Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption (resumed on motion).

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (15:51): I am pleased to have the opportunity to resume my remarks. Interestingly, at the point that I stopped, just before the luncheon break, I was commenting on the fact that it was no wonder that in this state we have such improved attendance rates at our schools. This government made it unlawful to leave school before a certain age, so of course we have high attendance rates.

I noticed that in the speech for the opening of parliament, the new promise of the government was that we are now going to require new teachers to have a masters degree as a prerequisite to becoming teachers. There are lots of things that I would suggest could be done before instituting that requirement, because otherwise we are going to end up with a similar thing to what we have in Health. What we will have in Education will be students who are not allowed to leave, and very well qualified teachers, but not necessarily any focus on achieving better outcomes.

Our NAPLAN results are dredging along the bottom of the whole country. We were once a proud state who had fantastic outcomes in education. The reference by the Governor in his speech to the fact that he was educated in a society heavily influenced by Confucian thought gives me the opportunity to do something that I have been promising to do for a number of months.

Last year, I had the great honour and privilege of leading a delegation of a number of other members of this parliament to China, as guests of the Chinese government and the Confucius Institute in South Australia and in the Shandong province. One of the things that we had the great pleasure of doing was go to Qufu, which was the home of Confucius, who lived a very long time ago, I think between 551 BC and 479 BC. We visited Confucius' home and Confucius' temple, and indeed the family burial ground of Confucius (the Kong family) which is still going, and is the largest private burial ground in the world.

As a result of that trip, I happen to have The Analects of Confucius, in both Chinese and English. I am on a promise, at some stage, to quote from both this book and Mao's Little Red Book (which—no surprise here—the Greens leader, Mark Parnell from the other place, bought). All of the members of the delegation were challenged. I thought there were a couple of quotations in The Analects of Confucius that might be relevant here. I will just keep them brief, but the first is:

The Master said,—

and by 'the master', one can read 'Confucius'—

'When the Way prevails in the state, be upright in speech and upright in action; when the Way does not prevail, be upright in action but modest in speech.'

It seems to me that, in fact, this government is doing precisely the opposite, being anything but modest in their speech and anything but upright in their actions. The other quote is:

Zizhang asked how to get on well. The master said, 'Be sincere and true to your every word, and serious and careful in your acts, then you will get on well, even among the rude tribes. If your words are not sincere and truthful, and your acts not serious and careful, will you get on well even in your neighbourhood?'

I will leave my quotation from TheAnalects of Confucius at that, because there are a couple of other topics upon which I wish to touch in regard to commenting by way of response to the Governor's address.

The first of these, at the moment, is this mention in that speech of Transforming Health. We have heard today that the government is not prepared to extend the consultation time. They are going to close that down on Friday. In my view, it makes little difference because, unfailingly, while I have been in this place, when the government says they are going to consult, as I said before lunch, they mean they are going out so that they can tick a box to say that they have done a consultation but they take absolutely no notice because they have already decided what they are going to do.

There are a few points I want to make about Transforming Health, and I have put it under the heading of 'deceit' in my list of what is happening in this speech. It is deceit because of this. This government has so far announced that they are planning to close the Repat hospital, they are planning to relocate the Women's and Children's, they are planning to relocate the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre and they are planning to sell off land at Glenside. It is extremely obvious to me—in fact, it is self-evident—that this has nothing to do with Transforming Health. This is to do with this government needing to do something to try to balance its budget.

They have already sold the forests in the South-East and they have already sold the Lotteries Commission—anything that was producing money. They need to get their hands on that land because they are going to sell it. Talk about selling the farm! They are selling us out: they are selling us down the drain. We have this massive debt, they have no way to solve it, and they are going to get their hands on those four particular pieces of land—prime land close to the city—and they are going to sell it, and it is all about trying to rebalance their budget. It has nothing to do with Transforming Health.

In this state they keep bleating on about how much money they spend. More money than any other state, per head, is spent on health in this state. They never ask themselves the question, however, as to whether we have any better health outcomes. The fact is, for all the money that is spent on health in this state (albeit I am prepared to accept that their contention is correct, that they do spend more money per capita on health than any other state), why are our health outcomes no better than any other state? The fact is that we have a heavily bureaucratised state and this government just insists on thinking that the way to solve a problem is to throw money at it.

If I can go back, Madam Deputy Speaker (and you were certainly in the chamber when I first came here), to talk about the Menadue report. In the very first year of this government they imported a chap by the name of John Menadue. John Menadue's sole brief was to look at health and its structure and what they should do about health in this state. Of course, there was a big announcement, as usual (I will go back to Confucius in a moment, if I am not careful), with lots of words. If you read the Menadue report, the fundamental thing that he says is that we cannot keep spending more and more money on centralised acute care in hospitals. What we have to focus on is primary health care and preventive health care out in the community

Having spent quite a lot of money getting Mr Menadue over here to give us that report, what does this government do? It turns around in year 13 of its government and says, 'We are going to transform health and, not only are we completely ignoring what Mr Menadue recommended when he did a complete study of it', as an independent outsider that they brought in, 'but we are going to do exactly the opposite.' They are going to focus all their funds on acute care hospitals and, indeed, centralise them even more they already are.

No-one should forget that the arrangements for the new RAH mean that we will be paying, from the day it opens in 2016 (if it opens on time and on budget), $1.1 million every single day for that hospital, just to have the building and the maintenance and cleaning of it—no services, no doctors, or anything like that, just the building, to be there for us. The idea of Transforming Health is nothing but a deceit, and it's a tragic deceit being perpetrated by the government against the people of this state.

I know that the removal of services from hospitals like Noarlunga will come as a detriment to the community, even though the member for Fisher sits there nodding every time it is mentioned, nodding her agreement with this government's proposal. I will make sure personally that every person in Fisher knows that she is agreeing with the closing of the services at the Noarlunga Hospital that are going to be taken away by this government, because that is what she is doing to help the people of her area—absolutely nothing, just agreeing with what the government does.

I want to also talk about a couple of other things. I am not going to have lot of time, so I might just focus on the public sector for a moment, because again—and I think the member for Bright spoke very well and also the leader spoke about our Public Service—we have a fabulous Public Service. The difficulty is that we have bureaucratised the Public Service. I always say they have double degrees in backside covering and buck-passing. It is not the fault of the public servants. There are some stunning examples of where this government has gone to town on public servants, so people become too worried about their jobs to act without fear or favour in the best interests of the community, and that is a problem.

What we need to do is instil confidence in our public servants so that they know that, if they are trying to do the right thing and make the best decisions they can, they will be backed in by a minister. I seem to have this strange idea that ministerial responsibility means that the buck stops with the minister, rather than putting public servants onto the radio when the minister finds the whole process a bit intimidating, rather than allowing public servants to take the flak when it should be the minister who says, 'Yes, it's my responsibility.' Not everything will always go perfectly, but we should have the courage to back-in our public servants.

One of the other problems, however, is that our Public Service now, they tell me, is paid at a higher rate than people in the private sector, because of the global financial crisis. It was the case when I was a public servant that basically you understood you were getting paid a bit less but you had the great security of your employment and you knew that you would get your holiday pay and your long service leave, and all those things. Now, however, we have public servants who are paid astronomical amounts. I do not know whether anyone saw the report that came out just recently pointing out that we have public servants in this state—at least one—paid as much as Barack Obama, the President of the United States. We have public servants paid that much. In anyone's world that surely has to be laughable.

How can we have a Kym Winter-Dewhurst come in and dismiss all those people? As the leader said, that was a shameful act. There were people there who had been public servants for decades, and without any warning, without having done anything wrong, with no suggestion they had been diddling the books, or anything like that, no opportunity to say anything, they were just thrown out after decades of loyal service. This government, as the leader said earlier, should hang its head in shame for the way it has treated those loyal public servants, and that sort of treatment engenders nothing but distrust in the Public Service. I will close my remarks at that moment, Deputy Speaker.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (16:03): I rise to deliver an Address in Reply to the speech delivered by our Governor, His Excellency Hieu Van Le, on 10 February to mark the opening of the Second Session of this Fifty-Third Parliament. It is with genuine pleasure that I acknowledge the honour conferred on all members by His Excellency in addressing the parliament and outlining his government's visionary program of reform.

Before I turn to that program, however, I wish to offer some personal observations in relation to both our new vice-regal representative and his predecessor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce AC, CSC, RANR. I spent a considerable number of hours in an official capacity in the company of Rear Admiral Scarce and Mrs Liz Scarce during their period of service to our state from August 2007 until 2014, initially in my role as a South Australian senator and more recently as a member of this parliament.

