Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 12 May 2010.)

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (10:33): What a pleasure it is to be sitting here, as opposed to where you are, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will be an ornament to the office of Speaker. I enjoyed my days in the chair—some days more than others, admittedly, but overall I enjoyed my days in the chair very much. It is an enormous privilege to be elected to preside over this place and to be trusted with the guardianship of the traditions and the privileges of the house. You will enjoy not just your time in the chair but working closely with the people who administer the parliament, and also the many other duties that the Speaker is called upon to do.

From my time as Speaker, I thank, firstly, my assistant, Mrs Mary Kasperski, who worked incredibly hard over the four years of my tenure. She was a wonderful assistant. I am sure that any members from either side of the house who had any dealings with Mary would agree with me that she was a wonderful assistant, and she gave assistance not just to me but to all members and anyone who had reason to call upon the Speaker's office.

I also thank the clerk at the time when I became Speaker, Mr David Bridges, who helped ease me into the job and is now enjoying his retirement. I thank Malcolm Lehmann, the present clerk, for his good advice and assistance and the attitude he has taken to the position. I should point out that Mary Kasperski is now working in my electorate office as my electorate office manager.

I turn briefly to my own campaign in the seat of Playford: I have thankyous to say with regard to my own campaign. I thank Mr Corey Harriss. Corey had been with me for about seven years in the Playford electorate office and has gone on to become an adviser to the Hon. Paul Holloway. Corey was a dynamo of energy, working incredibly long hours during his time in the electorate office: in many ways he was the Playford electorate office. I cannot remember a single occasion when someone said to me that they had come into the office and had been lost in the paperwork. I think the Playford electorate office would probably be one of the busiest in the state, and not a single person who came through the office had reason to complain because somehow the matter that they had brought to me as their local member of parliament was misplaced or forgotten about, and that is because of the diligence of Corey in my electorate office. My success as a local member is very much because of Corey's diligence in the office.

I also thank those unpaid volunteers. It is quite remarkable the number of people who assist both sides of parliament, both sides of politics, for no reward but simply because they believe in the political party with which they have an affiliation, and they will work incredibly hard. We are very much the beneficiaries of their hard work, and I am always amazed at the people who come out and hand out how-to-vote cards, letterbox drop, put up election signs and do all the drudgery that is so essential to an election campaign.

I thank two people in particular, Jana Isemonger, who assisted me enormously putting in a whole day on election day at one of the polling booths in my electorate, and also Mr John Middleton, who also worked very hard to assist me.

I am proud that Playford is now the second safest seat on this side of the house, second only to the Premier's. I am enormously proud of that feat, and that has really only been made possible because of the dedication of the people who work for me and the dedication of my volunteers. Also, most important to my success, I think, has been my beautiful wife Lucia and my children who, without complaint, agree to be on my fridge calendar every year. My wife would love a dollar for every time someone stopped her at the Ingle Farm shopping centre to tell her that they recognise her because they have a photograph of her and the children on their fridge.

I am very fortunate to have a photogenic family who are able to make up for my own shortcoming. I am sure that if it were just a photograph of me on the fridge calendar I would not get half the number of people willing to put just my mug shot on the fridge. The other comment we get is how every year, when the fridge calendars go out to the electorate, there seems to be another child, another addition to the family. I am happy to tell the house that next year's fridge magnet will have another child: Lucia is expecting our sixth child any day now.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That is why I have taken this job. Lucia has to carry the burden of raising the six children—an incredible burden—while I am able to go off and do the sorts of things that are my passion: being in politics, being in this house and now being a minister. It is an incredible sacrifice that Lucia, my wife, makes, and I publicly acknowledge her work and the contribution she makes.

I turn briefly to the Newland campaign and to the member for Newland. A lot has been said about Labor winning government with less than 50 per cent of the vote. There is one reason that was able to happen, namely, because of the incredible work Labor members of parliament did in working their marginal seats. It was clear that people, who perhaps had turned a bit dark on the government, nonetheless were willing to return their local Labor member of parliament. That is why in two of our marginal seats we saw swings to the Labor Party and in other marginal seats swings against the government that were much smaller than the statewide swing.

The campaign I had the most to do with was the campaign of my good friend the member for Newland. A lot can be said, and you always hear people squealing and saying there was something unfair or unjust in what was done in that campaign. The reason the member for Newland got such a small swing against him and retained his seat was—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: No, not because of his handsome good looks, but because of four years of hard work in his electorate—doing street corner meetings, doorknocking and all those sorts of things that get members in marginal seats returned to parliament. He had earned the confidence of the electorate in his seat of Newland; that is what made his campaign successful. The member for Newland has already thanked the incredible team behind him working on his seat. I single out one person in particular, namely, Michael Iammarrone, who is now working in the office of the member for Newland and who was an absolute trooper.

In the darkest days of the campaign, when we thought we had no chance and were just going through the motions, Mr Iammarrone never lost faith. He would always be on the back of the member for Newland and on my back to take out the member for Newland doorknocking. Hours and hours were spent doorknocking the electorate of Newland.

I joined the him in some of the doorknocking, and I have to say that there was not a single door on which we knocked where anyone said to us that the member for Newland's little opponent had already been there. She had obviously not done any doorknocking whatsoever, and I am sure that that made the difference in the campaign for Newland. That was why Labor was able to win a majority of seats. I am sure that this was reflected not just in the seat of Newland but in other marginal seats held by Labor members, and that is why the Labor Party is able to hold government. Those of us who are enjoying the privilege of government are able to do so because of the hard work of Labor members in marginal seats.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my good friend and, indeed, my mentor, the member for Croydon, who is perhaps one of the most selfless people on either side of the house and who showed himself after the election willing to step down in order to ensure that the government is able to have that renewal it needs in order to continue to be a successful government. The member for Croydon was the victim of a campaign of vilification against him from the very early days that he took office as the attorney-general.

Despite everything, I think that he will go down in this state's history as one of the greatest attorneys-general—an incredible reforming attorney-general. I have an enormous list of reforms that were made under the stewardship of the member for Croydon as attorney: introducing the toughest anti-bikie legislation in the nation—taking on the bikie gangs, an act of bravery, potentially making himself a target; and declaring the Finks a motorcycle club under the Serious and Organised Crimes Act.

He introduced home invasion laws to deal with offenders who break into people's homes while they are at home with more serious penalties. He clarified the law so that people who used force to defend themselves in their own homes did not themselves become treated as criminals. With respect to hoon driving, what member of this house does not get complaints all the time about innocent residents having to put up with hoon drivers doing wheelies and burnouts out the front of their house in the early hours of the morning and late at night?

The former attorney-general, the member for Croydon, took strong and decisive action to introduce wheel clamping and the crushing of cars used by hoon drivers. He introduced new laws to help the courts strip lawbreakers of the profits and assets of crime. He changed the laws regarding the sale of drug paraphernalia. He introduced laws to overturn the principle of double jeopardy, so that it was possible, when new evidence came to light which pointed towards someone having committed the crime (although they had previously been acquitted of an offence), they would be able to be retried.

He introduced DNA legislation so that criminals could have their DNA checked, so that records could be combed over and so that old crimes could be solved so that the families of the victims of these crimes might be able to have some justice. It was an important reform. He introduced changes to victims' rights to improve the rights of victims, particularly with regard to having a statement from the victim of a crime read to the court before a convicted criminal was sentenced. For all his work as attorney-general, it is in the multicultural affairs portfolio that the member for Croydon will most be remembered.

The member for Croydon must have been to a multicultural function in this state almost every single night of the week. It would not matter how big the multicultural function, or how big the ethnic community: the member for Croydon would be there joining with them. I am sure that a large part of the success of this government and its recent re-election are due to the hours and hours spent by the former attorney-general working with multicultural communities.

With these obscure and very small ethnic communities that most of us here would never have even heard of, the member for Croydon would not simply just turn up at the function and breeze in and out. He would have research on hand about the community, he would know the history of the lands from which members of these communities came, and he would be able to talk to them about things which mattered most to them. The member for Croydon will be long remembered by the many ethnic communities whose lives he touched. I would like to pay tribute to the member for Croydon—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Members on the other side can scoff all they like, but the fact is that there is no one sitting on the other side of the house who would do the sort of work that the member for Croydon did with multicultural communities, and that will be to their electoral peril. They can scoff all they want, let them scoff away; it will only be to their detriment. They will suffer the electoral consequences of their neglect—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: —and their contempt of our multicultural communities. So I pay tribute to the member for Croydon; he will be a member of this place for many years yet, and I hope he continues his good work—

Mr VENNING: I have a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order.

Mr VENNING: The point of order relates to improper motives; the member is implying improper motives. I am not scoffing. I have not said a thing. He has branded us as scoffing, but we are not.

The SPEAKER: I am not sure where that comes from, but perhaps the member would continue. I am sure the member for Schubert would never scoff.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The member for Croydon will long be a member here and will contribute to this house in new ways. I trust he will continue to do the important work he does for this side of the house, working with our multicultural communities. I pay tribute to the member for Croydon, who has an enormous amount of which to be proud over the eight years during which he was both attorney-general and minister for multicultural affairs.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (10:53): I join with others in this place in congratulating you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment as Speaker. I also join with others in noting the Governor's speech, but I will not be quite as kind as some others were because I thought it was one of the most boring speeches I have ever heard. Quite frankly, it was simply a repetition of the government's election campaign with the things that were outlined and the promises that were made during the campaign, without any great vision for South Australia. I feel some degree of sympathy for the Governor for having to sit there and read it out.

However, having said that, I believe that the Governor contributes in a unique way to South Australia. He and his wife do get out and about and they do a great job. I especially note the amount of time that the Governor spends working on the defence industry in South Australia and his regular, if not weekly, meetings with Mr Andrew Fletcher—meetings which I think are in the best interests of that area. So I congratulate the Governor, but I thought it was a pathetic speech.

I would like to welcome new members in this house on all sides: including the two or three new members on the other side and, of course, the Independent member for Mount Gambier, Mr Don Pegler. I worked with the member for Mount Gambier for many years in local government prior to coming into this place; he is very capable and sincere, and a very good fellow, so we look forward to his contribution in this house.

On our side of the house I think we have been enormously lucky to get an arrangement whereby we have six new members of such outstanding talent, and I think the contributions this week of those who have spoken so far have proven what the future has in store for the Liberal Party. I think they are six fantastic members. They will learn their trade very quickly and they will make major contributions to the Liberal Party and the government in years to come. Well done to the new members, I look forward to seeing you progress from the backbench to the frontbench more quickly than the member for West Torrens. I will come to the member for West Torrens in a minute, because after his diatribe yesterday I think he deserves a bit. However, I do wish you well.

