APPROPRIATION BILL 2013

Estimates Committees

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (21:18): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I welcome our visitors to the evening session also, which does not happen all that often, so it is actually a pleasure for us to be here after the dinner adjournment.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: It is. I actually enjoy it. It's not that bad. It's alright—

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Well, that's right. It is alright for these people that go home to their partners, but we regional members who are stuck here anyway feel like working, so we don't mind it so much. I am one of these people that actually enjoys estimates, I really do.

Ms Bedford: You've always been different.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Florey says that I have always been different. I am not quite sure about that—boring sometimes. I actually do crave information, and for a person that has lived through this process for eight years now with a variety of responsibilities—sometimes asking questions each day of the six days, last year sitting quietly there for most of it and just asking the odd question but this time having a bit more responsibility—it is a great chance for collectively the greatest amount of information and knowledge to be available within the parliament about the budget.

When you respect that, each component of it becomes a quantum that equals $16 billion and serves the people of South Australia, good, bad or different depending on where you come from. It is actually a great responsibility to make sure that it gets it right.

I know there is an enormous amount of effort the Public Service has to go through to ensure that they have answers prepared for each potential question. They have to work out what information the opposition might have leaked and ensure that their responsible minister is in charge of a level of intelligence about the budget that will allow them to answer each question confidently. We come in here and think we have the big scoop of the day and the government members will sit there and ask their questions too.

I thought that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, did exceptionally well in the role of Chair this year. I also thought the member for Giles chaired exceptionally well. Even though it is a lengthy process, it allows that level of knowledge to exist which I think can only be a good thing and a plus for the people of South Australia because it allows the parliament to ensure that the scrutiny exists of what the government is doing to make sure that the money is being spent as best as it possibly can.

I had specific responsibility in four question areas over the five days, only really sitting with a level of responsibility for two of those areas and assisting other shadow ministers for part of the other days, but I enjoyed each one of them. I do recognise that there is a variety of knowledge that comes in from the minister's position. In my time here (eight years) I have seen a level of improvement from individual ministers, who in the past may have frustrated me by reading out lengthy answers prepared by staff. This year, I believe I have seen, in some who I have challenged in the past, a greater level of confidence in the way they predicted their portfolio area. I am not saying that I agree with everything they have done or what they are saying, but at least there was a preparedness to provide a detailed answer. So, I appreciated that and the way in which answers were given, on most occasions.

From my point of view, I started on Thursday of last week with consumer and business services. As a person who is driven by the processes that exist in my life, in what I have done and in the areas in which I have worked, I actually appreciate the fact that Commissioner Paul White also has a very process-driven role to ensure that Consumer and Business Services runs efficiently. It has thousands and thousands of transactions, thousands of business registrations, many thousands of liquor licensing applications, be they short term or long term, it has a great responsibility to ensure that facilities are being run appropriately and the conditions attached to those are appropriate, it does have to pursue legal action sometimes and it is certainly dealing with late night codes when it comes to liquor licensing at the moment.

It has had to deal with, over the last 12 months, from a liquor licensing perspective in itself, some 1,900 businesses that have sought a revision of the fee structure that was put in place. So, that shows the level of challenge that exists for those businesses in trying to get how they operate right and to look at each of their costs, and for them the liquor licensing cost was a significant one.

I enjoyed the questioning opportunity for 45 minutes that occurred with minister Rau, Commissioner White and the other support staff there. There is not a real lot of potential money involved. It is about $3.6 million, as I understand it, that comes in from liquor licensing fees per year. There are considerable dollars that have been outstanding and some effort that has had to go into recovering some of those debts, but it will be a challenging area during subsequent debate that occurs about late night codes and some regulation changes and, indeed, some red tape reduction areas too.

The second area I had responsibility for was regional development, and that was with minister Gago from the other place. The first question I asked there, as I always intended to do, was about the funding situation that exists for the RDAs. There are eight of them that operate in South Australia. One is based in metropolitan Adelaide and only has financial support from the commonwealth government. The other seven have, up until 30 June of this year, been a tripartite agreement between commonwealth, state and local government, which has worked exceptionally well. They stem from the amalgamation that occurred a few years ago, driven by previous minister Caica, of the area consultative committees and the previous regional development boards in the form of the Regional Development Australia structure and went down from 13 RDBs to seven RDAs.

