Bills

Appropriation Bill 2014

Appropriation Grievances

Debate resumed.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (21:27): I listened with interest when the education minister was talking about what she described as some of the achievements of the Labor government and some elements in the budget, but I did not hear her mention or expand on the promise that was made prior to the state election about the new education precinct at Magill, with the Magill University of South Australia campus. If you recall, during the election there was a promise of Norwood Morialta High School moving to that precinct. There was a promise of a primary school also co-locating with that precinct so that we would have reception to year 12 students working with the university.

We get the budget papers and all we see is a $250,000 feasibility study for 2014-15 and nothing for the next three years, so I think we can guess from those budget papers that we are going to have an expensive talkfest. There will be some lovely colour flyers, perhaps. Perhaps there will be a booklet that we will see the Premier walk around with, but there will be no school at Magill. It is no wonder that the minister did not touch on that during her speech.

I want to also pick up on some of the comments the minister made yesterday when she was referring to the independent public school concept. The minister yesterday in parliament referred to money from the commonwealth for the independent public school initiative, and she said she was considering participating in that initiative. The minister has been travelling round the state talking about the cuts to the education budget, the difference between years 5 and 6, that were signed or promised by the former Liberal government and what is in the budget.

She has been telling schools how much money they will be missing out on in that comparison but then she is also telling us that she is not necessarily going to take the extra $5.7 million offered from Canberra for participating in the independent public school system. She says that we do not need it here because we have school autonomy. At the same time she said that it was a terrible idea, that it delivers a two-tiered system.

Minister, you have told us that we have autonomy here and that we have the concept here but we do not have the name. You are going to condemn the process and you are considering not taking the money. It is a very strange political argument that we hear from the minister. You simply cannot have it both ways. The minister is completely wrong to assert that the IPS concept will initiate an unfair two-tiered system in our public school system. She has claimed that introducing independent public schools will give us a two-tiered system.

If we were to accept that on face value, is the minister saying that the IPS systems is a better system and that because all schools cannot immediately move into the IPS system it will generate a two-tiered system? We have some schools that are performing better than others. Is the minister’s solution to that that we cannot have any schools perform better than they are performing now unless all schools perform better than they are performing now? I think it illustrates just how long they have had that relationship with the Australian Education Union, where the lowest common denominator is where everybody is comfortable in the union. That is the management style that we have seen here in South Australia.

If the minister went over to Western Australia she would see that 264 of Western Australia’s 800 public schools, which house around half of public school students, are already fully within the program, and another 231 schools are to join the scheme. They are lining up. The reason it takes a while, of course, is that it involves the training of principals, the training of governing councils. Where we have seen the best outcomes of school participation with parents, increases in academic achievements and increases in engagement in schools are in some of the toughest areas in Perth, some of the areas where they have been struggling for years to get good school leaders and good teachers.

What has been happening in Western Australia is that the whole community has become involved in their school community. What we see in my electorate is a very strong cohort on the governing council simply from parents—you see doctors, lawyers, accountants, business people, high-ranking public servants, so there is plenty of expertise on the governing council.

Of course, if you go into some of the lower socioeconomic areas in the northern suburbs, for example, you are unlikely to find the same pool of parents to participate in the process. So, consequently, what they have done in Western Australia is open up the school community to include local businesses, whether that be a small business, a large employer in the area, people from council and people from community organisations to come on board and be members of that school board. Consequently, the expertise that is available to that school board is now available from a broader range of people.

If we look at what has happened in South Australia over the last 12 years, we see a massive drift from the public sector to the private sector. We have seen about 9,000 students leave the public sector and about 15,000 students join the private sector. Unfortunately, the growth in that area has been in low-fee schools in our lower socioeconomic areas.

Consequently we are not getting the demographic mix in our schools. Public schools in those difficult areas are becoming more dysfunctional because supportive families, families that bring skills and a degree of aspiration, if you like—that might not necessarily be there with every family—to those schools and sharing it with others are going to the private system because the public system is not delivering what those parents want. It is not delivering them a voice at the governing council; it is not delivering them access to their teachers; it is not delivering them a say in the curriculum. All these decisions are being made in Flinders Street.

Then we have this bizarre industrial relations system where you are not rewarded or paid based on your ability as a teacher, what you are able to achieve or on your skill level, but your pay level is based on how long you have been serving as a teacher.

