APPROPRIATION BILL 2012

Debate on motion to note grievances resumed.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:24): I would like to just touch on a few issues pertinent to the Fleurieu Peninsula in these 10 minutes, and some of the concerns I have for what is not happening by way of the funding and monitoring of necessities and needs in that area. Unfortunately, what we have in South Australia is an arrogant, out-of-touch Labor government, a government that thinks it is born to rule, and that really could not give a toss about anyone outside of the metropolitan area.

We have a succession of ministers here who, after today's performance, we would have to describe as bumbling, and the community needs to start to wonder just how many of the current ministry are still going to be here or seek re-election in 2014. When are they going to have a renewal process of ministers? Some of these ministers that are currently in place who are going to announce that they are not going on should get out of the way and let some of the newer members take their place in the ministry. It is badly needed. As I said, this is an out of touch, born to rule, arrogant government.

On the subject of that and where the money is going, I note comments made by previous speakers on our side of the house in relation to where the debt cycle is leading in South Australia. There are things in my electorate that need doing badly. For example, on the Fleurieu Peninsula there is no plan, that I know of, to aid and assist the future water needs of a growing community. It is one of the fastest growing areas in South Australia.

Myponga Dam, which was built decades ago, for a very small population, if nothing is done, will struggle to cope with a population of 50,000 or 80,000 in a few years' time. I am unaware of any plans, and I have spoken to people in SA Water and they are unaware of any plans. Although we have a desalination plant up the road, it is simply not possible to supply the South Coast with water from that desalination plant in the event of a catastrophe at Myponga.

I will talk about electricity. I have raised with authorities the issue of power needs on the Fleurieu time and again. There is a need to upgrade an outdated and tired power system, one that is struggling to keep up with the needs of the community. That was shown to be only too true in January this year when the power was turned off in the Port Elliot area and surrounding households struggled to cope on that day.

The issue of upgrading the electrical power supply through the whole South Coast and the Fleurieu Peninsula is critical. We are a large consumer of power. The dairy industry, which is in good numbers on the Fleurieu, consumes large amounts of power. Almost to a farm, they have their own generators to provide for electricity in the event that it fails just so they can milk their cows and get on with their business.

I also talk about the road network. Nowhere in the budget can I find any substance whatsoever in relation to spending on that road that attracts plenty of attention in the media, the Adelaide to Victor Harbor Road. It desperately needs further upgrading, particularly the Cut Hill section, down into Victor Harbor, pretty much from Mosquito Hill Road onwards. That is the bad section. Other parts of the road are not too bad.

Councils are struggling down there for funds to do up their road network. Road funding simply is not being made available. I get grumbles from elected members and staff on the various councils about what they are not getting, and the problem needs to be addressed. I guess some of these things may be hidden away in the departmental budget somewhere but I cannot find anything for the Cut Hill section and I cannot find anything for the section from Myponga through to Yankalilla that badly needs upgrading.

I do have great concerns for a couple of areas of the community. I do have great concerns for the future of young people in the Fleurieu. I really do. We put in a TAFE a few years ago—that was 10 years late, I might add—but it was downgraded. The new facility is good but it is limited in what courses it can offer, so what we are finding is that the young people on the Fleurieu (particularly the young men, I might say) are disappearing to Adelaide to do their trades because they cannot do them in the electorate.

Not everyone wants to go into the aged care sector and not everyone wants a job cleaning rooms in hotels and motels, cleaning toilets and changing beds, etc. It is interesting, because I have just called for applications for the position of trainee in my office and I have had a considerable number of applicants. Off the top of my head, I would have to say that 80 per cent of them have worked making coffee or changing beds and cleaning motel rooms, or whatever. It is employment for sure, but it concerns me that there are not enough areas of employment for these young people to move into. There is little or no industry apart from rural industry and the tourism trade. The tourism industry is a great employing industry, but not everybody can go in there.

The aged-care sector is considerable on the Fleurieu, and places like Yankalilla, Victor Harbor and Port Elliot in my electorate have considerable-sized retirement villages which employ considerable numbers of people, but we need to broaden out the economic base. It is difficult for the councils to do much more. I am not being overly critical of the Regional Development Australia outfit, but I am just not sure that they are having the opportunity to progress as fast and as far as they would like, so that is something we need to keep an eye on.

I have concerns for the farming community. That community has really underpinned the Fleurieu economy for 100 years or so. We are now seeing growth in the larger towns and the regional city of Victor Harbor, but the farming community is under considerable pressure. As I said, the dairy industry has had its share of concerns, but the meat growers—the beef cattle producers and the prime lamb producers—and the grape growers are all struggling.

What came up this morning in discussions in this place regarding the NRM levies is that they all feel consistently threatened by the actions of government officers, whereas government officers should be there to help. We should not have government officers running around instructing farmers on how to go about their business on regular occasions. They are doing this and they are continuing to do this.

The department of the environment is an out-of-control department, as I have said in here before. The sooner it is brought to heel the better, but I cannot see much at all happening with this government because quite simply what happens with a Labor government is that the departments control the ministers, instead of the ministers controlling the departments. It is the other way around, and you have these very self-important bureaucrats running around telling the ministers how to go about their business.

The farming community is under threat. Farmers do not need to be told how to collect water. They do not need to be told how to look after weeds, they do not need to be told this, and they do not need to be told that. They do not need to be charged excessive amounts for all these things either, so those areas of interest are going to be regularly raised by me.

We do have needs. One thing that is badly needed down on the South Coast is a swimming pool. It is a subject on which I receive copious comments from community members. In the lead-up to the last election, my party promised $2 million towards a South Coast pool. I know that the federal Liberal Party promised $2 million towards a South Coast pool as well. The councils are still struggling with it.

Our aged community and our young community are really pushing very hard for it despite the beaches we have. Just the hydrotherapy effects alone of having a good heated indoor pool would be terrific. There is an enormous cost to putting one of these things into place. Mr Steve Wright from Beyond has already offered land, which the councils down there are going through at the moment. It is something that is needed and it is something that is going to have to be dealt with. The hydrotherapy, as I said, is critical for rehabilitation and the ability for older people to get exercise.

There is plenty happening down on the Fleurieu. There is plenty more that is going to happen, but it does need a government that is in touch with that area and, despite my best efforts, I remain frustrated that we are seemingly forgotten about by the current government which, as I say, is arrogant and out of touch.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:34): I rise today to express my great concern that there is no additional funding for country and outback roads in the budget that we have just had handed down to us, whether it is for new roads, upgrades to roads or even just to catch up on maintenance. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, in a peri-urban, peri-rural electorate, would certainly have some sympathy for this, but I can tell you that the further away you go from the city the more important this issue becomes.