Rear Admiral and Mrs Scarce are, I know, held in the highest esteem by the community. I know, too, that they will continue to participate in our civic life with the constant commitment and enthusiasm they have demonstrated so amply during their tenure at Government House. I take this opportunity also to congratulate Rear Admiral Scarce on his appointment as Chancellor of the University of Adelaide.

I turn now to His Excellency the Governor, the Hon. Hieu Van Le, who is highly regarded by South Australians, and I am proud to be among their number. I had the honour of being present at His Excellency's swearing in on 1 September 2014 and of hearing the words of this gifted, yet profoundly humble man as he described the extraordinary journey he and Mrs Lan Le undertook from a war-ravaged Vietnam right through to the ceremony of that important event.

The words our Governor spoke on that occasion really are the measure of the man. Recognising the endless generations and the ancient cultures of the first people of this country and the waves of migration that followed the arrival of the British settlers, he said of his appointment that it is an acknowledgement of all the migrants and refugees and their families and descendants who have built South Australia into this place, one of the best in the world.

Ours is, indeed, a unique state in a unique country; a state built on our ideals of opportunity, democracy and inclusion, underpinned, as His Excellency then said, by a deep belief in the voice of reason and the idea of a fair go. Our state has benefited enormously from the reflection of those ideals in the work of our Labor government over recent years. The government's achievements are well documented and one need only look at our vibrant city and our bountiful regions for evidence of those achievements. His Excellency has set out an ambitious agenda for the years to come. It is an agenda that:

builds on the economic and social advances of the past;

encompasses reforms in the area of economic management, education, climate change and the environment, energy management, business and investment, urban and regional planning, transport, health, public housing, justice and democracy, social equity, international engagement, culture and the arts, and tourism;

plans include the renewal of all Housing Trust stock that predates 1968 with more 4,500 old homes located within 10 kilometres of the city to be renewed by 2020;

the establishment of a carbon-neutral Adelaide green zone to make it the world's first carbon-neutral city, with access to the city made easier through improvements to our cycling infrastructure;

the establishment of a new body focused on investment attraction with its principal objective being the creation of new jobs—an agenda that embodies the continuing vision of our government, one where we join with all South Australians in realising our collective aspiration for a stronger, fairer, more just society;

an agenda that builds on the significant achievements of Labor governments, including the outstanding Adelaide Oval, with the associated benefits to our community, both socially and economically; the new trams running on new tramlines; a rejuvenated Riverbank precinct; the new Royal Adelaide Hospital; the expanded Convention Centre; and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, where ground-breaking research is taking place.

In closing, I welcome and congratulate the new member for Fisher on the heartfelt contribution made by her in her first speech in this place. I also congratulate the new member for Davenport on his first speech today. Finally, I again thank our vice-regal representative. His Excellency and Mrs Le are truly an example and an inspiration for us all. I look forward to taking part in positive and constructive deliberations in this place and to contribute to the betterment of the lives of my constituents in the seat of Torrens and to all who reside in our state of South Australia.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:09): I take this opportunity to say a few words. First of all, I congratulate the Governor, Hieu Van Le, and his wife, Lan Le, not just on their appointment but also on their entire life journey that led them here to Australia. There is no doubt that those of us who have had the privilege of hearing the story of the time on the boat from Vietnam that the Governor and his wife went through when they were in their early 20s to arrive here in Australia: they were continually pushed offshore, towed offshore, whenever they came to the shores of Malaysia and other countries, given food and water and told to go away.

There is one particular story the Governor tells where, because he was able to point the boat in the right direction, because of his limited knowledge about the stars and about where he thought Australia might be in relation to the stars, he was tagged 'the Navigator'. I think that it is a very interesting comparison for Australia, in the growing relationship we have had with the United States, because, of course, in California they had a governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, whom they called 'the Governator', and here in South Australia we have our own Governor whom we can call 'the Navigator'. I think that there is absolutely no doubt about that.

Just from my quick research, and I stand to be corrected, I think that, certainly for a very long period of time, Mr Van Le is the first Governor to serve an apprenticeship as the Lieutenant-Governor, and for seven years he served that apprenticeship. There have been many occasions, certainly in recent years, when he and I would bump into each other at three different events on the same day. So, I know how hard he worked in that role, and there is no doubt that he continues to work hard in the role of Governor.

For the very first time, the organisers of the Glendi Greek Festival were invited to Government House by the Governor, who understands the importance of the multicultural community in South Australia and the role that particularly those post-war migrants played in shaping South Australia into what it is today and the successful multicultural community we have. There is no doubt that many people who observe multicultural politics around the world and new countries, which are big takers of people from all over the world, would look at South Australia as being one of the most successful places in the world where people from all around the world have become part of the community and not just brought with them their cultures and their background but also shared them with everybody else. In fact, in my electorate just a few weeks ago, we had the Carnevale and the Oxford Street Greek Festival held on the same weekend. That will give you some idea of how the multicultural communities have made such an impact in South Australia.

There is no doubting the dedication of Governor Hieu Van Le and his wife, who works just as hard as the Governor, in representing the government and The Queen at functions right around the state. I know that they certainly appreciate and acknowledge the work that has been done by those multicultural communities.

I would like to refer to the Governor's speech, which, of course, is prepared by the government and delivered at the opening of parliament. In the speech, there is a reference to planning. I know that one of the Labor Party's favourite pastimes or favourite sports is bashing the eastern suburbs in the media, even though many of them choose to live there—they do not, of course, live among their constituents. They are happy to take their votes, but they do not want to live there, of course.

On the weekend, we saw a group of residents from in and around Glenside—those living in Eastwood, Fullarton, Glenside, Frewville, Glenunga, Parkside—very concerned about the loss of open space at the Glenside site, with the government's proposal to put up to 1,000 dwellings on that block. These will be tower blocks six or seven storeys high.

We need to remember what is the motivation for the government doing this. We know that the government has a 30-year plan, where they want to have an extra 400,000 people living within 10 kilometres of the CBD to improve density; we support that and we think that is a great idea. Of course, there is no shortage of privately owned land suitable for such developments in South Australia. There is plenty of land; as a matter of fact, I think there are at least 40 sites within the CBD itself where a heritage building has been knocked down and the land has been left empty for years, if not decades, waiting for a developer, or the person who originally had a plan to develop it, to come along and develop the land.

There is one particular development in the city at the moment that has been for sale for 2½ years. They need to get about 80 per cent of the sales on the books. People have to pay their small deposits so that the developers can go to the bank and say, 'We have an 80 per cent commitment here. Can we now have the money to develop this land?' They have been trying for 2½ years to sell these apartments in the West End of the city so that they can get the finance to get going, and it still has not happened.

The sale of the open space in Glenside for housing development is more about the state government's budget than it is about the government's 30-year plan. Let's look at what is important in a 30-year plan that is going to see more people in apartment-style living where they do not have private open space—they need public open space. The government says, 'We've got the Parklands.' Is the government actually suggesting that the Parklands be the only public open space available to people who are living in the inner suburbs? Do they need to catch a bus or drive to take their dog for a walk, to have a picnic or barbecue with friends or to play with their children? Or are we looking at the models that are so successful in other countries, whether they be in Europe or the United States?

In New York, for example—and I know it is probably a little ambitious to compare Adelaide with New York, but they are both lovely cities to live in and there is no reason not to aspire to live in the best city in the world—they have Central Park, but Central Park is supported by many smaller parks. You can walk to a park in New York. It might not be a park where you can play a game of baseball, but it is a park with plenty of open space to socialise, to take your animals, to take your children, to get some sunshine or to have a meal, where you are interacting with other people.

What the government is proposing with the sell-off of land in Glenside is going to be counterproductive to their plan to have more people living in high-rise accommodation without private open space. I put to the minister, the Deputy Premier, that by having less public open space in areas zoned to have higher-density housing we actually make it harder for those projects to take off.

If you look at the illustrations in the real estate pages, particularly those on the internet, where they show some lovely photographs of the outside of the house and the rooms, of course they show what is in the neighbourhood: they show the shops, they show the parks. What will the developers who are selling those high-rise apartments on Glen Osmond, Fullarton Road and Unley Road put in their photographs? Will they put a tower block of a dozen six or seven-storey buildings and the odd park bench and say, 'Look at the amenity you will be buying in to by buying into this area'?

