APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

Debate resumed.

Mrs VLAHOS: I also wish to speak on the Wat Khmer Santipheap Association of South Australia and its recent celebration of the Pchum Ben Festival, otherwise known as Ancestors Day. Last Sunday I was honoured to be a guest at this important religious event at the Paralowie monastery. The president of the community, Mr Savoon Ly, and community worker, Sambath Yunc, and Neang Yunc, kindly acted as my guides and explained the Buddhist traditions being observed during my visit.

Over 200 people attended the Sunday event, with the Northern Cambodian community numbering around 1,000 people. Pchum Ben is a Cambodian religious festival, culminating in celebrations on the 15^th day of the 10^th month in the Khmer calendar. Pchum Ben, or Ancestors Day or Spirits Day, is observed in the memory of ancestors and Cambodian Buddhists pay their respects to the dead by celebrations and making offerings—a 'ben' is an offering.

In Cambodia, residents visit pagodas over two weeks, with gifts of food, flowers and rice, gifts that are given to the monks to convey to the afterlife so that the dead do not haunt the living in this life. In temples adhering to canonical protocol, the offering of food itself is made by laypeople to the (living) Buddhist monks, thus generating merit that indirectly benefits the dead.

Monks chant 'Pali' overnight (continuously, without sleeping) in prelude to the gates of hell opening, an event that is presumed to occur once a year. During the period of the gates of hell being opened it is assumed that the ghosts of the dead are extremely active, thus food offerings may benefit them. Some of these ghosts have the opportunity to end their period of purgation, others are imagined to leave hell temporarily only to then return to further suffering. Relatives who are not in hell—they may be in heaven or otherwise reincarnated—are also imagined to receive benefits from these ceremonies.

It was wonderful to see so many young families and grandparents interacting at this event. The visiting monk, Lang Puth, from Cambodia, clearly engaged his audience and was a humorous and popular speaker and educator during my visit. The community completed the morning's festivities with a delightful shared banquet.

The monastery currently has three monks in residence and it has an associated Home and Community Care (HACC) program that is operating two days a week to assist elderly Cambodians in the community to remain active and supported within their homes and families, under the guidance of Mrs Sambath Yunc and her colleague.

The community has also been gradually building a new community hall space for young people and families to use—from their own resources and hard labour outside of their working hours—adjacent to the monastery. The monks also conduct weekly visits to spiritually support elderly community members no longer able to attend the HACC program at Paralowie, and this has occurred since the association's establishment almost five years ago.

I commend to the house the hard work and care undertaken by this community, and I look forward to assisting the community over the coming years and attending more ceremonies with this Buddhist group in the near future.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:35): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker; it is very good to see you in the chair. I am glad the Minister for Health is in the chamber using his iPad, because I understand that his chief executive has banned the purchase of iPads by health staff. I see in Victoria they are allowing them to buy 400.

An honourable member interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is that wrong? Are you allowing them to buy them? That is good, if you are allowing it. Can we have it on the record that the minister is allowing health staff to buy iPads out of the health budget, which is great. I see the latest app for iPads is an application for radiologists and radiographers to look at X-rays on iPads—a good move.

The health estimates were all about what is wrong with the health system. We saw a minister who padded out his answers. I will give him his due: he had only a couple of Dorothy Dixers, and a 10-minute intro. One of the issues that is wrong with health is that you start to believe your own propaganda and then you are in real strife. That is what this minister is doing: he is believing his own propaganda. We are seeing time and time again the disaster that is the South Australian health system—and South Australians deserve much better.

We start with emergency departments. If this minister can deliver the four-hour target by the due date, I think it is in 2013 or 2014, I will put a case of Grange on it—that the minister will not be able to do it. He will not deliver that because it is impossible without the fiddle factor. We have seen the Brits pull this but, without the fiddle factor, it has come nowhere near it. The Western Australians have come nowhere near it. It is just impossible to do without the fiddle factor, and that is what is going to happen here because the minister does not understand what is going on in our hospitals.

We have wonderful hospitals and they are getting better by the day because money is being spent on them—and I am happy to admit that—but a lot more needs to be done. The staff are working extremely hard. The other day I was out at the Lyell McEwin Hospital, which is a great facility. My brother was born there many years ago, and Mum was there not long ago. She lives not far from there so I know that area well. The staff there are great and work very hard but, like every public hospital in South Australia, it is at 100 per cent capacity. We know that 85 per cent capacity is the safe standard accepted by the National Health Care Agreement, but this minister is on the record as saying that 90 per cent is okay.

We know that delays in emergency departments, because of bed block, are the biggest issue. We saw just yesterday in the New South Wales estimates that they have serious issues there. We know we have long-term issues here that have not been corrected by this government. There is nothing on the horizon to provide answers for people who are turning up at hospital EDs and having to be admitted—but where will they go—2014 or 2015 is a long way away when you have had a serious accident today?

