SUPPLY BILL 2012

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 March 2012.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:04): This bill is for the appropriation of $3.161 billion. I am just a humble veterinarian. I grew up in Elizabeth and Salisbury and I still realise the value of a dollar, and $3.161 billion is a serious amount of money. To see the way in which this government has mismanaged the economy over the last 10 years fills me with trepidation that, 'Here we go again, we're giving them another $3 billion plus,' and I am not convinced that it is going to be used to the very best benefit of South Australians.

I grew up in Elizabeth and Salisbury, and I remember the Pinnock sewing machine factory and the GMH factory being built there. My father was a fireman and my mother was a primary school teacher. We lived in a housing trust house and my parents worked very hard. My parents had a very comfortable life—mum is still alive but dad is not—and my brothers and I all have very comfortable lives because we worked very hard and used the opportunities available in this state. However, the cost of living in South Australia now under this government is something which we really are very concerned about. Every day you hear about more and more imposts on people in South Australia and the way that the economy has gone backwards.

I was asked to leave this chamber the other day when I brought in a poster from the 1993 election campaign 'Never again lay the blame on Labor'. It was about the State Bank. There were some newspaper clippings used on that poster, one by Randall Ashbourne, and it was about similar things that we are seeing now: the cost of living, the budgets blowing out, health in crisis—so many similar issues.

We are looking at State Bank mark II, with huge infrastructure spends. We really have to question the way they are being structured, with the classic one being the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. That is going to be an absolute black hole for South Australia. We have seen in the last day or two the fuss over the film hub at Glenside. What is happening at Glenside?

My father's first job in South Australia was as a warder or a psych nurse in Z Ward, the criminally insane ward at what was then Parkside. Glenside/Parkside has always remained in my mind. It has been an area in South Australia about mental health. Mental health has become more and more of significant concern for all South Australians. The changes going on at Glenside, when you see what is happening with the film hub, epitomises to me the mismanagement of priorities of this government.

I am not an economist, but when I look at what the Auditor-General has to say about the way this government is managing the economy, I really have to be very concerned about where it is going. In the Auditor-General's Report this year, on all three budget measures there is a deficit: the net operating deficit of $367 million; the net cash deficit of $1,445 million ($1.445 billion); and a net lending deficit of $1.519 billion ($1,519 million). On all three measures this budget is in deficit.

There has been an $800 million worsening in the 2011-12 budget position over the past four years. It is something which everybody in this place should be concerned about. I am looking forward to seeing what happens in this year's state budget because the Premier so far has not made any real hard decisions. He has dealt with pretty easy decisions so far. We are looking forward to seeing how he handles the tough decisions that he is going to need to take to rein in his mismanaged spending.

I ran a veterinary practice before I came into this place, and for quite a while I tried to run it in surplus all the time and not go into overdraft. However, in the end, you have to realise that sometimes you do have to borrow money to develop and improve your business; but you do not borrow money for recurrent expenditure, you do not borrow money to pay the staff wages and the electricity bills—you do not do that. You borrow money to expand the practice, to build better facilities, to provide better services—not recurrent expenditure.

That is what I did. There was good debt and there was some bad debt. I was owed a lot of money by people who could not pay their debts because they were not managing their household economies. Today we see more and more people under mortgage stress, we see more and more people with serious issues in managing their day-to-day lives because of the cost imposts being put on them by this government.

The unfunded liabilities of this government—superannuation now is $10.6 billion; WorkCover is now back over $1 billion dollars (about $1.1 billion or $1.2 billion). I admit that does not all have to be paid out tomorrow but you had better make sure that you have the ability to fund that if there are calls on that money. I do not believe that this government has the wherewithal to manage those unfunded liabilities in the way that they should be managed.

The fact is that we are going into debt and we are borrowing more and more. When you borrow, you have to pay it back. When my wife and I first came back to South Australia and started our business, our practice, we were paying 17 per cent on the mortgage and 23 per cent on the overdraft. We remember those days.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: What did you get on your savings?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I wish we had some savings. The member for West Torrens asked what I did with my savings. I wish I could have saved, but we were spending on building the practice, building the business. When I sold the practice before I came into parliament, it was a very solid business. In fact, I was earning a lot more then than I am now. Ten years ago I was probably earning twice what I earn now. So, people who say politicians get overpaid want to go out and see what people in the business world can really get paid.

