Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

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

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:47): It is with pleasure that I resume the remarks I was making before lunch. Of course, we have time-travelled and things have changed. The government has come forward with some explanation that it was unable to make prior to then, but it is still insubstantial. I note that the Premier, in his responses to questions about the breakout at Cavan, made a few strange statements.

The first thing to say is that minister Hunter has made a ministerial statement in which he has explained that the events leading to the escape, the responses to the escape and a review of the facility's security will form key aspects of a review of the juvenile justice facility at Cavan that will be conducted by the Department for Correctional Services, which does not say a great deal for the minister's confidence, which is unfortunate because these staff work so hard and they have undertaken a severe trauma in many ways.

The other thing the minister has done is confirm that it was a case of youths detained in two separate units working in collaboration to 'detract' staff—I assume the minister meant distract staff—to facilitate their escape. They escaped through a hole cut in the courtyard fencing of each unit. While the staff were attending at one distraction, the others were escaping and vice versa, and that led us to the situation we are in.

The point I make in raising my concerns in parliament about the Cavan breakout is that the public of South Australia has seen the situation where last night these eight serious juvenile offenders were on the loose. It is a serious concern to public safety. One of them is still on the loose. Two more have been captured since the last remarks I made in my Address in Reply.

The government, I believe, has a responsibility to ensure that the full facts are known to the people of South Australia. In the other place and during question time, the responsible minister refused to release details about the offences that had been committed by these young people, even though this morning some of that material was released. We know that they are not murderers, and we know that they had committed violent offences or were charged with violent offences, but the minister refuses to provide any further information, even of the nature of the offences we are talking about. The public demands to know more.

Then the Premier comes into the house and, having said in his initial answer to the Leader of the Opposition that the offenders escaped by cutting a hole in the fence, when I pointed out that minister Hunter had suggested on 10 November 2011 that the new training centre being built at Cavan might potentially have some cheaper style of fencing put in, the minister came back and said there is a range of explanations for the escape and that is what will be investigated.

The point that I make—and this is the last time I talk about it in this speech because there are other issues that I want to traverse—is that, when the Premier and the minister obfuscate the answers to these very serious questions that the public has a right to know the answers to, it does not do anything for public trust in the pronouncements that they make. It demonstrates, yet again, that this government continues—as it has for 10 years, and will continue, I imagine, for the next two, given every indication we have had from this Premier—not to be the government of openness and transparency and to obfuscate as a first course of action in response to any issue that comes up. It is far from the government that we were promised by that fresh-faced minister for education who criticised his predecessor for being the premier who would announce and then defend. All we have seen since he has taken the reins is a continuation of that policy, and it is very disappointing.

So we have had 10 years of Labor. On 9 February 2002, I turned 23 years old and we had an election. The 10^th anniversary of that is just up, and very soon we will reach the exact 10-year date of when Peter Lewis crossed the floor and announced his support for the Labor Party. What has the Labor Party achieved in 10 years, and I am particularly concerned about the areas that I have responsibility for—families and communities, housing, disability and youth?

I think of the issues, and they are certainly ones of severe concern to me, in terms of the community sector. We know that this year is 18 months since Kevin Foley (the former member for Port Adelaide) announced in his budget, with the support of the then minister for families and communities, Jennifer Rankine, that the financial counsellors supported by the government (this is about 44 positions) would no longer be available for the community to have access to. These financial counsellors fulfil a very important role. The Sustainable Budget Commission—the former treasurer's favourite excuse—suggested that if they were cut the security sector could take on this work.

Of course, any member of parliament in this place I am sure has had representations from UnitingCare Wesley, Anglicare, the Salvation Army or other community sector care agencies that offer financial counselling in South Australia and would be fully aware that these agencies were already stretched to capacity before the government made its cuts. These financial counsellors do a very important job. It is an early intervention that does terrific work in ensuring that before people get completely sucked into a poverty trap they can put in place some systems that will ensure that they are not in need of acute government support later. By getting issues sorted out when they are in the bud, by helping people put in place systems to pay their bills, stop gambling on escape from poverty, the government ends up saving itself money down the track.

When the government abolished these 44 positions, it identified that there would be funding for 3½ new positions that could be taken up by the community sector. I applaud the community sector for seeing that offer for what it was, which was a complete nonsense. Three and a half positions to replace the work of 44 will have almost no effect at all.

I applaud the community centre for continuing to fight this budget cut. It is now upon the government to respond in kind. I particularly note a report from SACOSS that came out quite recently demonstrating the effects that these staff cuts have had on the community sector. Anglicare, for example, since this budget cut came into place, has reported an overwhelming 373 per cent increase in requests for assistance; UnitingCare Wesley has seen requests for assistance increase by 34 per cent between November 2010 and November 2011; and the Salvation Army's requests have increased by 69 per cent.

I know that most members of parliament here have dealt with people who have been beneficiaries of this sort of financial counselling. I imagine that the member for Ashford, who is a former minister in this area, probably met with many people during her time as a minister in that area, and I commend her for her longstanding interest in it. It must appal her, as it appals me and members on this side, that the government continues to say that this is unnecessary, that these are not needed to be funded.

In answering a question from me in this place two weeks ago, the Premier suggested that this is the sort of tough decision that governments have to make. It is not a tough decision to rip away the sort of support that is going to help people stay away from having to need government services and acute support later on. It is just pinching pennies from Peter to pay Paul. It is just a short-term budget savings measure that is going to lead to longer-term financial problems and longer-term pressures on the budget for that matter.

I urge the government to reconsider this, and I hope that members present on the government side will consider talking to minister Hunter, the Premier and the Treasurer in the lead-up to this year's budget to ensure that some sort of resolution to this very, very concerning situation with the financial counsellors can be reached, because individuals in the community sector who work as financial counsellors report to me that their waiting times to get their service have blown out from potentially getting a first appointment within a matter of a week or two to now being several months.

The figures we saw before of the incredible increase in demand on their services do not even take into account the number of people who are now turned off and do not seek their services any more, because being able to get an appointment in three months' time is hardly likely to be followed up as being able to get an appointment next week. It is only recently, and certainly since my election, that UnitingCare Adelaide East opened up a new office around the corner from my electorate office where we are very fortunate to have a part-time financial counsellor. My office has, on a number of occasions, taken the opportunity to refer constituents to that financial counsellor offered by UnitingCare. She does an absolutely fantastic job, but she and other people in her situation are finding it impossible to cope with the massive increases in demand imposed on them by this government's cut, and it is not going to do the government any good in the long term.

