SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 May 2010.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:29): I rise in support of the Supply Bill, and I do that with some reluctance. We should not be here a matter of weeks after a state election having to move supply; we should be moving the budget. We have seen the British government come to power, and they have moved their budget; in fact, they are moving an emergency budget tomorrow, I believe, on some pressing issues because of the billions of dollars of debt that have been left by the former Labour government. We have seen the Tasmanian government bring their budget down. Their election was exactly the same day as ours, but they brought their budget down last week.

They can do it and the Brits can do it, but not this Treasurer who has been in the position for eight years. If he does not know the state of the books and in which direction this state is heading, then it is a very sad state. We know his memory has some holes in it, but I would have thought that the financial running of this state should be his utmost priority. To move a Supply Bill for $5.2 billion today is something of which he should be ashamed, and it shows a degree of incompetence on his behalf. To try to hide behind the razor gang that has been set up to slash $750 million in government spending and to say that they have not come back with their reports is a furphy and an excuse. It is a completely unacceptable position for this house to be in. We should not be debating the Supply Bill but, rather, the budget. We should be getting on with estimates. We should not have the budget being brought down in September during the footy finals and having estimates in October.

I know that in earlier times the budget has been brought down later, but to have it brought down in September (a quarter of the way through the financial year) is outrageous. For this government to try to wear the odium and the blame and shrug it off and tough it out, it is just not good enough. The people of South Australia deserve much better than this. They wanted much better, we know that—51.6 per cent of them said that they wanted a different government—but what have we got? We have a government that is showing its usual arrogance and the hubris that we have seen for many years.

I saw it on the first day of this parliament, even before members were sworn in. We saw the gang of four—'the four horsemen of the apocalypse'—sitting there with smug looks on their faces because they were still in government. I suppose that says it all about the arrogance of power that we have seen. We should not be debating the Supply Bill today; it should be the budget that is being brought down. It is an indictment on the Treasurer's distracted approach to his running of the affairs of state.

I am responsible for the portfolios of health, mental health and substance abuse, and veterans' affairs. Obviously, health and mental health are the biggest part of the state budget. They have been in the past and they will be in the future. The federal government says that it will put in extra funds for the running of the health system in South Australia, but now it is changing its mind. The federal government's priorities—as we have seen from the resignations of some senior mental health advisers in the past few days—are being questioned in a most sincere way by people who know exactly what they are talking about. I understand that in this morning's paper there was an article in relation to 50 mental health experts questioning the direction that the Rudd federal government is taking.

If I was the Minister for Health—and certainly if I was the Treasurer—I would not be expecting a bailout from the federal government. We have seen it in the past with massive elective surgery waiting lists. We have seen the state governments get bailed out by the federal government in order to take up, not the bulk of people on the elective surgery waiting lists—those within the normal clinical time frames—but, rather, people who are overdue for surgery, suffering and waiting in pain, and most likely getting worse. At last they are being taken care of, but they should not have been in that position.

This government started with a budget in 2001-02 of about $8 billion. The last budget was $15 billion. We have the highest taxing government ever seen in this state. It will be interesting to see what the level of taxation income is, what is in the budget, what this government will spend and how it will spend it. We know the government is in crisis. We are hearing whispers and rumours about massive cuts in a number of areas, but one area that cannot be cut, cannot be touched, must not be touched, is that of health services: health, mental health and substance abuse. I will talk about veterans' affairs, as well, because there is a growing issue in veterans' affairs, which overlaps with the mental health, substance abuse and health areas.

My plea to the Treasurer is to look at this matter closely and listen to the Minister for Health, the advisers and the people who are working at the coalface on the front line. He should listen to them and not cut health spending. Health spending will not overtake the state budget, as the doomsayers are predicting. The Premier and the Minister for Health have been saying that—we even saw Kevin Rudd saying that—but the reality is that that will happen only if they continue doing things the way they have in the past. There are efficiencies out there, and some of those efficiencies are at the moment trying to be met by amalgamation and centralisation of the bureaucracy, but they are not real savings.

What should not have happened is the explosion in the number of bureaucrats in the health department. If you go to the Auditor-General's Report and look at the facts and figures, it is not just me trying to run a scare campaign: the facts speak for themselves in the Auditor-General's Report. There is an issue that needs to be addressed so that health spending does not continue to balloon out.

There is increased demand—there is no doubt about that—on spending in health and health services. There is increased demand for the latest technology, the latest developments, and we can all understand that. We have an exceptionally good standard of health in Australia, but it could and should be better in many areas. It needs to be looked at and targeted—not rationed, but targeted—so that you are getting the best value for the dollar and not what this government appears to be doing at the moment, that is, spending on more and more bureaucrats.

We have seen with the national reforms the Rudd government was to put in that eight different levels of bureaucrats were to be developed. It has cut that back with the top layer going, but still seven layers of bureaucrats are being developed. That is the big concern with the changes: that we will see more and more bureaucrats. The centralisation we have seen in South Australia of the Southern Adelaide Health Service and the Central Northern Adelaide Health Service has been touted as cost efficiencies and cost savings.

On my calculation, we spend about $11 million a day on health. I heard Dr Sherbon say, if upon recollection I have the right figure, that the amalgamation of the Central Northern Adelaide and Southern Adelaide Health Services will cut back on the numbers of bureaucrats and save about $3 million. If we are spending $11 million a day in the health service, that is spent before lunch or even morning tea. It is gone, done and dusted, so there is a minuscule saving there. There needs to be a realignment and reassessment of where the priorities are: the priorities should be in front-line health services.

I cannot believe that there will be cuts to nursing staff at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. People at the Royal Adelaide are telling me that they have heard that 90 nursing positions will be cut at the Royal Adelaide, 10 being from the operating theatres. If that information is correct, it is an outrage. I heard one estimation that between the Royal Adelaide and the Women's and Children's Hospitals there would be up to 500 job cuts.

If that is the case—and I sincerely hope that it is not and that that information is wrong—this government really needs to look at where its priorities are. Its socialist roots, the light on the hill, and its foundation ideology seem to have all gone out the window and more and more they have become economic rationalists. They are rationing services and health, and it is just not good enough. In the last eight years of this government, when it has had the rivers of gold—everything from land tax, the GST (it has been pouring in)—we have not seen the improvements we should have seen in the health sector.

It is not only the elective surgery waiting lists that are a real issue—and there are thousands of people on those elective surgery waiting lists in the public health sector in South Australia, and with the bailout by the federal government there was some tidy up of the tail end—but also the thousands more South Australians still waiting for both medical and surgical outpatient appointments.

The estimates vary from hospital to hospital, with 600 at Flinders Medical Centre, which is probably an underestimation, and 15,000 in the Royal Adelaide Hospital yet to receive appointments. They are on the Clayton's waiting list. The booking clerks at these hospitals should be able to tell you how many doctors fax, email or write requests for their patients for both medical and surgical outpatient appointments and then are told, 'You'll just have to wait. There are list after list we are trying to cope with.'

That is an outrageous situation for this government, which has been here for eight years now, not to have dealt with and treated that situation; efficiences should have been put in place. That should not be happening. We should not be here today debating the Supply Bill: we should be looking at the budget, knowing what is going to be spent on health and seeing those waiting lists being reduced. We should not be looking at a priority where a new hospital in the rail yards is the be-all and end-all of health spending in South Australia.