As I said in a tweet, I got kicked, bitten and shat on then, and I sometimes feel like that is what is happening to the opposition, but I would not give up the opportunity to be in this place for anything. I certainly hope the people of Morphett are happy to have me in this place again in 2014, as they were last time.

The big thing that we need to look at with the way this state is going is the provision of services for the average punter out there—the mums and dads, the family members out there. What are they doing with these services?

I just put on the record that I am really enjoying my new portfolios. I really enjoyed the shadow health ministry, but things change around. Both sides have their reshuffles, and I am really enjoying the police, corrections, emergency services, volunteers, road safety and Aboriginal affairs portfolios. It is going to be my—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon!

Dr McFETRIDGE: —aim to make sure that, in relation to the portfolios for which I am responsible, every question that needs to be put is put to the relevant minister on notice to make sure that they are delivering for South Australians.

Regarding the police, Commissioner Hyde is retiring, and I put in a tweet congratulating him on the job he has done. We have one of the best police forces in the world, not just in the nation. I speak to police officers every day and congratulate them on the good job they are doing. In fact, I was at the Kangarilla CFS on Monday night for the weekly training (which I do not get to as often as I should) and officers from the anti-arson squad, Operation Raptor and Operation Nomad came to brief the CFS members. They are doing a terrific job in trying to prevent arson in the southern Adelaide Hills.

What we do see in SAPOL is a cut back in recruiting. We have seen spending for SAPOL stretched out over a few more years. We are seeing the police put under more and more pressure, and this was highlighted in a letter to the commissioner in December last year from the Police Association of South Australia, highlighting some of its concerns with the South Coast. The letter states:

...the association still has concerns regarding present staffing levels at Aldinga and more generally the ability of the South Coast Local Service Area to adequately cover front-line operational duties. The association's continuing concerns include:...

The occupational health and safety of our members, who are required to perform front-line operational patrol and station duties at times of insufficient staff numbers...

The ad hoc closure of the Aldinga and McLaren Vale police stations

Workloads for members working in the South Coast Local Service Area

That was in December last year. I look forward to seeing improvements in that area and many other areas of police resourcing. Recruiting being spread out and delayed is something that we certainly need to revisit. This government needs to make sure that attrition rates, retirement rates and resignation rates are not overtaking recruitment rates, because we need to make sure that we have as many police on the front line as possible and that they are being given the resources that they need so that the Police Association does not have to keep writing to the commissioner, alerting him to its serious concerns.

Regarding emergency services, my father was in the Metropolitan Fire Service for over 30 years. He started the Elizabeth Fire Station and the Salisbury Fire Station when they had the fire siren and when the retained firefighters came along. I was very aware of the differences in the culture between the MFS and the CFS. They are different cultures.

On Saturday afternoon I went out to the Salisbury CFS where a seminar was being held by the CFS Volunteers Association about the future of fire services in South Australia. The one service model, the integrated model, separate models, were all discussed. Some good information came out of there. It is a great service we have in South Australia, the Metropolitan Fire Service and the Country Fire Service. If you wanted to see how they can work together there is no better example than the oil fire out at Wingfield just recently. The fireys did a fantastic job there, complemented by the SES, complemented by SAPOL and, obviously, the ambulance service as well. A lot of people did a lot of great work.

The SES in South Australia is an interesting organisation. They duplicate some roles. Road crash rescue is a classic example. They duplicate some of the roles of the other services and there may be some opportunities to refine that. That is not to cut out them out; it is just to refine that. We have 1,600 volunteers in the SES who do a terrific job. Rain, hail or shine, they come out. I am getting a briefing this afternoon on the potential flooding for the River Murray towns when the river starts to really come down later this year. The SES volunteers will be there.

