Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption (resumed on motion).

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:02): Prior to the lunch break I was discussing the Premier, who in this house just last week reaffirmed his commitment to the super school program in South Australia, which, of course, is very disappointing for those of us on this side of the house who are opposed to the super school program and closing our small community schools, selling off the land and building education factories, if you like, for the satisfaction of the Department of Treasury.

I want to go back to some studies that I mentioned earlier, first of all the report that was prepared by Mr Trevor Cobbald from Save our Schools Canberra, who is a consultant in policy issues and an economist. He points out a number of reasons that he had his group are opposed to the super school program proposed in the ACTU. He states:

The majority of research studies support the idea that students perform better in smaller ,elementary and middle schools...researchers have reached broad consensus on several key issues:

Under the right conditions, as schools get smaller they produce stronger student performance as measured by attendance rates, test scores, extra curricular activity, participation and graduation rates.

Smaller schools appear to promote greater levels of parent participation and satisfaction, and increase communication skills between parents and teachers.

Teachers in small schools generally feel they are in a better position to make a genuine difference in the student learning than do teachers in larger schools.

There appears to be a particularly strong correlation between small school size and improved performance among poor students in the urban school districts.

This is an important point. As I was saying earlier, the government super school program is in some of our poorest suburbs in Adelaide.

It is no wonder that, in the case of a super school program in the Spencer Gulf, which was being pushed so heavily by the Premier prior to the last election, when parents started to study it and realised the change in school culture and the change in opportunities for their children they rejected it outright. But that is not the end of the issue for the government. This government will tell you on the one hand that it consults, while behind your back it is working at ways to change your mind to make you feel as though you are agreeing with the government.

Mr Marshall: They call it consultation.

Mr PISONI: They call it consultation; we call it indoctrination. There is a big difference between the two. The report goes on to say:

Small schools provide a safer learning environment to students.

This is very important. It is a very important element, because we know that larger schools are where we have seen a number of elements of violence occurring in schools, not just here in Adelaide but also interstate and overseas. But do not just take the example from Canberra. Let's move to the state of Utah in the United States, where a study was produced in 2002 by David Cox. David Cox is a Utah public school teacher and a member of the Utah state House of Representatives, and obviously and advocate for small schools. The introduction to his report states:

Big school districts—

When they say big school districts they are talking about school clusters. In our instance, the relevance there would be the Department of Education and Children's Services, which in South Australia is enormous, with enormous central control compared with some other states, particularly Western Australia where they have just moved to individual funding for government schools—they call them independent public schools—where schools run their own budgets and agendas, and principals have the power to select their own students. The introduction states:

Big school districts promised to hold down costs by centralising functions under one roof and delivering a greater selection of academic offerings and activities—

that is what they promise—

thus improving education. But they have not delivered.

Now, what was the catchcry in the Education Works document put out by the department when they launched Education Works? This is in bold, so this must be an important statement. It goes on to say:

This is about every child having a better start and access to quality schools that offer better curriculum choices.

So, it is the same spruiking, the same spin that we heard from those who were spruiking for the failed super schools in the United States and UK, in some instances up to a century ago. We saw a big influx of these schools in the 1950s and the 1960s in the UK. The report goes on to say:

Up to a certain size, consolidation can save costs, but above that size, districts experience 'diseconomies of scale', including misallocation of funds towards bureaucracy rather than instruction.

There we go, DECS all over again. We have seen a huge growth in the bureaucracy of the education department under this government and it its addiction to centralisation that has stifled innovation and growth. Don't just take my word for it; go to the government's own strategic plan.

A key element of the government's economic platform is science and technology—the new industries. It is letting our traditional manufacturing industries die. We are having trouble keeping up with our demand for tradespeople. I am reading from the government's own strategic plan, the latest report. Before this government came to office, 44 per cent of students in South Australia received a tertiary entrance rank (TER) or equivalent in at least one of the following subjects: mathematics, physics or chemistry. It was 44 per cent before this government came to office.

Mr Marshall: What is it now?

Mr PISONI: Now, it is 37 per cent. After the government let it slip down to 39 per cent in 2003, it said, 'We're going to improve the figure by 15 per cent. We're going to take it back up to 45 per cent by 2010.' By 2010, it was going to take it up to 45 per cent. Where is it now, member for Norwood? Where is it now?

Mr Marshall: It's gone downhill.

Mr PISONI: In 2007, it got down to 35 per cent, and there was a slight improvement for 2008 at 37 per cent, but that was still a long way behind the 44 per cent that was achieved under the previous Liberal government.

You do not need to research very far to learn that the story is the same; it does not matter who you talk to, which academic or which education expert you talk to, big schools mean poor outcomes for students, particularly in lower socioeconomic areas and particularly in areas that have difficulty with their students and dysfunctional families. They are areas where we need to put in resources to get better results—areas where people need a bit of a cuddle to make them understand that they are appreciated. There is a whole world out there for them to explore; they just need the skills themselves to understand that those opportunities are there for them as well.

The Minister for Education and the Premier do not understand the problems that big schools will cause here in South Australia as they continue to roll out their super schools program. Mike Smithson understood it. He got in contact with Professor Kenneth Leathwood from the University of Toronto. This was back in December last year. Professor Leathwood had extensively researched a number of studies that had been produced about large schools in North America. Mr Smithson asked Professor Leathwood the following:

So, you are saying, professor, that 1,000 students is about the maximum size school to keep everything on track and finely balanced?

Professor Leathwood went on to say:

Yes, but it could be far too large if the school was primarily serving kids who were coming from backgrounds in which they had some social or economic deprivation and weren't getting as much support at home as we'd like them to have.

I think that is the important issue. We have seen the massive swings in the seats that are part of the government's super schools program. We see that, in the education minister's own seat, 64 per cent of families send their kids to non-government schools because of the lack of choice in government schools.

Time and time again the minister said, 'Don't worry; we're building you a school at Gepps Cross.' They were telling people living in Fitzroy, Nailsworth and Walkerville, 'Send your kids to Gepps Cross.' They do not want to go to Gepps Cross. They want a second city high school; that is what they want. The premier understood that, because he cobbled together in response to the member for Adelaide's proposal for a second high school that I know she will fight hard for as the member for Adelaide—a second campus at Adelaide high school.

Time expired.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Gambling) (16:12): Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you on your election to the highest office in this parliament. I have known the member for Giles since before she was elected. She is a close friend, someone whom I admire greatly. It is difficult being a regional member of parliament, and it is probably even tougher doing that as a Labor member. I am exceptionally proud of what she has achieved. I am sure that she will serve in that position with the high esteem that it requires.

I also want to take the time to congratulate the new members, and I will mention them by their political party. First, our new members: member for Taylor, congratulations on entering the house.

Mr Pisoni: He's not here.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: 'She' is not here, member for Unley. Congratulations, member for Little Para and, of course, my favourite new member, the member for Mitchell, about whom I will talk later. Also, of course, the member for Mount Gambier—a stunning result, despite everything but the kitchen sink being thrown at him. He did a wonderful job, as did the member for Frome in being re-elected after a short stint in the last parliament. Then there are the new members from the Liberal Party. Congratulations to the member for Norwood on his campaign. The member for Adelaide ran an amazing campaign; congratulations.

The member for Stuart, after a tight fought campaign, has very big shoes to fill. The Hon. Graham Gunn, who held the seat for nearly 40 years, was a credit to this house. The member for Chaffey did an exceptional job, as did the member for Morialta and the member for Flinders. I send my deepest condolences to the defeated candidates in those three Labor-held seats; I know how difficult it is to lose an election. It must have been very hard on them, their families and all their supporters. I send out my sympathies to them.

I also want to congratulate our marginal members, who did an exceptional job in this house—the members for Hartley, Light, Mawson and Newland—and who I think showed what is truly best about the Labor Party and about campaigning against all odds and adversity. They made a wonderful achievement in maintaining their seats.

In terms of the election campaign, there are some very stark contrasts in the way campaigns are run. I think this campaign is one that people will be looking at for a while. I am a bit of a student of election campaigns, and I am interested in strategy. I was fascinated to see the Liberal Party's campaign. I was fascinated to see the level of resources being put into seats that the Liberal Party has never traditionally held.

Ms Chapman: Cheltenham.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Like Cheltenham, like Enfield. These are remarkable campaigns and they achieved remarkable results. I had an 11.18 per cent swing against me, the member for Colton had an 11.3 per cent swing against him, and I think there was a 12 per cent swing in Croydon. These are wonderful achievements. I think the member for Enfield received a 14 per cent swing against him on the back of a campaign by Luke Westley. That is a remarkable result. Of course that was all for nothing, and that is the genius of the Liberal Party campaign. The Liberal Party campaign was based on a PR system that exists only in its mind.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get to your sacking in a minute. I find it fascinating that the Liberal Party feels robbed by its 52 per cent 2PP result, given that there were more than two parties contesting this election, and that it claims some sort of moral majority and that it should therefore be in government, but that is not our system. Our system is a majority of votes in a majority of seats, and the magic number is 24. Just as Bill Clinton in his campaign headquarters had written up on a chalkboard, 'It's the economy, stupid!' perhaps somewhere on Greenhill Road it should be, 'It's 24 seats, stupid!'

I am sure the Liberal Party takes great pleasure in the fact that it received 52 per cent of the vote, that it got great results in the safe seats which were not contested by the Labor Party, but I would ask members opposite to ponder this question: what if the Labor Party only contested 26 seats and won those 26? What would our two-party preferred vote be then? Would it be anywhere near 50 per cent? Could you then claim to have won the election? No, of course you could not. So the argument that the Liberal Party is putting up is complete rubbish.

