Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Debate on motion for adoption resumed.

The SPEAKER: Members, I draw attention to the fact that the new member for Ramsay will be making her first speech and I ask members to extend the traditional courtesies to her. As is also traditional, the chair will give considerable latitude to the member's comments. I call the member for Ramsay.

Ms BETTISON (Ramsay) (11:13): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a privilege to give my first speech, and I thank His Excellency the Governor of South Australia for his speech at the opening of parliament. It is an honour to be here today representing the people of Ramsay and my party. I am grateful for the trust that they have placed in me. As the third member for Ramsay in the South Australian parliament, I have very big shoes to fill.

I stand in this place today as a fourth generation South Australian on both sides of my family. On my father's side, Moses Bettison arrived in South Australia in 1855 at the age of 18 from Cornwall, England. On my mother's side, the Reverend J.C. Kirby set sail for Australia from Buckingham, England, in 1854. The Reverend J.C. Kirby, my great-great-grandfather, was the head of the Port Adelaide Congregationalist Church. He was a well-known social reformer of his day and, in 1915, was a key instigator for the 6 o'clock closing of hotel bars. He wore the title of Port Dock Preacher with pride. Let me assure the house that we do not share the same views on temperance. In the Cheltenham Cemetery, his headstone is a clock tower permanently fixed to 6pm in commemoration of his achievements.

Along with his strong views on alcohol, he was also an advocate for the rights of women. In particular, he lobbied for the increase in the age of consent for women from 13 to 16 years, for women's suffrage and access to higher education. His wife, Marguerite Kirby, was the first woman to vote in Port Adelaide on 25 April 1896 and, in 1890, his daughter Mary Kirby was one of the first group of female students to gain a bachelor of science at Adelaide University. He would view my election to parliament and achievements in higher education with pride.

I wish to congratulate the newly-elected member for Port Adelaide, and I am delighted that we are beginning our journey as members of parliament together. As we join the South Australian House of Assembly, I am still disappointed to see that women only make up 30 per cent of the members representing our great state. This is not good enough; we need more women in parliament. It is our right to be represented, and it is our duty to participate in all levels of society. Equal participation of women in politics is essential to building and sustaining democracy. We can do better.

In 1894 South Australia became the first state in Australia to grant women the right to vote and the first place in the world to grant women the right to stand for parliament. Our state set an important precedent that helped make Australia, in 1902, the first country in the world at a federal level where women had the dual right to vote and to stand for election. In recent times, we can celebrate that women have achieved the highest level of representation in the Australian political system. The Australian Prime Minister is a woman (still), and in this House of Assembly Madam Speaker is the first female speaker of the South Australian parliament. Also, the Leader of the Opposition is the first woman to take on this position.

We have succeeded, but there is more to be done. Merit in the selection of candidates is a topic of the past; we need to seek a new agenda that is focused on the encouragement and development of female talent. In order to be equally represented, there needs to be a wide pool of talented, articulate and educated women willing to put themselves forward to participate in all levels of political office. This is a challenge for all political parties—to nurture and guide women to achieve this goal.

I want to acknowledge a long-term supporter of mine, Annette Hurley. Annette is the former member for Napier and a former senator for South Australia. I first worked for Annette in the mid-nineties as an electorate officer, and then again from 2003 to 2004. Annette is a woman of substance. She is one of the most grounded individuals I know, and it has been an honour to have her mentor, guide and support me in my nearly 20 years of involvement in politics. For my part, as the member for Ramsay, I am committed to supporting young women in their journey as I was supported. I encourage any women interested in politics to contact me at the Ramsay electorate office.

In ancient times, Plato said, 'The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future life.' This is still true today. Education, training, skills and jobs; these are the key motivations for my involvement in politics today. Education and participation in the economy are the great equalisers in our society. It is my own experience that has made these areas so important to me. When I finished school in 1990 it was difficult to get a job; unemployment was high, and it was not unusual for more than 100 people to apply for the same position. I was fortunate to be raised in a loving home, where my parents always worked and education was valued. I can only imagine how difficult finding employment would be without such positive role models.

The government continues to focus on the importance of education, and the Governor's speech outlines particular attention paid to early childhood learning. Watching my son—who is nearly two years old—he has grown so quickly; he changes and grows before my eyes. The late Dr Fraser Mustard, a former Thinker in Residence in South Australia, led the research into the dramatic impact of brain development of the birth to five years age group. I was fortunate enough to hear him speak on how early experiences profoundly affect long-term learning, health and happiness. As Catherine Helen Spence once noted, 'There is nothing so costly to the state as a ruined life.' By partnering with parents we can support them in their most important role—raising the next generation.

Along with a focus on early childhood, I am passionate about lifelong learning and the people of South Australia developing confidence in their transferable skills. I am greatly encouraged by the recent announcement of the South Australian vocational education and training (VET) reform in partnership with the commonwealth. Not only are certificate I and II level courses on the subsidised training list fee free, but VET FEE-HELP is now available for students and approved providers studying at diploma level and above. Up-front fees will no longer be a barrier to entry for those seeking a vocational education. We need a larger skilled workforce, and this is a practical policy to deliver the skills and experience to enable all South Australians to participate in the modern economy.

I want the students in the northern suburb seat of Ramsay to feel as confident in their own options for life as any other South Australian. First, students must be encouraged to finish school. During the life of this government the school leaving age has been raised to 17. The evidence is clear that there is a direct correlation between the levels of schooling achieved and an income level of an individual. Second, I want people to be aware of their options. Whether it be vocational education, an apprenticeship, a traineeship or tertiary education, I want them to feel confident that they are in the driver's seat of their life.

What that means is that they have the ability to make choices about the level of education they achieve and how they achieve that, whether it is on or off-the-job training. Just because you did not enjoy school does not mean that you cannot get a good job. Learning, education and skill development do not stop at the school gate. You can upgrade your skills at any time, and the government will work with you to enable you to achieve the skills of development that you seek.

My parents are wonderful examples of this. My own father, who had not been a keen student, returned to studies at the age of 30, achieving his mechanic technician's certificate at the Whyalla Institute of Technology, which enabled him to change to a more interesting and responsible job at BHP. When I was three my mother was granted a scholarship for postgraduate studies in early childhood in Melbourne. Our family relocated for a year for her to achieve this goal.

We need all South Australians to participate in the economy to the best of their ability. On the horizon we have an economic opportunity of a lifetime. The Olympic Dam expansion has the potential to stimulate and engage the economy to new levels. It is imperative that the benefits are shared amongst all South Australians for generations to come.

When I was 12 my mother took my brother and me to the John Martin's department store at the Elizabeth City Centre to buy our first Holden jackets. Along with my spiral perm, plastic earrings and denim skirt, I was hip and happening in 1985. The Holden car manufacturing plant is at the heart of the northern economy. Today it employs 2,000 workers directly and is a stimulator of an estimated 16,000 indirect jobs. As South Australians we can be extremely proud that we are delivering a world's best practice product in a sophisticated technology arrangement.

I support the Australian and South Australian government's unwavering partnership with Holden to continue this powerhouse of advanced manufacturing for our state. But that is not the only area of growth in our state, and it is here that I wish to pay my deep respect to the former member for Ramsay and the former premier of South Australia. Mike Rann has left a lasting legacy to the people of South Australia, most importantly through the broadening out of our economy.

Whilst primary production and manufacturing are at the core of our industries, international education, mining and defence are now also intrinsic elements. South Australia's strong focus on renewable energy and its massive infrastructure program will remain unmatched for some time. In Ramsay we will very shortly experience for ourselves the benefits of this investment with the electrification of the Adelaide to Gawler train line.

We live in interesting times. Information and communication technology has transformed the way we communicate and increased global connectivity to never experienced levels. It has the ability to bring freedom of speech to parts of the world where it is suppressed. We are at the precipice of increased citizenship participation in political decision making.

The explosion of social networking and online media enables you, from the comfort of your own home, to express your opinion or participate in a poll or blog about any subject of your choice. This is a powerful tool that is given to the individual. Your voice can be heard across continents, cities and countries. We are only in the infancy of the impact this technology will have on our way of life and our decision-making. It is all very exciting.