In the area of disability, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to be spokesman for the Liberal Party on the issue of disability at a time that is very exciting, hopefully, for the disability sector. Currently on the agenda in the disability sector we have at a federal level the National Disability Insurance Scheme (which I will get to in a moment), and at the state level one of the last acts of former premier Rann was to launch Monsignor Cappo's Strong Voices report, which identified some 34 recommendations for improvements to disability services, including a number of urgent measures that needed to be taken.

First and foremost in those urgent measures was dealing with the unmet need category 1 waiting list for supported accommodation. I can inform the house that category 1 in this area deals with people in urgent need of assistance—they are at urgent risk of harm to themselves or others or urgent risk of homelessness. The Strong Voices report in November last year identified that there were 907 people on that critical category 1 waiting list. This is a real concern. This is an extraordinary increase of approaching 200 per cent since the term of this government. It is a sign that, in this area, for people with the most difficult conditions in need of the most urgent support, things are getting worse.

I have had the opportunity to meet with over 60 stakeholders in this sector since I was appointed as shadow minister, and I am not going to get any of these bodies into trouble by naming people who have said specific things because all of them are dependent on having good relationships with the government. One of the things that keeps coming back in all these conversations is that the government is continually dealing with a crisis situation and, when the government continually deals with a crisis situation, it is very difficult to plan for the long term and to make the sorts of commitments that are necessary. Going into the last election, the opposition committed to dealing with the unmet need waiting list as a top priority, removing that unmet need and auditing everyone who was in need of those services so that they could be dealt with.

It behoves the government to deal with this issue in this year's budget. The Strong Voices report, which the government announced its response to in December, deserves budgetary support in this year's budget. The sector expects no less. The sector has been promised as much by the Premier and the Minister for Disabilities when they announced the government's response in December. The government's response involved things like agreeing to those recommendations that had no cost, putting links on websites, promising to consider issues relating to disability when government decisions were made in other areas. Those things that had no dollar value were, of course, agreed to immediately. The government then made some vague commitments to consider some things in light of the budget, and a whole series of those 30-odd recommendations had no response at all.

One of the significant issues the government put on the agenda to be dealt with was that those people with disability who attract at least six hours a week from disability services will have confirmed the details of how they will be able to manage the funds themselves—as of this year's budget, I assume. Again, this is an issue that the Liberal Party took as policy to the last election. It is something that the Hon. Robert Lawson QC, former minister for disability, announced that we would be looking at in 1999. It is nice know that after 13 years the Labor Party has finally come on board with this. We know they are doing it because the National Disability Insurance Scheme is going to mean that this will be a far more individualised sector in relation to funding, and this is the sort of work that South Australia needs to do in preparation for the National Disability Insurance Scheme coming into place.

I note that the National Disability Insurance Scheme was supported by the Liberal Party and the National Party federal conventions, and Tony Abbott has said it is one of the highest aspirations of a Liberal government federally, once the budget has been returned to surplus, which I believe Wayne Swan has said is going to be next year, so that will be nice. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is yet to be funded by the federal Labor Party despite the fact that everyone backing Julia Gillard announced it as one of their achievements over the last week and a half. It was an extraordinary spectacle. They claimed credit for introducing something that is still unfunded by $6.5 billion a year.

When we go into this negotiation for a National Disability Insurance Scheme, one of the issues that COAG and all the other governments will have to face is that some states commit more to disability support than others. I regret to inform the house that South Australia is not amongst those that are pulling their weight in this area. The Productivity Commission report in January showed that government expenditure on services for people with disability in South Australia is $234.90 per capita. The national average is $275.90. We are streets behind Victoria and New South Wales—we are streets behind Tasmania, for goodness sake.

The commission criticised government support across Australia for people with disability as 'underfunded, unfair, fragmented and inefficient, and that it gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate support'. That is the whole of Australia, and we are well below the national average. The issue that the government will have to confront going into this COAG round is that we are currently not pulling our weight. How do you think the governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the commonwealth are going to respond if we go cap in hand to them and say, 'We'd like the commonwealth to bail us out because we have not been providing the necessary support.' We would be laughed out of town as we should be.

It is incumbent on the government to right this wrong. They made these promises to people with disability in South Australia in December in response to the Strong Voices report. In this year's budget, they have a serious responsibility to finally deliver, and they will be judged by how they respond to Strong Voices. They will be judged by the level of real support on the ground that we see in this year's budget.

It is disappointing that they did not take the opportunity to announce their measures of support in the Mid-Year-Budget Review in December. The Mid-Year-Budget Review came out on a Friday. They waited until the following Monday, and I can only assume that that is because they did not want to be judged by the fact that there was not one cent for disability in that Mid-Year-Budget Review.

The area of housing is one that got some attention in the Governor's speech. It is often repeated by members and ministers in this house that Labor is apparently the party of support for the poor in our society and those in need of social housing. Yet, it is the Labor Party that has sold off over 10,000 properties from Housing SA. We have seen the figures go from over 50,000—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: I'm sorry, minister, but we were told by the Premier that ministers—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Order!

Mr GARDNER: —were going to be respectful of other members of parliament, and I hope that will be the case.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: I'm sorry; I look forward to the Premier's words being listened to by his own ministers. Public housing has seen a significant loss in the last 10 years of Labor. The Housing Trust of South Australia, of course, was a proud Liberal initiative set up 75 years ago this year—its 75^th birthday, and we have seen that in public housing we have lost over 10,000 houses.

In December, we heard the Treasurer, Jack Snelling, on radio saying that public housing in South Australia is very expensive because people cannot get rent assistance, and South Australia has far more people in public housing per capita than any other state in Australia. When asked by Leon Byner how many South Australians that meant we should potentially have in public housing, the Treasurer identified a figure of 30,000—30,000, so that is another 10,000 that apparently are to go.

This is going to place an extraordinary burden on the community sector. The community housing sector actually does things pretty well. I have every confidence in Anglicare, UnitingCare, and all those other housing providers to do a good job, but they need to have some sort of support if the government is planning on completely palming off onto them all this work that they currently do.

