Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption resumed.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (16:47): In rising to support the Address in Reply, I say from the outset I am not sure how many Address in Reply debates I have participated in since 1970, but it is a considerable number. I must admit that on this occasion I feel somewhat more relaxed than I did on the first occasion that I had the honour and privilege of addressing this house. I suppose that as my time in this august and esteemed chamber draws to an end, this may be the last occasion upon which I have that particular privilege.

I say from the outset that I do not regret being given the opportunity to serve in this house. I have always regarded it as being an honour and a privilege to be a member of parliament and that one should conduct oneself responsibly and wisely and always act in the best interests of the people of this state.

I went into the Stranger's Lounge and counted up of the number of people I have served with. I hope my counting is accurate. I think that I have served with 173 members; that is 174 counting myself. I was fairly good at counting sheep so I hope that I have counted up correctly. I do not think I missed anyone, but it was particularly interesting looking at the people. I think the first one was the Hon. D.M. Brookman, whom I got to know when I first came here. He was a very good person with similar views to my own.

Mr Venning: Even my father.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, I served with the honourable member's father, I served with minister Wright's father, and with a number of other people.

Mr Venning: The member for Davenport's father.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The member for Davenport's. The deputy leader's—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Yes, all those people. In that time I have seen many changes take place. I have seen many enthusiastic people come into this place. Some have been very fortunate. Some have been unfortunate to be caught up in swings of political moods, one way or the other, and got swept in and swept out.

I congratulate the Governor on the manner in which he made his speech to parliament and I commend him for the way in which he and his wife are carrying out their duties. It is excellent that we have a South Australian carrying out this important role, someone representing the Crown. As a staunch monarchist, I believe that the system we have in this particular country is as good as you get anywhere in the world. The role of the Governor as a unifying force in our community, to encourage people and to bring out the best in the community is very important and that it is done in a bipartisan, responsible and friendly way.

As you know, Mr Speaker, one of interesting things in your role is going to Government House and delivering the bills to His Excellency. I do not know what the arrangement is now, but I can say to you that, during the time of Her Excellency Dame Roma Mitchell, it was a very formal occasion. One had to conduct oneself in an appropriate manner and be directed as to how one would present oneself. She had the habit of questioning the particular piece of legislation handed to her and giving her views on it, which was somewhat interesting.

Without speaking out of school, on one occasion I gave her a piece of legislation. She looked at it, turned over the pages and said, 'I don't particularly like this very much,' and I said, 'Your Excellency, I share your views on the matter.' She said, 'Who was the architect of it?' and I said, 'Minister so and so.' 'Oh,' she said, 'I wish I'd known.' The then premier said, 'I wish I'd known that the Governor wasn't happy, that would have been the end of it, we wouldn't have had it.' It was to do with skateboards going down North Terrace. We know which minister that was, and that was most interesting.

She said one or two other interesting things to me. I received some criticism from certain members for wearing the wig and all those things, and she said to me, 'I am of the view that it is absolutely essential that you do it and I intend to make those people who are criticising you know that I have directed you to wear this regalia, and those who are criticising you, I intend to have a word with them.' It was interesting after that; there was no further criticism made.

Mrs Redmond: It would be treasonous to reject the views of Her Excellency.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, one member did get an early minute for doing so.

Mr Venning: He reflected on the wig—my God!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No; it was slightly more than that. It was slightly more than the wig. You look up the record and you will see the whole process. He was looking for a bit of publicity, and he got it. He got four days, in actual fact. Ask the Deputy Premier, he knows about four days. He knows all about standing order 137.

Nevertheless, on occasions like this I would just like to say that the challenge to state members of parliament is to ensure, when we are examining the budget and the process of government, that we are really reflecting and putting into effect the needs of community. The great challenge for state governments in a changing society is to ensure that they are really targeting the real needs and issues. One of the things that concerns me is that I think state governments are trying to spread their resources too far and not actually concentrating and providing the resources for those really important issues.

In a large rural constituency like mine, and that of the member for Giles, road funding is of the highest priority. You may have heard in recent times the debates and discussions in the Far North by my friends the Williams, up at Hamilton Station, and other places and so on, about the need just to have the very basic maintenance and construction funds spent.

We have had the most challenging debate on health services. We want people to live in regional and country areas, and, in fact, if you look at the latest local government grants and the population numbers there, we can see an increase in the population in a number of these small communities. One of the first things people look at is: what are the health services? What services are there at the hospital? Is there a pharmacy there? Is there a dentist? Again, if you look at my constituency, in the last couple of years there have been pharmacies established in places like Booleroo Centre and Orroroo, all through funding arrangements put in by the previous federal government.

