SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:15): In my remarks earlier today on the Supply Bill, I indicated that we, on this side of the house, support the bill. I was discussing the Labor government's Adelaide Oval 'patch up' plan and, if this proposal goes ahead, I believe it will give us a facility that will be 30 years out of date before it is constructed. When the Liberals went to the election, we had a far better plan to build a covered stadium (a full entertainment precinct) on the rail yard site. Suddenly, the Labor Party went into overdrive—'What are we going to do? We have to do something to match this'—because we had the best proposal and they saw that. They saw that Adelaide and South Australians were invigorated by the proposal we put up for the entertainment precinct, including a covered stadium on the rail yards, which tied in also with rebuilding the Adelaide Hospital at its current location. From memory, on Adelaidenow, 83 per cent of people who logged on indicated their support for our plan. So desperate measures were undertaken.

The Labor Party rounded up a few people to come over for a big announcement. Sadly, if the government's plan goes into play, Adelaide and South Australia will be short-changing themselves because, as I said, it will be 30 years out of date before the upgrade on the Adelaide Oval has started and, after seeing the western grandstand going up, it will destroy the iconic nature of the ground. In saying that, I reflect on what happened when retractable light towers were put in. The light towers that are there now bear nothing to what will happen if Labor, by some miracle—and I say that because I don't believe cricket and football will come on side by the end of August—move this project ahead. It will be a great shame not just for Adelaide but this state because we could have built an iconic covered stadium for multiuse events and use it all year in conjunction with the Adelaide Oval for cricket, etc. The costings of this have been quite interesting, and it is interesting that the Treasurer has faced a barrage of questions not only today but other days on what he knew about the costings and how accurate these costings were.

The Labor government went to the people on 20 March saying that it was $450 million and not a cent more for the stadium. Then it came out that it was $535 million, and $85 million of that is to help the South Australian Cricket Association out with a debt problem. 'We will leave out the $38 million footbridge and we will get someone else to build a $35 million car park.' This plan has so many holes in it. I believe that it will blow out well over $700 million, and possibly as high as $800 million or $900 million, when we on this side of the house put up a proposal for a covered stadium, fully costed at $800 million. So, it will be sad if it goes ahead.

As the leader on this side of the house has said, she would congratulate the government if it went ahead with our plan, but we will see what happens. I think we will still have the chance to build the covered stadium. It is interesting to note that there is no rock solid guarantee that the commonwealth will kick in any funding for this proposal.

I also want to make the comment that the government's Sustainable Budget Commission that has been tasked with fixing the state budget has, ironically, exceeded its budget significantly and will cost the taxpayer an additional $2.5 million over the next two years. If the commission cannot stick to its own budget, how is it supposed to fix it for the whole state?

I will make some comments about the fiscal position and outlook from the Mid-Year Budget Review. For the 2009-10 budget, there are deficits in all three accounting measures: the net lending deficit, the cash deficit and the net operating deficit. The net lending deficit is $1,551 million; the cash deficit is $1,654 million and the net operating deficit is $174 million. It is interesting to note that the revenues in the state have increased by $606 million since the 2009-10 budget was delivered, but spending has also increased by $476 million.

Despite the downturn, revenue income increased by $1.5 billion from 2008-09 to 2009-10 due to the bailouts from the Rudd Labor government. We note that spending has also increased by $1.5 billion in the same period. This signifies that the government, in the eight years it has been in government, has been unable to control its spending, going over budget by a total of $2.9 billion since 2002-03.

Spending blowouts and not falls in revenue are the reason that the government's budget has slumped into deficit. As I and other people have said in here before, the interest bill that the government is paying is close to running out to $2 million a day, which I believe surpasses even the infamous State Bank debt.

I will just comment on land tax. It is interesting that the Labor Party would not have gone near land tax. In fact, the Treasurer has talked about it in this place when discussing bills. He has made it feel like you are part of some wealthy blue ribbon elite set if you are paying land tax. I have certainly spoken about this issue in this place before. The Treasurer does not understand that people are paying land tax because they have invested in property for their superannuation. Whether it be migrants who came out here in the 1950s or 1960s, people who have built this state and nation, or whether it is people who have done well in business and want to make a future for their family, they have invested in property or housing to make money.

The Treasurer scoffs and says, 'If they don't want to pay land tax, they can sell it.' That is not the point. That is absolutely not the point. It is interesting that, when we came out with land tax cuts prior to the election, Labor came out with the same proposal. It did increase it slightly, and we immediately matched it, because if the money was there for them it would be there for us. Thankfully, that legislation is going through the parliament, and that will help out many thousands of people paying land tax.

It is interesting to note that GST revenue has increased markedly over time as well, but still we do not have enough money in the coffers. I mention briefly the Adelaide Hospital, and it horrifies me that we will spoil the opportunity to built a decent entertainment precinct in the rail yards instead of rebuilding most parts of the Royal Adelaide Hospital where it stands and save $1 billion that could be transferred back through to Country Health and other metropolitan hospitals, and make far better use of the moneys so that other health services could access some of that money that Labor is going to spend (the $1.7 billion) on the rail yards hospital.

I also mention the desalination plant, which at $1.8 billion is just an unbelievable amount of money. If Labor had acted when we brought out the policy in 2007, I am sure it could have saved at least 40 per cent of that costing if it had got on with the job of building a desalination plant back then.

We have all the discussion at the moment, not just in this state but throughout the Murray-Darling Basin, on sustainable diversion limits, and it is a very big issue, not just for this state but for all states involved along the Murray. Water will come from irrigators. There is talk, and Senator Penny Wong had it in the weekend's papers, that they will put pressure on Adelaide's licence. I was of the understanding (but you learn something new every day) that critical human needs licences may not be pressured for cuts.

It seems ridiculous that, from what I can gather, when the desalination plant in Adelaide is running and if there is plenty of water in the Murray, they will switch it off. As a businessman, I cannot see that that makes good business sense. If we are paying the water rates, which we will be, to pay for this plant, then that plant should be running.

