REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (11:30): I move:

That this house condemns this Labor government for wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds on gimmicks, icons and non-income earning liabilities, while totally neglecting the infrastructure needed in regional areas that would underpin the industries from which the state reaps a massive export income and also the much touted mining boom.

After years of warning this government to be careful of blow-outs in expenditure, I note that this year the Auditor-General has given a final warning, stating in his report that years of continual growth in government revenues to fund increases in expenses were over.

In March 2002 the state Labor government took over a state that was financially viable and prospering. Labor's $9 billion debt had been paid off by the Liberal government, brought in when the state was technically bankrupt and unable to pay the interest on its debt. GST income was rolling in at higher levels than had been expected. New trade options were producing additional export revenue and a mining boom was on the horizon. South Australia looked set for a happy and prosperous future.

That scenario did not last long under this Labor government. The Treasurer and the Premier—both of whom were part of the previous Labor government that supported Tim Marcus Clark and oversaw the collapse of the State Bank—are still here and in control of the state's finances. Debt levels are rising, despite the increased revenue received: $6 billion more last financial year than the $9.3 billion received in 2002-03 by the last Liberal government.

Funding for rural and regional projects, such as the sealing of all rural arterial roads—which had been underway under the Liberal government—was slashed and then quietly dropped from the budget and future planning. Rural roads of economic significance, which the Liberal government had planned to seal, were relegated to Labor's 'not under us' basket, as its population-based funding policy took hold in all portfolios. Population-based funding requires that money is spent where the people are—which happens to be where the most Labor votes are clustered in the metropolitan area. I argue that money should be spent where the most benefit for all the people of the state could be gained.

Investing in Nation Building infrastructure would provide a good return on investment from taxpayers' dollars and facilitate the exports that provide real wealth for this nation—money that is then churned in the city in the provision of services needed by these major export income earners. When the income base is sound more funding can be provided for all the things we want in order to ensure we have caring and supportive communities, with a good standard of living for all, both in the city and in country regions.

The Gawler Craton mineralisation that underlies Eyre Peninsula and the north has been described as one of the most underdeveloped prospective mining regions in the world. However, the region must have necessary rail, road, water and port infrastructure if the potential of its minerals is to be realised. Small mineral exploration companies do not have the funding, nor the expertise, to provide the necessary infrastructure to become mining companies. In most countries this infrastructure is provided by the government, which will benefit from the considerable mining royalties and economic activity generated by mining developments.

Instead of building regional infrastructure that will benefit everyone in the long term, the mining industry has been told by the state Labor government to provide its own infrastructure, while a tramline has been built at great expense in order to duplicate a public bus service along King William Street and North Terrace, adding to traffic congestion; and now the tram is being extended to the Entertainment Centre (where there is a train line within a short walking distance), with further extensions mooted ostensibly to drive development at Port Adelaide. The debacle over the cost and suitability of the trams brought from overseas and not designed for our climate is another story altogether.

The Liberal government, under premier Tom Playford, recognised the need to decentralise, diversify and develop the regions. He recognised the role of government was to spend taxpayers' funds to provide infrastructure that it is not viable for a business to provide initially to ensure export development, jobs and more state income from taxes and charges. He provided essential funding for the port, steel and shipbuilding industries at Whyalla, and a power station at Port Augusta. Thank heavens we had visionary decision makers at the helm when this state was established.

True to its dogma of centralist control, the government shifted public servants from the country to Adelaide under the shared services policy, ostensibly to provide better, more cost-effective services but sucking an estimated $165 million out of the regions. Only recently, the Treasurer was at complete odds with the PSA. On ABC Radio, Jan McMahon stated that shared services was:

...very stressful and there is a lot of high workload issues...at least a quarter of the workforce, 25 per cent, are temporary people...they struggle to get people to replace ongoing people who leave.

That is contrary to the Treasurer's assertions that:

Shared Services is working very, very well despite what Jan McMahon and the PSA say.

I would suggest that perhaps Jan McMahon and the PSA are more in touch with how the people on the ground dealing with the stress and inefficiencies are really faring than the Treasurer with his defensive response.

Along with this is the government's metrocentric policy of bulk buying and contracting, cutting out local suppliers of fresh produce and locally provided products, services, repairs and maintenance, instead replacing these with stale goods and little or no maintenance and servicing, as the cost of bringing people to the country to provide these is prohibitive. Despite evidence that centralisation of providing goods and services is a costly exercise and has failed to be economically viable wherever it has been tried previously, this government ignored facts and went ahead with its agenda.

These activities are false economies of scale that rip the heart out of country communities where even the loss of one government job results in the loss of a family and children that keep an extra teacher and subject options in the local school. The domino effect that is devastating in small communities would go unnoticed in the city. Do members remember the Premier's pledge to South Australians prior to being elected? He said, 'We will cut government waste and redirect millions now spent on consultants to hospitals and schools—Labor's priorities.' Despite these grand words, consultants and consultancies are thriving and waste is rife across government, with the populist Premier and his ministers being very lavish with taxpayers' funds in promoting themselves in the media.

Liberal leader Isobel Redmond has publicly criticised the promotional waste and said a Liberal government would not spend public revenue on self-promotion. The opposition leader can be credited with causing the Premier and his colleagues to reduce their blatant personal promotion to some extent. There is no money to undertake the action to get essential water for South Australians, but there is abundant money to produce full colour, oversized pamphlets printed on quality and expensive paper about what the government is going to do. The Water for Good promotion that came out in booklets, extensive advertising and pamphlets reportedly is to be a regular feature to preach to the converted at great cost that could and should be used to actually do something constructive. Instead, they are burdening the volunteers in a region as big as Eyre Peninsula with more work and some of the highest per capita NRM levies in the state.

The Department for Environment and Heritage Special Edition Landscapes 36-page full colour booklet outlines past achievements and what the government intends to do, but without costing or information about where the money is coming from to pay for the proposed projects. I quote one such project:

The aim is to identify conservation priorities for a 12,000 square kilometre area within the East meets West Naturelink.

Meanwhile, the state government has abandoned many of its responsibilities to NRM boards and has reduced the number of rangers to 100 to manage more than 300 parks in the state. I understand that the department has been asked to reduce its budget by $12 million in the next couple of years. So, just who is managing the pest plants and animals and ensuring that adequate fire prevention measures are in place?

In September, the minister announced that the government had purchased an additional 1,400 hectares near Streaky Bay to be added to existing parks in the area and that a new western districts office would be opened in Streaky Bay and a district ranger appointed. Smoke and mirrors! The staff position has been stolen from the Gawler Ranges National Park and I understand that the office is the former PIRSA office which recently closed but which has now been completely refitted for the relocated park ranger.

In a West Coast Sentinel article regarding this purchase, minister Weatherill was quoted as saying, 'In addition to this freehold purchase, the government is working on a previously foreshadowed plan to add unallotted crown land to the coastal parks and reserves'—more land tied up without adequate resources to manage it; just an expectation that farmers and local volunteers will keep doing the work.

The glossy expensive brochures are still being churned out; eight pages of full colour with the minister's photo and a spiel on the front. The Department for Environment and Heritage's spring issue Landscapes propaganda newsletter recently arrived; although how a photograph of a heavily tattooed, overweight supposed prisoner is promoting our cultural heritage is beyond me.