However, nothing will ever replace the experience of meeting someone face to face. That is why I ran a grassroots campaign as the candidate for Ramsay. Doorknocking, shopping centre visits and street corner meetings may be old fashioned, but they are effective methods of community consultation. During the three-month campaign, I was able to invite the whole electorate to meet me at a series of Saturday morning street corner meetings. When the Premier joined me, more than 30 people took time out from their busy lives to meet with us. A status update on Facebook or a line on Twitter can never replace real-life conversations.

By going to meet people in their communities on their own terms, we can reach out to those who are disengaged from politics. We can help them become more engaged in the life of this community through this contact. This is essential in a community like Ramsay. When I was doorknocking, not only could I talk with people one on one but I momentarily stood in their shoes to see where they lived, how they lived and the neighbourhood that surrounded them.

The seat of Ramsay, created in 1985, was named after Alexander Ramsay, a former general manager of the South Australian Housing Trust. Although the boundaries are amended after each state election, at the heart of the seat is the City of Salisbury. The surrounding suburbs included in Ramsay are Brahma Lodge, Salisbury Downs, Salisbury Plain, Salisbury South and parts of Salisbury North, Parafield Gardens, Paralowie and Parafield.

The people of Ramsay are the people at the core of the Australian story. Many of them are first-generation Australians who left Europe post the Second World War to give their families a better life. The electorate, like much of South Australia, has an increasing age level, and many people told me with great pride how much they love living in the area, which they have done for more than 30 or 40 years. They have raised their families there and often shared with me how well their children have done. Many still live in the area, but others have also moved further afield.

Sport is an important part of Salisbury. Whether it be soccer or Aussie Rules, pedal bikes or Little Athletics, I heard again and again how important sporting facilities were to the people of Ramsay. Local residents can be assured I have heard this message. I have already been asked to be the No. 1 ticket holder for the Salisbury Football Club, and I am delighted to accept the honour.

Not everyone is doing well. Those in the Ramsay electorate with fixed incomes on an aged, single parent or disability pension have increased challenges in budgeting for their daily needs. In particular, those who are renting privately feel that increasing costs make them vulnerable. Cost of living remains a concern for a number of South Australians and it is a key priority for this Labor government.

I am very excited to be joining a dynamic team, led by Premier Weatherill. I thank Premier Weatherill for coming to campaign with me in Ramsay. I was also fortunate to have the members for Enfield, Little Para, Croydon and Taylor, and Legislative Councillors the Hon. Russell Wortley and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars to assist me on the Ramsay campaign. I also want to mention Senator Don Farrell and the members for Playford and West Torrens for their nearly two decades of support. I have also received tremendous support from Amanda Rishworth, the federal member for Kingston, Tony Zappia, the federal member for Makin, and the members for Newland, Bright and Napier. I also wish to thank Peter Malinauskas, Sonia Romeo, Nimfa Farrell, John Camillo, Bob Donnelly, Ray Wyatt, Michael Brown, and Stephen Halliday.

It is at this time I wish to make mention of a dear friend of mine, Nick Champion, the federal member for Wakefield. Nick and I attended Kapunda High School together, and I doubt very much at that time that either of us would have believed we would have the honour of representing South Australians in parliament. Nick has provided both professional and personal support to me over many years, and I was privileged to have him lead my campaign team of Reggie Martin, Andrew Anson, Aemon Bourke, Josh Peake, Stephanie Gheller and Jessica Nitschke. None of this would have been possible without my hardworking campaign team.

There is an extra special thank you to the 120-plus volunteers who assisted on election day. My particular thanks to Young Labor who came out every Saturday to doorknock with me in all weather. To the Ramsay sub-branch, you have welcomed me with great warmth and I thank Chad Buchanan, Ann Wyatt, Phil and Erica Pinnegar, Brenda Walters, Alan Hesketh, Vicky and Allan Nelson, Barbara and Don Franks, Sonia Griesback, Rob, Irene and Graham Klose.

Finally, without the love and support of my family and dear friends, this would not have been possible. To Issaka Zangre, Kirby and Kate Bettison, Susie Barber, Jason Hall, Carla Leversedege, Annette Charlesworth, Lisa Bettison, Pam Bettison, Brigid Mahoney, Michael Gunner, Kirsten Andrews and Inger Ahaneku, I thank you for your many years of friendship.

However, without a doubt, the single most important influence on my life and the reason—not just because of the obvious—I stand here today are my parents, Max and Amie Bettison. They have always participated in the community in which we lived. From the Rotary Club to chairing the primary school committee, they have shown me how important it is to be involved. Like many South Australians, my parents moved to a regional area to achieve a better life. Newly married, they moved to Whyalla where my father, a fitter and turner by trade, worked for BHP, and my mother was a kindergarten teacher.

My brother and I were born in Whyalla and, after a brief stint in Melbourne while my mother completed her postgraduate qualifications, I started at Memorial Oval Primary School in 1978. As a family, we moved several times, living at Evanston, Gawler and then Kapunda. I studied at Gawler East Primary School and, after a year at Gawler High School, I completed my studies at Kapunda High. I am a proud product of the public school system.

My father had an interesting change of career when he became a small business owner as the local funeral director. It is my experience as the daughter of a business owner that stimulated my interest in business and its importance to the economy of the state. In 1991, I had the great honour of representing South Australia as a Rotary exchange student to Penang, Malaysia. Georgetown, the capital of Penang, is a sister city of Adelaide. To be honest, I was not entirely sure where Malaysia was when I was told of my selection. Being a time well before Google or Wikipedia, I needed to search out the family atlas to confirm its location. As a 17-year-old country girl who had never travelled overseas before, this experience had a profound impact on my life.

In my working life my occupations have included weighbridge clerk, organiser, state secretary, adviser, director and government relations manager. However, the most important title I hold is 'mum'. To my son, Hugo, you are the light of our life. Your smile makes every day special—although a night of him sleeping through would also be lovely. When I get dressed in the morning, Hugo likes to be helpful and assist me. His particular strength is in the shoe department, and he likes to get them out for me. Our next step will be to get a matching pair.

Next year, I turn 40. Victor Hugo said, 'Forty is the old age of youth, 50 is the youth of old age.' Nearly half of my life is behind me, and as I stand before you as the new member for Ramsay I begin an exciting new chapter. I look forward to the future opportunities and challenges in representing the people of Ramsay.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Ramsay, and congratulations. It is good to have that Whyalla connection in here with me, and Memorial Oval School was a very good school to start off with. I now draw members' attention to the fact that this will be the member for Port Adelaide's first speech. I ask members again to extend the traditional courtesies to the member, and I also will give considerable latitude to the member's comments. I call on the member for Port Adelaide.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (11:36): Thank you. As I rise to give my first speech in this house, I do so with a consciousness that my campaign to be here may have been short but the road to prepare myself has been long. My earliest memories of a political awareness come from my parents' absolute adherence to the ideal of fairness and their rejection of the idea that social position should confer special entitlements. Their union is in itself a testament to the power of two people coming from quite different backgrounds meeting at university, my father from a private fee-paying boarding school where avoiding playing rugger was the main aim in life, and my mother from a small, English grammar school where she was celebrated as the smartest kid in the village— or at least that is the family story.

They chose to come to Australia to make their lives and raise their children in part because of the promise of fairness and equal opportunity that our culture has famously prized. That is the culture that my brother, Stephen, and I have been brought up to believe in and to cherish. It is not always played out in Australia, but it is always an ideal that the Australian people respond to.

I thank my parents for coming to Adelaide before I was born to allow me to grow up here. I thank them and my brother for their moral integrity, and I thank them for their unquestioning support for every path I have chosen. I was born in Glenelg, grew up first in Dover Gardens and then Coromandel Valley, which was convenient for my parents, who both worked at Flinders University. My education was a gravity-driven slide down Shepherds Hill, from the junior primary at Blackwood, down to the primary, the high school and finally landing near the bottom, at Flinders.

I have friends from those times who will remain tightly bound in my heart, and I thank them for their ongoing love and support: Vicki, Mick, Wendy and Liz in particular, I thank you. Flinders also gave me that most valuable thing: a general education. There I was fortunate to be turned loose to pick and choose subjects, and I was able to combine languages with biology and politics. If I may generalise from my particular experience, I would argue that an education in which one is taught to think and follow one's interests is invaluable, and a rush to force young adults to specialise early and to concentrate only on their earning potential should be tempered by the need to have young people who can criticise and challenge and construct new futures we can hardly imagine.