We are told by the Premier that it is on 100 per cent green power. He must think that the windmills turn when it is not blowing, and there are also issues when it is too windy for wind turbines to operate, so you get the carbon offset there. I think that is insanity, especially with the strain on the river. When this plant is fully operational it can put out 100 gigalitres of water; we should be operating it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and if the river has any excess flow then that can go through to the environment or, equally, 50-50 between the environment and irrigators.

Just in mentioning irrigators, agriculture has taken unprecedented cuts in the previous budget and in the coming budget I believe that $22 million in cuts is coming. I already know of several long-term employees who have worked under PIRSA and the various departments under PIRSA. In fact, I was talking to one the other day who had many years of experience—decades of experience—working with primary industries, and the thanks he gets is that a few weeks ago he is called and told, 'It's all over. You're going to be reassigned.'

This government is putting all its eggs in one basket, mining. I support mining, but the government will pillage the long-term wealth of knowledge that we have in primary industries through the South Australian Research and Development Institute, and the people working through the outreach group with Rural Solutions. It is a disgrace to the people on the land, who produce about $4 billion worth of primary production every year, depending on the season.

I urge this government to take a harder look at agriculture and work out where our food comes from, because if it is not careful we will be importing a lot more from China and other places. We already import far too much food, and we are seeing jobs in the agricultural industries disappear through drought and hard times, whether it be irrigated or non-irrigated agriculture. We are also seeing the effect of mice on agriculture; farmers are collectively spending millions of dollars on mouse-baiting programs just to try to get their crop out of the ground. I was talking to a farmer near Penong who told me he had decided not to even bother sowing a crop because the mice were that bad, and were tearing the grain out off the ground.

Speaking of plagues, I believe we have already had a plague of locusts throughout the Riverland stretching in a band down towards Pinnaroo and around Parilla, right down through that section of the Northern Mallee to the Southern Mallee. These locusts caused a lot of harm by delaying crop sowing, and forcing some people to resow crops one or two times so that they had a crop once the conditions got a bit better—once it got a bit colder to get rid of the locusts and a few sprays went out. I know that one operator went to the shop to buy his chemicals to spray the locusts, but by the time he got back to the farm the crop was gone.

I will continue my remarks in my grieve when I have the opportunity; however, I do commend the Supply Bill, although I still say that it is outrageous that we have to move for the $5 billion of funding because the Treasurer could not recall that budgets are due in June.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:33): I rise to support the second reading of the Supply Bill. I will keep my contribution relatively brief because I do not want to rehash what my colleagues on this side of the house have already said; however, I would like to echo the sentiments of the shadow treasurer and others in regard to the state budget. It is quite unbelievable that the Tasmanian government delivered its budget last week when it also went to the polls on 20 March this year, yet this government cannot get its act together and will bury the budget in the midst of the football finals in September.

It also concerns me, as someone who comes from a small business background, that with an annual budget of some $14 billion the state is running a debt approaching $6.8 billion. Anyone who has been involved in business, who has run a successful business, will know that when your debt approaches 50 per cent of your operating budget it is some cause for concern.

It was interesting to hear the condolence motion early today for former member Allan Rodda, who represented the seat of Victoria for many years and who was, in fact, born close to where I was born and lived on the Eyre Peninsula of South Australia. He was recognised today for his stand and proposition regarding the regions and country areas, and the importance of agriculture, and I would like to take this opportunity today to put on the record my funding priorities for regional South Australia and also the electorate of Flinders.

What has really been borne out by this government over a period of time is the lack of investment in infrastructure. It has been sadly lacking for a long period of time and is really beginning to show itself, particularly in the regions. I will give some examples for the house and for the public record.

The port at Thevenard is currently the second busiest port in the state. It is exporting gypsum, salt, grain and, now, mineral sands with the development of the minerals sand project by Iluka, north of Ceduna in the state's north-west pastoral district. This has led to an increased tonnage out of the port at Thevenard, and, as I said earlier, it has become the second busiest port in the state.

What Thevenard desperately needs is some investment, some upgrading and an injection of funds. This government has relinquished that opportunity, and, unfortunately, what we are now seeing is a port that is expected to handle five ships a fortnight in very confined spaces and expect to meet the markets in a very busy and competitive world. A fishing fleet also operates out of there and makes it difficult.

Roads, of course, are always a priority in regional areas. One that I need to highlight from my electorate is the Wirrulla to Kingoonya road. For those of you who are unsure of the exact location, Wirrulla is located about 100 kilometres east of Ceduna, and the Wirrulla to Kingoonya road heads north-east from there towards Kingoonya, which is on the east-west railway line. Hopefully, that clarifies it for you.

Another road that I would like to highlight—and this is going to get better, Madam Deputy Speaker—is the Tod Highway from Karkoo to Kyancutta. You have heard of Kyancutta, I am sure. It is a distance of approximately 150 kilometres. It is now a major highway, a major transport route, and it is often traversed by road trains carrying large loads of grain, in particular, but also other products. That road has now got to a rather sad state, where it is no longer wide enough for that freight transport to be undertaken in a safe manner. My concerns are not just for the lack of infrastructure and the lack of investment on roads, but also for the safety of those operating under those conditions. It is also disappointing to see this government's lack of spending in essential services. Those essential services, responsibilities of the state government, include health and education.

As far as country health goes, I believe the spending priorities are all wrong, and I would implore the government to dispense with the rail yards hospital, to revisit rebuilding of the Royal Adelaide Hospital on its existing site, and also to no longer cut services and staffing in country hospitals. This has happened right across the country regions, it is also happening in the city, and it really compromises the delivery of health services purely and simply for the sake of saving funds.

The Patient Assisted Transport (PAT) scheme, on which I will elaborate, is a very important part of delivering country patients to specialist services in the city. When specialists are no longer available in country areas the PAT scheme comes into play. It is very important that that funding be kept up and increased so that country patients have the opportunity to travel to have their health requirements dealt with and so that they can be properly reimbursed for that very necessary travel.

It is important for the state government to maintain the levels of spending in our schools: area schools, primary schools and high schools. It is an investment in the future of our children. Last week I attended a meeting of concerned teachers and parents at the Port Lincoln High School, and their concerns included the air quality in a number of classrooms. This poor air quality was brought about, in my belief, by a lack of ongoing maintenance and a lack of investment in infrastructure over a long period. What has happened in the Port Lincoln High School is that the roof has leaked, and moisture has come into the ceiling and wet the straw. Pigeons have also got in somehow and created a health issue with regard to air quality in the Port Lincoln High School.