There are 15,000 CFS volunteers all over the state doing a fantastic job. There is more and more pressure being put on them, though. We certainly do need to make sure that we are not only giving them the latest equipment we possibly can—trucks and breathing apparatus and all the rescue equipment they need—but making sure they are properly clothed as well.

We are having some really serious issues in the provision of personal, protective equipment (PPE) at the moment. I had to wait for a pair of boots; I have my pair of boots now. You do need to have proper boots when you are firefighting. One of the members of the Kangarilla Fire Brigade has been waiting 18 months for a new set of fire fighter pants. You would not think that he would have to wait 18 months. His have got a tear in them. You would not think you would have to wait 18 months; it is just not good enough.

We have had issues at the Stirling station, where they need to raise the roof to install a new fire appliance. I remember years ago at the Happy Valley fire station and the old shed there, where we got a new fire truck, and we had to cut the concrete floor out and dig it out so we could get the fire truck in there because we could not raise the roof. I hope Stirling does not have to resort to that.

On the other portfolio of road safety, it is a very interesting point that every day in South Australia serious injuries and deaths on our roads impact on the budget $6 million a day—$6 million a day for death and serious injuries. We need to make sure that that impact is being reduced to an absolute minimum.

So far this year there have been 25 deaths and 184 serious injuries on the roads. Last year the total was 103 deaths and 946 serious injuries. This is down on what it has been. We want to see it coming down, down, down, and that will only happen if the government invests wisely in road safety policies, not just by cutting road speed limits. It is a serious issue.

Volunteers is another portfolio of mine. I had that portfolio before and it is good to have it back. The big thing about volunteers in South Australia is that we have so many. We have more volunteers per capita than any other state or territory. I think the latest figure, if you are to put a cash value on the input of the in-kind value of volunteers, is $4.9 billion—not million, but $4.9 billion is the return on your investment, and it is very little investment, really, from this state.

Phil Koperberg addressed the CFS seminar at Salisbury on Saturday afternoon. Phil Koperberg was a Labor Party minister in the New South Wales government. He was head of the Rural Fire Service in New South Wales and he is now head of the New South Wales emergency commission (I do not know the correct name for it). He is very well credentialled. Mr Koperberg said that protecting our volunteers is so essential. He was using the New South Wales example when he said, 'Where do you get the return on your investment that you get with volunteers?' In New South Wales you are getting about an 80 per cent return on your investment.

So, to not look after our volunteers is something we do at our peril. Whether it is in the fire service, the SES, or the hundreds of other volunteer organisations out there, there is a real need to make sure that we are doing the exact thing that is required and that the state deserves, that is, looking after all South Australia but particularly our volunteers.

The other portfolio I have that I want to just mention now in the last few minutes is Aboriginal affairs. I had Aboriginal affairs as a portfolio for a number of years and I came to know Aboriginal communities and individuals right across this state. There is so much focus on the APY lands, but we should never forget the other 20,000-plus people of Aboriginal and islander descent who live in Adelaide and other communities: up in the Riverland, down in the South-East, on Eyre Peninsula and Yorke Peninsula—all over this state. They contribute in a terrific way to the various opportunities we have in this state and the attributes of this state.

The global budget on the APY lands though is a serious issue. I have asked the government, in the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, how much they actually spend on the 3,000-plus people in the APY lands. I understand it is about $200 million a year and I am questioning whether we should continue going the way we are on the APY lands.

The minister spoke on ABC country radio in Port Pirie last week and he had a bit of a go at me saying that my information is two years out of date. There might be a two-year gap between when I last had that shadow portfolio, but this minister has not realised that my passion for Aboriginal affairs does not stop at being a shadow minister: it started 38 years ago when I was driving the school bus out to the Davenport mission when I was teaching high school at Port Augusta and came to know the Aboriginal people there. I speak to people every day about Aboriginal affairs—on the lands, interstate and all around this state. So, if the minister wants to underestimate my passion on this, he does that at his peril. I will be very, very happy to speak with him and to work with him on Aboriginal affairs, but do not underestimate my passion in this area and try to denigrate me by saying that my information is out of date.