The hypocrisy does not end there. The remarkable Magill Training Centre turnaround and the ability to find funding when public opinion forces this government's hand is astonishing. The previous decision to remove the Magill Training Centre from the list of projects because funding it would threaten the state's AAA rating while allocating $43 million funding for a film hub on the Glenside Hospital site is the kind of hypocrisy that we are constantly seeing with this government. I have been told that there are (or, at least, were) private investors interested in providing the film hub at Port Adelaide using the old warehouses, which could have saved millions of dollars. However, that was not facilitated.

The gimmicks, smoke and mirrors and excessive waste is magnified when we look at the government's narrow vision and self-promotion in building a new icon hospital on the old railway yards instead of rebuilding—not renovating—the Royal Adelaide Hospital on the existing site. Hospitals have been successfully rebuilt onsite throughout the world, so why should Adelaide be any less able to undertake a project of this magnitude? The deceptive promotion of disruption and inefficiency as a reason for shifting our iconic hospital beggars belief. By rejecting the government's proposed new hospital, South Australians could immediately save $500 million, have a world-class facility on the optimum site and keep the rail yard site available for extending the entertainment centre of the city down to the old gaol along the river, as it should be.

Buildings do not in themselves make a service, it is the people and the attitude that make the difference, and $500 million saved on bricks and mortar can provide a lot of health services to people throughout the state. We do not deserve a fly-in, fly-out health service, as stated by the Minister for Health on the ABC on 17 September. He said, 'We can provide those services on a fly-in, fly-out basis, which we're doing more and more of.' Regional people are driving to Adelaide more and more, as happened recently, when a young man broke his leg and could not have it set in Port Lincoln, Whyalla or Port Augusta. South Australians must not be hoodwinked and brainwashed by promotions into a wasteful Labor government icon for which our children and grandchildren will have to pay for generations to come.

Some 10 years ago, the Liberal government established the Regional Development Infrastructure Fund (RDIF), recognising and valuing the importance of regional infrastructure in driving economic growth, creating employment opportunities and acknowledging that regional communities are fundamental to the success of our state's economy. The RDIF has been instrumental in providing investment in essential power, water, electricity and telecommunications infrastructure, especially in growth industries such as horticulture, agriculture, aquaculture and tourism. Even former Labor premier John Bannon put funding into the Port Lincoln marina to provide a safe harbour for what is now the biggest fishing fleet in Australia.

Under the present state government, the current level of funding is $1.5 million lower than it was in 1999, despite the Rann government's presiding over seven of the best economic years that South Australia has ever had.

Again I use the analogy of the farmer who reroofs the farmhouse, paves the driveway, fences the house paddock, provides a ride-on mower for the grass, but puts nothing back into the farm where the income is being generated. It all looks good and prosperous on the outside, but with no income suddenly the farm goes broke and people are left wondering why. Adelaide might look fantastic with the new hospital, new trams and gimmicks like retrofitted solar panels and mini wind turbines, but it behoves the government to look after its income-earning assets and provide more in the state's regions where much of the real income is generated, even if the biggest population does not live there.

But back to smoke and mirrors. The populist state government has jumped on the bandwagon of world disaster through environmental changes in the future, with possible erosion in 200 years' time preventing developments. Coastal property owners have had land confiscated via restrictive planning controls for so-called coastal protection—in one instance up to eight kilometres inland from the sea. The area of land taken in the freeholding process and taken out of agricultural production in another example was up to two-thirds of the property. In addition, the family had to bear the cost of surveying and fencing, all without any compensation. The family, I have been told, have sold up and left the district.

Can you imagine the public outcry if this happened along metropolitan Adelaide's stretch of populated coastline? Would the government continue to defy understandably outraged public opinion? But, of course, this will not happen, because apparently the projected rise in sea level will only occur along the South Australian coastline that does not form part of the Adelaide metropolitan area.

South Australians are frustrated with the wrong priorities of this government and the wastage that continues to occur throughout this state. We all look to being supplied with green energy as the responsible way to go, but spending hundreds of thousands of dollars retrofitting miniature, depreciating wind turbines and solar panels on the top of buildings is ridiculous, expensive and shortsighted. These buildings already have affordable and reliable power.

Time expired.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (11:46): I oppose this motion on behalf of the government.

Mr Pederick: I don't see you out in the regions.

Mr BIGNELL: Well, I will give you a little lesson, member for Hammond, on what is happening in the regions, because people like you and the member for Flinders come in here and all you ever do is talk down the regions. The Rann government is about supporting the regions. We actually appreciate the value of the regions and the value they bring to our state. As someone who grew up in the South-East and who has spent a lot of time in various regions in South Australia, I know the Rann government is out there caring about the regions, investing in the regions and delivering for the regions, as opposed to what occurred in the Olsen/Brown/Kerin years when the regions were neglected and left to whither.

The Rann government cares about the regions. The Rann government has invested and will continue to invest in the regions and lead renewal in the regions. The Rann government recognises the importance of the regions for the whole of South Australia. The Liberals, when in power, neglected the regions and in opposition continue to talk them down. We recognise the importance of the regions to the state's export performance and through agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fishing, aquaculture, wine production, food processing, tourism, manufacturing, mining, and mineral production and processing. The regions also provide South Australians with fresh, healthy, clean and green food products, and they are great places to visit . They are increasingly becoming the source of green energy, positioning the state for a more prosperous and sustainable future.

The member for Flinders bemoans the fact that some wind turbines are being erected on buildings in the CBD. I have been to Eyre Peninsula for the opening of wind farms. The government has helped bring on wind farms not just on the Eyre Peninsula but in the Mid North, the Fleurieu Peninsula and throughout the entire state. When we came to power in 2002, there was not a single wind turbine in this state.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: No, the member for Finniss needs to go back and check his history, because I was working in the minister's office when we came to power in 2002. I was in the office of the minister for energy when the proponents were trying to get Starfish Hill up. They had had nothing but frustration and disinterest from the previous Liberal government, which did not care about the regions and wind energy. Have a look at where South Australia is now. Seven and a half years later, we are leading this nation with wind energy and solar power. You did nothing and you are a disgrace as a party and as a government. The people of this state know what you did not do and they will acknowledge that on 20 March next year when they go to the polls and you will lose even more seats. You were a government that did nothing.

One can look across the border at when Jeff Kennett got in and turned the state around. What happened when Dean Brown and John Olsen got in here? They argued with each other; you backstab each other. The same backstabbing has been going on, led by many of the regional members, for the past 40 years. You are a disgrace as a party. The Rann Labor government is in here, investing in our regions and doing the best by them so that everyone in South Australia can prosper.

Since March 2006 the unemployment rate in regional South Australia has fallen from 6.6 per cent to 3.9 per cent, with the creation of over 38,000 jobs, just in seven years. How about listening to some of the facts instead of coming in from the regions with your whingeing and moaning. Regional population has increased by 1.3 per cent since 2006 and regional populations comprise 19.1 per cent of the state's population, ahead of the South Australian State Strategic Plan target of 18 per cent. Since the 2002-03 budget we have spent $658 million on regional roads. Since 2006 we have resurfaced around 2,953 lane kilometres of rural roads. In the 2009-10 budget an additional $23 million over the next four years was allocated for the rural road safety program.