Make no mistake that the sale of land at Glenside has nothing to do with the government's plan for more urban consolidation; it is all about fixing the budget mess that this government has delivered after 13 years. Remember, last year brought the second budget deficit in a row of over $1 billion. They promised budget surpluses five or six years ago, but they have delivered budget deficits every year bar one, and that happened to be in the lead-up to an election. There is no doubt that this government has a very difficult problem with its budget. It is looking at whatever assets it has and is trying to turn those into cash, and that is what the Glenside sale is all about.

What I am saying to the Deputy Premier is, yes, we support you in your plans for higher density of population in our thoroughfares, but we want public open space. My electorate of Unley is geographically the smallest of all of the electorates in Adelaide with just over 12 square kilometres, and the reason for that is that it has the least amount of open space—3 per cent of open space—and it has the highest density of housing, so we are already in need of public housing. The government will say, 'People do not use Glenside.' I beg to differ. Anybody who has birds in their garden gets the benefit of those century-old trees that are growing on the Glenside site. People use it for walking their dogs. Why would we not make it a much more accessible area?

It used to have an oval that was used by schools and sporting groups; that is no longer available. The solution for Mercedes College, when they were told they could no longer have that oval, was to contact the other sporting groups that are using the Parklands, but of course the Parklands are fully booked. I know that, when my kids were at Unley Primary School, we did not have enough land to even play soccer on the school site so we had to use land in the east Parklands, and that is just the story of one school. There are schools right through the inner ring that use playing fields in the Parklands.

Unfortunately, the bad news for Mercedes College is that there is no available space for their sporting facilities that they can rent or hire within the Parklands, and yet the very oval that they had been using for decades was taken from them for the first proposal, which was based around mental health in 2008, which was going to be a commercial development of Glenside that never got off the ground. The market could not make that work. It has been sitting idle for the six or seven years since they were told they could no longer use that oval. Of course, it was used as a dumping ground and needed severe rehabilitation that never happened.

It was used for open public space, it was used for sport, so this argument that it was not is simply a furphy. I say to the minister, 'Please rethink this plan. Look at saving money through stopping waste in your government rather than selling off prized public open space in areas where you want people to give up private open space in order to live.'

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:23): I rise to make my Address in Reply, and I would firstly like to congratulate His Excellency Hieu Van Le on his appointment as Governor of South Australia. I have already been to many functions which His Excellency and his lovely wife have either hosted or been present at, and they are doing a wonderful job of representing our state. I would also like to welcome our newest members to parliament—the members for Davenport and Fisher—and I look forward to working with them in the future.

The things that matter to the people I represent are mostly about the cost of living. What is the government doing about the cost of living? Firstly, the Labor government tried to introduce a car parking tax which would have cost $825 per annum for each car park in the city, which the Liberals have blocked. That would have actually hit all the residents who live in the city who lease car parks, and businesses that lease car parks. It would have added another cost, so we are working hard as Liberals to block that tax, which we have done.

What else has the Labor government done to help the cost of living? It has doubled the emergency services levy over which there has been a huge outcry, and many people who are really struggling to pay their bills have been really hit by the doubling of the emergency services levy which the Liberals have stated we will reverse if elected in 2018.

What else has the Labor government been doing to reduce the cost of living? If that was not enough pain for South Australian residents, the Labor government has decided to remove the council rates concession for pensioners and self-funded retirees which was $190 and $100, respectively. This was due to a federal cut of $28 million which the state Liberals are definitely against and wish had not happened. However, every other state in Australia has managed, through its state budget, to pick up the cost of the reduction.

The $28 million that the federal government cut represents approximately 10 per cent of the concessions, which is a state government responsibility. However, they have had that funding in place since 1993, so it is fair to say that the state government had counted on that money. It represents only 10 per cent of the total concession discounts offered to pensioners and self-funded retirees. Although it would still have been bad, it would have been easier for pensioners to cope if the government had taken 10 per cent off transport concessions, electricity concessions and rates because those payments occur throughout the year and they could save up. However, for political purposes, the state Labor government has decided to completely remove the concession on council rates so they could get the most political mileage out of it and blame the federal Liberal government.

The council rebate is worth about $34 million and the loss to the state government was $28 million. So not only are they doing it for political gain but they are boosting their own coffers by around $6 million. They are actually making a profit at the expense of pensioners who are coming into my office in tears, many of whom are now signing our petition, and they are very, very upset.

This Labor government is consistently showing it has total disregard for those who are most vulnerable in our community and are happy to just keep increasing taxes over time. If increasing the cost of living is not bad enough, we now see that the Labor government is considering a $1,200 extra tax on the family home. I do not know where they think people on fixed incomes are supposed to get all this money, but it is certainly concerning a lot of people. It is just another property tax.

Currently, there is no land tax on your primary place of residence, and I think that is fair. However, this would add $1,200 to the primary place of residence. That is on top of water rates—and the sewerage charge is based entirely on the value of your home. For residents in my electorate, property values have gone up considerably through no fault of their own, or just by luck. Many of the elderly in my electorate were born in their homes and their family homes were left to them, or they got married and that was the first home they owned when it was worth only about $5,000. It is fortunate, or unfortunate, that the cost of land in the inner-city areas has risen dramatically higher and faster than in the outer suburbs, even though they could have paid the same amount for a house at that time.

So, people in my electorate who are on a fixed income, be it a pension or a superannuation fund, are charged a lot more to go to the toilet and use their sewerage, they are charged a lot more for their rates and to have their rubbish collected, and they are charged a lot more for their emergency services levy. And now this Labor government would like to charge them around another $1,200 a year simply for owning a home, whereas that might be the only home they ever own and they might plan to live there until they are at the end. I think it is completely unfair.

The reason that the Labor government is adding all of these, or attempting to add all of these taxes to the everyday person is because they have not managed their budget and their finances for 13 years. The total debt for South Australia is expected to be around $13.2 billion by the year 2016-17. The debt level for the State Bank disaster, as it is known, was $11.6 billion, so we are heading towards debt levels in 2016-17 that are higher than the State Bank disaster, with an interest payment of $725 million per year. That is why this Labor government is trying to tax the family home, double the emergency services levy, put car parking taxes in the city, and all of the other taxes that they are attempting. It is because they have mismanaged their own budget and they want the residents of South Australia to pay for their own disaster and their inability to run the state.

As for my portfolio areas, I believe that child protection should not be part of the education department; it is a separate issue. The education department should be run by a visionary with a passion for learning, someone who will be looking at new ways to improve children's wellbeing and their educational results, and somebody who will be looking at why we are performing below the national average in 17 out of 20 of the NAPLAN indicators. Why are we not working on this? I do not mean that we should think up some new indicators that will get a better result, but why do we not have such people leading that department? Why is a police officer leading our education department rather than an educational visionary? Why? It is because Families SA and the education department have been racked with sex abuse claims, convictions and scandal, and that is why we have to have a police officer running the department.

Although I think he is a wonderful guy, it is appalling really that that would be the person you would have in charge of your education department. We have had five ministers in five years and 11 heads or acting heads of department in 13 years of this Labor government in the education department. The unfolding inquest into the death of Chloe Valentine is giving us all an insight into the complete dysfunction of Families SA and gives even more push or weight behind the cause of why child protection should not be part of the education department.

The restructure of the emergency services has caused an outcry. If we look at the recent Sampson Flat fires we can see that the volunteers, the CFS, and the emergency services all did such an amazing job. There were no deaths, so clearly whatever the structure is currently, it is working and it is working really well. It is disappointing that the minister would attempt to completely restructure how that is run and I am glad to see that he has withdrawn his intention for the time being and is actually listening to the people, but it did take a long time and it did take a lot of effort from many people to get the minister to listen, which should be a given. Apparently there will not be 'announce and defend', there will be consultation, which brings me to the Park Terrace expansion.

Whilst I agree that Park Terrace and Fitzroy Terrace should be expanded or widened given that South Road will be out of action for several years while the redevelopment occurs, the consultation is what I draw to your attention. It was for two weeks in January during the time that most people were away on holidays. It ended just after the Australia Day long weekend when people were only just going back to work or to school. It did not give any plans or detailed drawings of the current roads or current intersections, it just gave drawings of what the future road will look like, and if you do not have a comparison of what it looks like now, it is completely impossible to give adequate feedback and to even be able to assess how this would affect you.