I spoke about Watarru. Watarru is a lovely community. It is the most remote Aboriginal community in Australia. I said this is a community in crisis and I do not resile from that. The minister said it is not in crisis. Well, the store is shut. The school has had no kids going to it for most of the year. The office was shut. Kuka Kanyini, the camel project up there into which hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone, is non-existent. They are shipping some camels out of other areas. You really have to question where Watarru is going to be in five, 10 or 15 years' time.

Some of the American Indian groups asked themselves not what is going to be going on in five, 10 or 15 years, but what is going to be good for the community, their people and their children in seven generations' time, and that is how far forward looking we have to be with Aboriginal communities. We cannot keep limping from crisis to crisis. We cannot keep trying to delay and to obscure and to hide and to fudge with Aboriginal affairs. It is not fair on the Aboriginal people to raise their expectations and then fail to deliver.

That is what we have seen in the past and I admit it has happened on both sides, but particularly, when we had the former premier and the current Premier both as ministers for Aboriginal affairs, much more could have been done and should be done. I will have more to say about the current Premier's role in Aboriginal affairs in the grievance, but it is a real concern for me that we are not facing up to the future for Aboriginal communities and individuals in South Australia. I will be doing everything I can to make sure that the lot for Aboriginal people in South Australia has significantly improved by the time I leave this place. If it is not, I will feel that I have not done what I should have done and what this government could have done when they have such a responsibility at their doorstep.

The opportunities ahead of us are going to be difficult because of the tight budgetary constraints. With the $3.161 billion that we are about to give the government the go-ahead to spend, I just hope that they spend it wisely. I am looking forward to the budget process. I am looking forward to estimates. I am looking forward to asking questions about how the budget is being spent and managed. I have some serious reservations, but I will not give up on questioning this government and I will not give up on the people of Morphett or the people of South Australia.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:23): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill. I will start by referring to the article in The Australian today about the 'Struggling studio in $80k travel drama'. Sure, it is a story about $80,000 of travel being spent by the South Australian Film Corporation executives on trips around the world, but there is also an interesting reference to Mr Harris in the story, about the fact that:

He said he did not accept government forecasts that the industry would have 'value creation' of $28m a year by 2012. 'I'm not quite sure how they calculated that, and I can't say with any confidence whether it will be a mile away or close to that figure,' he said.

I think that sums up the way that this government has been running its finances over the last 10 years. If we look at promises that are made and promises that are delivered, we can see that there is a widening gap between those two.

One that is burnt into my mind is the promise made on the last day of February 2010 (about three weeks shy of the state election): 100,000 new jobs for South Australia under Labor over the next six years. We know that was a major focus of the Labor government. At the 2009-10 budget, we even saw taxpayer-funded government advertising that was all about jobs. I remember the words 'jobs' and '100,000 jobs' popping up above the buildings of Adelaide in their advertising campaign. 'Jobs' are a big promise, and jobs are very important to South Australians.

If we look at where South Australia is now (two years or one-third of the way into the 100,000-job target), we can see that fewer South Australians are working full-time now than there were when Labor made that promise to create 100,000 new jobs. As a matter of fact, there are only 13,000 new part-time jobs compared with when Labor made that promise. I do not think any fair-minded person would have expected the government to promise 100,000 part-time jobs, but even if they promised part-time jobs and not full-time jobs they are still 18,000 short of their target. To be exact, they should have created 33,333 jobs since that promise but, as a matter of fact, there are only 13,000 part-time jobs and there are fewer people in full-time work now than when Labor made that promise.

We need to look at where the priorities have been. For seven of the 10 years that this government has been in power it has had windfall gains in its budget revenues, and where have the priorities been for this government? Let's look at their commitment to training over the last 10 years, and I refer to the Productivity Commission's report on government services that was released earlier in the year. In an interesting breakdown of where there has been investment in vocational education and training in Australia, we see that from the year 2000 the equivalent (in 2010 dollars) of $318.6 million was spent by this government; in 2010 (in 2010 dollars), that figure was $329.5 million—a 3.4 per cent increase only.