We have spent more than $150 million on rebuilding our regional schools, more than $150 million to help rebuild our regional hospitals, $12.5 million on a GP Plus Centre in Port Pirie, building children's centres in Port Augusta, Renmark and Murray Bridge. We have provided more than $60 million for drought support programs since 2002. We have provided funding for new police facilities at Murray Bridge, Roxby Downs, Victor Harbor, Aldinga, Berri and Port Lincoln. We have built a new $7.5 million MFS/CFS/SES facility at Port Lincoln, not that the local member ever comes in here and says thanks for anything or argues in a coherent way for benefits to go to her region. She comes in here, whinges, whines and attacks. Everyone will be very grateful when there is a new member for Flinders after 20 March next year.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr BIGNELL: I'll tell you what: Mary-Lou Corcoran will be the next member for Finniss.

Mr Pengilly: Dream on!

Mr BIGNELL: No, you dream on pal! Look at the result in Frome. You are on the nose in your heartland—the people of Frome proved that. You will be out of Finniss and we will win Stuart as well. We have a great candidate in Stuart in Sean Holden. The regions are well represented by the Rann Labor government. The people in the regions appreciate that, and you will be the voted off the island.

The Rann government has invested more than $10 million to support regional government open space projects that have helped beautify and improve country towns through landscaping, walkways and barbecue facilities. This program has also helped provide local jobs in regional South Australia. We have established Services SA regional call centres in Port Lincoln, Murray Bridge, Berri, Gawler, Kadina and Whyalla to help deliver government services, such as motor registration. Through the regional development fund we have invested $24.7 million supporting infrastructure projects, energy assets, water, waste, roadworks and telecommunications, among others, creating an estimated 4,900 new jobs and enabling an estimated $1.1 billion in total investment.

The Rann government has provided $18 million over five years for Regional Development Board programs to provide advisory and support services direct to individual local businesses and to state and local government in the regions, and a service delivery mechanism for a number of other state and commonwealth programs. Through the Rural Town Development Fund we have provided $2 million for the development of iconic projects to enhance attractiveness and liveability in four regional centres across South Australia, and funding of the Riverland Futures Task Force to promote the strengthening, diversification, enhancement and sustainability of local enterprises and infrastructure in the Riverland.

That is not an exhaustive list. We have done so much for the regions in South Australia during the past seven years of the Rann government, and we will continue to do so because the regions play such an important role in our state. Everything that happens in the regions benefits everyone else in South Australia, and we are very keen to promote and to increase our funding and level of support in the regions because we do care about them. We do not just come in here, like so many on the opposition benches, and whinge about it.

I commend the member for Stuart because he is someone who knows how to work his region well and knows how to come to ministers and get things done for his region. He is not one to just come in here and whinge, whinge, whinge; he works in a constructive way. I think he is someone who has done a lot for his region, and maybe some others could learn from that example. It is for those reasons that the government opposes this motion.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:55): I rise to congratulate the member for Flinders on bringing this motion forward and I totally support it. I note the comments from the member for Mawson, and I want to look at, in his region, the issue with the Willunga Basin dam project. If it was not for our candidate, Matt Donovan, getting on board perhaps things would not have been progressed. So, let us not paint such a good picture of this so-called caring government which, supposedly, does so much for this state.

We note that, under this government, the Regional Development Infrastructure Fund was cut from $4 million to $2.5 million per annum. For a government that supposedly does so much for the regions, I think we need to do a few of the sums. This is a government that was prepared—and I believe still is prepared—to cut the absolute guts out of country health, with absolutely no consultation until afterwards, and then it confronted thousands of people—well, no, the government did not, it peddled out its chief executive officers, if people were lucky, to meetings about country health to say what they were going to do to us.

It is typical of the way this government operates: we will put something out there and then we will have to take the backlash. You wonder why people in power do not learn from this. It was such a huge backlash. The government has no links to the rural regions of this state, apart from the member for Giles, and she—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What about the member for Frome?

Mr PEDERICK: Is he one of yours, is he? Is the member for Frome one of yours? The Attorney-General is giving the game away again with another one of his little dirty tricks campaigns, indicating that the member for Frome is one of his Labor stooges. I will leave it up to the member for Frome to—

An honourable member: Put it on the record.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. The member for Frome can put it there himself, but we see that the Attorney-General has laid it on the record that he is one of theirs. It is not for me to defend the member for Frome but I think it just goes to show the idiocy that the Attorney-General peddles in this place.

As I was saying, there was a major outcry about country health, but I still believe that in the background the government still has plans to wreak havoc throughout country South Australia as far as hospitals and health care services are concerned.

Talking about gimmicks that have been brought in by this government, the member for Flinders mentioned the windmills that were barely functional, if at all; the little windmills that were supposedly to show how this government works on sustainable wind energy. We have the tram line that was built up King William Street—it blocks one lane of traffic and creates havoc for people trying to use King William Street—in an area that was already serviced by a bus service.

So, there was no net win for $31 million of investment, and now we see about the same amount of investment (about $30 million) on an overpass over South Road. We also see, as the member for Flinders pointed out, the proposal to build a so-called iconic hospital on the rail yards, which will not give us any chance to have the opportunity to develop it as a cultural and entertainment precinct.

There are issues with power supplies in regional areas. If anyone wants to they can talk to the people, as I do, in the Mallee at Pinnaroo and Lameroo about the power cuts that happen quite often out there, and when Australian Zircon was thinking about getting out there. It is sad to see that Australian Zircon is in caretaker mode at the moment. It would have been far better for the power supply to have been brought up from Tailem Bend so that the power supply through Karoonda, Lameroo and the Greater Mallee area out at Pinnaroo could have been increased by 50 per cent, but that opportunity was lost.

Also, we talk about roadwork in the state. There is almost 20 kilometres of road, partly on the Pinnaroo-Loxton Road and some on the Pinnaroo-Bordertown Road, which, quite frankly, needs a major rebuild. But no, does this government care about that? These are roads that service the Riverland to bring produce down from the Riverland and through to the Dukes Highway so that it can then be transported through to Melbourne or, by turning off at Pinnaroo, through to Sydney. But no, most people from the other side of the house would not have been anywhere near those two roads. The Dukes Highway should be duplicated.

There is talk about how this government has done so much for the regions. As far as water infrastructure goes, if it was not for the people in the Langhorne Creek-Currency Creek area doing it off their own bat in the planning stages, nothing would have happened. Admittedly, the government did come on board and assist down the track, but those people still had to find $10 million of their own money for the irrigation project. It is a tragedy that this government, while not actually having control, has been in charge of the demise of the Lower Murray and the Lower Lakes. Only in the past couple of weeks have we heard that two communities at Point Sturt and Hindmarsh Island, after years of battling and being told originally that they would have to fund $100,000 each per connection just to get potable water to their home, will now get it at a reasonable rate of about $3,500 per connection. But it took years of battling to get that.

In closing, in regard to regional funding, there is so much more to be done. I note the mining opportunities on the West Coast, on the Eyre Peninsula in the seat of Flinders, that could be taken up if only port, roads and power infrastructure and localised desalination plants were provided. There is so much potential in that part of the state. With those remarks, I commend the motion.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (12:02): I am not going to say very much because I do not think I need to say very much. I refer members to my grievance speech yesterday, when I talked about the impact of the mining boom on my part of the state. I am sure that the member is genuine in presenting this motion, but it is really pandering to that perception in the regions that nothing ever happens out there. We hear this constantly.

I know this is not true. I live out there; I know this is not true and I would say that, per head of population, people in our part of the state probably get far more than their metropolitan counterparts with the money that goes in. It is just incredible to consider the efforts we put in out there. When I came into parliament, in my first four years we got nowhere. Unemployment was incredibly high in my city and the rest of my electorate, but it has now gone down to about one-quarter of what it was. There are jobs out there if people want them.