The challenge for them, as flagged in the Mid-Year Budget Review of about two and a half years ago, is for a significant drop in funds. For them, from 1 July, which was the day the questioning actually occurred, was the loss of $4.1 million. It was replaced partially with $1.4 million spread amongst those seven equally, so $200,000 each. The challenge then is for them to use entrepreneurial activities or increase fee-for-service arrangements to try to either put themselves in a position to be financially viable or to replace their full amount of dollars.

It is going to be a challenge for all of them and, from the individual conversations I have had with them, they have great hope of a greater level of support, not just for their activities but also financially, from a future government. I know, having been involved with at least two of them at a board level, that they are all focused on the economy of the region in which they operate. They have large areas and some people who have worked there for a long time have some great contacts within business activities. They certainly know what relationships need to be joined to expand upon opportunities that exist in those regions, and I have always thought they have done a good job. It is interesting, when their annual reports are printed, that they all highlight the Liberal programs they have undertaken and the hundreds and hundreds of jobs that they have created within their region.

That is why I am disappointed that, after a revised structure was put in place, probably only about 3½ years ago, that there has been such a significant change which will impact upon their viability. At a time when the economy is challenged, I think the greatest opportunity for all of us to do well is to support existing businesses and to help massage those who need some assistance, and to help the vision of those who come to an area looking at an opportunity to develop. Without this resource being available, it is going to be a great challenge for them.

Associated with this loss of revenue is the challenge of retaining their staff, and it is these people who have worked, in some cases for many years, to develop relationships and know who to speak to and know who to put together for opportunities to become realities. That will be a challenge for them in the short term, because people want to ensure they have a safe position and, if they can see another role in an alternative organisation that might use similar skills that they have developed so that they have financial security, the likelihood is that they might move. That means a loss to the region in which they have previously worked and a loss of the opportunity that might have occurred in that region. I am saddened by that.

The Minister for Regional Development, also late in the 2012 calendar year, released a draft regional statement. I have had a lot of opinions put to me that the Regional Development Australia structures were not involved in the preparation of that. I know the Centre for Economic Studies had been contracted to some degree. I met with minister Gago, I think in February, and we talked about that. I got the impression from her that she wanted to see a significant revision of that draft regional statement that was out there.

It has been out in the community now for about four months, and inviting submissions to be made. I am still waiting patiently for some form of regional statement to come out which will not just be the previous collection of words about what already exists but a visionary position on what the opportunities are going to be to support those chances to make them become a reality. That will be a challenge for the minister over the short term, and I hope that within two months, at most, we have that.

I also noted in my questioning of the minister about the regional mining and infrastructure plans that minister Gago does not have direct responsibility for that: it is with the transport minister, minister Koutsantonis. However, there has been support there because it is targeted in three key northern areas of the state which will ensure that the mining exploration that is taking place is linked to what the infrastructure needs are and how these mining ventures can be developed in some way, because it is part of the great future economy of South Australia.

The challenge will be in the traditional agriculture areas where some of these mining developments are proposed. It is such a change of land use concept that, from an individual perspective, there will be apprehension. In my own electorate of Goyder, there is a significant proposal by Rex Minerals that is in the formal application stage at the moment. While communities have to take a triple bottom line approach (social, environmental and economic) in their assessment review, it is also an economic diversification opportunity for agricultural communities that have lived and died upon the success of the season, if I can use that term. Even though they have a great benefit through tourism that has developed in the last few decades, there is a chance to diversify their economy through a mining future—not fully, but partially, and one that adds to an existing reasonably strong economy and gives, I think, individual communities a great future. It will be an interesting time to see how that occurs.