The other issue that we have here is that we are expecting that a number of people who have traditionally gone into public housing will go into the private rental market. There are some issues with this, too. The cost of living burdens that have been placed upon South Australians outstrips anywhere else in Australia, and this is particularly tied to 10 years of Labor because it is in 10 years of Labor that we have seen water bills go up nearly 200 per cent, with more rises coming. Electricity bills go up, state taxes go up, and state fees and charges go up constantly. With the cost of living going up so extraordinarily, people who used buy their own house are now in the rental market.

At the other end of the spectrum, people who used to be in public housing are now going to be forced into the rental market. Those South Australians who are in this situation are really struggling, and I am especially thinking of young South Australians who are at the bottom end of the food chain, it seems, when it comes to this government's support. Consequently, we see instances of couch surfing and people staying in inappropriate accommodation. These people are not counted in the homeless figures, yet they do not have a safe roof over their head where they can be confident that they are going to be able to stay in two or three weeks' time.

The pressures being put on the community sector are extreme. I would urge all members of parliament to look at some of the community sector's programs that are going on at the moment because some terrific work is being done. The cost of living for all South Australians is particularly affecting these people. I put the blame for that at the feet of the Labor government, which over the last 10 years has seen those extraordinary increases go up and up and up—10 years of economic mismanagement, 10 years of Labor waste.

We heard from the member for Mitchell during the last sitting week in the Address in Reply that he is quite proud of the level of debt that the government is at because it is heading towards only $8 billion. The effect, of course, is that the state government has interest payments of $2 million a day, and that is money that cannot be spent on the things that we should be doing to provide a social support safety net for the people of South Australia who need our help. Ten years of Labor waste, 10 years of Labor mess. I really look forward to 15 March 2014 so that the people of South Australia will have the opportunity to deliver us from this mess.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:10): I would like to join with my colleagues and congratulate the new members for Port Adelaide and Ramsay on joining us in this place. It is not yet two years since I came to this place, so I understand your excitement and apprehension. Congratulations to you both and well done on delivering your maiden speech today.

I would also like to thank the Governor for his speech and congratulate him on the way in which he carries out his duties. I understand that he has been appointed to that role for another two years. I also understand that he recently took part in the Adelaide to Port Lincoln Yacht Race. I trust that he and the crew with whom he was involved enjoyed the trip and the hospitality of Port Lincoln. It would be of some comfort to the crew, I am sure, to know that they had a rear admiral on board; he would certainly know the ropes. However, I understand that it was not an easy trip. The weather was not great; it was pretty rough for about 20 hours. There was much seasickness and then the weather calmed. All the yachts eventually made it in, including the governor's, and I know that he enjoyed the evening in Port Lincoln.

The Governor, of course, delivers the speech, but it is actually the government's speech. I would like to pick up on a few of the themes from the speech, and, of course, the emphasis was on themes. There was plenty of rhetoric but not a lot of detail.

What I would like to talk about initially is affordable living. It is a term that was used in the Governor's speech. It is a theme that was mentioned today during the new members' maiden speeches. I find the term to be a very interesting bit of spin. The Governor's speech mentioned affordable living as a broad theme of this government, and we must be clear that the real issue is, in fact, the cost of living.

To highlight the cost of living in South Australia, I point out that electricity charges have doubled under 10 years of Labor, gas charges are up nearly 80 per cent and Adelaide now has the highest capital city water charges in the country. The recent analysis of a well-known political commentator's own water bill indicated that just 15 per cent of the total bill was for the cost of water. The remaining 85 per cent was made up of administration fees and charges. That is extraordinary. Nobody minds paying for water, but when 85 per cent of an account is made up of government fees and charges, it is just extraordinary.

I would like to highlight a letter which appeared in the most recent Sunday Mail—in fact, it was printed as the letter of the week—entitled 'Spiralling costs leave pensioners powerless'. I will quote from that letter:

We used exactly the same amount of electricity this quarter as we did for the same time last year, but owe $140 more due to the 30 per cent increase in electricity in the past eight months.

We're frugal with electricity and have done all of the advised, cost-saving recommendations. We can no longer use the washing machine, as it's 15 years old and we now hand wash. We've turned our electric hot-water service off and will do without hot water for bathing.

We've restricted ourselves to just two to four hours of air-conditioning a day when the temperature is above 34C, but will no longer be able to afford even that small luxury. We don't ever use heating in the winter.

This is a letter from somebody who lives in Adelaide. It really hits the nail on the head and demonstrates the human element that is perhaps ignored in this place on occasion. The people who are suffering most are the people who can least afford the rising utility costs. This is a first-world country. We have to ask: what on earth is going on?

The cost of living pressures are also hurting country people—people who live in Flinders. Cost of living pressures—mostly the cost of utilities but also licence fees and vehicle registration fees—have all increased dramatically under Labor. Does the government realised that the cost of registering a B-double truck, for example, is now $18,000 a year? It costs $18,000 to register a truck. This nation relies on transport for business to function, yet the industry is being forced to operate under an impractical compliance regime—I will say it again: it is an impractical compliance regime—and, at the same time, is being bled dry.

I have picked out the transport industry but, of course, it is not the only industry that is suffering under regulation and red tape. Regulation and red tape is stifling small business in this state. It is simply not good enough for South Australia to have fewer start-up businesses than other states or, worse, for business to be heading interstate where there are more favourable tax regimes and conditions for doing business.

Once again, does the government not understand that we operate in a global economy and to be successful we must be internationally competitive? The regime that this government has imposed on businesses in this state is counter to this whole notion. It is no wonder we are struggling.

I would like to talk about exports. Exports are fundamental to this state's economy; they are fundamental to the regional economy. It is unfathomable that export levels are only just recovering to the point where they were under the previous Liberal government, 10 years ago, and it is no thanks to the government, even though they are fond of taking the credit for the efforts of our farmers, our fishers and our miners. Any manufacturing business that is still managing to stay in business in this state should be congratulated because they have managed to do so despite the best efforts of government to make it nearly impossible.