When I travel the electorate of Stuart, and certainly the rest of regional and outback South Australia as well, while there are myriad issues that concern people, broadly, in the country everybody's top two issues are health and then roads, and in the outback areas everybody's top two issues are roads and then communication. That is certainly not to say that other things are not important as well, but they are the ones that really keep popping up in that order. They are important because they are the lifeline. They are the connection that people have in the country, and perhaps even more importantly in the outback, with each other, with other regions and with Adelaide. We all know Adelaide is the heart and will always be the heart of South Australia. All of us country people come and go fairly regularly, but we need to be able to get around our own regions as well as back and forth to Adelaide.

Roads support communities, business, education, health, sport, tourism and social interaction. These roads are absolutely vital for all the other very important aspects of life and of government providing services. There is no point providing these services if you cannot actually get to them in country areas. I am often reminded of one pastoralist who said to me, 'Look, Dan, the only thing I want from the government is good roads. I will take care of the rest. I will live my life. I will earn my money. I will look after my family. I will run my business. Just get the government to give me good roads in this district and I will take care of the rest.' That is no exaggeration. That is exactly how it is. That is how important roads are in country and outback areas.

It is to this government's great shame that we currently have a $400 million backlog, approximately, of road maintenance. That is throughout the entire state. I am always mindful of the fact that city projects can be very expensive, and I do not begrudge the city people any of their projects or their upgrades, but the priorities are swung far, far too much in favour of the city and not nearly enough in favour of the country and the outback areas. We just do not get our fair share.

A good example of that is one aspect of the budget that we have just received, which the member for Bragg, the shadow minister for transport, brought to my attention, which is the fact that the $8.5 million that was in the budget last year for the Penola bypass has vanished. It has just vanished. There was $8.5 million budgeted in the 2011-12 budget. The estimated amount spent will be $300,000 of that, and in the 2012-13 budget that we have just received there is nothing. It is not there. It has just vanished. How can you take such an important, serious project that contributes to that community and to communities further south in the South-East, so that they can come past Penola and get to Adelaide—a very important road safety project—and make that disappear without any comment anywhere and try to pretend to the rest of the state that you are serious about supporting country and outback road networks?

Road safety is vitally important, and this government has done a lot to try to promote road safety, but I think it is doing a lot in the absence of just maintaining the roads. I mentioned that $400 million of backlog of road maintenance. If that was done it would not be so necessary to increase the fines and the penalties with regard to points or to increase registration fees, which is particularly harsh on the heavy vehicle and freight sector at the moment. Road safety is vitally important, but a lot of the measures that we are getting at the moment are necessary because the roads are not being maintained and kept up to the standard that they should be to make them as safe as they should be.

It is all about funding priorities. I stand here and say this all the time: I understand that there is never going to be enough money for health, roads or education, but my issue is about the priorities. Country and outback people—regional people—are missing out compared to the city, and to just say there is not enough money is a poor excuse. You have to actually skew the spending back so that a larger share of what is available is spent in country areas.

We have in excess of 10,000 kilometres of unsealed roads in South Australia. That is a gigantic job to stay on top of. We have got ourselves in a real bind here in South Australia because about 10 years ago one of the very first things that this government did was get rid of one of the three outback road resheeting gangs. We had three, we now have two.

For those members in the house who may not be familiar with it, resheeting dirt roads is critically important because that is actually what builds your road base. That is what road building is all about. You can grade the top and take a bit off and you can bring some gravel, some clay or some sand in from the sides and build it back up again but, over time, with wear and tear and weather and grading to try to get a surface back, you eventually just wear through the road base on your dirt road until you are left with nothing but essentially just a track.

There are many places in outback South Australia where, when it rains, the road becomes the river. You can look down for hundreds and hundreds of metres and just see water lying in front of you because the road has actually been graded below the surface of the surrounding countryside. That is the case all over my electorate, certainly all over the electorate of Giles and many places in the electorates of Chaffey and Flinders as well.

The trap I mentioned is that it was a false economy to try to save that money from the resheeting gangs. Saving that money by laying off that gang might have looked good at the time, but what it has actually meant is that our road maintenance has just fallen further and further behind because the road bases have disappeared. We are now at a stage where we can grade as much as we like, but we are just getting deeper and deeper. The road is no longer there. You are just trying to smooth out the countryside so that it is passable until the next bit of rain, but when the next bit of rain comes you have the same problem again instead of having a proper well-made road. That is one of the things that the government must get back on top of and deal with properly.

The Cooper Creek and Birdsville track crossing (where Cooper Creek crosses the Birdsville track) is a very important piece of infrastructure. That needs to be attended to. It is just not good enough to say, 'It rarely rains, it rarely floods; we'll just deal with it when it happens.' It has been out for the last three years and it really needs proper attention. When you head up the Birdsville track, as soon as you reach Queensland—I can tell you that you get some good roads there—it is only just a bit south of the Queensland-South Australian border where Queensland has stopped maintaining the Birdsville track. You can actually stand there, as I have done quite a few times, and see that the road changes. You can actually look down the road and say, 'Here is Queensland and here is South Australia,' a gigantic difference. It is very, very possible to get this job done, and it is all about priorities. It is all about considering this job of looking after outback and country roads to be an important job.

Our road gangs—the people who work on our roads in country and outback South Australia—do the very best they can. They have outdated equipment and very harsh living conditions. Every time I am out and about in the outback, I stop and talk to the gangs if they are there. There would not be many people around here who would like to take that sort of a job on, where you work 18 days on and 10 days off. It is tough. It is freezing cold in winter and it is boiling hot in summer, with dust and flies. They do the best they can, but the government has got to give the transport department—and I am thinking primarily of the northern region at the moment—more resources and better opportunities so that they can do a better job.

I will very quickly highlight what an important project the Yorkeys Crossing bypass is and how important an upgraded bridge over the top of the gulf near Port Augusta is. We need to have two lanes in each direction. That is a very important national freight route. The Perth-Adelaide freight, Sydney-Darwin freight—it does not matter which way you look at it—all of that freight from east to west, north to south across our nation, currently goes across the bridge over the top of the gulf. It is a congestion issue, it is a safety issue and it is potentially an environmental issue. That is a very important issue, and it must be upgraded sometime soon in South Australia so that we can fulfil our own and our national responsibilities.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:44): I wonder whether members of the Department of Environment have a permanently packed suitcase, a cover ready to envelop their computer from their desk and a mobile phone ready to move because, in the 11 years that I have been here, they have constantly been on the move. They are like an army of ants. The government started with the Department of Environment and Heritage and then, of course, we moved to DWLBC, or something, where water was added in. Then, of course, we had to have the River Murray recognised during the drought period, so we restructured it again.