We must train people for the new economy—for advanced manufacturing, for mining, defence and technology-centred services, all of which require flexibility and creativity. We need to train people who will be capable of rising to the challenges this century will present us with.

The Governor's speech outlined an agenda for South Australia to prepare ourselves for those challenges through a set of priorities, and I was pleased to read that positioning our workforce to be part of the advanced manufacturing sector in the long term will be a high priority for this term of government and no doubt for many to come. Many people in the seat of Port Adelaide are dependent on the manufacturing sector for their employment, and they and their families deserve the security of knowing that this government will stand with them and increase our place in the advanced manufacturing our workers are so skilled in.

I have worked in the education sector. I was responsible for a set of services supporting university students in the late 1990s and the early 2000s and I know from that time, and from my own history, how transformative education and training is for individuals.

My grandmother, widely acknowledged to be the nicest member of my family, finished formal education at the end of primary school because her family could not afford for her to stay on. She was offered a scholarship, but this was insufficient as the family needed her to be earning. She did not leave her education at that, nor did she cease to value education. She and my grandfather gave all their support to my mother's school and university efforts, and she read widely in an ongoing journey of self-development.

Being a woman and marrying in the 1930s, my grandmother was also expected to leave the workplace to be a wife and mother. These two roles she relished but, as so many women did, and do, she channelled her considerable energy and generosity into working with charities and community groups. Her story may date from the last century, but it is widely replicated today. She may have been in England, but the same happens here.

Still too many people in our community are not able to receive the education and training they could benefit from, usually because they or their families do not have enough money. Coming from a low socioeconomic background is the technical terminology; not having enough money for housing, food and school is the reality. The Skills for All strategy is clearly aimed at giving all South Australians the opportunity to gain the skills they need to get meaningful and stable work, and it tackles disadvantage head on. I applaud its goals and will watch its success closely.

Having two young children of my own—along with my dear partner, Declan, the most important people in my life—I know what every parent comes to learn: that their futures are set by their experiences in these first years. It is not tolerable that children are excluded from a self-sufficient adulthood because their childhoods are overshadowed by poor housing, poor nutrition or poor education. Government must constantly battle disadvantage flowing from one generation to the next. That is the true meaning of progress.

As representatives of the community in this place, we must set as a test of our success the extent to which our interventions result in a society that allows children to grow up to fulfil all of their potential, regardless of what postcode they live in. The Governor's speech highlights a government priority to support the early years, when so much of our future path in life is decided. I am proud to have joined a government that recognises this as a priority and so clearly puts supporting family and children at the centre of its policy for the future.

I joined the Australian Labor Party in 1983, no doubt partly as a response to being 15 and wanting to get involved in something bigger than myself, but also because it reflected the values of fairness and progress that I hold dear. The Hawke government appeared to my teenage eyes not only to bring with it the end of the drought and the America's Cup win, but the possibility that Labor could be both popular over the long term and transformative. The Hawke-Keating governments introduced universal health care, dealt with the HIV epidemic in a no-nonsense, rational way, introduced far-ranging equal opportunity law and also won five elections.

At this point I wish to note that while Dean Jaensch and I have hardly ever managed to agree about anything in politics—and above all the merits of the Keating government—I have learned much from him. What I respect most in him is his fervent desire to enthuse people about politics—his view that a public that knows about politics and engages in it will demand better government.

In the Labor Party I met some of the brightest most sincere and principled young people in politics: Penny Wong, Mark Butler and Jay Weatherill. They have gone on to prove my early admiration of them far-sighted. I volunteered on several campaigns, and two stand out because the candidates were simply so good at connecting with the people and so genuinely respected their electorates. Those candidates were Paul Caica and Steve Georganas.

I also learned the power of the union movement—its capacity to support workers in difficulty and to give a voice to those who have little power. The unions have waxed and waned in popularity in the Australian community. Membership has fallen as the labour market has changed both in the shift towards the service sector and in the increase in casual, temporary and short-term work. Their defence of workers' rights was, however, supported so powerfully in the 2007 election that any suggestion that Australians have left the 'fair go' ethos behind in favour of 'me first' holds no water.

I am a member of the left faction of the Labor Party. I want to acknowledge here today United Voice, the ASU, Dave Gray, Dave Di Troia, Katrine Hildyard, Cheyne Rich, Cameron Smith, Ellen McLoughlin, Joe Scales, Kyam Maher, Roger Zubrinich, Gail Gago, Ian Steel, Mel Bailey, Ian Hunter, Alex Overley and Lois Boswell for their support of me over the long term. I also want to thank the young people of our group who fill me with a hope for the future for politics in this state.

I was not, when a young person myself, content only with joining the Labor Party. As the late 1980s rolled in, I was swept up by a wave of concern about the destruction of nature and I was active in my 20s in the environment movement. It was there that I met people who remain close to me, who, despite not all being members of the Labor Party, came out and campaigned with me in these last months, and I thank them for their loyalty and their kindness: Steve, Mike, Alison, Annie and Claire.

My love for the natural environment, for the world David Attenborough showed us on television, and that my parents took me to on our early camping adventures, and that I studied at Flinders University, has not abated, but it has matured into an understanding that the question is not how to save the world from people but how we can all live within it. The challenge we face in fitting 7 billion, 8 billion or 9 billion people onto this planet, in a way that gives our children nothing less than we had, is not simply resolved. It is not fixed by wishing people away. Locking up areas and calling what is behind the fence 'nature' does not solve it. The challenge can only be addressed if our dependence on the environment is recognised in a way that the best farmers know to be true and that Aboriginal people have always known but we city dwellers sometimes fail to understand.

Reconciling ourselves to the demands of the Australian environment and accepting that that environment will never be as it was before we came is one of the great projects before us as a nation. Accepting the reality of fire, drought, flood and fragile productive soil and moderating our demands on the environment to acknowledge them is something we must do. The River Murray will go into drought again and we must insist that the river return to health in the good times and be managed for the long term when conditions become harsh again.

In accepting the limits of the environment, we must also acknowledge that the environment is the source of our food, fibre and wellbeing and it is legitimate for all of us to benefit from it. I believe we need to move beyond the 'use or conserve' model of land management to 'use and conserve'. The most successful farmers do this. Managers of public land are also increasingly running the land to benefit all of us, whether it be through tourism, recreation or as a reserve of healthy ecosystems. A blurring of public and private land, a blurring of conservation and production and a shift to seeing landscapes as interconnected sources of biodiversity, recreation and wealth generation is the emerging way of looking at the environment.

For the people living in the city, there is the additional requirement that our environment be clean. It seems a simple demand that we can breathe fresh, clean air, drink fresh water, not be driven mad with industrial noise all night and avoid poisons in our daily lives. For many, this cannot be taken for granted. Wherever industry and people come together—in the workplaces and where houses and heavy industry are neighbours—there is the potential for pollution. I support a strong EPA that regulates industry and how it affects people and works with South Australian industry to keep ahead of community expectations.

Many areas in the Port Adelaide electorate live with these challenges and the community has shown its capacity for activism and resilience in working through what is and is not acceptable. I will stand side by side with that community.

As our population increases in Adelaide, resolving conflicting land use, bringing green, linked space into the city and retaining working heritage buildings will maintain our reputation as the most liveable city in Australia. The priorities articulated in the Governor's speech of a vibrant city, safe and active neighbourhoods and affordable living all speak to what kind of place we want to live in.

The Port of Adelaide must be an exemplar of how to make all these elements work. The William Faulkner quote, 'The past is never dead. It's not even past,' is never more true than of Port Adelaide. The deep history of the Aboriginal people, where the totem was the black swan, combines with the early European builders of our state, and with countless changes since, such as the departure of the big ships and wharfies, the misstep of Newport Quays and the emergence of a vibrant arts community. The port is yet to fully emerge in its new guise as the artistic, tourism, maritime heritage centre of Adelaide but it must and it will. I will do everything I can to make that happen quickly.