One area I would like to particularly highlight today is the government's lack of commitment to research and development. I noted the member for Mawson, in his address in reply, highlighted his fear of multinational corporations. I have to say, to my mind, the best way to ensure cost-effective development and timely uptake of technology, particularly in areas of primary production, is through public investment into R&D—research and development—but, even more particularly, through extension. Unfortunately, departments such as PIRSA are just a shadow of their former selves. For 150 years, South Australia led the world in the development, adoption and promotion of dryland agricultural practice.

The list of accomplishments from the South Australian agricultural industry is well known but it does not hurt to revisit them from time to time just to highlight and demonstrate the ingenuity and initiative that the agricultural industry has shown over such a long time:

the stripper: Ridley invented the stripper and developed the stripper here in South Australia in the 1840s;

the addition of superphosphate to nutrient-deficient soils;

lay farming; and

the green revolution.

South Australia was at the forefront of all of these developments. My concern is that we have already started to see the demise of that key role that we once had in world agriculture, simply because our state government cannot afford or cannot be bothered to provide the support and extension required.

It is going to be more critical at this point in our history than ever before. As the dynamics of world population and agricultural production change, as we face the realities of a carbon tax, the initiatives that agriculture will need to be able to demonstrate and develop need appropriate support, appropriate research and development and appropriate extension.

What I have decided, in fact, is that this government is more interested in telling landowners what they can and cannot do with their property and what they can and cannot grow in their own paddocks. This smacks of old-fashioned socialism. It is a dangerous shift to the left by government members who do not understand how the world works, do not understand how things tick and have their respective heads buried in some quaint notion that, somehow, they know best and are best able to tell citizens what is best for them.

I might just touch for a moment on the issue of food security. It is a topic that comes up often; in fact, it has already come up today in this house, in a contribution from the member for Schubert. I have noticed that it is on the tip of everyone's tongue, and it is particularly raised often by the local radio shock jocks, who manage to whip people into a frenzy about food security and issues that might arise should we not address it.

The reality is that our ability to produce food has risen at a faster rate than the world's population and will continue to so—it will continue to do so with the advent, introduction and adoption of technologies. Another reality is that food in this country is actually so cheap that we can afford to throw it away. That does not really demonstrate to me that there is a food security issue. There is certainly a food distribution problem, but it is not about the supply itself. Certainly, there are people in the world—up to one billion, possibly—who are hungry; some are starving. The problem is that they are hungry not because there is not enough food but because they are poor. We need to take a step back, a deep breath and address food security seriously and understand the fundamentals that are contributing to the debate at the moment.

We are the highest taxed state in the nation. It is an indictment of this government's financial management. It is putting pressure on households and businesses, and that pressure is being felt in regional, rural and remote South Australia, as well as in metropolitan Adelaide. What do we see for our taxes? Not much. We certainly see some poor roads. One road in my electorate that I have highlighted a number of times—and I will continue to highlight and lobby for funding—is the Tod Highway, which extends through the centre of Eyre Peninsula. I am going to talk particularly about a length of that road of probably 150 kilometres from Karkoo to Kyancutta. It is a highway, and it is so narrow that it is dangerous.

About three million tonnes of grain is grown on Eyre Peninsula in any given year, and a good portion of that is transported by road down that Tod Highway. When two road trains come head to head and attempt to pass each other on the Tod Highway, it is dangerous. I commend the skill of the drivers for managing that situation. I have heard of instances where mirrors have been knocked off. Touch wood, no serious accidents have occurred, although there have been some incidents. It would not cost much to seal the shoulders of that particular road.

Water and power infrastructure is no longer able to cope with the demands placed on it, and we have a government that, despite its tax regime, does not seem to want—or cannot afford—to invest in basic infrastructure. Once again, we have to wonder what on earth is going on.

Back in 2010, the government made a commitment to create an extra 100,000 jobs over six years. First of all, I have to say that I am always very cynical of governments claiming to have created jobs. The reality is that businesses create jobs, although I must say that the government has been very good at building the Public Service in this state. If we do analyse this claim of an extra 100,000 jobs, I would be very interested to hear about any progress the government has had in reaching that target because, month on month, time after time, we are seeing ABS jobs data that tells a very different story about South Australia.

Of particular concern is the youth unemployment rate in this state. My wife and I have four teenagers; many of our friends have children of the same age. We are concerned, obviously, about their future. According to ABS statistics released in January, South Australia's youth unemployment rate was 30.5 per cent (the December figure), an extraordinary figure which suggests that almost one in three of our youth has no work. This is the second highest of all the states and well above the national rate of 26½ per cent and, quite rightly, it is concerning for regional communities right across this state. The government has made commitments around jobs and training places, but quite clearly something is wrong when we have the second highest youth unemployment rate of all the states.

I would like to talk briefly about health. Country health in particular is a topic dear to my heart, as is the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme. Time and time again we have raised this as an issue in this parliament, time and time again we have had correspondence with the Department of Health and the minister, and time and time again we find constituents having difficulty either accessing or getting relief from the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme. It comes to be an equity issue.

We have had a wonderful hospital development at Ceduna, and we are about to have a wonderful hospital development in Port Lincoln. They will be major and very good regional hospitals, but I need to highlight again the importance of the smaller country town hospitals which are so vital to the communities they service. There is a sense of ownership by country people of their local hospital. The reason those hospitals are there in the first instance is that the people of the communities and the towns built them. They built them, they owned them, they operated them. In recent years, we have seen a change in the way they function, and it has been a retrograde step, in my opinion.

Recently, Senator Fawcett and Dr Andrew Laming from the federal parliament visited the electorate of Flinders. One of the reasons for their visit was to talk to doctors and the broader community about some of the challenges that we were facing in the country, in regional, remote and rural Australia, with regard to health services. Along with Rowan Ramsay, the member for Grey, I was fortunate enough to be part of that visit. We met with some local doctors one particular evening, and they highlighted the challenge of attracting and retaining doctors to country areas—not only doctors but allied health professionals as well—and they put up a few options. I think the government certainly needs to show some imagination in this. There are schemes that could work, and they certainly need to be considered.

We have concerns also about the financial implications of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, the actual costs compared to what the public was told prior to the 2010 election in terms of costings. It goes to the very credibility of the government. We were told throughout the election campaign in 2010 that the new RAH was a $1.7 billion project: the reality is that this looks like being a $12 billion project. That is an extraordinary blowout.

