Motions

Regional Impact Assessment Statements

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:02): I move:

That this house—

1. Supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact statements, with the ability to call witnesses.

2. Urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(a) guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(b) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

I will put on the record that this is a very similar motion to one I proposed last year, which unfortunately was defeated, but it is an issue that the Liberal Party in particular is very passionate about. It is predominantly based from the fact that many of us who sit on this side of the chamber actually come from regional communities, and the reason why we ran to be a member of parliament was to be a voice and to assist our communities that we grew up in and represent. It is an important issue for us to ensure as much as humanly possible that the information flow allows decisions to be made with the understanding of the implications of those decisions.

The policy has existed since 2003. I have reviewed the website very recently to determine how many regional impact assessment statements are on that website. There are 23 attachments to it. Since this motion was considered last year, there have been two attachments to it, but they are not actually impact statements themselves. They are about the guidelines and the terminology that is used as part of that, but there are no additional impact statements that have been prepared in that time. That in itself disappoints me immensely, it is fair to say.

In estimates last year when questioning the member for Frome, the Minister for Regional Development, I put to him the need for regional impact assessment statements to be a key issue for him to ensure that, as he is the Minister for Regional Development, as he is a member from a regional community, and as he put to South Australians immediately after his commitment as a minister that he was there for regional people, he has the best possible information available to him to understand the implications of the decisions that he is making, and the words that he may say as part of the cabinet process.

The regional impact assessment statement (RIAS) goes through cabinet. It forms part of their deliberations; it has to be undertaken by government agencies to ensure that the information is there for ministers to present so that the implications of an action, be it positive or negative, are actually known and able to be debated and considered and that community consultation has taken part in that.

It frustrates me immensely in reviewing it—and the website was updated only nine weeks ago; 27 March was the date on it—that there are no additional regional impact assessment statements that have been submitted and made available for public review in that near 12 months since we discussed the budget last time. That, I think, is a very sad indictment upon the member for Frome and the Minister for Regional Development, who gave me a commitment in estimates, who has spoken to me about the fact that he wants the information to be available, who has confirmed with people that he is there for all regional people—the 300,000, who live in South Australia—but it has not flowed through, apparently—and I stand to be corrected by the minister if he wants to stand up and say that cabinet has considered others, because they are not publicly available—it has not gone through to the information that is available to the cabinet when they make the decision.

There are a couple of instances since that time that I want to highlight where it is obvious to us who sit on this side of the chamber that a regional impact assessment statement should have been undertaken. One is marine parks. There was low-level work done by EconSearch as part of each of the 19 marine parks; I understand that. The minister in his vote in this chamber on 18 September last year I think, where he decided to support the government proposal for the implementation of sanctuary zones—

An honourable member: Shame!

Mr GRIFFITHS: Members on this side say 'Shame!' and with justification; it is absolutely abhorrent, and I know a recent publication of The Plains Producer based out of Balaklava talks about fishermen in Port Wakefield who have had to access their superannuation because their incomes are so far down that they need that superannuation money to help them get through some challenging economic times because of the sanctuary zones.

That was not part of it. The minister, in his decision to vote for sanctuary zones and the marine parks and not to support the opposition's proposed legislation to remove 12 of the, I think, 84 or thereabouts, put as part of that condition the fact that an economic impact assessment statement would have to be undertaken within 12 months. That 12 months finishes on 30 September, and that is why there is going to be a further debate about that legislation in mid-October, and that information has to be available. Why was it not available at the very start prior to then minister Caica putting out this proposal on the impact on regional communities?

Another one was the suggestion for a further reduction in speed limits. We went through this in 2005 and we went through it in 2011, where many parts of South Australia have had their speed limits reduced from 110 to 100. There is a suggestion out now for an additional reduction in, I think, eight council areas through the Mid North. There are a variety of opinions expressed by those councils—some in support, some not quite so—but, as part of that review, where is the information going out as part of a regional impact assessment statement before a decision is made by the cabinet on this? It did not occur in the 2011 changes, it is not apparent to me that it occurred in the 2005 changes, and I would hope that it is part of any suggestion for changes that may occur in 2015.