My understanding is that remediation will take place during the upcoming school holidays, and I am sure that will alleviate the concerns of the parents and teachers and repair the problem. My point is that this has been brought about as a result of ongoing lack of investment in maintenance and infrastructure.

While we are on schools, I believe I need to mention school buses here. Access to buses to transport children to school is something that is taken for granted here in Adelaide, but I can tell you that after some good research that I have requested from the Parliament Research Library I have discovered that the fleet of school buses here in South Australia, which essentially operate in country areas, is in fact the oldest fleet in the country.

I have some average ages here. In the ACT, the average age of school buses is 14.5 years; in New South Wales, 11.5 years; in Queensland, 10.5 years, almost 11 years; in Tasmania, 17 years; in Victoria, just nine years; and Western Australia has spent $22 million replacing the public, school-owned buses without seatbelts. In South Australia, sadly, the average age of our school buses is between 20 and 22 years.

We desperately need a project and some investment and spending into the renewal of this bus service, particularly with regard to country children, their safety and their comfort and health. Air conditioning and seatbelts will need to be a priority in these country school buses, particularly out west, as the country children are heading home from school in the middle of summer during daylight saving in what is the hottest part of the day.

I touched on this in my maiden speech and I will not dwell on it too much, but much has been made of the Premier's so-called mining boom. Unfortunately, mineral exploration in Flinders has been just that—just exploration. We have had an exploration boom, but we have not yet seen a mining boom by any means. I think everyone is very nervous about the proposed super tax on the mining companies, because there are many companies in the start-up stage operating on the Eyre Peninsula.

The Eyre Peninsula offers great potential, I believe, for the mining sector. The latest estimates put the iron ore reserves at between 5 and 10 billion tons. My concern is that the lack of infrastructure, the lack of state spending into infrastructure and the proposed mining super tax will actually kill the mining boom before it has even begun in the seat of Flinders.

The thing about a mining boom is that it really does offer the opportunity to broaden the regional economy. Our economy is very much based on fishing, aquaculture, agriculture and, to a certain extent, tourism. My belief is that, if we encourage that mining boom the least little bit, then we will do so much to broaden the economy of the region and give jobs and some security to the people who live out there.

I have already spoken about roads and how the road maintenance programs are lagging behind where they should be. Roads are important. I have mentioned two already, but they are critical in bringing the produce of the regions to market to export. It is critical for me to put on the public record, and for the house to understand, that 80 per cent of the state's export income is generated in the regions. People need to remember that. Successive governments have chosen to ignore that or not understand it, and I think it is time we revisited that and understood their export income does come from the regions and that it is a vital part of the state's economy. This is new money. This is not money going around and around: it is new money and, really, the state's economy depends so much on it.

I guess what I am asking for is a greater slice of the pie when it comes to road infrastructure, rail infrastructure and port infrastructure in the regions. This is what the electorate of Flinders and the rest of regional South Australia require.

I would also like to talk about water security; again, I mentioned it in my maiden speech. I believe that the water situation on the Eyre Peninsula in the seat of Flinders is precarious to say the least. SA Water has had on the table the proposition to build a desal plant to supplement the supply of water on the Eyre Peninsula for some eight years. Nothing as yet has happened. I understand that there is a short list of potential sites. I would encourage the government to hasten this project, because at the moment we are drawing 80 per cent of our water from the southern basins, and at the current rate of extraction it would seem that those resources are unsustainable.

We have already had a couple of basins on the West Coast collapse completely due to extraction rates. It makes me very nervous to think about the water security and the future for the Eyre Peninsula. What we need is to supplement that supply not only for the current population and industry but also looking to the future population and industrial demands of the region.

It is interesting that a very topical subject at the moment is food security. I do not disagree that a critical and important part of our responsibility as a region and as primary producers is to ensure that this food supply is adequate and that the quality is such that it is acceptable for the markets.

However, one thing that does put food security in this state at risk is drought. We cannot do anything about that, but another thing that does put it at risk, I believe, are plagues. The city media and most of the population in metropolitan Adelaide are well versed with the fact that there is a locust plague potential in the coming spring, and the government certainly has taken steps in order to counteract that plague should it develop.

Another plague we are experiencing on the Eyre Peninsula at the moment is a plague of mice—a mouse plague—and in many regions it is the worst that has ever been experienced by landowners. I believe that this also is a threat to our food security. It is a threat to the viability of the landowners, the producers and the farmers, and it affects seriously the economic wellbeing of the of the seat of Flinders. The government thus far has taken very little action. We have made the state government well aware of the situation on the Eyre Peninsula with regard to mice, but very little action has been taken thus far.

The government just does not seem prepared to take a position on this, and certainly it does not seem to be prepared to spend any money on the control of this plague. This is a plague of biblical proportions. Not only is it eating the plants as they emerge from the field but it is also eating people out of house and home. Many of my constituents, quite seriously, are at their wit's end on this one, and I will speak about it more another day. It is a very serious situation. I believe the government needs to take a position on this and be prepared to spend some money at least to assist the landowners in the control of this because, unfortunately, the plague will not go away by itself. It will be ongoing and many landowners are really very nervous about what could happen in the spring time. The region's crops could be decimated or worse.

That leads me to another topic related to agriculture, that is, the cuts to the Department of Primary Industries and Resources in South Australia, which is responsible for delivering services and extension work to primary producers in agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries. In recent times, there have been many cuts across this department. Once again, I think the real advantage we have had in Australia, and here in South Australia, is that producers have had the opportunity to take advantage of the latest technology and implement that technology in their own businesses and production systems.

I think cuts to departments such as primary industries and research in South Australia have a detrimental effect on the extension of that technology by our producers. Really, that is the advantage we have. In a world market and a globalised competitive world, the one advantage we have is our technological advantage over our competitors. If we do not have the opportunity to implement and take on board those technologies, we are at a disadvantage.