Now I see an announcement of the government that as an exercise in fiscal responsibility they are going to save money by re-amalgamating the department of water with the existing environmental departmental officers. It is just a merry-go-round of public servants. Initially, at first blush, when I heard the Treasurer announce this I felt a bit sorry for them. And then I remembered the wise words of the Roman writer Petronius who said in the year 66 AD:

We trained hard...it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation.

What I have learned is that this is in fact a deliberate strategy of the government so that we are fed the propaganda that they want us to believe about what they are doing for the environment. Let me give just one example. The government has worked over the last few years with the development of marine park exclusion zones, sanctuary areas which will be developed for the purpose of protecting the ecosystems in our marine life and coastal zones.

It is a very important project, one of which was met with the transfer to the new government, to the new Weatherill regime, with an announcement by him, that he had listened to the concerns in the community and that there would be a delay of some months, anticipated by about March this year, before there would be any announcement about what the draft zones would be. This was going to be the new listening, caring, responsive government under the new leader.

What did we have? In the lead up to that we had mass public outcry, not only in regional communities but also in the city environment. In fact, some 1,500 people turned up to a public meeting of protest at Burnside Town Hall. People came from across the spectrum, not just the recreational and commercial fishermen, but also those in tourism, those who were supporting youth, those who were supporting good food, those who were supporting food security. A massive broad section of the community came out—young and old, in between, men, women, children—to express their concern about the direction the government was taking. Then we had this announcement of a delay.

Curiously, there were two things around at that time. One was the announcement by the retail union (the SDA) that they were very unhappy about the government's decision because of the effect that it would have on recreational fishing. Their members were hot trot on this; in fact, it became a subject of a motion at the Labor convention. The second thing that happened is that the government had to sit down and start making decisions about how many millions of dollars they would have to allocate, having promised commercial fishermen would be compensated in the event that they were to lose the rights to fish in certain areas and that that would need to be attended to.

So, what that the government do? They recently announced, through minister Caica, an abbreviated, abridged, or reduced area of zones with the expectation that that would minimise the financial cost by way of compensation and, of course, placate the union for their concerns that had been raised.

Notwithstanding that, the government could not rely on its own level of provision of a good outcome to placate those that were complaining on the one hand that it was not enough, and the Greens movement and the like, and across to the other who were saying that it was still a savage attack on lifestyle and livelihood and that it would decimate country towns, villages and the like. What they had to do then was start a propaganda department, and that is what I want to talk about today. This where I move away from any sympathy for governments or their departments which go on a propaganda mission to try to sell a principle which they have failed to do with any other rational development.

Of course there has been lots of criticism during the development of these marine park exclusion zones about the validity and reliability of the science, and so on. I do not want to go there; those arguments have been had. The government says on balance, irrespective of its failure to do clear studies on the economic and social impacts on the effect of this, that it has done so on the environmental impacts and that it is proceeding.

Having failed to convince the public completely, it then starts this new mission, and it starts with a postcard campaign. This, of course, has outraged a number of people, including Dr Gary Morgan, who is involved as the Marine Parks Management Alliance chairman, during the course of trying to negotiate the commercial fishing compensation package. What was exposed as a result was the claim, firstly, that the government had reached some agreement between all the conservation, recreation and commercial fishing sectors on the zoning for the SA marine parks. That was the first lie, that was the first deceit: it was completely wrong, and of course they publicly came out to say that that was not the case.

Having not got away with that, as was disclosed in material that has been released under freedom of information, the environment department decided that it was going to start this mission of propaganda by sending out postcards, and the strategy for this communication action by the department disclosed tactics which included

A high-profile advertising campaign that is likeable and trustworthy, doesn't offend commercial fishing industry and appeals to the values of all South Australians, including recreational fishers.

This is from documents from the department, and I further quote, 'Engaging influential members of the community to actively endorse marine parks,' and, 'Offering good news and media opportunities for the minister and the Premier,' and:

A subordinate, below the line campaign, which features citizen-sourced content and traffic for website engagement on recreational fishers' internet blog site.

That tells you the truth of what has actually happened here. Having failed to convince the public that this was overall a good thing, having failed to answer the people who had hotels and motels, fishing tackle shops, restaurants and cafes, fish and chip shops, hardware shops, boating supply shops and souvenir shops—all the things that are supported in the coastal towns that go from the Western Australian border to the Victorian border across our state—having failed to convince them that this was in their interests and that they should be in some way placated by this, this was the way they were going to deal with it.

That to me is unacceptable conduct. It is deceitful, and they need to be able to present the arguments clearly. They need to explain, as does the government, why it is that they should insist on defining the compensation available in these circumstances only to the commercial fishers, only those who are catching the fish. What about the people in the industries who process them, who package them, who are involved in the exporting of them? What about all their staff in those factories? Why should they not be compensated?

Why should the definition just be the fishing and the ancillary industries? Why should it not be the people who are going to close down their fishing tackle shop or lose patronage at the local hotel, who ultimately have to close services that support the tourism industry, as a result of the marine park zones that are proposed? Why should the government get away with saying, 'We are going to impose this for the good of the fishing environmental community,' and yet on the other hand fail to properly compensate. Why? Because it mismanaged this budget and it has failed to properly recognise the great significance and social cost in addition to economic to the community, particularly small business.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:54): I rise to continue my remarks on the Appropriation Bill. Prior to the 2010 election, faced with the Liberal opposition's plan for a multifunction, FIFA-compliant, Commonwealth Games suitable, covered, retractable roof stadium complex as part of a wider entertainment precinct, the Labor government needed to come up with something. What was presented was a hastily planned upgrade of Adelaide Oval for $450 million and not a penny more with a firm deadline of 30 June 2010 or the deal was off the table. What started at $450 million quickly ballooned to $535 million after taking on $85 million of SACA debt. This grew to include the cost of a footbridge of $40 million, an extra $15 million for public transport needs, and $11 million to create an open-air car park totalling around $600 million. We also now know that treasurer Foley was briefed before the state election that the $450 million would not be enough, yet he failed to disclose this information to the South Australian pubic.