When we came into power in 2002, there were four mines operating in South Australia. There are now 11 mines operating, mostly in my part of the state. By the end of next year there will be 16 mines operating. Mining companies are crying out for people to work for them. There are training courses going on everywhere. We are pulling in as many people as we can from all over the state.

Real estate has boomed in the cities of Whyalla and Port Augusta, and Port Pirie is starting to move. Our rents have got to such a price in our cities now that it is very difficult to get professionals and public servants, etc., to come in because they have to pay so much more rent than in other parts of the state. So that is how well it has gone; in fact, it has backfired and is an issue, but it shows how well we are doing out there.

Yes, we have issues; yes, we have problems, but this government is looking after regional South Australia and we are doing a very good job of it. I went to a meeting this morning with the mayors of the three cities—Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Whyalla—at which we talked about the issue of an MRI in Port Augusta. We talked about Country Health and the fact that it is now coordinating the approach to health in our regions. No longer do we have this ad hoc situation of hospitals in the cities. Communities are trying to fight for the resources that are available. This is now being looked after and controlled very well by Country Health and making sense.

For example, they are looking at the whole concept of imaging X-ray machines; tenders have been out, and we will have out there a very satisfactory service which has been ad hoc in the past. So, this motion is just rubbish, an attempt by the member to get some attention, to get on the ABC and to have some notice taken of her.

I am very comfortable with what is happening in my part of the state. Yes, we can do more, and I will continue to lobby for more. My government knows that I will continue to do that. However, this is rubbish. She talks about gimmicks and icons, etc. This is a gimmick to get some attention.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:05): I have heard some speeches in my time but I reckon the last one was a doozy.

Mr Kenyon: Better than any of yours.

Mr VENNING: At least I have been here 19 years. The member made an interjection but I doubt whether he has 19 months left in this place. We will see, won't we? I certainly commend the member for Flinders for this motion.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: 19 weeks, Ivan.

Mr VENNING: Is it only weeks until the election? The motion is very relevant because we have had a string of failures by this government. We have a big expectation on us out there. We talk about the mining boom but I think the member for Flinders has hit it on the head by moving this motion this morning.

I want to particularly concentrate on the shared services disaster. This was brought in to give efficiency in government and to centralise services to provide better services more cheaply. What do we see? Twelve or 18 months down the track we were supposed to see savings in the millions but we have a savings shortfall of $125 million.

To make it worse, we see that $2.2 million worth of rent has been paid on unused accommodation—empty accommodation—$2.2 million. However, if I am trying to get $2 million to upgrade the Gomersal Road, for instance, there is no money in the kitty but the government can hire empty offices which are not used and the cost blow-out for the whole project is $45 million.

Go to the seat of Chaffey and to Loxton and tell the people there this story and see what they think. The member for Chaffey is a minister in the Rann Labor government. Tell those people that they cannot get their infrastructure upgraded purely because the money is not there. In Loxton, particularly, we are seeing many government services being pulled out, including the department of agriculture's Regional Research Centre. There are four positions under threat in Loxton. That will hurt, I can tell you.

The member for that area is a minister in the Rann Labor government. How can she justify these cost blow-outs? The whole concept was ridiculous in the first place—absolutely crazy. The concept of shared services was wrong and unfair. In smaller communities these jobs are important but, most importantly, government workers in small towns are much more accountable. You can actually see them doing work.

Workers in the city are put inside a high building where they get lost and smothered in bureaucracy. They just sit there and a lot of them hide and do not attract attention. Only the other day we saw in the local media the huge increase in government workers being paid in excess of $100,000. That is a huge increase, especially when the Treasurer promised us that he would reduce the cost of the Public Service.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member says it is because of inflation. Inflation is right! It is ridiculous. Try to tell your constituents that you can justify those numbers. In the 2008-09 financial year there were 5,372 public servants earning over $100,000. That is the base salary in here. How can you justify having that many public servants on that level? Do you know why? The government has lost control. It is easy to go around and hit country communities with shared services programs. It is easy because it does not hurt your electorate, apart from the member for Giles—and she will be feeling that pain.

I am really upset that the shared services program has been a total disaster. Nobody on the other side of the house, particularly the member for Chaffey, can say it has been anything else but that. So, I do not know how she can justify that. I can assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that during the coming election the constituents are going to be reminded that she has served on the Rann Labor cabinet for all this time, and she has allowed this to happen with nary a word in this place, not one word, in defence of country people. So, who is she thinking about? Is she thinking about her constituents and regional South Australians? No, she is thinking about herself and her position within the government.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the member is implying an improper motive upon a member of this house, and he is not doing it by substantive motion, he is doing it by debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen to what the member for Schubert has to say.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard the point of order. Yes, it is a long bow, but I am happy not to continue along that line. However, I think that in debate we have to refer to the performance of individuals, governments and oppositions, of course. I am happy to take criticism myself, not personally but in relation to what I do. I thought I was reflecting on the member in relation to her performance as a member of this house and her representation of her electorate.

Anyway, I have said it and it is on the record and, no doubt, I will be saying it very much in the next few months, because I know from the time I have been in this place and working with members that when we were in government certain things were said at the time. I can assure members that I have not forgotten some of the things that were done and said, and people need to be reminded.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert, I suggest that you address the topic of the motion.

Mr VENNING: Yes. The next issue I want to raise is what the government has been doing in relation to the cons and trickeries and the general innuendo it puts out there. It is all about perception politics. I am very concerned about how this government cons the people by coming up with huge projects such as the new Adelaide hospital. We have dropped the name 'Marj', and I feel very sad for the lady and I cast no aspersions on her character. It is sad that this project is going to cost so much money. It will soak up all the money for health, particularly country health.

I am trying to get a new hospital for the Barossa. This new project would build 10-plus new hospitals in the Barossa—and that is just what we know about. I put on the record that there is every prospect that there will be a huge blow-out in the cost of this project, because when they try to clean up this site, who knows what they will find. My colleagues—and I in particular—are opposed to this new hospital. We support the upgrade of the Royal Adelaide where it is. We are on an electoral winner here because, even though the government is spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on advertising, I do not think it will convince the constituents of its value. I think that building a new hospital on the rail yards is a further waste of money. It is all about perception politics.

Also, as the member said, in relation to the wind generators on government buildings, including the solar cells on this building, the government is spending big money purely on perceptions because we know it is not practical. I know it is good to have solar cells on this building. Is it a message? It probably is, but look at the cost. Do they have a practical use? No, they do not. So, I am most concerned about that.

I also put on the record that I am concerned about all of the wind turbines that have been built around our state. There is rising opposition to them. The member for Light would know that there is a move to put some wind turbines in the Barossa Valley, at Keyneton. I have not said anything publicly about this. If the people at Keyneton want to put these wind turbines on their horizon, I will not say anything about that. However, people need to go and have a look at some of these beautiful areas where these windmills have been put across the horizon. All I can say is that, when the wind does not blow, or if it blows too much or it is too hot, they do not use them. So, I am most concerned about that.

I am very pleased that, in the last few days, a future Liberal government has made a commitment to spend money from the royalties of our mining industries in our regions, through the regional development boards. That is a proper move, and it is a low cost initiative. We created the regional development fund, and I believe this government ignored it. So I think the government needs to have a good look at what has happened in Western Australia in terms of the money it is spending in its regions. I understand that two Western Australian Labor MPs have defected; I may have it wrong, but that is my information. Two Labor MPs have defected on the government's total lack of support for country regions.

