importance. We both understand that, in the next 15 or 20 years, South Australia's work force will need to replenish itself to the tune of 340,000 people or so.

The baby boomer generation is now in retirement mode. Those who were born in 1964 are the last of the baby boomers. Most of them will probably be retired within a 15 or 20-year period. As they are retiring, the large number of people born between 1946 and 1964 are creating enormous workplace difficulties in getting their skills set replaced as quickly as possible. Unless that happens, we will not have the economic benefit that the state hopes to achieve over the next 20 years. So, it is a big challenge not only for minister Caica and the government but also for future governments, of which I hope to be a part. Let us hope that it happens. Importantly, I think we need to recognise that immigration will be a big component of our solution.

It is true that South Australia's workforce participation rate is a little less than the national average—at about 63 per cent, I think, compared to 65 or 66 per cent. We need to maximise the number of people who can work and get them into the workplace. About 41,000 people in South Australia are unemployed at the moment. We know that 4,000 of them are young people between the ages of 15 and 19. Let us do all that we can.

We had a good hour with the Minister for Regional Development. I was very concerned initially about the delay in the Regional Development Board funding agreement coming through, but I recognise that it is now in place. Unfortunately, it is only a 2.5 per cent increase. I think the boards would have enjoyed it if they had had better resources and were able to continue the wonderful work they do.

I spent all day yesterday with minister Gago and asked lots of questions about plastic bags and radioactive waste. The minister gave us an assurance that the 80 sites around South Australia in which radioactive waste is stored are safe. Given that there is a relatively sparse level of checking on these facilities, we tried to get on the record the fact that better policies need to be in place. The government has stated numerous times over the last five years that it will develop a facility, but it has not yet done so.

Time expired.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:03): I am the shadow minister for education and children's services, and I had a big day on Friday 27 June, which was the day of the education estimates. I draw the attention of the house to a line in the minister's opening statement. She said, 'We cannot expect schools to address every community need.' It is true that we cannot expect them to address every community need, but they should at least address basic community needs. Unfortunately, there are some people in our community who have difficulty with their basic community needs, and we saw that played out extensively last week with the Minister for Families and Communities, the Minister for Education and Children's Services and the CEO of the Department of Education and Children's Services.

I have quite a bit of interest in what is happening in the schools in the forgotten north, and I asked a number of questions about schools in the Elizabeth area, in particular. I note that the member for Napier was not there. I would have thought that, being the member for that very difficult area, he would be very interested to know what was happening in the estimates committee with respect to education and would have done everything he could to be on that committee. But he chose not to—other things were obviously of more interest to him, and he was not there.

I asked the minister a question about how many breakfasts were served to children in our schools and, because it is not an official policy of DECS, the minister showed no interest in answering that question. I certainly thought that that was disappointing. It is also very frustrating to understand how the Minister for Families and Communities could make the following claim in the newspaper about the families that were the subject of media attention last week. He said:

Given the physical state that they are in, I think it would be difficult to imagine them being at school and teachers not immediately aware of their circumstances and making the relevant notifications.

I think that says it all, and we heard that during estimates. The Premier's own thinker in residence, Dr Fraser Mustard, was also surprised by the lack of communication between the Department of Education and Children's Services and the Department for Families and Communities. I think he described the relationship as 'chaos'. We certainly saw that chaos come into play last week and during the estimate committee. But perhaps we will talk about that a little later.

Our hardworking teachers cannot do everything, but our schools are important radars in picking up early signs of neglect and abuse. In my experience of being a parent of children at government schools over the last nine or 10 years, either as a member or chair of the school council, I have seen the hard work that teachers do and their dedication to their jobs, and I acknowledge that. They are certainly not motivated by money; I have experienced that. They are motivated by other reasons, and I congratulate them on that.

Of course, in estimates, both the education minister and the department CEO, Chris Robinson, confirmed that mandatory reporting had picked up problems associated with the recent high-profile cases in the northern suburbs. There was then a retraction from the CEO a little later, and one wonders just who wrote the retraction he read into Hansard. The minister went on later to contradict the statement made by Mr Robinson, so I think there is a bit more of that saga to come down the track. In the last four to six weeks—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I notice the Attorney-General interjected 'Belinda Neal'. We have seen violence escalating in our schools and we had a government announcement for security fencing, even in designer styles. It may go some way towards protecting school property and keeping those who should not be there out of the grounds, but it will not protect our children suffering abuse at home. Nor will it prevent the widespread violence of disengaged and unruly students, and neither will providing teachers with mobile phones, which is quite innovative. After 20 years of the wide distribution of mobile phones, the government has come up with an idea to improve school security by distributing mobile phones to teachers.

It would be fair to say that, just as it is unusual to come across someone who smokes cigarettes in this day and age, it would be very unusual to come across an adult who does not have a mobile phone. This is a great, innovative—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I meet very few people who smoke. The government's innovative program is to introduce mobile phones for teachers to report violent activities on school grounds, rather than look at the core social problems of some of our school communities.

We discussed the Premier's Be Active program, which these days is computer-based. According to the Premier, it is about getting kids to be more active, but we learned that it is a community-based program—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How active are you? You don't look very active.

Mr PISONI: The Attorney-General is again making fat jokes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I ask that you ask him to refrain. I am sure that the Hon. Mr Finnigan would be very offended by his fat jokes. It is not very Christian behaviour, Attorney-General. The Active Challenge, with a $4 million a year budget, was cut to $425,000 a year and transferred to a computer. I say to anyone who accepts the Premier's title in front of a program is to be very wary of a cut. The Premier's Be Active program was cut by $3.5 million. So, please, anyone out there running a government program, do not put your name on it, and do not take up any offer from the Premier to have his name in front of your program, because you will be guaranteed a budget cut.

Then, of course, we heard the education minister boasting about the new EPODE program. There was a great Dorothy Dixer in the health estimates from the member for Morialta about the EPODE program. Unfortunately, neither the health or education minister understand the mechanics of the EPODE program, who built it, and what their interests are in promoting healthy aspects of junk food and alcohol industries. The budget estimates exposed an imported French program, which is coming to Australia, which the health minister could not sell to any other health jurisdiction in Australia. It was taken to a meeting of health ministers and no-one took it up other than the minister in South Australia. Obviously, he was starstruck by Dr Borys. I can understand that; he is a spin doctor. One of the prominent ministers in the media team that is Mike Rann Incorporated, the first spin government the state has had for a very long time—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: On a point of order, the member for Unley is referring to the Premier by his Christian name and surname. I ask him to refrain from doing that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was distracted, but, if that was indeed the case, I insist that the member comply with the ancient procedures of this house.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in case you missed it, I said 'Media Mike'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The only way in which a member can be referred to is by their electorate or title.

Mr PISONI: I will no longer refer to the member for Ramsay as 'Media Mike'.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Unley will withdraw that comment and proceed with debate!

Mr PISONI: I will withdraw the comment. The Minister for Health was starstruck, and in all his staff's emails (I have the FOI documents) that went to and from France we read how excited they were about their trip to France to meet Dr Borys and his PR machine, which promotes aspects of junk food as a health option, with clients such as Coca-Cola, McDonalds, Nestlé and Ferrero. Nutella is chocolate and sugar, yet we have seen that ad where they try to pass it off as a healthy alternative for our kids by pointing to the nuts. It is absolutely extraordinary, and this government has fallen for it. The Rann government spin doctors have fallen victim to the spin doctors of the junk food industry.

Then we went into a discussion about super schools. It is interesting that the education minister is continually in the media boasting about the super schools, but when I asked her for details, she said, 'That's not my department; that's the Treasurer's.' She had great difficulty with the concept of monoline insurance. She could not explain what it was or whether it was being purchased for the PPP projects for the super schools. Monoline insurance, of course, is a very important issue, because without monoline insurance there are enormous risks for taxpayers. We have seen what has happened with the availability of monoline insurance since the collapse of the financial markets, in the USA in particular. With the loan scandals we have seen happening over there, it has become very difficult if not impossible to get monoline insurance. However, I will leave that for the minister and the Treasurer to sort out, considering the minister was not interested in any of the processes of the PPPs for the super schools.