So, will Adelaide Oval be FIFA compliant should we ever wish to bid again in the future, and how much further investment will be required to support any future Commonwealth Games bid as supported by Premier Weatherill in the Sunday Mail last weekend? I would like to remind the house of what the Labor treasurer, Kevin Foley, said in response to the Liberal plan to bid for the Commonwealth Games in 2008, from The Advertiser, 28 August 2008:

The Commonwealth Games is a 'B-grade sporting event' which the State Government will not be bidding for, Acting Premier Kevin Foley confirmed today. 'There is a lot better ways to spend $2 billion than on a bunch of sporting stadiums that will offer us a B-grade sporting event for 10 days, when Australia can beat itself in the swimming pool. I am not going to see this state with the $2 billion of expenditure on sporting stadiums when the most pressing need for our state is economic infrastructure, social infrastructure, to underpin a significant economic boom...which will put enormous pressure on housing, education, hospitals, roads and rail infrastructure.'

Ironically, we are spending around $600 million on Adelaide Oval, have just spent $100 million on the Marion State Aquatic Centre, and have budgeted $28.7 million on The Parks Community Centre, none of which will be suitable for a 2030 Commonwealth Games bid.

A well planned, forward thinking investment in sporting infrastructure would have meant we could be working towards events such as the Commonwealth Games whilst maximising and upgrading what we already have and building facilities that support multiple sports that the general public could enjoy. Would it not have made more sense to build the multipurpose stadium in the first place? We have now destroyed a world famous, beautiful oval for an extra 12,000 seats that will require year-round parking on the Parklands and turn North Adelaide into a car park that will require further investment to make it suitable for the Commonwealth Games, and do not even get me started on the $40 million footbridge.

We now discover the bridge will not link to the stadium but will go only to Memorial Drive. This will require Memorial Drive to be closed for every football match, estimated at 24 to 28 times per year. I also question the need for the bridge. Years ago, when there was more standing room and the Oval had a capacity of near 60,000, how did those cricket match crowds disperse using the existing two bridges across the river that are already close by? I have not mentioned the 340 days per year when Memorial Drive will not be closed and users will need to walk to King William Street to cross at the lights; hence they could have just walked down King William Street. Why waste more money we do not have?

The new Royal Adelaide Hospital has been the jewel in Labor's crown for five years now. It has gone through many changes, including its name which was going to be the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital until there was a huge public outcry. The biggest change, however, has been the price. We were told in 2006 that it would be around $1.7 billion, then in 2011, a government media release stated it was going to be a fixed price of $1.85 billion. We now know it will cost South Australian taxpayers $3.1 billion. This is slightly more than the Liberal rebuild on-site of $700 million.

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Ms SANDERSON: I will check my figure. That is the cost to build the hospital not what it costs to run it. It will cost $1.1 million a day, which is almost four times as much as we are currently paying for virtually the same capacity. This is before you pay any doctors and nurses to actually treat people. The estimated cost is $397 million per year for 30 years, bringing the total hospital running costs to $12 billion. These figures are astounding, and make me cringe every time I hear them. All this, and what are we actually getting? The AMA has been quoted as saying that when the current RAH runs at full capacity the net gain with the new hospital will be marginal.

In this budget we also saw an announcement of stamp duty concessions for new apartments bought off the plan within the Adelaide City Council area. Whilst this is a good initiative for the City of Adelaide between the terraces, and will promote high-density living where most people prefer it, out of the suburbs, I have some concerns. The first is that North Adelaide has been included as, after my briefing with the planning minister, I was assured that, other than O'Connell Street, the area of North Adelaide would be excluded from high-rise development.

My other concern is for the inner rim development, such as the government's own Bowden Urban Village. Last I heard there had been several thousand inquiries from potential buyers but only around 13 that had transpired into sales. I worry for the future of our state under a Labor government which cannot return a surplus and which has frittered away millions and millions of dollars, that were unexpected gains, over the years.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (18:01): I would like to speak this evening about the state budget again, from the perspective of a local member in the northern suburbs. I will first acknowledge the difficult circumstances this year's budget has been framed in. The major revenue writedowns delivered in the state come from state stamp duties and GST payments from the commonwealth. As a result of the slow property market and decreased spending across the board, coupled with a historically high household savings ratios, the state saw a $2.8 billion writedown. Given this situation, I am pleased that the government remains determined to fulfil its pledge of sustainable fiscal management while continuing to build a platform of opportunity for South Australians.

I also take this opportunity to express my thanks to the government for delivering a budget in these circumstances without burdening families and businesses with new taxes. Our great state is on the verge of a new era of prosperity owing to massive infrastructure programs, growth in emerging industries, and huge opportunities through the mining and defence industries, and I would like to take some time to talk about some of the initiatives within the budget that will affect my constituents.

Unemployment and barriers to entering the workforce have always been a concern of mine, and it is with a great sense of pride that I see the government's Skills for All policy about to start on 1 July this year. Under Skills for All my constituents will have the barrier of cost of training eliminated for low level and introductory vocational education. Whether it be literacy or numeracy skills to certificates I or II, the government will provide funding for these courses to be free to students, if not heavily subsidised.

I am a firm believer in the idea that through education you can lift yourself out of disadvantage. In fact, I am the first of my family to go through university. Intergenerational unemployment is no easy thing to tackle; however, I am confident that many South Australians, particularly from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, will see the opportunities that the government is providing as life-changing ones. In my maiden speech, I reflected that your demographic is not your destiny, and this is one of those moments where people can take that step forward and change their life.

I commend the government's initiative to be a world leader in the mining industry as well, with its Plan for Accelerating Exploration, which has invested millions of dollars in the development of the mining industry. Further, I was pleased to see that a new $38 million Mining Engineering Industry Training Centre has been given priority in the budget to ensure that mining boom benefits can be shared by all South Australians, particularly young South Australians wanting to gain employable skills in the industry.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mrs VLAHOS: No dinner, yes. In my electorate community safety is very important. I am proud to be part of a government that has the highest number of operational police per capita than all the states in Australia, and I was particularly happy to see the police budget increased from $722 million in 2011-12 to $767 million in 2012-13. I understand most of the money will go towards supporting 129 extra police officers who are expected to join SAPOL by 30 June 2013. All of this investment, on top of the new police headquarters, puts the state in a very good position, particularly now that we have a new police academy.

It is great to see our emergency services will be better equipped than ever before, with an extra $8.3 million delivered in this budget. From the new coastal vessel for the State Emergency Services and new breathing apparatus for the Country Fire Service to upgraded equipment for aerial firefighting in the Metropolitan Fire Service, it is clear that this government supports our emergency services.

What is truly commendable in this budget, particularly given the revenue challenges, is the record-breaking increases in funding for disability. Within the forward estimates, South Australians can look towards more than $200 million in additional support for those with disabilities and for their carers. This represents a massive increase of over 33 per cent on state funding. Further, by allowing choice and service delivery through individualised funding, people living with disability and their carers have greater control over their lives.