I have to highlight impacts about decisions on community private hospital funding, too. It goes back three years and $1.08 million or thereabouts were removed from Moonta, Keith and Ardrossan hospitals. In the case of Moonta, it is important to update the fact that the hospital there is closed. It has gone now. That $300,000, or thereabouts, which was taken out I thought was actually a good investment by the state because the overflow from Wallaroo Hospital was looked after at Moonta. Because that money is gone and the bed numbers had to be reduced, the hospital lost so much money that that aspect of Moonta Health and Aged Care Services has gone completely, so that option is gone.

Private hospital care in the Copper Coast area is removed now, and that is a disgrace. It is an impact of a government decision and it is an impact that should have been assessed as part of a cabinet decision to remove dollars via a regional impact assessment statement, but that was not undertaken. It blows your mind, in the simplest of terms, and I feel frustrated about this.

The most current example of where a regional impact assessment statement was required but not undertaken is the WorkReady program that was announced by minister Gago about 12 days ago. There is concern that it is going to have a devastating effect upon regional communities when it comes to training options. It will have a significant impact upon where training providers are located in regional communities.

The cumulative effect of it is a disgrace. A variety of questions have been asked in this chamber. A variety of questions have been asked about it in the Legislative Council of minister Gago. When the minister was on radio yesterday on ABC 891 she was asked about regional impact assessment statements and gave a very wishy-washy answer, I thought, with no real detail given, unsure of the impact—

Mr Pengilly: As usual.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member behind me says 'as usual' as a response to minister Gago. Sadly, it occurs too often where the detail is not known before the decision was taken. We have a variety of private RTOs that are coming out expressing concern, talking about not only the impact upon their businesses—it will have a significant one upon them—but also the loss to regional communities when it comes to training opportunities, and that is the key.

South Australia has, sadly, such a high level of unemployment. I think it is about 7.1 per cent or 7.2 per cent. Youth unemployment is a disgrace, in the 30 per cent range or thereabouts. This, at a time when training is an absolute necessity and flexibility has been taken away from it by targeting the remaining dollars that are left in training to go 90 per cent towards TAFE, which has been gutted in many ways and is going through a series of retrenchments and payouts to staff which is taking away the skilled workforce that they would need and are not able to employ—because of the fact they get retrenchments they cannot come straight back into the industry—just shows me that there is a complete dysfunction that exists.

I have been contacted by Regional Skills Training. They are a regionally based operation and operate within the Goyder electorate. I will declare that my daughter works for them and has worked for them for about 18 months. I have known the operator for nearly 10 years. I have found the operator, Caroline Graham, to be an exceptionally skilled person who knows how to ensure that the basis of the success of her business is built around the quality of training provided to people across the state. They work in 56 schools. They have hundreds of students spread across all of South Australia: the West Coast, the South-East, the Mid North, the Riverland and the Yorke Peninsula area. They are dedicated to what they do.

They are cost effective also, particularly when I hear the fact that the private RTOs are able to provide training at a cost which is about 40 per cent of what TAFE provides. That in itself highlights to me that, with the reduction in dollars and with the transfer of such a significant amount (90 per cent) to the TAFE network, the number of hours available to students to undertake the training they need to have strong, positive futures and to get some good job opportunities is going to be reduced drastically, and overall it is the community that loses. If that is not a reason for a regional impact assessment statement to be undertaken prior to a significant policy change, I do not know what is.

Federally, Senator Simon Birmingham, as the assistant minister, has come out and said that he believes that it is against the conditions attached to the agreement between federal and state governments for training dollars. His intention is to pursue this at length because there is $65 million involved. The Liberal Party in opposition in South Australia will pursue this at length, because it is something that we believe in passionately, and it affects not just regional communities but metropolitan ones. That is a regional impact assessment statement that should have been undertaken and was not. The Minister for Regional Development tells me that there is going to be a renewed focus upon it.