Like other members I pay grateful thanks to those people in my electorate who supported me. The electorate of Finniss overwhelmingly supported me. It was a great privilege to be elected on primary votes.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Did you win a booth this time?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, I am glad the member for Croydon has raised that because he did have some concerns over the past four years. The only booth that I did not win was the booth in Sellicks Beach which came from the member for Kaurna which is traditionally run at about 80:20 Labor and I think we got it back, off the top of my head, to about 42 per cent.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Yes. There were suggestions made of my imminent demise, that I would no longer be the member for Finniss—well, here I am! I continue to enjoy my time in this house and I would like to do that for many more years. I sincerely thank the people of Finniss across the broad spectrum of my electorate which is quite diverse. It was heartening indeed to get that level of support. I will return there in a minute. You cannot do it alone and other members on both sides of this house have alluded to that. Indeed, the member for Playford just a few minutes ago paid tribute to his family, and I would like to also pay tribute to my wife and family for their support.

However, behind us we have to have a machine of one sort or another, and I have an amazing machine in the seat of Finniss, the Liberal Party branches, their networks and presidents, and the State Electorate Committee. They do a phenomenal job. They are absolutely a true team, and I could not ask for better support across the branches. For example, from October, every Friday and Saturday they were in the streets of Victor Harbor handing out material. So, people had no doubt what our message was, and they did that week after week. I do not want to single out all the members by any means, but I particularly want to pay tribute to a gentleman called Brian Dohse. Brian is a retired pensioner in Victor Harbor who saw the light, so to speak, and has been an outstanding support to that group that worked in Victor Harbor. So, thank you, Brian.

My office staff—Joan, Julie, Natalie, Penny and Haley—are always there. They are at the shopfront, as other members in this place know. We get regular customers coming into our offices who are difficult to deal with. One particular gentleman has been coming into my office and my predecessor's office for about the last 14 years, creating chaos on a seemingly regular basis. My staff deals with those people, and they deal with them well.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I had a bloke from your electorate protesting outside my electorate office.

Mr PENGILLY: I'm sorry about that. They do an outstanding job and they go over and above the call of duty regularly. I know I speak for all members in this place when I say they do an amazing job, and I just hope that new members on both sides—whether they be on the Independent benches or wherever—if they have new staff, I hope they have chosen well and wisely because they are your attack people in your offices for dealing with constituents. Thank you to Joan, Julie, Natalie, Penny and Haley. I have a great deal of admiration for the work they do.

During the campaign, in my electorate, we had an extremely active campaign from the candidate for the Labor Party who would have outspent us, I would have thought, four or five times to one. I have no doubt that we were outspent. You never quite know how you are travelling. You can get a feeling for how you are travelling, but you never quite know. I recognise the amount of work the Labor Party candidate did, but I also recognise that the election was won on substance over spin. The people of South Australia, and particularly the people in Finniss, recognised that and they wanted substance and they wanted the result of four years' work, and so I was elected. To the other candidates, I wished them well at the declaration of the poll. Unfortunately, I was the only person there for the declaration of that poll, which I think is sad, but these things happen.

There were some promises made during the election which were key issues down south. Of course we have had a number of members visit or revisit the announcement on the Southern Expressway. It comes as no surprise to anyone to know that the Liberal Party—and I would just remind the house that the Liberal Party promised to duplicate the Southern Expressway in 2002, 2006—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you very much, I am doing quite well without you—and were about to promise it again in the lead-up to the 2010 election. However, let me say, I am very pleased, and we will be watching with a great deal of interest to see whether they build it because, I tell you what, if they don't they are history. This Southern Expressway has to go ahead and I look forward to it happening.

There are a number of issues that are ongoing in every electorate, and my electorate is no different. I will now talk about things that will need to be continually worked on. The aged sector is large in my electorate; we have the oldest demographic of any electorate in South Australia. In retirement centres such as Victor Harbor, Middleton, Port Eliot, and increasingly Yankalilla, it is very much a lifestyle choice for the elderly to come down and retire—and not so old as well I might add—and enjoy the wonderful lifestyle and the wonderful climate on the Fleurieu Peninsula and South Coast. Indeed, I note some nods of members from the other side who have residence down there.

However, there are a lot of issues that need to be dealt with. Whether they be on the Fleurieu or Kangaroo Island, they ride in tandem. On the issue of water, we are supplied on the Fleurieu by the Myponga dam, and increasingly residents are getting extremely annoyed over the fact that they have restrictions down there on water. Last year we enjoyed a good winter; the Myponga dam was nearly full—not quite. We do not need the water restrictions on the South Coast that we have in Adelaide. Of course, country people are careful about water. That is the way they are. If you live in the bush you have to be careful what water you use. So water is an enormous issue.

We have enormous potential, both on the Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island, for producing food and fibre to feed the nation and to feed the world. This is being squashed by bloody-minded, stupid bureaucrats in government departments, such as the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. NRM boards are trying to walk over the top of people on certain issues. I have had a gutsful of it and I know other members have, and I know that the Attorney-General in the last parliament, as chair of the Natural Resources Committee of parliament, had a gutsful of it too. I want to see some action on it.

My challenge to this state government is to get real about it, rip these people into gear and allow sensible primary producers and people who want to do something and produce food to get on with their lives properly. I currently have 80 landholders on the Fleurieu Peninsula who are being dictated to in a Hitler-like fashion by bureaucrats trying to stop them from harvesting water. It is stupidity of the highest order.

Not only is it occurring there, but it is also occurring on Kangaroo Island where we have higher rainfall from Parndana West; the rest of the island is quite different, and we agree on that over there. While I am in this place and can draw breath, I will never back away from naming these people and smashing them about the head until they get some common sense about them.

What we do not need is somebody, who is fresh out of university and who has no real life experience, going up to somebody who has been on their property for 20, 30 or 40 years and telling them how to dig a hole in the ground and capture water. I am sorry; we do not need that.

The challenge is there to the Rann government to get serious. I hope that the new Minister for Agriculture and the new Minister for Environment and Conservation (I nearly said 'conversation'; it is probably that as well) will get their heads together and do something about some of these lunatics who are running around destroying the capacity of farmers to provide food for the world. It is most important.

Likewise with the fishing industry (and I spoke about marine parks in here the other day), I urge the Minister for Agriculture to get together once again with his colleague and stop these hidden agendas that are going on to stop people fishing in a right and proper manner. We have good fishing grounds in South Australia because they have been well managed over many, many years.

We have good fishermen. We have the odd renegade of course (we probably have the odd renegade in here), and that is the way of the world. Let them get on with what they do and do not put on stupid restrictions. I plead with the ministers to listen to those people who work out on the sea, or listen to the farmers. Don't listen to your bureaucrats all the time. Get out and listen to them and hear what they have to say. This is one thing that I will continue on about for as long as I am in this place.

There are a number of issues in the same vein. In relation to Deep Creek on the southern Fleurieu Peninsula, there have been two inquiries by the Natural Resources Committee and two recommendations. The office has disappeared off the planet on this one, let me tell you. There have been two inquiries with recommendations to cut back the trees along the lower slopes surrounding Deep Creek to allow some flows to go into that creek.

I was down there on Monday yet again. This is the 18^th straight summer in which no water has flowed down Deep Creek—the 18^th straight summer. It is an environmental disaster that should not be happening, and it is up to the government to take some action. I am all for appropriate forestry—I will come to that in a minute—but here the recommendations have been made and nothing has happened.

Equally, I will talk about development, and I want to get onto the subject of councils in a minute. Development is absolutely critical. We have areas in my electorate where development is going on at a rapid pace. It will not slow down; it will continue to happen. In tandem with that development, we need to have electricity, water and all those things that good planning results in.

However, once again with development in this state, it is all slowed down and stopped wherever possible by tiny, little minds that do not want anything to happen. I know that there are government ministers who share my view on this. Once again, we have small-minded bureaucrats—both in local government and state government departments—who think they have control over everything. You have to have sustainable, active and good development taking place to create a future for our children and grandchildren who come along in 100 years' time; you have to do it.

However, development is stifled. I have supported the Minister for Planning in the past and I would support him again on creating projects under the major project status just to make sure they happen. There are two projects that would not have happened if it had not been for that, and I refer to the Southern Ocean Lodge on Kangaroo Island and the Makris proposal in the Victor Harbour area. I supported the government in both of these projects. The Makris proposal is still underway, so to speak, but hopefully it will happen. There has been a re-scope on it.

These are important things that happen and I think it is over and above the capacity of local government to deal with them. They get bogged down in local bureaucracy and we go absolutely nowhere. Our future is far too important to us.

Other issues that I have raised and will continue to raise are issues such as Wirrina. We still have people at Wirrina, whom I have spoken about in this house and who have never received their proper entitlements and superannuation. They have not been paid properly. This goes on, and mark my words: I say on the record to the people who own Wirrina (or who have owned it or whatever, particular little conniving businesses operate that place) that they are on notice, I am not going to go away on that.

I return to the issue of forestry. We have wonderful forests in South Australia. Pinus radiata flourishes in the South-East, but we have quite a collection of forests on the southern Fleurieu which have been there for 30 or 40 years and even longer, and are an important part of the South Australian economy. I do say, however, that these blue gums have proven to be a disaster. I was in the unfortunate position in another life when we had no choice but to approve blue gum developments. I have something like 1,100 or 1,200 hectares on the Fleurieu under Adelaide Blue Gum. That company has fallen over. I have 13,000 hectares of blue gums on Kangaroo Island under Great Southern, which has fallen over. They are there. Nothing is going to happen with these plantations.

I would like nothing more than to create another war settlement land scheme with that 13,000 hectares of blue gums. I would like to knock them all down and get the land back into productive farm country. It is a simplistic solution, I know, but the situation is a nonsense at the moment. My understanding is that Gunns is managing them. They will be going nowhere. Quite simply, the issue with getting blue gums off Kangaroo Island is that stretch of water which has been talked about at length. What do you do with the blue gums? Do you chip them; do you take them away as logs? I am horribly worried that nothing will ever happen with that 13,000 hectares of blue gums. I think it is a great tragedy—

Mrs Geraghty: Good firewood.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, there's a lot of it, both with Great Southern and Adelaide Blue Gum, as well as other companies. This is an issue on which I would like to work closely with the government to try to get something to happen. We have high rainfall country, that is what our country is about. It is highly productive, high rainfall country and it should be producing food and fibre for the world. Sure, we have to have paper, but the point is that I have a great deal of regret for the decisions that I made in another job in approving those blue gum applications because we simply could not stop them under the zoning. That was the problem. Now, they have in the Fleurieu—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Ted Chapman would burn them all down. The issue is that three councils on the Fleurieu have amended their plan so they now have a common plan for forestry across the Fleurieu, and the island has been going about changing theirs.