This represents a major shift away from institutional funding towards a more independent, community-based approach that is welcomed throughout our state. This new funding for disabilities will also go towards meeting unmet needs by providing extra accommodation support, respite services, community visitors schemes, and support to non-government sectors who help in this area. The transfer of residents from the outdated Strathmont Centre has also been placed as a priority.

Further, it was great to see the First Home Owners Grant of $8,000 would continue for homes purchased prior to 1 July 2013. This is something that is very important in the growing area of the north. I know the government is mindful of the cost pressures facing family budgets. By providing funding of around $200 million each year to ease cost pressures on utilities such as energy, water, sewerage, council rates and emergency services levies, public transport, motor vehicle registration, drivers licence fees, stamp duty, compulsory third-party insurance and the Save the River Murray levy, the government is minimising the extra pressure on households.

Water costs have been a rising concern in my constituency over the past years. In recognising the increasing cost of water bills in 2012-13 year, it has been necessary to deliver the water security infrastructure sorely needed for our dry state. The government has budgeted for a once-off water security rebate of up to $75, depending on usage, for families. This will apply to bills of residential customers of SA Water from 1 January 2013; again, another welcome measure.

Overall, I think this has been a very balanced budget, considering the constraints we face, and I commend it to the house.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (18:07): I rise to address the budget broadly, but with a specific focus on health aspects of the budget. Can I firstly say that the frame of the budget is one of 10 years of wasted opportunity. Others have spoken about the fact that, for most of the past 10 years, the country has been experiencing extraordinarily good times, with buoyant government revenues, both federal and state.

Those abundant revenues, sadly, have been wasted, and a simple point was made: that a prudent government, on being elected in 2002, would have acted to contain budget expenditures to within CPI while banking the buoyant revenues that were well in excess of expectations. If that had been done, billions of dollars could have been saved for a future fund, or put aside for infrastructure investment, such that we would not be in the precarious position we are in today in regard to deficit and debt.

To a degree, that is history. The former premier and the former treasurer were the recipients of a receptive and enthusiastic media for the first five to six years of their period in office. I do remember certain commentators describing treasurer Foley, in glowing terms, as a brilliant treasurer. Every time he banked a surplus, it was as if it had been all his doing. Somehow or other an important point was missed—the Auditor-General did not miss it: on each occasion, revenues exceeded far and beyond what Treasury had forecast, and that money had seemed to vanish.

However, hindsight is a wonderful thing. We now understand the budget folly of the first seven to eight years of this government's period in office—but, as I mentioned earlier, I give the former treasurer credit for his first two budgets where I think he did, while he was learning the ropes, try to contain government spending. Of course, he quickly let go and started to let out his belt as quickly as the cash could be swallowed, so we are in the position we are now in.

Of course, 31 per cent of government outlays as we look at this budget go towards health. When the new hospital comes on stream in a few years' time, we will need to find another $397 million per year, for 30 years or more, to pay for it—something like $12 billion in outlays for a hospital that, arguably, could have been paid for in cash if some of those surpluses in years past had been accrued.

It is nearly $5 billion—in fact, in the estimates period it will exceed $5 billion—to be spent on the portfolios of health, the ageing, substance abuse and mental health, and over 30,000 full-time equivalent positions (nearly 31,000). That is a very significant amount of money. As I mentioned, that is 31 per cent of government spending. I note that, although the government claims we have 11 per cent more doctors per person than the national average and 18 per cent more nurses than the national average, we seem to be getting poorer results. Again, this puts the spotlight on a fundamental flaw in this Labor government's complete strategy. They are always talking about how much they are spending and not talking about the value they are getting for the spending they are making. Of course, that is typical of Labor governments.

The fundamental bombshell—or, elephant in the room, if you like—in this budget, in my opinion, is the new Royal Adelaide Hospital in the rail yards. Why do I say that? I simply say that because it was a hospital designed in the good times assuming that the good-times budget would be there in perpetuity to pay for it. I think the former premier and former treasurer, along with the current health minister, had a clever idea: 'Why don't we do something down in the rail yards in that space between Morphett Bridge and the Old Adelaide Gaol? After all, it is a very important part of the Torrens precinct. It was rail yards, after all. We should put something there.' The problem is that they put the wrong thing there, that is, the hospital. It was absolute madness.

It was an idea dreamt up on the back of an envelope over a cappuccino, between the current health minister and a former chair of the AMA, with very little consultation. It was not taken to the electorate in 2006. It was not part of the infrastructure plan this government had dreamt up in its first term of office. Just like trams down King William Street, and various other initiatives, it just dropped out of the sky as an after-thought, signalling that the government really did not believe its own infrastructure plan and did not really have a plan to manage but, rather, that they would manage from year to year, from election to election, as they saw fit, making hip-shot decisions based on the needs of today instead of a long-term plan for the future.

The reason it is the elephant in the room and it is a ticking bomb is that this government's ministers, most of them, will sail off in into the sunset after they lose the election in 2014 and they will leave the rest of us to pay the bill. I heard the Minister for Health on radio the other day (in fact, I was there with him) saying, 'Never mind, it is alright. Over a period of time our budget will grow and there will be plenty of scope in the budget purview to pay $400 million a year, every year, for the hospital.' It is a bit like a householder saying, 'It doesn't matter how much debt I have because my salary will go up over the next 30 years and I will be able to pay for it.' It was one of the most ignorant comments I think I have ever heard. Of course, surely, the Minister for Health must understand that other costs will also rise to match revenues over the next 30 years and those budget pressures will not go away.

We are going to have to pay somewhere between $12 billion and $13 billion for something that the government claims is only a $1.8 billion investment. Of course, we know it is more like $3.2 billion when you add up all the preparations costs, but we are paying four or five times more than the thing is actually costing to build because it is a complicated financing arrangement. It was absolute madness. We should have rebuilt the Royal Adelaide Hospital where it was, which after all was the plan this government took to the election in 2006. If they were honest, they would have done that, but they have not, so we have to pay. We have to pay in a circumstance where I note in this budget there are additional resources of $289 million over three years that have had to be set aside to bail out budget problems where the minister has put himself in a position of having a budget that is $125 million in the red alone so far this year with another $15 million or so to cover overspends at Glenside due to remediation costs.

Of course, we are told this is to cover overspends in various parts of the portfolio, but we know a significant portion of it will be going into the new resources unit entitled the Office for Business Review and Implementation to cover the numerous little disasters in health ranging from the bungled Oracle Corporate System on the one hand to the double paying of bills and unreconciled accounts on the other.