Consequently, the longer you are in the system the more likely you are to get a job closer to where you live. Where do most teachers live? They live in electorates like mine, Unley, and in the electorate of the member for Dunstan, our leader. They live in the leafy green suburbs, so they want to work in a leafy green suburb.

So, effectively, what happens with the industrial relations system is that we end up with our most experienced teachers and school leaders in our least disadvantaged primary schools and high schools that have enormous resource in their parent cohort, and we send our least experienced teachers and school leaders to our most difficult schools, those very schools that need the experience, that need quality teaching because, let's face it, many of those families are struggling to understand the concept and value of education.

We are seeing second and third generation unemployed people in those suburbs, and we are seeing a lot fewer job opportunities. As with the chicken and the egg argument, you could argue whether we have a situation where the job opportunities are not there because the education system has failed or whether the education system has failed because the job opportunities are not there? In both cases it is a big fail after 12 years of Labor. Remember, this state used to be a leader in educational development. People used to come from all over the country to learn what was happening in education in South Australia. We used to lead in international PISA scores and in national testing. After 12 years of Labor we have fallen well behind.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (21:37): It was you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your contribution earlier today, in your place as the member for Florey, who talked about matters electoral.

Ms Sanderson: Muriel!

Mr WILLIAMS: Not Muriel Matters. I made a few comments in my earlier contribution on the bill and now in this grieve I decided to come back to this matter. The Leader of the Opposition in his contribution yesterday signalled his intent to move a private member's bill tomorrow to instigate an independent judicial inquiry into matters electoral here in South Australia.

We have seen a number of people since the 15 March election try to make the case that we have a wonderful electoral system in South Australia and that there is nothing that needs fixing. I want to go back and redress that. Not just your comments today, but I noted in The Advertiser this morning that a government spokesman, I think the Deputy Premier, said that the government would not be supporting this matter, that they wanted to set up a standing committee. My understanding is that the standing committee was directed more at things like the Electoral Act rather than the Constitution Act, where I believe the problem lies.

I picked up today in InDaily that David Washington wrote an article, entitled 'The myth of the undemocratic South Australian election'. I want to address his article today, because it shows how wrong you can get it when you write about something you do not know anything about.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Ha, ha, ha—chortles from over the way.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I shall give the rulings on laughter, audible, infectious or whatever.

Mr WILLIAMS: Or forced, Madam.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, all sorts of laughter have been ruled on in parliaments, but you're going to remain on track, aren't you, member for MacKillop?

Mr WILLIAMS: I certainly am, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have some important matters to canvass.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Absolutely. He is quoting the leader, I think, in his contribution yesterday, saying:

For over a decade, the SA election system has delivered the opposite result to what the majority of voters want.

David Washington took him to task because he points out that in 2006 there was a landslide election victory to Labor. Well, there we go: there was one Labor win result. Between 1989 and 2014, there have been seven elections in South Australia, and six of them have been won by the Liberal Party on a two-party preferred basis. Out of those seven elections, notwithstanding the Liberal Party won six of them, only twice was the Liberal Party able to form government.

So, the Labor Party has won only one of those elections, that 2006 election, but it was able to form government no fewer than five times. The people of South Australia would be scratching their head, like I am, at the problem they face in trying to get rid of a government they do not want, because that is what they have been trying to do.

David Washington goes on to make the case that, if you took the seats of Frome and Fisher and they were Liberal seats, the Liberal Party won the last election. He is saying that we would have won 24 seats if both the seat of Fisher and the seat of Frome were held by the Liberal Party. He was saying that is the case, that they should be Liberal seats, and that it is our fault that they are held by Independents. That may well be the case. He goes on to argue that when you look at the number of seats, including those two seats on the Liberal side, and the vote that we got, we would have had something like 51.06 per cent of the seats if we had held those two seats, which is pretty close to 53 per cent of the vote.

This is the problem when you have someone making those sorts of statements and writing these sort of articles who does not know what they are talking about, because in single member electorate systems, there is not a linear relationship between the two party preferred vote and the number of seats won by any particular team, and people who study these matters have understood this for well over 100 years.

It was in the late 1800s when the relationship, known as the 'cube rule', was discovered, where the relationship between the number of seats held is relative to the cube of the votes cast for the various parties. When you get right at the middle in a system where it is totally unbiased, if there is a 50 per cent vote, you will win 50 per cent of the seats. But if you get 52 per cent of the vote, you should win a lot more than 52 per cent of the seats; in fact, you would win about 56, 57, 58 or 60 per cent of the seats. It is a non-linear relationship.