We should not be looking at a possible cost blowout of many billions of dollars, if you listen to some of the financial reporters around the place. If the cost for that hospital is $1.7 billion, well, I will be very surprised. Everything from reports put out by doctors is questioning the outpatient clinics that were going to be transferred from the Frome Road precinct, the Florey precinct, down to the rail yards. The rail yards hospital was dubbed 'RAH Light'. What is not going to be there? We know that some outpatient services will not be there.

The minister has said that there will be no reduction in outpatient services. What he has not said is where those outpatient services will be delivered. He has not said whether those outpatient services which are currently at the Royal Adelaide Hospital on Frome Road and North Terrace will be transferred if they build that rail yards hospital. I say 'if they build it', because from what I am hearing the costs are ballooning out. 'State Bank, mark 2', is how it is being described. It will be a real weight around the neck of the finances of this state.

We are concerned about not only the outpatients but also the pathology services down there. The Royal College of Pathologists (they are saying this; not me) is really concerned about the partial transfer of pathology services from Frome Road down to the rail yards. You cannot have a patient who has had a tumour removed waiting on an operating table while the surgeons send off that tumour to pathology for histology to see whether they have got all the tumour. You cannot send that through 13 sets of traffic lights down North Terrace, because that is what there are now with the tram down there—13 sets of traffic lights between the rail yards and the Royal Adelaide Hospital on Frome Road.

You cannot send that sample down, get the histologist to look at the sections, then phone up or email back, saying, 'Yes, it's okay', or, 'No, it's not; you'll have to take more', and then wait for another section to be sent through another 13 sets of traffic lights down to Frome Road from the rail yards. It is just not good enough. You need to have those sorts of services on site. There is no excuse for that; it has to happen. Patients deserve that sort of service, and the professionals deserve that sort of service, because pathologists do not want to have to leave their laboratories and travel west through 13 sets of traffic lights to talk to patients and clinicians about what is happening, where they think things should be going and variations on treatment patterns and treatment courses.

It is just a no-brainer to have the services on site. One adviser was reported in the paper the other day saying that there will be plenty of room there; well, I hope that is the case, but that is not the information I am getting, and that is not the information the AMA is getting. Even as late as this morning, I understand, Dr Andrew Lavender, the AMA President, confirmed our fears and the fears of the royal college about pathologists. It is a real concern for everybody that we are not getting what we expect down there.

The latest information I have got is that they will build this hospital, but it will not have a production kitchen. When you are running a big establishment such as the Royal Adelaide Hospital you must cook up food—and now it is not just dolloping food up to patients and 'be thankful for what you get'; there are strict nutritional and medical guidelines for nutritional requirements and individual serves for patients in a hospital. You still have to bulk up some cooking processes, so you have what is called a production kitchen. A service kitchen then dollops out the food as required and as directed by the nutritionist and the medical staff.

My understanding is that there will be no production kitchen at the rail yards hospital when it is built down there, if it is built down there. They will have a separate facility somewhere, at what cost we do not know (how many tens of millions, hundreds of millions; who knows what it costs to build a production kitchen), and then have all the logistics in place to transport that bulk food across to the rail yards hospital where it can then be served up to patients.

It is a real issue to have to trust a government that says, 'Trust us: we will be delivering a world-class hospital.' It will not be world class if there are failures in pathology services and the nutrition of patients, and it certainly will not be first class if this government keeps going the way it is: it will get smaller and smaller. I do not want to hear about pods, villages and health spaces: I want to hear about patient services and nurses being able to do their job.

We have seen the number of single rooms being reduced in this hospital. Initially, every patient was going to have a room with a view over the River Torrens. We saw the mock-up at the royal show: I think $200,000 was spent on that effort. Where is that mock-up now? I have asked three times to go and look at that mock-up setup in the warehouse off Marion Road and to look at the technical suites that were to be set up down there for staff training. I have not been able to go down there because my understanding is it is just piled in a corner somewhere.

But we saw the wonderful views over the River Torrens out of the patients' windows. There was a scare campaign over the rebuilding of the Royal Adelaide Hospital on Frome Road because the patients were not going to have a window, but I think I would rather have a bed, a nurse and a doctor than a window if I was in hospital. I do not want to be there because it is not a holiday. I do not want to wait years to go there in the first place. I want to get the treatment I require that is needed to get me healthy and out of there, and I will be happy to enjoy the view from my own bedroom window at home, not the hospital window at the rail yards.

So, the funds that will go in to prop up the rail yards hospital is a real concern. I look forward to seeing what is in the health budget and finding out the nitty-gritty of what will happen between the transfer from Frome Road to the rail yards. Is it RAH-like, or will people get what they deserve, that is, a superior health service—which I still strongly believe could be delivered at far less cost at the precinct on North Terrace-Frome Road, where we have the IMVS, the Hanson Institute, the medical school and the dental school?

That is another issue. When people require dental surgery, dentists will have to go down to the rail yards and come back again, through 13 sets of traffic lights to get down there and 13 sets of traffic lights to get back: but, at the moment, they just walk down the corridor and are into the hospital. The medical students just walk down the corridor into the hospital for their training, which is absolutely vital. It will be very interesting to see what we are going to get in the consortia presentations. I understand they have already given the government briefings on what they are proposing, and I understand one of them is 'out of this world'. It will be interesting to see what we actually get, and it will be interesting to see what the government will channel off into the funds. It is a PPP at the moment. The Treasurer is saying that, if it is too expensive, it will be a government borrow and build. What impact will that have on the state budget? Is it going to be State Bank mark 2? In fact, WorkCover has already been State Bank mark 2. The hospital will be State Bank mark 3. It is a real concern.

Mental health is a huge issue. I would drive bulldozers through some of the buildings at Glenside because they are old and outdated, but I would not build an industrial centre there as a film hub and I would not put a liquor outlet next to Drug & Alcohol Services. I would be making sure that the community outreach services were there and that the elderly mental health patients were not being pushed out into private nursing homes and causing issues there, which we are finding out about. It is a disgrace the way this government just keeps saying, 'We are building this new hospital.' Is it going to be effective and efficient; and is it going to do what it is supposed to do for South Australians?

I would like to mention veterans' affairs, because we are getting a new battalion out north (I think 6 RAR or 7 RAR) with 1,200 troops. Some of those guys are brave soldiers who have done two, sometimes three, tours of duty in Afghanistan. We have heard of some tragic events over there lately, and they are coming back with severe psychological issues. They need all the support they can get. The already overloaded and overworked Lyell McEwin Hospital will not be able to provide those services. I just hope the government is aware of what it is doing. We want to support our troops to the very best of our ability. They are laying down their lives for this country. South Australians deserve better, and our troops deserve better.

Time expired.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (11:49): I rise to support this bill. However, whilst I support the bill, I will make mention of some of the areas that I certainly hope attention is being given to in the forthcoming budget, and areas that I hope are not in the firing line for reductions in cost savings.