In fact, I understand that the campaign manager, Mr Sheezel, has now been promoted to the national campaign and will be assistant director, or whatever the position is called, to campaign in the federal election, so we have warned all our members in safe Labor seats that the Liberal Party has never held to watch out for an onslaught of campaign material to go out in those electorates.

I am sure the member for Port Adelaide here in South Australia will be inundated with a campaign he has never seen before. The Liberal Party may well get a massive swing in Port Adelaide and of course not win it, and it will ignore the marginals, which is what it did in this election campaign.

It seems to me that the election campaign also showed that for a brief period of that four-week campaign the Liberal Party does have some discipline, but of course it cannot get that discipline right. The first job of every political party is to hold the seats in their traditional heartland: Frome and Mount Gambier. Those two seats, which were held by Independents, should have been won by the Liberal Party, but it chose its candidates poorly.

Ms Chapman: What about Vini Ciccarello from your side?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will get to Vini in a second. If the Liberal Party had won Mount Gambier and Frome it may have been a springboard for it to form government, but it spent a lot of resources in those seats that came to nothing because of the hard work of two very popular local candidates who, against the massive might of a party political machine that was cashed up on massive donations, went door to door and won the hearts and minds of the local community through sheer hard work. The Liberal Party could not combat that and lost.

Coming back to the point about discipline, the campaign was going quite well for the Liberal Party until the last week when there were three incidents that I want to talk about. The first and most celebrated incident was a press conference in Hindley Street where the member for Bragg was asked a very simple question: if she lost, would she challenge for the leadership of the Liberal Party after the election? To all our shock, including the journalists who were there, she could not bring herself to say no—one word, 'no'. 'No, I won't challenge. I support Isobel Redmond.'

Ms Chapman: That's what I did say.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The next day you said it when you saw the signs go up. The member for Bragg is made of tougher stuff than just giving up. She comes from very good stock and I am very impressed with her political tenacity, because she has high ambitions for herself, and so she should; she is a very talented woman who I think will probably be leader of the Liberal Party again one day. But that break in discipline showed the first crack.

The second crack was when the deputy leader admitted to The Financial Review that their costings on the Royal Adelaide Hospital upgrade were based on spin. That was a devastating blow to the Liberal Party's chances of forming government. That bit of honesty that the member for Goyder showed during that campaign is to be commended. He is a man who I think cannot tell a lie. He is a bit like George Washington: he cannot tell a lie. When he spoke to and got quizzed by an interstate journalist who came down for the campaign for two days and admitted that their costings on the RAH were spin it completely derailed the Liberal Party's campaign.

The Liberal Party's campaign was based around a couple of things. The first was its argument about the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the second was about a new stadium. To give credit to the member for Adelaide, she did an exceptional job of using those two issues to gain a large swing to defeat Jane Lomax-Smith, and good luck to her.

Mr Pisoni: You're sad about that, Tom, aren't you?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am. I have a great deal of affection for Jane Lomax-Smith. I congratulate her on that. However, that is not enough to form a coalition of a majority of seats in the house. The Liberal Party was obsessed with its own talk about this one issue and, of course, the deputy leader derailed it.

Then we got a result and the leader refused to concede, having only won, I think, 18 seats. She thought somehow, miraculously, through postal votes or whatever it might be, they would come through and win the day. In terms of strategy in the seat of Mitchell, I am still stunned at the stupidity of the Liberal Party. I mean, in the words of Graham Richardson, they were not only stupid but also stupid often. Why the Liberal Party would campaign so hard in the seat of Mitchell is beyond me. It is a seat they could never win, it is a seat they had no chance of winning, yet a high Liberal Party vote hands that seat to the Labor Party. It is just absolutely amazing. If I was the Liberal Party campaign director I would have rung up the Liberal Party candidate Peta McCance and said, 'If I see one Liberal Party volunteer handing out how-to-vote cards on election day, there will be trouble.'

But they staffed every single polling booth. They were very excited and revved up, got about 20 per cent of the vote pushing Chris Hanna into third place, and got Labor elected. I say, 'Thank you very much, Peta. You are a Labor hero. You are one of those Labor heroes we will remember always.'

Of course, it was very interesting after the election. I remember listening to the Leader of the Opposition's press conference on 5AA (when it was replayed) after she demoted the member for Bragg (who, unfortunately, has left the chamber). I remember the Leader of the Opposition clearly saying that, while the member for Bragg was longer the shadow attorney-general but, rather, the shadow minister for families and communities, she would play a large role in the lower house in dealing with all the business that the shadow attorney-general (who is in the upper house) would normally deal with.

I have here a Notice Paper that includes notices of motion in relation to a bill to amend the Civil Liability Act (Attorney-General), a bill to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (Attorney-General), a bill to amend the Correctional Services Act (Attorney-General) and a bill for an act to amend the Coroner's Act (Attorney-General); and two notices of motion about the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and one about the Parliamentary Committees Act. These are all motions and bills that the shadow attorney-general would normally deal with. The Leader of the Opposition said in her press conference that even though the member for Bragg was no longer the shadow attorney-general she would be handling those matters in the lower house.

Madam Speaker, do you know who moved all those notices of motion? It was the shadow treasurer. Well, so much for Ms Chapman being so busy after having lost the shadow attorney-general's portfolio in the house. It seems to me that there is division in the Liberal Party. That is just one example that people may not yet have picked up about how Mrs Redmond says one thing and does another.

For example, there is also the issue of the deputy leadership of the Liberal Party. There are 18 members of the Liberal Party in this chamber and six of them have held the position of deputy leader. That is a one in three chance of being deputy leader. The current holder of the position was able to get three votes and be elected deputy leader—which is an amazing result, to turn three into a majority is impressive.

Of course, there is the member for Davenport. The member for Davenport has been deputy leader and leader. He recontested the deputy leader's position and failed. He was defeated by the member for Waite in a fair ballot. The member for Waite has had a lot to say about this issue. He tells us that for the entire time he was deputy leader the Leader of the Opposition did not speak to him, not even to congratulate him. She was furious that he had won. She was furious that he had dared to stand in a democratic process and be elected. The member for MacKillop was not even in the race. I think he probably got one or two votes in the first ballot—and that was it.

The Leader of the Opposition used her influence after an amazing election result of winning 18 seats, and got the member for Waite to stand down in a humiliating backdown. Quite frankly—I do not usually say this—I agree with the member for Waite. I would not dignify that sort of behaviour by turning up, either. The member for MacKillop was elected unopposed on a ballot at which a lot of people did not bother to turn up. They did not bother to show. Why? The whole thing was a farce. The honourable member knows it and everyone knows it. The whole thing was a farce.

From 2010 to 2014 what can we expect from the new, improved Liberal Party? I think we will see the new members, who are not accustomed to the stupidity shown by older members, probably rise to the frontbench. I see a lot of talent on the backbench. I think they will do very well. They are presentable and articulate and I think they will do a good job. They are the future of the Liberal Party. The old war horses up the front every six or eight months knock off a leader or a deputy leader and treat them appallingly.

Without doubt, the member for Finniss is my favourite Liberal Party member. The guy cannot cut a break. The way in which he is treated is so unfair. All right, so he announces internal Liberal Party decisions on Facebook before they are announced publicly. Okay, that is a mistake anyone can make. Okay, so he launched a corrections policy that was withdrawn 12 hours later. That could happen to anyone! So, without speaking to their treasury spokesperson, he puts out two different dates in relation to a prison they will build. That could happen to anyone, but he does not deserve to be humiliated by his leader.

He does not deserve humiliation by his leader at a press conference by her telling journalists that she has not spoken to him about his dismissal from the frontbench because she does not want to read about it on Facebook. He does not deserve that. He deserves a phone call to say, 'Mr Pengilly, your services are no longer required.' She should front up: he did. Why can't she? A member deserves the right to be spoken to by their leader and to be told that they are no longer required. I bet when the member for Unley fired people at work he did it face to face.

Mr Kenyon: Not by a press conference.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Not by a press conference. You can imagine it at the caucus meeting. 'All right; everyone who is on the front bench take a step forward. Not you, Pengilly; get back in line.' Is that how it was? It is outrageous behaviour.

And what has the member for Waite done that was so bad? Okay, he had a bit of a mishap. 'We will still go to court about it but we will sort it out amongst ourselves.' What did he do that was so bad? He got 10 votes. He won. He won, fair and square. Why can he not be deputy leader? Why can he not do the job? He is much more effective than others. I read his speech this morning, and I thought it was a fantastic contribution. He talked about the bastardry of the Liberal Party. He talked about how, when they made mistakes, they leaked; and when we made mistakes, we stuck. That was the difference, and that is the difference. I can understand his frustration at the whole process.

I think what concerns me most is that the Liberal Party is—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am glad you brought up Rick Phillips and Michelle Chantelois. I was not going to bring up Rick Phillips and Michelle Chantelois but, since you have, no; Rick Phillips is not my new mate. I have never actually met Rick Phillips. Have you?

Ms Chapman: On my electoral rounds.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is he is in your electorate?

Ms Chapman: He is in my electorate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Did he hand out how to vote cards for you?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is a bit of a sore spot for the member for Bragg. We would not want to expose any conversation she may or may not have had with Mr Phillips.