There have been, in the past, places like Hawker, Booleroo Centre and other hospitals that have had very considerable investments, and they have been supported by the community. Unless there is a guarantee that those services will be maintained and continued, you will not have increases in population. It is as simple as that. I will just give you an example. About 2½ weeks ago I happened to be home on my farm on Saturday at lunchtime. I said to my wife, 'We'll go to Port Kenny and get a paper.' She went to get up and her knee locked. It was not a very pleasant experience. I rang my son and we lifted her up, and then rang one hospital but there was no doctor. We rang the other and there was. It was about a 90 kilometre drive, but at least when you get there you have very good services at that hospital.

It happened to be Elliston Hospital. It has an interesting history. When I first came to this place in the early 70s, I represented Elliston and they were building a new hospital. They got it half-built and ran out of money, and I well recall taking the then chairman of the hospital board and the chairman of the council along to meet minister Banfield who kindly helped them finish it. So that community has not only a hospital, but an aged-care facility and other facilities there, a surgery for the doctor, and it is absolutely essential. It is a popular tourist resort where people come to have their holidays. But if those services are not there such places will not be as attractive for the tourists to go there. It is as simple as that.

In a place like Hawker, a large number of those people who come to that hospital to get services are tourists from Wilpena. There is going to be an upgrade at Wilpena. The Rasheed family have just sold their lease and outside people are going to make further investment there, which is a great thing for South Australia. Wilpena is one of the jewels in the crown of our tourist industry. Unless those services are there, it is going to be a disincentive. One night a few months ago, my wife and I were at Blinman. It was a pretty damp night. The road between Hawker and Blinman, because of the construction work to seal it, was completely a quagmire. There were some young chaps up there having a bucks party, because one of them was getting married, not an unusual thing to do, and they were a bit exuberant, perhaps slightly too exuberant, and one of them walked outside and fell down a pit at about half-past one in the morning. They had to drag the ambulance people from Leigh Creek and take him back to the hospital.

Now, the Sir Humphreys in the health commission have had their eye on Leigh Creek to shut it ever since I can remember, and I know that former health minister Dean Brown told me that every six months they would tell him that he should close it, and he said that his life would not be worth living if he did, and that was right, because that community is entitled to a hospital. That community and those people beyond need that facility. I would suggest to the government that, if the bureaucrats from the health commission were to try to shut that hospital, these lights here may get a little dim.

Those people have got a bit of a stick which most others in the community have not. I am fully aware of their views on what they propose to do, so I would say to Sir Humphrey one and two, sitting up there, isolated and out of touch with reality, Sherbon and others, and that bloke with the earrings, whatever his name is, up there in the health commission, if you want to start closing health services, I suggest you go and perhaps try Mount Gambier, or perhaps go and try Norwood, or one of those places, and see how well you get on. See what the result is. Keep your hands off the long-suffering people in rural South Australia because most of those communities have helped build those hospitals, they are pleased to continue to work for them, and they are entitled to have a say in their management.

I look forward to changes in the future, because the winds of political change are blowing through the corridors. People should be aware of it. One of the interesting things I have learnt is that when you happen to meet senior people in the Public Service and they think the winds of political change are blowing they become a lot more friendly towards you. It is interesting: they become a lot more friendly towards you and more amenable to your suggestions. So I would suggest that they need to be very much aware of what has got to happen in the health system. It may only be an interesting set of circumstances, but it is a feeling I have that they have become somewhat more amenable.

I was interested to hear today that a ministerial statement has been made in another place relating to recreational services and about helping pony clubs and things, which is very good. The question I raise for the now Minister for the Environment and Conservation, the minister in charge of the animal cruelty legislation, legislation that went through this parliament and set out to make life as difficult as it possibly could for the people who run rodeos—good volunteers who work hard to support the Flying Doctor Service—is that, when the government was given the opportunity to give reasonable protection to those people against frivolous, unnecessary or quite malicious prosecutions, it was not prepared to do so.

In the time I have left in this place, I intend to continue to pursue this matter, both in this place and in the community, with some vigour. Later in the year I will have the opportunity, at one or two of these occasions where there are large gatherings, to explain to those people what the likely consequences are for their future. I am looking forward to it. I have been invited to open a couple of them with 6,000 or 7,000 people there.