Since leaving university, I have worked in the public sector in many roles and have accumulated experience and influences that have shaped my journey to this place. From my many colleagues who became and remain friends, some now working on the other side of the world, I learned professional discipline, the power of hard work and how to exercise a sense of humour when all else was lost.

To protect the innocent, I will not name the colleagues I owe such a debt to but, as an anonymous collective, I thank them. Their generous support of me when I failed, as much as when I succeeded, has taught me that we all blossom when in a community that recognises and cares for us and that we all struggle when alone. For me, this is at the heart of what government means, when government is done properly and well: it should be the expression of our community, of our collective will and our shared aspirations.

As I doorknocked my way around the Port Adelaide electorate, what struck me, from St Kilda, through Globe Derby Park, Paralowie, Parafield Gardens, Mawson Lakes and round into Ottoway, Rosewater, Port Adelaide and up Lefevre Peninsula, was that the electorate might be diverse, but more bound the people together than separated them. What I saw were communities in action—people volunteering to clean up the area, looking after their older neighbours, caring for each other's children, agitating for government to pay attention to their priorities, to their area, to their history and future. Not everything is perfect in those communities and not everyone is included or flourishing, but there is a drive and a generosity within the community to work towards the greatest good.

I mark myself as a social democrat, as being as far away as possible from Margaret Thatcher's view when she said that there was no such thing as society. I am not sure that there is much left without a community—without the support of our fellows, a collective action to improve our lot, and never finding it acceptable that anyone is left behind. Like the microcosm of the seat of Port Adelaide, what binds South Australians together is stronger than our differences. I look forward to my time as the member for Port Adelaide, working with and on behalf of the community that has sent me to this chamber as its representative.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Again, my congratulations to the member for Port Adelaide—that was a wonderful first speech—and also my congratulations to the member for Ramsay. We look forward to working with you. I call on the member for Kavel.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:53): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to join with my colleagues in the Address in Reply, and I certainly join with everybody in the house to congratulate the Governor and Mrs Scarce on the outstanding manner in which they carry out their vice-regal duties and the manner in which they represent South Australia. I also congratulate the newly elected members for Port Adelaide and Ramsay. I trust that they will enjoy their time here in the parliament and that they will serve the South Australian community very well in public life.

I want to raise a couple of points, if I may, coming from the Governor's speech which, as we all know, was written by the Premier. The first point I want to talk about is the seven primary areas of focus for action the government has identified, and the first one I want to raise here in the house is that of affordable living. We all know that South Australia is the highest taxed state in the country. You only need to look at the facts. In statistics that we have from when Labor first came to power in 2002, CPI, the index for inflation, has increased 33.3 per cent over that almost 10-year period; 3.3 per cent is about where we understand inflation to be on an annual rate. CPI has increased 33.3 per cent over that almost 10-year period.

If we look at housing rents, there has been a 45.9 per cent increase in housing rents. Property charges have increased 72 per cent over the period that we have had this government in power. Gas bills have increased by 78.7 per cent. We are the highest taxed state in the country—there has been an 81 per cent increase in state taxes. Electricity bills have increased a staggering 106.4 per cent, and there has been a 178 per cent increase in water bills since this government has been in power.

We have heard a lot about the reasons for these increases. The government talks about affordable living in the speech given to the parliament by the Governor. If there is ever a conflict in what the government says and the reality of the situation, it is revealed in those statistics. The two highest increases are 178 per cent in water bills, a direct cost to everyday families in South Australia, and 106.4 per cent in electricity bills. Talk about affordable living!

We have massive increases in the cost of living affecting everyday families here in the state. We have huge pressure on the cost of living, and I want to know what this government is going to do about it. It talks about affordable living—what is it going to do about it? We ask questions here in parliament day in, day out. What do we get—more spin, more rhetoric, but no direct answers to our questions. It is time this government came clean with the South Australian community and explained to them how it is going to deal with the cost of living pressures.

The second issue that I want to raise from the Governor's speech is in relation to the mining boom and its benefits and advanced manufacturing. What has come to light over the past couple of weeks is the totally unacceptable situation that fourth-year apprentices, apprentices who have completed their skills training and all the requirements under their apprenticeship, have to wait, as in one example that I have highlighted, at least four months for their trade licence to be issued.

If there was ever an impediment on employment and the ability of people to earn the correct wage that they are entitled to, then the problems within the Office of Consumer and Business Services highlight that. For apprentices to have to wait at least four months for their trade licences to be issued is totally unacceptable. We have highlighted one example that was written up in The Advertiser yesterday. I certainly appreciate the work that the journalist, Lauren Novak, did in relation to that. I was happy to assist Lauren in publishing that article.

That is not the only example of the wait that apprentices have to endure in having their trade licence issued. I have made some other inquiries. I have spoken to the industry association. This particular example that I highlighted was to do with the plumbing industry. I have spoken to the Plumbing Industry Association and other plumbers I know. I have some close friends whose son has just finished his electrician's apprenticeship. They lodged their application in the Office of Consumer and Business Services at the beginning of January. It is being relayed to me that everybody who lodges their application and makes an inquiry about how long the application will take is told, 'Do not expect anything before three months.' That is totally unacceptable. These people are losing income. They are losing wages.

The difference between a fourth-year apprentice wage and that of a qualified, licensed tradesperson is at least $300 a week. You do not need a doctorate in mathematics to work out that that is about $1,200 a month and, in this particular example, close to $5,000 over a four-month period that this person has lost in wages. As I said, it is totally unacceptable.

This problem within government of lengthy delays in issuing these licences I do not think sits at all well with the primary areas of advanced manufacturing, the mining boom and its benefits. If that is not an oxymoron, if that is not a complete contradiction of what the government is trying to promote in the speech it wrote for the Governor, then I do not know what is. The example I have highlighted of this apprentice is not the exception, it is the rule. The son of close friends of ours completed four years of being an apprentice electrician. They were told, when they lodged the application in the office in the city, that they could expect to wait up to three months. That is the rule, not the exception.

The Minister for Business Services and Consumers has direct responsibility for the performance of that agency. One of two things is happening here: either he is not aware of the problems within that agency—he is not being told or not making inquiries about the performance of that agency—or he is aware of it and he is not acting on it. Either way, either of those two things is totally unacceptable.

On Friday, I spoke to the minister and gave him the details of the apprentice who was highlighted in the paper yesterday. I understand he is making inquiries, but it should not have to come to that—that you need a member of the opposition to feed information to the minister. He should be across these issues. He should be aware of the nonperformance of the agency. It should not have to come to an opposition member giving that information to the minister so that these problems can be fixed. It is the responsibility of the minister to get across issues in their agency and to act on them accordingly.

The third issue I raise is another matter highlighted in the Governor's speech in relation to the clean, green food industry. It goes to the very issue, in my electorate, that I have had an enormous amount to do with concerning the rezoning of the 1,300 hectares of highly productive agricultural/horticultural land at Mount Barker. Again, an article appeared in The Advertiser this morning in relation to that.

Again, I state the Liberal party's position—the party I represent—leading up to and including the last state election in relation to developing Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne, which I refer to as the tri-town district. Our position was crystal clear; that is, we did not support any expansion of the town boundaries until the services and infrastructure were in place to meet the current demands of those communities. Once that was achieved, then we would consider, in full consultation with the council and the community, some further growth—full stop. That was our position.

What we have seen is this heavy-handed government ride roughshod over the community up there in the Adelaide Hills, and it is my understanding that the minister at the time, Paul Holloway, wanted to make that decision before he announced his retirement. This was his last big hurrah. He completely ignored the concerns of the community, our position in relation to the matter and pretty much the concerns that the District Council of Mount Barker raised.

Mark Parnell in the other place has been successful in accessing some further information through FOI. My take on the information that has been revealed is that it really just confirms the beliefs and the understandings of the community, the councils and myself as to what had really taken place in relation to that decision of the minister for planning and urban development before he retired.

However, there is one important political point to make in relation to all this. The Greens try to paint themselves as the campaigners for fair, equitable and transparent dealings with the community, particularly in relation to the rezoning of this land in Mount Barker. Let us be very clear on this as well. The Greens' preferences at the last election helped re-elect this Labor government.