It seems to me that the Liberal Party has a choice to make. It has a choice to make, because the Leader of the Opposition says she is going to ban factions, that she will not allow people—

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Or not. She is not really sure what she wants yet. She will either ban factions or she will not. Factions do not work for the member for MacKillop, because he never gets elected, but he is happy to use the factional support that the Leader of the Opposition gives him to make him deputy leader. She is opposed to factions, except when it suits her, so I am interested to see how this ban on factions is going to work, and I am interested to see how her federal counterparts are going to take this new ban on factions. I assume there will be no more how to vote cards at Liberal Party internal ballots and procedures. There will be no more organising behind the scenes. I am sure the member for Bragg will vote for people based on the merits of their arguments rather than—

Ms Chapman: Always have.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: She always has!

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): If the member for Newland wishes to take part, I suggest he returns to his seat to interject.

An honourable member: Who said, 'Burn the village to save the village'? Was that you?

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Can the minister get on with his remarks, if he would not mind?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, that was from the Vietnam War, before I was born. I think it was—

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask that the minister return to the substance of his speech without the assistance of members from the other side, and perhaps he can get back to the substance of the debate, which is the Governor's speech.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir, and I will. I think it was Commander General Westmoreland who said that about Vietnam.

The ACTING SPEAKER: You only have 10 minutes to do it.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I can talk more about your Facebook page, if you like, because it is a great Facebook page. At least other leaders had the courage to speak to him personally when they were sacking him, rather than hide behind the office and then go out to a press conference and announce to the world that you would not speak to him because he would leak it to Facebook. That is how much confidence you have in your backbenchers.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Is that right? I will make this wager with the Leader of the Opposition: she will not lead the Liberal Party at the next election, because the knives are out for her already. When she is deposed as Liberal leader, which will happen eventually (and, unfortunately for her, she does not deserve that; she deserves another shot at it, but they will not give it to her, because of the ambitions of others, and those ambitions are justified), I wonder what she will say a couple of weeks afterwards. I wonder what she will say about her beloved Liberal Party then. I wonder what her words will be. Maybe it will be, 'Gee, I should have stayed in the Labor Party when I joined it all those years ago.' Maybe it will be that. Maybe it will be, 'I should have stayed in the New South Wales right when I joined them. I should have stayed in the New South Wales Labor Party.'

Mrs Redmond: What about Michael Brown and the dirty tricks that he was prepared to pull?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You were at Michael Brown's wedding.

Mrs REDMOND: No; I was at his wedding reception.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Okay; there is no love lost there?

Mrs Redmond: He was prepared to go to any lengths.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I would defend the honour of our campaign secretary and, if the Leader of the Opposition wishes to go outside this place and make the same accusations that she has just made now, which are grossly defamatory to Michael Brown and his character, I would encourage her to do so. Go outside and say he has behaved in a way that is illegal and corrupt.

Mrs Redmond: It was indefensible.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It was not indefensible.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Minister, I suggest you get on with your comments.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If Liberal members want to talk about dirty tricks, they have got plenty up their sleeves that they ran during the campaign but, of course, we don't squeal about them. We just take it. We don't squeal about them like spoilt little kids who did not get what they want. We just take it.

Mr Goldsworthy: Who called the front bench 'a bunch of duds over there' a couple of years ago? It was you, mate. Your ambition got the better of you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Kavel, the future of the Liberal Party! I have got to say I am always impressed when he speaks up, because it is such a great contribution. He is taken so seriously in the Liberal Party. I understand he is up there in tactics meetings. I understand he is deeply involved in the campaign. He is someone whom they listen to when he speaks; he is someone who is taken really seriously. He is a big thinker when it comes to strategy. Maybe he is the guy who decided it was okay to spend a fortune in safe Labor seats and not worry about the marginal Labor seats. Maybe he is the genius who came up with that idea but, who knows? We will find out eventually.

I find it amazing, Mr Acting Speaker, that you are languishing on the backbench while the geniuses such as the member for Kavel are still in the shadow ministry. I quite frankly do not see it. You are a great representative of your local community, and you are a former mayor. I think you were a bank manager, weren't you?

I also want to talk about the member for Schubert and how terribly he was treated. The member for Schubert is a great member of the Liberal Party, and I will tell members why. Whenever the Liberal Party is in trouble and it needs financing quickly, it goes to the member for Schubert and he fronts up. He is a good soldier of the Liberal Party. They took the whip's position away from him and they then took away his position on ERD. Now, I have to say that, for someone of the calibre of the member for Schubert, to be taken off that committee in probably his last term was really unfair. I think that he took it pretty badly.

I feel really sorry for him, because Ivan and his lovely wife have been great supporters of the Liberal Party. They are a traditional Liberal family. His father served with distinction and Ivan has served with distinction, and he did not deserve the treatment dished out by some members of this house in his last four years, maybe, in the parliament. I think that Ivan deserves better than that. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition could have stuck up for him but, of course, there are no factions in the Liberal Party anymore so he simply did not get it on merit, I assume, in that great meeting members opposite had where they discussed all these committee positions. The member for Schubert has been hard done by. I feel sorry for him and he deserves better.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Could have been just a mistake.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! If he wants to interject, the member for Newland should go back to his seat.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is really disappointed that the member for Newland got re-elected.

Mrs Redmond: Absolutely.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is just too bad that the candidate she chose was not good enough to defeat him, or that her own personal campaigning in the seat was rejected by the local community, overwhelmingly, I understand. In fact, I understand that the member for Newland received quite substantial swings in some traditional Liberal areas in his seat.

Mr Goldsworthy: His margin went back.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The genius from Kavel! Anyway, I am sure that the former shadow minister for corrections will make a comeback under the new regime, which is coming to a parliament near you soon. I think that when that new regime comes into place, with the new talent on the backbench, I am sure that the first phone calls the Leader of the Opposition will make will be to tell us how appallingly she has been treated.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Hang on, here we go. I did not win Lockleys and West Beach. Oh, no! That is like Labor not winning Bragg. Oh, no, what a disaster! That is why they cannot win an election. Like I said, it is about winning a majority of votes in the majority of seats. Members opposite ran a PR campaign; we ran a Westminster campaign. We won, they lost, and they still do not get it, they are still in denial.

Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your election to this high office and your wonderful campaign in your seat in very difficult circumstances. I always knew that you would come through. Others on the other side did not. They were quite confident that they had beaten you, but I always knew you would come through because of your dedication to your local community, and they have repaid you immensely.

Congratulations to all the new members. I look forward to their first maiden Address in Reply speech; I am sure they will make excellent listening.

Mr Pengilly: Most of them have been done. Where have you been?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have been listening. There is one to come now that I am looking forward to: the future leader of the Liberal Party I heard on the radio. She holds ambitions for the job and so she should. She is a very talented young lady who I am sure has a lot of promise. Mr Gardner is also a candidate for the job. He has a great mentor in Chris Pyne, someone who has more front than David Jones. However, I am sure that he will do very well. I am sure that he has learnt a lot from Chris Pyne, and I am sure that he will bring that to bear in this parliament, especially on the backbenches. He will do a great job; they will all do a great job.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I even said nice things about you, believe it or not. That is okay. Vanity is my favourite sin, and the one person who will die of vanity the most is the member for Norwood.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, minister Koutsantonis. I call on the member for Adelaide, and I would point out, especially to my friends and colleagues on my right, that this is the honourable member's first speech, and, accordingly, I would ask members to extend the traditional courtesies to the member for Adelaide. The member for Adelaide.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:43): I would like to thank His Excellency for opening the 52^nd parliament and for his speech regarding the future of our state. I would also like to thank both the Governor and Mrs Scarce for their service to the people of South Australia. I support the motion to adopt the Address in Reply, although, unfortunately, I disagree with many of the initiatives.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your new role, as well as congratulating Madam Speaker on being elected the first female Speaker of the house. I trust that you will both always act fairly in your very important roles of controlling the house. I congratulate our leader, Isobel Redmond, for attaining 51.6 per cent of the South Australian vote. It is unfortunate that we now sit in opposition against the wishes of the people of South Australia. Being chosen by the people of South Australia to represent them in parliament as their member for Adelaide and to represent this great city is a true honour.

I thank them for their support, and I pledge to the people of Adelaide that I will always act with integrity, honesty and openness. I will always work hard to find solutions that bring the greatest good to the greatest number whilst considering the best interests of the state as a whole as well as minority groups and interests, including those where social structures are not equally accessible to all. I will not be swayed by the vocal minority, as I am willing to listen to the views of all people with an open mind and to gain a balanced perspective.

The Adelaide electorate includes the suburbs of Adelaide, North Adelaide, Fitzroy, Thorngate, Prospect, Gilberton, Ovingham, Medindie, Medindie Gardens, Walkerville and part of Collinswood. The electorate of Adelaide includes the beautiful Parklands, which are part of our first Surveyor General's (Colonel William Light) original vision for South Australia. This legacy surrounds the city with a green belt that encompasses the Aquatic Centre, the Memorial Drive tennis courts and a vast array of sporting fields throughout the Parklands, which encourage sport and recreation for all South Australians to enjoy.

The north-east corner of the city has a wonderful botanical gardens, its design influenced by many famous gardens in England and France, which I frequented often as a university student. On the edge of Botanic Park is the National Wine Museum and Adelaide Zoo, the only major metropolitan zoo in Australia to be owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis and now known internationally as the home of our famous pandas. The State Library, Art Gallery and third oldest university in Australia, the University of Adelaide, are on the city's cultural boulevard, North Terrace, which is enjoying a revival of inner city living with apartments, the occupants including students, able to take in the spectacular views over Government House and beyond.