Then, of course, the estimates process revealed that the one-third of South Australian students who attend non-government schools, and the taxpaying parents who choose to send their children to non-government schools, will continue to rely on the federal government for funding, but mostly it will come out of the parents' own pocket, in the Catholic sector in particular. Mr Santamaria would be so disappointed to learn that this state government has no interest in supporting them and their choice by providing only the bare minimum of additional funding. Under the Rann government, non-government schools funding will remain the lowest per student average in Australia.

The new studentcentric model, which has been a topic for debate for quite some in the new EBAs, was discussed. We on this side of the house believe that funding should be about the best outcomes for students. We will not tolerate any cuts to school funding that would disadvantage our small schools. We will not tolerate any funding model change that would discriminate against our small schools, and that is what we are seeing. Calculations have revealed that, under this new funding model, 170 schools will have less funding, and the government has no intention of giving them adequate top-up to make the new model work. The plan is that the government wants these schools to wither on the vine so that, in the end, when they cannot provide the subject choices or the resources they will put up their hand and say, 'All right, you've got us. Please merge us for the sake of our children.' In the meantime, a generation of children will have gone through those schools with reduced services. I must say that it is a very cruel way in which to deal with changing demographics in the community.

Then, of course, we heard about the massive infrastructure spend on our schools. However, if you read the budget papers, you will find that there is only $1.9 million of spending on new projects. An amount of $70 million was spoken about in the budget but, if you read the budget papers, only $1.9 million is being spent on new projects this year. Of that $70 million, $20 million is coming from the federal government. The government is falling behind on existing projects—we have seen a lot of adjustments, blowing out the time frames on school projects by between six and 12 months. So, the bulk of that $70 million has gone on playing catch-up.

Of course, the most disturbing thing about the estimates process is that we saw just how the loss of the $30 million federal government funding over three years has affected our schools, our primary schools in particular. That is $33 million of funding last year that is not here this year for capital projects in our schools, and that includes computers for our primary schools. So, we have a huge infrastructure hole that has not been addressed by either the federal government or the state government, and that is obviously very disappointing.

We then moved onto the digital revolution, where there was an extraordinary revelation when the minister for education said that in South Australia the digital revolution is about replacing existing computers. Yet, during the election campaign, we had Mike Rann, as the national President of the ALP, spruiking for Kevin Rudd, saying, 'Look at this great computer program. There are computers for everyone.' However, after the election, when we get down to the fine print, we find out that it is from year 9 to year 12. Then, when we look at it in finer detail, we find that it is one computer for every two students. Of course, the first round is for the most needy schools, where there is only one computer for every eight students.

The minister for education told us that there would not be any additional costs, because these are replacement computers, not new computers. But that was not the promise that Mike Rann, as national President of the ALP, and Kevin Rudd, the prime ministerial candidate at the last election—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, you instructed the member for Unley, most specifically, not to refer to the Premier by his Christian name and his surname.

Mr PISONI: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not referring to the Premier: I was referring to the President of the ALP.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Unley, there is—

Mr PISONI: —and the Attorney-General knows that. He does not like what I am saying, so that is why he continues to interrupt with pointless points of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Unley, take your seat. There is no debate on points of order. The point of order is upheld. Please proceed, member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: So, it is obvious that the Attorney-General is embarrassed about the Rudd promise and the way in which the Rann government has handled the situation. The minister does not even understand the program—how it is supposed to put extra computers into schools, not replace existing computers. Remember: the promise was a computer for every child. Now we find out that it is one computer for every two students, but in South Australia it is a replacement program only. So, an embarrassing gaff.

When she was asked to explain why New South Wales had an extra quarter of billion dollars to install its new computers, this minister said in the media, 'Oh, I didn't know about that. I don't know what they're doing over there. I only know what's happening in South Australia.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: It was along those lines, Attorney-General. I suggest that you contact Media Monitors. I know you are embarrassed about the computers program because I know that schools in your electorate would be missing out because of the poor way this has been handled and because of the poor negotiating skills of the education minister. You should be embarrassed, Attorney-General, because the way that this has been happening is an absolute disgrace.

I was amazed at the fact that my line of questioning to the Minister for Small Business was ruled out of order time and again. Whenever it related to something that was important to small business, the minister said that it was not her area; for example, payroll tax, not her area.

Time expired.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (16:23): I rise in response to some of the comments made by the member for Unley. I had the misfortune of sitting on some of the estimates committees on which he also sat and saw him blunder his way through the estimates process for the second year in a row. He showed absolutely no understanding of the estimates process. I watched him ask ministers questions about areas that were not their responsibility. He should have directed those questions to other ministers.

He comes here today and once again complains that ministers did not answer his questions. The reason they did not answer his questions was quite simple: he was asking the wrong minister. The education minister is not responsible for building infrastructure in this state; that responsibility lies with another minister. So, if the member had questions about the building of super schools, he should have asked the correct and proper minister. Having watched the member for Unley's performance for a second year, I have some advice for him as someone from the furniture trade: had he used a polishing rag instead of sandpaper, he might have got a lot further.

However, in his questioning process, the member for Goyder was an absolute delight to have on the opposition benches. The way he framed his questions, and the courtesy he showed to ministers and the public servants who were in the estimates process, was applauded by both sides of the house. Estimates does not need to be a nasty couple of weeks. You can get your answers, but they would probably be more forthcoming if the questions were asked of the correct minister and asked in a fairly polite way.

I congratulate and thank the government for the many things the people of Mawson have received in this year's budget, not the least of which is an injection of $12.3 million to improve the Victor Harbor/South Road intersection, which will of course benefit people not just in Mawson but also anyone who goes to Victor and tries to get back on a Sunday night or the Monday night of a long weekend.

There is a big bottleneck at that stop sign and, with this $12.3 million injection, we are putting in three lanes and a set of traffic lights that help get people around there at times of peak congestion. Most importantly for the people of Mawson, that includes Monday to Friday morning traffic. I also congratulate the Rudd government on its important contribution (about $3 million) to this project.

I think that the $2 billion for our transport revolution also has people very excited, not just in the south but throughout Adelaide. We will have clean, environmentally friendly, smoother and much faster trains, and that will be a great boon for the people living in the south who catch the Noarlunga line. As a government, we have provided $34 million to buy land eventually to continue the rail corridor from the Noarlunga Centre to Seaford and, one day into the future, onto Aldinga.

As I said, these moves have been welcomed by the people of Mawson, and I thank not just the Premier and the Treasurer but also our transport minister, who has had to sit in the queue for a while as we have seen a medical revolution, with our hospitals with a record level of doctors and nurses provided over the past few years.

We have seen a huge amount of money going into law and order, with all those extra police on the beat and the courthouses that have been built throughout the state, as well as new police stations, after 8½ years of the inaction of the Liberal government,

The Rann government continues to spend at record levels in the field of education, with $7.7 million set aside in this budget for a total upgrade of the Willunga High School, which has been welcomed by the people in the Willunga and McLaren Vale area. This comes on top of a $5 million plus renovation of Willunga Primary School. So, we are seeing some really major investment into our schools in the seat of Mawson, and McLaren Flat is also undergoing a multimillion-dollar overhaul at the moment.

I also congratulate the government on its increased spending on the Ambulance Service. McLaren Vale has a new ambulance station, and the community are well served by 24-hour, seven-day-a-week crews. In this year's budget, there is an extra $26.6 million for ambulance crews and, since the 2002 election, when the Rann government came to power, we have added 281 paramedics, and 12 ambulance stations have either been built or are under construction.

Again, I congratulate the Premier and the Treasurer, and all those ministers who have undergone the gruelling process, on another outstanding surplus budget.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (16:29): Natural catastrophes of drought and fire have come, and our small regional communities have coped. Low commodity prices, increased import costs and high exchange rates, and our communities have coped. But this Rann government have done their utmost to kill—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Has—'government' is singular.

Mrs PENFOLD: —regional South Australia with their population-based funding policy. They are hitting us with their shared services plan, their—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Its.

Mrs PENFOLD: —country hospitals plan, their schools funding plan, their—

Mr PEDERICK: On a point of order, the Attorney is quite keen to reprimand members on this side of the house. I call for some protection for our member.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney is aware that interjections are out of order.