The people in Flinders certainly realise that Adelaide commands projects, such as the stadium, as it has the critical mass as the capital city. However, many people in Flinders find it abhorrent that such a huge amount of money has been pledged for a patched up Adelaide Oval when essential services and infrastructure in the country are under threat. This also ties into the rail yards hospital debate. How on earth can the government ignore the will of the people? People in Flinders do not want billions of dollars spent on the rail yards hospital and the government to go further into debt when country health services are in such dire straits. Evidently the egos of our leaders in public life take precedence over what is good for the state.

Finally, I remind the house of the contributions the regions make to this state's economy and urge this state government to recognise that contribution, invest in the regions and properly reward the regions for the contributions they make.

[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.M. Rankine]

The SPEAKER: Member for Reynell?

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (17:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not surprised that you are surprised that I am speaking, because I am surprised also. I do so in a spirit of bipartisanship and cross-party cooperation, and things like that. Apparently there is a difficulty and we need to continue the debate so that the Leader of the Opposition can participate in it, she having absented herself.

I do have a few things to say in relation to the challenges facing all governments at the moment in managing their budgets. We have several Kevins to be proud of in this community, and I name Kevin Rudd and Kevin Foley as among those. Another is the Kevin who was formerly the coach of the Essendon Football Club and who has now moved himself to the western suburbs of Sydney. He was recently on one of those panel shows on the ABC where he said that he believes Australians have simply failed to grasp the magnitude of the problem of the global financial crisis and the devastation that it has imposed on people in Europe and the United States. He said that Australians have been remarkably cushioned from that crisis, and that was done by the actions of the two other Kevins I talked about—Kevin Rudd, our Prime Minister, supported by Wayne Swan our federal Treasurer, and Mike Rann, our Premier, and Kevin Foley, our state Treasurer, who moved quickly to respond to that crisis.

While people in my area are doing it tough, they have not lost their jobs in great waves. Our schools are being built and enhanced rather than losing staff, and I cannot imagine that that is happening in Greece where the whole of the public budget has been cut back savagely. We have the biggest public housing building program in 20 years, and I remember when I was sitting on the other side watching house by house being sold off—it was not house by house; it was tens of houses by hundreds of houses being sold off—and there were queues of people trying to get housing. I know we have queues of people still trying to get housing, but the stories I get in my electorate office are nothing like what I had during the period from 1997 to 2002.

Another challenge facing all governments around Australia at the moment is the challenge of enabling the people who care for those in our community who have disabilities to be paid decently. The whole issue of pay equity for women lingers on. It lingers particularly in those areas that most resemble the work that women have traditionally done in the household. I was very pleased to learn yesterday that premier Brumby made some important comments about that over the weekend. These comments followed on from a rally that I was very pleased to attend on 10 June in Adelaide.

Premier Brumby has responded both to the rallies that were held around Australia and to the logic and fairness in the case that is now being taken for pay justice for community service workers. Premier Brumby said on Saturday 19 June:

Today I am proud to announce that a re-elected Labor Government will back Fair Work Australia's decision on this pay claim.

Meaning the pay justice for community sector workers.

We will factor in any wage increases to our service agreements with community service organisations and ensure those wage increases are passed on to workers. This emotionally taxing labour—often performed by women—is critical to the fabric of our community. And the value of this labour is not always reflected in the pay they receive. In partnership with the community sector, we will work over time to provide the level of funding the sector needs to pay its invaluable workers, and get on with the job of caring for the most vulnerable people in our State. It's a commitment that will impact on our budget—but it is what we believe in. We believe in a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

The hearings will take place in September and October. Budget capacity exists in the forward estimates and once Fair Work Australia has made its determination, it will be fully costed and factored into Labor's Financial Statement for the 2010 State Election.

That is, the Victorian state election. Mr Brumby continues that their commitment to supporting the most vulnerable Victorians has run into billions of dollars since being elected and this is an important part to continue their commitment to a fairer Victoria through a fair deal for Victorians most in need of support from the community.

The Victorian government has made this announcement; our South Australian government has to work out how it is going to deal with it. So as I have sat here and listened to request after request after request from members opposite for more money, more money, more money, I want to place this request on the table as well. We need more pay to enable particularly the disabled members of our community to be cared for by people who are themselves receiving a fair pay.

As I referred to earlier, on 10 June I was very pleased to attend a rally organised by the Australian Services Union down in the Pioneer Women's Memorial Gardens. This was just one of many events being held across Australia on that day, from Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Toowoomba, Mackay, Moranbah, Brisbane, Lismore, Inverell, Canberra, Nowra, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Perth and Darwin. Community sector workers gathered to give force to their claim for equal pay.

I was also pleased that I was among the long-term fighters for equal pay who were recognised at that event and christened as an ambassador for equal pay. As an ambassador, I think it is important that I take up that cause and advocate it where I possibly can. I was presented with a beautiful rosette to mark my appointment as an ambassador and I was honoured to be in the company that was there—among them Deborah McCulloch, the first women's adviser ever appointed in this state, and a plethora of names of women who have fought long and hard for equal pay.

We were reminded by Katrine Hildyard, the Secretary of ASU, in addressing the gathering, that it was way back in 1972 that women formally won equal pay for equal work where it was enshrined that if a man and a woman do the same job, they should get paid the same amount. This had the effect of crunching the gap between women's and men's pay from 75 per cent to 82 per cent. However, for the past 15 years the pay gap has not moved; in fact, over the past 10 years, it has grown. The reason there is an 18 per cent gap today is because those occupations that are dominated by women are undervalued.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Bedford): Order!

Ms THOMPSON: Work that is in industries dominated by women, especially that work that has a caring dimension or is seen as women's work, is seen as being less skilled and less valuable than other work. This is not acceptable in our community. The community sector has within it the highest number of multiple tertiary degree holders. Eighty-five per cent of workers in the community sector are women. Their work in this sector provides one of the starkest examples of the shocking undervaluing of industries dominated by women.

For example, a disability support worker like Tracie who supports, cares for and is the person who ensures that a person with a disability lives with dignity and is socially included, generally earns the same amount as a person who stacks supermarket shelves. We know that stacking supermarket shelves is important to everyone of us; however, the emotional load is not quite that of Tracie supporting somebody with a severe disability nor is the complexity of the job.