The electorate of Adelaide has many shopping, dining and entertainment precincts blessed with myriad shops, cafes and award-winning restaurants in O'Connell Street, Melbourne Street and Prospect Road. Rundle Mall is the premier retail centre in the heart of Adelaide: home to over 700 retail specialty stores, 200 service providers and 15 unique arcades and shopping centres. With 175 fashion stores and flagship stores such as Myer, David Jones, Harris Scarfe, Target and Woolworths, as well as a large number of smaller independent chain stores including Borders, Toys 'R' Us and Harvey Norman, this vibrant precinct employs around 5,000 people and is visited daily by thousands of 110,000 city workers and 50,000 students who earn or learn in the city as well as thousands of tourists each year.

I support Rundle Mall becoming a designated tourist precinct under the Shop Trading Hours Act such as Glenelg. As one of our key tourist destinations, the state would benefit from having Rundle Mall open on a number of the 11 public holidays that occur throughout the year. I also believe we should be investing in the reinvigoration of Rundle Mall as there has been no major reinvestment back into the mall since it was first established in the 1970s other than one minor facelift in the 1990s which was just the repaving, erection of the Gawler Place canopy and various subsurface infrastructure improvements.

I believe this should be a high priority, given it is visited by 85 per cent of tourists to South Australia, has the highest point of pedestrian traffic with over 23 million visitors each year, has annual sales of approximately $800 million and employs around 5,000 people. The Adelaide electorate comprises a diverse and dynamic group of people including 27 per cent migrants from over 35 different countries. It also has the highest percentage of people living alone. The top three industries of employment include professional, scientific and technical services, manufacturing, health care and social assistance. The electorate also has 6,391 volunteers—and I note it is National Volunteers Week—who are a vital part of our community and 5,081 tertiary students.

What some see as impossible, others see as a challenge. Winning the seat of Adelaide was always going to be a challenge but a challenge that I was up for. I believe firmly that the people of Adelaide deserve better from their political representative. Their wishes and concerns were not being heard or properly represented in parliament. The Labor policies affecting Adelaide did not correspond to the wishes of the people of Adelaide, so when eight candidates took time out of their life to stand against the one sitting member, it had to have sent a message to the government that either there is a problem with the member or a problem with the policies of the Labor Party.

An honourable member: Or both.

Ms SANDERSON: Or both. The residents of Adelaide have spoken with their vote and they have clearly chosen the Liberal policies of rebuilding the Royal Adelaide Hospital on its existing site, building a new covered city stadium and building a second campus of Adelaide High School. This strong vote against Labor has sent an obvious message back to Labor as it is now saying it is reconnecting with the people of Adelaide and that they are now ready to listen. In my campaign I did listen and the result was a 14.5 per cent two-party preferred swing on a margin of 54.2 per cent.

Many generations ago my family came from Scotland, England and Germany. In 1983 my mother, sister, Colleen, and I followed my aunty Beth and cousin Jesse from Melbourne to live in Prospect. Since then more family members have moved to join us in this wonderful city. I come from a family of very strong and independent women. My mother encouraged me always to do my best. She was a strong disciplinarian and never gave in. My home was a place of healthy eating, and a good education was seen as paramount. It was assumed I would attend university even though no other family members had.

I attended St Peters Collegiate Girls School, a place where several women in politics were also educated, including Julie Bishop. I thank the teachers who encouraged my quest for knowledge and who nurtured me on my journey. By studying physics, chemistry, biology, maths and Australian history in year 12, I planned first to study science but changed my preferences and completed a Bachelor of Arts in accountancy at the University of South Australia. Uni life was vibrant and informative and I formed many close friendships that continue today. I paid my own way through university and my mother, on my commencement of university, told me that I could do anything I wanted as long as I paid for it and got myself there. While sounding good, without a car and earning about $40 a week, my choices were limited.

My younger years were filled with study and sport. I participated in many of our school sports and was heavily involved in sport outside of school including swimming for North Adelaide, playing basketball for the University of South Australia and competing in judo for Prospect and the state team coming fifth at the nationals. I believe in encouraging sport in schools. It not only keeps children fit but it gives them a positive focus and it will also help our obesity problems.

I started working at the age of 14 babysitting for families in Prospect and North Adelaide. I later went on to cleaning, waitressing and worked as a casual at Myer for six years. Until I started regular work at Myer, other than my school uniform of which I was very proud, most of my clothes were second hand or hand-me-downs. Casual days and school dances were terrifying days at school and I would either wear my uniform or borrow clothing from friends. My mother did not place any importance on clothing or material possessions or being like others. Whilst this was a hard lesson for a teenager who wanted to be like everyone else and fit in, it has now given me the confidence to be my own person and not need the acceptance of others to feel good about myself.

A quote that was on my wall that inspired me through my years of study and through my campaign is by Paul Meyer as follows:

What you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must, inevitably come to pass.

I am a living example of the truth of this statement after working tirelessly for 18 months and daring to dream of representing the people of Adelaide in parliament.

I have not been involved in student politics or a trade union. Instead, I have real world experience with over 15 years in small business and several years of financial experience covering tax, business services, audit and financial management. I have no interest in the politics of politics. Having said that, I am here because I am absolutely committed to the people of Adelaide, and I am determined to get things done. I want to improve my community and be an advocate for my constituents both in parliament and in the party room.

I was motivated to become involved in politics after the Liberals lost the federal election in 2007. I could not bear the thought of back-to-back Labor governments. I felt it was time for me to do something for my community to ensure our economic future, as Labor governments have a history of leaving our economy and finances in decline, and this has been proven as, currently, in South Australia we are on track to be paying dearly, to the tune of $2 million per day in interest on debt by 2013.

After considering both federal and state government options, I decided my skills and interests were best suited to state issues such as education, business, water, health, the environment and local concerns, as well as invigorating our city. I enjoy meeting new people, communicating, listening and helping individuals, so the lower house was the best option for me. With Adelaide being my home since the age of 13 and my place of business for over 15 years, it was clear to me that the state seat of Adelaide was a position from which I could do the most good for my country, my state and my neighbours. I know and love this electorate and look forward to listening to the ideas and concerns of my constituents and fighting for the results.

The Liberal philosophy and core values include freedom of speech, religion and association and freedom of citizens to choose their own way of living and of life, subject to the rights of others. It is about protecting people from exploitation and looking primarily to the encouragement of individual initiative and enterprise as a dynamic force of reconstruction and progress. These values fit with my own beliefs, and as such I have always been a Liberal voter and I have admired many Liberal leaders.

I see our prime ministers, premiers and members of parliament as leaders in our community, and expect that they should always act with integrity, honesty and openness. To act within the law yet without any moral fibre or ethics that even a child could determine is a disgrace. I am extremely embarrassed that we now have sitting members in government who won their seats through using false how-to-vote cards that were both misleading and dishonest, along with several who sent out letters defaming their opponents and spreading lies and unjustified doubts in the minds of voters. A life without integrity is no life at all.

As a business owner for 15 years it has taught me about hard work, deadlines, pressure, budgets and getting results. Small business is a major employer of South Australians and needs to be supported, so I will use my experience to help others in business by supporting legislation to improve their conditions. I believe we should be working to reduce business taxes, including payroll taxes. South Australian businesses are paying 4.8 per cent more state taxes than the national average and 11 per cent above that of Western Australia. The average business in South Australia pays $247,000 in state taxes per annum.

I have a particular interest in youth, including their education, health and self-esteem. I personally believe that many problems such as binge drinking, drug use and eating disorders are a result of poor self-esteem. Through my businesses, Rachel's Model Management and Training and Rachel's Junior Models, of which I declare I am still the sole owner, I have met with, interviewed, taught and worked with thousands of young people, and I believe good role models, encouragement and self-belief are important basics to the wellbeing and future of our young.

Our city needs reinvigoration to provide employment opportunities and to give our youth a reason to stay in our state. We lose too many of our finest young and capable minds to the Eastern States. More people leave our city each year than are born here. Immigration is the only reason our state population has increased. I want to engage with our young and work with them to find out how we can make our city more liveable for them.

Over 20 years ago, while studying accountancy, I was the treasurer for the Prospect Neighbourhood Watch. I would like to revive the Neighbourhood Watch groups and start groups where presently there are none. From a safety point of view these groups are an excellent way of informing residents on keeping safe, identifying potential trouble spots and problems as well as engaging with the community. I am also an advocate of being able to protect yourself in your own home.

Education is a high priority of mine. While doorknocking during my campaign I identified a strong demand for a second campus of Adelaide High School for the people of Prospect and Walkerville, as a zone school is currently two bus trips away and is soon to be demolished for the Gepps Cross super school, which will be even further away.

The electorate contains a total of 17 primary schools, six of which are public and 11 private. Of the secondary schools in the electorate there are 12 secondary schools of which only one is a public school and not zoned for any suburbs further north than North Adelaide. The Adelaide electorate has the highest percentage of families choosing non-government education for their children, with 64 per cent of children attending private schools. I believe this high figure shows that there are not adequate public high school options available in this area.

Adelaide High School has a proud history and has a great academic record, with students from over 85 schools seeking enrolment each year. Increased demands on enrolments at the school are in line with increased population in the inner city and the popularity of the curriculum and special entry students through their double language, rowing, cricket and hearing-impaired programs.

In June 2001 advice provided to DECS, using state asset management plan benchmarks, indicated that the Adelaide High School site is able to use between 9,579 square metres and 11,207 square metres to house students. The building area was identified and equated to a shortfall of space for approximately 226 students. Based on enrolments in 2010 this shortfall is now 329. In a panicked reaction to the Liberal announcement of a second campus of the Adelaide High School to be situated on the Bowden Clipsal site, the Labor government, on 16 March, only days before the election, announced an expansion of Adelaide High School of 250 students by 2013. It stated:

By expanding the schools, we can relax the zones—so students from Prospect or Walkerville, for instance, will be able to attend Adelaide High School.