Time expired.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (12:15): I will speak against this motion, because it is just a nonsense. I will not outline the government's achievements in regional and rural Australia; the member for Mawson has done that, and 10 minutes would not be enough. However, I would like to highlight some of the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party when it pretends to stand up for rural and regional Australia.

One of the Liberal Party's chances to stand up for regional Australia was in the Economic and Finance Committee, to support it in its inquiry into warranty issues regarding farm machinery. Every Liberal on that committee opposed it. That is how they show they are standing up for rural and regional Australia. I can tell the house that all the Liberal voters in my electorate know about it—and they are really happy with the Liberal Party; they think it is a really smart idea to vote against the inquiry!

Mr Venning: Right issue, wrong place for it.

Mr PICCOLO: Wrong issue, wrong place. In fact, the Liberal Party members said that it was a trivial matter not worthy of the committee's consideration.

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Not worthy of our committee's consideration—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Light! The member for Schubert will remain in his seat while another member is speaking.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I rise on a point of order. The member for Schubert stood up in an aggressive manner, attacking the member for Light and claiming that he was provoked when he was not provoked. He is being exceptionally disorderly and I ask that he apologise to the member for Light immediately.

Members interjecting:

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

Mr PICCOLO: As I said, the Liberal Party members on our committee said that the matter was too trivial and not important enough for the committee to consider. That is what they think about the farmers in our community. Then they went public and tried to justify what they did; they tried to shift the blame, saying that the Labor Party members opposed an inquiry into land tax. In fact, when they went out publicly they talked about tax reform generally—and I will get to that and to what they said.

This is how the Liberal Party demonstrates its support for rural and regional Australia. It opposes an inquiry designed to find out what is happening on the farms and how the machinery issue is impacting on the viability and productivity of farms. Wrong issue, wrong place the member for Schubert said.

Mr Venning: Right issue, wrong place.

Mr PICCOLO: Well, I say that it is the right issue, right place to discuss it, because we care about rural and regional Australia. In that same committee meeting the Liberal Party pulled a stunt, as it usually does, and put up a motion regarding land tax reform—just land tax. It is important to note the difference, because what it said publicly was quite different. They put this motion, and it was just a political motion, given that we had only a few months left of sittings. It wanted to reform the whole land tax and the whole taxation system in a few hearings. It was a stunt, and they went out publicly with that.

That is fine, I can live with that, but within a fortnight the Liberal Party announced its land tax policy. So it was a stunt. Either it was not going to wait for an inquiry before it announced its policy or the member for Waite, in the committee, had no idea his party was forming a policy—which is probably more accurate. Liberal Party members have difficulty communicating with each other; they speak to other parties and other people, but not to each other. I know that the member for Schubert and the member for Hammond are quite embarrassed by their colleagues on the committee, because they voted for the farm machinery reference. They went out of their way to distance themselves from their colleagues—and I am not surprised; I can understand that, as most of them do. I do not have to be distanced from my colleagues because I support what my colleagues do on this side.

However, what is more important is the land tax reform issue. The government and the Treasurer have said that; in fact, the Treasurer is on record as saying that he would like to do more to reduce the land tax burden in South Australia if we could afford to do that as a state. The Liberal Party decides to have all these cuts in taxes but what it has not mentioned—but what the voters know—is the matter of any cuts in expenditure.

Mr Bignell: Smoke and mirrors.

Mr PICCOLO: Exactly. Some farmers came to see me in my electorate office this week, and they were all talking about land tax. I said, 'You've got a legitimate issue. It has to be addressed, and it will be addressed when the state can afford to do so. The Liberal Party is offering this,' and they said, 'We don't believe them.' These are farmers. This is your natural constituency. Your record speaks for itself.

You had a lame policy last time. When you do get a chance to support your rural people, you do not in committee and then go out in public and say all sorts of things. You do not have any credibility. As your federal member said, the Liberal brand is not worth a cracker at the moment. The Liberal brand is just not worth it, and that is why, in rural and regional Australia, Independents and regional candidates are popping up—the Liberal Party does not represent their interests.

Mr Kenyon: They're going backwards.

Mr PICCOLO: They are going backwards. Look at Frome, which is a classic example of where the Liberal Party got it so wrong. At the next election, I am quite happy to compare this government's record with that of the Liberal Party. I am happy to compare what we do and say with what it did and what it says it will do.

The member for Schubert raises shared services and the impact on the regions. Talk to the country communities about the impact on regions when they privatised SA Water, when they privatised ETSA, etc., with the reduction in public utilities in those communities, what happened then? The member for Schubert says nothing because he knows that the impact on those communities was devastating. He sat there quietly while his Liberal government did it. Where was he at the time to speak out for regional and rural Australia?

It is hypocrisy for the Liberal Party to say that it is concerned about small communities and the impact on them of the reduction in public services—because they did it, they led the way on it and they are the masters of it. With those comments, I oppose this motion.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:22): I do love private members' time. I rise to support this motion moved by the member for Flinders. It is a very good motion, and I am sure that those who read Hansard will be able to sort out the wheat from the chaff—and there is certainly a lot of chaff in here.

The indisputable facts are that in 1993, when the Liberal Party came to power in South Australia, this state was an absolute basket case. Why did the then Liberal government lease out ETSA, or sell it, if you want to call it that? Ask the Auditor-General: because the state was a basket case. We had no money to do all the things that needed to be done. We worked very hard to recover the situation.

If you think it was the wrong decision, just ask Bob Carr and ask Iemma in New South Wales. Ask Ferguson, the federal minister for energy, what he is trying to support. Look at what Paul Keating did with the National Electricity Market. So, it was so wrong to sell ETSA? Well, buy it back, that is what I say to the government.

But let me get back to what this government is doing with its icons, its gimmicks and its tricks. This is a one-trick government—and it is one hell of a trick. It relies on pure populist politics. Don Dunstan did it: go back and read about the Dunstan decade, and it is there word for word. It is Hawker Britton and the same tricks all over again.

Look at water, for example: back then Don Dunstan was the general leading the campaign, now we have Premier Rann leading the campaign; then we had Mr Drip, now we have Captain Plop. The names have changed, but it is the same thing all over again. I emphasise the fact that they have no idea what they are doing, but they will make sure that they look like they know what they are doing.

Let's come back to the current situation in relation to roads: no transport plan, no transport policy and a $200 million backlog in road maintenance, not just in the metropolitan area but all over South Australia. One of the biggest causes of road accidents is poor road maintenance and poor road design, with $200 million of backlog. Ask the RAA what it thinks about that. What do we get? We do not get that fixed: we get a billion dollar 'superway' announced at Regency Park. The local member did not even know but, to top that off, my mate, the head of Infrastructure Australia in Canberra, when asked, 'What do you think of this,' said 'What?' He had no idea. The head of Infrastructure Australia had no idea that the Prime Minister is in South Australia spending half a billion dollars of infrastructure money.

There is no plan and no idea, yet for three kilometres of roadway the government will spend nearly $1 billion. That bit is the easiest part of South Road to negotiate, but the government will spend $1 billion on it. Instead of putting it back out into the regions, instead of doing the Victor Harbor and Port Wakefield roads and all the other roads in the regions, no: the government does the superway. Well, it is a super stuff-up; that is what it is, because there is no plan and no idea in this government. Not even the local member knew what the hell was going on. So, members opposite should not come in here and tell us they are fonts of wisdom. They know absolutely nothing about where the state should be, because they do not recognise where it has been. They are making the same mistakes again.