Compare that with Western Australia, where we see a 28 per cent increase in the vocational education and training spend over that same period; in Tasmania (often referred to as the poor economic cousin in Australia), a 20.9 per cent increase in state government funding for vocational education and training; a 19.4 per cent increase in the ACT; a 16.5 per cent increase in the Northern Territory; and in Queensland, an 18.8 per cent increase in vocational education and training. So as you can see, we have seen significant increases in vocational education and training in other states, but here in South Australia we have not even kept up with a 3.4 per cent increase over and above inflation.

If you look at what that actually means for the unit funding per student, in 2000, using 2010 dollars, we had $322.10 spent per annum per trainee in South Australia. That has now reduced by $21 to $301 in South Australia. Over that same period again we have seen increases in Victoria of around about 10 per cent per student funding, in Western Australia of 4.6 per cent, and in Tasmania of 12.4 per cent; and in the ACT we have seen an increase of 3.4 per cent. Here in South Australia we have a decrease per student of 6.5 per cent in funding for vocational education and training.

Let's look at how seriously this government has treated the training and education portfolio. We have had six ministers in six years. I think the government has been confused about the use of that portfolio. It is actually for training South Australians, not for training ministers, as this government has been doing. It is interesting that the vast majority of ministers who have taken on these roles have been new ministers. This government has thought that the training portfolio was a great portfolio for training its own ministers. We have actually had six ministers in the 10 years that this government has been in power here in South Australia.

We also have the highest TAFE fees in the nation here in South Australia. Of course this goes back to the fact that the Productivity Commission has pointed out that the government contribution in South Australia has been declining per student while in other states we have seen an increase. In every other state except New South Wales we have seen an increase in that. That is reflected in the highest TAFE fees here in South Australia, and we have established that at the start of this year TAFE students owe TAFE about $15 million—$15 million! We have a department of further education and training through its TAFE arm that is not able to manage its own accounts.

Such is the mess that TAFE in South Australia is in that they called consultants in earlier this year to enable the department to do simple things, such as giving students choice in their options. That is something that they are being forced to do, taking second and third choices, and the consultants have been brought in to deal with that. The brief for the consultants also was that it was practically impossible to optimise all people, facilities and resources across the entire system. We have seen a growth in the number of staff and we have seen a growth in the size of the public sector, but here we have consultants being called in to find out how to use those people in TAFE.

Business rules are not clear and vary from institute to institute and program to program, with no centralised planning or scheduling. There is duplication of program scheduling amongst three institutions. So there are some very serious problems with TAFE and this has been hanging around for a very long time under this government. It has given up trying to fix it itself and is now bringing consultants in to do that.

The unfortunate thing about that, of course, is that it goes back to the fact that every family wants opportunities for themselves and for their children and those opportunities are employment. This government has failed dramatically in employment since making a boastful promise just before, or on the eve of, the last state election of creating 100,000 new jobs here in South Australia. I see those job figures month by month and it reminds me of how difficult it was when I was a young school leaver looking for a job, and I do not wish that upon anyone. Those opportunities should be there, but those opportunities are being diminished by the poor management of this government in South Australia.

I would like now to turn to education policy, and we know that there has been a lot of debate just recently about education policy. The Gonski review is a two-year review of education funding in South Australia, but of course other areas of the education system were noted by David Gonski in that review and one of those was the need to engage parents. David Gonski pointed to successful systems around the world and found commonalities with those systems, and they were the engagement of parents, the focus on teacher quality and local school management.

These are all big issues that translate to good student outcomes in education systems elsewhere. Of course, the Grattan Institute found similar results when it examined what was happening with our near neighbours, and it went down to the way in which schools are managed. Do not forget that, when it came to office, Labor's first priority after winning the 2002 election was to halt moves that the Liberal Party had put in place to move towards local school management. They agreed to union demands for minimum class sizes; and, of course, the Grattan Institute was extremely critical of the money that has been wasted on focusing purely on class sizes to improve educational outcomes.

However, this government caved into the Australian Education Union demands and wrote those class sizes into EB agreements. We now know 10 years later—David Gonski has told us 10 years later—that in Australia we have seen slippage in education outcomes, particularly in numeracy and literacy and scientific endeavour over the last 10 years. What is not spelt out but is there by implication in the Gonski review is that, of course, education systems in Australia are run by state governments, and for the last 10 years every state and territory government in Australia has been a Labor government with education policies that have been countersigned by the Australian Education Union.