It will take me a day or two to work myself up to it, but nevertheless I will say a few well chosen words, and I will make sure that my predecessor is there and is given the right introduction in front of all of those good, hardworking people. Those people who ride horses and wrestle steers and things are the salt of the earth. It is a very good example of an Australian recreation. It is something which should be promoted and not hindered by obstructionist people.

Mr Venning: Or besmirched.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, they are doing more than that. You have a few of these crazies, you know. I have made comments about the horse trials, which seems to have upset Channel 7 and one of the others, but I have not lost any sleep over that. Channel 7 have never had to vote for me; I have never needed them in the past and I will not need them in the future. I have my good friends at GTS4, which is a good television station, and it will take me all of tomorrow to work myself up to do an interview with them on a range of subjects.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No. It takes a lot to get me on my feet, particularly when they point a microphone at me. I have to take a step back and take a breath. In recent times I have taken some interest in the ongoing attack on ordinary citizens with these disgraceful, on-the-spot fines. For my further education, I decided that I would go and sit in court, and I did so. I was very concerned that people, obviously without the ability or the means to represent themselves, are dragged before the court. A lot of them were quite terrified.

I think that if we have a system where we are taking people's rights away in a shockingly arbitrary manner and reversing the onus of proof on them with these on-the-spot fines—and many of these people have never had a conviction in their lives but are now subject to going to court—then we have to make sure that there is adequate legal advice available to them so they can adequately defend themselves against the aggressive and unnecessary issuing of these on-the-spot fines.

It was an education for me, and I suggest to all members that they avail themselves of the opportunity to go and sit in the courts and see how the laws that we have passed—and many people think they have done a great thing in passing the laws, but mostly we are taking someone's rights away or making life more difficult—are being implemented and what happens.

The Legal Aid people were doing their very best, but a lot of them were inexperienced. It was clear to me that a large number of the people before the courts were people in the lower socioeconomic group, one would say. They were people who were battling and who had done some quite foolish things. However, it appears to me that we really need to make sure that they are treated fairly.

One of the things that concerns me is that there seems to be an obsession with issuing on-the-spot fines. There appears to be relatively no recourse to the use of the trifling legislation. There is a need to change the system, and I intend to bring legislation into this parliament to give people a chance to have their case independently adjudicated and to make it illegal for the management of the police department to set quotas or to issue instructions that a certain number of cars must be stopped over a prescribed period. I think it is appalling, and we are going to face problems with the new legislation dealing with trucks. I issued a number of challenges before the house that either people did not understand or did not want to understand, and they accepted other advice. When these difficulties arise, I intend to fill the Notice Paper with questions on notice about the activities of those involved, and that will start from next week onwards.

There appears to be an obsession among those involved in prosecuting people to deny them their rights. A case was brought to my attention today in which a person was interviewed by one of these people and was told by this interviewing person that they had to answer the questions, he had the power to make them. I said to my constituent, 'Well, you should have told him to stick his head in a bucket of water, because he does not. You are entitled to have a lawyer present. Your answer should always be, "I will see you in my lawyer's office." If he got abusive or threatening then you should take his name and the number of the vehicle and contact your local member of parliament.'

This character is going to get his name on the Notice Paper because I am going to put some questions on notice. It is a function and role of a member of parliament when we are debating laws to have a watching brief on the laws that this parliament has passed, wisely or unwisely, to make sure they have been implemented in a responsible, fair and sensible way, not harshly or unreasonably. It is unnecessary to want to make life difficult for the community.

I come from a rural background and I strongly support the agricultural sector. I am very much aware of the great benefits to this state and this nation of the mining and tourism industries, and I am terribly concerned about the welfare of my constituents at Cadell, Morgan and Blanchetown where people are suffering great hardship. Of course, the real difficulty is that there are no simple and easy answers to these difficulties. If we want people to settle their water entitlements, it is clear to me that they have to be offered a very good incentive for them to do so and, if the value is X and it has to be X plus 25 per cent, that will be an investment in the long-term future.

Further to that, there needs to be some flexibility in the planning laws. I have had a number of people contact me who would probably wish to sell but they would like to live in their existing house on their half or full hectare, but there are planning difficulties preventing them from doing so which I think is quite ludicrous. They would be prepared.

It has been a most interesting exercise to be involved in the Natural Resources Committee where we have been visiting interstate and looking at the whole river system, and it is certainly a very complex issue. It is an issue which takes a lot of understanding. It was clear when we visited the Menindee Lakes that urgently needed engineering works should be done which could have a benefit for this state. We were only there for a limited time and we were given certain information, but I really do believe that the suggestions that were put to us need to be thoroughly investigated and acted upon.