This has been raised publicly before and a number of letters have been written to the local papers saying that the Greens ran an open ticket in Kavel and Heysen and other seats—I think perhaps Schubert, Hammond, Finniss, in some of those Liberal-held seats—but the point that I want to make is that I have looked at the how-to-vote cards on the Electoral Commission's website, and in every key marginal seat the Greens published a how-to-vote card preferencing the Labor candidate over the Liberal candidate.

It is crystal clear that the Greens' preferences assisted the re-election of this Labor government and, as a consequence of that, the Labor minister for urban planning and development pushed ahead with a DPA to rezone that land in Mount Barker. The Greens cannot have it both ways. They cannot support the re-election of the Labor government, which then made this decision to rezone all that land and then after the event—after the fact that the government was re-elected and all the land was rezoned—start complaining about the decision.

It is unparliamentary to use the word 'hypocritical' and I will not use that word, but I am not sure what other description you can actually put on that. The Greens, through their preferences in the key marginal seats, assisted in the re-election of this Labor government and, as a consequence, the ministerial DPA to rezone that 1,300 hectares of prime agricultural/horticultural land in Mount Barker was made under this re-elected Labor government. You cannot have it both ways, and I want to make that crystal clear. That is something that I, as the local member, will be highlighting as we proceed.

The fourth issue I want to raise concerns how this government is operating. We have a centralist government in South Australia. It centralises a lot of the operations of government that historically had been maintained and conducted in the community. We have seen the centralisation of the health system and the very poor and bad policy relating to the building of the new hospital at the rail yards, which is an absolute black hole for the financial outcomes of South Australia.

This government has signed up future generations of this state to $1.1 million a day for 30 years just to have the thing there, not to pay for the doctors, nurses, physicians, or anything like that, but just to have the building there and have it maintained. It is putting a financial noose around the neck of my children and, hopefully, my grandchildren—I do not hope that they are burdened with this financial constraint, but I do hope that I enjoy some grandchildren—and future generations of South Australians, and that is a very bad decision.

I have a bit of an inkling that some members on the government benches do not really like this policy direction of the government: the centralist agenda. That is my view. But they do not want to say anything and they do not want to break ranks, because we have witnessed history in the making over the past couple of weeks in the federal ALP scene where they have not only broken the ranks, they have smashed them to pieces. We have seen federal Labor tear itself to pieces over the leadership tussle between the Rudd faction and the Gillard faction. It is history in the making. Nobody I have spoken to, or who has relayed information to me or my colleagues, has ever witnessed such a state of affairs. We had the ballot yesterday and now we are all kissing and making up and making out that everything—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I just remind the member for Kavel that this is an Address in Reply to the Governor's speech. The last time I was aware the Governor spoke for the state not the federal scene. So, could you perhaps get back to the state.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It is my understanding that in Address in Reply members have—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Freedom; you are quite right.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —the freedom to talk about anything they want to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It should be at least closely relevant to the motion before us.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am using it as an example of how the Labor Party in South Australia compares with its federal colleagues. The tussle, the blood sport, if you like, that we witnessed in the federal ALP scene directly affects South Australia. It directly affects the confidence of this state. You only have to look at some of the transcripts from the Australian Retailers Association from last week that were pleading with federal Labor. They were saying, 'Get over this struggle. Sort your messes out. Sort your bitter internal divisions and arguments out for the benefit of consumers and for the benefit of businesses in South Australia, and right across the nation, because it is affecting consumer confidence.'

When political parties are going through issues, particularly in relation to the most senior public position in the country, being the prime minister's position, when you have the scenario that we witnessed last week, and in the months prior to that, that does have an unsettling affect on the country, and particularly South Australia, which we have responsibility for. So that is one of the reasons I am highlighting it. I hope that allays any concerns that you may have with me in raising those issues. You have to admit, Mr Deputy Speaker, it certainly has been history in the making, because I do not think anybody has witnessed such a level of venom, spite and pure nastiness—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —and, as the member for Bragg just said, the acidic nature of what we have witnessed. Let me proceed with more of my contribution, as the clock is starting to wind down. As I was saying, essentially, what we are witnessing is that this government is a centralist government. It is addicted to building the size of government and building a massive, bloated bureaucracy. South Australia has 85,000 public servants at the moment.

I have highlighted the issue in relation to health. We have a massive financial black hole being constructed down the other end of North Terrace. What are we going to see? I think we will see half a hospital, a mile apart (1.6 kilometres apart) at each end of North Terrace. We know that all the health services at the current site are not going to be transferred to the new site at the rail yards: there is some oncology; some women's health services; and most of the pathology.

The medical school is, obviously, just across the road on Frome Road. Some of the services that the hospital provides now to the South Australian community will stay at North Terrace east (if you like to call it that) and not be transferred to North Terrace west. We are going to have half a hospital a mile apart (1.6 kilometres apart) on either end of North Terrace.

If anyone apart from the Labor government were asked the question, 'Is that a good thing?' I think the answer would be a resounding no. However, purely for political reasons they do not want to break ranks, because they have seen clear evidence of what happens when people break ranks, as I have just spoken about in the federal ALP scene; they do not want to talk about it. They hope the problem will go away, but I can tell you the problem will remain and it will remain for 30 years.

One of the reasons is that the government has been making very bad decisions, particularly about financial issues, and so we see the current state of the budget. I will not traverse that, because it not my particular area of responsibility on this side of the house. The member for Davenport, the shadow treasurer, the leader and other people are very skilled in that area and have the knowledge to deal with those issues.

Natural resource management (and we have the Minister for Environment with us, which is a good thing) is another prime example of a centralist government where you build massive, big, bloated bureaucracies and NRM boards. I heard a statistic the other day that 85 per cent of the funds that the NRM boards manage goes into administrative issues, if you like, and only 15 per cent of the money goes to projects in the community for the benefit of the environment. If ever there was a mismatch, it is clearly evident there.

We also have the current issue of half-day holidays in relation to shop trading hours. We have seen a really strong campaign mounted by the SA Business Coalition. Of course, members of the government and those close to the government are not going to say anything in opposition to this move. It was a deal brokered between the shop employees union (the shoppies) and Business SA. We have had members of the business community come out and criticise Business SA in relation to its role in this, but no-one is going to criticise the shoppies—and you know why?

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's right, member for Unley—preselections. They are the unions who have the cash; they have the cash that they pour into pretty well every Labor member's campaign. When the house reconvenes after an election we hear Address in Reply speeches from the vast majority of ALP members saying how grateful they are for the generous support of uncle Don Farrell, Senator Farrell—in cash, that's what it means, for their campaign funds. So no-one in government, close to government, is going to criticise this decision about these half-day holidays and penalty rates that have to be paid for Christmas and New Year's Eve.

My time is winding down, but what we see—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Another thing I will quickly talk about is an issue raised in the Governor's speech, safe and active neighbourhoods. Safe neighbourhoods? Talk about law and order issues being to the fore, with bikies running around and shooting up the show, drive-by shootings. We are actually debating legislation now in the house concerning these issues because of the hash the previous attorney-general made of the legislation that he thought would address the law and order issues concerning organised crime and, as a fall out from that, the activity of outlaw motorcycle gangs.

Summing up, what we have here is a Labor government that is a mess. Those things I have spoken about over the last 29 minutes are all examples of the Labor government's mess that we have in South Australia. We have a bad government making bad decisions with bad outcomes for the community.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:22): First, I want to acknowledge and congratulate the two new members of this place, the member for Ramsay and the member for Port Adelaide, who were sworn in today. In my 22 years here I cannot recall a time when new members have made their maiden speech within an hour of being sworn in, and I commend them both; it is a very courageous thing to do. I think it is like when you go for a swim in the cold sea; race straight in and it will not be quite such a shock. I commend them both for that; they did well and spoke very well and it was very relevant. It was also great to see their families in here as well, particularly the Bettison family, who I have known for many years in the community of Kapunda. It was great to see Max and Mrs Bettison there, so proud—and why shouldn't they be?

I thank our Governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, for his address and for his opening of parliament, and I congratulate both him and Mrs Scarce on the fantastic job they are doing for the people of South Australia and for accepting an additional two-year term. We feel very relaxed in the Governor's company, and we very much respect the position he holds and the way he and Mrs Scarce relate to all the people of South Australia, and especially for the efforts he makes to get to the far-flung regions of our state. We very much appreciate that.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Hear, hear!