I have had lots and lots of people contact my office, particularly in Ovingham where the houses are a lot closer to the roadway and more extensive widening will occur. They are concerned about the noise, they are concerned about the pollution, and they are concerned about wildlife. One thing that I am also concerned about on their behalf is the fact that, if they are using the median strip in order to widen the road, the right-hand turn must be taken away, which was not mentioned, so that will push more traffic through Telford Street and Guthrie Street in Ovingham, which also has not been brought to those residents' attention. Along Fitzroy Terrace it is unclear whether all the parking for the aquatic centre will be removed because, if they are widening the road where is it coming from? Are any Parklands being removed?

I have asked for briefings from the minister's office. I have contacted him by phone and by email, and my office has as well, on around eight occasions, and I have not been able to have a briefing to clear up any of these questions. If that is how this Labor government thinks they consult people, well I beg to differ, and I think that they have a lot to learn about proper consultation.

The Governor's speech mentioned nuclear power. The Liberals have been calling for a discussion on this in a bipartisan way because, clearly, this is an issue in which a lot of scare tactics are used to stifle any debate when it comes up. However, we need to have a proper debate and an adult discussion not only on nuclear power but all sources of power that can be used throughout South Australia.

People have been written to my office and I have been lobbied by different groups regarding thorium, solar thermal and wind. There are so many different sources of power, including as gas and coal, which we are already using, but I think that we need to broaden the terms of the royal commission into nuclear power to include all of the forms of power that are available in South Australia so that we can compare them equally. What are the set-up costs? What are the jobs? What are the risks? What is the cost to the environment? What is the potential risk to the environment?

Let us have this information in a comparative form, because everyone who comes to me with information and is keen on a certain type of power will only give information on the power they are interested in, and they give it in a format that is not comparable to any of the other formats. I welcome the discussion—I think that a royal commission probably was not really required; we should be adult enough to have a bipartisan discussion—and I think it definitely needs to be broadened to include all forms of energy so that we can have a really clear analysis of what our options are and what is best for the future of this state, and so that all South Australians can be part of the debate.

There was also a mention of all pre-1968 Housing Trust housing within 10 kilometres of the city being redeveloped. I had a briefing with the minister today to clear up that 'redeveloped' does mean demolished; it does not mean refurbished. I then asked, 'Why would you even say pre-1968? What about all the bluestone cottages?' I see today in question time the minister said it would not include heritage housing, so why then would they say 'all pre-1968'?

When I asked about Playford, Manitoba and Pope Court estates, which were built post-1968, the minister could not rule out that they would not be redeveloped. As soon as this announcement was made, as shadow minister for social housing, I had inquiries to my office from people living in houses built before 1968 who are now concerned and asking, 'When am I moving? When is my house being demolished? Where will I go?' I think it is just reckless of the government to make a broad statement like this without any information, because people are very concerned.

We know from recent history that the Pope Court, Manitoba and Playford redevelopment was an absolute debacle. People even went to hospital due to anxiety and stress at the thought of being kicked out of their homes and their homes being demolished. In the end, it was cancelled. We do not know for how long; however, at least it has given them some temporary respite from the stress of thinking that their houses will be demolished.

Firstly, why would you say 'only within 10 kilometres'? Surely, any housing throughout the state that is in disrepair should be able to be demolished or redeveloped. Surely, any property manager that has a property portfolio would always be redeveloping, refurbishing and reconfiguring their properties just as a matter of course. Why would that be something that you have to put in the Governor's speech?

It indicates to me that this government has completely run out of ideas and has nothing to talk about. So, they throw in time zones, driverless cars and just crazy things because they have no idea. We need vision. We need jobs. We need some hope for the future. We do not need more debt. We do not need a government that borrows money to pay its overheads like staffing costs. I have nothing really good to say about the way that this government is managing their budget other than I strongly recommend everyone to vote Liberal at the next election.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:40): I will be very brief. I had not intended to speak on this Address in Reply after many addresses in reply over many years, but I feel compelled for a couple of reasons, given the fact that the member for Adelaide just urged everyone to vote Liberal, and I thought that we cannot let that go because the reality is that you have been doing that for the last four elections; and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition at that time made it clear who he expected people to vote for if they were to get good government—and that was not the Liberal Party.

I want to also congratulate Hieu Van Le on his speech and also the outstanding work he does as Governor of South Australia, ably and well supported by his wife, Lan. I am very proud, as I know every member in this chamber and many people across South Australia are, that we have His Excellency Hieu Van Le as this state's Governor. I also want to acknowledge the role that he played, prior to becoming Governor, as the chair of Multicultural SA and the work he put in there.

I want to touch on a couple of areas in the Governor's speech, and I will start with Transforming Health. Of course, as you might expect, there have been a few phone calls to my office regarding Transforming Health, in particular as it relates to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. There was a lot of concern expressed by my constituents on this particular matter, but that concern was expressed because, without being disrespectful to my constituents in any way, they just believed what they had heard on the radio and what they had read in the paper, and there was a fair bit of misreporting on what Transforming Health is all about.

Mr Picton: The former mayor.

The Hon. P. CAICA: That's right, and I think she is doing some stuff. We saw the rally out the front here last week by those people concerned about the Repat Hospital. Interestingly, when I had a look out there—because I like going to look at rallies and have participated in a few in my time and, if I am not participating, I certainly like to observe them—there were not too many people there I could see who were necessarily veterans or others. There was certainly a large number of the Liberal opposition, a former member of the City of Charles Sturt and any other people looking for a port in a storm when it comes to complaining and whingeing about things.

Interestingly, I think a large contingent was from this group I was not aware of because I do not think they have ever stood in the seat of Colton, that is, the FREE Australia Party. I looked it up on the computer—I was assisted by a friend looking it up on the computer for me—and they are actually against the association laws and, in particular, those laws that relate to bikies. I think it was an interesting group of people out there, but I am not quite sure how many of those purport to use the services of the Repat Hospital or, indeed, that there were many veterans out there.

In relation to Transforming Health—I do not often say this about all my colleagues—I think the Minister for Health has done an outstanding job here. Why do I say that? We know, in its current form, there are going to be some difficulties associated with the delivery of health services in this state, under its current structure. That is not to say that we do not have a system that is effective, but do we have a system that is as effective as it can be?

In getting people together in the early stages, the minister worked out with them the standard of health delivery people want—the service wanted by the people of South Australia and, in particular, in this instance, the people of Adelaide. They determined the standard. Then the next logical question was: can this standard be achieved under the existing structure? The fact was, no, it could not. So that necessitates us altering aspects of our health system to deliver the highest possible standard that we can—indeed, the standard that medical doctors, other people in the industry, members of the community, nurses and others say is the standard that we should have in South Australia for the delivery of health services.

I think it has been a very good exercise and I support this. When I explain to people in my electorate about The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, they are quite satisfied with what I discuss with them. Contrary to what was their perception, that the emergency section will close, it will not. It will be an enhanced emergency section that will still be able to take 80 to 90 per cent of all presentations. It will also have a rehabilitation centre, and it will also focus on those ailments that are particular to our area there. I only have to look in the mirror to know that one of those ailments is that which comes with the ageing process. I am quite thankful that our hospital will have a particular focus on those ailments that are caused by the ageing process.

I think The Queen Elizabeth Hospital will continue to be one of the very good hospitals throughout our system that is delivering services as part of a system. I have learned over the years that you cannot have a hospital that is one size fits all for everyone and able to deliver on all aspects of all medical conditions. We need to have specialist hospitals. I know that if I get crook I want to go to one of those hospitals that has the very best people to provide that particular service, knowing full well, as I said, that a significant number, if not the majority, of ailments will still be able to be looked after at our general hospitals across the system.

I want to congratulate the Minister for Health. I look forward to the ongoing discussions that will occur. Those discussions will continue beyond the closure of submissions. I urge the opposition, if they have not already, to put in a submission instead of standing out the front with people from the FREE Australia Party, and others, complaining about what they believe is going to happen without having some input.

I think I read in InDaily yesterday that the leader wishes to be treated with some level of respect, or certainly not with the level of disrespect that he believes the Attorney-General and others have shown him. Well, respect comes from being respectful. I think that he would get far more respect if he decided to put some effort into challenging effectively what it is that we are doing and then putting up alternatives. If the Leader of the Opposition or his party do not do that, they need to come up with alternatives or, in a proper bipartisan approach, assist us in making this state a better place than it otherwise would be. I cannot see them being able to transform this state into a better place than is today, given the fact that they are bereft of any policies.

I want to quickly turn to the nuclear fuel cycle. Everyone in this chamber, and even outside this chamber, knows my view on nuclear energy, but I am very pleased that the Premier has decided that we should have a debate on this area. I have no problems with that discussion and debate occurring. Do I think that we will ever have a nuclear reactor producing energy in South Australia? I do not think we will, but at the same time we should have that debate to see what might occur. My understanding of anywhere around the world where they have nuclear reactors is that they are heavily subsidised by the government of the day and of course require a critical mass to be able to ensure that you can deliver the energy produced to make it more cost effective than otherwise would be the case.