I note that in one of the additional items added to the register of RIS is that the guidelines were reviewed on the date of 15 March 2014, which was the election date—so, very interesting that is—and it was one of the conditions attached to the minister's agreement of support (Premier Weatherill). Where are the outcomes from it? Where are the practical improvements?

The SPEAKER: Would the member for Goyder please not mention a member's Christian name or surname.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Shall I say the member for Cheltenham then?

The SPEAKER: I suggest you call him the Premier.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Okay.

The SPEAKER: Because we just know from experience that mentioning members' Christian names and surnames leads to quarrels.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I take your wise counsel, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Regional Development has given the assurance that this is going to occur but it is not translating into actions, so accountability has to take place there. There are other members from this side who will stand up and talk about examples that they have in their community of the abject frustration where they know that, and believe in their hearts, a poor decision has been made that the hands rest within those of government who have either received poor advice or not considered the advice or not asked the questions that are appropriate to understand the implications of that action.

I understand that policy decisions are made based upon a wide variety of issues—I understand that—but where is the evidence being shown to the public of South Australia of the information being provided to those who have the responsibility to make those decisions, ensuring that they understand the implications of it? It is a frustration that I cannot accept. As a person who is driven by good policy and as a person who is driven by good decisions having to be made in their own lives, I cannot believe that in the case of WorkReady and the significant change in training funding program that the minister has endorsed such a significant change without understanding its implications.

The minister went on radio and noted that she does not have full details available. How the hell—and excuse my language—is it that a decision can be made without that having been available? It is a decision made in isolation, it is a decision that none of the community support, it is a decision that so many different industry groups and training bodies have come out against, it is a decision that seemingly only TAFE supports. However, TAFE itself has changed significantly.

In the time of the member for Colton being the minister for further training, he was the one who led the charge for contestability to exist within the area. He took it from a position where TAFE had a relative guarantee of about 80 per cent of training funding, opened it up, and it is now 54 per cent TAFE, 46 per cent private RTOs, but now it is going to revert back significantly again. Surely the outcomes have been there. When you have the RTOs that are able to tailor training opportunities to the needs of employees and employers to do it in-house, to not have to ensure that significant travel arrangements are in place, that is where good outcomes come from. That is my great frustration.

I urge the house to support this motion. It goes to the Economic and Finance Committee—seven members from government and opposition, good people who will consider the issue. They have to consider it in a very timely manner, there is no doubt about that. They have to ensure they get the information, review it, have the ability to call witnesses, and the ability to ensure that their report which is an attachment to the regional impact assessment statement is considered by cabinet so that outcomes come from it. From that outcome will come the best possible decision being made that the people of South Australia need in difficult financial times when you cannot afford to make a mistake. My great regret is that mistakes have been made because the government's own processes have not been followed, and that is an absolute shame, and it is a shame that can be corrected by the government supporting this motion. I look forward to the support of the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:18): I rise to support the member for Goyder in this important motion that this house supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact statements with the ability to call witnesses and, two, that this house urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented and makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

The reason this is so important is because we are now in the midst of a government that has been trying to tell us for about a year or more that it is genuinely interested in regions, and we would love to believe them. We would love to believe them, but the reality is that back in 2003 the government told us that they were seriously, genuinely and really interested in regions and that they would try to prove that to us by doing regional impact assessment statements any time there was anything of great significance that would affect the regions. We thought that was fantastic, as a Liberal opposition team. Unfortunately, they just have not done it.

They said they were interested and they said they would set up a system, but they did not follow through. Here we are again 12 years later and they are telling us that they are seriously interested, but we have no grounds upon which to believe them. Why would we have any faith in a government that does not even follow its own rules? Unfortunately, after much prodding and much effort on behalf of the opposition, and particularly the member for Goyder, to get the government to follow its own rules—and they have said they will, they still have not done it.