David Washington, I can only assume, is totally unaware of that fact because that is what it is. It is not a myth, as he would have the readers of his article believe; it is a fact. If he did any reading of those who study electoral matters and write academic papers on it, he would come across that very soon. He goes on to quote other luminaries in this area. He quotes some musings of Clem Macintyre, one of the other academics around South Australia; he comments on elections and politics and various matters. I will quote what Clem Macintyre apparently said to him, as follows:

'I have said this to the Liberals and they grind their teeth and acknowledge it's right—316 votes in Newland would have given the Liberals the seat and Brock would have gone with the Liberals,' Macintyre said.

Well, I agree with him. If we had won another 316 votes in Newland, we would find ourselves in government. I come back to the point I have been making for a long time, and that is that 316 votes in Newland is another 1.426 per cent of the vote. For us to get another 316 votes in Newland, we would have to get a further swing of 1.426 per cent. It is most unusual that we would get that just in Newland—most unusual—but if you got that swing right across the state we would have won 54.426 per cent of the vote.

I go back to the 2012 Report of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission because that is exactly the conclusion they came to; that the Liberal Party would have to win 54.6 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to win the election on the boundaries that they drew up, on which the most recent election was held.

As I said earlier today, when you recast the votes from the 2010 election where the Liberal Party won 51.6 per cent of the vote into the boundaries that were drawn for the most recent election, and were the subject of the report of the boundaries commission in 2012, notwithstanding 51.6 per cent of the statewide two-party preferred vote was won by the Liberal Party, the Labor Party still won 25 seats, a two-seat majority. Not a bare minimum majority that Clem McIntyre would have us achieve if we won 54.4 per cent of the vote, not just that bare minimum of 24 seats, but 25 seats.

The reality is that we have an electoral system that is biased. It is heavily biased against the Liberal Party. Earlier, I urged members to go back and read the 1991 Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission report, and if they read that report they would understand that that commission identified that there was a significant bias against the Liberal Party. Following that we had the fairness clause introduced and you know what, things have gotten worse.

Mr Picton: Do you want to get rid of the clause? Do you want to get rid of it?

Mr WILLIAMS: I don't want to get rid of it, I want it to damn well work. I want to get it to work. The member for Kaurna asks do I want to get rid of it? I do not want to get rid of it; I want the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission to make it work and then we would all be happy.

Time expired.

Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. S.C. Mullighan.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (21:47): Great words, Minister for Transport. It is important that we spend time in here. I want to spend a bit of time talking about national parks. With the budget there was a real kick in the bum for the people of Yorke Peninsula with the announcement that Innes National Park—which many of you in this chamber might have visited and which has 130,000 visitors per year—through some financial restrictions that are in place in the Minister for Environment's portfolio, will face some fairly significant changes.

As a Yorke Peninsula person that is extremely disappointing to me. Family members of mine have a property right next to Marion Bay, Stenhouse Bay and Innes National Park and I visit it quite often, and for the thousands of people who go there, it is a level of disappointment.

I am not sure how to say it better than what I read in the local newspaper today. In the editorial, Amy Price, the editor of the Yorke Peninsula Country Times—and I might put this on the public record—starts off by saying that at the Yorke Peninsula Tourism Awards dinner last week, one of the major awards was won by the national park staff at Innes National Park. I was lucky enough to attend that dinner, the Hon. David Ridgway was also in attendance, and there were 178 people there.

On that very same day I had been told by the local newspaper about this budget issue which is creating staffing changes and a completely different system of management, referring to a sort of voluntary system that will be in place. I must say that the two national park staff who went up and accepted the award were very professional about it. They were upset, I think it is fair to say, about some announcements that had occurred within their staff but they went up and spoke about the positive aspects of the wonderful area of South Australia that they look after. I want to put on the record some things that were in the local newspaper. It stated:

At last Wednesday night's Yorke Peninsula Tourism Awards, Innes National Park deservedly received the accolade for best tourism attraction. The park has long been considered a hidden jewel, frequented by locals and visitors for camping, surfing, fishing, bushwalking and generally just escaping the rat race of life.

But it seems, like its location on the toe of the peninsula, the state government has tucked away Innes to the back of its mind. To save money, the relevant authorities have decided it would be better to remove the friendly faces behind the Innes National Park Visitor Centre counter and introduce a new, faceless online system.