If we examine the financial implications of the Adelaide desal plant, coming in at $1.8 billion, and the $535 million contribution to the Adelaide Oval project—which, of course, during the election campaign was $450 million 'and not a penny more'—it is clear to see that this government cannot deliver a project without subjecting taxpayers to significant cost blowouts. Sadly, we will be paying for this extravagance for decades to come.

I would also like to touch on the mining boom and its benefits. Once again, it is government spin and rhetoric that came to light under Mike Rann but has continued under the new Premier. The former premier would often trumpet the 16 new mines during his reign as premier. The reality was that it was an indictment on the government, not a badge of honour. Exploration activity on Eyre Peninsula, and indeed across the state, is exciting, but I have to say that we have a long way to go in terms of seeing the benefits of the mining boom like those we have seen in other states.

We want to see those real benefits flow through regional South Australia in the coming years. We have seen this government try to grab headlines without backing it up with results. The challenge, of course, will be to achieve a balance when mining development does take place. We need to find a balance, particularly as mining extends into the agricultural areas. That balance will need to be between farming, or existing land uses, the environment, and the mining industry itself. It will not be easy to find that balance particularly, as I said, in regard to existing agricultural industries.

With regard to mining on Eyre Peninsula, the associated infrastructure will be crucial. The government, in fact, is going nowhere near infrastructure development. They have stepped right back and right away from it. There is no intention whatsoever to spend money on much-needed infrastructure, so much so that mining companies are now looking at the viability of constructing their own railways and building their own ports.

Port infrastructure is going to be crucial to this mining development and it is baffling to me that the government is not investing in critical infrastructure for the mining industry such as ports, power supplies, roads and rail. As I mentioned, one of the mining companies on Eyre Peninsula, should it get up and running, is considering quite seriously building its own railway line to transport goods to port.

The infrastructure priorities of this government seem to be very city-centric. The Northern Expressway has been a priority of this government. This is the only place in the world that I have come across which has stoplights on a freeway. In other places in the world you drive onto a freeway and you drive off again with no stopping. Unfortunately, in this state, we seem to have a need to put stoplights on a freeway.

Water remains one of the most important issues for the people and businesses in Flinders, if not the most important issue. The health of the Murray-Darling Basin, the Lower Lakes and the Murray Mouth all remain high priorities. However, I would like to see greater priority given to the area of water in my region. I am very pleased that, as of now, the Natural Resources Committee of parliament will conduct an inquiry into water supply and resources on Eyre Peninsula. I am pleased that they will take submissions from all interested parties and that they will identify any gaps in our knowledge and any gaps in the science that might be highlighted. It will also give the opportunity for the air to be cleared around a lot of the issues that have built up over the last few years with regard to the water situation on the Eyre Peninsula.

The state's dire budgetary position keeps coming up time and time again and every single contribution from this side has highlighted it. It seems like almost every day there is some new economic data or business survey that supports the argument that this Labor government has a terrible record on managing the economy and the state's finances. The figure I highlight is that we have a current debt of $11 billion and growing, which means that each and every single day this state is paying $2 million in interest.

In relation to police numbers, much like the government's commitment to creating an extra 100,000 jobs, we have seen the police recruitment target pushed out and, essentially, their election promise broken. Up to 200 fewer police officers will be delivered over the next two years than the number promised at the 2010 election. The Police Association President, Mark Carroll, recently outlined his position in the Police Journal. Mr Carroll was adamant that the government's 'pledge to recruit 313 police over and above attrition by 2014' had been broken by the Weatherill government or, in his words, the government had stepped away from its pledge and pushed the date for the recruitment out to 2016.

The government has tried to explain away this broken promise by saying it is part of the budget savings target. The disappointing part is that, 'Mr Weatherill's government undertook no consultation with either SAPOL or the Police Association,' according to Mark Carroll. This comes as no surprise to the opposition. The government has a significant credibility problem here.

A recent article in The Advertiser reported that local renewable energy companies are facing tougher competition for commonwealth funding following cuts to the Renewable Energy Fund last year by Premier Jay Weatherill. It is a massive hit to Renewables SA, which was set up by former premier Mike Rann, and it brings into question the Premier's commitment to invest in local renewable energy companies, and research and development. There is that lack of investment into R&D, once again.

As recently as today, an article appeared in The Advertiser regarding Innovate SA, and that came up in question time today in this house. Innovate SA is coming to an end because of budget cuts by this government. Its priorities are all wrong. Innovate SA provided a really valuable service to South Australian businesses in terms of improving technical practices in advanced manufacturing. So, as our shadow minister for industry (the member for Norwood) has highlighted, the closure of Innovate SA does not match federal and state Labor's rhetoric when it comes to the importance of innovation and advanced manufacturing.

I will come back to one topic that I have touched on briefly already, that is, food and agriculture and the government's commitment to a clean, green food industry. It is an admirable notion but it is a bolt from the blue, I would suggest, after a decade. This is paying lip service to the food industries of this state without backing it up with any meaningful investment from the government. In fact, it is an insult.

What we saw in the speech delivered at the opening of this session of this parliament paid lip service, unfortunately, to just about everything. It is easy to say, but I have not seen any indication from this government that it can deliver on any of its aspirations, and a real risk for the government is that it becomes self-centred and more concerned about itself than others. Sadly, after 10 years of Labor, that is exactly where we are now.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:36): This is my first go at being tail-end Charlie in my contribution to this debate, so I have had the opportunity of listening to everyone else speak and it is rather interesting to hear the contexts that are put into it. I, as have others today, acknowledge the election of the members for Ramsay and Port Adelaide and welcome them to this chamber. I enjoy listening to the reflections of other people upon their lives and the reason they sought to come here, what gave them the opportunities to come into this place and who has supported them.

Indeed, I note that they are both very keen and enthusiastic. I was, also, six years ago. I must admit, as time goes by, you change a little bit, but we have a great honour being a member of parliament. I know when I am in my community, as I am sure they do, you respect that every day. It is a great responsibility, also, to always ensure that you are the voice of the people, so never lose that attitude to the role.