The issue of the water gap to Kangaroo Island affects both the Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island. The southern Fleurieu, Victor Harbor and Yankalilla get a great deal of economic lift from the ferry service that operates to the island. At the moment, I think some 19 people from Yankalilla through to Cape Jervis have jobs with SeaLink. They have created jobs, so that is important.

I blame my own party as much as I blame the Labor Party for not having done something about this. We were in government federally and we were in government at the state level and we did not do anything about it. I think this goes over and above party politics. That water gap needs fixing up to enable Kangaroo Island's people and businesses to compete on the same basis as the rest of the nation. You do not pay a penalty to go on a punt across the River Murray, or to Tasmania (which is subsidised federally), but you do pay a penalty to get across to the island.

Interestingly enough, also, I am in league with the Minister for Energy on the Australian Energy Regulator's comment that he will not support a new cable to Kangaroo Island. Well, the only thing that is going to achieve is, if the cable breaks, we are going to have an increase in the birth rate because we will not have nothing else to do. That happened once before and it could well happen again. I endorse the Minister for Energy in his criticism of the Australian Energy Regulator and hope we can do something about it.

I talked earlier about councils and I want to return to councils. I, along with others in this place, had time in local government. In the 17 years I had there, I thought the world revolved around local government. You learn very quickly when you come into this chamber that local government does not count for a lot in the scheme of things. It is a bit like us with the feds, in that we do not count for a lot with the federal parliament.

However, I seriously question where we are going. I did have four councils and I now have five councils in my electorate with Onkaparinga council (the largest council in the state; Sellicks Beach is in that electorate), Yankalilla, Victor Harbor, Alexandrina and Kangaroo Island.

Yankalilla council is going along quite well. It is a good little council: it has everything in order, it is progressive and it is well run. I have no issues at all with Yankalilla council. Likewise, Alexandrina, quite a large council of which I now have only a proportion, is a council that is bubbling along seemingly quite well, although it does have a few issues from time to time.

Victor Harbor council—the City of Victor Harbor—has a high debt, with a lot of pressure from development factors resulting from increasing population, and it struggles to come to grips with that sometimes. However, it does, to the best of its ability, deal with the problems confronting it, and I would like to think that it is going in the right direction.

I guess that the council elections later this year will sort out a number of councils and I suspect that there will be widespread changes. In some councils (and I know this applies to Alexandrina and Victor Harbor), there is quite a group of people who are going to put their hands up but that will take its course and democracy will speak.

Let me now go to Kangaroo Island Council. I was delighted to read in last week's Islander that, lo and behold, the Kangaroo Island Council is now supporting what I have been talking about for four years in this place in regard to changing the structure on the island, getting rid of a heap of CEOs, getting rid of this, getting rid of that and moving forward with one body. I have been actively pushing for that and supporting it for some time.

I have to put on the record that I have little hope that the current council on the island has the capacity to do that, quite frankly. My view at the moment, and I have yet to have discussions on this, is that it actually needs a pinch-hitter to go in there and do what is required with a local support group that has been locally elected. I do not know, but it needs someone to go there and crash through the lot of it and fix it all up.

I am not going to repeat what I have said in this chamber before on what is needed in getting rid of the various CEOs, etc., because that would be wasting time but we do need it to happen. It can only happen with a good working relationship between the state government, the local council, the development board and, I would suggest, the local state member and the local federal member.

That would be a way forward, and I would be delighted to work with the government in looking at various models that we could use, because the place is going to fall over. It is going backwards. The infrastructure is going backwards. There is simply not the income on the island. However, in saying that, I also say that there has not been enough drive to create development and economic activity on the island by the Kangaroo Island Council over the last few years. It is far too inward-looking. It is saying on the record that it has this right and that right, and that is fine.

I congratulated the council recently on having that right in respect of its innermost workings but, quite frankly, it actually has to have it right under the act. It is part of its operational requirement under the Local Government Act that it does have to act and have everything in order. Now, people come and people go and, I am pleased that the council is running properly. I think it is a good step, but the council does have to stop navel-gazing and get out there and see the bigger picture and start looking at ways to attract and create development, and get more people living on the island.

I am not all that happy about the demise of the local development board and the new RDA. I suggested to the council that it put in place a local economic development committee such as the one the Victor Harbor council has. It rejected that idea, but it is difficult for people who do not live on an island to understand the way islands work, and I suggest that you need to go and have a look at Tasmania, even, or Lord Howe Island, Norfolk Island or King Island—these places that actually get very proactive about making things happen.

Ms Chapman: They get a much better transport deal.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes; they get a better transport deal, as the member for Bragg says, and she is quite right. I think the challenge is there. Our property is on a dirt road on the north coast, as is the member for Bragg's. There were bullock carts taken over that road 100 years ago, and it has not improved much since then. We have 180,000 visitors a year coming to the island. We have to advance the cause, stop this nonsense whereby the Development Act restricts far too greatly the breakup of coastal land and farms into smaller subdivisions so that more people can go out there.

Another title is another opportunity. That is what a great friend of mine Graeme Trethewey has been saying all his life, and he is quite right. It is no good whingeing about not having money if you do not get off your butt and do something about it. So, I would work with the government on going forward and getting something different happening over there. I think it is critical to the future of the island and the state that those iconic destinations remain.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Double international tourism; that's right. That is the challenge. I do hope that we can move forward and that, perhaps, at the end of this four-year term in parliament, we will have the place ticking along a lot better, perhaps under a different regime. So, that is the challenge. There is a huge amount of issues. Madam Speaker, I am running out of time, I want another 30 minutes, and I do not think I am going to get it.

My electorate is socioeconomically quite different. I have areas of considerable wealth, but I also have areas where there is a considerable lack of wealth and a pensioners component that does not have a lot of money. That is glaringly obvious, even in Victor Harbor, where pensioners have no public transport. They come down there and find that is not the utopia that they thought it was going be, because they simply cannot get from A to B. They have Adelaide prices, which is great, although they do pay more for fuel—it is not utopia. These are areas of socioeconomic difficulties.

I would add that the number of Housing Trust properties that are being sold across the state in my own electorate has not helped. I have a constant flow of people coming in wanting housing, and that is not happening. We have a lot to do. I have a lot to do in the next four years for my electorate. They are the people who put me here, and they are the ones I work for. I enjoy working for them as, indeed, do other members on both sides of the chamber. That is our role.

I will give just a bit of advice to new members: do not get full of your own self-importance; you are not likely to anyway. You need to get out there and work particularly hard over the next four years so that your people know who you are. Get around the place. I am not telling you how to suck eggs, but if you work hard in the next four years you will get the results in the election—there is no question about that. I look forward to working with everybody in this place on some sensible legislation and moving forward. Thank you.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:23): I rise on this occasion as the re-elected member for Hammond. I am very proud to be re-elected to this place by my constituents. I have already mentioned your elevation to your exalted role, Madam Speaker. I think we will have a very proactive relationship over the next few years, and I wish you all the best in that position in controlling both sides of the house.

To the member for Torrens, the Government Whip, I had a good working relationship with Robyn when I was a deputy whip, and my thoughts are certainly with her and her husband Bob in their current struggle. To the new member for Mitchell, Alan Sibbons, as Deputy Whip on the other side, I certainly look forward to a fruitful relationship with him as well.

I will make comments about new members later on, but I would also like to congratulate the member for Flinders on his election and also his ascendancy to the role of Deputy Whip. He was a very good man to work with on his campaign. It was very pleasant to go to the West Coast and tour around with him. His recognition factor was fantastic and it certainly got him into this place.

I acknowledge the excellent delivery of his speech by His Excellency the Governor, but I will take to task some of the items in that speech, which is effectively written by the government. First of all, I would like to thank a range of people, just as most members have thanked those who have helped them to get back into this place. I thank my family—Sally, MacKenzie and Angus. Our families give up a lot to get us here and give up a lot while we are here.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, that's it. No, my wife does mow the lawn. Certainly, throughout the campaign, she was a great asset in the campaign team, coming on board in the office at times, helping with the fundraising through the trailer raffle program, and organising dinners. It was absolutely fantastic support.

I have also had fantastic support from Beth Hodgkison, who is president of my SEC. I would always say to Beth, 'Is this in order?' or 'Is that in order?'. As you do as an MP, you always want to make sure that things are in order. I always like to double check things, such as knowing what is in my letters or emails that are going out. She would say, 'It's all under control, Adrian.' So, it was great to have trust in Beth at that level, and she did great work. Also, I want to thank other people in the SEC and the branches throughout the electorate, and also the new branch I inherited at Goolwa from the member for Finniss. They do great work.

Goolwa is becoming more and more a retirement area, so there are a lot of older members of the community. However, their vitality and their dedication to the cause are fantastic. Because of its position, that area can always be subject to redistribution. I am very proud to be representing Goolwa at this time. With the redistribution, Hammond was cut and shut a bit. The electorate used to extend up to Swan Reach, but the area has now come back to between Bow Hill and Penong, and that upper area of the Mallee went to the seat of Chaffey. I am very pleased that most of the good people up there voted for the new member for Chaffey and helped in securing his election to this house.

Also, the boundary of Hammond used to run out to Callington, and I shared Callington with the member for Kavel. However, he had a takeover swipe at me and has now taken Callington, with his electorate almost extending into Murray Bridge. I am just holding him off at Pope Road, I think, which is a few miles out of—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I know. I'm just holding him off at Pope Road. One of my other boundaries is the main road right through Monarto, but I retain the fantastic Monarto Zoo. It got more interesting with the redistribution. My boundary down south used to go only as far as Clayton but, as I said earlier, I picked up Goolwa, and Strathalbyn went into the member for Heysen's electorate. So, there was quite a major shift in voting, and quite a few people experienced those shifts.

I really want to acknowledge volunteers today, not just for their work during electoral campaigns but right throughout the sphere of volunteering, because this is Volunteers Week. Without the work that volunteers do, the state—let alone the country—and its local areas just would not get on. It is estimated that there are hundreds of thousands of volunteers in this state. Some people put the number at 600,000, but I believe there are probably a lot more than that. Someone is a volunteer even if it only involves helping an elderly neighbour or someone put out the rubbish for collection, or it can be as wide-ranging as being with the CFS or the SES.