I also note the considerable investment that the government is making in e-health services and e-health IT programs, all of which in one form or another will be necessary, but I simply make the point that these programs need to be managed competently. It does not give me much confidence looking at the Oracle Corporate System and what the Auditor-General has had to say about that when I look at e-PASS which is coming and the PCEHR system which is commonwealth driven and these various other e-health initiatives that the government is touting. I only hope that they are better planned and executed than what we have seen already.

Of course, there are new efficiency dividends on health and delays to a range of capital projects. If you depend on The Queen Elizabeth Hospital or Modbury Hospital for your health care needs, you have cause to worry because they are being cut significantly and those capital works are being postponed off into the never-never.

Clearly, the government has delivered quite a bit of chaos in health, and this is in the context of our failure to perform in emergency departments, our very long waiting lists for elective surgery and, as we have heard, significant problems in mental health and across the hospital system, particularly in emergency departments with ramping and so on. There are solutions. The federal government needs to pay its way more. Greater efficiencies need to be found in the way we manage health here. We need to look at new models, new plans and new designs for the delivery of health care, but I do not see any of that vision coming forward from the minister. I simply see the day-to-day management of what has been going on with little effect and little promise for future success.

Time expired.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (18:18): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that you are here during the dinner break. I also note that there are four ships down at the Port waiting to be loaded or unloaded out in the ocean. I often give the parliament a report. I hope that Mr Tremaine can get in there and deal with them. It is good to see the ships waiting. There are four ships out there at anchor.

Mrs Geraghty: What's on them?

Mr VENNING: I don't know. One looks like a grain tanker. I was extremely concerned to learn a month or two ago that South Australia recently weakened the rules protecting our grape and wine industry from phylloxera. What is it, you say? Phylloxera is a tiny pest insect that lives on the roots of a grapevine which slowly causes the decline of the health of the vine and after seven or eight years the vine eventually dies. Once a vineyard is infected, the pest never leaves. The vines then have to be pulled out.

Phylloxera has never been detected in South Australia. Whether that is for some reason or just through pure luck, I do not know, but we have never had phylloxera in South Australia, and this is why we have some of the oldest vines in the wine world and the quality wine we are able to make from those old vines. Phylloxera is spread by man and machines, infesting previously free vineyards. The recent changes to the regulations means that South Australia will now allow the entry of grape harvesters and other machinery and equipment from other states if those transporting them can simply show proof that they have come from a phylloxera exclusion zone (PEZ) without having to clean the equipment. This is dramatically flawed. Phylloxera can be in a vineyard for three to five years and it is not apparent that it is there and, all of a sudden, the vines deteriorate, so if a grape picker was operating in a vineyard, it may already be infested and nobody would know. Nobody would be aware.

This relaxation of previously strict rules appears to have gone through without consulting or informing stakeholders, and it places the state's vignerons and wineries at huge risk. Why did the minister not consult with those whom this decision will place most at risk? I cannot believe that this has gone through, seemingly without anyone being aware, with us having so much to lose. Given South Australia's phylloxera-free status—and we flaunt that all over the world—to relax the rules and risk affecting our premium wine grape industry is just ridiculous and ludicrous. The minister in another place has reportedly said:

The previous requirement to disinfect machinery and equipment is considered unnecessary when moving between phylloxera exclusion zones.

Whose opinion is that? Is that the opinion of the other states which already have phylloxera and are jealous of our phylloxera-free status? I ask, if that is the case, why the Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia Chief Executive, Mr Alan Nankivell, has requested the minister to reinstate their previous standards? When he was interviewed on 639 ABC on 30 May, he said:

We felt it was important to provide some surety for the industry that we would reinstate the standards...

The Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia states on its website:

While most grapegrowing regions of the world are infested with phylloxera, Australia remains predominantly free of the pest because of strict quarantine controls—

and I emphasise 'strict quarantine controls'. The website further states:

South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and Queensland are believed to be free of phylloxera. However, the risk of spreading the pest from phylloxera infested zones is ever present, and the industry is very vulnerable as over 85 per cent of grapevines are planted on their own roots and therefore not resistant to phylloxera.

The minister says that the changes were to ensure consistency with national phylloxera management protocols, but what about the risk to our growers? Given our state's wine industry, which is worth an estimated $1.7 billion annually to the state's economy, I cannot understand that a change of this magnitude has been able to go through basically unnoticed. How were most growers going to learn about this?

Why is it so important that we stop phylloxera at all costs? It is because, if we get it, our old vines on non-resistant root stocks would have to come out and be replaced by younger, new varieties on natural root stocks. That is usually a variety called Ramsey. It is well known—and it is controversial to say this—that vines on root stocks do not give you the quality of a vine on its own roots. We use Ramsey which is an old vine, a natural which the phylloxera does not attack, but there is a drop in quality, so they tell us, and I believe that.

This is one of the reasons that we have premium wine status in the Barossa—most of our vines are on their own root stocks but they are all susceptible to phylloxera, the whole lot of them. There are some vines on native root stocks, just in case we get it, but we do not have it. Whether that is luck, I do not know. It is so important because we are vulnerable to this. I cannot believe that we would do this.

The minister is probably not aware, to be fair, but I am sure her husband, Peter Gago, would be very cognisant of this. I am just wondering how this has been allowed to happen because it is just not worth the risk. We should just force people to clean up the machines if they come across the border from any area. It has worked in the past. Why would you take the risk?

I turn just briefly to another issue of less importance but which is still important to the people who raised this matter with me, that is, a dangerous intersection in the vicinity of a school in my electorate—Vine Street, Falkenberg Road, Sir Condor Laucke Way and Greenock Road in Nuriootpa near the Redeemer Lutheran School. The intersection is a source of anxiety for many in the community. Two or three complaints a week are lodged with the principal, with most being to report near misses. Complaints are also made by motorists who are frustrated about not being able to turn across the intersection in a timely manner. A roundabout or lights would be a solution to make this intersection safer, and they are solutions put forward by the school community, and I have raised these suggestions with the minister. However, the minister replied to me on 30 April, saying:

For the five-year period of 2007 to 2011 (inclusive), the DPTI advises that there has been one reported minor crash at this intersection.

The minister goes on to say:

DPTI advises that the treatment suggested by the school for this intersection cannot be justified at this time.

I forwarded the minister's advice to the school, and I received further correspondence from the principal on 8 April this year, and I quote from that correspondence. It states:

On an almost daily basis, parents of Redeemer Lutheran School, as well as members of the wider community, share their concern that it will only be a matter of time until there is a fatality at this intersection. There have already been several minor collisions, and I have also been informed that a child was knocked from their bike while travelling to school.