A caseworker, like those who were present on the day from St John's Youth Service and other organisations that provide professional counselling and support for young people who have experienced severe abuse or neglect such that they cannot live at home, gets paid just over the minimum wage. That, to me, does not seem the least bit appropriate. A community worker, like Maria and Sandra who were present, who supports women and children when they are in crisis and who ensures that they do not end up living on the street, generally earns about $25,000 a year less than a worker doing similar work in the public sector—again, that is simply not appropriate.

Like Katrine Hildyard, I place on record that I am in awe that when community sector workers are asked why they do the work they do, 100 per cent of them reply that it is because they care, because they want to do something worthwhile and something that actually makes a difference. But the words that were used at the rally afterwards remind me so much of the situation with nurses so many years ago when nurses ran a slogan to the effect of 'Grateful thanks don't pay the bills' and today the community workers are in a position where they say that care and commitment can no longer be taken for granted. While this commitment, care and wanting to make a difference are to be resoundingly applauded, it does not buy groceries and it does not pay the rent. Workers in the community sector are continuing to say that they simply cannot afford to continue to work in that sector.

Fifty-two per cent of workers in the community services sector now report that they do not intend to be in this sector in five years' time. I hope that I will not need anybody from the community sector in five years' time but in 25 years' time, just on the most selfish level, I want to see that there are skilled, well-paid and dedicated workers there to care for us.

As a member of the community and as a parliamentarian who has worked hard to advocate for the needs of members in my community with disabilities, I want to see that these people are cared for now. Today, the minister announced important reforms in terms of giving people with disabilities more power to choose how they need to be supported. However, at the same time, they need to be supported by people who are appropriately paid and recognised for the work they do.

Clients of the sector already report how hard it is for them to access a service, build a relationship of trust with a worker and to tell their story to worker after worker, often pouring out their heart and soul about private issues that they have experienced in their lives, only to find that the next time they need that service or a support worker, that person has left the industry because they can get far more pay for their skills in other areas.

One of the arguments advanced for why people who take on women's work are so poorly paid relates to the way that this was previously done in the home or done by volunteers, most of whom were women. So there is one part of our community's headset that still sees this as domestic or charitable work and not something that deserves proper pay and proper recognition.

The pay equity case now being taken by the ASU is a step towards moving that work into proper recognition within the community by both pay and respect. In turn, it recognises that the most disadvantaged in our community, those with the most difficulties, people living day-in and day-out with severe disabilities, should have their needs recognised and respected by being supported by professional care workers, not by people who are doing it as a semi-paid charitable act.

The national pay equity case for community sector workers follows hot on the heels of the 2009 Queensland pay equity case, where the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, after comparing wages in the community services sector with wages in sectors dominated by men, and comparing wages in the community services sector with those in other comparable sectors, were shocked at the inequity and awarded wage increases of between 18 per cent and 37 per cent to Queensland community sector workers. This is an outstanding result and finally gives some recognition to the value of the work performed by community sector workers, but it now has to be implemented around the country.

That brings me back to where I started. Already, an increasing proportion of the state budget is being allocated to disability support. This will require another further increase in the allocation to disability support to ensure that the workers are paid appropriately.

At the rally, it was very pleasing to see that the employers of these community sector workers recognised the need for change and are working constructively with the union to determine how any pay increase might be implemented. However, they also recognise that they will not be able to do anything much at all unless there is a change in the budgetary allocation to the community services sector. The vast majority of these organisations' funds comes from government.

So, without that pressure on the budget to which I referred in the budget response, all that will happen is that some of the most vulnerable people in our community, in addition to the disabled, whom I have mentioned—often, women escaping domestic violence, children who can no longer stay with their families for various reasons, people who have just got out of gaol and are needing help to re-establish their lives in a way that enables them to live as a full member of the community and not to offend again—all these workers perform a range of remarkable tasks, from house cleaning and shopping to very complex counselling and support for people when they are at their most distressed.

The people who employ those workers need the government to address their funds so that they are not robbing Peta to pay Pauline, because otherwise different services will go in order to give the workers a decent pay. This is very clearly a major stress that is facing governments all around Australia at the moment. It is probably a stress that is facing governments all around the developed world, where many of these support activities have moved away from the family and into the community sector.

Fortunately, because of Australia's excellent response to the global financial crisis, we are more in a position to address it than, I suspect, are countries in Europe and North America. However, we have to remember that when we want more roads, more hospitals, more other things all over the place, the many requests that have been made by members opposite, we have to pay the workers who care for our most disadvantaged fairly. They cannot be paid as though they are unskilled workers. They cannot be paid 15 to 18 per cent less than equivalent workers in the public sector. They are not doing it for charity.

Time expired.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (18:12): I am pleased to make some comments in relation to the Supply Bill. It is important that we debate this piece of legislation and that the effective flow of moneys continue for the services and other provisions of government out into the respective areas of the community. There are some issues that I specifically want to raise relating to services and infrastructure, and we heard the member for Reynell speak about those issues.

The issue I would like to raise specifically about service and infrastructure concerns the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and the manner in which that plan affects a significant proportion of my electorate, and I speak about the townships of Littlehampton, Nairne and Mount Barker, because those three townships will be affected by the government's 30-year Plan for Greater Adelaide.

It was only a week or so ago that the government released the development plan amendment (DPA) relating to rezoning a whole tract of land in Mount Barker and Nairne, so much so that we are seeing over 1,000 hectares of land, which is really prime agricultural/horticultural country, being rezoned to residential. The projected population increase is in the vicinity of 25,000. The collective combined population of those three towns at the moment is 16,000.

So, what we are going to see is a more than 150 per cent increase in population within that tri-town district of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne. I share the real concerns of the community that I represent in those towns as to how the government is actually going to provide the services and infrastructure and all the other requirements needed to support that increase in population.

The government is not actually providing the necessary level of infrastructure and services to meet the demands of the current population of 16,000. I have spoken about this on many occasions and I will continue to raise it in the house until we see some definite action from the government in terms of providing that necessary infrastructure and services to meet the current level of demand.