If we did not have volunteers helping in the nation and in the state, the place would grind to a halt. We could not economically fund these volunteers. What does worry me especially is emergency services, and I reflect on some of the farcical things that obviously happened on that black day in Victoria, where people in control were not at the office where they should have been—the control centre—running the show. It is just incredible that that happened.

What we always have to remember is that volunteers are at the coalface. We do need the paid bureaucracy, but let's not allow bureaucracy to override the decisions made at the coalface at times when they are the sensible decisions; sometimes these decisions have to be made on the run.

Getting back to the campaign, the volunteers who put in their time on election day and helping put up posters, run events, sell raffle tickets and so on, did great work and I was certainly very pleased to have them on board.

I want to talk about a couple of special people who received Order of Australia medals (OAMs). Norm Patterson had his own battle with his health in the last few months, and the good news is that he is well on the way out of that. Norm Patterson's service to the transport and fertiliser industries has been recognised not only statewide but across the nation.

My SEC Treasurer, Maurice Wilhelm, has been recognised for his services to not only the Liberal Party but the community as a whole as a former councillor and, I think, a deputy mayor at Mobilong or Murray Bridge Council. His ongoing passion for the Murray Darling Association and the river just goes on and on. There are many other community events that Maurice has been involved in—the same as Norm—with not only his practical work but also many volunteer events. So, I congratulate those two people.

Moving onto the Governor's speech, as I said I acknowledge his excellent delivery but, because it is essentially a speech written by the government, we have the government making its great bold plan that there will be an extra 100,000 jobs in the state in the next six years. Well, that is giving it an out because it will not be here for the last two of those six years, and we will have to fix it. The numbers have been done, and 70,000 of those places are already in the program, so it is really only a net result of 30,000 if they get there, and the government has an out clause with the two years it will not be there.

I will also comment on the government talking about removing payroll tax on wages for apprentices and trainees and introducing reductions in land tax. The government only came to this when we put up our own policy to reduce land tax. It is to be welcomed that the government came on board because there are a lot of mum and dad investors, including a lot of migrants to the state, who have investment housing and who pay vast sums of land tax. Because we brought it up, the government has brought it on.

The interesting thing I find about land tax—and we have had several complaints come into the office—is that, when there is a change in the ownership of a residential property (and it could be as simple as a partner dying), all of a sudden they get their land tax bill. It is pretty distressing for a person who could be 85 years old—and I have had one case—banging the drum, 'Why have I got this land tax bill?'

I think it is just ridiculous that because of a paperwork entry, because someone's husband, wife or partner has died, all of a sudden a person gets a bill. I think it is just a tax grab by the government, and it needs to be changed. So many people just get the account; one constituent with property at Andamooka (it might have been under water for a while) and some at Tailem Bend said, 'I just paid the bill.' That is what people do. In any event, we fixed it for him. I will give the department credit because it acted swiftly, but only after we intervened.

I want to talk briefly about another comment in the speech about health being a priority for the government, and I note that the health minister is in the chamber. It certainly has not been a priority for country health in the past four years. The government just wanted to cut and slash services to country residents.

An honourable member: It was dreadful.

Mr PEDERICK: It was dreadful; absolutely dreadful. It meant that, if you lived outside of Gepps Cross or Glen Osmond, you just did not count. As the member for Chaffey rightfully said yesterday, when the Premier spoke to him, 'Why should I help the Riverland? I'll get no votes in Chaffey.' It is outrageous how this Labor government treats the regions.

I concur also with the new member for Stuart's words, when talking about Madam Speaker and her very good representation in the regional seat of Giles. She may be nullified a bit because she is in the chair (not taking anything away from her current position) but I am certain she will make her voice heard to the Premier behind closed doors.

In my seat of Hammond, we could see that all the hospitals (bar Murray Bridge) looked like they were going to close. The minister said in this place—and I am sure someone will look it up in Hansard—'We have a plan so that everyone will be within 90 minutes of a hospital.' Ninety minutes is too long: my eldest son has just developed a bee allergy and he could be dead in 10 minutes. It is outrageous to think that, because people live in the country, they can survive being 90 minutes from a hospital. I share the outrage of people across regional South Australia. Certainly the smarter people in the city know that, when travelling through regional areas, they may need health care. When we were away, we needed health care at the Hawker Hospital in Giles, and I must say that we had excellent service for a little issue that had to be dealt with.

It is ridiculous to think that I could have lost hospitals at Pinnaroo, Lameroo, Strathalbyn, Meningie (most of Meningie is just outside my electorate) and Karoonda, and have Murray Bridge as the one and only properly functioning hospital. The rest of them looked as though they were deemed to be aged care facilities. The next hospital up the rack was Mount Barker and, as things filled up, they had to go through to Adelaide in any case. It worries me that, in the background, the government still has plans to cripple country health.

The government's health plan talks about building a new hospital in Adelaide. With just over 48 per cent of the vote, the government believes it has the mandate to build a new hospital at the rail yards. I do not agree with that. Our plan was far better: rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital where it is, near the teaching centres. It would save $1 billion and, over time, that money could be reinvested in hospitals right across the state, that is, in the regions and in the city—that is what is needed to be done.

We have also had a grand announcement from the government about $18.2 million to boost employment in mining and to continue working with BHP to bring to fruition the Olympic Dam expansion.

I hope they have rung up their federal colleagues, especially Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd. This proposed super tax by the federal government will kill mining investment and mining will be crippled not just in this state but also across the nation, especially in major mining states such as Queensland and Western Australia. Why do Labor politicians think if you earn more than 6 per cent you are wealthy? It is because they just do not get it. It is because no-one on that side has any idea about how business works. Mind you, the member for West Torrens did a cracker interview a while ago, talking about his family's involvement with a charcoal chicken place. It was quite a tale on Radio 891 a few weeks ago, so the member for West Torrens may have a little knowledge about how—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, the member for Newland agreed with me. I do not think it will be long before the member for Newland's second name will be Norm and his last name will be Foster, because it was Norm Foster who had the courage to cross the floor to put Roxby Downs in place, otherwise it would not have happened in the upper house under the Liberal government at the time.

This is the problem we have. They say that the super tax will reduce the company tax rate and assist in superannuation. Quite frankly, it will kill superannuation. Where do superannuation companies invest? They invest in mines and mining because they are high risk ventures and high capital investment. Sometimes they make a reasonable profit, but all that money gets ploughed back into the community.

I note the government is also talking about building other lanes on the Southern Expressway. There has been a lot of criticism about our side of politics not building a two-way road. Well, we simply did not have the money. It was built by a previous Liberal government before I was a member of parliament, but at least it was smart enough to buy the land—so the land is there. People have been critical about that one-way road but it has worked pretty well. I have used it a few times and it has worked well. But it is another policy initiative that would have got up under a Liberal government anyway.

I want to comment on the River Torrens precinct and the proposed redevelopment and upgrade of Adelaide Oval. The Treasurer today got tongue-tied in relation to how much the Adelaide Oval redevelopment will cost. Quite frankly, I do not think it matters because it is a pipedream. It was trotted out by Labor in reaction to our far better plan to build a covered stadium in Adelaide, create a living precinct on the railyards and have some hospitality, hotels and parks in the area. It would be a fantastic venture.

Let us hope that Labor sees the light and looks at our policy and does it that way. I do not believe that the Adelaide Oval redevelopment will happen. It is looking half destroyed now with the extra concrete coming out of the top of it. But whatever they do, it will be 30 years behind before they start because uncovered stadiums are out of date. There will not be any parking there and, as I said, the funding is all over the shop. I do not think it matters what the Treasurer says because it just will not happen. Members only have to speak to people involved in the sporting codes to realise that.

The Governor's speech also refers to 'adequate and secure water supplies to service our domestic, industrial, agricultural and environmental needs'. This government must have suddenly had a light bulb switch on or something because it has not done too much for industrial, irrigation and environmental needs for this state over the past four years. Certainly, the member for Chaffey is well aware of that. Irrigators in this state have suffered a belting. Even this year, when there have been inflows into the northern basin, we are still at 62 per cent yet further up the river in the southern basin of the Murray and Murrumbidgee they are on about 95 per cent allocation.

There is no equity in allocations. We have sustainable diversion limits being introduced. South Australia did the work years ago and has kept under the cap since the late sixties, and yet we still have not seen hit the ground the money that John Howard put up, the $10 billion, which included $5.8 billion of infrastructure work in the Eastern States, which would put so much more water back into the rivers for use by both the environment and irrigators. It is a real pity that barely any of this money has hit the ground, because I think that would take some of the pain out of the sustainable diversion limits that will be imposed down the track.

I know the draft plan is coming out very shortly—in the next couple of months. We certainly need to find that balance. We need food supply and we need irrigators to be able to irrigate, but there can be efficiencies put in place. I met a farmer, Glen Rorato, when we were up at Deniliquin, and he increased his efficiency by 100 per cent by putting drip lines in on 600 acres of broadacre tomatoes. It was a huge investment of $700,000, and he could not even use the water that year because he had zero allocation, but he managed to double the use of his available water in the next water year because of his foresight.

Then we have the government wanting to build a desalination plant. It hesitated for that long after we brought the policy in, for 18 months to two years, and by then the bill for desalination plants had basically quadrupled what it could have been. Perth built, I think, a 45 gigalitre plant for $300 million and piped it into the network for less than $90 million—for $87 million they did that—and look at ours, $1.8 billion, and it will not save a shred off the River Murray because there is some harebrained scheme on the other side of the house that they will switch the darn thing off when there is plenty of water in the river.

It will be 2050 before we see any real reduction in the use of the River Murray. Well, I am sorry, but if you are going to spend that much money then find the power. If you reckon it is green power then we will get it there, but let us check that out when it happens—I will be interested. It is too big a plant to switch off, and if the irrigators and environment get a benefit because we are running a desalination plant, well that is what should be. That is what should be, because the caretaker mode, I believe, for running a plant like that, if you did shut it down or slow it down, would not be that much less than running it at capacity.

We had Labor bragging about its stormwater catcher, but it has been too shy to get onto a far cheaper supply of water under that program than desalination. It can be cleaned up. They are very nervous about cleaning up stormwater. It is done at Orange and it is done in other countries throughout the world, but SA Water is extremely averse to letting anyone have third party access to its network of pipes.

We had proposals years ago in Flinders when private investors wanted to put in private desal plants and, basically, it was made that hard for them—they were all but told, 'No, you can't do it because you won't have access to the network.' So, now we pipe 600 megalitres of water annually to Ceduna from the Murray. That is absolutely outrageous and shameful.

