Prorogation

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:53): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I am very excited to see you sitting back in the chair. We all assume our places, although I have been sent to the naughty corner for remedial instruction. As I rise today, I cannot help but feel a sense of déjà vu. It seems to me that it was not that long ago that we were sitting in the other place listening to the Governor's speech—a different Governor—with all the Supreme Court judges there sitting in a row, and we were going through this process. In fact, it was only nine months ago. Only nine months ago did we have to go through this process.

Can I say that the proroguing of parliament which we have just gone through and the ceremony for opening of a new session of parliament which we have gone through today is an indulgence on behalf of the Premier, and it is an indulgence he has inflicted on the South Australian taxpayer, and the South Australian taxpayer will have to pay. The Labor Party went to the last election with a plan, or at least I remember at every press conference the Premier clutching that beautiful glossy document to his bosom at all times. I remember there were a lot of glossy photos in there.

Mr Gardner: Someone said they were going to close the Repat.

Mr KNOLL: No, I don't think the closure of the Repat was part of that plan. It is what Labor took to the election. I am sure it is what the South Australian people, after having seen the Labor government re-elected (and we can have the debate about that another day) could expect. Maybe that is what we were going to talk about in this 2014-18 term of parliament.

But, alas, not: we had a Governor's speech from last year. I assume now, after today's Governor's speech, that we sort of declare the last Governor's speech null and void—we just will not talk about it anymore. Instead the Premier is telling us that we should ignore that, that we should ignore the plan he took to the election, but, please, listen intently to what is being said today, and that is what you should now believe. It is incredulous for us to have to go through this process again. The Premier has so much opportunity, so many microphones in front of his face, that he could have delivered this speech himself. In the process he could have saved the South Australian taxpayer a lot of money.

In recent days we have seen articles about a figure of $5,000 being the cost of proroguing parliament. I do not think that this figure entails the broader costs, because it is not just the ceremony of the day, not just the beautiful lunch we had today in the dining room, but it is the next two weeks' sitting and everything that comes with the Address in Reply speeches.

We had today the full bench of the Supreme Court sitting in the other place, and the daily rate on salaries only of the Supreme Court judges is $12,557—$12,000—certainly more than the $5,000 figure. Surely the better use of the Supreme Court bench's time would be considering matters before them and making judgements on behalf of people in South Australia. It is also the time of MPs and their staff who, instead of being able to delve into legislation (which is what we should be doing today), will be responding to the Governor's speech over the next couple of weeks. It is the ceremony that goes with it, the band going down the street, the high-ranking Army and Defence Force officials who were following us all today—this is the cost.

Mr Gardner: Closing the street.

Mr KNOLL: The closing of the street: I am told that it costs $10,000 every time you want to close a street. Obviously it is not part of the $5,000 cost. It is also the cost of running the parliament. For the next two weeks we will focus on responding to this speech, but this place does not run cheaply. Its unique function means that it does not run cheaply. There are 83 staff working in this building, and for the next two weeks we will be focusing on the Governor's speech and responding to it.

Mr Picton interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: Well, there is certainly no other legislation before us at the moment that we can talk about, member for Kaurna. There are 83 people whose jobs come at varying costs, and this is certainly more than the $5,000 figure that is quoted.

I hark back to my university days, and for me they were still a reasonable time ago, sitting back in first year economics at Adelaide University. In those days we had Union Hall, hundreds of kids sitting in the lecture, and for me it was a bit difficult because I went to work at 6am on the factory floor, and would pack my hams and my salamis, and often then, going to class at 10 or 11, I would doze off in my economics lecture. The one economic theory that I took from my economics lecture was that of opportunity cost, the idea that the cost of doing something is all the other things we could have done with that time, and that is what we have wasted and will waste over these next two weeks. These are real problems that South Australians face, and legislation should and could be brought before this parliament, but instead we go through this ceremonial process to appease and indulge the Premier.