To compound this, the chief executive of health should be right on to this because six years ago, on 13 August 2004, he did an interview with the ABC in Canberra. Canberra's hospitals were in crisis when Dr Sherbon was the CE of ACT Health. There was a claim of a serious bed shortage and bed block then but Dr Sherbon said there was no problem. However, a letter and a report to the health minister by 13 senior emergency department doctors stated that due to hospital overcrowding and staff shortages:

...conditions have deteriorated so profoundly over the last five years that we are unable to adequately guide patients through what is one of the most stressful experiences of their lives.

The interview continued and it was stated:

Bed-block is when we can't get a patient from the emergency department up into an appropriate ward bed.

The emergency doctor said, 'Lives are being endangered.' We have seen the quotes and we have heard the reports from the AMA, from the College of Emergency Medicine and other doctors that people are dying unfortunately because of delays in our emergency departments. It is just not good enough.

Just this morning my office had a phone call from a relative of somebody who had died, and they think it is due to delays in EDs. I hope not. Let us hope that if there is an issue there it is looked into by the coroner. The quote of the day, though, goes back to the minister from 24 October 2007 when he said, 'The buck stops with me.' Minister, you really do need to do something about the emergency departments.

We heard time and again that it was $1.7 billion for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. Even just the day before the election, the health minister told Leon Byner that it was $1.7 billion; and he said it a few days earlier. He said on 10 March that it was $1.7 billion and he repeated that again. He knew it was not that, and the Auditor-General's Report shows it.

I would also like to know whether he told his chief of staff, whether he told his chief executive, whether he told Dr David Panter, who is in charge of the project. If he did not, then why not? Does he not trust them? Does he not have any faith in their ability to be part of his confidences? The evidence is that either they did not tell the truth to the Budget and Finance Committee and ABC Radio, or they did not know.

The fact is that Dr Sherbon told the Budget and Finance Committee that the cost of the hospital was $1.7 billion. He told the committee that in August, so either he was not telling the truth—and I do not know about that—or the minister did not tell him that it was not $1.7 billion but $1.8 billion. Dr Panter told the ABC in July, '$1.7 billion; we are sure of that.' Did he not know, or was he not telling the truth? I am not accusing him of not telling the truth, but the alternative is that he did not know. Why did he not know? Dr Sherbon is on the steering committee and Dr Panter is one of the lead people in the new hospital; you would think they would know where we are going with this hospital and how much it will cost. Obviously, they did not know that, because I do not think they are the sort of people who would tell untruths.

The other thing we heard about was not only the cost blowout from $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion—it is 'only $100 million', according to the Treasurer; what is a $100 million here or there, according to the Treasurer—but if you go onto the new health website it says that the completion date for the hospital is 2016. If you go to the old website there are changes to construction dates and completion dates, but we are hearing 2016 all the time—2016, 2016, 2016. What did Dr Sherbon tell the Budget and Finance Committee on 9 August 2010 when he was asked by the chairperson when construction would commence? The transcript states:

Dr SHERBON: The railway yards will be cleared in 2011. The access to the site will be attainable at that point and construction will commence in terms of site preparation in late 2011.

The CHAIRPERSON: Construction of the project will commence in late 2011?

Dr SHERBON: Site preparation will commence in 2011.

The CHAIRPERSON: Late 2011.

Dr SHERBON: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON: The actual construction of the hospital will not commence until 2012.

Now, this is the very important part. Dr Sherbon replied:

No; in fact, it will take some time after that because, once we have reached financial close in February 2011, we will then have an intense process of hospital design which will take a considerable period of months (18 months, from memory), so hospital construction will not commence until early 2013…

Now, let us go to what the minister said to the estimates committee in answer to the member for Goyder's question regarding the time for the PPP. We all thought it was a 30-year PPP, but no, it is a 35-year PPP. So the non-clinical support contract is not 30 years but is now 35 years; on an 800-bed hospital (judging by what is being spent at the Fiona Stanley in Western Australia) it is about a $6 billion non-clinical support contract.

However, listen to this; this is the thing. The construction date was 2016 and the cost was $1.7 billion, and we know that the cost is $1.8 billion, that is what they were saying then, escalated to 2016. What did the minister say? He said, when talking about the PPP:

No, 35 total and construction five, six years; probably five years, but it could be six.

If you start construction in 2013 and add five years of construction on top of that it is 2018; add six years and it would be 2019. So, we are not getting a hospital in 2016; we are getting a hospital in 2018 or 2019. If you escalate the cost to 2016, you have to escalate the cost to 2018 or 2019. It is not a $1.8 billion hospital. What is the cost of the hospital, minister, and when will we get it? What size is the hospital? We just do not know anymore. You just cannot trust anything this government says. This is absolutely disgraceful. They have just tried to bluff and bluster their way through.