I am running out of time, but there are a few things that I want to speak about concerning my electorate. One, is the problems of dryland farming and irrigation farmers in my electorate. Both sectors right up the Murray and the Mallee are still on exceptional circumstances. Currently, they are being put under threat by a locust plague. Their locust plague is already happening. I wish the government would wake up to that. It seems to be putting all its effort into targeting it in the spring.

Yes, it does have to be targeted in the spring, but I have had representatives at meetings—and I know the member for Chaffey was at a meeting at Wunkar the other day and he had a representative at a meeting as well—and farmers are quite disillusioned by the government's response to the locust plague. What is happening is that, because of the unseasonably warm weather, adult locusts have laid eggs and hoppers have already come out of this generation. So we have a problem now and we will have a problem in the future. Early sown crops and feed (canola and lupins) have been wiped out. People are holding back sowing and they will take a big hit in yield.

Locusts are a major threat to our $4.2 billion grazing and cropping production. The government needs to get on board. I believe the minister has asked the government for $5 million, but that is going to be way short. Its own spokesman, Ken Henry, said at a meeting that this locust plague will be probably six to 10 times worse than the last one, and the government needs to take that into account because this will tip a lot of farmers over the edge. There have been suicides already through the Riverland and Murraylands and we certainly do not need any more. Farmers have had the added stress of droughts essentially since 2001 (which was a good year; 2002 was the start of the droughts). There were low commodity prices in 2005 and low prices for crops in 2009, and most of the years in between were pretty ordinary. The year 2006 was a shocker. As I have said, those farmers will be tipped over the edge.

So I call on the government to be proactive and supply farmers with chemicals now. They need to ensure that the aerial program is well in place, and I call on the government to supply insecticide for farmers in the spring as well. This could be an impost on some farms of up to $20,000, and they just do not have it any more. They are doing it tough. They do not want to be in exceptional circumstances but they have not had a cropping income for nearly 10 years, and that is pretty tough with the high cost of inputs, etc.

Also, as I have said previously, we are concerned about the state of the River Murray in my electorate. The government proposed a weir at Wellington in November 2006 and, thankfully, that is off the agenda for the moment because I think that would destroy the river flow. The people around the lakes do not want a lot. They just want a fair go and to be recognised as citizens of this country, too. They have taken a belting. They have had to fight for potable and irrigation water supplies and, certainly down south at Goolwa, they have had a big battle to have water there. The government's response to all these things is to divide communities with bunds. It is not a holistic solution to the issue of water in this state, and it should be far better managed. In the remaining time, I commend all the new members in this place.

An honourable member: Even the Labor ones?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, even the Labor ones. I might need some extra time, thank you, Madam Speaker. I congratulate John Gardner from Morialta, Steven Marshall from Norwood, Rachel Sanderson from Adelaide, Peter Treloar from Flinders, Dan van Holst Pellekaan from Stuart, Tim Whetstone from Chaffey, Alan Sibbons from Mitchell, Leesa Vlahos from Taylor, Lee Odenwalder from Little Para and Don Pegler from Mount Gambier. In the upper house I congratulate Jing Lee and Kelly Vincent. I praise all our members who have retired from this place, and also the work of Isobel Redmond and the rest of the Liberal team.

Time expired.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (11:54): I am very pleased to participate in this debate, and I pass on my congratulations to the Governor for his excellent speech, also to all members who have returned to this place and the other place, and particularly to new members and look forward to working with them, hopefully in productive ways in dealing with any issues that they might have within their electorates. As most members would know, there is the debate that takes place on the floor of parliament and then there is the productive work that we do to help constituents who have particular problems. I think it is the job of every minister to try to assist constituents deal with those problems when they can.

I wish to talk a little about the election campaign itself, particularly in my electorate and also more generally. In relation to my electorate, I thank my electors for returning me again, for a fourth term. It is a great honour to be a member of parliament and to represent the people of the southern suburbs, and I thank them again for putting confidence in me and for giving me an opportunity to represent them over the next four years. I particularly thank my electorate staff, members of my sub-branch and other supporters within my electorate who have supported me and helped run my campaign. While in the process of thanking people, I also thank my ministerial staff for the great service with which they provide me on a daily basis.

It was an interesting election in many ways, and I do not want to go into a deep analysis of all the issues in the election. I wish to talk, however, about the outrage expressed by certain members of parliament and others about some of the campaigning techniques which, while legal, were considered to be somehow morally repugnant. Ironically, the Labor Party attempted to change the legislation to outlaw this practice that created the outrage, but members opposite joined with Family First members, in particular, to oppose the amendments we had in place, so it does seem strange that those who supported the continuation of a particular practice are now those who are most outraged. The hypocrisy associated with this is profound, and I particularly point to the behaviour of the Family First party, which was the most outraged by the behaviour.

In a number of electorates supporters of the Labor Party wore T-shirts saying, 'Put your Family First, give your preference to Labor' and then had the name of the candidate. It was up-front and it was clear that the material was authorised by somebody from the Labor Party. It was a direct pitch to those considering voting 1 for the Family First party to consider giving their preference to the Labor Party, rather than the how-to-vote card, which said to give your preference to—

Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order: I have been listening carefully to the contribution by the minister. You, Madam Speaker, may be aware that there are two petitions before the Supreme Court, the Court of Disputed Returns. The issue as to the detail of the dodgy how-to-vote card issue, which the minister is now straying into, is sub judice and forms part of those petitions, and I ask you to rule on whether that is permissible.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Before you rule, Madam Speaker, I do not intend to talk about the matters before the court but about the behaviour of Family First in my electorate at the campaign, which has nothing to do with the court case whatsoever.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given that the minister has indicated that, that is exactly the substance of the submissions in the statement of claim in the petition.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: You don't know what I'm going to say.

Ms CHAPMAN: You have just indicated that it will be in relation to the behaviour of candidates within the electorate of Kaurna or any other electorate.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: My electorate.

Ms CHAPMAN: Either way. The subject of the behaviour is the subject of the petitions.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: That is fine.

Ms CHAPMAN: It is the subject of petitions and I therefore ask that you rule on that matter, Madam Speaker.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: As usual, Vickie, you are wrong.

The SPEAKER: Certainly, I understand the honourable member's point of order and the issues involved there, and we need to be very careful about this. The minister is very close to the bone. At this stage, I will listen very carefully to what he says, but it may be that he needs to observe this.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: That is fine. I had no intention of talking about any matters that are before the courts of which I am aware. I want to talk about the election that was held in my seat and about the behaviour of certain people who were distributing how-to-vote cards for Family First in my electorate. In every election for which I have stood, I have requested my volunteers, when they attend polling booths, to attend the polling booths wearing something red—a T-shirt, a hat, a cardigan, a jumper, or something in red to indicate that they are from the Labor Party. This is something I have now done on five occasions. It is a well known thing.

Red is the colour of many things, but it is also a colour associated with the Labor Party and it is an association of which I am proud. It does annoy me from time to time when my party drifts away from that colour into other territories. I like red. I identify with red. So—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The member for Norwood, I listened quietly while you spoke. I like red. I found it quite interesting that on election day all the people handing out for Family First in my electorate wore bright red T-shirts. I ask the question? Why did they do that? Were they trying to fool my voters into thinking that, if they took a how-to-vote card from them, they would be voting somehow or other for the Labor Party? They made the sin worse by using a slogan which was associated with the 'Your Rights at Work' campaign from the 2007 election, or a slogan very similar to it. They had slogans with words to the effect of, 'worth fighting for', 'fighting for your rights', or something of that type.

So, Family First volunteers in my electorate had coloured T-shirts the same as my volunteers. They used slogans which were similar to the trade union movement's slogans during other elections. I say to the house: what hypocrisy for Family First to object in other cases when it was doing something very similar in my electorate.

I now want to talk about other dodgy behaviour by the Liberal Party in relation to this most recent election, and also by another political party, the Save the RAH Party. The Liberal Party and the Save the RAH Party had a relationship which, I suppose, could be described in this way: it is similar to the relationship that exists between cheese and mould. The Liberal Party and the Save the RAH Party were as one in many ways. They had joint members. A number of members of the Save the RAH Party were, in fact, members of the Liberal Party. The Mayor of Holdfast Bay is a prominent member of the Liberal Party, as well as being a prominent member of the Save the RAH Party.

A number of other people identified with both the Save the RAH Party and the Liberal Party, including Michael Pratt who appeared to be the organisational genius behind some of the stunts that the Save the RAH Party got up to, particularly the way in which it tried to interrupt the Labor Party's campaign launch in Norwood. Michael Pratt was there, a prominent member of the Liberal Party—a low-rent public relations person with cheap tricks in his kitbag. He was there wearing a T-shirt displaying the words 'Save the RAH'. That was Michael Pratt, a well known Liberal being identified with and participating in Save the RAH.

In addition to that, of course, I have evidence that was provided to me in relation to the Save the RAH Party. Volunteers for the Liberal Party were putting up Liberal Party posters on ETSA poles while at the same time putting up posters for the Save the RAH Party; so, there were joint operations. In addition, on election day there were people handing out how-to-vote cards for the Save the RAH Party who were members of the Liberal Party.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Trickery goes only way does it, member for Norwood? It is okay to set up a dodgy political party which then directs preferences to your party; pretend it is a different party, yet it is operated by members of your party—including residents of the New South Wales town of Shoalhaven. If people of that town had been in Adelaide that day they would have noticed that their deputy mayor was occupied in South Australia handing out how-to-vote cards for the Liberal candidate for the seat of Morialta—as well as for the Save the RAH Party, I understand.

The mock outrage over the so-called dodgy campaign run by the Labor Party is just crass hypocrisy when you analyse the close association between the Save the RAH Party and the Liberal Party. They had the same slogan, the same people and the same goal. They were trying to scrape votes from people who would not vote Liberal in a million years by having a separate party running a separate campaign.

Well, it did not work, and I understand that the leader of the party, Dr Katsaros, is deeply aggrieved that he received very few votes in his attempt to get into the Legislative Council. He failed on multiple fronts: he tried to get into the Legislative Council and failed on that front; he tried to help the Liberal Party beat the Labor Party, and he failed on that front; and he failed in his attempt to stop the new Royal Adelaide Hospital being constructed. Over the years to come, as that hospital is developed, I look forward to seeing the expression on his face and on the faces of the others who were party to that act of deception on the public of South Australia.

I would like to turn to the issue of the campaign generally. As a former student of the English language I am always interested in how language and words are used, particularly in political discourse. If you examine those words you can often identify the weakness in your opponent's strategies. People tend to say strongly things that reflect their great weakness, and the campaign slogan used by the Liberal Party 'Redmond is Ready' no doubt reflected what Liberal Party polling was saying about Isobel Redmond, because our polling was saying the same thing. The facts are that the majority of people in our community liked the woman, thought she had a number of positive qualities, but felt that she just was not ready to lead a government.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: It is not rubbish, member for Norwood. I would be surprised if you had access to Liberal Party polling, but who knows? Nonetheless, I had access to Labor Party polling and I know what it was saying; it was saying that voters were interested in the Leader of the Opposition but they felt that she just was not ready.