As mentioned in my recent speech in reply, this state has a great window of opportunity to capitalise on the resource opportunities and also defence and other activities throughout the state. Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on taking the Mayor of Whyalla and other members of that community to Canberra to try to ascertain the details of the proposed commonwealth resource supertax. While this may not affect the state directly, the resource industry in South Australia does have a great effect on the budget going forward. We respect all the activity in the regions of South Australia and the more activity we have up there, the more we will get in royalties to this state. The resource sector is the window of opportunity that this state has been looking for, and we need to have a clear understanding or a complete revamp of this proposed commonwealth taxation going forward.

We must ensure that there are no cuts in opportunities for skills and training. We must not allow our infrastructure to continue to be run down to a degree that is detrimental to the growing demands that will be required in regional South Australia. In particular, I mention TAFE opportunities and training throughout regional South Australia. TAFE, over the past few years, has been wrongly targeted to reduce training numbers with the excuse that there is no demand, or a decreasing demand, for certain courses to be taught at various locations. This tactic can have a dramatic effect on regional people requiring more skills to re-enter or enter the workforce.

Recently I was contacted by a person within my own electorate who wanted to undertake a TAFE course in hospitality. This person attended the Port Pirie campus only to be advised that they only have front of house courses for commercial cookery and that the Port Augusta TAFE had all the facilities there to be able to train in the commercial cookery sector. This person then went to the TAFE at Port Augusta and the response was that this course was no longer available at Port Augusta due to the trainer having left the facility. The only locations that we could have this training was in the Barossa, Regency Park or Port Lincoln. The silly thing about this is that the facilities at Port Augusta are only a few years old and here we are not utilising all these facilities.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr BROCK: The member for Stuart indicates to me that he has the information that it is going to be dismantled. Here we have people looking to be up-skilled or to be retrained, yet they have to travel hundreds of kilometres and also have to stay three or four days a week away from their own home. I ask: how do we train or give unemployed people the chance of a job when they are already struggling to make ends meet? With the opportunities for cooks in the resource sector in the north of the state, it appears to be false economics that we are not utilising facilities and securing people to be trained in these facilities. This issue is a serious one, and I will be collecting the full data and arranging a meeting with the new minister responsible, the Hon. Jack Snelling, to voice my concerns on this issue.

Regional South Australia's health service needs to be maintained at the current level, not only with the services but also with specialist services. We should continue to provide more of these services closer to the people of regional South Australia. We cannot continue to locate these services in Adelaide. It is becoming more difficult for people in regional South Australia to access these services. We have just recently been trying to get renal dialysis machines in Port Pirie—and I congratulated the government. People in my area had to go from Port Pirie to Port Augusta or they had to go from Port Broughton to Clare. Both of these distances do not qualify for the PAT scheme. These people were not only going up there at their own cost three to four times a week but taking five, six or seven hours out of their day three to four times a week. This not only created financial strains on their budgets, but also it was an emotional and physical strain on their wellbeing. Again, I congratulate the government on establishing four units in Port Pirie that will make it easier for the people from Port Pirie to be serviced and also for those at Port Broughton to travel only 30 minutes up the road.

Another concern to me is the road system in regional South Australia. I will mention some roads in my electorate that are getting to the degree that there are many opportunities for an injury whether fatal or long-term. There are many roads in my electorate that have been neglected over many years. Yacka to Clare is a typical example, as is Port Broughton to Bute and then from Bute to Kulpara, which is also in the member for Goyder's area. These are just two of the areas in South Australia that I could mention. We have recently seen that there have been quite a few fatalities on our roads. Whether it is from driver fatigue or road condition, we need to be very serious going forward and ensure that we maintain the best roads and all the rest stops across the whole state.

These roads are also utilised by our transporters, to transport our goods from their home locations to the market. I know for a fact that in Gladstone a new roundabout has just been put in, and this roundabout is well and truly overdue. About $1.7 million has been expended on the roundabout and it will make the intersection far safer for general traffic. However, one of the things that I will be talking to the minister about is that this roundabout has now eliminated or basically destroyed a roadhouse adjacent to it. Transports cannot get into that location any more because of the access coming through.

Also, farm machinery which has to traverse from the north side of that roundabout to the south side on the adjoining properties can no longer get through that roundabout. This double-wheeled farm equipment has to have an access of about 25 feet across, and the intersection has an entrance of 16 feet. It is an absolute nightmare for these people. If they want to get to the south side of Gladstone they now need to go via Caltowie, which adds another 70 kilometres onto their journey. Again, this is an issue that I am getting information on and I will send the documentation through to the Minister for Transport to have it investigated.

We only have to look at the road infrastructure being implemented in the Gawler and Virginia regions, and again I congratulate the government on that. It is absolutely fantastic. It is tremendous activity for people residing in the area. However, I hope that these road infrastructure improvements continue to move north to accommodate the ever-increasing demands from those residing in the north of the state.

I hear that my fellow member alongside of me, the member for Stuart, has been up to the north of South Australia and the Oodnadatta Track and the Birdsville Track. I understand that there has been a fair bit of rain up there, which is great, and those roads also need to be maintained. I will be working very closely with my counterparts adjoining my electorate on both sides to ensure that we all get our fair share of the budget coming forward to at least start the roads in the north of South Australia and regional South Australia. We need to place more money in regional South Australia. I agree that we need to provide the required recreational facilities within the Greater Adelaide area, but we should not forget the people of regional South Australia.

Another area of concern is the current land tax imposition. Whilst I understand that revenue needs to be collected by the state government of the day, I question how the system works. The tax is calculated on the capital value of the land in question. While this is the agreed way to go, there appear to be numerous instances in regional South Australia where, as the developers have established housing estates—and due to the economic situation out there—there are numerous blocks that have been serviced, ready for sale, only now to be unable to attract buyers.

These developers are not only paying council rates on those unsold blocks of land but are also levied land tax each year at the end of June, in some cases in excess of $2,500 per block. This is an area that we need to have a serious look at in regard to ensuring that these developers are not penalised. We understand that when these estates were established the market was very buoyant; currently, it is dying. One of these developers has not sold a block of land for the last 12 months and currently has 22 unsold blocks. Therefore, at 30 June each year he gets a bill for $2,500 per block, which takes away his ability to maintain his profit margin. At the same time, they have also reduced the price to try to expend these, but that has been unsuccessful.

Whilst we need to be very aware of what we have been spending, we must remember to create more employment opportunities and look at the resource sector and the production of not only our food produce but also our export agricultural needs. We need to spend more money on the correct areas to allow this growth to occur.

We need to make sure that our roads are safe and accessible to our rail, which needs to be of top quality. For the ever-growing mines that are emerging in the north and on the West Coast of South Australia, we need to ensure that we have accessible ports to be able to facilitate those products out of South Australia, or they will all go by rail up through Darwin and then be lost to the state.

For each job that we create in this state, one person comes off the social security system. This reduces the budget for the social security system but also creates extra revenue in taxation and spending by the now employed person. This, in turn, creates extra positions in the employment sector to cater for the increased demands. There is an argument that payments for the social security system do not come from state coffers but from the commonwealth; however, this can only be explained by cost shifting.