Mrs PENFOLD: Some members come from small regional towns that have very small country schools, not smart city schools.

Recently, minister Hill has foreshadowed a centralised goods and services procurement plan that will remove government contracts from small regionally-based businesses, putting country jobs into the city. All this is combined with a lack of funding in the budget for regional infrastructure while steadily increasing fees and charges across the board.

Our regional communities are like octopi. To some extent you can lop off a leg or two and they will survive, recover and adapt. However, as with any living organism, you can kill them by removing their hearts or just painfully lopping off all the bits until they shrivel and die a long painful death from starvation. Alternatively, with proper nurturing they will survive and thrive.

Premier and ministers, you are chopping off all our legs, and our rural communities are reeling. I have heard people talking of suicide, deciding not to stay in rural professional jobs, not retiring and investing in regional towns—all because this Labor government has made them feel that they do not have a secure future. Our regions are like ecosystems that will not die because a few octopi have gone, but killing one town will eventually lead to the failure of others and our remaining towns will not be good places in which to live—as they are now—once the system collapses in these regional communities.

I was interested to note in the much-heralded State Strategic Plan that psychological wellbeing should be equal to or lower than the Australian average for psychological distress by 2014. It states that the audit committee's assessment of this target is that it has been achieved. Well, I want to let them know that that is not the case in the regions—but perhaps we do not count when it comes to the State Strategic Plan.

The electorate of Flinders which I represent on Eyre Peninsula has 55,000 square kilometres and 33,000 people. It produces about 40 per cent of the state's grain and 65 per cent of the state's seafood. Tourism and mining are only just beginning to make their mark on the state's economy, but this Labor government's population-based funding model takes no account of the significant economic benefit that comes from our region or the distance and difficulties that we encounter to achieve it.

We are the modern day peasants who have to suffer in silence with a government and media who could not care less about our wellbeing, so as long as we continue to work hard to produce the real wealth they can churn a few times in the city and live their comfortable, well-paid lives.

For some years I have toyed with the idea that Eyre Peninsula should secede from South Australia and go it alone. I am not alone in thinking along these lines. Julie Masters from Wharminda with tongue somewhat in cheek in the Port Lincoln Times today wrote:

In view of the apparent Labor government's abandonment of support for regional South Australia—downgrading of country hospitals, deplorable loss of funding in public education impacting mainly on country schools, lack of funding to maintain a decent road structure—the list is endless—I think it is time for radical change and propose that on Eyre Peninsula we draw a line and form our own territory. We could name it the Central Eyre Territory, have our own time (no more putting school children on the school bus in the dark), not pay the River Murray levy ever again, have the bulk of the fishing, aquaculture, agriculture (when not in a drought would be handy!) and the mining (we would take in Roxby Downs, of course!) industry for support. We would be a true 'country' territory that cares and understands about rural issues and living standards.

Tumby Bay and Cummins on southern Eyre Peninsula, in particular were portrayed in the media only a few years ago as dying communities. The people in these communities decided that they were not going to lay down and die—and they didn't. With sheer tenacity, hard work and their can-do attitude they fought back.

Cummins and Tumby Bay and all the other 41 small communities like them that are having their hospitals downgraded by the health minister in this government are not intending to go away and die now. They have survived largely because they have good hospitals and good schools with safe and caring can-do communities. People want to go to live in regional areas to do their business, raise their children and retire.

In fact, so successful has been the fight back that residential blocks of land in Cummins have been hard to source. Only today I received a call from a constituent who has been subdividing in Cummins to meet demand. He is very concerned that, as a result of the government's decision, people will not be able to retire in Cummins because medical services will not be available to support them.

Minister Hill speaks of 96 per cent of the people of the state being within 1½ hours and 85 per cent being within one hour of a hub hospital, as if this is not a problem and we are grizzlers. But would 66 per cent of the people who live in or near Adelaide drive 83 kilometres to Victor Harbor (about one hour away) to see their doctor? The additional time, lack of public transport and high cost of fuel would have our metropolitan cousins screaming. That is without the resultant job losses in the city hospitals and the fact that much of the shopping, fuel, food and accommodation would be sourced outside the city.

The social dislocation of friends and family not being able to visit, and children, work and other commitments not being fulfilled would be unacceptable. It would not be acceptable to our city cousins and it is not acceptable to those of us who live in the country.

Perhaps they would call their volunteer ambulance service to take them to the hospital at Victor Harbor and back home in their emergency? But when they are told to come back again tomorrow or, even worse, next week and, as a result, have to stay in the town, will they expect to pay the cost? Who will look after their family and pick up the children? Who will visit them in their hour of need?

How audacious is this government that it plans on implementing cuts to the very core of our communities without even bothering to undertake a regional impact statement on the effect the decision will have on thousands of rural South Australians? Mr Rann must revisit his pledge to South Australians. I remind him of his dot point No. 3—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have a point of order, sir. The member for Flinders has referred to the Premier by his honorific and surname. I ask that she refer to him as either the Premier or the member for Ramsay.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order. I remind all members to refer to other members by their parliamentary title.

Mrs PENFOLD: The Premier must revisit his pledge to South Australians. I remind him of his dot point No. 3, 'Better hospitals and more beds' and dot point No. 6, 'We will cut government waste and redirect millions now spent on consultants to hospitals and schools—Labor's priorities'.

I realise that the Premier's much touted and very expensive Thinkers in Residence program is not labelled as consultants, but I believe that the thousands of regional South Australians, who are having access to quality local health services removed by this government decision, might wonder whether it is a very fine line when funds can be directed into programs such as that and away from funding for country hospitals.

The former health minister's policy statement 2003-07 is quite clearly thrown out the window now. It was interesting to re-read in her policy document regarding equity that the policy stated:

Reducing the current inequities in health status between different sections of the population and providing equal opportunity to good health to everyone.

Clearly, the current minister would add a little rider: 'as long as you live in very specific areas of the state or in metropolitan Adelaide'.

We have to wonder about the leadership and planning that goes into this state when we are told that $100 million is to be spent on upgrading the AAMI Stadium and more trams are to be installed at a cost of $62 million per kilometre, and then we discover that $4 million is being wasted on office floor space in central Adelaide. The list of wasted opportunities and wasted taxpayers' dollars is almost endless.

A doctor from Port Lincoln has assured me that there is no way that the Port Lincoln Hospital can cope with any more patients—and I know that Whyalla is the same. He advised that, currently, about five more doctors are required in Port Lincoln, and that is without any more patients coming in from elsewhere to source their regional general hospital. He also pointed out that country doctors are being actively sought by city and interstate practices, with some offers over $600,000 per year, without much of the call-out and overtime that doctors currently do in our regional hospitals.

Only yesterday, I received a call from a Port Lincoln resident who advised that there is currently a three-week waiting period to see a doctor in Port Lincoln, and I envisage that this will only get worse. Meanwhile, however, people in our smaller communities do have good and timely access to their GPs, but for how much longer? Why would any doctor stay in a small community without their patients being able to access the local hospital. Currently, they have lifestyle and good, financially viable practices, but this government seems hell-bent on changing that.

Many of my 16 communities happen to lie in the 4 per cent recognised by the minister; that is, recognised as living further than 1½ hours away from a hub hospital at Port Lincoln or Whyalla. Despite this, in answer to a question in parliament on 3 April on the need for additional funding for volunteer ambulances, the minister stated that no extra costs are expected to be needed. In answer to a letter regarding improved assistance for patient travel, we received a response that gave no answers nor any hope.

The Eyre Highway that passes through Ceduna, Wudinna and Kimba is used by more than 500,000 vehicles, with around one million people driving along it each year, but, as far as I can see, these significant numbers of travellers are not taken into account. All these towns are serviced by volunteer ambulance officers and emergency services. A concerned volunteer visited me this week to let me know that the reimbursement for travel is 68¢ per kilometre. This has recently risen from the 64¢ per kilometre which was reimbursed when fuel costs were 95¢ per litre, despite the cost of fuel now being $1.65 per litre.

He said that recently he had seven call-outs, with one of those being a pregnant woman whose waters had broken and who had to be transported past the local hospital to Port Lincoln. That was in one day. He asked, 'How can the volunteer ambulance service possibly cope once the 43 hospitals are downgraded? Or if, as the minister says at present, patients are assessed at their local first-aid centre, who will transfer patients to the general hospital, particularly in emergency situations?'