I am a person who loves to be inspired by speeches. I must admit that I had just about given up on the fact that the word could make us believe again until, in my case, I listened to some of Barack Obama's campaign speeches and the 'Yes We Can' message. I am not sure what it meant, but it made people believe again. I enjoy listening to good, well-crafted speeches that deliver a very sound message that makes us think that, indeed, we can. While I was not disappointed with the Governor himself and the speech, because I respect Governor Scarce immensely, and his wife—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The honourable member for Croydon will probably criticise this, and for me it is detail. I have read through the speech again today hoping to see the detail of how these visionary statements are going to be delivered, and that is what I am disappointed by because, if they were there, I would acknowledge it because that is the sort of person I am. But I cannot see that detail. That is the question that I raise, and I know others have raised also. It puts a lot of responsibility upon the government and, indeed, us in opposition to ensure that we hold the government to account and that the visionary statements it has projected are delivered. The seven key areas were identified and comment was made on all of them. There was a general point of view in discussion about it but none of the key aspects that, to me, will deliver it.

I want to take an opportunity during today's contribution to talk about some key things that are also affecting the people in the regions that I have the opportunity to serve in parliament. The first is marine parks. It has gone relatively quiet. I will acknowledge that. One of the first actions of the new Premier, in conjunction with the minister, was to call a bit of a halt to the proceedings, to go out and re-engage with the community and consult on it.

I have been telling the people who have contacted me about it—and it is still a steady stream of people who speak to me about marine parks—that this has not gone away; and you need to be alert to the fact that, yes, all sides of the political spectrum support the principle of marine parks but there is a very different approach, in our case, to my concerns in relation to the sanctuary zones and the impact that they are going to have.

I am pleased that the minister has given me an undertaking that, as soon as the draft management plans are in a position to be released, and therefore the information from the economic and social impact studies (which have formed part of the consideration of those management plans), a briefing will be provided to me, because for me that has always been a key point. In my correspondence with the minister and my contact with him personally, I have tried to impress upon him that fishing in a professional and a recreational form is an enormous driver of the economy of the region of Goyder—the Yorke Peninsula and Adelaide Plains areas.

Equally so, the economic impact study needed to consider—and disregard to some degree—agriculture and other existing industries and only consider what the impact of marine parks and sanctuary zones would have upon the local communities in those coastal towns. I hope that has been taken into consideration when it comes to the draft management plans coming out and some form of declaration of the sanctuary zones and the size of those zones, because if they are too large it will devastate communities.

I know that many other members in this chamber have spoken about it. The member for Finniss was actually the very first person to raise this concern with me, and I will always acknowledge that. He was concerned about it. It has taken a while for some of us to come on board, but we do acknowledge it now and we do so on behalf of our communities. These people have continued to come to me, wondering about what is going on and asking, 'When are the draft management plans coming out? Is there still an opportunity to have a voice on this?'

They were pleased that the select committee was travelling around regional South Australia inviting comment from people about it, but we all hope that what comes out soon is a manageable process that allows the marine environment to be protected, and to have some surety about that, and that it takes into account the different types of depths of water, and rocky and weedy and sandy bottoms, and all those things that want to be included in it, but does not take away the opportunity for my communities to have an economic future.

Another issue I want to talk about briefly is shared services. In previous roles, some time ago I held some level of shadow portfolio responsibility for this, and concern has always been expressed about what the target set on savings was and what it was actually going to deliver. The Auditor-General's Report has continued to highlight that projected savings were not going to be met. I have a recollection of a figure of, I think, $103 million a few years ago being a target about which concerns were being raised.

From a community point of view there have been a lot of worries about duplication of payments, or delays in wages being paid, and things like that. I do not disrespect the fact that the people involved in the shared services program are good, well-intentioned staff members who have been put under a lot of pressure. I have always had concerns about the fact that withdrawing people from regional communities and putting them into a centralised facility for these sorts of transactions to be conducted would have a real negative impact upon regions.

I am comforted to some degree by the fact that some of the in-scope people (and that was a term that the minister at the time used to identify the number of people who might be affected by it) has dropped compared to what it was originally intended to be. However, there are still people known to me personally who have lost position opportunities because of shared services. I know that the Leader of the Opposition continually expresses concerns about the effectiveness of shared services. Other responsible shadow ministers have also done that, but it is important that we get the processes right.

At the time of the shared services proposal even coming out, it was well known that Western Australia was not working. They had tried that. It had not met their financial savings targets and there was a problem with the delivery of the services, too. We have to get that right. I do want to talk about a very current issue, which is the wind farm development plan amendment. There has been a series of public meetings held around regional South Australia. I was grateful that the minister, on the basis of another council (I think it was a Port Lincoln one), was prepared to hold one at Port Wakefield.

Because of the wind farm project proposal that exists for Yorke Peninsula, it has been an emotional issue, and I know because I attended the Port Wakefield meeting. There were probably about 30 people there and eight or nine people spoke. The continued theme that came from that was the concern that their democratic right was being removed by their inability—if in fact this DPA had a long-term implementation—to lodge appeals against decisions that were made.

As I understand it, there has been a reference to a select committee being established and, no doubt, a lot of input will come in from that. But in the submissions I read—and I believe that there were over 100—that were generated by the people who live in the Goyder electorate, there was a common theme of concern. Yes, they want to see a level of economic development occur—some people are supportive of wind farms, some are ambivalent towards them, some are openly objecting to it—but they want to ensure that the process is right. That is where there was a real concern that this DPA could affect the process, whereby their ability to express an opinion, and for that opinion to be heard and considered, was going to be removed.

So, I would urge Mr Mario Barone—who I think is the chair of the committee that advises the minister on planning issues—and his committee, in the summation of the public meetings that have been held, that the report they provide to the minister reflects—and I am very confident that it will—the concerns put by the community and the positive support that came from it, too, because there have been a lot of questions asked. I know that in the meeting I attended, Mr Peter Blacker, the former member for Flinders, and the current chair of the Regional Communities Consultative Committee raised about six questions—and I must admit that I had a personal conversation with him about it—that opened up people's eyes to the fact that, 'Oh, there are issues here that we need to consider.'