When people say we should just let the water go, it is no good letting the water go if it is not going to get here. So, I think that the committee needs to take very good evidence and to examine all the options very closely. Of course, the best result would be to get substantial rain in the catchment areas. That would be the greatest result to help save the river. I understand the shortage of water. As someone who has had to provide their own water for most of their life, I understand the challenges and difficulties when adequate, reliable sources are not on hand, and it makes you very careful and cautious.

I would say to the government that it needs to be very cautious in dealing with those interstate because I think the Victorians have a far better cut of the cake than they are entitled to, and probably at our expense. It was challenging to go to look at Queensland and northern New South Wales. People who are making comments in these areas should clearly understand that there are no magic wands and, if you did attempt to buy some of these properties, you would think at this stage you would be buying fresh air. You would not be getting any water. So, people need to be cautious and make sure that any investment is made to achieve benefits to our hard-pressed Riverland producers because the effect of these problems, not only on them but their community, will be horrendous.

I was in the Riverland earlier this week. Unfortunately, the packing shed at Cadell has gone. So, there is an urgent need to do what we can. It is interesting, having been in this place for a long time, to reflect on the changes in technology since I was elected. When I first became a member of parliament I was on a party line, if anyone knows what a party line is. It was five or six people on the one telephone line and you took turns to use the telephone. There were no fax machines, no laptop computers.

Mr Venning: No mobiles.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No mobiles.

Mrs Redmond: A typing pool and a tea lady.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: There was a limited typing pool here at Parliament House and the building was in some urgent need of repair. We did not have the Festival Theatre car park. We had the old stables at the back and we used to park out the front and there was a policeman standing at the front to make sure you could get out when you went to back out.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: And others. Things have changed. Of course, we have a lot more bitumen roads. We also did not have electoral offices, and they have been a wonderful institution.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Long may incumbency reign.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I just want to say that I have been very fortunate with the people who have helped me in my term in this place. My office has been hard working, capable and has assisted me with my successes in this place.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: To squeak over the line three times in a row.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, there is one thing you—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It doesn't matter whether you win by a half head or the length of the straight.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It doesn't matter—I am still here. There is one thing: I have had a lot of advice about what I should do. I have always done my own thing. I own up to the fact that most of my leaders have found me a little hard to manage, but I make no apologies. I admit to being somewhat single-minded and somewhat of moderate views and—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Immoderate.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Moderate—I have always been fair-minded.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I am sure you said 'immoderate'.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: But, at the end of the day, I have had one guiding light: I used to stick up for the people of my constituency.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No villains?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: No, to stick up for people. No matter who they are or where they come from, if they have a just cause I will stick up for them, and I have stuck up for them. There are some people who currently, I believe, have been badly treated. That is why I have been going to the court and watching what is happening. At the end of the day they will get their moment in the sun in this place. I think the hallmark of democracy is how you treat people, particularly people who do not have the ability to stand up and represent themselves. That is our role and our function, and this parliament should always allow members that opportunity.

The processes of this parliament, with its two houses and the various other opportunities, should never be run down, abused or misused. Anyone who, for their own short-term publicity, such as Mr Xenophon and others, tries to undermine this institution, I think, is doing a great disservice to democracy, as does anyone who tries undermine the role of the presiding officers and other institutions. They are really very ill informed and do not understand that a lot of the privileges that this parliament has are really not our privileges but belong to the people. We only exercise them from time to time, like parliamentary privilege. That does not belong to us; it belongs to the people.

In my experience, it is similar to people who put on a turn about the salaries of members of parliament. They do not normally last very long, because people see through them as being shallow and as stunt people. I do not think they do the cause any good. I know they do not do their constituents much good because, if they are shallow in those sorts of issues, they will be the same on other important issues. Whether I have the chance to make another Address in Reply speech I cannot say, but it has been a privilege to be here. I have enjoyed the speeches, raising matters of concern. In the time that I have left here I will continue—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Don't go, Gunny!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: —I will keep raising them. It is all right; one should know when one's time has come. You should know when your time has come because—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes; 38 years.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, it will be a few weeks under 40 when I finish. But I have a few other things that I would like to do.