There still have not been regional impact assessment statements done and they certainly have not been provided to the regions, to the opposition, to the government or to anybody else, because they just have not been done. That is why this is such an important motion. Apart from the very obvious fact that what goes on in regional South Australia is so important to our regions, the government said they would look at these things and they did not.

This is not about just trying to give the government a hard time; this is actually about trying to highlight what the government needs to do. I am happily on the record as welcoming the government when they do their regional community cabinet visits with the government cabinet and with the senior executives from all the government departments. I think it is fantastic.

I wrote to the Premier and asked, 'Would you please bring your community cabinet and all your key staff to Peterborough and that district within Stuart?' and the Premier did it. I wrote to the Premier and asked, 'Would you please bring your community cabinet to Port Augusta?' and the Premier has said, yes, he will do it. We are not here trying to exclude the government, keep them out of regions or pretend that the government cannot help or cannot have some sort of really positive influence, because we know they can.

What this is about is trying to force the government to take all the opportunities it has to support regional South Australia. We do not want the government to do that because it is us versus them or the regions versus metro; it is nothing to do with that whatsoever. In this state, we are all permanently interwoven—metropolitan and regional South Australia. Adelaide needs the regions to be successful. Adelaide needs the regions to thrive.

We need people to want to live in the regions so that they can work there and create business and production opportunities that metropolitan Adelaide will benefit from. In the regions, we know that we need a bright, vibrant and successful Adelaide as well. In the regions, we understand that Adelaide is the heart of South Australia from a population and services perspective, but the heart cannot live without the rest of the body thriving: we need both to be working together and interacting very well.

One of the reasons I take this issue so personally is the Cadell ferry. The Cadell ferry was a very important regional piece of infrastructure that provided an incredibly important service that the government decided a few years ago it was just going to get rid of. I know that the most important factor in getting the government to back down and leave the Cadell ferry in place was the incredible work the Cadell and surrounding district community did to make its voice heard, together with the support up and down the river and from other parts of regional South Australia that the Cadell community received.

The member for Chaffey, the member for Bragg and I were very involved with that campaign, but the Cadell community gets the lion's share of the credit for forcing the government to back down. The very capable people from that community, including Danny McGurgan, who was subsequently a police officer of the year for his important community work, led that charge.

Second in my mind on the list of reasons the Cadell ferry was not taken away by the government, as they wanted to do, is that, unfortunately for the government, the issue came up just before estimates. At estimates committee after estimates committee I fronted up and asked the relevant minister whether a regional impact assessment study was done on the removal of this piece of important regional infrastructure. To their credit, those ministers had to answer honestly and say, 'No. No, it wasn't done.'

I would have asked about a dozen different ministers and they all said that no regional impact assessment study was done, and we all know that was the case in spite of the government's own rules stating that one should have been done. Having to answer those questions as honestly as they did would also have been a significant factor. Why did the government not just make it easy on itself? Why did the government not just do the study? Why did the government not just do the assessment? Do you know what? If the assessment had said, 'This is a terribly important piece of regional infrastructure; we cannot get rid of it,' the government presumably would not have proceeded and they would have saved themselves an enormous amount of headache and heartache.

If the assessment had come up somehow—and I do not believe this would have happened in this case—with a clear, strong and reasonable argument that the impact of removing the ferry on the regions was negligible or even positive, we would have had to look at that piece of work, consider it seriously and take it on its merits. Again, the government would have saved itself a whole lot of bother. I suggest to the government as earnestly as I possibly can: follow the process. The government should follow the process it has imposed upon itself. It may well have just imposed it upon itself so that it could look as though it was interested in the regions, but why not just follow the process anyway?

At least it will look like you mean what you say and, more importantly, the regions will know that they are being taken seriously, and you will save yourself a whole lot of grief by just doing the study properly. The member for Goyder touched on a wide range of different issues where this would be very important, and I know that other colleagues from this side of the chamber will do the same. I would like to touch on two.