So the Liberal Party tried to turn what was a weakness into a positive; it is the old strategy of taking your greatest weakness and trying to make it your greatest strength. That is what they did, they said 'Redmond is Ready'. There was no evidence of that; it was just a bald assertion. Of course, as the campaign unfolded and we got closer to election day it was plain that Isobel Redmond and the Liberal Party were not ready for government.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Have you thanked Vicki for her help in the election?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Not yet but I am about to; I am building up to thanking members on the other side. Redmond was clearly not ready. The other part of the Liberal Party campaign strategy was to say that they were about substance, not spin. Of course that was the other great lie in the Liberal Party strategy: Redmond was not ready, and they said that they were about substance, not spin. The Liberal Party campaign was based on total spin, in particular their campaign in relation to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

Let me go through the evidence for my assertion, because I would not want to be accused of spin in regard to this. A key plank of the Liberal campaign was the claim that rebuilding the Royal Adelaide Hospital on-site would save a billion dollars which could be redirected towards other health services. The Liberals' Royal Adelaide Hospital policy was, I contend, the ultimate example of spin over substance because it was a policy which was formulated to fit a slogan, and we know where that slogan came from. We know that deep in the heart of the Liberal campaign a decision was made: let's say we can save a billion dollars by rebuilding the hospital on the existing site. So, they tried to come up with a way of reaching their desired slogan outcome.

The final Liberal Party position on the Royal Adelaide Hospital was determined by the size of the potential savings rather than the needs of the hospital or any substantive assessment of what any rebuild might actually cost. This becomes clear when you analyse what the Liberal Party had to say during the lead-up to the election.

Three options were proposed in March 2009; in October 2009 the shadow health minister confirmed that the most extensive rebuild, costed by the Liberal Party at $1.4 billion, was the favoured option. The member for Morphett said, I think on ABC radio, 'We are going to build a new hospital on the same site and it is going to cost $1.4 billion.' By November—that is, just one month later—a new proposal for more beds at half the cost was unveiled.

For $700 million the Liberal Party said they were going to build a new hospital with a whole range of features, including 1,000 beds, new cancer wards, underground car parking, research facilities, administration facilities, and that all of that could be built for $700 million. When this was put to the shadow health minister he had difficulty explaining what it was about. In fact, he told David Bevan of the ABC morning program:

Well, now, Duncan McFetridge rang me last night and he said...'I wasn't trying to mislead you a month ago, that was our figure a month ago' but he said, 'We have genuinely been surprised at how much cheaper we can build this thing' and he said, 'I'm being straight with you, David, we've crunched some more numbers and we think we can get it down to $700 million.'

That is absolute tosh—pure unadulterated spin. I feel sorry for the member for Morphett because he was put in that position by his leader, Isobel 'Who Was Not Ready' Redmond, and the campaign team which had a slogan. They wanted to say, 'Save the RAH and save a billion dollars', so they came up with this dodgy proposition which was walked in off the street, we are told, by an architect in Adelaide who had very little experience in hospitals.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is a lot of interjecting going on and I can't hear. Carry on, minister.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me. I said, 'Order!' That's the way. I thank you.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for your protection, and may I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your recent appointment. I'm sure you will do an extraordinarily good job.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Excuse me, minister, I'm so sorry. Member for Bragg, I know it is exciting but let us rein ourselves in at this time.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Thank you very much for your protection. I'm sure we'll all behave so much better now. The point I was making is that the Liberal Party, during the election campaign, decided they wanted a slogan to say that they were going to save a billion dollars which matched with the Royal Adelaide Hospital Party's slogan and so they came up with a dodgy scheme, walked in off the street by an architect, and allegedly had it costed by WT Partnerships, which later said it did not formally audit the plan and was not retained by the Liberal Party to cost the hospital rebuild. On the basis of all that, they went to the public of South Australia saying, 'We're going to rebuild a bigger hospital on this site.' It was totally impractical with no details of how it was going to be done, and then when they were put under pressure they were very much unwilling and unable to explain it.

The poor member for Morphett, the shadow minister, became ill during the election campaign—and I do not say he was pretending at all—at a strategically important time for the Liberal Party just after he had made a cock-up of an interview on the ABC. He suddenly became ill and wasn't seen again for several weeks. But the interesting thing is that there was nobody in the Liberal Party prepared to go out and defend their position. The opposition spokesperson on health was sick; nobody else could tell us what was going on.

So we had this slogan which they were proposing and which they were pushing to the public of South Australia. They were saying they were going to save a billion dollars, and variously said at different times to different groups of people that that billion dollars was going to be spent on them. The opposition health minister had been telling rural newspapers, for example:

The Liberal Party's proposal to refurbish the Royal Adelaide Hospital will cost a billion dollars less than the new hospital. That is a billion dollars that can be spent on regional health to give country people the first-class medical facilities they deserve.

So, the Liberal Party went out to country South Australia—and I say this to all the country members who get up in here and complain about country health—your party went out to country South Australia and told a dirty great big fib, that it was going to spend a billion dollars on country hospitals by saving that amount of money out of the Royal Adelaide Hospital. However, during the course of the election campaign the only concrete commitment that I could see was the rebuild of the hospital in the Barossa. There was no other capital works program put forward and very little extra money for country health. This was a great big fib.

The Liberal Party continuously said that it could save a billion dollars. It was very clear from the language that was being used by members of the Liberal Party that that money was to be put into extra hospital services across South Australia. The Liberal candidate in my electorate, for example, put out a flyer saying, 'We will also rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital on its existing site, saving a billion dollars for more hospital services across South Australia.' Of course, there were no commitments to anything like that in hospital services across South Australia. No commitments like that at all. This was a bald statement which was not based on substance; it was pure spin—pure unadulterated spin.

Interestingly, towards the end of the campaign the Leader of the Opposition's position in relation to this started to subtly change. So, rather than having a billion dollars which could be saved and spent elsewhere, it was, 'We've got a billion dollars worth of assets at the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital which will be saved, which we won't have to rebuild.' So she changed her position in the course of the campaign, and that was the way she justified having no additional commitments to people in country South Australia or in suburban South Australia. It was all spin.

Of course the bell was truly put on the cat by the end of the campaign when The Financial Review—which did an excellent job in reporting the election, in my opinion—said to the then deputy leader of the opposition that previous Liberal statements in relation to the Royal Adelaide Hospital were spin and Steven Griffiths replied, 'In essence, yes.' So we now know that the then deputy leader—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: Out of context! The then deputy leader was asked, 'What you've been saying about the Royal Adelaide Hospital and saving a billion dollars, that was spin, wasn't it?' and the deputy leader said, 'In essence, yes.' It was spin, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Liberal Party's whole campaign was based on a falsehood, in the most prime example of spin I have ever seen in an election campaign. In addition, of course, the Liberal Party ran ads saying that the Labor Party's plan to build the Royal Adelaide Hospital meant there was no help for other hospitals. That is what they said in their television advertising.

Kay Mousley, the Electoral Commissioner, found that this ad was inaccurate and misleading to a material extent and asked for the ad to be withdrawn. I am not sure whether the Liberal Party complied with that direction, but of course the reality is the Labor Party was spending money at Lyell McEwin, Flinders Medical Centre, Queen Elizabeth, Women's and Children's, and so on. This was more than spin, this was an outright lie—an outrageous, misleading, inaccurate lie told by the Liberal Party in its advertising to the public of South Australia.

Finally, in the minute or two that I have left, I want to sum up the attitude of the Liberal Party and make some observations on its views about electoral reform. There is one point that I thought was most telling about the Leader of the Opposition. To get back to the issue of language, this shows what is really in her heart and mind and her attitude to politics. On 26 April, Greg Kelton interviewed Ms Redmond on the Adelaidenow website. She said:

I expect (Premier) Mike Rann, (Treasurer) Kevin Foley, (Transport Minister) Pat Conlon and (former Attorney-General) Michael Atkinson will be gone from Parliament. The key frontbenchers at the next election were likely to be Water Minister Paul Caica, Attorney-General John Rau, Education Minister Jay Weatherill and Aboriginal Affairs Minister Grace Portolesi. They will be a much more likeable line-up and much harder for the public to hate.

Ms Redmond wants to get into office, not on the basis of policy or substance, but on the basis of hate. The Liberal Party ran an outrageous hate campaign. It was one of the nastiest, most negative campaigns that I have seen in the years that I have been standing, because at the heart of Isobel Redmond's ideology, philosophy and thinking is hate. She has made it plain in this article with The Advertiser.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: You know it, Vickie Chapman, because you have been subject to her hate as well. The final thing I wanted to say—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The member for Bragg knows what it is like to be hated by the Leader of the Opposition; she understands.

The final point I make is the issue of electoral reform. In 1989 the Labor Party won government with 48-49 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. There was a huge campaign run by the Liberal Party to have electoral reform to entrench the fairness principle into our legislation. The Labor Party supported that, the laws were changed and now we have a redistribution after every election. The fairness principle, to the extent that it can properly be applied, is applied by an independent group who create fair boundaries. The argument is that a party which gets the majority of votes is more or less likely to get a majority of seats.

That is the law which the Liberal Party wanted and campaigned for. Now that they have it, they have started attacking that set of arrangements as being unfair because the Labor Party keeps winning elections on the basis of the structures that are in place without getting 50 per cent of the vote. That seems to be the Liberal Party's logic.

I would say to the Liberal Party: stop complaining about the structures that we have in place in South Australia to determine how we allocate voters to seats. We probably have the fairest system in the world, and I congratulate the commissioners for going through that process and getting it right. The trouble is that you have to campaign to the structure that you have. If the boundaries or the electoral system were changed in such a way so that we had a PR system, or some other system, I am very confident that the Labor Party would still win, because we campaign better than you do. We campaign to the structure that is there.

As my colleague, the Minister for Economic Development said, 'If we wanted to, we could have only campaigned in 24 of the seats that we thought we had the best chance of winning. We could have won all of those seats, yet we would have only got about 25 to 30 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.' It would still have been a valid outcome under the electoral laws that we have. You have to learn to campaign on the structure you have, not on some fanciful, idealistic system which does not exist.

Time expired.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:24): I convey to His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce my appreciation for the contribution that he makes as Governor of this state and, indeed, Mrs Scarce in the duties she undertakes to assist him in that role.