I note that Adelaide High School is already over capacity by 329 students, and the number is increasing yearly. By adding Prospect and Walkerville, that demand could increase by a further 650 students thus, by 2013, Adelaide High School will require about another 800 places. The people of Adelaide require another public high school option that is convenient and of a high standard. The proposed super school in Gepps Cross is not what the people of Adelaide want. I note the quote by Jay Weatherill on the front cover of the School Post as follows:

By listening to what communities have to say, I believe we can together build a responsive school system.

I plead with you, Mr Weatherill, to honour your pledge and that of your government to start listening. From the eight governing council members surveyed in the magazine from around South Australia, five wanted the super school plan to be put on hold while real community consultation took place, one wanted it scrapped and the money returned to the school, one wanted it replaced by a better development, and only one wanted it to continue as planned.

I now come to the Adelaide Oval. Although I do not believe the Adelaide Oval redevelopment will ever go ahead, I see the proposal as a knee-jerk reaction to the extremely popular Liberal policy put forward for a covered city stadium. The Adelaide Oval, known for its quaintness and surrounding lawn, would be forever destroyed by turning it into a concrete jungle to seat 50,000 people at a cost to the taxpayer of at least $450 million. Adequate parking has not been included in the plan, and I worry about the Parklands becoming an all year car park, which will have a devastating effect, especially during the winter months when I fear it will become a quagmire.

I am also concerned that businesses in the area will have their regular parking taken up by people visiting the stadium, as was the case with the recent AC/DC concert, which saw people parking up to 2 kilometres away and walking in to save paying for parking. The government's plan would see residents of North Adelaide living their weekends in a car park with restricted access and road congestion. Another stadium that has a multitude of purposes and is covered will be required in the near future to enable large concerts and events throughout the year, rather than all the events happening in what has become known as 'Mad March'.

Regarding the Parklands, I believe we need a balanced approach to the protection of the Parklands as an important state asset. I believe that the restoration of the railyard site for the building of a city stadium and entertainment precinct would be a great state asset and a benefit to all South Australians for many decades to come.

Having had to negotiate my way through several commercial leasing agreements, I see many improvements that need to be made within the current system. I believe that introducing a series of related standardised commercial leases would protect lessees. I would also like the onus of the three months' written notice for renewal to fall on the lessor, who is in the business of leasing and not, as it is currently, the lessee, who is unlikely to remember a date three months prior to the end of their term, which could be three, five or even 10 years forward.

There are many complicated clauses that easily trip up those who are new to commercial leasing or those without a law degree to negotiate their way through the sometimes hundreds of pages. Many people who have previously had private rentals assume incorrectly that some moral or ethical obligations exist, and they are shocked when none of the safeguards available for private rentals—nor the help and advice—are available for commercial leasing.

With regard to the Royal Adelaide Hospital issue, the hospital is currently situated in a prime position near the Adelaide University Medical School, the Institute of Medical and Veterinary School (where I did work experience in year 10) and the Hanson Research Centre. It is devastating to think that another state icon worth over $1 billion, with an award-winning burns unit, an intensive care unit that was rebuilt only eight years ago and the biggest radiology department in the southern hemisphere, should be ignored by a government happy to decommission this public asset forever and rebuild on a contaminated railyard site.

This option will take several generations to pay off and is another sign of the Labor government's inability to manage our finances. The proposed site will block future development of an entertainment precinct along the Riverbank and is a poor use of such prime land.

In bringing my remarks to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have encouraged and supported me in my journey thus far. I am humbled and overwhelmed by the number of people who have offered their help and support. Many of the supporters and helpers only met me during my campaign or were people from my past whom I had not seen in many years. I would like to thank all of the branch members and helpers and supporters, of whom there are too many to name. I would especially like to thank my campaign team—Margaret, Angie and Peter—without whose support this journey would not have been possible. I would like to also thank Sheree, who worked tirelessly and put in extra hours at my office to enable me the time to campaign and fundraise.

I acknowledge the women in politics who have encouraged and inspired me. These include: the Hon. Michelle Lensink, MLC; Vickie Chapman, MP; the honourable Diana Laidlaw, MLC; Julie Bishop, MP; the Hon. Jing Lee, MLC (our new member in the upper house); and, of course, most importantly, our leader Isobel Redmond, MP, who has shown a clear contrast in leadership style to that of our Labor government. Isobel is a straight talker who says what she means and means what she says. I thank her sincerely for her leadership.

I would also like to congratulate all the new members in the house today, particularly those with whom I have shared the journey over the last 18 months. I look forward to working with you all, and I am excited by the strong leadership qualities you all possess. My election motto was 'substance, not spin,' and that is what you can expect from me now and in the future.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: I congratulate the new member for Adelaide once again and well done on her first speech. We now have another new member—the member for Chaffey. As this is also the member's first speech, I ask accordingly that members extend the traditional courtesies to our new member.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:08): I would like to thank His Excellency the Governor for his opening speech. His service to South Australia has been exemplary.

It is an honour to be standing here as the new member for Chaffey. I am humbled by my constituents' faith in my ability to represent their interests in this house. I would also like to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your historic appointment and express my hope that, despite not being able to participate in debates on the floor, you will ensure that regional South Australia has a strong voice.

I extend my congratulations to those members who were re-elected in March, especially to those who, like me, are here for the first time. I am confident that the new members will make a telling contribution to parliament and represent their electorates with distinction.

For several years, Chaffey was in a unique position, having a member of a conservative party serving a Labor cabinet. My predecessor represented the electorate with formidable energy and ability, helping to bring the issues of water and the River Murray to greater prominence. This is because, for Chaffey, there are no issues of greater importance than water and the River Murray. They are central to Chaffey's economy: its social fabric, its history, its survival and its very existence. Water and the River Murray are also the main reasons I am here.

I am from a farming family from Keith in the South East of South Australia. My father Graham was a well-respected stock agent and livestock producer, and my mother Judy was a nurse. When I was quite young, we moved to Adelaide where I attended school before undertaking a fitter and turner apprenticeship with GMH at Woodville. I then became a qualified toolmaker in 1982. However, like many of the GMH workers, I was retrenched a year later when the company let half of its workforce go.

Having a passion for fast cars and boats, I began a small business restoring muscle cars and fitting out speedboats. I was a keen water ski racer who proudly represented South Australia and went on to be selected in the national team in the late 1990s. One of my fondest memories was winning the world's toughest water ski race. The Sydney Bridge to Bridge involves towing two skiers from Dangar Island at Brooklyn into the mouth of the Hawkesbury River and up to Windsor—a distance of 112 kilometres. We clocked speeds of greater than 200 kilometres per hour and completed the course in just 40 minutes. It was a life changing moment for me, but it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last.

Watching the birth of my three children—Nic, Charlotte and Eliza—were also special moments that changed my life forever. In 1989 I returned, in part, to my farming roots. I moved to the Riverland and purchased a citrus property, which I still own today. In the early 1990s I bought farm country on the bank of the River Murray, where I developed a vineyard. I was one of those fortunate growers who entered the industry before the 1990s wine boom took off.

As an irrigator I became aware of just how much my livelihood, those of my fellow irrigators and the Riverland community itself relied on water and the River Murray. It is the very lifeblood of the region. Irrigation is responsible for the birth of towns along the upper reaches of the Murray in South Australia. Chaffey itself is named after two Canadian brothers who, at the invitation of the colony of South Australia in the late 19^th century, developed what is now the oldest large irrigation district in Australia, at my home town of Renmark.

Back then the irrigation infrastructure was extraordinarily primitive. Steam powered pumps delivered water into open channels which flowed into the small orchards and vineyards of those first pioneers of the settlement. Paddle steamers plied the river, bringing the produce of the district to markets in Adelaide and beyond.

I mention this today because irrigation infrastructure and on-farm irrigation practice in the Riverland is state-of-the-art. It is a tribute to the foresight and innovation of local irrigators that during the 1990s, with their own money—in addition to considerable support from previous state and federal Liberal governments—they upgraded irrigation infrastructure, primarily to conserve water, to reduce what was taken from the Murray while maintaining the production levels that drove the region's economy.

Irrigators in the Chaffey region and along the length of the Murray in South Australia are now the most efficient in the Murray Darling Basin. They are recognised internationally for this efficiency but, it would seem, not so much in their own country. I also mention this state-of-the-art irrigation because, today, irrigators upstream from South Australia continue to receive River Murray water from infrastructure that was not even state-of-the-art in the days of the Chaffey brothers. There are still thousands of kilometres of unsealed dirt channels in New South Wales and Victoria, open to the sky, wasting vast quantities of our most precious natural resource. The losses from evaporation and leakage can reach up to 50 per cent. If only irrigators in those states had the courage to meter at the point of extraction, they would wonder in amazement where half of their water has gone.

Our current federal government has promised billions of dollars to upgrade infrastructure in the Murray Darling Basin but, astoundingly, not to replace these wasteful channels with pipelines. To call this shortsighted and irresponsible is to dramatically understate the case. It is past time for South Australia to make this case to Canberra and to make it forcibly, before these billions of dollars are spent on projects less worthy of attention—if they are spent, that is.

Three years ago, $400 million was promised to reduce evaporation from the Menindee Lakes—a vital water storage for South Australia—but nothing has been done. Floodwaters entering the lakes, which should be a boom to this state, are evaporating at tremendous rates, as I speak.