Time expired.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (17:17): I must say that it is a pleasure to follow the Hon. Mr Gunn, member for Stuart, in my Address in Reply. Well do I remember my very first Address in Reply in this chamber, prior to which the honourable member came along and said to me and others who were new on that occasion, 'You can read your maiden speech, but after that expect me to do something if you start reading your speeches.' I took him at his word, as I am wont to do, so the poor old Hansard staff never get notes from me because I make speeches instead of reading things that I have written out beforehand or, indeed, that someone else has written out beforehand. And it is largely thanks to the member for Stuart, because I believe that he would indeed come along and remove my notes.

I am grateful for that, and I am grateful to know the honourable member. I will be saddened when he leaves this place. Like the Attorney-General, I think the member for Stuart's departure will be a sad loss and that he should stay, but I understand that after 38 years, and nearly 40 years when the time comes, he probably will feel that he has done his service by us and the people of his electorate. I have to say that his basic principles—and he is a man of great principle—and the manner in which he has conducted himself throughout the 38 years so far, I think, are a lesson to us all. I would like to find some way to put on record the stories that I am sure the member for Stuart could tell us, because it will be a sad loss when we no longer have him in our house.

My Address in Reply, however, probably should turn to the speech delivered by His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, our new Governor. I thank him for his attendance at parliament yesterday and for the speech, although I accept that probably the words were not entirely his. He is a man who has done an enormous amount for our community. From my conversations with him, he appears to be really quite enjoying being able to yet again give back to the community in his new role of Governor. With his wife, Liz, we should be grateful that he is prepared to serve in that way.

I am a little surprised that we have to have an Address in Reply, because I was surprised that the parliament was prorogued. I am still a little puzzled as to why a government, at this stage, would prorogue the parliament. For some members, I can understand that last year the parliament was prorogued because we wanted to have a ceremonial recommencement to celebrate the sesquicentenary of self-government in this state. But, the fact that we have now prorogued and recommenced means that some of our new members are up to their third Address in Reply already, which is really, I think, a little bit unusual.

So, I thought: what would be the motive for the government wanting to prorogue and start again? It could be that it just wants to get a whole lot of things off the Notice Paper. But that does not make a lot of sense because we will simply reintroduce all the things that are on the Notice Paper and the government will spend a lot of time putting its own things onto the Notice Paper again. In fact, in some cases we will have the opportunity to debate issues that have already been debated, and so on. That did not make a lot of sense in terms of motivation, so I thought maybe it is because the government feels that it needs a bit of a bounce in the polls, as it were.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I suspect from the Attorney's protestations—methinks he doth protest too much—that perhaps I have hit a raw nerve, in that the government wanted to have a statement about the government and all its good intentions and good works, and not have to get on with the real work of being in government. They are certainly tired and lacklustre—and, in fact, the Attorney seemed to have his eyes closed more than open through a lot of yesterday afternoon. I thought that that was probably part of the motive.

I have noticed that, over the last week or so, the government has been doing a lot of advertising on television, in particular. We have seen the Premier heading a lot of these advertisements. I am gobsmacked by that, because I seem to recall that some time ago someone said that when you see a politician spruiking in a commercial, in fact, it is party political advertising. I am paraphrasing the words but that is, in essence, what was said; that this was nothing more than government paid party political advertising.

That is what galls me more than anything else about this government, and particularly this Premier. He has such a thick hide that, having said in his earlier days, 'If you see government advertising it is nothing more than paid party political advertisements,' he then dares to turn around and spend massive amounts of money, no doubt, on his party political advertising.

I should not be surprised by the gall and the thickness of the hide of this Premier because, after all, it was he who wrote about the mirage in the desert, and now the mirage in the desert is to be a saviour for this state, in terms of its economic future. I have no problem with a premier who takes one view and, over a period of years, changes his mind. There is nothing wrong with that at all, if someone has a view and is persuaded on the evidence that a different view is the preferred one.

However, one would imagine that they might at least be a little humble about it. But not this Premier. This Premier just throws the phrase back and tries to use it against us. We always supported Roxby Downs, but this Premier gets up and says the most astounding things. Mind you, the Premier now recognises the importance of these things to the state's economy. We had tried to tell him for years, but he would never say so.

I now wish to refer to the speech that was delivered yesterday by our Governor, His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, He said some interesting things. At the beginning of the speech he said: 'My government proposes to continue its program to foster economic growth, prosperity and opportunity for South Australia.' Is that not fascinating? For a start, what would any government say but that?