There will always be examples of patients who owe their lives to the quick professional action of local doctors, but this was brought home clearly only 10 days or so ago. Mark Dodd from Tumby Bay had a massive heart attack while speaking with his neighbour. While his neighbour drove Mark to the Tumby Bay Hospital, his wife rang the hospital alerting staff to the impending arrival of an emergency patient. Mark was stabilised and flown to Adelaide where he underwent emergency surgery.

He is currently recovering in the neurological ward following a stroke that occurred as a result of heart surgery, but as the critical nurse stressed to Mark's family, he would never have survived if he had not received immediate acute care treatment by the qualified staff at the Tumby Bay Hospital. Mark's wife, Monica, rang my office to tell me how important it is to maintain our hospitals and not downgrade them to first-aid stations. Mark is living proof of that.

This week, the minister has dissolved 51 health boards and introduced instead health advisory councils (HACs), giving himself complete responsibility and accountability for managing South Australia's public health system. It will be interesting to see how much heed the minister will take of his HACs, whose role it is to provide advice and advocacy on behalf of their communities' needs. Minister, are you listening to your HACs now? I think not.

But it seems the devil will be in the detail, which, to date, has not been very forthcoming. The minister assures the good people of Cummins that 'transport and accommodation support will be developed to help country people access health care services they need when they have to travel'. You can understand the scepticism when people hear these wonderful reassuring words, as they are not backed up with any additional funding for the new status general hospital at Port Lincoln, to be able to cope with the influx of patients.

It is even more scary when the minister reassures us that 'all country hospital emergency responses will be supported by the SA Ambulance Service, the Royal Flying Doctor Service and the SA Retrieval Services to ensure country people receive timely emergency care and emergency evacuations and transport in line with best practice guidelines', when the minister has not anticipated any additional funds will be required to provide ambulance services. Interestingly, on this point, the minister states that SA Ambulance has been consulted closely in the development of the plan. I wonder if the volunteers have.

One wonders, however, if the SA Ambulance consultation has been the same in depth consultation that has apparently supposedly been undertaken with country doctors—almost none. The Country Health Care Plan and its consultation has been eloquently summed up by my constituent, Viv Rusden, who stated:

The arrogance of We've joined the dots is breathtaking. My long and considerable experience with public and private entities is that we do not even know where the dots are!

She further stated:

This fact sheet is full of motherhood statements, assertions and future promises. It is very short on substance. How do you debate a mirage? This increasing avalanche of city centric polices are invading our life and atrophying our social infrastructure to the point of extinction.

Minister Hill, the people of South Australia do not believe your reassurances about better health services and outcomes for rural South Australians. They do not believe you are listening, they take umbrage to the glossy magazines and full page advertisements costing money that could be spent on better services. They are angry at your arrogance in riding 'roughshod over people who have worked their guts out since the 1930s to procure and help run efficient, modern medical facilities', and I have been requested to ask you to come and meet the people whose lives and town are affected. Again I quote:

You should be visiting every community whose hospital is on your hit list and face the people at public meetings. After all, it is your plan. You have told us often enough on radio.

At the end of the day, the message that is well and truly out there, to take a phrase from Gough Whitlam's 'maintain the rage' campaign, is something you can be assured country people will do, maintain the rage.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson]

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:46): I have been advised by our whip that I have a limited time to speak so I will not take up too much time. So the other side has a limited time to interject! Mr Speaker, I would like to run over a few of the estimates committees that I was involved in and make some comments.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I think we would all like to run over estimates and get rid of them, actually. However, that is a debate for another day.

The southern suburbs portfolio, particularly, I feel leaves a lot to be desired, given that it is basically just a spin exercise for the Rann Labor government. There is not a lot in it, apart from the information we got about an incessant round of meetings and arranging meetings. The fact is that the people of the southern suburbs need a lot more than meetings to pick them up and get them going again, particularly with the demise of Mitsubishi.

The proof of the pudding is that, although the Minister for the Southern Suburbs has endeavoured to organise some meetings and have some things happen, there are still hundreds of people who worked at Mitsubishi out of a job and still looking for work. As I said in the estimates committees, they do not want to leave the south: they want to stay in the south. They enjoy the south—the climate and close proximity to the beach. They do not enjoy the lack of public transport and the improvements that have not happened—they are not at all happy about that—but they want to stay there.

A graph that was displayed at one of the forums I was at quite clearly showed that very few of them wanted to traverse the city to work at the GMH plant. They prefer to stay and try to find work down south. There is some itinerant work through McLaren Vale at this time of year, particularly with the pruning of the grapes, and some people are picking up work; but there are substantial numbers in the south who are still not working, and all the meetings in the world will not get them back to work, and that is something that really concerns me.

So, there are a number of issues that came out of that estimates committee, and I will follow up on some of those to ensure that we get more than just spin and hollow words out of the Rann Labor government for the southern suburbs.

My local government estimates committee was, once again, most interesting, and my colleague the member for Kavel, who joined me that day, I am sure also found it intriguing, as did the member of Schubert. We really got little but waffle out of the local government estimates hearing, because there is no policy direction. There is nothing coming out of the minister for local government—absolutely nothing. She was asked a question about the policy regarding amalgamation of councils and, being the minister for local government, she decided to have a crack at the Liberal Party in government in the 1990s and talk about the amalgamations that happened then that were forced. Blind Freddie could see that they were not forced. If councils wanted to amalgamate, they were assisted. I recall that Ian Dixon, particularly, the CEO of the boundary adjustment board, and Tony Crichton, a senior public servant, did a lot of work to assist councils go through that process. So it was just errant nonsense for the minister to say in estimates that they were forced in the 1990s. It was just claptrap, quite frankly.

What I did hear is interesting. In the last 24 hours I have heard from the mayor of a metropolitan council that the minister indeed talked to, in this case, him about amalgamating some councils in the metropolitan area. So this hidden policy that the minister refutes in the house may have some legs and, indeed, the government may be looking at a substantial amalgamation process for councils in South Australia. So we will follow that one with interest. But, apart from getting the button pressed and getting a bit snaky, we really did not get much at all out of the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. In two hours of questions, I do not know that we got anything that was useful, and that was a great pity, actually. But we filled in the two hours, and I thank the staff. The CEO of the Office for State/Local Government Relations—

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Indeed. The CEO of the Office for State/Local Government Relations, Mr John Hanlon, does a pretty good job. Coming out of the local government sector as a former CEO of the Burnside council, he has a good grip and a good understanding of local government. He knows what is going on, he knows the problems in the local government area, and he understands the lack of funding. The minister was at pains to throw up a heap of figures on money that had been provided by the Rann Labor government to local government. She conveniently got a bit cranky when we mentioned the fact that the GST—which the Rann Labor government did not want—has come in and given them a lot more money than they ever dreamed of having, but that was another story.

But I can tell members that the amount of funding that is going to local government in real terms is a problem for them. They are not getting anywhere near enough, and it does not matter whether they are metropolitan councils or regional councils—it does not matter where the councils are—they have significant costs in upgrading and maintaining roads. Quite clearly, they need far more assistance. We have to bear in mind that the only way councils can raise money is through rates and these wonderful things called levies. As I suggested in the hearing, the levies that they are collecting (the EPA and NRM levies) do not go to the councils. They go to other authorities. However, when the poor old ratepayer gets his rates notice he sees the levies and thinks that they are going to the council, so the council gets it in the neck—not a good idea.

I also raised some questions about the tourism portfolio and the government's direction in relation to several areas. I found it bizarre that we had the Minister for Tourism putting down the Convention Centre, talking about the lavatories and how difficult they were to find. It was almost to the extent of being humorous, but I am hearing it loud and clear from the business community and the hospitality industry seeking a substantial increase in size and improvements to the Adelaide Convention Centre. It is not big enough for major conventions, it just does not have the room, it is antiquated and it is causing us to lose business conventions that we should get. For example, a big defence convention did not come to South Australia because the Convention Centre was inadequate. The Australian Tourism Exchange, which comes back in two years, faces the same situation it faced last time, when a tent had to be put on the lawns alongside the Torrens to accommodate all the activities, because there is simply not enough room in the Convention Centre.