The other thing they did during the election campaign was slam us over costings, and we had them done by a very reputable firm called WT Partnership. I understood there were some legal concerns about some of the things the Treasurer said about WT Partnership—he slammed them. What do we find now? The government is using WT Partnership, who they know is a very reputable firm, to do some of its analysis of the PPPs. How hypocritical of this government!

It goes on and on and on about this hospital. We do not know what we are getting, we do not know how much it is going to cost, and we do not know whether it is going to be finished. In the meantime, what do they do down at the Royal Adelaide site? They just keep spending less and less on repairs and maintenance, trying to get everybody to agree that we are going to have a hospital, but we do not know how much.

We remember what Jim Wright, the Under Treasurer, told the Budget and Finance Committee: if it does not stack up, it is not going to go ahead. I asked the minister at what price would it not stack up—$5 billion, $10 billion? He would not answer, but then I asked him if he would rule out rebuilding down at the Royal Adelaide. He was noncommittal; he would not rule out rebuilding at Frome Road.

So, my bet is that we are not going to get that hospital down at the rail yards because it is going too cost too much and is too late and too little. We are going to end up with a rebuilt Royal Adelaide at Frome Road, and that is the best thing that could happen to South Australia; it should be happening now, and not be delayed. I am conscious of the time, so I will hand over to my colleague the member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:47): I thank my colleague the member for Morphett for sharing the available time before the luncheon break. We are here doing a grieve on the outcome of the estimates committees. The estimates committees looked into the ninth budget, line by line, of this Treasurer and this government. I will not go over everything my leader and the shadow treasurer said earlier in this debate, but I do think the points they made are very pertinent.

They made the point that this Treasurer and this government have been not only incompetent in managing the finances of the state but they have also been deceitful. This government in general has been deceitful, and it has misled the people of South Australia for over the period they have been in government but, more particularly, at the most recent election they turned that misleading into an art form.

There is a series of significant policy areas where they deliberately misled the South Australian people. The Adelaide Oval obviously stands out. The member for Morphett, the shadow minister for health, was just talking about the Royal Adelaide Hospital. We have, as I speak, members of the Public Service Association and other unions demonstrating on the front steps of this very building. We have just seen people power change and cause a backflip on the budget decision in regard to the Parks Community Centre.

The Treasurer has told us that the budget decisions were unanimously adopted by the cabinet. Every one of the cabinet members endorsed the decision to close the Parks Community Centre. We heard that the Labor caucus applauded the budget when the Treasurer briefed them on it before he presented it to the parliament. Every one of the Labor caucus members applauded this budget, we were told, and yet they have already had to reverse these measures, and they have their very heartland, their true believers, out on the front steps of the parliament protesting against them.

The people of South Australia, including Labor's heartland, including Labor's true believers, have lost confidence in this government and for good reason. This government has made an art form of deceiving the people of this state, just as they made an art form of mismanaging the finances of this state. The Treasurer would have us believe—and I will repeat what I said in an earlier debate on the budget—that the global financial crisis has caused him problems.

However, I already pointed out in earlier debate that, during the two budget periods, when he complained that revenues were falling, unbudgeted revenues (and he was claiming $1.4 billion disappeared from the forward estimates) of almost that amount—I think it was $1.6 billion—appeared. The Treasurer, for want of a better expression, has no clothes. The Treasurer just does not get it. People see through him because they have been caught out so many times by his rhetoric, which has never been matched by what in fact occurs.

I also want to talk about the estimates process, as well as talking about some of the outcomes of the committees that I was involved in. I have been the shadow minister for energy on a number of occasions during estimates, and I have raised yet again this year with the Minister for Energy the fact that two hours to examine the budget lines on energy is nonsense. There are about two lines in the budget on energy. The two hours harks back to the days when the state owned all the electricity generating and distribution assets.

We no longer own those and there are no longer budget lines pertaining to those; yet, because this minister does not want to spend the time on being (or his colleagues being) questioned on other matters, he maintains this farce where we spend two hours questioning him on energy matters. I will come back to some of the nonsensical answers that he gave us, if time permits, in a few moments. The leader pointed this out earlier: it is nonsensical that the alternative government cannot have some of its shadow ministers, those who are members of the other place, question ministers whom they are shadowing on the budget.