However, this government's attack and how it will go about fostering economic growth, prosperity and opportunity is, to say the least, puzzling. We heard a question earlier today during question time about how our taxes here are 50 per cent higher than the taxes in the cheapest taxing state, which is Queensland. Our youth unemployment levels are the highest of any state. Our exports are trending downwards. We have this wonderful aim that we will treble our exports in the period of their economic forecast but, in fact, they are trending downwards.

The government keeps talking about a mining boom but, in reality, what we have is a boom in mining exploration that has not yet turned into a mining boom. However, it is clear that, if this mining boom is to happen, we will need massive amounts of infrastructure. We will need housing and people who have the training to participate in the mining sector. And what is this government doing? It is building an extension of the tram to the Entertainment Centre. It is just a nonsense.

The government does not seem to realise that, if we are to have a mining boom, hopefully, it will lead to a lot of extra employment in this state. However, there are plenty of places where miners do a fly-in and fly-out, and there is no guarantee at all that if they are going to fly in and fly out they will fly in and fly out from Adelaide and live here. They could just as easily fly in and fly out from Sydney, Brisbane, Perth or somewhere else, and we could miss out on a lot of the economic benefits, unless this government starts to pay some attention to the need for the development of real infrastructure and services in the areas that will properly service the mining boom, if and when we get to the stage of a mining boom.

I agree with the government's statement in the Governor's address that the biggest challenge is the issue of water security. However, the government then went on and talked about the drought as though that was the explanation for the crisis we are now experiencing. There is no doubt that we are in the grip of a bad drought. However, this country has always had droughts. The reality of our water problems is that they relate largely to overallocation, which has gone on along the length of the whole basin for a long time and, I suspect, a lot of theft of water.

We need an audit, and we need some immediate action. To say that it is the drought, I think, misses the point entirely. The reality is that we need to do something very urgently, and this government thus far does not even seem to recognise that fact, let alone do anything to solve the problem.

On that topic, I want to touch briefly on the announcement made by the Premier yesterday, because I could not believe it. When the Premier got up I understood him to say, 'We have referred our powers to the commonwealth over this whole issue.' I thought that that seemed a peculiarly silly thing to do. I accept the need to refer the powers to the commonwealth, but only if we do it in concert with all the other states. There is absolutely no benefit to this state if we refer our powers to the commonwealth and the other states do not refer theirs. So, in my view, whilst referral of powers is something that we possibly need to do, we need to do it only on the basis that the other states refer their powers.

However, I have been told today that I have the wrong end of the whole thing. I have been advised that what the Premier did yesterday, although he made it sound as though he was referring the powers over the whole basin, was to refer only certain powers to enable the administration of the Murray-Darling Basin authority—which we all know will be a toothless tiger with no real independence and no power to compel any state to do anything.

We also know that the Victorian arrangements will stay in place until at least 2019 or 2021. In the Governor's speech the government referred to the purchase of water licences. Again, that seems to largely miss the point. As the member for Stuart was saying, you need to be very careful about how you target those purchases. The reality is that you could be purchasing thin air in terms of seeing more water coming down the river. The government just does not seem to realise that there is no point in purchasing, for instance, sleeper licences. They need to be removed from the system, but a sleeper licence is a licence that is not being used. At present, no water is being taken out of the system on that licence, so purchasing it makes not one drop of difference to the amount of water coming downstream. I agree with the comments of the member for Stuart in terms of what we need to do.

The government talks about its efforts in a whole range of environmental issues. I suspect it is wanting to trumpet its environmental credentials. It paid so much attention to it at the beginning of the Governor's speech. It talks about desalination. Thank you member for Davenport and other members of the Liberal team who—for a good 12 months prior to this government's finally being dragged kicking and screaming to recognise the need for a desalination plant—had done all the background research and figured out that this was a partial answer to the water problems of South Australia. As much as the government might want to take credit for the introduction of a desalination plant—and, certainly, the speech does not give any recognition to the member for Davenport—the reality is that the public on that issue actually remembers that we came out with it 12 months earlier. We championed that cause until the government was finally dragged kicking and screaming to agree that it was necessary.

It is in no way a complete solution on the issue of water, but it is a necessary backup for water. The Governor's speech refers to the Mount Lofty Ranges reservoirs and the government's desire to increase the storage capacity of Mount Lofty Ranges reservoirs. I am sure members on this side will remember that the government, quite clearly, had a very specific policy of doubling Mount Bold reservoir. We had pictures on the front page of the Eastern Courier. The government was going to double the size of Mount Bold reservoir. It did not mention that it intended to double the capacity so that it could pump more water from the Murray. That is a bright idea for solving the water problem—take more water from the River Murray! Now, the government has backed off from that idea. Suddenly, it is increasing the capacity of reservoirs in the Adelaide Hills or Mount Lofty Ranges rather than doubling the size of Mount Bold reservoir.