There is no doubt that wind farms are with us. In my own electorate, there is a 55-turbine farm. There is a proposal for another wind farm of 176 turbines, with each of these turbines from the ground to the tip of the blade at its maximum extension being 152 metres. I have heard people say to me that it will be a veritable forest of them, occupying a 40-kilometre-long by 20-kilometre-wide area of Yorke Peninsula. While there is a willingness for technology to become an opportunity in regional areas, there is great concern being put to me about the impact upon traditional agriculture, and on agricultural management practices, and on the ability to feed people for the future, so there is an important need here to ensure that negotiation occurs.

I respect the fact that the Suzlon people and the series wind farm project people have lodged an application and a major project status declaration, that will ensure that the 25 or 26 independent reports that they prepare are independently assessed, and are reviewed by government with a recommendation going through on how to proceed.

I have told people continually that it is not just a blanket case of approval being granted, because I am aware of other major projects that have been denied, but this is going to be a tricky one. It is a $1.3 billion project. It is an 18-month construction period. It will involve hundreds of people during construction and, probably, as I understand it, some 50 people in long-term job opportunities in the maintenance of these things. But there is a strong groundswell of emotional argument being put against them with a lot of concerns about firefighting capacities, aerial spraying for weed and control, and the impact that that is going to have, so the company will have a challenging time trying to negotiate that with the community.

I have supported the company because they have held two community information forums. I commend them on that. They have stood up and provided the best answer they have available on any question posed to them. They have not tried to run away from any issue proposed to them. They are working through it as best they can, but that is where the process has to ensure that the community still has the opportunity, and that is where I come back to the fact that this wind farm DPA will take that right away. So, I hope the minister, Mr Rau, recognises that, and considers a future on it very closely.

Other members in the chamber have spoken about the Year of the Farmer, and I know the member for Schubert is quite passionate about this. Coming from an agricultural community—even though I am not a farmer, my mother's family are farmers, and my wife's family are farmers, so I have always been around it to some degree, without having been a practitioner like many others in this chamber have been—it is important that we respect agriculture.

The member for Hammond, as the shadow minister for agriculture, food and fisheries continually tells me, and many other people, indeed, that PIRSA has lost 400 jobs and $80 million in recurrent investment in its support of agriculture, and I think that is a great shame. All of us want to see agriculture prosper, and all of us want to see an investment in technology and the ability for us to grow and improve our productivity. It takes dollars to do that. Government has a responsibility to be involved in that, but the withdrawal of that level of funding really does give me a lot of fears about where the long-term support for agriculture is going to be.

Agriculture itself faces some challenges within its agripolitical spectrum at the moment. Some members will have followed Grain Producers SA and the South Australian Farmers Federation about what is proposed for the levy and the withdrawal, as I understand it, from the agreement that was originally put in place, and the minister has come out now with what she intends to do with the 5¢ levy. Apparently, it is a half a million dollars per year. That is really important for the industry, but it has to get it right.

Agriculture itself has to understand that it is time for good, young managers to stand up and be involved, not just in what they do within their own fence lines but in what they do within their industry. I do know some great, young farmers who have followed the genes given to them by their fathers and mothers by becoming involved in research, higher bodies and grain research development councils, and they have invested an enormous amount of their own time to ensure that their industry is successful.

We have become a bit more of a society that looks after itself more than those around us sometimes. I think agriculture has suffered from that a bit too. Like everybody, agriculture needs to invest in itself, but I am hopeful that the realisation is with agriculture now, and I hope a big transition occurs in the next 15 years of good, young managers who, yes, want the lifestyle opportunity it provides but are also driven by what they can produce and what their profit margin will be, because that is where the balance needs to be.

A lot of people have spoken about cost of living pressures. Indeed, I listened to the letter that the member for Flinders recounted to the chamber. Sadly, it reflects a lot of people across our communities. In my regional towns, with an older age demographic, I am faced many times with people in similar financially challenging circumstances who are very proud. They were brought up in hard times when, if you had a bill, you paid it and you did not buy anything until you could afford it. So, their quality of life is being reduced substantially to ensure that they meet their financial obligations.

All politicians, no matter what their political persuasion, have a responsibility to ensure that they work diligently towards future opportunities for the state and that they also care for the people who are with us now, and that is across all age spectrums. I have often been frustrated by the fact that, seemingly, our younger aged cohort of do not respect our older people, who have done a tremendous amount of work in their lives, in the way they should. The focus of expenditure seems to be on the 18 to 60 age bracket, but we have to get this right.

It is challenging—I do not deny that. It costs so much more money now to ensure that that infrastructure opportunity is there. It is very expensive to employ people, it is expensive to have the materials required for large projects. It does cost an enormous amount of money, but we can never get to a situation where we tax ourselves out of existence.

The higher level of taxation in this state is commonly related. It is a fact of life because of our smaller population and the large distances that we cover that we need a revenue source to fund what we do, but you have to find the balance between it. Unless we get it right, we do not create an environment in which South Australia is a place to invest and live, with a lifestyle that people can enjoy. We have to make sure that we provide an opportunity for older people so that their quality of life is not reduced to such a deplorable standard that we get more of the sort of letters to the editor that the member for Flinders recounted to the chamber just 10 or 15 minutes ago.

Another issue is the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale development plan amendment 2. While I no longer hold any shadow portfolio responsibility, I have been contacted over the last six months by people concerned about the fact that the community development vision statements that their local government and community have developed have been taken away and overriding principles of control have been put in place by the minister. They feel that they cannot do a thing in their communities anymore.

The minister mentioned to me in a briefing that there is an opportunity for a noncompliant development application to be lodged and considered on its merits. I know that because I understand how the planning process works, but many people are now fearful of losing investments they have made previously, with the intention of doing something. That opportunity has been taken away because of the development principles put in place, seemingly not with a lot of consultation. The Barossa Council has been quite outspoken. I have spoken to individual elected members who are very concerned about the impact of that.

I urge the minister to ensure that the review being undertaken reflects the need, yes, to control rampant development, because they are attractive places for people to live, but also to give people the opportunity for development. It is not an easy challenge to find a balance in between, but it has to be achieved, otherwise there will be such an artificial stifling of those communities that they will suffer terribly, and none of us wants to see that happen.

I also wish to talk about the country road network and country hospitals. As a member who drives probably 60,000 kilometres per year, I know that there are good roads, challenging roads and poor roads. I note that in his formal role as the minister for transport, the Acting Speaker invested in my community once. I will be eternally grateful for the Ardrossan to Port Wakefield Road investment that you, Mr Acting Speaker, made as the minister .