Can I also talk about science and information economy, for which I had minister Portolesi, on Monday. This is a new area for me and, for a person who is not challenging himself all the time in the use of the sciences, I found the portfolio to be very interesting. When you talk to the people—while they use technology that might be somewhat different from what I have ever conceived I might be involved in—the basis of what they are trying to do is to grow the economy, so the linkages are actually significant. It was a pleasure to have Dr Jurgen Michaelis in the chamber and to ask him questions about the Thebarton Bioscience Precinct and the work that has been undertaken there to develop a 10-year master plan for the site, and I put on record the support that the West Torrens council has given towards that.

They have been established for some time. There are 90 businesses that operate from there. The employment opportunities for a start-up, especially, have been significant as has the growth that has occurred in those businesses. It shows that, with manufacturing being challenged in so many ways across the nation—not just in South Australia but in Australia—if we can educate ourselves and use these future technologies as a growth opportunity, our state will move forward. I fully support the investment that has occurred there. I wish it was a lot more because it is a great one for our state.

When I had the opportunity to meet with some people from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, I was told about some budget cuts that had occurred there. There had been a five-year funding commitment in place of about $1.8 million, and it has dropped down to about $270,000 now. There is federal support but they have also been wonderfully active in getting some business and government support from overseas. So if we can use all levels of funding support (because I think about 130 people work there), it provides a great opportunity to expand our own traditional agricultural activities.

It is also a great opportunity for the technology and the skills that exist in South Australia to become even better known on a world stage, and the boost to agriculture as a result of bringing their research to fruition will actually benefit our economy enormously too. There will be some exciting things there. They have some challenges. I had a good discussion with them about some levels of support that they are going to need in the future but it comes down to priorities, like all things do for governments and potential governments.

I was pleased to hear about the level of investment, some $4.1 million over the next four years, including $600,000 in the 2013-14 year, for the High Value Food Manufacturing Centre. My great frustration for a long time has been that we have been a wonderful producer of the raw product but we have allowed too much of it to be exported. For example, with food production, by adding to the high value opportunity, it will only grow our economy too, so that is a good choice.

I was very surprised in reviewing the budget papers that one thing that jumped out at me in the Science and Information Economy portfolio was broadband. I do respect that it is a federal responsibility but it was rather interesting to see that the previous number of premises in South Australia that were connected to broadband was 0.11 per cent for the 2011-12 financial year and the projection for the 2012-13 financial year was that it would go from that figure to 10 per cent, which is a 90-fold increase or thereabouts, but to only achieve 0.21 per cent—so only doubling; not a 90-fold increase in the 2012-13 financial year—was frustrating.

However, the revised target for the 2013-14 year is 2.5 per cent—still only a quarter of their vision for the previous year of 10 per cent—which shows that there has been a lot of challenges to try to get it right. My questioning concerned the fact that state government is involved in at least three or four committees involved with this broadband rollout. I asked the minister about regular updates to her. It appeared as though they had not been provided, but in an area where smart technology is going to be part of our strong economy in the future, there is frustration. So, that is going to be hard and at great cost. The various prices that you hear are between $45 billion and $90 billion so that will be a hard one.

One exciting area in the portfolio was STEM, which is the acronym for Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics. I was very pleased to hear that it exists in 54 schools and targets year 9 students. Given that education is part of our prosperous future and there is the need for all generations to ensure that they provide themselves with opportunities by their willingness to continue to learn, I was pleased that this program was working. However, I was frustrated when I recounted to the minister the result of my quick sums. There were over 700-odd schools, and if I worked on the basis that probably only one-third of those provides secondary education, then if we looked at 54 only, it came down to about one-sixth of the potential schools in South Australia has year 9 students focusing on this opportunity.

I am concerned that they are targeting only results from year 12 that might indicate a predisposition for students to do well in those areas, and that is the school they are looking at. It is an unmet opportunity if they are only focusing on those schools. I hope that as part of curriculum work individual principals look at the opportunities this presents and ensure they have staff trained to give all these young kids an opportunity, because it will be a strong part of our future.

For me, local government was last area that I asked questions about. I acknowledge the excellent two years that Mayor Kim McHugh served as president of the Local Government Association, and I wish David O'Loughlin, Mayor of the City of Prospect, all my best wishes for the next years. I met with president David probably about six times since he became president. I am impressed by the breadth of knowledge that he possesses in so many areas, but it will be a hard time for him.