I am fortunate that my electorate has opportunities for growth in the resource sector of our state, as has the electorate of the member for Stuart; however, if the infrastructure to accommodate this growth is not there, then we all lose. The more assistance we give to areas where people can choose a lifestyle and live will not only assist the issue of the Greater Adelaide plan that we will encounter for the next few years but also help people have a better and healthier life.

I request that regional South Australia not have any further cutbacks. We need to look at where our growth in revenue will come from. Export earnings and royalties will come from regional South Australia. I will work in collaboration with all my other parliamentary colleagues whose electorates adjoin the electorate of Frome to ensure that we all share in the funds being expended by the government of the day.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:03): I rise to speak to the Supply Bill 2010 and, in doing so, indicate that I will be supporting the bill. Obviously, this is necessary each year to keep the wheels of government grinding and, in particular, to fund the Public Service and the services provided to the people of South Australia. This year, of course, it is much larger than we would normally have before us because the Treasurer has decided that he is going to delay the publication of the 2010-11 budget into September and October estimates.

After eight years it seems that he still does not know what to do in relation to the annual budget. As has been indicated to the house, that is particularly disappointing, given that, firstly, he has been doing this for eight years; and, secondly, after the 2006 election, he said that the financial position of the budget was in such disarray he needed to get some help from somebody in Sydney. The health pressures on the budget were so monumental that he needed to bring over an expert. Of course, within nine months he announced a $1.7 billion new hospital in June 2007, so it is hard to rely on anything he says as to the real circumstances.

Over the last two years we have had repeated statements by the Treasurer. When something goes wrong financially the global financial crisis is the problem; when it is something for which he has provided extra funding, it is his good management. This inconsistency is repeated on a daily basis. I am very disappointed, particularly as we have just heard that the Treasurer in Tasmania, which held a state election on the same day, was able to deliver their budget last week. The new Prime Minister in England, within 50 days of a new government—after 11 years of a government of another persuasion—was able to deliver his budget, even in the perilous financial and impecunious circumstances that Britain now faces.

One has to wonder about this, coupled with today's announcement by the Treasurer that he had given inaccurate information to the parliament. This is the first financial officer of the state who, frankly, does not deserve to keep his commission and who in any honourable way would resign, particularly over the acknowledgement today. Other judgments may pass on him, given the pending privileges application before the parliament.

What I want to highlight today is that, although every year governments have the opportunity in their budgets to set priorities, this government has failed repeatedly, and I will highlight a few examples. The people I represent are the people who are the hurt, hungry and homeless in this state. When it comes to the trickle-down and destitute amount of funding that is provided to them, it is shameful of this government that they come into this parliament and pretend to give a tinker's curse about the most vulnerable, the most poor and the most disadvantaged when they indicate their priorities.

Let us be clear: we have a $14 billion to $15 billion annual budget in this state. The government announced last year that it would set a task force in place to ensure that we cut back budgets, with the aim of saving some $750 million. Its gazetted financial quarterly figures as of 31 March 2010 tell us that the tax collections for that nine month period will be $2.5 billion, which is $200 million more net than it had last year. That ought to tell us that the government is swimming in money.

I will highlight a few items in relation to the government's priorities. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital at the other end of North Terrace is under extraordinary financial pressure at the moment. I suspect we are going to end up with a skeletal hospital by 2016—if it is ever built—with far fewer services and a lot more money.

The opposition has put up an alternative, reasoned submission to the government over the last few years, but the government has rejected it and said that it will go ahead and build this great monument to the Premier down at the other end of North Terrace. I think it is a scandalous waste of money. Although we have an opportunity to rebuild and reinstate our premier hospital, our primary and tertiary hospital in the state, saving close to $1 billion, they want to recklessly proceed with a new hospital.

Another example is the future costs of the Film Corporation redevelopment at Glenside Hospital. We have seen what I think is indignity toward the people who are underprivileged in this state—that is, the government, and particularly the Premier, announcing that they are going to spend $43 million to redevelop a new home in the middle of the Glenside Hospital site and flog off 41 per cent of the rest of the site, which the Treasurer claims is necessary to fund a new hospital in that corner of the remaining property.

In addition, the Premier, out of his budget, paid $2.5 million to buy the 2.5 hectares in the middle of the Glenside site. What is interesting is that the information now available on the website of the builder of the $43 million new house and redevelopment for the Film Corporation, Hansen Yuncken, shows that additional expenditure beyond the $43 million is already budgeted and will be required to completely renovate these heritage buildings. Hansen Yuncken's website states:

Part of this building [the main building]…will be upgraded for lease to businesses related to the screen and film industry. The balance of this building may be upgraded at another time with separate funding subject to screen and film industry future leasing interest. Other heritage buildings…in the Precinct are intended to be adapted at a later date.

Even Hansen Yuncken know what is going on. We are, of course, going to have to wait until September to see what extra funds the government is going to allocate for the new headquarters for the SA Film Corporation. Of course, if you look at the SA Film Corporation financials you will not have a clue what is going on there, because it has not even, through the Premier, tabled its 2009 annual report, which of course is accountable for the millions that this parliament allocates to it to maintain.

So we are all kept in the dark. It seems the builders know what is going on. At least they have put that on their website. Now it is time for the Premier, and the Treasurer of course, to come clean. I just want to place on the record that, although members will recall that at the time last year the Premier had fast-tracked his new home for the Film Corporation, clearly there was an intention to spend further money. Yet the patients, the families, and the staff who are involved with the mental health system must be sickened by the priorities of this government.

Just let me give another small example. Flush with money, as we now clearly understand, the Treasurer came out with his proposal recently that the government is going to add another $85 million for the proposed redevelopment and building of a stadium complex at the site of the SA Cricket Association. That is under an umbrella, of course, and we have heard all the comments about 'not a penny more'; 'not a cent more', etc., in relation to an original proposal that we heard about during the election campaign.

I am mindful of the great quote of Joseph Kennedy when I hear the Treasurer run out with these statements about his promises about what is going to be spent and what is not going to be spent. Joseph Kennedy was once asked, 'What would you spend, Mr Kennedy, to put your son in the White House?' He said, 'Whatever it takes and not a penny less.' That is what we heard from the Treasurer before the election: 'Whatever it takes to win this election and not a penny less.'

The difference is this: Joseph Kennedy was talking about his money, that of a prestigious family in the political history of the United States, a very wealthy family. It is up to him; that is his money, but the Treasurer, the man under a cloud in this parliament now, is spending our money. It is our money that we have put together in taxes to ensure that it is equitably distributed for the important services to the state.

He attempts to spend even another $85 million on this, when he stands here in the parliament and tells us that he is not even going to save the oval at the Glenside Hospital campus for the children to play on, for the activities of the local community, for walking dogs, for dog training, for Cricket Association activities, and for the children in neighbouring schools to use, not to mention for the open space that is precious to the patients. We have heard in select committee inquiry that it is necessary for the proper treatment and healing of those patients.

He stands here in the parliament and says 'No, no, no; we cannot afford this. I have to sell that piece off. I am going to sell it to the Chapley family. I am going to sell the other half off for private housing, because we cannot afford to build the mental health hospital and drug facility in the corner unless I sell this off.' Yet he has another $85 million extra to be able to provide a stadium. So I ask about the priorities of the Treasurer, when there is a complete abandonment of children, of the mentally unwell, of the vulnerable and the helpless and of the homeless. He is into supermarkets and private housing and selling off assets when he is flush with money, according to his own gazetted records. Here we have the priorities yet again exposed.