People are frustrated by the quality of the road network. In a recent decision, the Minister for Road Safety decided to reduce speed limits. I know that the minister will continually refer to the fact that it is hoped that it will result in lower road fatalities and accidents. I completely agree with the principle of wanting to reduce those terrible fatalities, but the message being provided to me by my community is that speeding creates accidents, not speed limits. There is a difference.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I know. If you obey the speed limits, the risk of being involved in an accident is far less than it might otherwise be if you are 10, 15, 20 or 50 kilometres over a speed limit. A responsible driving habit is required amongst people, especially those who are driving on unfamiliar roads. So, if we obey the law, things will be a lot better.

The member for Flinders just reflected on country hospitals. Having lived in towns with fewer than 1,000 people all my life, too, I know how important our hospitals are. It is very true indeed that the communities built them. They own them. They invested in them. I think the absolute majority of them were transferred under the state government public hospital system in the late sixties or seventies. However, now we have the situation where people are fearful of it.

I held a public meeting in my own small town of Maitland, where the member for Bragg spoke wonderfully well. It was mentioned then that, over a 20-year period, $2 million had been raised by the community to go into that hospital. That was after it was in the public system. It was an investment by that community to keep it at its absolute best.

I am fearful of what has happened—the country health mark 1 stuff of, I think, June or July 2007 or 2008. There has been a going away from that because people now seem to think that there is a board of management in place and the health advisory councils are there, but the government sets the budget. We are not able to have any influence on what that budget allocation will be, so we do not do as much. However, there are still really strong desires.

There is a health centre in Maitland with an independent board. It is attached to the hospital. It wants to invest in more consulting rooms for visiting specialists, and it recognises the fact that it will have to raise money. The community will support this, but you have to bring your community along with you, and I do not think that that has occurred in recent years. So, we have to go back to that local engagement, local involvement and local desire to actually invest in a hospital system, otherwise it will become just a public system that we use but do not respect or support, and that would be very sad.

Others have reflected upon challenges to manufacturing. In some of my previous shadow portfolio roles, I have met with various manufacturers who have told me how big their business was in the fifties and sixties, what it is down to now, where their competition comes from and the world economy in which we now operate, and they are very fearful. Quite often they are third-generation. They have gone through difficult transfers, they have reduced their operating costs as much as they can, they have become as efficient as they can, they have invested in technology to ensure that their productivity is very high, but still they are challenged to actually be viable in the long term.

I am concerned, as are other members. The member for Norwood talked about Innovate SA and the rather flippant response that was given by the minister today during question time. These matters are important. I consider Innovate SA to be similar to regional development association groups, who will have their funding withdrawn in a couple of years. Business enterprise centres had their funding withdrawn as of July last year. It is all part of investing in our future. Yes, the challenges are enormous—to actually get the balance of where the financial spread occurs—but, if you take away from those basic opportunities to grow our economy and to employ people and not invest, it will be a sad decision that will come back and bite us in the future.

The Governor's speech talks about skills, education and training. I totally agree with that. We can only have a vibrant future if we have a workforce that is upskilled to ensure it remains competitive. It relies on the fact that all of us, no matter what we do or what age we are, continue to invest time in educating ourselves. There will be a lot of opportunities. With the projected number of baby boomers who are going to retire over the next 10 or so years, opportunities will abound for our kids if we have a good economic climate to operate in. These kids will need skills, so they need to work hard at school, go to TAFE, go to university and continue to involve themselves in workplace training, too, to get the real opportunities.

A speech with a lot of words certainly captured the imagination of the members of parliament while we sat and listened intently to the Governor. The challenge will be for the government to deliver upon it. The speech talked about mining opportunities. Yes, they are out there. South Australia is seen around the world as a place in which mining is an opportunity. The Governor's speech also referred to the Copper Triangle (now known as the Copper Coast, which is Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta) which has a very strong mining history, going back some 152 years.

Yorke Peninsula, my own community, continues to be explored. There is a great proposal by Rex Minerals, but there again the challenge will be to get the balance right between that next level of economic development and traditional agriculture because farmland needs to be dug up for mines to occur. I commend Rex Minerals for their community engagement principles. They are very strongly focused on ensuring that the community is fully aware of what they are doing all the time, that they have a consultation group and that they bring that group and the community along with them.

We will see if the exploration work they are doing—which, I understand, will be completed at the end of this year—results in a full-blown application for a mining tenement to be declared to the area. If it does, I am attracted by the fact that, from what Rex Minerals tells me, they will be taking out material to the value of some $800 million per year.

It is just mind-blowing to think that suddenly we will have 500 or 600 jobs in the area. We will not get people to live there all the time but, if it does happen, I hope that a good number of them decide that they want their families to be raised where they work and not be commuter employees who come in ferries or light planes across from Adelaide. Again, it is a challenge for a community, but it is part of the challenge that South Australia has to face up to.

The Premier is quoted as saying that the decisions of the next decade will be the most important faced by this state. I think history reflects that every year represents great challenges when really important decisions have to be made. It relies upon people in public office, such as us, who have this opportunity to ensure that we make the right decision all the time—not just a politically expedient decision or what might get us out of trouble in the shortest possible term, but the decision that is the right one for our state. If we do not make the right decision at that right time, in many ways I think we should forfeit our opportunity to be in here because we have done a disservice to those who have supported us to get into the chamber.

I commend the Governor for his speech. I look forward to future contributions from the member for Ramsay and the member for Port Adelaide in this place and congratulate them on their election. Like all others on this side of the chamber, I challenge the government to deliver upon its words and to ensure that words that are meant to inspire us actually deliver for us.

Going back to Barack Obama, 'Yes, we can' sounds fantastic. President Obama faced an enormous challenge with the global financial crisis not long after he was elected. Equally so, we in this state—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Didn't do as well as Kevin Rudd.

Mr GRIFFITHS: —yes, true—face enormous financial challenges with a high level of debt and liability and a challenge for a community to actually pay the level of taxation that is put in front of it. These are challenging times, but the opportunity is there for the right people. I hope that the right people stand up.

Motion carried.