The first question I asked the minister was about the AAA loss. I related it back to the fact that, as I understand it, there is a SAFA guarantee in place for the Local Government Finance Authority borrowings, and with an increase in interest costs as a result of the AAA impacting also on the local government borrowings, I asked what the additional cost might be. The minister was certainly aware that there was some $560 million in borrowings for local government, but then recounted to me that she thought that, with between 0.2 per cent and 0.25 per cent additional interest costs as a result of the AAA being lost, it was a minimal extra interest cost.

It depends on what you consider minimal to be. When it is a cost of living pressure—and that is how I related the question back, that it will fall upon property owners—it becomes something that all communities feel. That is an issue that, from a state government perspective, will also affect local government.

I also asked questions about ex-minister Wortley and when he was minister for local government and took an overseas trip. It was 18 days, as I understand it, travelling in Europe at a reported cost of $47,000, and his wife and child were a part of the that. I questioned where the reporting is on the outcomes of that. There were some comments at the time; the Premier was quoted, the then minister was quoted, but I wanted to know what the outcomes were, because it all comes at a cost and it comes back to a level of accountability.

Minister Gago had not been provided with the details of what the trip involved and what the outcomes of it might be. She was not aware if there had been any policy opportunities that stemmed from that. So, for me there was a level of frustration about accountability across all areas where you need to assure an outcome. Yes, the money is spent. I respect that all members of parliament will travel from time to time, and for a minister it is even more so, but we need to ensure that the outcomes justify the expense, because it is the people who pay.

I also recognise that the government has done some work on the code of conduct with the Independent Commission Against Corruption, and that will impact on local government. We talked about Housing Trust transfers and the potential loss of rate revenue from local government. It is a much better situation from an LGA perspective than what was proposed about three or four months ago, with a lot fewer properties being transferred than it thought might have occurred.

We had a good discussion about the disaster fund and the review that has been undertaken, especially in the Mid North when exceptional rain circumstances cost those communities millions of dollars in infrastructure for roads—predominantly damage—and the exceptional delays that occurred in the allocation of funds. I enjoyed the four sessions.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (21:38): It was my 11^th estimates. Can I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the way you chaired the committees that I was involved with, and the same for the member for Giles. As you said in your introductory statements each time, estimates committees were a relatively relaxed and informal process. Can I say that you did allow questions to flow and you allowed the questioning of ministers to be more productive than it has been sometimes in the past.

I was pleased that the questioning of the ministers I had to deal with—minister Snelling, who is in the chamber tonight, and minister Piccolo—was civil. There were some areas where there was some banter, but it was nothing like I have experienced in the past with some ministers, where, unfortunately, it has degenerated to what could be best described as a shouting match. I must say, though, that the only part that I am concerned about is that there were a number of questions taken on notice, but I am looking forward to reading the answers to those questions on notice.

The other bit about estimates that I should mention is the continually puzzling fact that the upper house members are not able to come and question ministers in here if they have portfolio responsibilities. While we have ministers from the upper house come in and answer the questions, in my case, the Hon. Rob Lucas, who has the health shadow portfolio, was unable to come and ask the Minister for Health questions directly, but I was happy to do that on his behalf. I was happy to be able to question minister Piccolo directly, as he is from this house, and I will continue to question both ministers for other shadow ministers in other places and also for ministers who are my direct opposites in here.

I do hope to be on the other side of the whole estimates procedures next year, after the election. I look forward to developing policies in the next six to nine months that convince South Australians that it is more than time for a change. Having said that, the Health portfolio is one of the big ones. I think it is the biggest in the budget, with over $5 billion in total. You do not get a lot of time for questions in estimates and, while there were some Dorothy Dixers in the earlier parts, I will give minister Snelling his due that, in the second, latter stages of questioning, particularly with mental health, ageing and substance abuse, there were no Dorothy Dixers and we were allowed to get a number of questions flowing on.