Mr VENNING: The member for Stuart would know about that. I rise to support the Address in Reply, and will use this opportunity to raise some very important and serious issues both to the state as a whole and specifically to my electorate of Schubert. First, I would like to talk about the importance of agriculture to our livelihoods, as highlighted in the Governor's speech as being one of the government's primary areas of focus: a clean, green food industry, to use the phrase in the Australian Year of the Farmer publication Our Farmers. Our Future. I will now quote from part of the Governor's speech as it is very relevant to what I want to say. The first page of his speech states:

The Government understands that many South Australians are troubled and uneasy about the shifting and uncertain times the world now faces, on so many fronts. We understand too that uncertainty and doubt can be the enemies of action. This is precisely why we need to act, and to embrace bold new approaches.

For these reasons, this Government has comprehensively reviewed where the State stands now, and made decisions about where its focus needs to be for the future. Its emphasis is not just on the next year, or the next decade, but on a future which will provide rich and worthwhile opportunities for our children, and for our children's children.

From this process, this Government has identified seven primary areas of focus for action. These can be summarised under the following headings...

There are six of them, the first being a 'clean, green food industry'. I find this rather amazing. Is this a genuine realisation, an honest about-face after the huge budgeting cuts we have seen for the Department of Primary Industries, SARDI and the ABB, especially after 123 years of service to the state?

In every budget we have seen cutbacks—and the previous minister is sitting here. Will we see a reversal of this? I certainly hope so. In my last speech of 2011, I highlighted that this is the Australian Year of the Farmer, which is aimed at increasing awareness of everyday Australians of the importance of our agriculture and food industry. I am pleased that, apparently, it did not fall on deaf ears, because this is a prominent part of the Governor's speech that he raised up-front.

I am confident we will see a change of heart, because I agree absolutely that this is the way to go—this is the future. We need to do this: food security is a huge issue. I first raised it in this place at least five years ago. I might as well have been whistling Dixie because nobody was listening, but now suddenly it has traction, it has fertile ground. It is a problem, and we need to address it urgently.

The Governor-General and Patron of the Australian Year of the Farmer, Quentin Bryce, puts it very well as follows, 'So many essentials of daily life are there for us because of the efforts of our farmers.' I could not agree more. However, it seems that all too often farmers are taken for granted, people assuming that their meat, milk and other food simply come from the supermarket, packaged and ready to eat straight out of the freezer.

It was reported recently in TheAdvertiser that the strong performance by the rural sector last year was behind the state achieving a record $11.96 billion in annual merchandise trade. Wheat was up to 87.5 per cent to $1.8 billion, meat was up 16.5 per cent to $734.2 million, and wool increased by $21.3 million to $182.3 million. These are South Australian figures.

Labor's focus is on mining, but it is still the agricultural sector that is underpinning our economy. The Premier said in the SA Business Journal in early February, 'Our food industry is absolutely crucial for the future of the state.' I urge the Premier to keep this statement in mind, especially after the Governor's speech, when he is formulating this year's budget and not cut the agriculture budget further, as it has been every year under Labor because it has been very easy to do so, even though some ministers—particularly the minister sitting here—have been very diligent and tried hard for the sector, but it was a soft target and we were constantly trimmed. Let us hope it is reversed.

In the past two years, $80 million was slashed from PIRSA last year, and this includes cuts to research and development (SARDI) and the rural services division; cuts to the biosecurity budget; and funding cuts to the Advisory Board of Agriculture after 123 years of service, with 179 positions to go. I ask: how exactly is this reflective of the government supporting the 'most crucial' industry in the state, to use the Premier's description? I am pleased that 2012 has been named the Year of the Farmer. I hope this campaign is successful in raising awareness of agriculture and the great contribution farmers make to our country.

Another very serious matter is the state government's proposal to legislate to protect the Barossa region against threats such as urban sprawl. The premise sounds good, and we all supported the concept, as did you, sir, to protect our agricultural areas from the threat of urban sprawl, so they are reserved for future generations, and to protect their unique environments.

What the first draft Character Preservation (Barossa Valley) Bill 2011 actually contained was very different and divergent from the original discussion paper and the intent that we picked up from the public meetings. The interim Barossa Valley development plan amendment introduced by the minister on 28 September 2011 has basically placed a freeze on all development within the protection district and even development that is quite appropriate to the region—what you would call everyday, normal development.

Last Friday week, the minister put out a media release stating that he had listened to the concerns and a new bill had been drafted and a new DPA would be introduced to rectify the unintended consequences of the first DPA. He then said in this house:

I would like to advise the house, as I have advised all of them, that there will be new interim DPAs on foot, probably within a month. Those new interim DPAs will replace the existing DPAs and I believe considerably assist the local government authorities in the management of their development assessment processes.

He then went on to say:

I can also advise the parliament that as a result of these discussions there have been some very minor amendments to those two bills.

The minister believes he has listened to the community concerns, and I note the member for Mawson sitting here because he is also affected in McLaren Vale. However, once again, no-one outside the department has seen the draft bill, not even the affected councils, so how do we really know? The community and the affected councils need to see more detail before saying that all concerns have been addressed. The minister's reference to only 'minor amendments' being made is of concern. From my engagement with the affected councils about the contents of the first draft bill, it seems that more than minor amendments were needed.

I cautiously welcome the minister's announcement, because things could not get much worse than they have been under the current DPA. People have had to put their lives on hold, businesses have stagnated and people have been scared off proposing any sort of development, even that which we would consider as very appropriate to the area—everyday stuff such as sheds on farms, a new wine storage tank on an existing tank farm and a shearing shed on an existing farm. In one case, a $1 million expansion of an existing 100-year-old business was put on hold.

It really does bite hard when a business that we would all know well rang this morning and contacted my office. He is a local shed builder and manufacturer, and he said that this DPA is hurting his business. People have had to apply for noncomplying development to build these sheds and are now not proceeding with it. He has put off workers already and will close his business within one year if we cannot solve this problem. To be told that a shearing shed on a farm is noncompliant and you have to go through this process which will take months, when the normal process would take two or three weeks, and there is no guarantee of success, is all too hard.

At this stage, we have not seen the proposed new DPA, but I hope that it corrects these issues, as the minister said it will. Also, all the affected councils' previous policies for developments in towns and rural areas will be reinstated, because there was nothing wrong with them. The minister said prior to the previous draft being introduced that townships would remain under the control of the local council. However, this has not been the case. The affected councils really should have been invited to meet with the minister before tabling a new bill and introducing a new DPA, and they should have had a chance to see the drafts, because this legislation is so unique. We are entering uncharted territory and it is important to get it right.

Yes, the Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale are unique places and we need legislation to ensure we protect these areas for future generations, but you do not hamstring it and choke it in the meantime. That is what has happened. I do not think it was the intent of the minister, for whom I have personal regard, but this is what has happened and I am afraid the bureaucrats have lost control. I am grateful that the minister agreed to receive a delegation from the Barossa Council, last Thursday week, and I hope some meaningful dialogue resulted from that.

This issue is too important to play politics with. It is possibly the most serious legislation to affect the Barossa in at least a decade. I appreciate the liaison I have had with the member for Mawson. We discussed this in early days and we will work through this. We all want a positive outcome, not politics.

The minister's media release suggested that the revised DPA appears to be only putting out fires started as a result of policy on the run and poor initial drafting of the bill. I urge the minister and his department to work collaboratively with the councils, and not impose their views upon people who understand their reasons better than those people based in Adelaide. For example, the original bill contained interim restrictions on common activities, and were not consistent with the agreed intent of the predicted legislation. Why? The minister needs to respond to that.

How and why were some of these regulations created? There were unnecessary and harsh restrictions on shops in shopping areas, sheds in rural areas, and industry that indicated to investors and the community that the Barossa was not open for business. Why were hobby farms and fast-food outlets included, but threats such as wind farms and mining not even mentioned? I sincerely hope that the new draft bill and DPA address the shortcomings and failures of the first drafts. Unnecessary complexity has surrounded what the government only now admits needs to be simple legislation that will not result in the removal or undermining of local decision-making.