One of the main purposes of the centre is to collect entrance fees—$10 per vehicle per night. Now, the government is trusting all those who enter the park will honestly book online or pay via automatic machines. Will the fees collected decrease with no staff to oversee the system?

Besides collecting money, the staff also offered friendly advice to tourists about the best places to camp, where to go for spectacular views—

and it is truly inspiring when you drive through Innes National Park. There are some wonderful views when you first go over the crest from Stenhouse Bay heading further down towards the park area—

and landmark sites of interest. For locals and regular visitors, they would give information about surf breaks which had been pumping, where swells were expected and any shark sightings. Back in the day, there were potentially up to five rangers who lived within the park or at Marion Bay—

and, certainly, I can attest to the fact that they all contributed to the community as volunteers in so many different ways. The article continues:

Now there seems to be a mishmash of employees who come and go from the park. The department has said there are 11 staff who service the region but it would be interesting to know what exactly their roles are, if they are full-time and how often they visit the park.

Yorke Peninsula always seems to be the poorer cousin when it comes to the state government promoting tourism. But, rather than taking away funding, the government should be investing more in our hidden gems.

They are absolutely the truest words I have heard for a long time, and they express the frustration I have that one of the icons of tourism visitation in the state is having a change of management brought about by the need to create efficiencies because of budget controls that I feel will have a serious impact on the visitor numbers to not just that area but to all of Yorke Peninsula. It is exceptionally disappointing and I trust that, in estimates, there will be some questions posed on it.

I asked the minister, via a letter I emailed to his office on Wednesday last week, for an urgent briefing on it and had no response at all—absolutely no response. Here we are, five business days since that was sent off, and there has been no response to a member of parliament from the responsible minister. A call would be nice or an email of acknowledgment would have been nice—some level of contact to explain the situation to me so I can stand up here coming from an informed position, not an alarmed position, about what might be the case. Instead, I am still guessing. I cannot talk to the staff—rightly so, because they are in a difficult situation and they are probably not authorised to speak about it—and it is disappointing to me that the information flow does not occur.

I also want to talk briefly about marine parks. There has been a lot of toing and froing across the chamber about that this evening. The vote in the Legislative Council is an exciting one for me, particularly in regard to marine parks 11, 12, 13 and 14 in my area. It is an issue that has been causing a lot of emotion for the last three years. The bill the Hon. Michelle Lensink has introduced into the parliament via the Legislative Council which seeks the removal of 12 of the 84 sanctuary zones is seen as the last-ditch legislative effort available to us to ensure that the debate continues.

I am pleased that, as a result of the Hon. Ms Lensink's bill, she and I met with the member for Frome and the member for Waite yesterday to talk to them about the bill and its intent. The member for Frome has spoken to a lot of different community groups, not just in his own area but across the state, about their concerns regarding marine parks. The member for Waite, I think it is fair to say, probably has not talked to as many people about it. He does have some relationship with some people in different areas about it, but he appeared to be rather interested in it.

I hope he also sees the wisdom of what this bill proposes, which is not the removal of the process of sanctuary zones but just ensuring, in its simplest form, that we legislate to remove these 12 but we do not close the door. The Liberal Party does not close the door to sanctuary zones. It supports the introduction of marine parks and recognises that sanctuary zones need to exist, but it is all about the scope of them.

We looked very closely at what in some key areas are where these 12 sanctuary zones are and what the local advisory groups direction was to the minister and the government about the scope and the size of them, which was completely disregarded. There was a meeting in April 2012 where the months and months of work done by all these people who had volunteered their time and had spoken to people across the community about the scope of creating a preserved area where fishing could not occur was seemingly totally forgotten about.

The bill from the Hon. Michelle Lensink addresses that. It tries to put some balance in it; legislatively, that is all we can do. I hope the discussions we have in this chamber at a later time, particularly as it addresses the member for Waite and the member for Frome, will look at trying to find some balance and some opportunity for a review to occur. If they come back to us with that I would love to have that discussion as well. We move it from the basis of its impact upon regional communities. Those who understand what the impact of marine parks will be—yes, they want it to be, but environmental vision has to be tempered by economic reality.

If you just allow it to occur in its current form the great fear for those of us who live in these areas, who rely so significantly upon recreational fishing and professional fishing and the benefit that it brings to a region, is that it is going to be another kick in the guts—a bit like what I talked about within this national park. That is going to challenge the future of these communities. It has to be addressed. It has to be worthy of a full debate in this chamber to ensure that we get an outcome that people can live with.