An extraordinary amount of stamp duty has been highlighted in this gazetted report, and even land tax is flushing into the government and making it awash with money. Just before the election I was out at the state seat of Light. I was approached by someone who had a concern about a stamp duty payment that she had been required by the stamp duties office to pay in respect of a property in which she had no legal title and for which she would have had to pay over $1,000 dollars in stamp duty.

Oh, oh! The Treasurer then has to recognise that he has made a mistake, and the department has to refund it to her. But, instead of having the decency, even at this lowest level—the poorest people who cannot even afford to buy into bonds or housing or purchase their own properties; they have to apply for and seek the opportunity of a shelter by using a tenancy arrangement, the lowest level of security in accommodation for aged people—he does not even have the decency to say 'Look, I am sorry about this.'

He says, 'We'll give you an ex gratia payment' and sends her a letter as an ex gratia payment. There was no big media release on that. There was no big acknowledgement to other people who might have been caught by this attempt to grab all the taxes and put them into the coffers. The Premier and the Treasurer, in cahoots, have already outlined in their announcements their commitment to provide the big and boastful proposals, and yet they squander their responsibility in respect of those who need assistance.

To put this in some order of priority of what is needed, I do not need to go any further than Monsignor Cappo, when he recently said that the government gets one out of 10 for its actioning of programs for dealing with children—and teenage children, in particular—who are involved in crime. Some of these children are, of course, under the guardianship of the Minister for Families and Communities and some are at large and homeless, but they have been the subject of a specific inquiry of Monsignor Cappo and have generally been described as the gang of 49. It actually refers to a number of children in our state who are obviously vulnerable and at risk themselves but, it appears, are causing harm to others.

The government is quite happy to pay Monsignor Cappo $100,000 a year—he only has to work for six months of the year to get that, and he might be doing a good job; some may judge that as being effective—but even he comes out and says that the government's attention to this issue gets a one out of 10.

I just want to highlight my concern about why that is also haemorrhaging in the sense of any capacity to bring those children to the point where they will be productive members of the community. It is the government's great initiative to now exclude children under 15 from the homeless statistics. I think that is not only a dishonest attempt to conceal the real level of homelessness in our community but they are all to be treated as potential child protection clients of the government and not homeless children, even if they are homeless. It is not my assessment. I note that the Guardian for Children, Ms Simmons, in her annual report to the parliament last year expressed her direct concern about this.

The government's attempt to deal with matters when it does not reach a target or when the trend is going the wrong way is to simply change the rules. So, in this instance, they just cut out the under 15 year olds, and the children who are aged 12 to 15 just do not count any more. That might artificially suppress the embarrassing figures for homelessness for this state, but it does not address the problem, and even Monsignor Cappo—the government's own appointed adviser—has expressed his disappointment.

Also in regard to homelessness, I will mention that there is another extraordinary level of responsibility that the government has in respect of affordable housing for the community generally. I just want to touch on homelessness because, obviously, those who sleep rough are those who are at the acute end, and there is significant media coverage on this. I just want to say that non-government organisations work hard to provide shelter, comfort and support to those in a homeless situation, and St Vincent de Paul is one organisation I want to particularly acknowledge today. Many of you know that St Vincent de Paul has provided services for men for nearly 40 years at the Hutt Street facility, but they provide many other services.

Senator Don Farrell and I were both committed (and we publicly announced it, even though we are on different sides of politics) to supporting the recent sleep-out at the Zoo. I want to say that I appreciate Senator Farrell's support. He does live in my electorate, but I absolutely guarantee that he does not vote for me. However, he is prepared to at least line up and be the first donor. A number of members of parliament, including cabinet members and members of the government party, were supportive of that, and I thank them. I have thanked them individually, but I wish to acknowledge it publicly.

There were probably quite a number of donors from the other side of politics because they wanted me to freeze to death, but I am living proof that you can survive at the Zoo on a mattress. I recognise that there are a couple of other members who may also speak on this matter.

There are statewide issues that do not necessarily have a level of direct vulnerability at the end of the chain. When governments stuff up the management of money, it leaves less for those who need it at the end of the chain. Electricity and water, which are critical to our survival and advancement, let alone our economic health, directly affect the poor and vulnerable because prices go up.

The government has announced that it will build a desalination plant and that it will double its capacity if and when it ever gets the money from Senator Wong. I think she is in a bit of a time shift at the moment about whether or not she will give it. The government wants to spend close to $1 billion to provide security of water for Adelaide. That may or may not be a good project. We actually suggested that it needs to at least have an initial project. The federal government has come in with the money, but only if it sorts out the detail of what the conditions will be on which we will get it.

When the government announced in 2007, through former minister Karlene Maywald, that it was going to build a pipeline between the reservoirs that service urban Adelaide (a $403 million project) there was a huge public outcry about some of the disturbance that would cause. Late last year, minister Maywald announced that she was still going to spend over $400 million but that they would dig up parts of the existing pipeline and put in a whole lot of new pumping stations, which she said were necessary given the expansion of the project and given that the production and capacity of the desal plant would be double the size and, therefore, it needed to be transferred.

The eastern area of South Australia, and a number of coalition councils, including Burnside, Norwood, Walkerville and the like, put together a submission for the government which said, 'With some commonwealth funding and us putting in a large amount of money, the balance of a $35 million water project for the whole of that eastern area to reduce the reliance on the River Murray and the resource, we need $6 million.' Do you know what the Treasurer said? He has just recently advised, 'No, you are not getting the $6 million.'

He has $403 million to put a pipe between two reservoirs, which at this stage—even though I have had a briefing from SA Water—I am not satisfied is even necessary. Already there has been an announced $30 million for the design of the requirement to facilitate that, and yet he does not have a paltry $6 million to make sure that we reduce what is critical: the water reliance for South Australia.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:23): I wish to speak to the Supply Bill, which demonstrates this government's continued disregard and responsibility for regional South Australia. How many times does this government need to be reminded that this state extends beyond the boundaries of metropolitan Adelaide? How many times does this government have to be reminded that the rural sector is a major contributor to the state's exports and economy? How many more excuses is this government going to make for its neglect of regional South Australia?

I refer specifically to regional health and particularly the unacceptable delay in the redevelopment of the Berri Hospital. Since this government came to office, regional health services have continued to decline. The people in regional South Australia have few doctors and fewer facilities, and many of them are outdated and run down. People living in regional South Australia are forced to travel great distances to Adelaide to obtain the sort of specialist medical care that used to be available locally. So, it was with some relief that the people of the Riverland welcomed the announcement of a $41 million redevelopment of the Berri Hospital. This redevelopment was to have commenced in June 2009 and was due to be completed in June 2011. It is now May 2010 and not a sod of ground has been turned, not a single brick has been laid.