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I did not make the decision, minister. I am just pointing out that it is nonsense. It was no doubt nonsense in those days and, minister, if you and your colleagues are willing to change that, I am sure we will move to change it. Minister, if you and your colleagues insist that we maintain the farce for the rest of your term in government, I am sure if we come into government some of my colleagues might be encouraged to do the same. I would suggest we make it—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: I, minister, will argue strongly for a change. I am one member of this parliament who has always argued that good government is delivered when you have good accountability, and the estimates process could be one of those planks in good accountability. I would also suggest, minister, for your benefit, that I think it is nonsense having ministers delivering the answers to questions. I think we should be asking the questions of the bureaucrats; that would take the politics out of it and we would actually get some information.

I spent a number of hours asking questions of ministers and getting nothing back other than political answers which contained no information whatsoever. One of the ways of overcoming that would be giving members of parliament the opportunity to direct questions to the bureaucrats—not unlike what happens in the Senate estimates committees where real information is brought forward for the benefit of the parliament.

Let me come to the estimates committees that I was involved in. Certainly for energy, we did not use the whole two hours. We used a bit over an hour, which we have done in most energy estimates committees since I have been involved and since the current minister has been involved. We talked for some time about the Green Grid proposal on the Eyre Peninsula. The minister highlighted way back in 2008 that he had brought a proposal to the energy ministers' conference to institute a rule change to support the development of more renewable energy, particularly here in South Australia where we have a lot of wind resource.

But the minister refuses to talk on the detail of how that would happen. He keeps giving nonsensical answers to the questions I put to him in a bid to continue to delude the people of South Australia that wind farms are here in this state because of this government and not because we have a fantastic wind resource. It is nonsense that the minister keeps making things up about how the grid and the network work, and he keeps confusing issues about where electrons actually get used. Obviously the National Electricity Market is about identifying who is generating power, who is selling power at the various levels (whether it be wholesale or retail), who is buying it and where those sellers and purchasers are, and that is how the costs are attributed across the network. The minister knows that, but he plays very dumb when it comes to estimates committees.

I did ask the minister about the desal plant, and I will talk about this now rather than in water, because I have received the same answer from the Minister for Water about the desal plant and the renewable energies. Those who follow the emissions trading and renewable energy targets debate will know that we are now obliged in this nation that, by 2020, 20 per cent of our electricity energy will need to come from renewable sources. Those who have also been following the climate change debate will know that the Premier uses every opportunity to remind South Australians that the desal plant will be driven by green energy.

The reality is—and this was exposed both in the energy committee and in the water committee—that the green energy used in the desal plant will form part of that 20 per cent obligation; it will not be a voluntary green energy or renewable energy; it will not be on top of the 20 per cent obligation that we have to meet. So, all we are doing is paying extra to buy our water because of the use of renewable energy to drive the desal plant. We are not making one iota of difference to the state's overall carbon footprint. Again, it is spin bordering on deceit, the stock in trade of this government.

Also, when I asked the minister about the decision to cease the solar hot water rebate—and we do know that one of the best ways of reducing our carbon footprint is to use solar hot water; it is one of the most effective methods of reducing household energy use—it was nothing to do with some energy-based rationale; it was totally a budget decision, and that is very disappointing. I move to the area of minerals. We had quite a discussion on royalties in the estimates last year with the minister responsible for mineral resources. I quoted to him where he said that one of the reasons that we have a lot of interest in this state in the minerals industry is that we have a low royalties base.

Of course, it was revealed, again, after the election, not before the election—and indeed the Premier during the election campaign, if my memory serves me correctly, tried to claim that the opposition had an intention to increase royalty rates when we had made a firm commitment not to—that the government had always had the intention of increasing royalty rates. It just omitted to tell the industry that before the election, as it omitted to tell many people many things that were their intent.

Notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the fact that the exploration spend within South Australia as a percentage of exploration across the nation has dropped from 14.4 per cent two or three years ago in 2007-08 to 7.5 per cent in the most recent year—a halving of the share of exploration spend in Australia—this government has decided to take the quick option and grab the cash while it can by increasing royalty rates.

I asked the minister whether South Australian miners will get a full rebate under the new proposed resource rents tax that will be instituted by the federal government at some stage. We are not quite sure of the detail of that, but the federal government said that it would not stand for states gouging more money out of there. So again, that may well undermine the resources industry in this state if it comes to pass that, because of the sleight of hand by this government in sneaking in these royalty increases at this time, miners might be dissuaded from coming to South Australia because they will not get the full benefit of any rebate.

We talked about the PACE program, and it seems that the government has taken functions within the department which have traditionally been funded in the department, rebadged them and shifted them in under the heading of the PACE program, saying that it is now putting more money into the PACE program. I will take other opportunities at other times. I am about to run out of time, so I do want to, rather than going to the water—

The ACTING SPEAKER: Can I ask the member whether he has sought leave to continue his remarks later?

Mr WILLIAMS: I might in fact do that, because I would like to touch on water. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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