The federal government's plan for the basin is of great concern to my constituents and all South Australians. South Australia's record for water efficiency is second to none in this country, and it must be recognised before consideration is given to sacrificing any more of the water on which my electorate and this state depends. Very little more water can be saved in South Australia but vast amounts can be saved upstream, if only we had a government with a vision and a determination to achieve it.

Irrigators acknowledge the need to provide water for the basin's environmental assets and to ensure that critical human needs are met. What they do not appreciate, because it is manifestly unfair and unrealistic, is being ranked below these interests in importance by a federal government that has shown nothing but ignorance in the application of policy aimed at improving environmental outcomes. We will have a window of opportunity when the draft basin plan is released for public comment to have our say, but it is simply not good enough. We must have assurances, certainty, recognition and, above all, transparency—and we must have it now.

Lack of transparency regarding water decisions that affect the lives of so many people in Chaffey is why I became a director of the Renmark Irrigation Trust in 1998 and why I became a director of the South Australian Murray Irrigators (SAMI) two years later. Everything I did to succeed and prosper as an irrigator and to contribute to my community depended on timely and accurate information about water.

I felt strongly that it was time to help other irrigators who had, historically, lacked sufficient representation at government levels. While South Australia remained true to agreements that capped further extractions from the Murray-Darling system, irrigators in Chaffey watched in growing horror as the other basin states took more water from the system without consideration for the consequences. The warnings of South Australian irrigators were not heard.

This was before record low inflows into the basin made the issue of water security become more prominent in the minds of South Australians. This was before the Lower Lakes started to become a toxic wasteland. This was before my predecessor joined forces with the Rann government to preside over the economic crisis steadily enveloping the seat of Chaffey.

Irrigators saw it coming years before. We proposed solutions, like the one basin, one plan initiative which, if it had been supported by the Rann government, would have saved irrigators much of the pain they are going through today. SAMI rose to prominence as water became more important to South Australians. As I spent more of my time representing the interests of the state's irrigators in their own plight, I realised our community needed better representation on a whole range of issues. As water flow lessened so did the job opportunities. As water flow lessened so did the number of tourists decline. Primary industries in the region no longer receive the support they once had. Local health services no longer receive the support they once had. Support for attempts to diversify industries in the region was half-hearted at best.

This is what convinced me to stand for election. This is what convinced my constituents that Chaffey was ready for change. Chaffey is a great electorate. Its people come from many walks of life and many parts of the world. It is one of the most culturally diverse communities in Australia. It is a community with a strong sense of family. The community identifies closely with the landscape and its majestic river, and with its history and heritage the people of Chaffey, without doubt, were amongst the most informed voters in this state on 20 March.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mr WHETSTONE: They expect much from their local member, which is a legacy of my long-serving predecessors, William Macgillivray and Peter Arnold.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mr WHETSTONE: The people of Chaffey expect much from their state government, too, and, while it may not be politic to say so, their expectations were not met in recent years—and neither were mine. I vividly recall meeting with the Premier in my capacity as a representative of the irrigators, and the Premier asking, 'Why would I support the people of Chaffey? I will never win that seat.'

More than anything else this is what convinced me to stand. The Premier's apparent lack of regard for the region is what partly convinced my constituents that Chaffey needed change. Again, I say that I am humbled by their confidence in me and I am determined to repay their trust.

Winning election as the member for Chaffey is my most recent life-changing moment. This is a new phase in my life and with it comes new goals. For the moment, most importantly I am seeking to make change for the greater good of the seat of Chaffey. In the future my goal is to effect change for the greater good of South Australia as a minister in a Liberal government.

I would not be here were it not for the support of many people—my children, my family and friends, my dedicated campaign team, a determined local party membership and my parliamentary colleagues in the Liberal Party, ably led by Isobel Redmond. Her frequent visits to the electorate—five times since becoming opposition leader—have not only presented a stark contrast to the Premier's conspicuous absence but also underlined our party's commitment to the interests of regional South Australia.

I make special mention of my campaign manager, Anne Ruston, who played an important role in my success on 20 March. Together, all these people and the voters of Chaffey achieved the largest swing of the election in any seat. My constituents would simply not have forced this change unless it was needed. Because it is needed Chaffey's needs are great. Farmers in the Northern Mallee struggle with poor rainfall, fluctuating markets and increasing input costs, not to mention a recent plague of locusts to which this government's response has been inadequate, to say the least.

Many tourism operators struggle with declining visitor numbers. Irrigators struggle with inadequate water allocations and poor commodity prices. People have lost their jobs as major employers have pulled out of the region and local businesses have been forced to close their doors.

Perhaps the most visual example of our need is the iconic Lake Bonney. This integral part of the river system is a major regional centre for tourism, recreation, sport and leisure. The town of Barmera, with a population of around 4,000 people, and other towns in the area rely substantially on the income generated by visitors to Lake Bonney. Many here in this house will have fond memories of family visits to the lake where, for decades, generations have swum, sailed, fished and skied under the Riverland sun. The lake is also an important habitat for a large range of aquatic species.

Today, Lake Bonney symbolises much that has gone wrong in the management of the River Murray. In 2007 it was disconnected from the system to save water being lost through evaporation and this was, perhaps, a prudent measure in such a year of poor rainfall in the basin. It was also supposed to be a temporary measure, and this government nominated trigger points at which, when reached, the lake would be reconnected to the system. These trigger points have been reached, yet Lake Bonney remains disconnected.

The impact on the lake is shocking. Fish have died and continue to die in their millions, littering the exposed shore with their bodies and polluting the air with their stink. Salinity levels have risen, putting further pressure on the lake's aquatic life. Recreational and sports activities have been restricted due to health concerns from the deteriorating quality of the water; and many families who usually visit Lake Bonney have stopped coming. Barmera's businesses have declined as the local people watch their beautiful lake dwindle. That is unacceptable, as is the continued disregard for regional communities in the management of the River Murray in South Australia. Lake Bonney must be reconnected immediately. A new management plan for Lake Bonney must be put into place—a plan that allows for its continued connection to the river system. A significant part of my electorate relies on the outcome. Lake Bonney must be recognised as an important economic, social and environmental asset to South Australia, and treated as such.

Indeed, all of the River Murray's environmental assets within South Australia need reassessment along social and economic lines. Chaffey alone boasts two Ramsar sites of international significance—the Riverland wetland encompassing Chowilla and Calperum stations and the Banrock Station wetland—in addition to hundreds of creeks, lagoons, backwaters and natural flood plains. We owe it to our future generations of South Australians to ensure these are managed with regard to their long-term sustainability and health, their capacity to generate tourism income, and their social value to local communities. A healthy river environment is essential to ensure sustainable irrigation industries and river communities, viable ecosystems, improved biodiversity and sustainable tourism.

Tourism, in particular, should have a bright future in Chaffey. The experiences offered by the region are many and unique, and the climate is stunning. Here I acknowledge the tireless efforts of tourism industry operators and businesses in Chaffey and those who manage the many events that attract thousands of visitors to the region every year. They continue to innovate, particularly in terms of ecotourism and food and wine tourism, and are moving to make Chaffey a regional conference and convention destination. They make an important contribution to the regional economy in these difficult times of compromised water security.

Water security will, of course, be my number one priority as the member for Chaffey, as it should be for this government. Water will become an increasingly scarce and valuable resource. There will be fierce ongoing competition for water amongst various interests such as the environment, industry, agriculture and human needs. This country needs a visionary nation-building approach to water security in this century to ensure our future water needs are met; and perhaps no state will need to influence this vision or drive this nation-building approach more than South Australia. Our future capacity for population growth, wealth and job creation, quality food production, energy generation and ensuring a strong, healthy community are all greatly dependent upon it.

It must begin with developing and maintaining a much stronger position on the River Murray. Reducing Adelaide's reliance on the Murray for water, while necessary, will not reduce the river's importance to the city or to regional South Australia. Water from the Murray is used across the breadth of this state from the West Coast to the eastern border. The vast majority of this state's population relies on continued availability of this water. When members here drink a Clare Valley riesling or a Barossa Valley shiraz, chances are that it has been irrigated with River Murray water. The seat of Chaffey relies on it greatly.

Chaffey presents itself to almost every South Australian when they sit down to a meal or order a drink at the bar. It is an important food bowl for this state and this nation. South Australia is the wine state of Australia and the Riverland is the engine room. It takes advantage of abundant sunshine, innovative farmers and the absence of pests such as fruit fly, but it relies on water from the Murray. Without secure water entitlements, without a state government willing to go in to bat for them, this region's irrigators could face oblivion. Indeed, many of them are already facing it.

We certainly must not sit back and watch our irrigators' entitlements be stripped away under the proposed federal plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. This would debilitate regional communities and place the food security of this state at risk. The federal government will not even commit to compensating irrigators if their entitlements are required but, in view of the efficiency investments made by irrigators in this state and the senseless waste of water upstream, South Australia's position must be that irrigators should not have to give up any more of their water. It must be if we are to retain our river communities, if we are to continue to enjoy the benefits and security of fresh local produce grown in our state, and if we are serious about South Australia's status as an exporter of quality food and wine.

Some years ago, this government released its food strategy for South Australia. It talked about increasing the food sector's contribution to the state's economy. It talked about its vision for an internationally competitive and innovative food industry. It talked about creating more jobs in the food and wine sectors, and it talked about ensuring long-term availability and quality of the state's local food supply. These goals will not be met unless this government supports irrigators and ensures their water entitlements are not reduced any further. South Australia's food security will be compromised if irrigators' entitlements are reduced, and South Australia will be further exposed to the well-documented health and biosecurity risk of food imports.