His Excellency delivered, at the opening of the first session of the 52^nd parliament, the government's vision and plan for the forthcoming period of the parliament. It is fair to say that on receiving that, I was disappointed not only with its brevity but with how superficial the government's plan is. That should in no way reflect on the excellent delivery given by His Excellency.

When he conveys to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II the establishment of the new parliament, and the contribution that he makes in the state of South Australia, I hope that he conveys the very clear indication from Her Majesty's opposition that we will undertake that role in this parliament to the best of our ability, as is our duty. I hope that he also conveys on behalf of the opposition our good wishes on the appointment of the new prime minister of Britain, David Cameron, for whom of course Queen Elizabeth II is in her role as Queen of England. She has a separate title, Queen of Australia, for us, and I hope that he conveys those good wishes to our sovereign.

I have been re-elected as the state member for Bragg, an electorate that recognises in our parliament the Nobel Prize winners, Sir William and Sir Lawrence Bragg. The tradition for most electorates is to recognise our seats by the name of very famous dead South Australians. There are a few exceptions to that, of course. The member for Croydon, who is well known to this parliament, asked to change the name of his seat from a very famous South Australian back to a geographical location.

I never quite understood, given the importance of recognising the very distinguished records of men and women in South Australia's history, why he should elect to dismiss it—in this case, the name of a very significant South Australian—in favour of going back to the geography. I think it indicates the quirky ways of the member for Croydon, which no doubt will continue to impress us. Fortunately, we were relieved by his announcement on the day after the election that he was leaving the cabinet.

The situation for the people of Bragg is that under the redistribution I now have the specific duty to represent in this parliament new areas in the Adelaide Hills, including Summertown, Uraidla, Crafers and parts of Ashton. I have enjoyed the privilege of many functions, shows and meetings with cherry pickers, apple and pear growers and the like. Horticulture is clearly a very significant industry. Not surprisingly, water, and the imminent licensing program that is to be introduced by 30 June by this government to cover the Adelaide Hills, is high on the priority for people who enjoy that community either for their income or the lifestyle they enjoy in local townships.

I am privileged and look forward to representing the Adelaide Hills, as I will indeed those in Rosslyn Park and Kensington Gardens, since those places now fall under my charter. I thank those in other areas who have provided me with their support in the past and have now been reallocated into the state seats of Unley, Morialta and Norwood. They have been a pleasure to represent, and I thank them.

Issues that they have brought to my attention include saving the Glenside Hospital against the ravages of sale and diminution of services, an issue that has been high on the priority for some of those districts, particularly in the Glenunga and Glenside areas. Let me say that they continue the rage on that issue—as they should—not only for their own community open space but also for the important service that it offers to all of South Australia, particularly as it provides the only secure care and intense mental health services for all country people in South Australia.

The establishment of this parliament and the election by this house of the Speaker, the member for Giles, is historic and I pay tribute to her as the new Speaker and the first female Speaker of this chamber. She joins the Hon. Anne Levy who was, I think, the first female president in another place, and that is an important occasion to celebrate. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, do not have the same mantle as that previously enjoyed by a female member of this parliament. However, I convey my congratulations to you.

The only female whose portrait is hung in this parliament—the Hon. Joyce Steele over here in the Versace blue—is the former member for Burnside and the first female member of this House of Assembly, having entered it in 1959.

Mr Marshall: A Liberal.

Ms CHAPMAN: A Liberal member for Burnside—as if we would have anything else! Of course, in the same year, the Hon. Jessie Cooper, I recognise, was elected to the other chamber.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Another Burnside girl.

Ms CHAPMAN: Another Burnside girl, yes. Notwithstanding the challenge in the Supreme Court to the validity of their election at the time—

Mr Marshall: Imagine the outrage from the opposite side!

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes. It was actually done by a Liberal at the time. They have the mantle of being the first female representatives of both these chambers; that occurred in 1959 and I bring to the house's attention the significance of that in this year, 2010.

In her maiden speech, in an impassioned plea to the parliament, the Hon. Joyce Steele said that it was time that we rebuilt the children's prison at Magill. Indeed, after eight years of championing that cause, in 1967 the Magill Training Centre, as it is now known, was built and opened. In fact, the foundation of the old children's prison is still on the site and is still able to be viewed as what was an archaic 18^thcentury style gaol.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: At Burnside?

Mr Marshall: At Magill.

Ms CHAPMAN: At Magill. That prison was bulldozed, and we now have the Magill Training Centre. She championed that cause, and wouldn't it be interesting for her to know that, yet again in this chamber, we are trying to urge the government to progress a children's prison.

We had the juvenile justice inquiry, I think in 2002-03, saying that this must be an urgent priority for the government. Of course, some years later, treasurer Foley, through one of these governor's speeches, announced that he was going to build a new prison system. He was going to build new facilities for children, and the Cavan facility, which currently accommodates children from 14 to about 19 or 20, would actually be restored for the purpose for which it was originally purpose-built, namely, for accommodating 10 to 14 year old children.

What happened then? In the following year, in the face of what was to be this global financial crisis, the Treasurer stood in this chamber and said, 'We can't afford to proceed with that. It is too expensive, so we're going to shelve that project. We're going to send it over here.' In fact, at the same time, he said, 'We are in such dire straits that we are going to have to delay for two years the build of the new Glenside Hospital facility', while at the very same time progressing the Premier's perfect little baby, namely, the film corporation, with $43 million.

Mr Marshall: They had money for that.

Ms CHAPMAN: They had plenty of money for that—absolutely—to rehouse the film corporation and build the new studios at the back. In the face of this global financial crisis, we had to build a new home for the film corporation and a couple of sheds out the back.

Mr Marshall: Movies over mental health.

Ms CHAPMAN: Movies over mental health. At a similar time, cabinet, with the former member for Chaffey sitting in this cabinet, approved $46 million for SA Water to spend on a new headquarters in Victoria Square. It was not even to buy a building; it actually involved a refit, with carpets and cabling and all those other things. It was to ensure that, while the whole state is perishing with no water, while lawns and gardens are dying, fruit trees are being dug up, crops are not growing and sheep are dying, SA Water gets a new refitted building in Victoria Square.

That is where the money went in this global financial crisis period—to the Premier's pet child. While the Magill Training Centre was being ridiculed by leaders around the world, humanitarian organisations and children's rights advocates as a disgrace, as being completely unacceptable in the 21^st century as a facility for the incarceration of children, the government was busy putting new carpets in Victoria Square and building a new home for the Film Corporation. That was the priority of this government.

Well, another 18 months later, after absolute outrage by the community and under huge public pressure and fury, the government said, 'Oh, well, actually, we'll go ahead, we will flog off the Magill Training Centre land—very valuable—and we will build a new facility nearby to the Cavan site for the children.' Under further public pressure from many of those people in Bragg (who I am very proud of) who demanded that the government do something about the new mental health facilities at Glenside, the government agreed that it would proceed with the hospital and bring it forward something like, I think, 12 months. So, they are still a year behind, but they would at least bring forward the delay. That was their big contribution to that.

Programs for children in prisons is still a major problem. The member for West Torrens and Minister for Correctional Services at the time told us in this chamber how fantastic the programs for children in prison were. In fact, a number of ministers during the debate on that reprehensible piece of legislation for recidivist young offenders had them marked for extra incarceration, again in direct contradiction of the rights of children around the world. Contemporary critics, including Justice Horta, who was the Thinker in Residence last year, made it very clear that this is not the way to go with children.

However, notwithstanding that, when the legislation was being debated here, we heard all about these programs for children in prisons. Well, let me invite members to have a look at the 2009 Guardian for Children and Young People Annual Report. The guardian makes it absolutely clear—and the charter of this role, of course, includes children in care and under guardianship—that they need to have decent programs, but they do not have them. It behoves new members of parliament to understand what the real priorities of the government are when it comes to dealing with children in South Australia.

I am honoured to have been given the families and communities portfolio and the opportunity to represent the hungry and homeless in South Australia. I previously had the privilege of being the opposition spokesperson on housing matters and a number of child protection issues. I am honoured to have the entire portfolio now, including disability and ageing, and I felt particularly proud of that when I heard, during the election campaign and immediately after, the Premier's announcement that the provision of services for the disabled was going to be a priority for his government.

However, I was shocked to hear the Governor in his speech just over a week ago tell us in one sentence what the government was going to do for the disabled. It was very disappointing. At a time when the public has clearly spoken by electing the Hon. Kelly Vincent (the Dignity for Disability candidate) to the Legislative Council and the Premier has said he would make a commitment to the disabled, we get one sentence in the Governor's address to the parliament about the new vision of this government. He has not been listening, he is certainly not acting, if he has heard any of the complaints and concerns raised, and he is totally ignorant of the very significant aspect of this part of our responsibility as a parliament and, in particular, the responsibility of the government to deliver services for those involved.

Today, I do not propose to speak a lot about child protection issues. I have given many contributions to this house about those issues. I spent 20 years in courtrooms in criminal and civil litigation relating to child abuse, which is a deeply concerning aspect of our community. Many children in this state enjoy the privilege of family support around them and stellar community support, which ensures that they are protected from and quarantined against the horrific and often obscene behaviour and conduct of others, allowing them to enjoy the privilege of a childhood without that. That is fantastic.

I myself am a member of a family that has layers of generations. I have a 93 year old grandmother who has just retired from business—and the member for West Torrens will be pleased to hear this, of course; it just confirms that I have another 40 years in me. So, get used to it, sweet pea, I am going to be around a long time. I also have a mother, of course, and both require aged services now which, I might say, they are paying for, but they have been able to do that. Both my mother and grandmother have made a very great contribution to the community.

At the end of the spectrum, of course, apart from my siblings—I have a lot of sisters—there is the next generation, and further down the track my two year old granddaughter. I am probably the only one in the house who actually has a grandmother and a granddaughter at the same time—and they are the only two women in the world I am actually scared of.

In any event, what happens in many communities is that children enjoy the protection of families and, if they do not have that intergenerational support, which some of us have been privileged to enjoy, and they do not have siblings to give them advice or support, they have a community base full of volunteers and others who are passionately committed to the protection and preservation of children, and that is fantastic.

We have a very clear responsibility in this place to ensure that children are otherwise protected. Whilst the government has made many announcements in relation to that matter, if I reflect on what the government has failed to do in respect of that small group of children who are in need and who have ultimately ended up incarcerated for very serious crimes, it demonstrates to me (and I am sure to this parliament) how superficial the government's approach has been.