We now learn that this government intends to complete the redevelopment of the Berri Hospital in 2014, yet we have heard no reasonable explanation for this three year delay. Labor's candidate for Chaffey certainly tried to explain during the election campaign and his claim was that it was due to the global financial crisis. It was a convenient excuse but since the Premier's friends in Canberra have bailed him out with an extra $1.2 billion this year alone it is a transparently poor excuse.

Either the government's well-noted skill in spinning a good excuse for a broken promise is slipping or it has decided that the population in the Riverland is not worth the effort. Perhaps it is because health spending by Labor is so out of control that it is beyond the control of the spinners in the Premier's media unit.

In the three years to June 2009, the health department overspent its budget by a total of $308 million. SA Health is on target for a $76 million overspend in 2009-10 and a projected $318 million overspend over the next four years. I can only hope that the Berri Hospital does not get overlooked again but I cannot be confident that it will not be delayed once more. Why would the Premier care, since he once told me that Labor would never win the seat of Chaffey and he could, therefore, see no point in doing anything for the people there?

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, shame! In Chaffey we can see the results of that neglect. If this government was as serious about water security as it claims to be, Chaffey would not be suffering the deep economic hardship that it is today. Water security is of paramount importance to South Australia but this government is failing to deliver in both Adelaide and regional areas.

Water users are already paying more than twice as much for their water than they did before this government took office. Water bills have increased by 113 per cent. The government has announced that water charges per kilolitre will increase by a whopping 32 per cent from 1 July this year. It says that these enormous price increases are needed to pay for the desal plant but a lot of water price revenue goes to general budget revenue with little transparency.

The government will reap well over $200 million from SA Water this year. It has stripped more than $2 billion since 2002-03 but little has been spent on water infrastructure. The government is siphoning money out of SA Water unsustainably which is preventing SA Water from undertaking infrastructure projects that will truly guarantee our water security.

The state Liberals proposed the desal plant to enhance the state's water security but, in Labor's hands, it does not appear to be doing much at all. In particular, while the desal plant is supposedly reducing Adelaide's reliance on the River Murray, it is not going to manifest itself until 2050. There is little of the necessary diversity in water supply which will truly enhance water security in South Australia.

The state Liberals have shown the way forward with water. We have shown the way forward with a stormwater initiative which would supply one-third of Adelaide's water needs. If only this government had the will. It was the Liberals who demanded that all Murray-Darling Basin states hand over the constitutional powers to the commonwealth so that one single body can control the basin's water resources for the benefit of the nation as a whole.

Meanwhile, where is the joy for the irrigators in Chaffey who supply the state with fresh local produce and much needed export income? Not only are their livelihoods at risk from the federal government's proposed plan for the Murray-Darling Basin but this state government is rapidly gutting funding from primary industries. It is a process that has been happening for years under Labor. I understand that another $22 million is to be cut from the Department of Primary Industries this year and that the government's drought response team is being scaled back. How are farmers and irrigators supposed to trust this government any more?

Irrigators remain on a 62 per cent water allocation while their interstate counterparts are rapaciously harvesting floodwaters that should be flowing into South Australia. Dryland farmers in the Mallee have lost income, thanks to the government's poor response to the worst locust plague in 10 years, and now PIRSA funding has been cut again. Drought response funding is being cut while the Riverland and the Murray-Mallee remain drought-declared.

The way this is going one day there will be no fresh local food produced on the Murray, there will be no more fresh food exports, there will be no more viticulture, no more horticulture, perhaps no more agriculture, no more rural culture. There will just be mines—and we all know that we cannot eat iron ore or uranium—and maybe not even those, if our federal government has not scared off the miners with its new super profit tax or if our state Treasurer has not scared them off with his plans to double royalties.

I hope this government knows where it is going to site all the new Centrelink offices for the many regional people forced out of work and forced to move to Adelaide because their rural communities have died from neglect and from this government's inability to secure a fair water deal for the state. So much for the Premier's election campaign grandstanding on securing floodwaters for South Australia. So much for the 'historic water agreements', which appear not to be worth the paper they are written on, if the Premier's plan to challenge upstream states over their water rights is anything to go by. So much for this government's pledge to reconnect with regional South Australia. It is time for the Premier to make good on his pledge and visit Chaffey—it has been 926 days since he formally visited the region of Chaffey—because, if he did, he might get a glimpse of the effects of the real economic crisis and understand the impact of his government's neglect.

I fear this whole state is heading for an economic crisis, thanks to the Rann government. We have had record revenue growth from the GST, we are the highest taxed state in the nation, yet we have not seen much in the way of infrastructure. All we see is profligate spending that is rapidly spiralling out of control. Government debt will soon reach $6.8 billion. The Premier and the Treasurer have put South Australia in a position where it is paying $1 million per day, increasing to $2 million per day, in interest payments on Labor's debt. We will probably be paying this debt off for decades. Furthermore, while regional South Australians pay their fair share of the state's high taxes they are not seeing their fair share of the state's spending. This is the situation in health and education, roads and other infrastructure, and in primary industries spending.

This government conveniently forgets the tremendous contribution made to the state's economy by the rural sector. It talks about a world-leading wine export industry continuing to generate international recognition and export income, yet we have not heard a word from the government about addressing the enormous difficulties currently being faced by wine grape-growers and their industry. Their contribution to the Riverland economy alone has fallen by 70 per cent.

I should not need to remind the house that the Riverland is the engine of the state's wine industry. That engine is very much in need of a service, yet nothing is being done. It is all too typical of this city-centric government to neglect primary producers. This government wants to increase the state's population to two million people by 2050; how does it expect to feed them?

Labor's credentials with primary producers are at an all-time low, but Labor's reaction to this has been resoundingly negative rather than positive. Instead of doing what it must to restore rural trust in the state government by investing more funds and effort in the rural sector, by recognising and growing its contribution to the economy, and by ensuring the federal government's water plan does not cripple irrigators and their capacity to produce food, it ignores them.

We are sick of the excuses. From 2008-09 to 2009-10, the commonwealth grants to South Australia increased by $8.45 billion. This has made the Rann government far better off in terms of net revenue. This bonus revenue should free up much-needed funds for the neglected rural sector, for the neglected regional health, for the neglected regional education, and for the neglected regional infrastructure. Let's have no more flimsy Labor excuses, like budget black holes and huge revenue losses. The South Australian public is not going to be missiled by this government for much longer.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Be what? I didn't quite get that.

Mr WHETSTONE: It's called misled. Regional South Australia will not tolerate being ignored by this government for much longer.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:35): I indicate that I will be supporting the Supply Bill, and of course we are here to debate the allocation of $5.2 billion to keep the government going until September when the actual budget will be delivered.

For me, coming to this place as a new member, I find the whole process quite unusual. In most places where business is conducted and financial transactions are made, if one is going to make a budget for the financial year to come, one of course puts that budget in place before the financial year begins. Apparently, in this place, however, we need 180 days from election day to budget day on 16 September.

It has already been noted by a number of other speakers that in the UK an entire change of government with an entire new set of policies was able to take place within five weeks. However, where we have had a government that has been in power since March 2002 up until the election in March 2010, apparently the training wheels are still on and we need 180 days to prepare a budget based on the plans that this government has had in place for a long time and the election promises that they made in March this year.