In its more recent obsession with mining and defence industries, this government would do well to remember that we cannot eat iron ore, copper or uranium. We cannot eat air warfare destroyers. Minerals are not the only thing that come from the soil. Mining is not the only primary industry. This government would do well to shift some of its attention to food production and investing more funds and more effort into the food sector. A good place to start would be the Loxton Research Centre.

The Riverland is a world-class horticultural area due in no small part to the research and development which once took place at Loxton. Established in the 1960s, the centre focused on breeding, developing and trialling new horticultural crop varieties in consultation with growers and industry. The centre conducted research to address issues, such as salinity, pests and diseases, and from Israel it brought over cutting edge irrigation technology and adapted it to local conditions. It developed groundbreaking soil survey technology and it provided sought-after agronomic consultancy services across the region and developed irrigation benchmarking to improve the performance of growers in terms of water efficiency and yields.

Because irrigators cannot gain much in the way of further water efficiencies through investment in infrastructure and on-farm systems, the best way to ensure their viability is to ensure that they continue to supply South Australians and the world with quality produce to help make them better, more efficient food producers with the aid of targeted, local, on-the-ground research, development and extension. This is why I believe that the government investment in the Loxton Research Centre must be reinvigorated. It must have more modern facilities, it must be staffed with skilled researchers and it must have sufficient funding over the long term to pursue research projects that will take many years to reach fruition.

This will help not only to secure a future for horticultural production in the Riverland but also research outcomes from Loxton could in themselves become a valuable export product for this state. I see it as a long-term investment to ensure the state's food security and sustainability of the communities in Chaffey which depend on the viability of this region's horticultural industries.

This year we have witnessed the violent end to many young lives on our roads. There is no escaping the fact that their inexperience is a major factor in the disproportionate road toll on young people. It is a sad fact with which the people of Chaffey are all too familiar. Our young drivers have to contend with a national highway running through much of the region—a highway with an increasing number of large B double trucks travelling upon it. Speed cameras, breath testing stations and harsher penalties for driving offences do not make younger people more experienced or better equipped to drive, but education does.

This is why I strongly advocate the establishment of a driver training facility at the permanent site of the Riverland's field days near Barmera. Not only would it be a safe place in which to educate our young people how to handle the conditions they will experience on our roads (particularly the Sturt Highway), but also it could effectively create a new industry in Chaffey. It could become a regional hub for defensive driver training and create jobs in the area. The Australian National Drag Racing Association is also prepared to invest in establishing a Riverland motor sport and driver training complex at this site. This is something which would also contribute to the local economy. So, it is important that we do not let an opportunity pass to integrate a state-supported driver education facility with it.

While we are on the subject, Madam Speaker, it is equally important that we have safe roads for young drivers and for those who are not so young. Whilst the maintenance of our state's roads should be acknowledged, there remain several road black spots to be addressed in Chaffey. Money is available from the federal government to do so but it will not act without state government support.

Young people also require the best facilities and other incentives to remain in the region. Quality public education is paramount amongst these. It is with great concern that I consider moves to centralise education in South Australia, because local schools are immensely important to the identity and the integrity of the regional communities, such as those in Chaffey. They provide a focus for communities and they provide facilities for sport, entertainment, meetings and other events. They are a source of community pride, and this state has an obligation to maintain them.

The same goes for the health services. The Riverland continues to wait for its general hospital in Berri. This government has been quick to sacrifice a third of its GST income to federal health reform without much scrutiny of the plan, but ever so slow to spend the $41 million it promised for the Berri hospital. This project must proceed without delay. Chaffey is in the same situation as many regional areas in Australia with regard to health services. To call them 'inadequate' is an understatement. Renmark, for example, currently has the lowest doctor to patient ratio of any town in South Australia. We must have more trained Australian doctors and nurses. The lack of Australian trained doctors is having a major negative impact on regional health care. We must make more places in our medical schools available to Australian students instead of giving those positions to fee-paying overseas students.

We must also put in place the best possible incentives to attract more doctors to regional areas. The proposed Flinders University regional medical school at Renmark must be given priority support by this government. It will better enable the Chaffey region to attract and retrain medical practitioners. Consideration must also be given to other ways of improving health services in the region, such as re-establishing a commercial air service to Renmark, and this would enable flying visits by health specialists which, at the moment, people in Chaffey can access only by travelling to Adelaide.

I wish to conclude my reply by urging the Premier to visit the Chaffey electorate and meet with its community. It is a part of South Australia which he has neglected for far too long and which this city-centric government has neglected as well. It is past time for the Premier to meet with local irrigators and tell them how he is going to protect their water entitlements and ensure that South Australia's efficiency record stands for something in the formulation of the National Water Plan. It is past time for the Premier to meet with the people of Barmera and see for himself the disaster brought upon Lake Bonney. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Congratulations to the member for Chaffey on a very good first speech. I now call on the member for Bright.

Ms FOX (Bright) (17:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not quite sure whether or not I have congratulated you. There is a lot of congratulating going on today, so congratulations to the members for Chaffey and Adelaide and you, Madam Speaker, on reaching this phenomenal achievement in your career. I would also like to thank the Governor for his opening of parliament this week. He is one of the best governors I recollect as having, and I am very fond of him. I think he is doing a great job.

I rise today to reflect on some of the points that emerged from our most recent election. First and foremost, I would like to thank those people in the electorate of Bright who once again placed their trust in me to represent them with fairness and goodwill for the next four years. I acknowledge in this place that I only won the election by 167 votes and that approximately half of the electorate did not vote for me. To those people, I promise to represent all electors regardless of their political affiliations to the best of my ability. It is my job and my personal privilege to do so. A result where you win an election by only 167 votes—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Fewer people to thank.

Ms FOX: —certainly gives one pause for thought, member for Croydon. I have engaged in a great deal of reflection over the last month, noticeably in relation to my own conduct as a member of parliament and an examination of that very close result. I acknowledge that there were greater issues at stake that were perhaps beyond my control—an extraordinary redistribution of the boundaries in 2007 and a swing, albeit patchy, against our party in some seats.

Due to the very difficult and precarious circumstances of my pregnancy last year I could not campaign in the way that I would have liked. I was obliged to remain in bed, which is extremely boring, from October until January which didn't help. The next two months were spent in the neonatal unit of Flinders Medical Centre willing and hoping that my little boy, born two months early and weighing 1.1 kilos, would actually pull through, which he did, and above all I am grateful for his life, his health and the support and understanding of my parliamentary colleagues from both sides of this house.

Members interjecting:

Ms FOX: Indeed, member for Schubert. Member for Hammond, very nice of you, thank you, and the wider Bright community. Still, at the end of the day, it was my face on the posters. It was my face and name on the how-to-vote cards, and I do feel a certain weight of responsibility for the narrow margin that then occurred. I have been thinking of ways in which I can improve my performance in this job, and let's face it: an election is the end of a four-year job interview. I only just got this job. Perhaps I value it all the more because of its marginal nature and its precarity. Time and hard work alone will tell whether the next job interview will be as successful.

This election was also an interesting one because of the result. Those who say that the Labor Party did not win it are very wrong: we won a majority of seats in this parliament and we were thus able to form government. It is as simple as that. I do not have any recollection of the Liberal Party complaining about the system we have up until this time and certainly not in 1998 when then federal Labor leader, Kim Beazley, won a majority of the two-party preferred vote yet did not win enough seats to claim government. I didn't notice any of you protesting on the steps of Parliament House then. John Howard took office, much as we have taken office, because he clearly won a majority of seats in the parliament.

The past can teach us many lessons, can it not? If we look far enough into the past, perhaps back into the 1990s, you may remember, colleagues and friends, a scandal that erupted in 1997 when a Liberal candidate was investigated for—wait for it—alleged electoral misconduct involving how-to-vote cards. A number of stories about the matter, written by the excellent journalists Miranda Murphy and Phillip Coorey in The Advertiser and Matthew Abraham in The Australian, showed headlines such as 'Misleading ads assisted Lib poll win' and 'Libs face charges over poll campaign'. I should point out that the Liberal candidate in question was cleared of any legal wrongdoing in much the same way that members on this side did not do anything legally wrong.

It is simply not worth throwing mud over an election that one has not won, especially when one's own party has been tarred with the same brush over a decade ago. Had the legislation put forward by the Labor Party in this house last year been agreed to in another place, none of these unsavoury events which occurred in 2010 would have been repeated. We live, the member for Schubert, and we learn.

Mr Venning interjecting:

Ms FOX: Indeed. Losing graciously is very difficult and admirable, and this morning many of us will have seen former prime minister Gordon Brown being extremely gracious as he said goodbye to the waiting media pack outside No. 10 Downing Street with his two sons and his wife. In a much smaller way on the other side of the world, the Liberal candidate I ran against in Bright was equally gracious. Losing by 167 votes is devastating for anyone, and I know that because for the better part of a week I was certain I had lost that election by about four votes, and it made me feel sick to the stomach. I acknowledge the hard work of Liberal candidate Maria Kourtesis who, with her team of young Liberals, ran a clean and committed campaign. I earnestly hope that the Liberal Party sees its way to working with Maria in another capacity in the future.

I would like to mention the literally hundreds of people who regardless of their voting intentions were so kind to me when my son was born. The beautiful cards and gifts from individuals and community organisations were very moving, and I have actually kept all of the cards that I was sent so that when Theo is 15 years old and says, 'I didn't ask to be born' I can give him these cards. I can ask him to read all the cards and we will have a very interesting exchange at that point, I am sure.