My question is: is the government overreacting after the Mount Barker planning debacle? We heard about that again yesterday, about what happened; the minister lost control. They really did overdevelop that area, and the government lost control of that. I am just asking the government not to overreact with this. As the Barossa Council is the most affected by this bill—95 per cent of the council is affected—I have assisted council in seeking a formal dialogue with the minister, and I appreciate his efforts prior to the revised legislation and DPA being introduced, to ensure this time around that the council and its community can be engaged in a meaningful and strategic way.

So, I do watch this with much interest, and I am happy to talk to the minister, because we really need to be outcome-driven here, sir. And I note that this will affect you, Mr Deputy Speaker, because your electorate is on the fringe of this.

In addition, why are we not discussing the strategies for economic certainty to ensure that legislation does not result in the Barossa being an ageing museum piece that would have eventually been closed for business by the original bill and the DPA? As I have previously stated, the Barossa Council has been the most affected, 95 per cent. It has the most to lose and so it has to become more vocal. The Light Regional Council has about 10 per cent of land in this area, Onkaparinga has 30 per cent, and Adelaide Hills has approximately 1 per cent.

Past experience indicates that, as with the 30-Year Plan and the ResCode, we do not want to be left with policies that cut across our unique local character and cultural qualities. For example, the government's own 30-year plan created urban sprawl, not the council's development plan. The ResCode is also impacting on the Barossa by permitting densification of townships and, in particular, gutter-to-gutter housing. Where was the collaboration to create a code that was more suited to townships and rural areas? We do not want gutter-to-gutter housing in country towns.

Eventually, a lot of the character of our townships will be undermined by this metro-centric policy. Potentially, the bill should be looking at these overarching strategic elements in its framework, to ensure that it has a relevant effect. The sooner the government stops passing off fixing its own mistakes as consultation, and stops moving the target around, the sooner the community and councils can stop wasting time and resources chasing it, and focus on the real issues at hand. I only hope that the minister and his department have listened, and that the new bill reflects the affected councils' and communities' feedback. I await the details of the new bill and DPA with interest.

I hope that we are going to see this within a couple of weeks, because it is really starting to hurt, and I think the minister and everyone involved would understand what is happening. With everything in the Barossa, with every new development, we want to encourage people to spend. It is a bit tough out there in financial land, and when you know you have to go through all this hoo-ha—because that is what it is, a lot of bureaucratic red tape—people just lose interest. They will either not do it or they will move.

Also, as we do know, this is also going to become overarching legislation, and a model for many other communities. I know the Clare community is looking at this, so we have to get this right the first time, so that other communities can follow this, if they wish. So, it is all most important. I just want to use my last six minutes to discuss the—

An honourable member: Fourteen minutes.

Mr VENNING: It will take 14—problem we have today with grain levies, and how the ongoing dispute has been hurting our grain farmers at the moment. It is sad to see that we saw the minister last week having to take away the South Australian Farmers Federation controlling of the grain growers' levy funds—the Primary Industry Fund Scheme (PIFS). The minister has taken it back to herself; whereas, previously, the grain levies, which are paid by the farmers on every tonne of grain they grow and were administered by SAFF, will now be administered by the minister's office. Approximately half of it went to the South Australian Farmers Federation, which was mainly to be used for lobbying on behalf of farmers, and the other half went to the other grains body, SAGIT—an independent body which is into research and development, and it does a top job. It is totally independent of us—a great idea.

It was working well with SAFF, too. It was a great scheme, and I had full confidence that SAFF was doing it well until about four years ago when the dispute arose on the elected Grains Council. It was elected by the farmers. The dispute arose, which started with the same old story of the deregulation of the industry, and it caused a few feelings within that Grains Council. There was a lot of division within the Grains Council and then, in time, the SAFF board sacked that elected council and replaced it with a selected council that it chose itself.

The biggest mistake was that the board picked three people who were the chief troublemakers in the first place, and they put them back on the council they selected, and guess what happened? The arguments went on and on. We have always had this problem. We have had the deregulation. I say this, too, on the record that I believe that three or four of these people were actually on the payroll of Grain Traders. How can you represent farmers on a grains council of SAFF to lobby for farmers when you are being paid by a grain trader? To me that is a direct conflict of interest, and I am amazed that more has not been said or done about that.

I say that as reported to me. I have made some inquiries and, yes, there is some legal paperwork to say that that is the case. That was the first time I got cautious about what was happening here. I got very upset and cautious about that. Of course, as we go on further we find that there was disputation and there was some angst. During all this time, the Grains Council, members will understand, was spending the money gathered through the minister's office (by legislation of this place) and then administering it, mainly through lobbying for our industry, the grain industry of South Australia. They were doing that.

But then there were some disputes. The board itself, the South Australian Farmers Federation board, the overarching board, was watching, and it had to pay the cheques; it had to sign the bills. It became apparent that there was some dispute. I have sighted some invoices in recent days, and I can understand why they were concerned at these bills, because they were outlandish. They were not what the levies were all about. They were not about swanning around Adelaide; they were not about pub crawls. I can understand fully why the SAFF board was concerned to pay the bills and to bring into question what was happening.

Again, the council got sacked for the second time, and it goes on and on. Mr Peter Treloar is sitting here, and he was one of the so-called luminaries who was called in because he was a past chairman of that Grains Council, and a very good chairman, too, I might say. He only resigned that position when he became a candidate for this place. He is the one to give the independent advice. I have passed all this by him, and generally most of it he would hopefully agree with.

This became very personality minded. There were three or four people who were very involved and caused a lot of angst, and in all this time the membership of SAFF was crashing. I cancelled my membership because I was not about to be supporting the organisation. I think that, at the time, I probably blamed the wrong people. I blamed the hierarchy of SAFF, and I think it was wrong and I do publicly retract those comments. I should have been targeting these three or four people in these positions who, really, with this huge conflict of interest, were about to totally deregulate and open this up for the grain trade to infiltrate this area.

What happened was that they were sacked again, and then we saw efforts made by certain people. I will name John Lush (he was not one of the so-called troublemakers, nor was Peter White; I will put that on the record), and Mr Lush, through others, called a meeting of the luminaries—every chair, including Mr Treloar—to see what could be done about this terrible situation, because the membership of SAFF was almost bottoming out. Things were in a bad way. Board members were resigning. So, what to do about this situation?

They decided to have a meeting across the road in the Stamford Hotel lounge (which I attended), and they decided to set up a new body called Grain Growers SA. I supported that, but with a strong proviso that it be within—the word 'within'—SAFF. In other words, this group of people, who are to be elected—I should go back because I missed that part earlier. With that first row four years ago with the selected board, I think the biggest mistake that SAFF made then was that, after the first sacking, it should have said, 'Within the next 12 months we will put an elected grains council in.' It did not do that. It still has not done that. That has been the single biggest mistake of SAFF, and it would admit that. It has been sad. SAFF never got around to it. When you select people, that is when you get trouble, and that is where SAFF has had trouble. I am saying that this is what they need to do: they need to reverse this trend.

Where we are today is that we have formed this group, Grain Producers SA, across the road, the document you have all heard about was signed, and now the President of SAFF has reneged. I support him not going ahead with it, because now Grain Producers SA are going to stand alone. We do not want two grain bodies. There is nothing worse than that. We do not want two grain bodies; we only want one.

I have been a very strong critic of SAFF, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in your time here you have criticised me for being a critic. Can I say that I have rejoined SAFF. I am back as a member and I am battling hard to make sure it succeeds. We want the SAFF that we used to have. We want to go back to fully-elected people who are responsible to the growers—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am glad you took my counsel.

Mr VENNING: Okay, sir. So, this is a critical issue. I will get to the minister's involvement in a second. We need to get back to an elected body here. This brings me back to the point. I agree with the SAFF people that the agreement that was signed did not happen, because it chose to take it outside.

Now, here we are today. I believe that a new Grains Council is going to be appointed, with a new chair to be announced, who I am told we are going to be very pleased with. I hope that is the case, and let us start again. I believe that we can and should forget all these personalities and who said what. It is not about the people, it is about the industry. Most importantly, it is about making it respectable so that our young people get involved. We need these younger people to get involved with these industries and to become part of this lobby process.