I should say though that some of the things that were revealed during estimates in the health area concerned me and certainly concerned others out in the broader public. Obviously, the first thing that was revealed was the reduction in nursing staff in our hospitals. I had some calls from nurses and nursing representatives who were not as well informed of possible changes as I thought they might have been, after listening to answers in estimates.

I think Professor Dabars, who is due to have a baby soon, is booking in for a caesarean—she does not want to have anything to do with labour anymore. I look forward to seeing what actually happens with nursing numbers. They are vital to our hospitals. They have a broader role than we often use them for and, certainly, all of our doctors, nurses, professionals and staff working in our public hospitals deserve as much support as we can possibly give them.

The questioning on the outpatient services that are going to be delivered at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital was interesting. The chief executive assured the committee that all the same outpatient services that are at the current Royal Adelaide Hospital would be at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. My understanding, from what former minister Hill had said, is that the range of services would not change but where they were delivered was going to change. I hope that the information the committee received from the current CE is correct and that all the outpatient services at the current Royal Adelaide do transfer down to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

I asked the minister about the cost of providing some of the radiology services at the Lyell McEwin Hospital. I mentioned the fact that the visiting medical specialist radiologists there had struck a very good deal with the government and were getting exceptionally well paid, in most people's opinions. In fact, their hourly rate varies from $164.39 to $248.99, but the catch is when they get the call-backs. That can be for a minimum of three hours and then, if it is on a public holiday, it is double time and a half, so they could get about $1,400 for coming in for a 15-minute call-back.

I said to the minister at the time that I was aware that some teleradiology services were offering that for about $100. I have to say that I was wrong. They are actually offering it for $75. I have got a complete list here from the Royal Hobart Hospital of everything from plain radiographs and X-rays right through to CT scans. The radiation rate ranges from $75 to $85, and that is sometimes maxed up when there is a 1½ fee to about $125.

It is a lot, lot cheaper than we are paying at the moment, so I suggest that the chief executive, the chief financial officer and the minister perhaps want to look at that. I am actually receiving more information from one of Australia's largest teleradiology services, which will reinforce the fact that we may need to reassess what we are paying for the patient X-ray reviews in South Australia. I am happy to help there, minister.

We are seeing the outsourcing and privatisation of hotel services at the moment with the new Royal Adelaide Hospital down there. I think Spotless are taking over the nonclinical support contracts. The changes that are being put in place in other hospitals we will be watching because there are, I think, about 400 jobs that are being looked at there. I hope that the negotiations are going to be carried out in a fair and equitable manner.

The thing you get to do as a member of parliament, particularly when you are in opposition—and the ministers too—is go around the world and visit places; you look at places and you ask people about how their systems are working. When our new Royal Adelaide Hospital was being first mooted and the patient care systems were being looked at, the hospital that was put up as an example of how it can be done was the brand new Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, England.

A few years ago I went there and I spoke to them about how the PPP was being organised and asked them what the problems or issues were and their biggest issue was the non-clinical support contracts. That is the hotel staff—the cooks, the cleaners, some of the attendants, right through to the parking staff and receptionists. There is a whole range of non-medical staff; that is probably the best way to describe them and they are in the non-clinical support contracts.

That was the bit they wanted to bring back in. They said that was the bit that was costing them an absolute motza, and I understand that is an issue in other hospitals that are using a similar model to ours. So I will be watching what happens there and I would be giving advice to the government to be very careful about what we are locking ourselves into for the next 30-plus years.

I see in today's Messenger paper that the Modbury Hospital paediatrics ward is starting a Keep the Kids Ward program and I wish them the best of luck for that. There is nothing worse than when kids get ill. Never mind your own kids—but even my grandchildren, when they get ill. They have been to the Women's and Children's here and what a fantastic range of caring staff they have at that hospital. The facilities are getting older, but the staff are absolutely first class.

You do worry about your children and you do not want to have to travel across the metropolitan area to get your kids sorted out. Having a paediatrics ward out at Modbury is something that I think we need to make sure we do preserve and the Messenger newspaper should be congratulated on their Keep the Kids Ward program that they are running at the moment.