They have not recognised the past. Look at the Auditor-General's Report: net lending deficit, $1.541 billion; net cash deficit, $1.540 billion; net operating deficit, $304 million. The government is in debt, debt, debt, and it is driving this state further down the debt road. That is the only road this state is going down, because the government is doing nothing but spend. It is populist politics, mark 2. Dunstan did it, and who was the media adviser then? That man who sits in the Premier's seat now. He is a disgrace. He is not a leader's shadow, that man. He needs to come out and tell the people—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: On a point of order, madam: the member for Morphett was saying 'That man'—pointing his finger at me—'was Don Dunstan's media adviser.' I was not born when Don Dunstan became premier of South Australia.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the minister has made a personal explanation to correct something on the record.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I apologise to the member for West Torrens for likening him to the current Premier. The member for West Torrens is a different person altogether. He would love some roads to drive on that are safe and able to be negotiated at safe speeds; I know that.

Let us go back to the biggest icon of the lot: 'Mike's Monument', the rail yards hospital. It was a disgrace the way this was handled, right from the word go. Michael Owen blew it out of the water when he pre-empted it in The Advertiser. They tell me the paint was blistering off the walls when it was announced, because Kevin Foley wanted to make the grand announcement for this icon down there. By the time it has been cleaned up, I guarantee it will be a $2 billion job down there. What the government wants to do in the meantime is bulldoze $1 billion we already have at the eastern end of North Terrace with a world class hospital, the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

For those members who have not been there, I suggest they look at that world class hospital, with the world class research facilities of the University of Adelaide next door. Look at the Hanson Institute; look at the dental and medical schools. Look at the University of Adelaide and ask: where is 70 per cent of the medical research in South Australia done? It is down there, next to the current Royal Adelaide Hospital. How much has been spent on upgrading the theatres and the burns unit? Where have you been in the past few weeks? Did you not you see that the burns unit at the Royal Adelaide got accreditation from the American Burns Association? That is the protocol, but it is also the place where it is now.

Down there we have world class facilities and world class people running those facilities, but members opposite want to bulldoze $1 billion into the ground. They do not want to save another half a billion dollars. They have already blown a billion dollars on Regency Road down there. With more talk, less action down there, they just do not know what they are doing. If, as the Treasurer said, we did not just redevelop but properly rebuilt the Royal Adelaide Hospital down at the east end of North Terrace, we would have half a billion dollars spare and we would have a world class facility that would last for years.

The Royal London Hospital is 700 years old. What are they doing? They are rebuilding it. St Bartholomew's next door was built 900 years ago. They are rebuilding it. What about the Royal North Shore? They rebuilt it; they did not shift it somewhere else. It is a hospital that the Institute of Architects was told is going to last probably 50, 60 or 70 years—that is all. So, what will the government do—build another hospital at a cost of another couple of billion dollars so that this one can be turned into a museum or an art gallery? What this government is doing to health in South Australia is an absolute travesty. It is wasting money that needs to be spent on putting doctors and nurses in the front line. This is not about egos. This should be about delivery of services to the people of South Australia. What this government is doing is an absolute disgrace.

Let us look at Glenside. The government wants to mix seriously ill people over there with an industrial site. The film hub is not a cultural site: it is an industrial site. The government wants to mix seriously ill people with an industrial site, a commercial retail site and with high density housing. It is a disgrace! It will be to Jane Lomax-Smith's shame.

Then there is the matter of renewable energy—great, fantastic! Wind turbines, solar—fabulous! If you could get the sun farm at Umuwa on the APY lands working full speed, that would be wonderful, but it has not happened—promises, promises, promises! And what do we see from this show pony government again? It goes and spends nearly $300,000 on putting some wind turbines down at the Somerton surf club. The local member did not know about the superway. The local member did not know about the wind turbines at the Somerton surf club. People who know far more than I know about this matter estimate that the savings would be about $2,800 a year. So, it would take 100 years to pay those off. That is great economics. That is wonderful stuff. The local member did not know; the community did not know, and when the community and the local member found out, what happened to the turbines? They were stopped.

I understand that the sea rescue squadron want them now, or they might go out to Monarto Zoo—a much better proposition for them out there. Local members are not told by this government what is going on. It is the four horsemen of the apocalypse on their trick ponies; they are the ones running the show. All the backbenchers can stand in here and try to protect them, but we know that it is just pontification. The fact is that this government has done nothing. It stuffed up the state in 1992-93, and we spent eight years resurrecting it. It has had rivers of gold for the last eight years. There has been a bit of a hiccup lately, and, what happens? It turns to mud. It is a hiccup.

Members interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: Well, there is world financial disaster but, according to the Treasurer, South Australia does not have a problem.

Members interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: Look at the debt.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Newland.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (12:32): Is there any real doubt about the reason the Liberal Party is in such trouble in this state when it describes the global financial crisis as a hiccup? With that level of economic literacy on the other side, it is no surprise that they are wallowing in their own misery—no surprise at all—but we will come back to that.

What I would like to talk about very briefly—because I know that other members are champing at the bit—is the member for Flinders' assertions on infrastructure for mining. Her view seems to be that the government should just wander around the desert in this state, just plonking infrastructure in left, right and centre—a great big circle powerline, big pipelines, gas pipelines going all over the place. Build it and they will come. It is the field of dreams strategy for infrastructure. The problem with that, of course—other than the fact that we would spend large amounts of money on infrastructure that would never be used in some areas—is that you have to match the infrastructure to the demand. Even better than that, if we take the example of Charles Court I (the elder) in Western Australia, the best result is for the companies to pay for it. That is what happened in Western Australia.

We hear members opposite raving about the greatness of mining companies and how the government should waltz out there and spend billions of dollars on infrastructure, laying infrastructure carpets down all over the desert, just for the good of these companies, when that is not what the Liberal Party has done on previous occasions in other states. What we are seeing is just a cargo cult mentality from the opposition. It is socialism run riot; it is socialism gone mad.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

Mr KENYON: The member for Ashford is appalled, but she is appalled because the purity of the socialism has been completely destroyed by the opposition. Take the Western Australian example. We see them applauding Western Australia and the Royalty for Regions program over there—something they were upset about.

The Hon. R.J. McEwen: They support that now.

Mr KENYON: They love it now. After, I think, the intervention of the member for Chaffey they suddenly have a new-found love for Royalty for Regions, but what they fail to realise is that that is all based on infrastructure built by private companies. In fact, it was the federal Liberal government, the Howard government, that took that a step further and opened up that private infrastructure through the ACCC to third party access for the good of the state, not just for the good of the company.

You had the public good of having the mine developed funded by the companies and you had the public good of other mines being developed using infrastructure already developed by the first companies, and that is a rational way to go about it. That is how a proper Liberal Party should be behaving, but we do not see that from that economically illiterate group over there. What we are seeing is just splashing money around. We had the member for Hammond in here before calling for the duplication of the Dukes Highway—just barrel it out, roll it out. Now we have the member for Kavel supporting it, and that is another $1 billion.

Let's think of something while we are here—I know, let's roll out a highway! This is great. They come in a roll. It is like carpet. You just roll it out; it is cheaper by the square metre. What we are seeing is a completely economically illiterate and incompetent opposition just flailing about for some sort of way to criticise the government. There is not even some sort of rationale behind it. There is no economic rationale behind it, there is no strategy; it is just flailing in the darkness. It is like when your little brother comes at you with both arms swinging and he says, 'I'm going to come this way, eyes closed with my arms swinging and, if you just happen to get in my way, it's your fault.'