I acknowledge that the minister has said that the DPTI will continue to monitor this intersection, but does a serious accident involving a child have to occur before any action is taken? As the local member, I cannot and will not sit back and wait for an accident to occur. I assure the school and the wider community that I will continue to lobby for this intersection to be made safer.

I would now like to also touch on an issue that is no longer within my electorate but will no doubt have an impact and that is the proposed closure of the Cadell ferry at the end of this month, in just 19 days time—and I note that the member for Stuart raised that issue yesterday. The government says that this move will save it $40,000 per year, but how much will it cost the residents, the farmers and the local businesses? The next closest ferry is Morgan.

Mr Pederick: $400,000.

Mr VENNING: Sorry; $400,000 is what it costs the government. The next closest ferry is Morgan, which will add more travelling time and therefore a cost to the bottom line for many who have suffered so much in the past decade because of the drought. This is another example of how a small regional community is going to be unfairly penalised because of the Labor government's inability to manage the state finances.

Just imagine, Madam Speaker—you would understand, having a rural electorate—what this will do to the small community of Cadell. It would put a barrier right through the middle of it by removing that ferry. It would be horrendous for that small community. It is a great community. I used to serve it once. It is a lovely area, and I really feel it for them. I would join the member for Stuart and my other colleagues to fight to keep that ferry there.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (18:28): I rise tonight to make my contribution in a grieve with respect to the Appropriation Bill 2012. I would like to go over a few of the main points that have been outlined in the budget. I note that the deficit will work out to be $284 million in 2011-12; $867 million in 2012-13; $778 million in 2013-14; $15 million in 2014-15; and, potentially, a $512 million surplus in 2015-16, but the way this state is going, I will not hold my breath.

The 2012-13 forecast three years ago was a $304 million surplus. This means that this state is $1.2 billion behind what was forecast three years ago. The 2012-13 deficit is the largest in the state's history. State debt will rise to $13 billion in 2015-16, which is the largest in history. When you think that this next budget, which we will be passing in this place tonight, is just short of $16 billion, that is astronomical. That will mean that by 2015-16 the interest will be $2.3 million per day.

The AAA credit rating is gone, and we are now on AA+ and on negative watch. This downgrade will work out to $33 million extra in costs to this state per year. Another 1,000 public sector jobs will be axed, in addition to over 4,000 over the last two budgets. The 1.1 per cent per year efficiency dividend across government, commencing in 2013-14, will save $129.5 million a year. The government has tried to tell us that there are no new taxes in this budget. What about issues like the motorcycle levy? We see $444 million in deferred or suspended capital works, and they go right across the board. State taxes are growing at double the inflation rate from 2012-13. It is just a tale of gloom.

When we look at some of the promises that have been broken over the last 10 years by this state Labor government, we see the major project of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, which was to be funded at $1.7 billion, but in the short term it will add $2.8 billion to debt, and over 30 years it will cost us $12 billion. We were told that the Adelaide Oval upgrade would only cost $450 million and not a penny more, and that is approaching $600 million in total spend, and we are a long way from that project being finished.

We see the Southern Expressway duplication, which we were told was going to be $370 million, and that now looks likely to be at least $407 million. Part of the Darlington interchange project has been scrapped, and that was $75 million. We saw the Mount Bold reservoir expansion scrapped, which would have brought it from 45 gigalitres up to 245 gigalitres. We see that the federal-state funding package of $160 million for the Upper Spencer Gulf desalination plant, to bring the water up to a drinkable standard, has gone. We have seen the $122 million underpass along South Road, between Port Road and Grange Road, scrapped.

We saw $600 million worth of prison facilities scrapped, which caused a lot of angst certainly in the Murray Bridge community and surrounding areas in my electorate. It was basically announced on the front page of The Advertiser, which I picked up before I came into parliament that day. That was the big budget announcement about the new prison, and that has long gone—so much for consultation with the community.

There was $140 million for the South Road/Sturt Road underpass scrapped. The solution to the Britannia roundabout—and what a great corner that is—there is $8.8 million gone, and we see $520 million for trams to the western suburbs. A whole range of other things in this budget have been scrapped or costs have been increased for the citizens of South Australia.

I want to talk about road spending and, in particular, about some of the roads in my electorate. I note that the RAA tells us that the backlog in state maintenance spending on our roads is $400 million. A road I have talked about here several times (and I have gone into bat for it to the minister on several occasions) is a nine-kilometre section of the Pinnaroo to Loxton road, about seven kilometres out of Pinnaroo—one end of it. It is as though the bitumen has been laid on crab holes: your vehicle just bounces, and I can just imagine what it is like going over it in a truck. All the department has done is put up 'uneven surface' warning signs. Well, that is pretty darn obvious. It needs major funding because that route is used not just for freight but also for health services by my constituents and the member for Chaffey's constituents and by people who go to work between the Riverland and Pinnaroo at the end of my electorate.

The road between Murray Bridge and Karoonda, right up through towards Loxton, needs shoulder sealing and some areas totally rebuilt to bring it up to speed. But what do we see this state government do? For many of our local state bitumen roads (and I know it affects the member for Goyder's electorate as well), instead of committing to road funding, the government just says, 'We will reduce the speed limit from 110 km/h to 100 km/h.'

It is just absolutely ridiculous, and I have stated it in this place before. Driving in the vehicles that we run around in today, it is just ludicrous to restrict people's limit on these roads by another 10 km/h. We are not running around in FJ Holdens or Model T Fords any more. There are good vehicles, and all it needs is some commitment from the government to keep the maintenance up to speed so that people—like country members who have to do a lot of kilometres—can get to places in a reasonable time and safely.

I want to talk about the effect of water price on agriculture. We see the business rate of water, which is what agriculture will pay, heading up to $3.45 a kilolitre—that is a tripling in the last few years. This is going to have an effect and, at the end of the day, it has the potential to kill off watering livestock in this state. I asked questions of the minister the last time we were in this place, but he does not have a concept of the effect of this high water rate on the citizens of this state and what it is doing not just to the citizens of the city, who get a one-off rebate; if you are watering thousands of cattle in a feedlot, this essentially brings water bills up to an unsustainable level. A constituent emailed me yesterday to say that, with the tripling of water rates, it will bring the water bill for their dairy to $200,000. That is approaching what a minister earns in this place on a gross basis, but this is just one expense a farmer has to pay.

In the time I have left I will mention the debacle of marine parks and a government that wants to put all these impacts on commercial fishers. They have partly taken the heat out it for recreational fishers, but they have no money to pay compensation, no money at all. We also see stupidity in the announcement of the closing of the Cadell ferry, which shows how distant this state Labor government is from reality in the regions. I am just stunned.