Mental health is one of my portfolios and I am looking forward to the Ernst & Young review of mental health that is coming out soon. I did go to check on the health department dashboards this evening to see how many mental health beds we had available and how many we are short. Unfortunately, the whole website is down so I could not check. I do check regularly, and unfortunately there are chronic shortages of mental health beds in our public hospitals.

As an opposition member of parliament, when you are preparing for estimates you not only look at the budget papers but you look at the Auditor-General's papers and then you go and read all of the annual reports. In the annual report of the Chief Psychiatrist of South Australia, Dr Peter Tyllis, there is quite comprehensive data in there in the form of information in written form, but also charts. There is one that concerned me and there were explanations given in the estimates committee.

I will just tell the house that on page 16 of the Chief Psychiatrist's report, Table 2.3.2, it talks about restraint and seclusion incidents by age group and service setting. For the zero to 14 age group—that is little kids—in the child and youth section there were 25 children who had been either secluded or restrained and there was one in an adult setting. The explanations I received were that it would be extremely rare; there would be a one-to-one nursing ratio there.

I will just read what the New South Wales' Mental Health Deputy Commissioner said about seclusion in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 June. He said, 'Seclusion is a failure in care'. The New South Wales Chief Psychiatrist, Dr John Allan, said that seclusion and restraints may help control a person's behaviour but had no therapeutic benefit.

I would like to see that we are not secluding and restraining mental health patients. There may be exceptional circumstances where we have to restrain people who are psychotic, but I am sure with modern chemical restraints now rather than physical restraints there are ways around that. Not being a psychologist or on the front line there, I wish these people well in dealing with some of these mental health patients we are getting through now who are intoxicated or are high on drugs. It is a real issue, but it is an area that we do need to focus on that we are doing what the Chief Psychiatrist said and that is giving therapeutic benefit, not just trying to make things easier for ourselves.

The other little issue that stood out for me in the Chief Psychiatrist's annual report was the number of mental health patients on detention and treatment orders who had absconded. They do not escape; they are not criminals. They had absconded, and there were a number of them. In fact, the number was 319 reports made for involuntary patients who had absconded. The problem for me was there were 62 of them who they did not know where they were. I think if you are trying to detain somebody and treat them, knowing where they are in the first place is probably a good thing. That is an area of concern. We should be making sure that people who do need treatment, and who through no fault of their own are sick or ill and are not criminals—they are not escaping from custody in a criminal sense—are getting that treatment. There are issues there in the chief psychiatrist's report.

The chief psychiatrist also talked about the fact that, while the number of mental health patients in EDs was not the consuming issue, they did take up an extraordinary amount of time in EDs. We do need to look at the way we are organising our emergency departments so that we are not getting a choking of the emergency department with mental health patients who are taking up an ED bed when they should be in a much better facility.

The broader range of portfolios that I have to deal with are with the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. Can I just start that part of my contribution tonight by talking about the Community Safety Directorate. This was announced by the then minister for police Hon. Jennifer Rankine on 14 August 2012. Her press release stated:

A Community Safety Directorate will be established—bringing together the State’s security and emergency management experts—in order to co-ordinate and plan for the future...

'The Directorate will further assist our ability to plan, respond and recover from a wide range of safety issues such as fires, natural disasters, crime and offender management and road safety—while building community resilience,' Ms Rankine said.

She went on in the press release to then say:

The Directorate will be a division within the Department of Communities and Social Inclusion (DCSI), alongside the State Recovery Office. This will ensure we have planning, emergency management and recovery working side by side.

Well, nobody in this place seems to want to own this particular directorate. We saw questioning of the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services, and I certainly asked minister Piccolo about this yesterday. There are no satisfactory answers about what this directorate actually does, why it was formed and the consultation that preceded the announcement, and that is probably because there was no consultation. This is a classic example of an announce-and-defend Rann-esque style implementation of a policy. There was none of the discuss-and-decide we were promised under the current Premier.

What we have got here is the 'lone ranger' and the lovely fellow, Tony Harrison, a former assistant police commissioner, now as the Director General of the Community Safety Directorate. Mr Harrison is out there doing a job which I am not sure anybody understands. The Police Commissioner told another parliamentary committee that he does not really understand exactly what is going on with this.