In relation to health, we know that the government would like to pare back health services in regional South Australia primarily because of budgetary constraints. We do not think that you hate regional people (it is nothing as silly as that), but we know that your budget and your handling of the economy in general is in all sorts of dreadful situations, so we know that is a target. Let me put really loudly and clearly on the record that the government must not consider touching any regional health services without doing a full, frank and open regional assessment of what that would do.

Secondly, in the time remaining to me I will touch on Yorkeys Crossing, a very important piece of dirt road that circumnavigates Port Augusta so that there is a release valve for the bridge which has one single lane in each direction and carries all the heavy freight from Sydney to Perth and Adelaide to Darwin, let alone intrastate, let alone intra Port Augusta. Regularly, that bridge is out of action for whatever reason, and Monday this week was the most recent time. Yorkeys Crossing needs to be upgraded so that we have an all-weather road to support transport for Port Augusta, South Australia and Australia regardless of the weather, because right now, with five or six millimetres of rain, Yorkeys Crossing is out of action. The government should do an original impact assessment study on the potential benefits to Port Augusta, the state and the nation for upgrading that road.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:28): I also rise in support of the member for Goyder's motion on regional impact assessment statements. It is part of my core belief that decisions need to be made closest to those who are affected by them, and regional impact statements certainly have the ability to do that. In this state, we obviously need a premier of South Australia, not a premier of Adelaide. In doing some research on the current regional impact assessment statements, I came across a nice glossy brochure with some very prominent photos of the current minister involved. As I read through it, it made perfect sense to me. In fact, sometimes I was wondering what I would be standing up here debating.

Then I did a little bit more research, and decided to go to the website and look at how many regional impact statements have been put together. To my surprise there were 21 of them. Then I started looking a little bit deeper. The last two are actually just policies and procedures and terminologies, so there are actually 21 regional statements. It surprised me that the earliest there was 2003, and that was the Transport SA Plant Procurement impact statement. The latest was 2012, which was the Narrung Police Station impact statement. Obviously glossy brochures are pretty easy to put out; doing the bulk of the work, which is actually getting into these communities and doing these statements is, it appears, a little harder.

The reason this is so important is that the South-East appeared on one of these reports that was done in 2011. That report was the ForestrySA and the South East Region of South Australia ACIL Tasman impact statement. In reading that it really brought home to me that if you do not genuinely connect with the community, if you do not genuinely listen to what they have to say—and, in fact, the report is dismissive in its tone—then it will lead to issues that were foreseen by those who were closest to the action yet were ignored by the government.

Some of the language in this report is quite interesting, and I would like to read it into the Hansard. This executive summary was aimed at 'realising value from some of the state's assets'. I interpret that as flogging those state assets off at the cheapest possible price.

Mr Pederick: They have done that.

Mr BELL: They have. It said, 'The nature of the proposed sale is that any direct impact it had would be on the regional economy.' It was saying that any social impacts would actually occur as a result of the economic impact, and 'We found that the proposed sale is unlikely to have a significant economic impact on the region.' Therefore it was unlikely to have a significant flow-on in terms of social impacts. Environmental impacts were also considered unlikely.

I would like to point out to people that the softwood plantations in our region directly employed—and I put that in the past tense—1,943 people and was 11 per cent of our gross regional product. When you take indirect contributions into that equation it was 2,674 jobs, or approximately 19 per cent of the GRP. What was really interesting were the concerns from the community. An impact statement done well will realise those concerns and expose them, and again I quote:

The community is concerned that the forward sale will lead to substantial job losses—

tick—

with ensuing impacts on the broader community—

tick—and:

The key concern is that the new owner would export logs on a large scale—

tick.

All three of the main concerns that the people closest to the industry had about this forward sale have been proven to be correct. However, in the report it does acknowledge that:

If a large quantity of log was exported, the impact on the local processing industry would be significant. However, based on our analysis—

in code, probably with help from some interested parties—

it is unlikely that a significant additional quantity of sawlog would be exported as a result of a change of ownership of the rotations…

It staggers me that what was foreseen has now occurred. As a local member I am now dealing with issues of production companies, or sawmillers, coming to me saying that they cannot get the log of the quantity they need. What has happened is that there is no transparency in the forward sale, none that anybody can talk to me about with any clarity.