I just want to reflect on the broader scope of the state budget first before going into some concerns that are very potent in the electorate of Morialta. The state budget in South Australia has grown from $8.4 billion in 2001-02 to $15.05 billion this year. It has nearly doubled. In fact, if a similar bill to the one we are debating today were to be debated in 2001, and we asked for $5 billion to keep the government going, the government could have waited until March the following year before having to deliver a budget and ask for new money because of the extraordinary rise in the amount of money flowing through the coffers of the South Australian Public Service.

'Where has that money gone?' was a constant refrain in my ears during the election campaign. If we have $7 billion more—nearly a doubling in the size of the state budget in the last eight years—where are the extra services? Where are the extra teachers? Where is the extra support for disabled people in South Australia? Where is the extra infrastructure for our water security needs? The answer, of course, is that this government has failed dismally over eight years to provide for this infrastructure and these front-line services for the South Australian people.

We have almost 2,000 fewer public teachers now than we had in 2002, yet we have 10,800 extra public servants above budget costing $700 million per year. They are not teachers. They are not policemen. They are not doctors and nurses, and they are not disability support workers. We have 10,800 above budget public servants costing $700 million per year and a budget that has blown out beyond all recognition because this government has no fiscal discipline at all, as we have seen this morning. Apparently, the Treasurer thought that discussions saying that $450 million would not be nearly enough to cover the cost of Adelaide Oval slipped his memory, of all things. This is the sort of fiscal discipline that this state is benefiting from under this government.

In 2002, South Australia had 7 per cent of national business investment. This has slipped to 5.3 per cent now, and it is not surprising given the extraordinary amount of tax that businesses in South Australia are forced to pay. The Institute of Public Affairs recently did a study, which found that South Australia's business tax liability is 69 per cent above the national average and a staggering 536 per cent above the tax liability faced by businesses in Western Australia.

Is it any surprise that businesses, when given the choice, would set up shop interstate rather than in South Australia? Is it any surprise that competitive tenders for South Australian government projects and infrastructure builds are being won by interstate companies, which do not face this incredibly stifling tax regime imposed on them by the South Australian government?

This, of course, has a direct influence on the capacity of the South Australian budget to pay for the government's extravagant spending. Taxes go higher to pay for the government spending out of control. However, I am pleased to note that this government does have a solution; it is, in fact, looking at ways in which to fix it. The government has instituted something called the Public Sector Performance Commission, which is designed to increase efficiency in the Public Service.

I see that in yesterday's Advertiser this issue got some mention, because it is a very important initiative, which, no doubt, will seek to bring the extravagant spending of this government under control. It took $5.5 million to establish the commission. Documents found under FOI by Robert Brokenshire, a member of the Legislative Council, indicate that it costs $2.7 million per year, including $1.6 million in salaries for the commission's 15 staff, plus up to seven other public servants being seconded at times.

The point is that this body is supposed to find ways of making the Public Service run more efficiently, yet it has achieved nothing other than incurring an extra expense. We see that a former adviser to the Premier, who was also the Labor candidate for Sturt at the 1998 election, has had his salary increased substantially. I am sure it is a very important job that he is seeking to do and, if it was being done well, I would commend that. However, I am yet to see the advantage of the Public Sector Performance Commission, and I am yet to see its achievements. I am very concerned that it is just more waste and more bureaucracy delivered by this government.

The Treasurer, under this bill, has until 16 September to come up with his budget, which is fine. Public servants need to be paid and they need to continue to perform their duties, so we support this bill. So, the Treasurer has until 16 September to come up with the budget, and there is some good news about that, because it gives us an opportunity to raise some important issues in the seat of Morialta that warrant some attention in this budget, and I will seek to do that now—to bring these matters to the Treasurer's attention to help him out in preparing his budget.

First, I raise the issue that was the most important issue across South Australia during the state election campaign, and I hope that it will be an important issue in the federal campaign and that it will deliver the same sort of results in Adelaide seats as it did in the state campaign: water. Even allowing for the government's scepticism—I dare to say Luddism—about stormwater harvesting, there is an opportunity for SA Water to make significant water savings by capturing stormwater to provide a secondary water source for councils in the eastern regions of Adelaide, including Campbelltown and Burnside councils in the Morialta electorate, plus the Norwood Payneham and St Peters, Tea Tree Gully, Prospect, Unley and Walkerville councils, which have come together to form the Eastern Regional Alliance.

The Eastern Regional Alliance has done some excellent work, particularly given that I know how hard it can be for councils to come together to achieve these things, to put together a fantastic project that would cost $33 million and take three years to complete, but eventually it would collect 1.5 billion litres of stormwater a year. This would irrigate local parks and ovals and, importantly, it be would be water that is not currently in the system that would be put into the system. So, SA Water would have 1.5 billion litres of water a year that could then go to critical human needs. The councils, of course, would then pay less for their water, which would deliver excellent results to ratepayers across the Adelaide metropolitan area and result in 1.5 billion litres of water that would not need to be drawn from the Murray.

The councils did not just go cap in hand: they put up more than half of the cost of this project themselves, that is, $17 million. I dread to think about the negotiations that must have taken place between the seven councils to work out how much each would contribute, and it is a remarkable job that they have come up with $17 million. We hope that the federal government will come to the party with $10 million. All that was requested from the state government was $6 million to deliver this thoroughly important stormwater infrastructure resource for the Adelaide metropolitan area. The East Torrens Messenger of 16 June states:

In a May letter, seen by The East Torrens Messenger, Treasurer Kevin Foley told the ERA the government did not have funds available to support the water-saving initiative.

The Treasurer said that the government did not have the funds to support this water-saving initiative. I will just put that into context. This is a $6 million state government investment that would have helped save 1.5 billion litres of storm water a year—for $6 million. I will not go into mathematics; it is not my strong suit, but it is 1.5 billion litres of stormwater a year for $6 million, and the government says it does not have enough money.

Apparently, the government has $85 million to cover increases in Adelaide Oval expenses—well above the budget, well above the election promise that was supposedly not a cent more—but it does not have $6 million for 1.5 billion litres of water. It does not make sense to me, and it will not make sense to the residents of the eastern suburbs and, in particular, the constituents of the electorate of Morialta. I suggest that the Treasurer urgently reconsiders this decision in the framing of this year's budget.

Also important to the residents and constituents in the seat of Morialta are quality of life issues, and part of that is open space. We have already seen this government's attack on open space in the eastern suburbs. We have seen this government's almost seeming addiction to selling off land for more housing, so that they can meet their population targets that seem arbitrarily set and based on headlines and media releases, not on the idea of what would be a sustainable population for the eastern suburbs, what our infrastructure needs and abilities are. We have seen this through the current story, which, of course, is the Black Hill Pony Club, about which I will have more to say at another time. The point is this: the government has decided that it will knock down the Magill Training Centre, build a new facility for youth offenders at Cavan, and sell that land for housing.

I am thoroughly in support of the government's decision to knock down the Magill Training Centre. The Magill Training Centre has been a disgrace, a blot on South Australia's international reputation for far too long. This is an issue that I have been passionate about for years, and I have written in The Advertiser and other places about it. The fact is that the government budgeted to build a new centre that would meet human rights minimum conditions. It was this government that, during the height of the global financial crisis, when the idea was that we were supposedly headed towards a recession, said there was not enough money to meet our international human rights obligations and build a new centre; so, they took it off the agenda.