We saw that the Western Australian Liberal government (which was elected after a considerable time) started introducing in 2008 independent public schools, which virtually gave schools a one-line budget and which enabled principals to have much more control over their teaching staff, their budgets and even their curriculum outcomes. In 2008 Western Australia was bouncing on the bottom in NAPLAN scores, but we now see an improvement last year in Western Australian NAPLAN results in 14 out of 20 categories.

But what happened here in South Australia? Here in South Australia we actually saw a decline in NAPLAN results in 14 out of 20 categories, and that is on top of declines year after year prior to that. What we are talking about is a decline between 2009 and 2010 in South Australia. The first year that Jay Weatherill was the education minister we saw significant declines in the NAPLAN scores, and that is on top of declines that we have seen in previous years.

What is interesting about that, too, of course, as someone who came out of the government school system at Salisbury High School, and what is concerning for me is that both the Catholic education system has made public statements that its 2010 NAPLAN scores saw its students above the national average and the independent system has seen its NAPLAN scores above the national average. We look at what it is that has been dragging down South Australia's NAPLAN scores, and the unfortunate thing for South Australia is that it has been government schools—schools that have been run and administered by the Labor Party over the last 10 years in South Australia.

The Sunday Mail report, of course, was interesting: it identified that half the government schools in South Australia have worse NAPLAN scores now than they had when NAPLAN tests started in 2008. It is a serious problem: numeracy and literacy are a serious problem. Talk to any employer in South Australia about the literacy levels of students in South Australia, and talk to the universities.

It is interesting that last Friday, or the previous Friday I should say, the University of South Australia announced wide and sweeping changes in many of its university degrees to include English as a prerequisite. We know, of course, that this government spent $70 million (that we know of) developing the new SACE. This was at a time when the rest of the nation was talking about moving to a national curriculum, but this government decided, no, it was going to go it alone.

When discussions first started about a national curriculum, it was a Howard Liberal government initiative and the then education minister (Jane Lomax-Smith) said that they would not have a bar of the national curriculum and that it would not make one iota of difference. I think that was her exact phrase: not one iota of difference here in South Australia. Of course, when the national curriculum was adopted by the Rudd government, the Labor government here in South Australia decided that it must be a good idea if it is a Labor idea. While it was a Liberal idea, they were opposed to it.

They were putting ideological differences and politics before the interests of South Australian students and for that they should never be forgiven. They spent $70 million of taxpayers' money that could have been spent on numeracy and literacy programs, including increasing teacher quality here in South Australia, but it was spent on a new SACE that will be defunct by 2015 when South Australia moves to a national curriculum. It is an absolute disgrace—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Another absolute disgrace.

Mr PISONI: —and a case of poor mismanagement. I am pleased the member for Croydon agrees with me that it is an absolute disgrace. There are a few other points I would like to put into Hansard about where I think things have gone wrong with education over the last 10 years.

As the rest of the country is moving to give principals more control of their schools, in the last EBA—because it was put through in a rush to get it finished before the election—the government agreed to personnel advisory committees. These are made up of the principal, a union rep and an occupational health and safety rep; in other words, the principal was outnumbered by staff for any decision that involved staff in the school. For example, if a principal wants to move a teacher from one classroom to another for whatever reason, that decision must go to the personnel advisory committee and its decision is binding. If the principal does not agree, he has to take it to another level and see the regional director. It is an outrageous and ridiculous situation for a principal to be in.

We hire our principals and trust them to run our schools, and yet the mechanisms and the management processes we have in place do not allow them to do that. We hold them accountable for their outcomes, but we do not let them manage their schools. The education outcomes this government has delivered in the last 10 years are a testament to a failed system that has been countersigned by the Australian Education Union and by the Labor government.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:44): I rise to make my contribution to the Supply Bill debate.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, we can see that.