In terms of log being offered to the local sawmillers first, yes, they are doing that, but they are putting it in such volumes that the local sawmiller cannot handle. Of course, once the sawmiller says, 'I can't take that quantity,' it is then exported straightaway over to the Port of Portland. I offer an invitation to any interested member on the other side who wants to come to Mount Gambier. I will take you for a drive to Portland and there are logs stacked up beyond what the eye can see.

It is absolutely frightening how much log is going out of Mount Gamier and the South-East, being exported away. Sawmillers will come to me and say, 'It's like I need 100 logs but the new company packages it up so that you need to take 1,000 logs or you get nothing,' and of course, they do not have the storage facilities or the processing ability to take that 1,000 logs when all they need is 100. Obviously the volumes are bigger than that, but I am putting it into a context that people can understand.

Of course, the social impacts of the forward sale of ForestrySA have been huge. It has taken our community—my community—five years to get anywhere near back where it was beforehand. But in this report, the social impacts are glossed over and quite trivial:

In fact, it is likely the speculation about the sale, based on improbable export log volumes, has had a more detrimental social impact on the region than the sale itself is likely to have…

we do not expect [any] social impacts to be significant.

Well, that is the problem when you have a report that is not truly reflective of what the consultation is meant to be.

Lastly, in terms of this report, fire: ForestrySA has the largest firefighting capability. We have now had the Glencoe Tantanoola fire and there are still reports coming out of subcontractors not rocking up or machinery sitting in ForestrySA's workshop that should have been deployed out on those fronts. I have more to say about that down the track.

With limited time, I would also like to talk about future impact statements, as I see them being very relevant for my region, the first being this Work Ready policy backflip—this announce-and-depart policy that we are now seeing from the government. You do not even stand and defend your actions; you fly half way around the country and let it be somebody else who picks up the issues. This Work Ready change in our RTO system is going to have an impact on employment in the South-East and I would say in regional areas, because in regional areas, private RTOs fit niche markets and can respond very quickly.

But, of course, the main point that I want to make is a regional impact statement on fracking in the South-East. Once the committee has concluded, whenever that is, I will be pushing very hard, depending on the outcomes of that committee, for a regional impact statement because, second to the forestry sell-off I am explaining to this house, I have never seen an issue with such divisiveness as fracking will be in the South-East of South Australia. An impact statement that does not gloss over the real concerns of community members is paramount.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:38): I indicate my strong support for the motion put up by the member for Goyder. It is a good motion and it is a motion that has been well thought through, and it makes common sense. Sometimes in this place there are things that happen that do not make common sense. However, regional South Australia is absolutely critical to the entire state economy. Things come and go; manufacturing seems to come and go and reinvent itself. Mining has booms and busts and comes and goes, but always the regional economy, particularly agriculture and primary industry, has carried the state through since Proclamation in 1836, and that is the harsh reality.

Regional people understand that their city cousins live in a completely different environment. Unfortunately and regrettably, many young people from the regional areas are having to move into the urban environment just to survive, such is the way of the world. We need more regional employment and we need more activities in the regions.

As an example of what I was talking about a few minutes ago, there are considerable numbers of what are called FIFO—fly in, fly out—workers who, since the mining downturn, have returned to my electorate out of work. The work has gone, so they have come back and there is nothing to really replace it. It is a sad reflection on the boom and bust mentality of the mining sector, I am afraid, and that goes back to when copper boomed in the 1800s and had a bust.

I believe that, by putting regional impact statements in front of the Economic and Finance Committee of this house, what you are actually doing is giving full scrutiny to the elected parliamentarians of this state who are on the committee, so that they can have a look at it and sort through it. I just hope that the government supports this motion. I do not hold out much hope.