People who have expressed concerns are not against marine parks—not at all. They have worked quite stridently to create a future opportunity for the discussion to be held and a system put in place that is rational and can be supported. They have taken some personal risks.

They have been prepared to stand up and make decisions sometimes on behalf of others, but that opportunity was taken away from them by this meeting in April 2012 that suddenly decided that, in these 12 areas—and some others, too, I must admit—that we are looking at, where the scope of the sanctuary zones would just be so much larger, it was just going to, from our perspective and from the perspective put to us by people who live in those communities, have such a significant impact that it cannot be allowed to occur. I look forward to that debate.

Motion carried.

Estimates Committees

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (21:57): 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 Wednesday 24 July, in accordance with the following timetables:

APPROPRIATION BILL 2014

TIMETABLE FOR ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

THURSDAY 17 JULY AT 9.00 AM

Premier

Attorney-General

Minister for Justice Reform

Minister for Planning

Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning

Minister for Housing and Urban Development

Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development

Minister for Industrial Relations

Legislative Council

House of Assembly

Joint Parliamentary Services

State Governor's Establishment

Auditor-General's Department

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

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

Courts Administration Authority

Attorney-General's Department (part)

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

Electoral Commission SA

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

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

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

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

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

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

FRIDAY 18 JULY AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Health

Minister for Health Industries

Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Minister for Arts

Department for Health and Ageing (part)

Department of State Development (part)

Administered Items for the Department of State Development (part)

MONDAY 21 JULY AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Disabilities

Minister for Police

Minister for Correctional Services

Minister for Road Safety

Minister for Emergency Services

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

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

South Australia Police

Administered Items for South Australia Police

Department for Correctional Services

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

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

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

TUESDAY 22 JULY AT 9.00 AM

Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

Minister for Forests

Minister for Tourism

Minister for Recreation and Sport

Minister for Racing

Minister for Investment and Trade

Minister for Defence Industries

Minister for Veteran's Affairs

Department of Primary Industries and Regions (part)

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

South Australian Tourism Commission

Minister for Tourism

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

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

Department of State Development (part)

Administered Items for the Department of State Development (part)

Defence SA

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

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

WEDNESDAY 23 JULY AT 10.00 AM

Minister for Regional Development

Minister for Local Government

Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion

Minister for Social Housing

Minister for Multicultural Affairs

Minister for Ageing

Minister for Youth

Minister for Volunteers

Department of Primary Industries and Regions

Administered Items for the Department of Primary Industries and Regions

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

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

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

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

Department for Health and Ageing (part)

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE B

THURSDAY 17 JULY AT 9.00 AM

Treasurer

Minister for Finance

Minister for State Development

Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy

Minister for Small Business

Department of Treasury and Finance (part)

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

Department of State Development (part)

Administered Items for the Department of State Development (part)

FRIDAY 18 JULY AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Education and Childhood Development

Department of Education and Child Development

Administered Items for the Department of Education and Child Development

MONDAY 21 JULY AT 10.30 AM

Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation

Minister for Water and the River Murray

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation

Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Administered Items for the Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources

Department of State Development (part)

Administered Items for the Department of State Development (part)

TUESDAY 22 JULY AT 10.00 AM

Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills

Minister for Science and Information Economy

Minister for Status of Women

Minister for Business Services and Consumers

Department of State Development (part)

Administered Items for the Department of State Development (part)

Department for Communities and Social Inclusion (part)

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

Attorney-General's Department (part)

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

Independent Gambling Authority

WEDNESDAY 23 JULY AT 9.30 AM

Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation

Minister for Automotive Transformation

Minister for Public Sector

Minister for Transport and Infrastructure

Department of State Development (part)

Administered Items for the Department of State Development (part)

Department of the Premier and Cabinet (part)

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

Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (part)

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

Motion carried.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (21:57): I move:

That the Estimates Committee A be appointed consisting of the Hon. F.E. Bedford, Ms Chapman, Ms Digance, Mr Gardner, Mr Hughes, the Hon. S.W. Key and Mr Marshall.

Motion carried.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (21:58): I move:

That Estimates Committee B be appointed consisting of Mr Odenwalder, the Hon. P. Caica, the Hon. I.F. Evans, Mr Gee, Mr Griffiths, Ms Hildyard and Mr van Holst Pellekaan.

Motion carried.

At 21:58 the house adjourned until Thursday 3 July 2014 at 10:30.