These are basic infrastructure requirements for the convention industry. If we want to be competitive in South Australia in conventions and if we want to promote our attractions, such as the Flinders Ranges, the Limestone Coast, the Fleurieu Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, the Barossa Valley or the West Coast, we must have a facility that enables people to come here, hold a convention and then travel out to see many of the highlights that this states has to offer—and we have many. Significantly, hotel accommodation rates were down by approximately 10 per cent in March, I am given to understand, which is a major concern given the events in Mad March. I asked a question about how much the government pays to accommodate the Tour Down Under teams in city hotels. I did not get an answer on it, and I did not expect to, but it is a pretty significant—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: The Attorney seeks to interject, but he just—

Mr Goldsworthy: He's calling it a B grade event.

Mr PENGILLY: He is calling it a B grade event, shame on him. However, the fact of the matter is that the Tour Down Under was a good Liberal Party initiative when it was in government, and my recollection is that Joan Hall got that up and running. I stand to be corrected on that.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Where is she these days?

Mr PENGILLY: Dearly departed member, Joan Hall—she is not here now. However, she did get the Tour Down Under in place and, for the Attorney-General to call the Tour Down Under a B grade event does him no good whatsoever. I understand the Attorney is a cyclist, so why he is putting down the Tour Down Under I do not know, but enough of that.

As some of my colleagues have mentioned quite a bit over the past several days and also today in the house, I briefly mention the issue of country health. A catastrophic disaster for rural South Australia has been perpetrated on the people of South Australia by the Rann Labor government and by an incompetent Minister for Health (Hon. John Hill), who is just being a lackey to the bureaucrats. Unfortunately the former minister, the Hon. Lea Stevens, had a good grip of the situation. She would not bring in the Menadue report—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I rise on a point of order. The member for Finniss has twice referred to the member for Little Para by her Christian name and her surname. I would ask him to abide by the longstanding rules of the house.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! It is not a matter of the Attorney asking anyone, he merely raises the point of order.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, for your adjudication.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss is a very naughty boy and he must not do it again. Member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind words. The member for Little Para as the former health minister did a wonderful job, in my view, and I had dealings with her for several—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I did actually, and the Attorney is quite wrong there, because I was the chair of a regional health board and I had regular bi-monthly meetings with Lea Stevens. We got on particularly well and did a lot for rural health, so he is wrong there. I did speak well of her and she knows that, and I continue to put her weights up on the direction she took with country health when she was health minister and the fact that she was not going to be railroaded by bureaucrats into accepting the Menadue report, which unfortunately the current minister has. He has fallen over like a cream puff and it is a disaster.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, they do, if they are not made properly and they do not sit on the baking tray properly, they fall over. In relation to the two hospitals in my electorate (the South Coast District Hospital and the Kangaroo Island Hospital), although they do not appear to be on the hit list, South Coast District Hospital is going to wonder what struck it in due course because, now that boards have gone and any degree of local control has gone, the bureaucrats have won. Flinders Medical Centre, which has been trying to take over South Coast for a long time, has finally got its evil tentacles into the South Coast hospital. It will drag the money out of it to prop up its business at the expense of the people of the South Coast, and the people of the South Coast are going to know about it. They will recognise the disaster that has been perpetrated upon them and, in due course, they will react, don't worry.

Fortunately the Kangaroo Island Hospital, given its geographic location, is not going to have a lot of change to it, but the people of the South Coast will be reminded regularly of what the Rann Labor government is doing. When they have to go to town for another bit of treatment that they used to have locally, I will remind them again and again. Referring to the meeting with the department last Tuesday night, one doctor was reported in the paper as commenting, 'The South Coast hospital is going to be a crap house.'

With those few words, given the emasculation of country health in South Australia, which disgusts me and many of our members (and, I am sure, a few members on the other side), I will take note of your kind words, sir, and your gentle guidance on the point of order a while ago and resume my seat.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:00): I also wish to make some comments in relation to the process around the estimates committee. I was pleased, as a member of the state Liberal Party, to attend and participate in the committees on five of the six days that the program ran for and, in particular, to take the lead in the emergency services and correctional services areas on behalf of the Liberal Party.

I wish to make some comments in relation to the conduct of the estimates committees. It is becoming increasingly evident that quite specific tactics are being applied by the government to hinder the Liberal opposition in seeking and receiving reasonable answers to questions that are asked. There were continual rulings by the respective chairs of the committees against the questions asked by members of the Liberal opposition, and almost a wet nursing (if I can use that term) of the relevant minister through the whole process. There is quite clear evidence that the government is implementing tactics to hinder the members of the Liberal Party in seeking answers to important budgetary and policy issues, and I would like to highlight a specific instance.

During the estimates committee with respect to state/local government relations, I asked a question, highlighting the reference in the budget paper, where it specifically spoke about government policy and legislative frameworks (I think that was the exact wording) concerning local government. I asked a specific question about policy with respect to the government's position on local government elections. The chair of the committee initially ruled that question out of order. After raising a point of order with respect to that ruling, the chair and the minister were basically too embarrassed to back down and allow the question to be answered. We did not receive an answer, because the state Liberals know that the ALP policy of compulsory voting in local government elections is not being implemented by the Labor parliamentary party, as it is obviously at odds with its own policy.

As the member for Finniss highlighted, the minister basically babbled on with what looked like a pre-empted text that had been prepared for her in relation to the State Strategic Plan—about which we have real concerns on a whole range of issues. However, the minister chose to answer the question, which was very clear and unambiguous, by giving a fairly lengthy answer about the State Strategic Plan. It is quite clear that the government's own State Strategic Plan is also at odds with its policy. So, there is a contradiction where ALP policy is not reflected in the way in which the government positions itself here in the parliament. I think that issue should be further highlighted along the way.

I highlighted that thinking a couple of years ago, when I had responsibility on this side of the house for local government, and we did reasonably well. The state Liberals received some reasonable coverage. I think it was reported in the press, and I also remember doing some interviews on radio in relation to it. The government cannot have it both ways: it cannot talk about something and act in a different manner. It has been a hallmark of this government that it is all talk and no action: it says one thing and does another. We will continue to highlight these issues right up to election day in March 2010.

The other issue that I would like to speak about (which I raised) with respect to a reversal in Labor policy relates to the decision to base an air crane helicopter in the state over the coming 2008-09 fire season. Previously, the Minister for Emergency Services basically said, 'We do not need one. The advice I received is that we do not need an air crane helicopter here during the fire season, so that is why we are not going to look to fund it on a permanent basis.' However, the Coroner in his report in relation to the Wangary fires recommended that an air crane be stationed here. There has been a complete policy reversal, where the minister has said, 'Oh, well, I think we do need one now.' It is a complete policy reversal in relation to having the air-crane helicopter based here during the coming fire season. I asked the minister a question about it, and I got the usual run-around and prevarication for which that particular minister is well known.

I think the minister's performance in relation to that issue and a number of other issues has raised speculation in the media that she may not continue with her portfolio responsibilities in the near future. Liberal Party policy 18 months ago, before the 2006-07 fire season and last summer in 2007-08, was that we would have an air crane helicopter based here. There was ample money, and there was surplus—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The member for Mawson interjects. He has had his chance. He made his contribution in relation to the estimates. Did I hear him raise anything about bushfire safety in his electorate? No; I do not think so. Firefighting capability is a very important whole-of-state issue, particularly in the Adelaide Hills, part of which constitute my electorate. It is arguably one of the highest fire risk regions in the state. For two years state Liberals have called for an air crane helicopter to based here permanently. The Minister for Emergency Services says, 'No; we're not having it.'

Recently, we have seen a policy reversal and the adoption of Liberal Party policy. That again is becoming the hallmark of this government. As our leader quite eloquently stated earlier today in the house, the government is coming over onto our ground. It has run out of its own ideas, except for running a tramline down to Port Adelaide, which is about 150 metres away from a train line that will be electrified. It will run parallel with a train line that will be electrified. Am I missing something here, Madam Deputy Speaker? It seems quite bizarre and a total waste of money to run a tramline parallel to a train line that is going to be electrified about 150 metres away. It is a complete and absolute waste of money.