Given the complete and utter failure of the regional development minister on the marine parks issue, I am afraid that all we really see from this government in relation to regional activities is window-dressing. They run around, put out glossy brochures, turn up here and there and make statements and then disappear. It actually needs a fair bit more than that.

Just let me tell you on the marine parks debacle that the fish shop which has received multiple awards in Kingscote, which no doubt Labor members have been to, has closed. It has gone. Mr Trevor Edwards is a net fisherman on Kangaroo Island. I wrote off to respective ministers some time ago and have yet to receive a reply. He is all but finished. He has got nowhere left to fish, he is done and dusted, and all he is seeking is to get some answer out of the minister in another place as to where he goes if he can get compensation or whatever so he can move on in his life. They are but two examples, and there are many more which are going to surface out of the marine parks debacle over the next 12 months or so, I would suggest.

My view is that bringing these regional impact statements under the scrutiny of the Economic and Finance Committee means that members from both sides can really get their teeth into it, sort it out and see just what will transpire, if the correct process is followed in relation to regional impact statements. I applaud the member for Mount Gambier for the issues that he brought, particularly relating to forestry. Once again, it was window-dressing.

I am far from convinced that having a group of bureaucrats put forward a pretty document and make all the right statements is actually going to get things done in the current procedure. I have said it before when referring to this state Labor government, and I will say it again: one week they do nothing, and the next week they do twice as much of nothing. It is an important issue, and it goes on and on.

We are facing trying times in regional South Australia. As the member for Goyder indicates in his motion, this is an opportunity to get out there, bring these things into full public view and make public the results of regional impact statements prior to any changes so that people know what is coming. Whether that be health, education, transport or roads, be that as it may, at least get out there and do it, unlike the debacle we had with the hospital and health services down on the south coast where they were not told the truth and the department did not get out and do the things they should have done. They failed to do that.

When we last had a couple of public meetings at Goolwa and Victor Harbor there was a bit more fleshed out of that; and, indeed, I have another one at Yankalilla next week. This side, clearly, will do all it can to support the member for Goyder's motion and see whether we can get some transparency back into government and see whether we can get some sort of common-sense answers.

During the course of the last couple of months the Public Works Committee has been around the state, and where we have been going to look at public projects we have also met with local community leaders and regional development boards to get their view of the world. The member for Flinders may recall us meeting in Port Lincoln recently with the local councils and the regional development boards. Last week we met with similar type communities down in Mount Gambier, and this will go on.

Nothing much changes when you go out there and get their response to what is not happening. Overwhelmingly it seems to me that the issue of roads comes up time and again. The member for Flinders may recall the discussions at Port Lincoln, where over there they viewed seriously the state of the road through to Whyalla-Port Augusta and the requirement for passing lanes, and the subject of B-doubles came up. This issue of roads came up again down in Mount Gambier last week, and the member for Chaffey has raised in this place the debacle that is about to be inflicted with the closure of the train line from Loxton down through to Tailem Bend and the grain trucks coming onto the road. I think that a paltry $4 million has been spent on that road.

I am not interfering with the member for Chaffey's country, but my daughter, son-in-law and family happen to use that road very regularly and they are appalled to think of what may or may not happen if the train goes. That is a personal issue for me but it is an issue that needs to be picked up on. Regional impact statements need to be transparent. They need to be fleshed out. There is no better place than the Economic and Finance Committee to do it.

I know that the Economic and Finance Committee has been an instrument used to hide things by the current government over the last few years, but I am hopeful that this current Economic and Finance Committee will pick up on this and encourage the government to do it. You see, the Budget and Finance Committee in another place has made the Economic and Finance Committee in the lower house seem somewhat of a joke, because that committee drags people in and gives them a hard time and gets answers, whereas it has been really sleepy hollow down here rather than the other place.