Those of us on this side of the house have made our position quite clear on the issue of development in that part of the Adelaide Hills, but I will enunciate it again so that it is clear. I have made statements at public meetings, in the local media, on the radio, and in the broader media regarding our position, and I state it again: the opposition does not support any expansion of the current town boundaries until services and infrastructure are provided to meet the current level of demand. Once that is achieved we will consider some modest growth in full consultation with the local council and the community. Full stop.

That was the policy, that was the position that I took into the election on 20 March. It was a big election issue in those three towns in that particular section of my electorate. The election was fought basically on that issue—Liberal versus Labor versus Greens versus Family First and the other minor parties—in those three towns, and I am confident in saying that the vote reflected the community's opinion of the government's plan for the towns; that is, a significant and marked swing to the Liberal party because of the position it took.

I conducted a survey last year—in April, I think—when I sent out 9,000 communication forms to every resident and business in those three towns. I had an outstanding response to that survey of over 15 per cent; from memory, it was around the 3,000 mark. That is an outstanding response to a survey, because people who run surveys usually look for about a 3 to 5 per cent response; that is regarded as a reasonable level of response to a survey. I had a 15 per cent response.

I kept it relatively uncomplicated and asked only four questions, and the overwhelming response from the community was that residents were not 100 per cent opposed to development but definitely not the scope of development that the government proposed in its 30-year plan. The community wanted the retention of prime agricultural farming country, and did not believe that the government was providing the services and infrastructure—nor would it in the future—to meet the community's needs.

I am not making that up; they are the cold, hard facts and the cold, hard reality of the response from the community. As I said, that was a big issue in those towns as we went into the election, and the response from the community was significant in terms of the vote for the ALP versus the vote for the Liberal Party. I won the Mount Barker booths collectively on primary vote, the Littlehampton booth on primary vote, and I was just shy—by a couple of points—of winning the Nairne booth on primary votes. That is an indication of the level of concern in the community regarding the government's 30-year plan.

As I said, the government is planning on rezoning over 1,000 hectares of land and looking at an increase in population of 25,000. I hope they come to their senses, reconsider and scale back at least the level of development. I have read the DPA, and it is full of motherhood statements. I can tell members that it is vague at its best and negligent and irresponsible at its worst. I have read through the DPA document, and it makes motherhood statements in terms of, 'We'll investigate the capacity of the existing school sites to cater for the increase in school population.'

I can tell members that the current school sites are landlocked. They have very little if any capacity to expand their footprint in particular, let alone their built structures to accommodate the increase in student population. If the government pushes along with this negligent and irresponsible plan, we will need brand-new schools. You cannot increase the population by 150 per cent plus and not build new schools, brand-new schools at brand-new sites. If the government thinks that it can get away with doing it on the cheap and in a half baked manner it will have to think again.

We will need new schools, and we will need a new hospital. The hospital at Mount Barker is at capacity in some of its areas. The maternity section is over capacity. Each year 350 women give birth in that hospital, and that is over capacity; so, we will need a new hospital. Any woman outside of that 350 has to travel to the city, to the Flinders, the RAH, the Women's and Children's, or the Lyell McEwen if they are in the northern part of the hills (because they have pulled out the maternity section of the Modbury Hospital) to have their children. That is wrong.

If a local woman wants to have her child, and it is a healthy pregnancy and there are no complications, she should be entitled to have her child at the Mount Barker Hospital, and not be forced to travel to the city. Her family should not be forced to travel to the city to visit her while she is in hospital after the baby is born. I am telling you that we will need a new hospital if the government pushes ahead with this plan to increase Mount Barker’s population by 25,000, which is over 150 per cent more. I want to make those points clear.

In addition to that, we need a second freeway interchange at Mount Barker to meet the current level of demand, and the government makes some vague reference in the DPA about trigger points. The development will occur, and that will trigger infrastructure and service provision. That is half the problem that the town is having now. The developments are taking place in an incremental manner, and these trigger points have been met but not recognised, and then some more development takes place. We then see ourselves in the current situation, where, as I said, the maternity section at the hospital is at capacity, if not over capacity, and we need a second freeway interchange to meet all the traffic that comes out of the Nairne township and has to funnel down through Littlehampton on the freeway interchange at Mount Barker.

What this plan of 25,000 additional people will mean is that we will need a third interchange. There has been no mention in the DPA report about that. It gives some vague reference about these trigger points and, and as I said, when we reach a certain point it will trigger the construction of a second freeway interchange. I am telling the house that we will need a third interchange.

If members look at the map of where the rezoning is to take place, it is to the south and a little bit to the east, but the majority is around the south of the town, and to the west. If you think all that traffic is going to funnel down through to Adelaide Road, the main arterial road in the centre of the town, and on to the existing interchange, or else funnel out through along what we call Bald Hills Road out to the proposed second interchange to get on to the freeway, you have to think again.

As I said, we are going to increase the population by more than 150 per cent, and if the government thinks that all the vehicular movements will be catered for by those two interchanges, well, the government is wrong. I envisage that there will be a requirement for a third interchange there, and it has not given any consideration to that, because that is not talked about in any way, shape or form.

There is another issue that I want to raise in the house this afternoon. It is something I have spoken about before, and it is a consequence of the development we have seen take place in that part of the Adelaide Hills—specifically, this time it is in the Nairne township. I am talking about the continued traffic congestion in and around the Nairne school crossing.

Eighteen months ago, the government completed some work where it moved the school crossing from one side of the Woodside main road intersection to the other side. We were told by DTEI and other public servants, 'We have done some modelling, Mr Goldsworthy, and we will see the traffic flow extremely well, and there won't be any congestion at the intersection like we see now.'

I can tell you now (and at the time I predicted this) that it did not fix the problem because it was a half-baked cheapjack solution to the problem, that is, moving the school crossing from one side to the other. It cost the best part of $1 million. It was not completed within the time frame, either, which caused some consternation within the community.

I can tell you that it has not worked. There are still long lines of traffic banked up at the intersection right down Woodside Road (and the local people know what I am talking about), across the railway line again, just as was the case before the million dollars was spent. It was a total waste of money and a total waste of time. It was something I predicted, and I wrote a letter to the local paper and it was published. I am more than happy to furnish that to the house.