The member for Adelaide talked about the fact that there should be a broader discussion on renewables. I think this debate on the nuclear fuel cycle will in turn lead to a further debate on renewable energy, and that is a discussion that can only go hand in hand with having the nuclear fuel cycle debate. It reminds me of a debate a long time ago on genetically modified crops and products. I know that it was not part of the Governor's speech, but if you are going to reject something you have to reject it on the facts that are available and not on what you think are the facts. I think South Australia is a good place to be non-GM when it comes to our food crops, but we should have the debate. If you have the debate, then you can at the very least reject or support things based on facts instead of people saying to you, 'This is what can happen if we have this or if we have that.'

I am very pleased that we are going to have a mature debate on the nuclear fuel cycle, and I congratulate the Premier for ensuring that that debate will occur. I look forward to participating in that debate. In turn that will, by its very nature, lead to a broader debate on how we expand our renewable energy sources here in South Australia beyond the wind, geothermal and the other forms that, I think, are likely scenarios for the production of energy in this state into the future.

Regarding public housing renewal, we heard the member for Adelaide talk about that and, obviously, I support that. You only have to look at other areas where renewal has occurred: the Peachey Belt is an outstanding project where we have seen a transformation of that public housing estate. You do not even have to go that far; you can go to my area in Kidman Park, abutting the Kidman Park Primary School and see where houses have been demolished and replaced with a mixture of both public housing and private housing. Woodville West is another fine example.

I think that we will continue to have very good public housing in this state, but it is tired and it does need to be renewed. I look forward to the development of that plan to drive and guide the public housing renewal in metropolitan Adelaide. It also goes without saying that, whilst that will be the particular focus, there will need to be ongoing work as per the Peachey Belt and other areas beyond the 11 kilometres that is being proposed that will continue to be renewed simultaneously.

With regard to public transport and improvements to the public transport system, I certainly want more people to travel to Adelaide from the suburbs using public transport. I want Adelaide to become a clean, green city and that can be enhanced by more people using public transport. I heard the member for Heysen, either before lunch or after lunch, talk about why people might not use public transport. I think she used the example that in this day and age (I will paraphrase here and I apologise if I am wrong but I think I am getting the thrust right) we no longer live in a time when people work 9.00 to 5.00 and travel to the city. I was on Henley Beach Road this morning coming to town and if that traffic was not as a result of people coming to town to work because they have a 9.00 to 5.00 job I will go he.

What we want is an effective public transport system that makes it more attractive for those people who are currently travelling in cars to actually board public transport. That is what we are aiming to do, to make sure that public transport becomes a more attractive option than hopping in your car and driving into the city. I know my friend, the member for Kaurna, travels to town on the train, do you not?

Mr Picton: I did today.

The Hon. P. CAICA: He did today, and why? Because it is a far more cost-effective and efficient way of getting into the city than hopping into the car and driving. I often catch the train from Grange. It is one of the most wonderful 22 minutes of my day any day I travel on it. It allows one the opportunity to sit back and read a book or read the papers and not have to worry about weaving in and out of traffic. Why do I use the train? Because it is an effective, efficient way of getting to town. That is what our plan about public transport is about—to make it efficient, effective and understood by people who travel to the city that the best way of travelling to the city is by public transport.

Admittedly, we have a way to go but we have to have a plan and that is what we have. We have a plan to ensure that public transport patronage is increased and it will be increased because, in doing so, that plan will ensure that it is a far better way for people to travel to the city than otherwise would be the case.

On the matter of education, again, His Excellency talked about that. I think that we have a good education system in South Australia. There are various components to that system. Of course there is the public stream, which I attended and which my kids attended, there is the private sector and then you have the faith-based sector. All of them deliver good educational outcomes in the main but, again, can we improve our education system? I think we can.

I am very pleased that we have a plan, and I am very pleased that we have a new minister who is looking at ways by which we can improve the educational outcomes for the students and the people in this state, because we know that the most important aspect of anyone's life is the education they receive. We know how it opens doors and leads to things and provides opportunities.

I get sick of people talking down our education system, just as they talk down our health system. We have a good one. But if you are not trying to improve it and you are not trying to get better, it really means that you are going backwards, and what we have are plans to improve our education and health systems in this state.

I want to finish—and I think that I have done this previously—by congratulating our outstanding new member for Fisher, who has done an outstanding job in being elected. I know that she will be not only a great contributor to this parliament but also a great and long-serving member for her constituents. I also congratulate the new member for Davenport. In fact, he made a good contribution today. After his contribution, I thought, 'That's leadership material.' I know that it is very early in the piece, but certainly he has the hallmarks of being a future leader.

I am sure that there are others on that side who would agree with that because, God knows, they need some leadership in the future because they do not have it now—or very little of it. I think that the new chappie, Sam, the member for Davenport, will be a very good addition to their side. I am going to finish there because I think that I have said enough—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You haven't mentioned Muriel Matters yet.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I haven't mentioned Muriel Matters, and I will do that. In fact, I did show around the years 6 and 7 children from the member for Port Adelaide's school on Friday—

The Hon. S.E. Close: St Joseph's.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —from St Joseph's School. They were nice children. Interestingly, they did not have a great understanding of suffragettes or, indeed, Muriel Matters. In fact, I received an email today from the teacher of that year 6/7 class, which said that we struck a chord for the students in providing information, that they have not stopped asking questions and further questions about parliament, part of which, of course, is about Muriel Matters and those who paved the way for our becoming a better society because we have enhanced through that the roles that are available, and should always be available, to women. So, I have mentioned Muriel Matters, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that I will stop there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: They laughed at Edison! The member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:57): Thank you, ma'am. It is with great pleasure that I am able to give my thoughts on the Governor's address. I congratulate the Governor,  Hon. Hieu Van Le, on his appointment, and also his wife, Lan Le. As the member for Unley described earlier, the extraordinary workload that he carried for a number of years as the Lieutenant-Governor and as the chair of SAMEAC would be recognised by anybody in this chamber, and I think that is most of us who spend time attending the range of events of which he has been a supporter or patron or to which he has contributed in one way or another over a number of years. We appreciate that effort, and it has been recognised through his appointment as Governor. I think that he will do a tremendous job in the years ahead as he continues his work with South Australians of all backgrounds in achieving those things they desire to do.

In the Governor's speech, I was particularly pleased to see a positive description in a way of removing politics from a very important issue, that being the Sampson Flat bushfires. In his speech, he said:

South Australia appreciates the support that it received from the commonwealth government and other state governments. My government also acknowledges and thanks the state opposition for its contribution to the collective effort to respond to this emergency.

In talking about this emergency, I thought I would start by thanking the Governor for his remarks about this important issue, this significant fire which devastated the landscape and, indeed, many of the properties in the communities not only in Morialta but also at Kavel (the member for Kavel spoke well about the effects on his community and his experience of the fire), Schubert and Newland and, of course, many other communities which may not have felt the lick of the flames themselves but which were certainly affected by the flow-on effects.

I understand that the member for Florey's office was opened on the Saturday of the fires, and a number of residents appreciated the opportunity to go there. I think that was a good initiative that I know a number of us will probably look to emulate in the future. All of these communities were affected.

There are banners, some of which are still up and some are no longer there. There have been banners, signs, posters and placards across the Morialta district, particularly in areas like Paracombe, Cudlee Creek, Inglewood, Millbrook and Chain of Ponds reading the same thing: 'Thank you'. In particular, 'Thank you to the CFS' is written on many of them or 'Thank you to the volunteers. We appreciate it.' 'Thank you for saving our house' is written on a number of them.

In that spirit, I want to begin my contribution by saying thank you to the CFS, to the volunteers who did marvellous work and put in an extraordinary effort. There were extraordinarily long shifts served by so many of those volunteers, as well by some paid staff. There was also support given by volunteers across a range of other services, as well as the other emergency services such as the police and the SES. Marvellous work was done by the water bombers and the bombers that were dropping retardant ahead of the fire front. There could not be too many incidents where such heavy firepower of bombers, water tractors, helicopters and even those massive C-130 Hercules planes were used. Those bombers did significant work in ensuring that, while this was a significant natural disaster and a major incident, no lives were lost.