In closing, I must thank the people I work with who had a really hard time. My electorate office staff, Matthew Sarunic and Simone McDonnell, have worked above and beyond the call of any duty, and I am proud to be able to work with them. I also thank the staff and the secretary of the SDA. The unconditional support and friendship shown to me by these people was invaluable. I have to say that the compassion, understanding and support that SDA secretary, Peter Malinauskas, gave to me was unbelievable. It was a really tough time for many different reasons, but Peter was always at the end of the phone offering encouragement and solutions.

I would like to thank my friends, particularly my parliamentary colleagues. I would like to thank my family. I would like to thank, in particular, Paul Marcuccitti. Born to be alive was his theme song for the campaign, a disturbing song for many of us, but I thank him for what he did. I would also like to thank my colleagues. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Thank you to the member for Bright. I am sure we will work very well together as a team. The member for Newland. All I could think of was the member for Kenyon; I'm sorry.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: It is late in the day. Order! The member for Newland.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (17:46): Madam Speaker, congratulations on your election. Congratulations also to the Deputy Speaker. One day it would be nice to be honoured in such a way as to have a seat named after me, but it will not be me. I will always be the member for Newland while I am here, I think.

First, I would like to congratulate the Governor on his speech. He is, on reflection, a very good Governor. Along with the member for Morphett, I have had the pleasure of dealing with him on the matter of the City of Adelaide, the Clipper Ship, and I have found him to be a very personable, focused and dedicated Governor, and I think we are very well served by him. So, I would like to thank him and congratulate him on his speech.

I would like to congratulate the Premier on his win. The Premier has been through an exceedingly difficult six months, particularly leading up to the election. It was very intense for him personally and professionally, and the way he carried himself through that time is a credit to him. I would particularly like to congratulate his wife, Sasha, who carried herself with such grace through that time. She is a very impressive person, who I did not really know much before the election campaign, but I certainly know her better now.

I would like to congratulate my fellow members, those who are newly elected from the Liberal and Labor side. We have certainly got three good members of parliament, and we are very happy with our intake, and they will make a big contribution over a long period of time. I would also like to offer my commiserations to Jane Lomax-Smith, the former member for Adelaide; Lindsay Simmons, the former member for Morialta; and Vini Ciccarello, the former member for Norwood, all of whom are a loss to the parliament. They have my sympathy in this difficult time. Losing an election is never fun. I have lost elections, and I never enjoyed one of them. I am enjoying this one, though; it's good.

Mr Pederick: How much did you enjoy it on the night?

Mr KENYON: A lot. I can tell you that I enjoyed it a lot on the night. I have said it before and I will say again—

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Mr KENYON: No, not that. No, it is something else. I've moved on now. There was a slight pause and we moved on. I have said it before and I will say again, and I am quoting other people, of course, that no-one gets here alone. Of course, it is true for me; it is probably more true for me than anybody else. I need to thank a long list of people, firstly, my wife Tina and my children, all of whom have been much more cognisant of the events going around them this time than they were last time. They suffered it with good grace. In the case of my eldest son there was a disturbing amount of interest. I will have to dissuade him. He is a bit of a vacuum for knowledge in politics; he takes it all in.

I would like to thank my wider family for their support, particularly my father and my mother-in-law, Micheline. There are a lot of demands on a member of parliament's time, especially at night, and finding babysitters is often difficult. My dad and Micheline filled in often at very short notice and allowed me spend some time with my wife, albeit at a work function.

I would like to thank my staff of over the past four years: Rose, Michael, Chad, Matthew and Sean, all of whom have been a great help over the last four years, especially Michael and Rose in the last year when things got a bit more intense.

I would particularly like to thank the Minister for Employment and Training, Jack Snelling. He was my campaign manager, and he was excellent. It certainly inspires a lot of confidence in a candidate when you know that things are getting done that need to be done, and I can just go out and do the work I need to do when I am campaigning.

I have a lot of volunteers who need to be thanked, but there is a small group of people who really deserve a lot of thanks. They are: Bernie Finnigan, Paul Marcuccitti and Corey Harris. I would especially like to thank some people from interstate: Gus 'G Man' Riggs, Comie 'Conrad' French and Ted 'Two Loops' Sussex, as well as Father Guy Wilcock, Sam 'Slavemaster Two' Runnel. They are all great people, all were a great help, and they just worked tirelessly. I would like to thank Don Farrell and John Quirke for their invaluable assistance.

Members interjecting:

Mr KENYON: You guys should wish you had people like these, because you can rely on them to help when you need them. Things go a lot better when they are around; that is for sure. They have my deep gratitude, and they will always have my deep gratitude. Peter Malinauskas at the SDA was another great help. It is almost impossible to achieve things without the help of friends, and he has certainly been a friend.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KENYON: I'm quite happy with that situation; it's helped me. It's the reason I'm here. There has been a bit of talk in the reply speeches about how the election was unfair and that the government does not have a mandate. I just remind members that we work in a Westminster parliament, and you have to win a majority of votes in a majority of seats. The government did and it has a mandate. You do not have a proportional representation system in the lower house; that is the upper house. Upper house—PR; lower house—Westminster.

Mr Pederick: Thanks for the lesson.

Mr KENYON: You need it.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr KENYON: Do you just want to wallow in the lesson or are you happy to move on?

Mr Pengilly: Are you still a very strong supporter of uranium mining?

Mr KENYON: I am a very strong supporter of uranium mining, and I am very proud to have played a small and minor part in the change of the Labor Party, but I played a part nonetheless.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KENYON: I wish I had said that. I think the system of redistribution needs to be looked at. I say this staring down the barrel of a redistribution that is probably going to make me a notional Liberal seat. The flaw in the system is that it is always looking back, seeking to determine a result based on a past election. It is an impossible task. It cannot possibly achieve that goal. While I suspect that the Liberal Party is a lot less keen for change this time, they might be a little bit more keen for change next time, but we will wait and see the result in four years' time.

The redistribution system needs to move away from trying to determine a result based on last time's result and move more towards the federal system, which identifies communities of interest, and have that as the basis for seats.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr KENYON: It is eight years more than I should have got. I think if we identified communities of interest, it would be a much better way of redistributing and a much better way of forming seats, but that is for other people, certainly not me.

As everybody knows, I speak briefly. I like speaking about mining, so I will have a crack at that. It is quite clear to me that the resource super profits tax that the federal government wants to introduce needs some amendment. The Treasurer has ably identified what those amendments need to be. Certainly, it is not sufficient to say that just the long-term bond rate, at roughly 6 per cent, is an appropriate return for the risk of building a mine. I suspect the Treasurer will make a wise decision in that matter.

Mr Pederick: You need to move over here, Tom. Over you come.

Mr KENYON: He has already asked.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KENYON: You're a much braver man than I am. To say that 6 per cent is an adequate return before we start really taxing heavily is a bit rich. If any investor or banker is faced with the prospect of having money in the bank at 6 per cent or risking all of that money in the construction of a mine for a 6 per cent return before hitting super profits, it is an easy decision for them: they are not going to do it. That is why it probably needs to be two or three times the bond rate before a super profits tax on that kicks in.

In some ways, there needs to be a certain amount of flexibility in just the type of mine that you build. I think all the easy mines have gone. Not a lot of people are going to fly over a bunch of red hills, wonder why their magnet is going crazy and find a whole heap of iron ore. That is not going to happen, so any mines that we find in the future are going to be deeper, harder to find and harder and more expensive to extract. When you are out there trying to tax the runaway profits of iron ore mines and coal mines that are long established and well paid off, that needs to be taken into account. Future mines need to be taken into account.

The second point is that the capital needs to be expensed in the same way the petroleum resource rent tax is expensed, which means that you pay off all your capital before you start taking into account profits, super taxes and everything like that. If it is treated in the same way as the petroleum resource rent tax, that should solve that problem. I think it is a fairly straightforward amendment.

Finally, I am not opposed to resource rent taxes; I think they are an efficient way of taxing mining companies. In the bad times, remembering that it is a cyclical industry, as the prices drop away, your profitability declines and declines quite quickly, almost exponentially in most cases. When it does, you basically stop paying tax at a certain point, and that is a fair thing, because the important thing at that point is keeping the mine going, keeping people employed and keeping exports and everything else going. So, I am not opposed to a resource rent tax, but if you are going to bring one in, I think you need to be a bit more committed to the exploration side of it to generate the projects so that you have mines to pay the tax. So, I think the federal government needs to implement the flow-through share scheme that it promised at the last election in 2007. It promised to introduce a flow-through share scheme, and it should.

Normally, a mining company has income to offset its exploration against; an exploration company does not. All it does is spend money drilling holes, and it racks up a whole lot of deductions that in all likelihood it will not use, because most exploration companies are not successful. It is an incredibly risky venture—most of them are not successful; most exploration holes do not succeed—but it is essential. Unless we have the flow of exploration going on underneath the whole mining venture, we are not going to get the next mines coming. That is why it is absolutely critical. In fact, I think a study was done in a well explored gold area—the Kalgoorlie-Boulder area—which found that, even where there were deposits, that land had been explored seven times before someone actually found something. So, it is critical that this exploration continues and continues strongly.

Getting back to the point, what a flow-through share scheme does is allow the company to pass on the deductions it cannot use on to its shareholders, who can then deduct it against their income. That is essentially what a flow-through share scheme is. It should have been implemented by the federal government. I urge it to do so. I congratulate everyone again on their election and wish them well. I look forward to the next four years.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill.

At 18:00 the house adjourned until Thursday 13 May 2010 at 10:30.