The government is coming onto state Liberal ground in terms of policy, because it is bereft of policies. It has been in a policy vacuum for years. The government has no ideas of its own. The ideas that the government trots out are half baked, ill-conceived and poorly planned. Earlier in question time when I asked the Minister for Transport whether the tram extension from the city to Port Road across Hindmarsh Bridge will take up a lane of traffic, he could not answer the question. No design work has been done—nothing. They are all ill-conceived, half baked ideas.

An arrangement has been made between the opposition and the government to keep our contributions less than the allocated 20 minutes, but I will talk about two things to conclude. One issue relates to an ongoing and very important local matter concerning the Nairne Primary School crossing. I have highlighted this issue for the last six years since I came to this place, after six months into my first term. The minister for education will certainly know what I am talking about.

The Minister for Road Safety in another place is soon to depart, I understand, if speculation is correct, and her portfolios will be taken up by the member for West Torrens—and good on him. I asked the minister a specific question in estimates about the government's progress with the Nairne Primary School crossing. Well, what did we get? We got another lot of talk, another lot of rhetoric, and another lot of running out the same line that we have heard before, with more talk and more reports, with responsibility being pushed onto the local council for them to rezone some land, which is a complicated matter. I am aware of the local issues. The government absolves itself of the responsibility. It is a government responsibility, because the crossing is located on a government administered and managed road, the Princes Highway, the main road through Nairne. It is about the government trying to absolve itself of responsibility and push it onto the local council.

A consultant completed some comprehensive work on that issue eight years ago and came up with, from memory, four recommendations. The government has those recommendations. It does not need to go through a whole other consultation process—reporting and all this palaver—because the solutions are there. For goodness sake, allocate some decent money to the problem, put some traffic lights on the corner of Woodside Road and Princes Highway and, if you can find a few more dollars, straighten up Saleyard Road to make it an intersection, and stop messing around with the safety of those schoolchildren who attend that school five days of the week. I am very passionate about these local issues, because it is about the safety of children.

The government should have the safety of every schoolchild at the forefront of its mind but, unfortunately, it appears that it does not. For goodness sake, just bite the bullet and allocate money, put traffic lights down on the main road, stop messing the council around, stop pushing the project out five, six or seven more years, and do something positive—because when we win the election in 2010, we have made the commitment that we will fix the problem.

In closing, members on this side have spoken at length about the real problems the new policy the government is rolling out will cause to country hospitals. There is one hospital in my electorate at the moment, but when the boundary changes I will have another one. Mount Barker is our main hospital in the Hills, and Gumeracha and Mount Pleasant hospital is in the member for Schubert's electorate at the moment. I join with my colleagues in expressing our grave concerns and the concerns those respective communities have about the ill-conceived Country Health Care Plan.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:17): I commend my colleagues for cutting back their speeches a little to try to get us through before 6 o'clock. Water, health care, public transport, education, infrastructure and affordable living are the big issues for South Australians—the big issues that this year's budget failed to address, as has been adequately illustrated by our probing during the estimates debates.

Since the handing down of the budget on 5 June, it has become very obvious that the state Rann Labor government is out of touch with what everyday South Australians want from their government. South Australians want action. We need water desperately. As we heard during question time today, we are indeed in a perilous position. We have just had the driest June in 30 years. We have had four years of drought, and we are now in the fifth year, and if the drought continues, we will run out of water. If we do not take urgent action now, what are our plans? The desal plant should be nearly finished; we should not just be starting to do something, as we heard today. It will be two or three years before it is completed.

What are we going to do? We have to think about what we have to do urgently. If we cannot pump water from the Murray—because there will not be any water there—and the reservoirs will not last more than four or five months, we have to consider what then. What are we going to do? Has anyone ever gone through what is the worst scenario? Consider the scenario if it does not rain and we do not get water. Recycling and the desal plant—all this stuff should have been well underway as a matter of great urgency. Forget the politics and get on with it.

We need better hospitals and health care, with more services available, not fewer. We need better public transport facilities and a more efficient system, as fuel costs continue to skyrocket, not just in the western suburbs of Adelaide. We need to be taxed less and have levies reduced, not increased, as the cost of living continues to rise. If we are to be saddled with higher taxes, at least let us have something to show for it.

We need infrastructure for the future—roads, ferries and a transport system that will support the future development and growth of our state—and we need to raise the standard of living in the country. We need to maintain the state's inventory of public infrastructure, and we need to spend so much money each year just to maintain our assets. The budget fails to deliver on any of these things.

I want to refer to just one road, that is, Gomersal Road, which I have been hammering in this house for years. It is an extremely busy road, and I thank the government for sealing it. It was a concept of the previous Liberal government, and minister Laidlaw was the person who actually got the budget underway to pay for it. It is a very busy road, much busier than anyone anticipated, and two deaths have resulted. It needs to be redesigned because it is so busy. We need at least two or three slowing down and speeding up lanes on a couple of the intersections. For such a very popular road, two deaths already is a very sad indictment. Also, such a busy road cannot remain the sole responsibility of the Light District Council. It is ridiculous, and I have spoken at length about that matter. It is not fair that the council is maintaining a road that is used by thousands of motorists every day, and the road is already pot-holed.

So, we need to deliver on many of these important state assets. The Treasurer said in this house that the budget delivers action now for our state's future. Well, the budget does deliver for all South Australians. It increases emergency services, the River Murray and the NRM levies, and it increases car registration, public transport tickets, driver's licences and compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance, as well as astronomical increases in boating registration, and there is no relief in land tax and stamp duty.

Yes, it is true that, at a time when South Australians are currently struggling with increased cost of living pressures and the federal economy is also now faltering and petrol and food costs are skyrocketing, the state Labor government has delivered a budget that offers very little and charges more. I cannot understand why the state Rann Labor government has decided to increase charges to everyday South Australians when it was revealed this week that it is wasting millions of taxpayers' dollars on dead rent in buildings due to delays in its shared services reform. I have to agree with my leader when he described this budget as the most irresponsible set of decisions since the State Bank collapse.

Of course, if you live in Adelaide or the western suburbs, you will see some action from the government. But what about those living in rural and regional South Australia, especially those in the north and the south? What have they got? The answer is nothing. Madam Acting Speaker, you come from a country area, but this is the most city-centric budget I have seen delivered in my 18 years in this place.

The Country Health Care Plan does not deliver the extra services promised. It was announced two hours after the budget—at 6pm. What a disgrace! It was a deliberate act to deceive and to hide. Yes, there will be extra services at the four main regional centres—Whyalla, Port Lincoln, Berri and Mount Gambier—but what about those outside those areas? It is ironic that three of those hospitals are in seats associated with the government.

People will have to travel extra distances to get to one of the four main hub hospitals, and those who are admitted to GP Plus hospitals will have to be transported to another facility after a maximum stay of three nights. How many helicopters will we need to do that? How many ambulances will we need? Who will drive them, and where will they all fit? It is absolute nonsense. Who thought of this, and what consultation went on? Were any impact statements done?

I will talk about a real-life case, that is, the bus accident in the Barossa, when there were five casualties and a fatality. How could that have been handled without a fully staffed hospital able to take acute cases within a few minutes? It is just as well that Angaston Hospital was within five minutes of the accident and was fully equipped and operative. Had it happened half an hour away from a hospital, there is no doubt that we would have had three or four fatalities. We have to be very careful when we quote things like this because it was a real-life incident.

During estimates, the minister acknowledged that the budget provides an additional $24.8 million over the next four years for the anticipated extra demand on ambulance services. Would this $24.8 million not be better spent improving and upgrading our hospitals and health facilities currently in place, rather than downgrading some hospitals and removing services, forcing patients to travel greater distances and be transferred between hospitals?

The budget also includes efficiencies of $81 million over the next four years, targeting a reduction in the cost of its services. As I said earlier, this budget fails to address the critical level of this state's water crisis. It has reannounced the desalination plant, with $96.5 million being set aside to begin work at Port Stanvac. However, nothing new was announced, with the exception of the announcement today.

South Australia has now reached crisis point. Our people might have thought that more money would be invested in securing our state's water supply; however, the extra $20 million from the previous year was merely the surplus carried over from the 2007-08 financial year. One must ask why we have a surplus when there is a drought, farmers are struggling and people are losing their livelihood.