In dealing with disability, the government has announced that it will have this review by Commissioner Cappo, of the Social Inclusion Unit. He is to report to the government by July 2011 in relation to an audit of services for the disabled in South Australia. What concerns me is that not only has that been delayed again but that the Hon. Bill Shorten at the federal level has announced that a Productivity Commission is also to report by the end of June 2011.

A lot of lovely things have been said by the federal minister but there has been very little delivery. I was devastated to hear and, in fact, view that, during all the shenanigans going on between the premiers and the federal Minister for Health on the health agreement—also involving aged care ministers from state and federal arenas—all getting in to get a slice, where were Bill Shorten and Jennifer Rankine when we needed them?

In any event, aside from the fact that they have sort of dropped the ball while all that was going on and funding amounting to billions was being negotiated, the shame I want to bring to the attention of the parliament today is that during this time many submissions have been put to the minister, the government and previous families and communities ministers covering disability about the need to update the Disability Services Act in this state.

I was very concerned to read that, in response to a request put to the minister before the election that a review of this act proceed, she said that no, she would not being doing that and, in fact, she rejected proceeding with a review of the act. She said:

The amount of reform work that is currently underway...the review of the act is not considered until a number of key reforms under the National Disability Agreement are further progressed.

That information was conveyed in a letter of 11 February 2010 to Professor Richard Bruggemann, who is a professor at the Department of Disability Studies School of Medicine at Flinders University.

After all the work the Hon. Stephen Wade in another place had done with stakeholders in consulting and reviewing that act and the submissions put to the government, what did the minister say? She said, 'No, I'm going to wait to see what happens at the national level in relation to reform before I even look at my own responsibility back here.' That is not acceptable. We have the minister in this place saying, 'Well, I'll wait to see what Bill Shorten does,' Bill Shorten saying, 'I'll wait to see what the Productivity Commission does,' and the Premier saying, 'I'll wait to see what Mr Cappo says,' and that is all going to leave these people isolated from the support they urgently need for another year and a half.

One of the things I bring to the parliament's attention is that the sector of stakeholders that represents these people is asking for a complaints procedure. It is not unique to the parliament to have this; we have it in other legislation. When somebody makes a complaint about not having a wheelchair that fits them—like the Hon. Kelly Vincent did for 11 years, I understand, before she was actually given a wheelchair to fit her—they want legislative protection against threats or intimidation by departmental people to silence their criticism. It is a pretty simple thing, but they want that legislative protection.

We have added it under child protection on the recommendation of Commissioner Mullighan in his inquiry, but with that there needs to be a register of complaints kept by the CEO of the department and, in addition, a requirement or an obligation on the minister to act when those complaints are received.

We have done it in health, we have done it in child protection, so why on earth won't minister Rankine actually activate this and not just leave these people out in the cold? It is absolutely disgraceful. It is very simple. It is legislation that could be brought in here tomorrow and we could start working on it. But, no, she writes to Professor Bruggemann and says, 'Bad luck; we'll wait to see what happens at the federal level.' It is just not acceptable.

I will give an example of what is happening right now. I have been sent a report about a 21 year old girl who has been kept against her will in a locked dementia ward at Flinders Hospital by Disability SA since 20 January 2010. She has been locked in a dementia ward. This young woman suffers from a mild intellectual disability, suspected mental illness and calcification of the brain, none of which approach dementia or require her continued hospitalisation. The report goes on to say, 'Both Disability SA and the staff at Flinders', as well as the young woman concerned 'and her guardians, all agree that [she] needs to be in a cluster housing situation where she would have her own living unit within a cluster of other independent living units...'

The correspondence goes on to say, 'Unfortunately there are very few of these.' The report to me—and, I should say, to the minister, who has also had this correspondence—states that this vulnerable young woman is in a locked dementia ward, where confused and often frightening older patients continually walk into her unlocked room at all hours of the day and night, terrifying the young woman. The author of this correspondence also points out:

In addition it is costing approximately $800 per day, $25,000 a month, for the hospital room, as well as denying a much-needed bed to a real dementia patient. Because Flinders—

meaning the hospital—

is not billing Disability SA for the hospital room, the $25,000 a month is being picked up by the taxpayers and Disability SA has had no incentive to find a proper placement—

for the woman in question. So, we are all paying for it. It is an outrageous cost when money is short—and we keep hearing that from the Treasurer. We understand the importance of responsible spending. It is costing us $25,000 a month to keep this woman in a locked dementia ward in a high-level hospital—a premier tertiary hospital in this state—when she clearly could be more cheaply and better accommodated. This is just one example.

I am taking on this responsibility on behalf of the opposition, and I indicate that I am privileged to do so. Daily, I receive pleas of help and urgency from not only people with disability and housing needs but also those who are desperate for support. We are wasting this sort of money on inappropriate and unacceptable provision of services for just one of our South Australians who need that assistance.

I also bring to the attention of the house the concern I have arising out of the federal budget that was just announced; that is, the failure to address the rates of pensions and allowances of those in the aged community particularly, but also those in the disability area. It would not have escaped attention that the Australian Energy Regulator has received the distribution pricing for ETSA Utilities, as the sole distributor in this state, and the concessions announcement in February 2010 by the Premier when he said, 'By July 2010, I am going to increase these concessions by $45.'

This house should be aware that it is expected that the increase in electricity prices on distribution costs alone—let alone aspects of retail, generation or transmission costs—means that pensioners can expect an increase of some $75 above that, and up to $175. The problem is that the announcements by the Premier and everyone else mean nothing unless one looks at the costs on the other side of the ledger. A concession of $45 means nothing unless you look at the costs on the other side.

Goodness knows what is going to happen when we have all the costs of electricity from our desal plant and everything else. The pensioners and disabled people for whom I will be advocating will have their heating and lighting produced by candle because that is all they are going to be able to afford.

I will also mention the botched home insulation program. Everyone knows that it has been a complete disaster at the federal level. Currently, about 250,000 houses are being inspected and rectified because they have foil insulation or other problems. We have already had, I think, four deaths, 120 fires and rampant rorting across the country. The federal government has announced that it is going to abandon that project. However, we still have a serious problem.

The federal government in this budget announced that it is going to allocate another $340 million to try to fix the problem. We have 300 insulation installations just in our Housing Trust properties here. They have been put in without the consent of the federal government. I am waiting for the minister to explain what obligation we have to pay that back or, indeed, why it happened in the first place. That is, how 300 of her houses had insulation installed using federal government money without permission and, in fact, in direct contradiction with the direction that was given by the federal government that it was not allowed to go into Housing Trust houses; how much you and I and everyone else is going to have to pay for that, if it is required to be paid back; and whether South Australian taxpayers are going to get a bill for the rectification and inspection requirements which are an obligation of the federal government?

We have a lot of questions to be answered. What happened to the tenants? Did they sign forms authorising these insulations, perhaps pretending that they had the authority of the Housing Trust? What has happened to them? Who will be prosecuted? Has a police investigation started? These are all the questions we need to have answered.

The home insulation issue is something that trickles through and exposes the incompetence of the Minister for Families and Communities and we are all going to have to pay. We are required to consider how we distribute those resources, but all of that has been wasted. I will speak again about the federal housing money and the exploitation and waste of it on another occasion, and how badly this government has become involved in the home building business. I will keep that for another day.

I wish to say one other thing on land tax. I have read the Henry review, and I hope most members of this parliament have also. Chapter 6 recommends 1 per cent land tax across the board. In South Australia, everyone knows that the place of principal residence is exempt; everyone in South Australian knows that rural properties are exempt; and there are other small categories. I want a commitment from the Treasurer that he will not introduce a land tax across the board and destroy the economic base of this state.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:54): First, I thank the people of Fisher for their confidence in me—which was encouraging, given that I did not campaign. I published a newsletter—which I had to fund because it was during election time—and put up about 30 posters. I had an enjoyable chit-chat with the Labor candidate Adriana Christopoulos. I spent two hours talking to her one night outside Woolworths. If it was judged on looks she would have won hands down. I congratulate the new members in here and also—

Mr Venning interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Excuse me, member for Fisher. Member for Schubert, do you have a lovely point of order or are you having a little chat to yourself? Excellent, okay. Carry on, member for Fisher.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: He has his sexy purple shirt on and he doesn't know the psychology of it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we will stop reflecting on the loveliness of the member for Schubert and carry on with your contribution.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I congratulate the new members and the re-elected members. It is a privilege to serve here. This is now my 21^st year, and I think I rank behind the Premier's and the Hon. Rob Lucas's time in parliament. I pay tribute to our new Speaker—which I did, briefly, last week. It is great, because she is a not only a woman but also comes from a humble background. It is great to see people in South Australia rise to high office so I congratulate her. She was a TAFE employee when I was a minister and I remember meeting her in Whyalla. Well done, to the member for Giles on her elevation to the position of Speaker.

I also congratulate you, Deputy Speaker, on your elevation and on becoming a mother which, in my view, is probably more important in many ways than anything we do in this place.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: And he's very cute.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: If you are a good mother, it is even better than being a good deputy speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fisher, can I speak? I do feel that the interjection of the member for West Torrens should be recorded.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: He is exceptionally cute.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He is exceptionally cute. Let it be placed on the parliamentary record. Please, carry on, member for Fisher.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Thank you, ma'am. I think the member for West Torrens knows the solution if he thinks babies are cute. I think he knows how to bring about an outcome.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, have one of your own! That is what I was alluding to; I should not have to spell it out.

In terms of the Governor's speech, I acknowledge the work of His Excellency. I note he is from the senior service. My father was in the Navy but he was not of the esteemed rank of our Governor. He was a career naval person in the Royal Australian Navy, even though he came from England as a teenager. The member for Waite may not agree, but it is important to acknowledge the senior service (which is the Navy).

I found the speech delivered by the Governor on behalf of the government a little disappointing. It has nothing to do with the Governor, but I thought it lacked any significant vision or indication of things for South Australia to be involved in that would excite one and generate passion. I hope that the government has not run out of puff. I hope it has not run out of initiatives and good ideas. I would not like to see change for the sake of change, but I would like to see South Australia lead not only the rest of Australia but also the world.

There are a quite a few issues to which I would like to refer. In terms of law and order, the government keeps talking tough on crime. I agree with Judge Hora. We need to get smarter or what I call effective on crime. We need more early intervention. We need prisons for hard core offenders, but I do not think prisons solve a lot for the other offenders. The aim should be to keep people out of prison by early intervention wherever possible. It distresses me greatly that we still have too many instances of assault and other serious crime occurring in our city and state. It shows that the fundamental issues in addressing what is called law and order are not being implemented and are not effective. I know it is not easy; it is a problem around the world. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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