We have seen the Riverland, the top of the river in our state and the lower end of the river in my electorate go through so much pain in recent years, yet we see such a short-sighted budget announcement of $400,000, and the excuse is so that it can be spent on other ferries in the system. This is from a government that has no idea of what goes on in the regions and what impact this will have on the farmers, the tourists and the good people who run businesses in Cadell.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (18:37): In the time I have this evening I would like to finish some remarks I started today about the Modbury Football Club. Since my time in the Modbury area (now some 35 years), I have been aware of the strong community presence that the Modbury Football Club has maintained in being a place where families would gather before and after matches and many hundreds of young people have learnt the skills of the modern game that keeps this state and nation enthralled.

It is a club that has Modbury Oval at its heart, near the pool and bowling club. It is a great oval, and standing there on Saturday afternoon is much like standing at a country oval, with the hills in the background and cars parked around the perimeter fence. The barbecue is always going, and there are kids playing by the boundary watching their idols in the senior team do their best for the Mighty Hawks.

Part of the Modbury Sporting Club, which also fosters cricket, the Modbury Football Club now has 30 teams playing at the same venue—another record, I am told. They also now, most importantly, field a women's side of which I was proud to be made patron in their inaugural year of 2011. The Modbury Football Club has been built on the commitment and dedication of many families, among them, as I said earlier, to name a few in no particular order, are the Burford family, the Varley family, the Bryant family, the Jolly family, and the Vassal family. Scott Vassal, a player I sponsor from the club, worked as a trainee in my office some years ago now and has gone on to a great job within one of the departments.

The club resisted poker machines at a time when many clubs decided to go that way and remains to this day a very family-friendly environment. The scene of so many local functions and celebrations over many years in our community, I am proud to hire their facilities every election night for my volunteers and campaign workers as they await the outcome of the poll.

Following on from the marvellous concert for volunteers last Monday, attended by Governor Kevin Scarce and Mrs Scarce and the Premier, compered by SA's favourite Port Power son, Peter Goers (himself a volunteer for many good causes), we are reminded how reliant sport is on volunteers: coaches and training staff; match day officials for both home and away fixtures; the parents who make sure that, in the days of technology, sport is still part of growing up in this state; and also the many mums who wash and iron those guernseys and socks every week no matter what the weather. It is the mothers who make sure the kids have had a good feed before they go on, and I am sure that it is the mothers who look after the cuts and scars after the game and the hurt pride or ego when a win was not the outcome.

The number of voluntary hours so many people have put into Modbury Football Club is too great to calculate and, over the years, their efforts to upgrade the grounds and facilities have resulted in the oval that we see today. There is still a good deal to be done to the change rooms and other important needs have to be met. I know that the current group of Modbury Football Club families, led by Jamie Thomas, Kelli Underwood and the committee, will do everything possible to make those changes and keep the ethos and traditions of the club in fine order for the future.

The captain of the ladies team is also heavily involved in the Tango Netball Club, another sporting club in our area that has had some adversity to face and whose present committee is also working very hard to make sure that sport remains part of the lives of children in the north-eastern suburbs.

I think one of the things that the budget needs to do, which it has done and will continue to do, is address the needs of sport in the community and also the much-needed facilities. It would be remiss of me not to mention the calisthenics clubs that I so eagerly represent in this state and their home, the Royalty Theatre, which is so much in need of an upgrade. It is part of not only the sporting life but the cultural life of South Australia because this middle-sized theatre is used for all sorts of cultural activities throughout the various festivals. I know that the calisthenics community would like to see facilities as other calisthenics clubs throughout Australia enjoy here in South Australia.

In my role as patron and life member of the Calisthenics Association of South Australia and a national patron of the Australian Calisthenics Federation, I will be going to Darwin in July for the national competitions, and I know the house will be looking forward to me reporting the results and outcomes of those competitions.

Motion carried.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (18:43): I move:

That Estimates Committee A be appointed, consisting of Hon. M.J. Atkinson, Ms Bedford, Ms Bettison, Hon. I.F. Evans, Mr Goldsworthy, Mr Marshall and Mr Piccolo.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (18:43): I move:

That Estimates Committee B be appointed, consisting of Ms Chapman, Dr Close, Mr Gardner, Mr Odenwalder, Ms Sanderson, Ms Thompson and Hon. M.J. Wright.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation, Minister for Defence Industries, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (18:44): I move:

That the proposed expenditures for the departments and services contained in the Appropriation Bill be referred to Estimates Committees A and B for examination and report by Thursday 27 June 2012, in accordance with the following timetables:

APPROPRIATION BILL

TIMETABLE FOR ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

20 June 2012-26 June 2012

WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Treasurer

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Premier

Minister for State Development

Legislative Council

House of Assembly

Joint Parliamentary Services

State Governor's Establishment

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Auditor-General's Department

Attorney-General

Minister for Planning

Minister for Business Services and Consumers

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

Electoral Commission SA

Courts Administration Authority

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Independent Gambling Authority

THURSDAY 21 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Finance

Minister for Public Sector

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Minister for Defence Industries

Minister for Worker's Rehabilitation

Minister for Veterans' Affairs

Minister for Arts

Defence SA

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

Arts SA

FRIDAY 22 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade

Minister for Small Business

Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy

Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (part)

MONDAY 25 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion

Minister for Volunteers

Minister for Disabilities

Minister for Youth

Minister for Social Housing

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

TUESDAY 26 JUNE AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Recreation and Sport

Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills

Minister for Science and Information Economy

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

20 June 2012-26 June 2012

WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Housing and Urban Development

Minister for Transport and Infrastructure

Minister for Transport Services

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Minister for Health and Ageing

Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Department for Health and Ageing

THURSDAY 21 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Emergency Services

Minister for Corrections

Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Minister for Police

Minister for Road Safety

South Australia Police (part)

Administered Items for South Australia Police (part)

Department for Correctional Services

Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

Administered Items for the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

FRIDAY 22 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Education and Childhood Development

Minister for the Status of Women

Minister for Tourism

Department for Education and Child Development

Administered Items for the Department for Education and Child Development

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion

Administered Items for the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion

South Australian Tourism Commission

Minister for Tourism

MONDAY 25 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Minister for Regional Development

Minister for Forests

Minister for Industrial Relations

Minister for State/Local Government Relations

Department of Primary Industries and Regions

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions (part)

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Attorney-General's Department (part)

Administered Items for the Attorney-General's Department (part)

TUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012 AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation

Minister for Water and the River Murray

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Administered Items for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Administered Items for the Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

Department for Water

Administered Items for the Department for Water