Thank you to groups such as Country Health, PIRSA, Recovery, a group called South Australian Veterinary Emergency Management (SAVEM), as well as a number of other charities that dealt with issues to do with livestock and pets. Anybody who was paying attention during these fires would have noticed the extraordinary generosity of spirit of so many South Australians from across Adelaide, in particular, and the Adelaide Hills range and the other districts affected. As the fire was starting to take hold, people were concerned about livestock and horses on their properties. There were volunteers who drove from all over, if they had a horse float and were able to assist in the safe removal of those animals as the fire front was approaching. Thank you also to those residents who were staying and fighting the fires and looking after their neighbours' homes, working with their neighbours in fighting those fires.

I have never pretended to be a firefighter, but my office was represented on the ground by my assistant, Scott Kennedy, who is one of the lieutenants in the Norton Summit-Ashton brigade and worked every day when the fire was going. Unfortunately, he was not available for my needs in the Morialta electorate office and as Opposition Whip, but he was doing far more urgent and important work on the ground. Thank you to the member for Kavel, who gave such good service to my community as well as his own, and all our communities, in going around assisting in the provision of water after the event, as people were starting to rebuild but did not have water available to them. I also recognise the shadow minister for emergency services, Duncan McFetridge (the member for Morphett), who was on the front as an active CFS firefighter performing those duties.

There were thousands of South Australians contributing in all sorts of ways. As well as the people I have mentioned, councils, businesses and individuals also found ways to help. Those who were not able to volunteer often made incredible donations, whether that be financial, in-kind support, providing places for livestock and horses to graze, or providing emotional support for those who were affected through the loss of property and pets. Thankfully, no lives were lost, but of course 24 houses were lost, and those people's lives have been affected and marked significantly. To those who have come around to help them in this difficult time, we say thank you.

I have been appreciative of the dozens of residents—CFS volunteers in particular—who have taken the time to talk with me. Since the incident itself was concluded and the roads have been reopened, they have taken the time to show me around so that I could have a full appreciation of the extent of the fire myself. Residents who have been affected have taken me into their living rooms, their kitchens and their businesses and talked to me about the ways that their life has been impacted, the experiences they had and their ideas on how things might be better managed in the future.

It is tremendously important because those experiences will obviously be investigated and are being investigated by the appropriate bodies. Those experiences are vital in informing how best we manage these issues in the future. While there were no lives lost, and as I think the CFS representative at one of the community meetings I attended identified, every house lost was tragic, every shed lost was tragic, but there could have been so many more houses lost.

We are grateful that there were not any more houses lost than there were, but it must be, as all of these things must always be, a cycle of constant improvement, so that will hopefully continue to be the case. There have been some signals from the government along those lines. We will of course be keeping a close eye on that, and we look forward to hearing much more about it.

I want to talk a little bit about the experiences of the fire that were shared with me both by individuals in their homes and, indeed, also at public meetings. One in particular I will talk about more than the others was attended by me and the member for Kavel at Cudlee Creek. Just to put it into context, the residents were put on high alert on 2 January due to the catastrophic fire danger rating issued because of the high temperature and wind speeds. Shortly after 12.30pm, everyone's fears were realised when a fire started at Sampson Flat. While it was not known at the time, of course this fire would go on to burn over 12,000 hectares.

As always, the CFS volunteers and staff did an amazing job protecting life, property and the environment, and worked with other agencies, including MFS, SES, DEWNR and SAPOL, to bring the fire under control. A national effort was seen with firefighters travelling from New South Wales and Victoria to assist, and, of course, some of those aerial water bombers that I described before came from Victoria.

It is a tragedy that 24 homes were lost but, had some of the forecast weather been realised, the result could have been even worse. I think there is an official number of 27, but I understand from the CFS that that number may have been downgraded to 24. I apologise if that is not the accurate number, but I am working from the most recent information provided to me.

John Hutchins, the regional commander at the CFS, gave a time line to the public meeting at Cudlee Creek that I will share with the house. At 12.32pm, the fire started. At 12.34pm, the first brigade was turned out with four appliances heading towards the fire. At 12.35pm, two bombers with 3,000 litres of water left the ground, and a second alarm was called from One Tree Hill at this point with another four appliances sent out. At 12.36, two more bombers were sent up. At 12.40pm, there was a third alarm and four more appliances were sent out.

At 12.42, the first warning messages were sent to the community—10 minutes after the fire started, according to the time line. At 12.59, the skycrane was deployed, which has 6,000 litres of water, and two aerial observation platforms were deployed. These water bombers do not just drop water but also foam and gel which is a retardant that spreads through the undergrowth in a way that can slow down the fire significantly, rather than just going straight into the ground.

At 12.43pm, the first appliance was at the scene. At 12.54, the bushfire emergency warning messages and Alert SA messages were sent out. At 1.01pm, two more strike teams were sent out, which led to 22 appliances in total. At that point—and I will be careful about what I say because obviously the investigation will continue to look into this, so I will be careful in my choice of words—it seemed like the fire might well not have gone too much further, but two spot fires came along and there was the suggestion that maybe embers had blown around some distance from the main fires, and all of that is now being investigated.

When that second fire was discovered at 2.14pm, it was identified to the public meeting I attended that the bombers were released at 1.53, and then at 2.14pm the second fire was identified. At 2.19pm, two more bombers were requested again, and then by 3.12pm it was well and truly underway and more than 50 appliances were attending the fire, and that continued to be the case for some time after that.

I am no longer quoting from John Hutchins' time line, but other CFS officers have reported that in the six days of the fire until it was under control at no stage did the fire head only in one direction. Over 36 hours, the fire headed in all directions and at all speeds, up and down. No two firefighters on the scene had exactly the same experiences. To put that into the context of the speed at which the fire travelled, it went from 10 hectares to 700 hectares between 1.30pm and 6.00pm on the first day.

One and a half hours later, at 7.30pm, it was up to 1,400 hectares. By midnight, it was at 2,500 hectares, with a perimeter of 25 kilometres, and by 6.30am it was 4,000 hectares, spreading in multiple directions—south towards Cudlee Creek and Kenton Valley, along inaccessible terrain that the bombers could not access—and so CFS crews had to change on the fire ground not in the staging areas, which is a sign of the ferocity of the blaze.

Nine aircraft were in use by Saturday afternoon, and there were aircraft in the South-East where there was an incident happening simultaneously. Community meetings at Cudlee Creek and Gumeracha had to be cancelled because the CFS were not confident that they could guarantee the safety of those meetings. Talking to landholders, and visiting some of the properties where significant damage had occurred, was a very emotional experience, I must say. I walked around with residents who described how they were feeling when they were at certain points. At one point, a resident said that the sound was so loud that he thought it was helicopters come to drop water on the property: in fact, it was the fire front.

I was hoping to bring in a scrap of warped metal that had once been a tank for carbon dioxide, but I am afraid I neglected to do so. It exploded when hit by the fire and was found 100 metres away in a neighbour's paddock. It is now just a charred mess. The heat and the ferocity of this fire was incredible, and I pay tribute, as I said before, to not only those who fought it in their CFS uniforms but also those who stayed and fought it and protected their properties—that was a house the CFS did not have to look after. Of course, only those who had the suitable infrastructure could do so—and I certainly encourage the 'stay or go' decision to be made early—and who had the capacity to fight the fire in that way.

In relation to the investigation, that will go on. There will be issues raised in relation to burn-offs. Obviously, everybody has a strong opinion, and I look forward to the investigation identifying where improvements can be made. Clearly, at the public meetings a lot of people had suggestions about how council, SA Water, the environment department, individuals, and landholders, must work together in a way to get the best solutions.

In terms of controlled burning, one of the residents at the community meeting at Cudlee Creek identified that Gorge Road was bombed more than 50 times. They suggested that it was necessary because that area had not had any controlled burning in decades, and they wanted to see more burn-offs in the future. Obviously, the CFS will have to continue to have those discussions, but we will take an active interest in the matter because at the end of the day people's lives are just so important in this area.

As to other challenges facing residents, I have to say that the most significant one, and the one which I had most discussion about on the days immediately after the fire was under control, was to do with the road closures. I have had correspondence with the minister, so I will share some of the stories and then talk about the correspondence.

Some people had been on their properties throughout and had no access to water or food and needed to get out and then come back in, others had been off their properties and were wanting to get back in, and other people were back on their properties and wanting to rebuild—all experienced various elements of frustration. This is an area that particularly needs to be dealt with better in the future.