I have difficulty with the minister, who has established this PIF scheme. Section 10(5) of the Wheat Marketing Act says that the minister can take the funds and invest those funds. I do not believe investing means spending. I cannot see how a minister of the Crown can take over control of these moneys when most of that money is spent to lobby government. To me, that is a short circuit. I do not think it is sensible. I would refute that and I will be looking at the legal side of it. If you look at the definition of what an investment is, it is not about spending money for farmers, it is about putting their money somewhere where it can earn interest and grow in value. So, I would dispute the minister actually taking this on.

I can understand why the minister has done this. While this dispute rages around, minister Gago in the other place thought, 'Well, we need some breathing space here. We need to find a quiet spot,' so she has done this. Hopefully, while this is happening, the warring parties will get down to some common sense here.

Call it what you like, but I think the answer to this quite clearly is for us all to get off our high horses and eat humble pie—me included, and I have done that to you today, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologised for my criticisms of SAFF in the past. I might have thought it was constructive at the time, but it was not. I probably targeted the wrong people, and I did, but I think we all have to move on.

I believe the final result should be that all levy payers—and we want people to pay levies because, as you understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is voluntary; you do not have to pay them. These voluntary levies are all part of the finances of the state. So, we want them to pay their levies, but these levy holders should then automatically be members of the Grains Council, Grain Producers SA—call it what you like; I do not care what the name is—or a body, which is elected by them; I say again 'elected'. Every levy payer should get to have a vote for that and should be under the umbrella of the South Australian Farmers Federation—within it.

Also, because those members are therefore automatically members of that council, they could be members of SAFF, with the payment of a subsidised membership fee. That would solve all our problems wouldn't it? It would help to get over this war. We would boost SAFF's membership and we would all be happy. The minister would know—and I have spoken to several of the ministers, particularly the previous minister O'Brien—that you cannot go on unless you bring in new faces.

Three or four of these people have been in every fight we have had. It is time we woke up and moved on. It is not about me, it is not about anybody, it is about the organisation. We have people, and we have got to encourage them to come in. We have to draft in some of these younger people to do their term for their industry.

It has been a very difficult issue for me and for my family—because we all have different and diverse points of view—but I think the resolution that I have just spoken about is the way to go. I commend Mr John Lush for what he tried to do, but I am afraid that he has been hog-tied to some degree. Mr Treloar would probably back me in saying that it was with honest intent that I tried to fix it, but all I can say is that it has to happen.

Let us hope, come the annual general meeting of SAFF in August, that we have a new direction, and we need a lot of new faces. I am happy to put my back into it for the overall good of the industry, for the people and, indeed, for the parliament because it has been one of the single most difficult issues I have faced in this place. It has been going on for probably four to six years, and it is time we put a stop to it, time we all grew up, time we got on with it, and time we started representing the farmers of South Australia.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Schubert. I accept your apology. I look forward to reading your media statement where you acknowledge your guilt and how I was correct, because you did help to sow the seeds of discontent in that industry.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:51): As others have done, I would like to pass on my thanks and congratulations to the Governor on delivering the address to us two weeks ago. I also take the opportunity to congratulate the new member for Port Adelaide and the new member for Ramsay, who were sworn in this morning. I look forward to working with them over the years to come for the betterment and in the best interests of the people of South Australia.

It gives me great pleasure to start my Address in Reply today, particularly as I have the opportunity to comment on a number of issues relating to the portfolios on which the Leader of the Opposition has been kind enough to ask me to speak on behalf on the Liberal Party: the areas of families and communities, housing, disability and youth.

As we sit here in the parliament right now, South Australian police are searching for three young offenders who, last night, were amongst eight young offenders who escaped from the Cavan secure facility. This is an extraordinary situation that we find ourselves in. Cavan is a 36-bed facility for some of our most serious juvenile offenders; typically they are people who have committed more serious offences and are more dangerous young offenders than will be found at the Magill Training Centre which, as we know, is shockingly rundown, as it has been for many years, and that is why we are building a new one.

We are led to believe that apparently these dangerous young offenders escaped from the Cavan secure facility last night by cutting through a fence while there was some sort of commotion. I say 'apparently' because that is the only information the minister has provided at this stage to the people of South Australia about the circumstances surrounding that escape. We are talking about eight young offenders, and this is nearly a quarter of the maximum capacity of the Cavan secure facility if it was completely occupied at the time. It is an unbelievable situation that it has come to this.

Coming back to the Governor's speech, the Governor advised—and these are, of course, the Premier's words—that 'securing the safety of the people is the primary role of government', and that is from the speech two weeks ago. The community expects that securing their safety is going to be the primary role of government. It is the main reason that we are here. Last night's escape represented a clear breach of the trust that the public has put in the government to look after their safety.

We had eight young offenders on the run but, thanks to the dedicated and excellent work of South Australian police, five of them have now been apprehended and are back in care. I note that not all of them are back at Cavan because we still have not apparently fixed the situation that allowed for the escape in the first place, but we look to the minister to clarify those details. Some are back at Magill, where the Public Service Association has identified a concern about staffing levels.

We were told this morning that no extra staff have been put on at Magill to deal with these dangerous young offenders, as they have been described this morning. The other thing that we know about them is that two of them were apparently the ringleaders of last year's riot at the Magill Training Centre. At the time, we were told by the then minister, Ms Rankin, that it was just boisterous behaviour, as boys will do. This is a serious problem and the government has serious questions to answer. As yet, those questions remain unanswered.

The circumstance surrounding the escape of eight juvenile offenders is extraordinary. Questions that the minister might care to turn his attention to are: was the centre fully staffed at the time, and, if so, what level of staffing to offender does that relate to? Is the staffing level that is set at Cavan appropriate at the moment? Were any of the staff threatened in the process of the escape? Because we do not know about the circumstances, the community, I think, is very keen to know the answers to these questions.

Frankly, one question puts itself front and centre: how was that secure fence able to be breached by eight young people if the centre was fully staffed? There is also a question of how many people were in Cavan at the time. When I visited Cavan three years ago, it was then, and it is still, described on the departmental website as being a 36-bed secure facility. The minister this morning suggested that there were 42 people in the centre. That is an extraordinary situation if that is the case, but he was not able to say it for certain; it was, I believe, the 'vibe' that he had picked up. The numbers in the centre need to be clarified so that the South Australian public can be reassured that there is not overcrowding at the centre and that there is not, in fact, understaffing.

The government needs to clarify what events transpired between the escape, just after 7pm, and the police report that came out to the community at 8.58pm. It is the responsibility of government—this is a key responsibility. As the Governor stated, community safety is the primary responsibility of government and it is one that this government needs to deal with right here and now.

More broadly, the issues that I have the opportunity to deal with in parliament are of great interest to me and, in fact, stimulated much of my interest in public policy and going into politics. It was a long time before I came into parliament that I had an interest in juvenile justice and that led me to seek the opportunity to visit Cavan and Magill.

Some members may recall Chris Varney, who was a representative of the UN Youth Association and who wrote a report in 2009 on the young people he had visited at Magill. They were quite traumatic stories, and when he shared them with me I was deeply concerned. It is in my part of the world, it is within the Morialta electorate. We heard stories of offenders as young as 10. The Magill centre, as opposed to Cavan, deals with 10 to 18 year olds. It tends to be the shorter term issues, and also all our young female offenders are in Magill.

There were children as young as 10 sharing dormitories with older teenagers who were in Magill because they had committed sex offences. They were sharing bathrooms where the doors did not fit, where their bedroom doors were not secured. When I visited one of the dormitories we were able to walk through because occ health and safety was currently prohibiting the centre from occupying it at the time. Of course, all of our young female offenders are in Magill, and the terrible conditions there are the only ones available for those young female offenders, and it is a great concern.

The government has back flipped, and back flipped, and back flipped on Magill. We know that a new centre is currently being built to replace it, but this is something the Liberal government had in planning as early as 2000 and was cancelled by the Labor government on coming in; 10 years of failure in juvenile justice. As the Premier, Mr Weatherill, said on 9 August, we have a change of leader, we do not have a change of government. Let nobody think that this is any sort of new government. This is the same old Labor that has not been acting in the best interests of South Australia for 10 years. I seek leave to continue my remarks,

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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