What has to happen is that the government needs to bite the bullet, and that was identified by a consultancy completed under the previous Liberal government by the local member at the time (the premier, the Hon. John Olson). A consultancy was undertaken, and what is required is a set of traffic lights at that intersection.

The intersection of Woodside Road and Saleyard Road, which runs next to the primary school, needs to be straightened out. There may need to be some compulsory acquisition on the intersection of one of the homes. The government has to bite the bullet and do the work properly once and for all, not these half-baked cheapjack solutions that do not work. All it does is add to the problems of the district.

I want to turn my focus to some issues in relation to my shadow portfolio responsibilities, in particular that of road safety. I believe that the government's road safety strategy is not working because the road toll is at the same level as it was 12 months ago. It is actually one more. Tragically, the road toll is at 66 this year. This time last year I understand it was at 65. Compared with the 2009 road toll figures, we are 20 per cent higher than the 2008 figures. We have seen no improvement in reducing the road toll as a consequence of this government's road safety strategy.

There may well be a number of reasons for that, but can I say that in the last 12 months or so we have had four ministers for road safety. The Hon. Carmel Zollo in the other place was minister for road safety. Then we had the member for West Torrens—

An honourable member: Turbo!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —Turbo Tom with his 60-plus traffic offences and, when that was exposed, he had the difficulty of trying to explain it away. It got to the point where that was impossible, and he resigned from that portfolio responsibility.

In my opinion, before the Premier was forced to sack him, obviously behind closed doors there was some pretty heated full and frank discussion, and we saw the member for West Torrens resign from that portfolio. Then we had the member for Napier assume the role of minister for road safety for a matter of only—I do not know—five or so months, perhaps, and then, post the election, we have the member for Playford as the road safety minister. I know that it may be slightly disingenuous of me to reflect on the way the incumbent is dealing with the issues, but listening to radio interviews and the like I think that the current minister is on a steep learning curve in coming to grips with the issues and the nuances of the portfolio. I want to make those points.

When we compare the road safety policy documents that the Liberal Party took to the election with the government's policy, there are some stark differences. I like to think that we took quite a comprehensive road safety policy to the state election. If one looks at the government's policy, basically it highlights three issues: it wants to increase punitive measures against P-platers; there is some talk about increasing some road maintenance funding by $3 million; and the other aspect of the policy escapes me because, I think, it was of relative insignificance.

Compare that to our policy in which we looked at four areas of importance, being the regulatory regime and policing, road maintenance and infrastructure, driver behaviour and training and vehicle design and manufacture. I met the latest Thinker in Residence for road safety, Professor Wegman, and discussed those issues with him.

Time expired.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (18:32): It is my pleasure to address the question before the house, the matter of supply. We find ourselves in interesting times. We have a government that is tired, old and struggling. We have a Treasurer who is—I do not know about old, but he is certainly tired and he is certainly struggling.

Mr Pederick: And lacking recall.

Mr WILLIAMS: And he is having problems with his recall. I have a genuine issue with a Treasurer who has such a problem lacking recall that I will not say it borders on incompetence: it is actually incompetence that the Treasurer can be given a briefing on one day and less than three weeks later can totally forget all about it and go on speaking on the matter for a number of months and still not be able to recall the briefing he had. It is rather amazing. It does not augur very well for the future of this state if the Premier is going to continue to support that level of incompetence, and it seems that the Premier is going to continue to support that. That seems to be his wont.

The books of the government of South Australia are not very healthy at the moment. We find that, over the last eight years (the term of this government), a significant number of turnarounds have occurred which have caused the sad state of affairs in the books. One of the hallmarks of the previous Liberal government, having inherited a basket case economy and having inherited a virtually bankrupt Treasury, was that in eight short years it turned the South Australian economy around into a vibrant, well-run economy which was starting to catch up to the position it should have been in.

One of the shining examples of the work that was done by the previous Liberal government was in the area of exports. We know that one of the best ways to drive an economy is to export. Every time you export something you are getting somebody else's dollar into your economy. You are exporting goods and services and importing dollars, and that is growing the economy and growing it rapidly.

We increased exports in South Australia from something like $3 billion a year to just over $9 billion a year at the time of the change of government in 2002. It is an absolute outrage that the most recent figures show that our level of exports has actually decreased in real dollar terms since the Labor Party has been in charge of the state.

The government tends to use a number of excuses for the changes; it talks about droughts and global financial crises, etc. What it fails to acknowledge is that, as a government, it has not been supporting exporters. When we were in government one of the keys to increasing exports out of South Australia was that we actively worked with businesses (small, medium and large) and showed them how to export, how to engage with businesses and clients outside of South Australia. We grew the export of goods and services out of South Australia substantially.

One interesting thing we did (and we were castigated for this for many years) was to outsource the maintenance of the old water supply (the E&WS) and now SA Water. We outsourced a maintenance contract for SA Water. In doing so, we said that we were going to build a new business, a new industry in South Australia, a water industry.

Today the water industry exports out of this state on an annual basis in excess of half a billion dollars' worth of goods and services. That is the sort of initiative that needs to be taken by the government to drive the economy. The Premier says that we are going to reach a population of two million before 2050. We will never have a sustained population growth in this state unless we can build the sort of businesses that I have been talking about and developing a new water industry.

The Premier continues to talk about the mining sector. He says that when he came to power there were only four operating mines in South Australia and today there are 11. He said that was due to his fine work and the program he calls the PACE initiative (the Plan for Accelerating Exploration). The reality is that the PACE program is merely a rebadged TEISA, the program which was established by the former government called Targeted Exploration Initiative South Australia.

Mr Goldsworthy: We were serious about mining.

Mr WILLIAMS: We were very serious about mining. The reality is that of those 11 mines that are operating in South Australia today (and it might in fact have grown to 12) to the best of my knowledge (and I think I am absolutely correct on this statement) all but one of those deposits which are now being mined were discovered before the Labor Party came to government in South Australia. The reality is that they were discovered as a result of the work done when the Liberal Party was governing this state and putting serious money into the Targeted Exploration Initiative South Australia (TEISA). The Premier is very good at claiming credit for other people's work.

Mr Goldsworthy: He's a fake.