They then reintroduced it under political pressure from the opposition and from all sorts of other people in the community, not the least of which was the UN, but only on the basis that, because there were rough economic times and we might be heading towards recession, it had to be paid for out of the land sell at Magill (or Woodforde, which is the suburb that it is actually in). For me, this is a false nexus. This is an inappropriate way to develop corrections policy. We should not be basing what we as a state need to do for our young offenders on the value of land on which an old, historically donated corrections centre happened to be built. And it hurts our local community even more than this.

I bring to the attention of the member for Hartley the fact that the part of the Black Hill Pony Club land is on the same title as the Magill Training Centre. It is on this basis that the government seeks to sell their land, and it is for this reason that the hundreds and hundreds of members of the Black Hill Pony Club—many of them kids who get the opportunity to use the club at a subsidised rate, many from single parent families—will be unable to do so because their land will be sold off from under them.

It affects the member for Hartley, and I urge her to raise this in cabinet. We have a petition that will be lodged in the house this week with over 3,000 signatures on it from local residents concerned about this loss of open space, this loss of quality of life, this loss of a community facility that is terribly important. Hundreds of those signatures are from the member for Hartley's constituency.

Further, in relation to open space the state government did a deal—I suppose that is the best way to put it—with the Campbelltown council several years ago to fix up Thorndon Park, and in so doing—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Morialta, I am probably being a little pedantic here but, under standing order 127, you cannot impute an improper motive to a member. When you say 'did a deal' I think you, as well as I, understand what that implies. I ask you to regulate your language in this instance, please.

Mr GARDNER: Certainly, I apologise. I meant no ill imputation. The state government agreed with the Campbelltown council that the state government would fix up Thorndon Park—it was a good thing to do—in return for some of the Thorndon Park land being sold off for housing. A large slab of Thorndon Park was sold off for housing and it met the cost of that project but, apparently, there is an outstanding debt of some $700,000 that the state government is holding over the Campbelltown council. The plan is still on the books to sell more land for housing.

This issue arose during the election campaign. Both my opponent and I were asked about it in a debate at the Campbelltown Community Centre and we both agreed that it was improper for the sale to go ahead. The land sale that has already occurred was done in a manner that befitted the park and it did not end in the loss of too much space, but to create four more houses in the remainder of Thorndon Park would actually be a major blight on the park, so I urge the government to write off that debt to the Campbelltown council.

In the short time remaining to me I will comment on some other issues of great concern that were raised prior to the election. I know they were of concern to all my constituents because they were also of concern to the former member for Morialta prior to the last election.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A very hardworking member.

Mr GARDNER: She was a hardworking member and she certainly had her finger on the pulse in relation to a number of local issues. My issue when running against her was never with her but, rather, her government.

The first issue relates to the Athelstone Country Fire Service siren, which was a big issue in the eastern suburbs. Some members of the local community were very concerned to wake up one morning in December to find that during the night there had been a fire within 50 metres of their house that could have ended in utter disaster. There was no siren to warn them about it. It was something to which the Liberal Party specifically committed in the election campaign. I had correspondence with the Minister for Emergency Services about this issue and he wrote to me last week, advising that the government was still looking at it.

I draw to the attention of members an article in the East Torrens Messenger of 3 March. It states:

Morialta MP (Labor) Lindsay Simmons said the siren was needed to warn locals and give them time to pack up their valuables and leave the area. 'It gives people the option to take control over their lives…whether it be to turn on their sprinkler system, whether to evacuate children, old people and pets…at least they've got some choices if they know there is a bushfire there'.

This is an issue I picked up when doorknocking and I convinced the Liberal Party to commit to. The Messenger reported that, whoever got into government, residents would get a siren. The headline is 'Residents to get siren'. I urge the government to actually deliver on that promise made by the former member.

In the East Torrens Messenger of 10 March, an article titled 'Gorge Road on an election win' states:

Gorge Road will be resurfaced regardless of who wins the state election. Both Morialta Labor MP Lindsay Simmons and the Liberal candidate John Gardner have vowed to upgrade the dangerous Gorge Road…Ms Simmons said the road was in a poor state because it had been 'patched up' over the years rather than completely resurfaced.

Gorge Road is an important road in the electorate of Morialta. It is our most significant commuter road. It is a South Australian government road. The Tour Down Under goes over it every year, and every year when those cyclists with their million dollar bikes and their million dollar personal insurance policies travel along the road I go with my heart in my mouth waiting for one of them to hit one of the potholes, one of the bumps, one of the little hills, one of the extraordinary traffic difficulties. Fortunately, it has not happened, but it is only a matter of time.

As the former Labor member said, it is in a poor state because it has only been patched up over the years. It is a very important road. The Liberal Party again was happy to commit $7.5 million to fixing it up, as is appropriate, and I urge the government to follow suit. As a matter of routine maintenance, it would be nice to resurface that road as it is clearly needed.

Finally, in the very limited time available, I bring to the attention of the house another roads issue: traffic lights that are needed at the St Francis of Assisi church corner, at Newton Road and Graves Street, which many members would be familiar with. It is a very important corner and hub for the community: 10,000 people go there for the Montevergine Festa every year and for many other festas throughout the year. During the election campaign on 3 March, again a letter was sent from the former member to all residents of Newton saying that it would be fixed with traffic lights, and I urge the government to do so.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:56): I rise today to acknowledge the debate on the Supply Bill 2010 and note that we on this side of the house are supporting it. It is extraordinary that we have to approve over $5 billion of funding because the Treasurer does not have his act together, quite frankly. We noticed earlier today where the Treasurer has not got his act together, has memory lapses, is not the sharpest tool in the shed, by his own admission in this place, and it is worrying that the state's finances are in this man's hands, quite frankly—very worrying.

We have seen budget increases in South Australia from around $8 billion per annum when we were in office to where we are getting very close to $15 billion budgets per annum under the current government. It is interesting to note that, while there has been record revenue growth from the goods and services tax and high state government taxes (and South Australia has been recognised as the highest taxing state government in the country), South Australians are wondering where the money has gone, where is the infrastructure, where is the build to match what is going on with record revenue receipts.

The reason we have nothing to show for this record increase in revenue is that the Rann/Foley Labor government has put South Australia in a position where we are paying $1 million, increasing to $2 million, per day in interest payments on Labor's debt, debt that is funding this government's everyday expenses. An amount of $1 million per day in interest payments is what South Australians were paying when the previous state Labor government bankrupted the state, and here we go again. Government debt looks like it will soon hit $6.8 billion. If it was not for the fact of the GST receipts coming in from the federal government and an extra $1.2 billion in extra funding this year above what was provided last year, the financial position looked over by Labor would be worse in this state.

Also it is noted that Labor will reap an extra $591 million in state taxation revenue over the next four years, including an extra $156 million in land tax revenue above what was budgeted seven months ago. Health budgets continue with blowouts exceeding $300 million over the forward estimates—more mismanagement over time. Then we get to the Labor government's Adelaide Oval patch-up plan, which is all it is—a patch-up plan. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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