One of the biggest frustrations was the inconsistency in the application of the roadblocks. Some people reported to me that they were going back to work—because, of course, they had to make a living—not knowing if they were going to be able to come back home that night. People who wanted to go out to clean up, to put out spot fires on their property and to get back on their property to do those things were often frustrated at the way that situation was managed.

One very articulate individual at the public meeting who identified a series of problems—and I am quoting him from the cursory notes I took—said that each police officer had their own interpretation of what the rule was. Some people were let in and out, but they were told by the police what time the shift was going to be changed because they could not guarantee that the next person would let them back in again. One police officer was identified as stopping cars but allowing people to walk through or hand stuff over to people who were inside but not letting people in.

One incident was described where a six by four trailer was unhooked by a stopped car on one side of the roadblock, pushed through the roadblock and then hitched to a car on the inside of the roadblock so that they could drive off, but the car that was originally pulling the trailer was the only thing that was stopped. There were many stories about groceries being handed over from one family to another at the roadblock.

There were stories about people walking through and having to then pile into a car in a manner that might not be completely compliant with the road safety code because they were being dropped back at their house by people on the inside. It was described as a Checkpoint Charlie type situation. I know that is not what was envisaged by those who were requesting that the roads be closed, so there are significant issues about how those things can be managed in the future, but fundamentally some common sense would be handy to start with.

It was identified that roadblock issues were, in fact, raised at all the CFS community meetings, and another issue I will perhaps touch on a little later was that the activities of media inside the fire area were raised at all three public meetings as well. Also on roadblocks, one produce grower identified that their local road was cleared by locals, but then the road was shut. There was a lot of frustration that while safety was very important—of primary importance, obviously—local knowledge should be taken into account.

I must say that I have also spoken to a number of CFS officers who, while feeling the frustrations of local residents, were very passionate about the importance of safety being critical. There have been other fires in South Australia in recent years where residents, having been let through a roadblock confident of their own safety, have in fact died because trees have fallen on their car. There was also an incident where an individual was injured in the recent fires. I am not just arguing for these road closures to be ignored by residents, but I think that we must find a way to manage this situation more sensibly and preferably have consistent application of the rules with a hearty dose of common sense. When there is inconsistency without common sense, it is very frustrating.

One of the particular frustrations occurred days after the fire had been and the rain had been, when the people in the community were starting to rebuild. Of course, the usual thing that happens if somebody loses a shed is that everyone rallies around them and helps them out, but so many people in the community were in the same situation. Rallying together has been important. Community spirit has been important. I note that this Friday at the Cudlee Creek Café there will be another community meal to share that experience, so that neighbours can catch up and help each other out.

Largely, neighbours were unable to help each other out in the rebuild because everyone had their own sheds to repair and their own losses to make good. People who do not live in these areas might not understand that when we talk about a shed being lost, we are not just talking about the old jigsaw puzzles or the bric-a-brac that you might put at the end of your garden shed. We are talking about sheds in which every tool that a tradesman has ever owned in his life might have been stored; every tractor that a landscape gardener has bought for their property; or their boat, in which they might go fishing.

I met a number of residents who had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of equipment and property, and their entire life's work. I met winemakers who lost all of their property, and all of the chemical equipment that they use to make their wine with the grapes on their property. These are significant emotional and financial losses and the community is hurting, so it is important to fix that.

Thankfully, for the most part, I have had good stories about insurance, but I have had a couple of individual cases that I will no doubt spend a bit of time talking to the minister about how we might be able to help these people a bit more, where there has been, through no fault of the individual landowner, some problems with insurance. But, there is more to come out of that.

Further on the roadblocks, someone at one of the community meetings suggested that they would like to be able to sign a waiver to free the government from liability so that they could return to their property. I am not 100 per cent sure about whether that is feasible. It has also been suggested that the community postal agency be given the potential to issue access passes into the emergency area, with liaison through SAPOL and the local CFS. One of the reported stories from the roadblocks was that CFS trucks were dragged to the roadblock to identify whether it was appropriate that somebody should be able to get back in.

This is important because people from outside needed to get back in to help the local residents. Whether it be tradespeople, family or whoever else, we needed support from the outside. This is one of the issues on which I corresponded with the minister and the Commissioner for Police. One of the suggestions I made was that, in helping to make that more consistent plan, contractors should be able to be verified by local residents to ensure that when contractors come in, firstly, they are allowed in, but, secondly, that it is people who are verified by residents so that we do not have looting situations.

I indicate to my constituents and to the house that I have received a response from the minister, and, for the record, I wish to read out the minister's response in relation to this matter:

South Australia has developed and refined its road closure policy a number of times, with the latest amendment [being included] in the December 2014 edition of the State Emergency Management Plan. The development of that policy has been subject to discussion by all emergency service Chief Executives at the pre-fire…strategic meetings including the 2013-14 briefing and the 2014-15 season briefing.

The State Emergency Management Plan contains extensive guidance to all agencies, including SAPOL, in the development of traffic management plans at emergencies. Those requirements clearly identify that the community must be allowed to return to their properties as quickly as possible in order to commence recovery. The 11 underpinning principles require that safety of responders and the public is to be the highest priority.

A further aspect of the principles clearly identify the Control Agency responsibility for traffic management as part of their incident management arrangements, but then allow them to delegate those responsibilities to another agency that has the legislative authority to undertake those roles. In the case of this fire, CFS rightly identified the need for road closures and this task was delegated to SAPOL to support them due to SAPOL having the legislative powers and capability to undertake this role on behalf of the CFS.

During the fires the State Emergency Centre was operational from 3…to 8 January...The subject of road closures was discussed regularly during that time to ensure that the principles in the State Emergency Management Plan were being applied by the CFS and SAPOL. Road Closures were constantly being moved as safety works were completed and roads were opened as soon as [DPTI], or Local Council, advised that they had been checked and any required urgent safety works had been completed. During this period three emergency service vehicles were damaged by falling trees (two while travelling on roads within the area).

Furthermore the only serious injury that occurred during the fires was to a member of the public injured by a tree falling onto his car. Previous experience has shown that premature travel into areas affected by fire has resulted in deaths and serious injuries. All of these considerations were factored into the ongoing decision making relative to road closures.

Once the main danger of fire was controlled, SAPOL handed the responsibility for road closures to DPTI, who in partnership with Local Councils continued with their legislated roles to ensure that the roads that each group is responsible for were made safe and returned to public use as soon as possible. Both groups had already undertaken a large amount of restoration work and were clearly focused on the need to open the roads in as short a time frame as possible.

Your correspondence seeks that local residents be given the authority to verify the bonafides of tradespeople attending their properties once the residents have been allowed to return. It appears that the definition of local traffic restrictions have prevented the attendance of those tradespeople to the respective properties. This suggestion has merit and will be included into the final debriefing process that is underway at this time.

I thank the minister for his correspondence and I thank him for agreeing to take that matter into consideration. I look forward to the outcome.

Other issues relative to this were Telstra towers, water and other utilities being down, and return was obviously desired in a speedy way. I have a couple of constituents who have issues with massive water bills as a result of leaving sprinklers on at their properties. When they were fearful of losing their house, they left sprinklers going on the roof. A couple have been offered $20 discounts on bills that were $800, to take one example, more than normal; so I will be working to try to help them get those alleviated.

In relation to firewood, I was pleased that at the community meeting at Cudlee Creek there was a question asked about what is happening to all the trees that are being removed. Can they be used for firewood? By and large, the trees are the property of the Adelaide Hills Council and I was sitting next to the Mayor of the Adelaide Hills Council and he identified to the meeting that he will endeavour to make that firewood available to members of the community, particularly those who have suffered loss.

The Governor in his speech said that it was also evident during this period that Australians can overcome political difficulties where it is necessary to do so. I was disappointed in the way that the leader of the Greens federally, Christine Milne, sought to politicise this issue while the fires were going on. I was also disappointed to see the ALP SA Twitter account taking pot shots at the Liberal Party for having our Prime Minister in Iraq when the fire was going on. I think that we all can be better than that and I know that we all will be in the future.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired but he will, of course, have time to contribute to the debate on Thursday, if there is anything left for him to say.

Mr GARDNER: I will get a briefing on this matter, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure you will. Member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (17:27): I take this opportunity to congratulate the Governor on his speech and thank him for coming into parliament and delivering it. I must say, I enjoy the opening ceremonies of parliament—from a time past, I think, but a good link, in many ways, back to our history and to the way things have previously been done.