Mr WILLIAMS: You are not going to get a fight with me over that one: I happen to agree with you. Every time the Premier gets up and says that there are 11, and today there might be 12, and there were only four when he came to power, he is fudging it. The only one of those projects that is now an operating mine that is the result of a mineral discovery made during the term of this government, whilst the PACE program has been in operation, is Iluka's Jacinth-Ambrosia mineral sands deposit on the far west of Eyre Peninsula. That is the only project that I am aware of, out of all the operating mines in South Australia, that was not discovered in the time the previous government was in power.

I cannot name one industry in this state where this government has been responsible for its growth—not one. It claims the air warfare defence destroyer project at Techport. Sure, the government has put significant money into Techport, but we would never have had that project in South Australia, we would never have won that project, if it was not for the Howard Liberal government and the fact that we had four very senior ministers from this state in that government.

On top of that, the Howard Liberal government in Canberra recognised, at the time that contract was awarded to South Australia, that the South Australian economy was in decline. I am sure it took into account when it awarded that contract to South Australia over other bids, particularly from Victoria, that it had to do something to save South Australia.

The commonwealth government continues to save South Australia on a regular basis. The current Rudd government has poured significant additional dollars into this state to underpin the state's budget. We are talking an extra $1.5 billion from the commonwealth between the 2008-09 year and the 2009-10-year. Did that help South Australia? Well, it did help South Australia because it provided employment, but it has not helped the bottom line of our budget because, at the same time, our Premier and his Treasurer managed to spend an extra $1.5 billion. So the additional money coming out of Canberra, just like the growth in state taxes, is all being spent.

The Auditor-General has been pointing out for a number of years that the budget of South Australia keeps being saved because there is significant underestimation in the expected revenues. This has been going on ever since this government has been in office, but it cannot control its spending. It goes up and up. That is why we are finding ourselves getting to the point where our daily interest bill is going up from $1 million a day, and the forward estimates predict that it will most likely hit $2 million a day. That is $700 million or $800 million a year. It is outrageous that that has happened.

The government claims that it has increased front-line services and that it is putting money into front-line services. The reality is that a study of the budget papers shows that between 2001-02 and 2008-09 the public sector has grown by some 16,393 employees. If we look at the front-line services, which are the ones that the Premier likes to quote consistently, we see: nurses, an additional 3,220; teachers, under the Education Act, an extra 671; doctors, an extra 1,053; and police officers, an extra 638, giving a total of 5,582. That leaves a total head count of 10,811 additional public servants who are not delivering those front-line services.

What is even more frightening is that a significant number, particularly of nurses and doctors, came back into the public sector through the retakeover of the Modbury Hospital, so the numbers are even worse when you take that into account. We have a state budget that is now paying on an annual basis an extra 10,800 public servants doing some sort of administrative work and an extra 5,500 front-line workers, and the Treasurer wonders why his budget is in a mess.

Madam Speaker, I know you share my concerns in this area. I come back to the mining sector and the federal government's so-called super profits tax. It is really a resource rent. To my mind, it is a piece of economic theory—and a very poor piece of economic theory—that is driving this particular proposal from the Rudd government. With a little bit of luck, there will be a change of government in Canberra and South Australia's future may well be saved.

However, Madam Speaker, as you and I both know, if the tax as proposed by the federal government is imposed on South Australia, your hometown, Whyalla, will probably disappear. It is an ill-conceived and ill thought through tax. It will have a dramatic impact on OneSteel and consequently on the whole of Whyalla. You and I know that, Madam Speaker. I would like to think that the Premier and the Treasurer could get their head around that, but they certainly have not been of a mind to stand up for South Australia the way that premiers in both Western Australia and Queensland have for their respective states.

I talked about PACE and TEISA. South Australian governments, in a bipartisan way, for over 20 years have been pouring South Australian taxpayers' funds into encouraging exploration for mineral resources in this state. We have invested greatly to try to build a mining industry in this state because we have seen the benefits that have flowed to other states, particularly Western Australia, over the past 30 to 40 years of having a vibrant mining industry

We know that there is significant mineral wealth in South Australia, but what we also know is that to discover ore bodies in South Australia is a more risky operation than it is, for instance, in Western Australia, because we have a thick layer of overburden over most of our mineral wealth, particularly in the north of the state, and it is much harder to find and identify an ore body. Having found and identified an ore body, it is much riskier to then mine it.

If the Olympic Dam expansion does go ahead, there will be something like four years of moving a million tonnes a day of overburden before BHP Billiton even gets to the ore body—four years of pouring money in before they get to the ore body. Yet the Rudd government would impose a tax burden which would see that BHP Billiton could not go ahead with that project.

Notwithstanding that our Treasurer has said that this is a 'must happen' project for South Australia, when it is absolutely threatened by the federal government, what have our Treasurer and Premier said? Well, they have said, 'We've been working behind closed doors.' Quite frankly, I am not too sure I believe that. I have no idea what they have been doing behind closed doors, but I do know that they have not done what their counterparts in Western Australia and Queensland have done.

In my opinion, the only way to save the state's economic future, if it is so dependent on a viable mining industry—and I agree; I think it is—is to see a change in government in Canberra. That is a pretty sobering thought, because we all know, as keen political observers, a change of government after only one term is a very big ask. I think it will be a very big ask to change the government in Canberra after one term, but it is my opinion that South Australia's economic future absolutely depends on it.

I see that the time is very quickly running out, but I want to very briefly talk about water. Some of my colleagues—the members for Hammond and Chaffey, the shadow minister for the environment in the other place—and I toured the Menindee Lakes a couple of weeks ago. We were aghast to see the way in which those lakes operate and that the $400 million, which was earmarked to upgrade the storage system in the lakes way back by the Howard government, still has not been spent, yet the water that is now stored in those lakes is being utilised and released for use downstream, including in South Australia.

Because none of that upgrade work has been done, all four major lakes are being drained at the same time, which means that, as we take water out of the lakes, we do not reduce the total surface area and we are having the maximum losses due to evaporation and seepage. It is an absolute outrage. We did learn while we were up there that the federal government has spent $25 million on consultancies and still does not know what to do.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G. Portolesi.

At 18:53 the house adjourned until Wednesday 23 June 2010 at 11:00.