In relation to stormwater reuse, Martin Hamilton-Smith and Mitch Williams have already announced their plans. If you look at the government's policy, they probably grabbed that from Martin 2010, the website on which Martin had the water policy published for some time. Certainly, we are still working on it. I do not think we will ever get to the point where we know absolutely all the answers, but, thank you, Martin Hamilton-Smith and the Liberal team for the stormwater reuse idea.

The Governor's speech then talks about wastewater reuse. I am stunned that the government dares to mention wastewater reuse. In fact, we had three bills in the Legislative Council which dealt with sewerage and mining, and all that sort of stuff, and which the government opposed. It is extraordinary that flushing our toilets is 11 per cent of our water use. Some 11 per cent of our water use is flushing potable water down the toilet. In the driest inhabited state in the driest inhabited continent on earth, it is a nonsense to be flushing potable water down our toilets.

Then we get the idea that the government will continue to support the use of renewable energy. This speech is very cleverly worded because it does not say that the government has done anything—just that it will continue to support renewable energy at Coober Pedy and Goyder Pavilion and hot rocks technology. These things are private enterprise and the government is saying, 'We support that.' We all know how well Labor governments support solar energy. Look at what Kevin Rudd has done in relation to solar energy. Why not remove the incentive for everyone with a combined household income of over $100,000 because that will instantly destroy the industry? Anyone with under $100,000 is struggling to pay the mortgage and petrol under the wonderful government regime and they cannot afford to think about going solar. It is actually a reasonably expensive activity. It is not something that people on limited incomes will be doing. Thank you very much Kevin Rudd and the Labor government.

There is mention of planting one million trees. I am all in favour of planting trees, but it strikes me as a nonsense that we are talking about planting one million trees in the same breath as we are talking about water restrictions. In the past 12 months or so, little old ladies have not been allowed to water their gardens—which are their pride and joy and which keep erosion and house tracking at bay. We will not allow people to water their gardens but we will plant one million trees. It makes no sense.

The last thing on the environmental agenda is the banning of lightweight plastic shopping bags. I will make a personal comment about that. I am not an expert in the area, but I think it is probably not a good idea in that 20 years ago I brought back biodegradable cornstarch plastic bags from the United States. I think it would have been more sensible to simply say that we will impose on the retailers an impost if they choose to use non-biodegradable bags, but if they are using the biodegradable bags, then it is business as usual, because otherwise I think we will put a huge impost on people and we will end up with a whole lot of the so-called environmental bags which will be less biodegradable than what we have.

I will not say much about health in general, although I do want to comment on the government's proposals for mental health services because I cannot believe that this government is still prepared to sell off the farm—and that is what it is doing at Glenside. Whilst I can accept that, in some dreadful economic circumstances, it might be necessary to do that—that is, take that facility and use it for things other than the mental health campus that it has always been—it is a step in the absolute wrong direction. Over many years, I have discussed with Jonathan Philips, the former director of mental health in this state, the mental health issues in this state. Of course, he came from Sydney. I happened to know Jonathan before his appointment because he had been a witness kind enough to give evidence in a case that I was running.

We maintained a friendship but, because he was in that employment, we were not very close. He certainly could not disclose inappropriate things about the government, but he certainly did let me know, in any number of discussions that, in his view, the ownership of that facility by the mental health sector so close to the centre of a major city was an absolute jewel in the crown in terms of our opportunities to address issues of mental health in this state. But what is this government doing? It is going to use it for all sorts of wonderful rebuildings and refurbishments, but it is selling off the farm in order to make money out of the whole thing.

I now turn to transport. The Governor spoke in his address about building yet more tramlines—and I have already expressed a view on that. It is interesting that he is very interested in extending the tram to the Entertainment Centre. I asked many questions during budget estimates about the park'n'ride at the Entertainment Centre because it is clear, if you look at the questions, that the intention of the Treasurer at least is to make people pay to use the park'n'ride at the Entertainment Centre. There is no doubt in my mind that that will be the plan; that is, they will start charging. Once you start charging for one park'n'ride, why would you not charge for all the park'n'rides? This government clearly has an agenda in that direction, which I notice it does not deny. It will not deny that that is the plan.