That is what we are seeing politically from members opposite; that is their economic strategy. I just cannot believe it. This is the party that produced Charles Court, Jeff Kennett and Nick Greiner, and this is what we are seeing.

Mr Venning: Land tax will kill you.

Mr KENYON: Yes, yes. I think that if we are ever going to see a Liberal government returned any time in the near future it just has to have some sort of policy. Government is not about attacking, government is not about whingeing, whining and carping from the other side; government is about policy. It is about doing things, having plans and thinking things through in a rational manner, and we have not seen that—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr KENYON: Sorry. I apologise to the member for Mawson, one of my marginal seat colleagues. If you are going to come in here and expect to launch indiscriminate attacks with no strategy, with no policy behind them, with nothing, no thought and no idea, how do you expect to ever get into government? How do you expect to do that?

I am quite happy for you never to be in government because I have a vested self-interest in your never being in government. All we are seeing is personal attacks, we are seeing indiscriminate attacks and a complete lack of communication. And I acknowledge the presence of the father of the house in the chamber today.

This is what needs to happen. This sort of motion being moved is just more whingeing and whining. It shows a complete misunderstanding of how government works and the need for policy. It is a prime example.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier) (12:38): I stand now in some fear because the member for Stuart has just joined us and I am sure that that means another speech before lunch when I was hoping to go to lunch without indigestion. Isn't this a hoot? This is about six sitting days before the opposition has to start telling the people of South Australia that it has some policies of its own, because this is that pointy end where you do not just spend your time criticising those people who are in government trying to do the best they possibly can, it is your time to say that you stand for something. And, of course, they do not stand for anything, or they stand for so many things.

Their policy on water is interesting. Recently, five people have made public statements. Secker, Williams, Pederick, Whetstone and Redmond have made statements in terms of water and, believe it or not, they were five entirely different statements: one topic, five spokespeople, five positions. So, you can see what the problem is. You can see why total denial and total disarray yesterday became total shame. When nothing else is left, what do you do? You get in the gutter! The people of South Australia want to hear from you in terms of what you stand for.

In telling people what you stand for at the next election, you also have to reflect on what you did when you were occupying the Treasury bench. For example, in relation to health, we have been told that what you do with hospitals is rebuild them. Why then did you tell the people of Mount Gambier that you do not rebuild hospitals? Renovating a hospital and rebuilding on a site is too expensive. It puts patients at risk and you have to find an alternative to provide the services while you are doing it. What do you do? You build a new hospital on a greenfields site. That is what you told the people of Mount Gambier. Why do you now tell the people of Adelaide something entirely different? Was it true then and not true now?

The people of Mount Gambier simply say, 'That's what you told us at the time and that's how you justified building a new hospital.' I might add, of course, that the new hospital has 92 beds and the old hospital had 220 beds. You cut the nursing staff by 40 per cent. You sent the deficit spiralling downwards. I do not need to spend more time on it, but I simply say that the people of South Australia will judge you on your past—and here is just one example. The member for Schubert sits their shaking his block head. He will be held just as accountable—

Mr VENNING: I have a point of order, sir. That is against standing orders. I ask him to withdraw the remark.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): The member for Mount Gambier will be more temperate in his language, please.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I do not think there is anything unparliamentary about using the word 'block'. The point I am trying to make is that—

Mr VENNING: Mr Speaker, this is a reflection on my character and I ask him to withdraw the remark.

The ACTING SPEAKER: The member takes offence, so you might be able to use the word 'round' but not 'block', please. The member for Mount Gambier will withdraw the remark.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: As much as I was reflecting on the shape rather than the substance, I will withdraw the remark. Unfortunately, with the interjection, the honourable member said that he will stand on his record. One of the first things I learnt in this place was a trick at which he excels; that is, you say one thing and you do another because that gives you total cover wherever you go. For example, we debated the City of Adelaide and a dump at Wingfield. The member for Schubert came in here and argued the City of Adelaide's case and voted the Port Adelaide case. Why? Because he would find out where someone stood on the subject and either say, 'That's the way I voted,' or, 'That's the way I spoke in the house.' That is just one example. I will not bore the house with further details, but I have a whole list of them. A lot of people can learn from the member for Schubert in terms of both sides. It is brilliantly well done. Let me come back to the point I am trying to make. The second issue is infrastructure.

Mr Venning: A deal was struck with both councils and that is why we changed our mind.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: Well, I will not give any more examples—that is just one example—because it is all on the record.

Mr Venning: That's bullshit, absolute bullshit!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition has repeatedly said that she does not want to hear foul language from her members. The member for Bragg used offensive language on radio and now in this sacred chamber the member for Schubert has used a profanity that I find grossly offensive.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, there is no point of order, but the member for Schubert should remember where he is.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I want to continue on this notion of what they say will not be reflected in their policy—if they have one. Let me give a second example, which involves road infrastructure. The fact is that the South Australian Farmers Federation and all those downstream industries that have to take commodities from farms to export will tell you that it is the last mile that matters. They want the infrastructure money spent, not necessarily close to the farm but, rather, as close to the port as possible because that is where the congestion is. They come in here and say that is a waste of money because we are spending it in Adelaide. No: we are spending it on the last mile. We are spending it on that freight transport route somewhere between where it is aggregated at properties to where it is exported. So it is the best way.

The South Australian Farmers Federation will tell you that is where they wanted the money spent. Then the Liberals come in here and say we are not spending money in the country. Well, make up your minds! You want the money spent in the most appropriate way to achieve the greatest value, to take the bottlenecks out of the system, which is the last mile, but that does not suit you in the electorates. So you go to your electorates and say the government is wasting money somewhere else.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I would like to hear the member for Schubert stand up here in a minute and say the South Australian Farmers Federation is wrong, everyone else is wrong but him, and we want the money spent in his electorate. Rubbish! They ought to have the guts to come into this place and say that when it comes to freight transport it is the last mile that matters. The problem they have got—

Mr Venning: Leave jobs in Loxton! And that's not my electorate. It's your friend's.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: You can see the problem they have got. Between now and next March—

Mr Venning: A good old Independent, aren't you? You are a good Independent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert will cease interjecting.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: Unfortunately, now I need to add something else, because he says 'good old Independents', and we say that as well. We have proved the point with good old Independents. What do we have the Deputy Leader of the Opposition announcing in Mount Gambier last week? He said the Liberal opposition supports royalties for regions and, what is more, he told our people it had been their policy for 18 months, and they just looked at him gobsmacked. Do members know that a month ago they were saying they did not support it? If it was their policy 18 months ago, why would they not have said something the morning of our conference? That would have deflated the whole conference.

Who are their strategists or, more importantly, what is their policy? I do not believe that 18 months ago they even considered royalties for the regions, so why would they go to the committee and say, 'That is the policy we have been developing for 18 months,' and a month ago they are denying it? They have to get one script. They cannot have five people speaking on water having five different positions. Do you know what the Liberals have to do between now and next March? Somehow, they have to find a policy.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Gambling, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:47): Two shadow ministers in a period of 20 minutes spent $1 billion in this chamber. The shadow minister for agriculture wants to duplicate the Dukes Highway and the shadow minister for health wants to rebuild and relay Port Wakefield Road and Victor Harbor Road. They just got up, had a stream of consciousness and vomited it out into the chamber. If you wish to govern this state, if you wish to put yourself forward as an alternative government to the people of South Australia, they expect a few things from you. They expect financial literacy and they expect you to be able to pay for what you wish to do in a responsible manner. In order to try to win a debate, the Liberal Party just spent $1 billion, just now, in 20 minutes.