I might follow on from the member for Morialta's comments on the Sampson Flat fires and record my thanks to the volunteers who fought those fires and those who supported the volunteers during the fires. It is not just the firefighters, of course, who undertook the great bulk of the activities during the course of the actual fire but there are many people since who have stepped in to assist with the rebuilding of those communities where it is needed and who continue to assist. Organisations such as BlazeAid do fencing. One group of people from Sydney came down from the Tzu Chi Foundation, a charitable foundation formed in Taiwan. They have a branch in Sydney and a number of people flew from Sydney and helped hand out cash and blankets, and so forth. It was not just South Australians. There were, of course, many South Australians involved in supporting those caught up in the fires, but people from interstate as well have lent their assistance, which is a good thing to see.

Of particular note in the Governor's speech, from my point of view, was the establishment of a royal commission into the nuclear fuel cycle. I have to take this opportunity to congratulate the Premier on instigating the royal commission. Given his history over a long period of time, it is no small thing to be prepared to even open up a debate about something that you have previously been staunchly opposed to. I have been a lot more comfortable with our involvement in the nuclear cycle over many years than perhaps the Premier may have been in his history, but he has reached a point where he is prepared to consider that now, to consider a change in his stance, to look at that cycle in a complete way. There is probably no more complete way than a royal commission, which will go into a very great number of details about it.

Mr Gardner: They should make you the commissioner.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I don't know that I'm allowed to be a commissioner as a member of parliament. I don't think I'd be able to.

Mr Gardner: No, you wouldn't be able to do that.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Oh; it's a small price to pay. Coming back to the point and not being distracted by the member for Morialta—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just going to say, it is disorderly.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I'm self-correcting there, ma'am; I beg your pardon. I must say, it takes a great deal of courage to do that, and that should be acknowledged. It is an excellent opportunity. Personally, I think there are tremendous opportunities in the nuclear fuel cycle. I suspect that the commission will find that some aspects of that cycle provide greater opportunities than others. I will be making a submission to it. I will be clearly advocating a position on it, which I will put to the commission, but I am really looking forward to being part of the debate.

I know that a few people in my electorate are obviously opposed to the nuclear cycle, but equally there are also a number of people who are in favour of it and probably thought it is about time to have that debate. It is greatly refreshing to be having the debate. It is an excellent change. It goes back to the very start. After the Second World War, when the nuclear industry was burgeoning and beginning, the Labor Party had a position of being involved in all parts of the fuel cycle: mining, refining and nuclear power. That then changed, obviously, during the course of the seventies, and it may possibly be changing back, but we will see. We will get to that, but the important thing is to have that debate, to have that discussion. Let us not anticipate what may come out of it, but it is interesting how times change, how people's views on things change, and that is a good thing.

I take the opportunity to congratulate also the Minister for Health on his reforms to the health service. Genuine reform is not easy. If it were easy everyone would do it. I mentioned courage in my maiden speech. If you are ever going to be a decent reformer in politics you need a good dose of courage. Keating had it, Kennett had it, and they were prepared to take on the views of their society to change, argue their case and to persuade people. I think the changes that have been made to the health service are in that mould. They are doing what needs to be done. It may not necessarily be particularly popular, but it is the right thing to do and they are arguing that case, and I think that is a good thing.

I think the system needs to work as a system. We have an excellent public healthcare system, a genuinely excellent public healthcare system. I have friends in the United States, and when I talk to them about life and everything else they are terrified of getting sick, particularly with really serious diseases like cancer and others, because they know that they can basically lose everything if they get sick. One of my friends in the United States runs an arboricultural tree surgery business. It is a thriving business and he has about 20 men working for him. They do a lot of work in Oregon.

However, he is terrified of contracting cancer or something such as that because he knows he could lose his business, he could lose his house and lose every asset he has ever owned just because he got sick and he needed to pay for that. He might end up in dispute with his insurance company and the insurance company may not cover full costs. It is hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars. In Australia we are not terrified of that financial consequence of getting ill. Obviously some of us are more terrified than others of becoming ill; I am more terrified than most I suspect of getting genuinely ill like that but it is not for the financial consequences so much as just the health consequences—and that is a good thing.

I think we need to acknowledge right from the very start that we have a genuinely good health system in this country and in South Australia. However, there are always reasons to improve and a lot of those have been outlined by the Minister for Health: the need to ensure a more consistent quality of care over the whole 24-hour time frame of a day so that you get, as much as possible, the same care at two in the morning as you get at two in the afternoon. That is not necessarily happening in all cases at the moment. That has consequences, and there was a newspaper article talking about 500 deaths a year, I think, from memory. That has to be fixed. If that means making some significant changes to the health system then that is what needs to happen. I think, in the end, my constituents will get a better healthcare system and they will get better health care as a result of having a better system.

I am confident that the Modbury Hospital will remain and will work better. The services at Modbury Hospital are changing to reflect the changes in the community. A very large chunk of people in my electorate have not moved. They came to the electorate in the sixties, the seventies or the eighties and they bought a block of land and built a house or they bought a spec build house and they have been there ever since. They brought up their kids and often their children have moved out but they still live there. They do not want to move. They have been in their house for 20, 30 or 40 years—some of them—and they like living there. That is a large chunk. Modbury is important to them. As you age, you are more inclined to use hospital services, so it is really important that the hospital services that are available at Modbury reflect the majority of the demand in the area, and that is what I think is happening there.

I note that the hospital will be staying open; it will not be closed, contrary to some scaremongering in the community; that emergency care will be staying 24/7, which is another good thing; and that in fact 99.5 per cent of people who currently use services at the emergency department will be able to continue using the services of the emergency department. There will be very little change in many ways to the way the emergency service operates there. Again, it is really important that the hospital changes to reflect the changes in the local population, and that is what we are seeing.

Finally, I am looking forward to seeing the changes that the government will propose around planning laws. There was some talk about it today in question time. My experience of the planning system is that it is overly complicated, that it needs to change, that it is holding back and stifling progress and development. On the whole, most development is fairly straightforward but things take too long. It should not take six months to approve a house. In my view we should not see some of the overly authoritarian and intrusive use of planning regulations that we have seen recently, and I refer, for instance, to the Burnside council telling someone that they cannot have a neon sign (that they have had for 10 or 13 years or however long it was) advertising their business inside their actual business. The fact that someone even has the power to stop that happening is ridiculous.

The complete lack of common sense by the council in that application is not unusual, I do not think, in terms of my experience with Burnside council, as they are not the most sensible planning department in the state. It is certainly not the most inclined to approve development and make life easy for people. Any changes have to address that: they have to free up the system to allow things that are straightforward and easy to be straightforward and easy, or things that should be straightforward and easy to be straightforward and easy, rather than catching them up. Obviously, I will be very keen to see what the Deputy Premier does in that area. It is important, and the effect of it, getting it right, will make a big difference to the future of the state.

Once again, I congratulate the Governor on his speech, and I thank him for taking the time to come and give it to us. I look forward to joining my colleagues here in the chamber and in presenting him with the Address in Reply.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You need to speak about sport in your electorate, I think.

Mr Gardner: Tell us about your experiences with the Burnside council. Is there much of Newland in Burnside?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: No, but I know people in Burnside, some fine people. I play rugby in the Burnside council.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Why don't you come and play?

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Your wife doesn't let you play rugby? I will tell a story about the Burnside council. A woman who was employed as a land valuer was retrenched because of circumstances at the time; she was caught up in the events of 2008-09 during the global financial crisis. She then changed her career and took up ironing. She had a spare room in her house. She took in ironing and put a little A-frame sign out on the street. When I was the small business minister, she contacted me because the council, which had already approved this little A-frame sign, decided that it wanted to revoke it.

She had complied with all of the conditions: it had to be a certain size, which it was, and it needed to be chained to something, such as a tree or a pole, so that it did not fly away in the wind, which it was doing. It was because of the road where it was situated, which was just down from her street. Her street, in fact, ran off Glynburn Road. Because of the passing traffic on Glynburn Road, that was basically the only effective form of advertising for her; she would get a lot of traffic because she had this sign out there.

The council suddenly decided that, even though they had given permission for this sign, they wanted to revoke it, along with a whole heap of other A-frame signs right around the council area, just because some people did not like the look of them. The effect would have been a massive dent if not the closing of her business. Happily, I was able to communicate with the council when I was the minister for small business, and the council saw fit to change its view on these matters. It was just a lot of people wasting time on something which was incredibly trivial but which had a big effect on an individual's life. If changes to the planning laws proposed by the Deputy Premier—and, hopefully, we will see them soon—do something about that, they will have my full support.

Motion carried.

At 17:44 the house adjourned until Wednesday 25 February 2015 at 11:00.