In any event, enough about that. The important thing is the lack of real attention to our roads infrastructure throughout the state. The roads infrastructure in this state has been in a sad state of neglect since this government came to office. We know that there needs to be a lot of resealing, a lot of work on shoulder programs and so on, and it simply is not happening at the rate that is sufficient to keep up with current need and to address any of the backlog. Members may be aware that I spent about 10 years on the Road Safety Advisory Council for South Australia. The Road Safety Advisory Council taught me a thing or two about road safety issues.

It is fundamentally the case that we have already addressed two of the three basic prongs of road safety. We have addressed the issue of the safety of vehicles. They are much safer than they used to be. We have that shell that keeps us basically safe, as well as air bags, seat belts and all sorts of wonderful things that now keep us much safer in a vehicle. The second aspect is driver behaviour, and we have largely addressed that. We have had good trends in driver behaviour with the reduction in road accidents, their severity, the number of deaths and so on. We have addressed those two issues. The third issue is that of the roads and what is called the roadside furniture, or the things alongside the roads. There is a failure by this government to recognise that as the third prong and to address it.

I will skip over a couple of things about which I had made notes because I do want to mention a couple of issues concerning the Attorney-General's portfolio and the shadow attorney-general's portfolio. First, I refer to page 16 of the address by the Governor. He says:

Improvements to the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act will enable law enforcement agencies to target the unexplained wealth of drug traffickers and known criminals.

A laudable thing to do, but let me tell you—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: But you won't be in favour of it, of course.

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney calls out that I will not be in favour of it. On 25 July last year, I received a text message on my phone from the Hon. Robert Lawson in another place. He sent me a text message which I still have on my telephone. It says:

Be aware that Liberal amendments to Criminal Assets Confiscation Bill was opposed by government in the Leg Co. Our amendment was to include unexplained wealth declarations against bikies and organised criminals etc. as requested by the police.

Once again, just like when this government took over the member for Schubert's drug driving legislation (after he pursued it single-handedly for two years) and trumpeted it as their own, here they are in the Governor's address saying, 'We are going to do this.' I still have the record on my phone. I kept the message so that I could say, 'Here is the date on which I was advised that this government rejected the very same thing'—and it does that frequently. It takes what is clearly a good idea from the other side and says, 'Oh, we will not accept it now, but we will come in afterwards and introduce it ourselves.'

Similarly, they talk about Monsignor Cappo's To Break the Cycle report. Again I refer to page 16 of the address by the Governor. It says:

And the government will introduce additional changes to juvenile justice laws and establish a youth parole board in order to tackle the difficult issues identified by Social Inclusion Commissioner Monsignor David Cappo's To Break the Cycle report.

I do not know whether the Attorney-General has actually read Monsignor David Cappo's To Break the Cycle report, but if he has, he will have noticed that at the very beginning of that report, almost the first thing that Monsignor Cappo says is that he wants to acknowledge the work of the juvenile justice select committee of the parliament. That committee met for 18 months, was chaired by the Hon. Bob Such (the member for Fisher), with three members from the Labor Party and three members from the Liberal Party, and heard evidence for over 12 months. It came up with 43 recommendations, which were unanimously supported by that committee, and the government has proceeded to ignore those since that report was brought in here at the conclusion of the select committee.

There were 43 unanimous recommendations specifically dealing with issues in juvenile justice, talking about the importance of early intervention, and Monsignor Cappo is generous enough to acknowledge that they formed a large part of the basis for his considerations in his report. The government chooses now to say, 'Oh, well, we're going to do something suggested by Monsignor Cappo.' The government has never acknowledged the work done by that committee, which I still believe was one of the most valuable committees on which I have served in this parliament, and I think that a little bit of acknowledgement would go a long way.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney asks why I am not the Attorney-General already and if he has not figured out that I am in opposition and he is in government, that probably says enough. It is interesting that at least when I become attorney-general, we will have one in place who has been in court as a practitioner. The Attorney-General, of course, has spent more time in court as a witness than he ever has as a practitioner, and I have no doubt that that is going to continue to be the case for ever more. He will never have served this—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: He may have been a member of parliament for a long time, but—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney says he might do crash and bash cases. Let me tell you, I had a lot more experience than just doing crash and bash cases and I appeared in many tribunals, and never as a witness, Attorney, and never as a plaintiff or a defendant. In this state, I will put my credibility on the line against yours any time, Attorney. With those few comments, I close my remarks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson.

At 17:48 the house adjourned until Tuesday 23 September 2008 at 11:00.