There was no mention of the Mount Bold reservoir (and colleagues have spoken about this), which was the highlight of last year's budget. Yet, during estimates, the minister said, 'Mount Bold is still part of our investigations. We are investigating all options in the Mount Lofty hills to double our capacity within the Mount Lofty storages, and Mount Bold is one of those we are fully investigating.'

One year on we are still in the midst of a crisis (in fact, it is worse), but the government is still investigating. It seems as though taxpayers are getting the wool pulled over their eyes yet again. The government cannot make urgent and important decisions. It is paralysed and moribund and in a state of self-denial, hoping that it will rain—even praying for it to rain—but we are now really in a very serious position, almost survival mode.

Estimates revealed that the dividend forecast for the 2007-08 year, as a result of the 6 per cent increase in the price of water as of 1 July, was $107.8 million. Along with a 4.5 increase in the River Murray levy, this should surely be enough revenue to fast-track water recycling and reuse schemes to help our farmers and our irrigators.

Despite the minister's assurances during estimates that 'the state government has been very much aware of the critical nature of water supplies as a consequence of the drought', one must question this because, although there is a strong chance of losing hundreds of millions of dollars of permanent plantings in the Riverland, and severely damaging this state's economy as a result, there was no response from the state government about this issue.

This budget includes plans for $160 million to be spent on an extension to the tramline to the Adelaide Entertainment Centre that will be completed by 2011. I cannot understand why this government wants to undertake the construction of another tramline when it cannot manage the current extension or the current services. The recent revision of the timetable on the Gawler train line was heralded by the government as being able to deliver a more efficient service. It failed miserably: just travel on the train to find out how and why.

It has been a wish of mine for some time to see the train line extended to the Barossa Valley. During estimates, the minister stated that it was not believed that a TransAdelaide report into feasibility had been produced by TransAdelaide. This issue was raised by the Hon. Dennis Hood in another place, and I have raised it here. I note that the minister is in the chamber and, for his benefit, I quote, 'No one has any record of it, and it is not the sort of language that is used. It may have a TransAdelaide letterhead (they are pretty easy to get), but no-one at TransAdelaide has any knowledge of it.'

However, in a letter that I received in response to a request for a feasibility study to be undertaken, in 2005 the parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Transport wrote, 'TransAdelaide has carried out an investigation to examine the feasibility of operating a regular commuter service to the Barossa Valley'. If this is not the report the Minister for Transport and I referred to during estimates, I ask him to make public the report that was done. It is all very well to say that it is not the report but, if it is not, can we see a copy, because it was reported.

Where will the money come from for projects such as the $162 million tramline extension, the $110 million upgrade of AAMI Stadium (I thought there was enough money in football), the $46 million upgrade of SA Water House (which is ridiculous as we do not even own it) and the $1.5 million screen at the Adelaide soccer stadium, together with numerous building refurbishments and other wasteful outlays?

What about our road infrastructure? So many roads around the area, particularly in the Barossa Valley, are in serious need of upgrade. The answer is that funding comes from borrowings which will see the state debt rise from about $82 million to $1.9 billion by 2012—a State Bank disaster starting all over again—and from all South Australians through increased taxes, levies, fees, charges and fines.

I find it difficult to understand at times, when riverside communities are struggling to attract business, how Premier Rann and his government can justify increases up to three to five times the current rate for boat registration. The new increases will affect 20 per cent of South Australian boats, with registration for jet skis, personal watercraft and boats longer than six metres going through the roof. The increases for smaller boats, despite being less than the abovementioned rises, are still hefty, rising from around $65 (including the levy) to about $105.

During the estimates process, the Minister for Transport said that the government was aware of problems being experienced by River Murray towns in relation to tourism, how they are publishing and advertising messages that the river is open for business. If this is the case, why are they slugging those people—the boaties—who are most likely to visit the river with much higher registration costs?

The casual user with a tinnie in the shed that he might use once or twice a year will be severely penalised and impacted upon. This is taxing people's leisure. Is nothing sacred? Are they trying to stop people from enjoying recreational boating activities—activities which provide leisure and relaxation and which, inadvertently, help to bolster the economies of seaside and riverside towns through increased tourism.

The General Manager of the Boating Industry Association of South Australia has described the increases as absolutely outrageous and said that the response from the industry has been enormous. Where will the extra money go? Is it necessary, particularly at a time when the number of people being fined for speeding has skyrocketed in the past six years and seen the government collect nearly $200 million extra in revenue?

I note the comments of the member for Heysen on the estimates committees process—and I fully agree. We have to look at it. I have been here for nearly 18 years and I think it is ridiculous that ministers from the other house can appear in this chamber but we are unable to use shadow ministers. I cannot work it out. In fact, I do not know why we cannot use the upper house people, anyway.

The whole process needs to be totally looked at. In many instances the government did not ask Dorothy Dixer questions—which is worthwhile and certainly a step in the right direction. The signing in and out of members is also a nonsense. It is a lot of work for the whip and I wonder why it is necessary. As long as three people are sitting here, I cannot understand why there is all the nonsense of paperwork, and the time and hassle of signing them in and out. It is ridiculous.

I finish by saying that I noted the pressure on the Minister for Water Security as a result of questions she was asked today. All I can say is that if a member is going to support the party in government they have to take the flak. I am sad the member took some flak today, but she must understand that, as the leader of the National Party in South Australia—and I have had a lot to do with the National Party over many years—there is a huge conflict. It is totally wrong that she supports a government that is hurting country people, particularly through the Country Health Care Plan. I heard what the new president of the National Party here had to say and, well, it is totally in conflict with what his leader is saying and doing in this house.

I cannot understand how the Minister for Water Security can turn her back on her own people. Hospitals at Renmark, Loxton and Waikerie in her electorate will be impacted upon by these decisions. I am sure that, like the member for Adelaide has done, she is able to distance herself from cabinet decisions. The member for Adelaide did that quite effectively. Why can the Minister for Water Security not do the same thing? She ought to do that. There is a huge conflict because she is in here supporting a Labor government on this issue.

Last night 1,500 people attended a meeting at Bordertown. Members opposite might say that we are beating up this issue. No way can a political party have this much clout. We might think we are pretty good, but we are not this good. This issue is gaining momentum with the doctors and the ordinary people. It is a nonsense for the government to say that it will not close hospitals. The bottom line is exactly this: if the government takes away services from a hospital, in other words a doctor's right to do a procedure, he or she will not stay there. They will go. The hospital will be open but there will not be any doctors there. Again, I will do all I can to keep our hospitals open. They are the hub of all rural communities and I will do all I can to keep them there.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:35): I rise to make a response to the estimates committees process. I take note of what has happened with country health. As was mentioned previously, certainly by the member for Schubert, the Country Health Care Plan put out under the cover of darkness on budget day will be the death knell for 43 hospitals in country South Australia. Most of the hospitals either in my electorate or adjoining and servicing my electorate are being cut back to GP Plus hospitals. One hospital will remain at Murray Bridge, which will become a country community hospital—but there is already a problem there. We are talking about keeping people out of the city with the so-called Country Health Care Plan.

Information supplied to me shows that both Murray Bridge and Port Pirie hospitals were sending on people last Friday because they were full. Where will the people go when they get channelled out from Tailem Bend, Meningie, Mannum, Karoonda, Lameroo or Pinnaroo? In the past couple of days the health department has amended its so-called Country Health Care Plan. I would love to know how much it has spent on advertising because the material uses words such as may or maybe: 'We might retain services,' and we might do this 'depending on staffing'. It is a kick in the guts for rural South Australia when it has been hurting since 2002 as a result of years of extended drought.

We will now have a country general hospital at Port Lincoln, and I think that is absolutely necessary for the West Coast, and surprise, surprise, one at Whyalla for the member for Giles. Then let us look at how far we have to travel to reach another country general hospital—all the way to Berri, which is almost on the edge of the state. There is not much more than Renmark on the other side. When you get to Mount Gambier, it is worse. I have asked in this place before what the planning is behind making Mount Gambier the country general hospital. All it is doing is appeasing the current member for Mount Gambier for his allegiance to the Labor Party—he was a former Liberal Party member—and I hope he is proud of what he has done.