Mr PEDERICK: I am glad that the member for—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Croydon, do you wish to take an early lunch break?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I have some doorknocking to do in the—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may be forced to in a minute.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that the member for Croydon is so pleased that I am making my contribution today. In my comments in regard to the Supply Bill I want to talk about some of the industries and activities in agriculture in this state that receive no support. We have seen United Dairy Power over a period of months—and I was involved in the discussion with the government over a period of about nine or 10 months—seeking government assistance to purchase the two factories from Lion or National Foods in Murray Bridge and Jervois. We had many discussions with minister O'Brien in the first instance and then minister Gago. I note that Brent Lewis from Regional Development Australia was involved in this, as was Allan Arbon, the mayor of Murray Bridge.

What we are dealing with here is a factory in Murray Bridge and a cheese factory in Jervois employing somewhere around 120 staff. United Dairy Power sought stamp duty relief and payroll tax relief from the government. The government strung this along until it got to the stage where United Dairy Power bit the bullet—and I give them credit for this—and purchased the two plants anyway.

I was informed by Tony Esposito from United Dairy Power only this morning that he is in receipt of correspondence from the Minister for Agriculture saying that no funding will be forthcoming. This is extremely disappointing, not just for those workers in Murray Bridge and Jervois, but for the dairy industry in South Australia as a whole. Dairying has suffered a lot, as has most of agriculture in the last decade, before the last couple of reasonable wet years. The high dollar is hurting businesses, and we have seen loss in dairies on the Lower Murray swamps when there has been no water and people walking away from properties because it has become too difficult to run dairy operations.

What saddens me is that I do not think that the government realises the contribution that dairying makes to this state. If the two factories go—and who knows what could happen in the future—it will put at very real risk where milk produced in this state is treated and used. It could end up going to the Eastern States. So, we will end up with a milk factory here in Adelaide and the rest of it will go to the Eastern States. What does that do for our milk producers in this state?

I note that on 28 November, I think—and I could not be at the meeting because I was meeting with the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis on a mining matter—Mayor Allan Arbon and Brent Lewis met with minister Gago, and they said that they were taking the issue to Treasury. When I met with minister Gago recently I was told that they had only just referred that to Treasury. I would like to know what goes on in the background—not much, I believe.

There is a very real chance that we could see job losses here because there has not been any support. United Dairy Power realised that there was not a lot of cash about, so it tried to come at it from another angle, seeking stamp duty relief and payroll tax relief for this operation.

We see the car industry in this state—GMH—receiving $50 million of state money. We see $20 million going into the Riverland, assisting industries there, and that is good, but what about the industries of the Lower Murray who have suffered so much in this last drought event and over the last decade?

I also want to talk about where we are going with the control and management—or non-control and non-management—of branched broomrape in this state. We see the government meekly agreeing with what the national body says. It is trying to tell the community and me, as the local member, that branched broomrape cannot be controlled. I think it is a matter of putting your head to the grindstone and getting on with the job—just get on with it. We have seen 10 years of investment into this program—$45 million—$2.6 million annually from the federal government, $1.9 million annually from the state government and, over that period, we have seen somewhere around $70 million of contributions made by primary producers to help combat this pest.

I note that the minister is going to give members of parliament a briefing, and I would like to think that there will be some good news in that briefing, but I very much doubt it. We have people, as I mentioned in this place before, who have reached the 12-year stage and they have been released from quarantine with regard to branch broomrape, but there is so much uncertainty now. There is uncertainty of markets—where will the grain go? I do not believe that the government has had serious consultations with people like Viterra, which looks like being purchased by Glencore and, obviously, without our major grain trader in this state, who holds most of the assets?

What conversations has the government had with our meat processors? What happens if we have a whole region of hundreds of thousands of acres in the Murraylands affected—and it encompasses my electorate, the member for Schubert's electorate and maybe even goes into the member for Chaffey's electorate? What hope have these people got if there are trade sanctions brought against them and they cannot get rid of this produce? This will not only impact the Murraylands. This could impact on the whole state's viability, not only due to interstate trade sanctions imposed on us because of this non-activity against branch broomrape but it could also have national implications as well.