He is on about $303,000 a year—$244,000 is coming from the police—but nobody seems to know where the other money is coming from, the rest of that top-up (about $50,000). Minister Piccolo said it was not coming from DCSI. Minister O'Brien said he thought it was coming from DCSI. Nobody seems to know where it is coming from. Does anybody know what is going on with this directorate?

We have had SAPOL, SAFECOM, SES, CFS, MFS, Corrections and the Department of Transport all seconded with inputs into this directorate. What is it doing, where is it going and how is it going to be different from SAFECOM? How are the three chiefs of the CFS, SES and MFS going to be able to do their jobs with a directorate overseeing what they are trying to do themselves? I look forward to seeing exactly what happens there.

I am told that there are people in cabinet who would like to get rid of this directorate now, but the Premier is protecting this decision and does not want to be seen as backing down on what was really a silly announcement that was not consulted on. Ask the CFS and SES volunteers about that, because they are furious about not being consulted about it. The Premier should have the guts to say, 'Well, look, this isn't necessary. We have looked at it and Mr Harrison has looked at it, so let's go back to using SAFECOM for what it was designed for and have former minister Holloway actually look at and review that, so that we are able to do what was perhaps desired through what we have already got, and not by creating another bureaucracy, even if it is a sideways step.'

It was a pleasure for me to be at the DisabilityCare Australia launch on Monday morning. It is going to bring in a different world for the 32,000 South Australians with disabilities and their families and carers. It is a brave new world. They will have the ability to choose, the ability to plan and the ability to achieve their goals for their lives. I am very concerned that the government sees itself as a competitor for private enterprise in providing disability services, particularly when we hear that the WorkCover levies for some of these private providers, the NGOs, are going up by up to 116 per cent. There are increases of $10,000 a month. One NGO's WorkCover levy is going up 38 per cent; it is going to go up by over $1 million a year.

There are some that are going to lay off staff, there are others that are going to have to think about their whole future of providing services in South Australia. That is not what should be happening. The government should not be competing with private providers. We should be supporting them and getting out of their way. Reducing the WorkCover levy, for a start, would be something that we could do. These NGOs want to get on and do their job and give people who are under the new DisabilityCare Australia what they want; that is, the ability to choose the provider in the place that they want and how they want it.

Social housing. There are 5,000 Housing SA houses going to NGOs over a number of years. There are 1,000 going fairly shortly; they will be going for an initial three-year period in two lots of 500. I have had concerns put to me by some of the housing organisations, the benevolent societies and social housing providers, that this may be too big a lot to try to give to South Australian NGOs. So, I hope we do not see interstate or international NGOs coming in and taking away opportunities from South Australians.

On top of the houses that are being handed over to the NGOs to provide social housing, they can leverage off of them and build more houses. I think they have to build another 100 each of low cost housing. They also then have to take on the maintenance of these houses, and I think it is about $25,000 per house. It is a significant sum. We want to see that the whole of social housing in South Australia is being managed and managed well. I still have more questions to ask on this than the answers we got in estimates.

A couple of things to finish off on. The maintenance call centre that has been set up by Housing SA was transferred out to Contact 1-2-1, a private provider. There have been enormous problems with this and in estimates the minister acknowledged that there had been lots of problems. I hope those problems get sorted out.

I was very disappointed to hear the minister say, in answer to one of my questions about what is being done to give individual Housing Trust properties individual water meters, that the government has decided, after receiving a report, that it is not going to do anything about changing that unless there are special circumstances. Let me tell the minister that there are lots of special circumstances. People are being unfairly penalised for what selfish neighbours are doing, wasting water and using more water than they possibly should. It is not a fair and equitable outcome to pay for somebody else's excesses if you are living in a Housing Trust house and doing it tough, with the high cost of living that we have seen under this government.

There are a number of issues we have seen across my portfolios. I look forward to receiving answers to the questions that were put on notice and I look forward to being on the other side of the estimates process next year.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.J. Snelling.