There is no fiscal restraint by members opposite and, if members can just walk in and do that, what they are really saying to us is that they do not expect to win. They cannot win based on their policies and they cannot win based on their arguments, so we have seen now a new tactic emerge from the Liberal Party, and that new tactic is the politics of smear, the politics of innuendo, and the politics of smoke and mirrors. It is the politics of not attacking the idea or proposing the idea. It is the politics of dog whistles. The policy is one of standing up and asking the Premier a question and sitting down and walking away and hoping that the void that is left with the innuendo in the question is filled with sleaze. That is their policy.

I will put this to members opposite. The new Leader of the Opposition did two things when she became leader. She said that she wanted the new Liberal Party under her leadership not to use profanity. Her then chief rival for that position went on radio and used words like 'shit' and 'turd' and another word I will not repeat. She then held a party room meeting, where she told her members not to mention the Premier and his attack. An hour and a half later, the Hon. Rob Lucas walked into parliament and mentioned it.

I give her two options: she is either a hypocrite or she has lost control of her party. She can choose—and I do not mind which—one of those two. Yesterday, in unprecedented scenes in this parliament, the Liberal Party nosedived from the highest platform it could into filth. Liberal Party members did so because they cannot win based on ideas or policies. So, what they do is play the man, not the policy. They cannot do it any other way.

I say that Liberal Party members have two options between now and March. They can come up with costed policies and ideas and let us have a campaign of ideas. Let us talk about it. The Liberal Party has put forward a policy that it wants to build the new Royal Adelaide Hospital on its current site. We say that we want a new greenfield site. Fine. It is a very important point of difference. We have our arguments and they have theirs. That is fine; let us fight it on that. However, the Liberal Party uses question time to ask questions about people's personal lives and to make innuendo—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And based on false, non-existent sources.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, they have done that before. However, we will not have that debate. They will not debate us on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital because the member for Schubert wants the government to close two hospitals in his own electorate to build a brand new one on a greenfield site. Why? To lessen disruption, to not jeopardise—

Mr Venning: To get a new hospital.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Get a new hospital; that is right. Do these arguments sound familiar? Oh, that is right. It is the same argument with respect to building a brand new hospital on a new site, a greenfield site. However, they will not use that argument.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert is warned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Instead, they come in with baseless personal attacks. They screamed foul over a DL newsletter that we put out in their marginal electorates. They did not dispute one single word of our pamphlet as not being factual: they argued about the reply paid address. That is what they argued about. There was no policy debate; they argued about the reply paid address. That is what we are up against: a party that will do and say anything to win a vote, no matter how untrue it is.

Members opposite do have some policies that they want to go out and argue. Land tax is one of them, the hospital site is another, and also their stormwater policies; they want to go out and argue these policies. How many questions were asked yesterday about the new Royal Adelaide Hospital? None. There are seven days of parliament left, but have they asked a question about the new hospital? No. What did they ask? Sleaze, gutter politics, filth and vile innuendo. I just say this to members opposite: those who live in glass Taj Mahals should not throw stones.

Mr Venning: Don't look in the mirror—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Schubert!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I say to those members opposite who think that the path Isobel Redmond is taking them down is no good that now is the time to stand up and be counted. Principles only matter when it is tough to hold onto them. Now is the time for them to stand up and tell their leader that they do not want to follow her down this path. Now is the time to stand up and be counted.

Mrs PENFOLD: Madam, I rise on a point of order: relevance.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Flinders is brave raising relevance at this stage. The minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Now is the time for members to stand up and be counted—and I look to the father of the house, who has carried himself with dignity in this place for over 40 years; a man who can hold his head up high.

An honourable member: He didn't like it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He did not like it. He would never say it. He does not rat on his friends; he never has. He stuck with Dean Brown when there were those who did not. He has always been a man of his word. Have you noticed how he walks out of parliament when those questions are being asked? He will not attack his own party. He will not say anything, but we all know, deep down, that the Hon. Graham M. Gunn does not support the path the Liberal Party is taking. And why is that? Because it is not a battle of ideas. Sir Tom Playford looking down on the lot of you is disapproving. You have destroyed his legacy; you sold his assets; you have ruined his memory; and all you have left now is buckets of mud to throw.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (12:55): I have listened with a great deal of interest to what has been said here today and I say to members, if you start a fight and you kick someone in the ankle, expect it to come back; and the day that you authorised this obnoxious document I have in my hand to be sent around the electorate, you had to expect that a few ankle kicks were going to come back. I have been the victim in my own electorate of this sort of material—quite malicious, inaccurate and misleading—being sent around implying all sorts of improper actions on my behalf, none of it true. This document which—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Stuart, I suggest you have a look again at what the motion is.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I will, madam, and I will do it with pleasure, because I point out to the minister, the house and the member for Mount Gambier that it is the role of members of parliament to bring to the attention of the government and ministers matters which they believe are important. It is the role of government to set the priorities, and if members do not bring those issues to the attention of the parliament, they will not be considered. So, to say that members should not raise them is an absolute nonsense, because that is what we are all here for. Ministers of the day are handed the grave responsibility of setting the priorities, and they will be judged accordingly.

If someone puts up a project, what you are doing is asking the government to consider it, and you put forward the advantages and the disadvantages. That is the proper role of government and it always has been and always will be. I say to the member for Mount Gambier, following his criticism of what we stand for, that when we raised the very important issue of desalination for the people of this state, we were castigated. The member for Davenport raised it after having been to Western Australia. So, we did have a policy; we led the way.

To the member for Mount Gambier and those who are racing around either directly or indirectly saying that the answer to the problems of South Australia is to promote a group of Independents, I say that that is fooling the people of South Australia, because the best result for the people of this state is to have two effective political forces comprising either a centre left or a centre right grouping. It is doing the people a grave disservice to put this myth around that having these Independents is going to create good government.

I say to those who are promoting this that, at the next election, they have to tell the people of South Australia whom they would support in the event of a close election. We want to know, and the people of South Australia want to know. Where do government members stand? They are not going to get away with being nice to both sides. We are going to make sure that they stand up, own up and tell the people exactly what they stand for. You cannot be like Fred Astaire, quick on your feet, because you will get caught on the barbwire fence. I want to know, and I ask the member for Mount Gambier and the member for Frome: who do you support? Tell us whether we have two Labor candidates or one in Frome. Who do we have? Who are we going to have elsewhere? The people are entitled to know.

This motion put forward by the member for Flinders is a clear example of the member drawing to the attention of the house the need for a debate on the big issues which are affecting people: what sort of infrastructure we should have, when we should have it and where. She would be failing if she was not promoting infrastructure in her electorate. I would be failing and so would the minister at the table if he was not promoting good things for his electorate. That is what we are here for. We are elected as members of parliament to discuss these issues, and so I am happy to participate in this debate.

I could give you a very long list of infrastructure projects. One example is when the government bureaucracy and the minister would not support the increase in the capacity of the aged care facility at Peterborough, and this is a very important issue. That community had $700,000 in the bank and Sir Humphrey Appleby 1, 2 or 3 would not put an application into the commonwealth because it might cost the state taxpayer some money. Those sorts of issues need to be brought to the attention of this house so that we can have an informed, responsible debate on them. I regret that I am only halfway through my remarks.

Debate adjourned.

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