This all gets back to where the government is going with the so-called cost recovery process. We have seen it enacted in fisheries and aquaculture, with more and more costs imposed on these industries with the so-called idea of cost recovery. I remember the debate I had with minister McEwen about four or five years ago with regard to oyster fees, and we have never received a reasonable response on what those fees were from the department and how they calculated them. I think with cost recovery, we see that the departments are told, 'We need to recover this much money, you work it out.' I do not think it has anything to do with reality. I think it is all about departments and ministers saying, 'We need to find so many million dollars. You target the industries under you, and we'll give them some loose response on how we value that cost recovery program.'

At the moment I know that there are discussions going on with land-based aquaculture as one of the final groups in that area to be hit with the cost recovery process. Land-based aquaculture is a fairly fledgling business. Land-based aquaculture has been attempted over many years. Plenty of people have given it a go and not that many have survived. It is a business where basically sometimes you have to sleep on site to make sure that nothing goes wrong. You have to have the water right, the temperature right and the whole program right to make sure that it all operates. I remember years ago going out to the Bedford site at Cooke Plains, which is now abandoned, where there was a project to farm fish and betacarotene, but that has all long fallen over.

There are success stories, and I have met with some of those people recently but, like everyone else, they are fearful that they are going to be taxed out of existence. Basically, it gets down to whether or not we will keep striving to produce these fish using the aquacultural farming method. As time goes on, and as we need to feed a hungrier and hungrier world, aquaculture will take up more and more of a percentage with regard to fish to feed the world than wildcatch. Wildcatch still plays a very significant role in this but aquaculture will slowly take up those percentages with regard to the amount of fish eaten throughout the world.

We see this issue reflected in agriculture. The property identification code fee has come in at $38 per annum, and then the government is going to introduce further biosecurity fees. Thankfully, the government has actually listened. They are doing their own investigation into how they can justify these fees. I am a bit concerned that they may put up this investigation just to justify why they want to charge farmers more fees. On our referral, it has gone to the same issue, with biosecurity going before the Environment Resources and Development Committee for it to have a look at it.

You have to wonder why the government takes its foot off the pedal in regard to primary industries in this state. We are in the budget process now, and $80 million is being taken out of the agriculture over—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: —you can make a contribution later, Mick—four years, and we have seen around 400 staff leave. I have heard that morale is just terrible in Primary Industries, and it is under this Labor government that this has all happened. They need to be brought to account—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, it's the truth; it is what is happening out there. I know people who have given very good service to Primary Industries over many years. They took the handshake because they knew it was their best chance to do the best for themselves, but they went reluctantly, knowing that things would become worse over time.

I want to talk about the Environment Protection Authority (EPA)—some people's favourite organisation—and its proposal to introduce inland waters desalination fees. This affects my constituents around Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert. People around Lake Albert who have put in desalination plants still have to use them unless they are paying a high price for water out of the reticulated pipeline.

Most of the plants, from my understanding—and about eight were installed around Lake Alexandrina—are basically in care and control, or perhaps they just run them to keep the system running. They might use it for a bit of spray because the water out of Lake Alexandrina is good enough at the moment to use for irrigation or stock water.

I was talking to a person yesterday who invested $1 million in this project. It is about $200,000 to $250,000 alone just in the desalination plant itself, and then there is all the other infrastructure that has to go in under council guidance, council regulation and EPA regulation on how you manage the brine dams and that sort of thing. It can be released back into bores, a clay-based dam, or a plastic-lined dam. The plastic is guaranteed for 25 years, so you would like to think it would last for 30 years.

Another constituent spent $120,000 just on building this dam. This was because these people were told during the drought that they would not get any assistance, that there would be no other access for water. So, they were proactive in making sure they got going and took their future in their own hands and invested millions of dollars between them so that they could be viable. One of my constituents is getting close to 70 years old. He said he would have liked to retire soon, but he has to keep going because he has made this million-dollar investment.

Our friends at the EPA have come out five years after the event and looked at it as a cash cow. They have decided that we are going to put some cost recovery measures into licensing these desalination plants and the associated brine disposal. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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