It just does not add up when people from even as far south as Millicent will have to travel north for their health care. They will have nowhere to go because Murray Bridge and Mount Barker will be overflowing. It will turn into a huge mess. I note Murray Bridge is being retained as a country community hospital, and that is a good thing. As I mentioned, it is already at overflow level. Now we have a confusing mismatch of four groups of hospitals under these so-called GP Plus emergency hospitals. I take that to mean bandaid centres. I believe this has come about because of pressure applied from different groups.

There was a protest meeting at Yorketown on the Yorke Peninsula which 700 people attended. There is one at Balaklava tonight, which I am sure will be well attended; and last night at Bordertown, 1,500 people attended a public meeting about their health service on a cold winter's night. Who in their right mind would downgrade a health service on the Dukes Highway, which is the main link to Melbourne and the second busiest road in this country?

I reiterate that I live very close to the Dukes Highway, and only the other day there was another terrible accident: a poor gentleman lost his life as a result of hitting a truck. This happens far too often. Where will they have to go—

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Thankfully, there is a hospital at Keith. I just hope that the member for Newland never travels south-east of Adelaide. In fact, I hope he never travels outside of his home at Stirling (which obviously is nowhere near his electorate), because if he does have an accident and needs some care, he will be in some strife because his minister has let this state down.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: That is a bit harsh.

Mr PEDERICK: No, it is not harsh, minister. I have a good working relationship with the Minister for Transport. I acknowledge at this stage that, yes, he does afford me the time for meetings. I may not always get what I want, but he will listen, so I will give him credit for that.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I get very little, I can assure the Government Whip. However, I do appreciate having access to a minister when I want to raise an issue. Let us face it, they are in power and we are not at the moment, but we are hoping to change that around very quickly in 2010. I do say that, if any member of this present government or any of their friends or family runs into strife on the Dukes Highway and they wonder why someone loses their life or does not receive adequate care in time, there is only one person to point their finger at, namely, the Minister for Health, John Hill.

We have these hospitals now which we all thought were going to be bandaid stations, but now the government does not seem to know where it is at. We will find out one day how many millions of dollars have been spent on this advertising. We have four groups. One group will become GP Plus emergency hospitals and retain current services. Why are they listed as GP Plus if there are not to be any changes? I do acknowledge that it looks as though Meningie will retain its services. That is to be applauded because it is an area that is suffering. Perhaps some commonsense has prevailed somewhere in the system.

I know the doctors down there, and I include Dr Michael Kerrigan who, along with his colleagues, has worked very hard in maintaining not just the physical health of people living in the Lake Albert area but also their mental health. They are really struggling down there. Then we have a list of hospitals to become GP Plus emergency hospitals, which, according to the government, will retain current services including birthing and/or surgical, unless there is a dramatic change in workforce sustainability or safety and quality requirements. That reads: any excuse to do something different, we will. These hospitals include: Crystal Brook, Jamestown and Bordertown. Perhaps Bordertown will have a level of service but, as the minister noted in his ministerial statement today, we need clarity.

Then we have the list of hospitals to become GP Plus emergency hospitals with birthing and/or surgical services. That may change over 10 years, but they are to retain acute admissions. When this Country Health Care Plan came out, none of these GP Plus hospitals were going to have acute admissions. That was laid out in the plan. Either there has been a backflip, or the right hand is not telling the left hand what is going on. Only the other day, the Victor Harbor Times reported—

The Hon. J.D. Lomax-Smith interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, that's how silly it is. That's how silly the plan is. It looks as though it has been written by someone with two right hands, because they have it all A-about. George Beltchev even mentioned that there would be no changes at Strathalbyn Hospital. We were advised today that it was not a 10-minute plan. I think it was a 10-minute plan. I think it was cooked up in 10 minutes, because that is about the level of detail in the government's advertising. That is why there are so many people in country communities coming out on cold nights to attend public meetings. This is where it starts to really hurt. The hospitals in this last tranche of GP Plus emergency hospitals, in the early stages, were amongst the 43 hospitals to lose surgical services and admissions. These hospitals do not provide birthing or surgical services, and they may lose acute admissions over the next 10 years. Let us go through the few that are in Hammond—Karoonda, Lameroo, Tailem Bend and Pinnaroo. I read out those names and that means there will be no health services east of the Murray. If you are east of the Murray, from Murray Bridge to the border, somewhere over 250 kilometres, you are in real trouble. You can head to Murray Bridge, which will probably be full.

I challenge any Labor member to drive to Pinnaroo and have a look. It is a bit far out because it is outside Glen Osmond and Gepps Cross, but go on the Pinnaroo to Loxton road. Ten kilometres of that road should be replaced. The ambulances have to come back to 60 km/h, and I can vouch for that because they took me over the road doing 100 km/h, strapped in, and I am glad I was. These are the situations the Labor government does not take into account—the transport provisions. The Rural Doctors Association put in its paper the other day that it thought there will be an extra 2 million kilometres of travel. I believe there is a zero not in there: I think it will be 20 million kilometres of travel to get to services.

I note there have been news reports, and I think some people are being hoodwinked in the Mallee region into thinking that nothing will change. My reading of even this updated document is that we will lose every acute bed that we have from Tailem Bend and east. In question time today, the minister said:

In the 43 other hospitals, which are the smaller hospitals, services come and go as doctors come and go. As a result of concerns expressed in the country, we have identified 30 of those smaller hospitals where we think there is unlikely to be much change over the next 10 years because of staffing arrangements—

obviously, they have bent under pressure—

or doctors currently in place. We have identified about 13 hospitals where a very small range of services are currently provided. They are hospitals where no birthing happens now and no surgery happens now.

This is the best bit—this is the bit that really grinds. He continues:

All they do is deliver GP services and some medical acute admissions.

All they do! Then I come to the next paragraph, which states:

I will give members a flavour of what happens in those hospitals. I will refer to a number of them. In the case of Karoonda (in the electorate of Hammond) there were 185 days in 2007 when there was not one patient in that hospital—for about half the year there was not one patient in that hospital.

He goes on further:

In Pinnaroo (the member for Hammond's electorate) on 170 days there were no patients in the hospital.

This just goes to show the absolute ignorance of the Minister for Health about country health facilities in the Mallee. All these hospitals—Pinnaroo, Lameroo, Karoonda and Tailem Bend—are also shared facilities with aged care. So the nurses are there whether or not there are acute beds used. I can tell members that when the people in the bush need an acute bed, they want it. They do not want to travel hundreds of kilometres just to get an acute bed, and I have spoken of that in this place previously. My father, who is getting on a bit in life, is 88 years of age and, because he has ulcers on his legs—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: He seems pretty well for his age, the member for Schubert comments, and he is, but occasionally he has to do extended stays in Tailem Bend. I would like a personal assurance from the minister that if my father gets ill he can be admitted, but I do not think it will happen. Do you know where I think he will end up if he has another problem with an ulcer on his leg? In Adelaide. That is just where minister Hill suggested they do not want country people. But that is where this country health non-plan is going to send country people.

There are a lot of other things I could talk about in this budget. I could talk about the Mount Bold non-expansion. I asked minister Gago whether there were any environmental impact statements done for the Mount Bold expansion, or any other expansion in the Adelaide Hills. We must remember that Mount Bold was the backbone of the 2007-08 budget, and that has just disappeared into the trees. It is not even a mirage in the desert or a mirage in the Hills. It has just disappeared. There have not even been any environmental studies completed on what would happen with expansion of any reservoir in the Hills or building of any new reservoirs.

I will comment on transport just briefly. Obviously, the government put $2 billion on the table for city transport and, as I acknowledged before, I have meetings with the Minister for Transport. I met with him regarding the Mallee transport scheme, which has changed over to a new operator. I was advised at that meeting with the minister that no services would be lost. Well, one was lost straight away before the service started. I will be keeping a close eye on what has happened with the Mallee transport and, hopefully, find out exactly how that contract was laid out. The government certainly will be held to account on this year's budget. I commend my remarks.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.D. LOMAX-SMITH (Adelaide—Minister for Education and Children's Services, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (17:51): I move:

That the remainder of the bill be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.