I say to government members, 'You need to encourage your side of the house to support this motion.' Now, what happens with the Minister for Regional Development and whether he has the intestinal fortitude to stand up and support our motion on this remains to be seen. I hope he has. He made a complete and utter stuff up on the marine parks vote, which he will have to live with, however, on this particular occasion we will give him time to think about it. Again, I support the member for Goyder's motion and look forward to it passing through the house.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:48): Just as the Adelaide Crows is the team for all South Australians, I think that in this place we would expect our government to be the government for all South Australians. It seems quite odd intuitively to me that we have a regional impact assessment process where we need to highlight one part of a community as needing attention that it otherwise is not getting.

The idea that we do not have a government that is governing for all of this state is one that does not sit very easy with me, but if you look at the origins of the regional impact assessment process it has to be seen as nothing other than a tacit admission that the regions have been ignored for too long by this government, and an admission of the fact that it does not understand the regions on this. We on this side of the house for various electoral reasons do understand the reasons extremely well. Certainly, we stand in this place and put forth the views of our community, but it seems that the regional impact assessment statement is a process by which the government says, 'Well, we admit the fact that we don't understand what we're doing out there, so we're going to give it a go.' The reason we are standing here today to discuss this issue is because we are not necessarily sure of how genuine they have been.

I applaud the member for Goyder's motion to move this off to the Economic and Finance Committee. I think that makes perfect sense. The reason we need this process is because, currently, impact assessment statements are not always done, and when they are done they are often ignored. I think that putting them off to a standing committee of the parliament is a good way for there to be increased pressure on the government to do the right thing. At the end of the day, that is really what we are here to do, is to help and work with the government, to—as I have often heard the member for Mawson talk about—work in a bipartisan, collegiate manner to get things done. Through this motion we are simply trying to give the government a little bit of a nudge to get on and do the right thing, just a little bit of a gentle push, a tap on the shoulder.

Mr Gardner: Help us to help you.

Mr KNOLL: That is right. As any good friend says to another friend, 'Let's just get this right.' Friends do not let friends forget the regions of South Australia. The reason I say that even when impact assessment statements are done they are not always listened to is through my research. I had a scroll through the regional impact assessment statement that was done on the marine parks decision the government took last year. I scrolled through this 315-page document, which is quite comprehensive, down to page 106 where it talks about the cost benefit analysis. If I am allowed, I will read into the Hansard:

The results of the cost benefit analysis have been expressed in terms of net present value (NPV). The NPV is a measure of the aggregate, annual net benefits (i.e. benefits minus costs) of an option over a 20 year period, discounted (i.e. expressed as a present value) using a discount rate of 6 per cent.

A discount rate of 6 per cent I can have some disagreement with, but for the sake of the argument let us do it. It goes on to state:

The net present value for implementing the 19 marine parks with zoning was estimated to be approximately -$63.9 million. This indicates that the investment in marine park management plans would generate lower net benefits to the community than the base case scenario.

The principal drivers of the estimated negative economic outcome is the net annual cost of implementation (present value of -$26.2 million) as well as the losses incurred by the commercial fishing industry (-$37.7 million).

I am but a humble sausage maker, but in my time I employed some people who were smarter than me. One of them was my younger brother, who is an accountant. When he joined the business he brought a rigour to our investment decision-making. Originally, dad and I would just stand there and we would say, 'Well, we like this shiny piece of stainless steel, it's a cool piece of kit, let's buy it and chuck it into the factory and see what happens.' But no, financial rigour and becoming a more professional business was the way we had to go.

Andreas said, 'No, every time we make a decision to borrow money or to make a significant investment of capital in our business we are going to go through a rigorous investment analysis process,' and using net present value was one of the key indicators that we used on, you know: if we go down this path what are going to be the benefits to the business? I am not an accountant but I am fairly sure that we never made a decision to buy a piece of machinery in order for us to lose money. I am not 100 per cent certain but I am fairly sure that when you make decisions like this you want things to be in positive territory.

Now, minus $63.9 million does not seem like that. I think it is a real shame that this simple piece of information that was generated by the government was marginalised in the debate on the marine parks decision—marginalised. It is frustrating when we have so much, and we see it again at the moment with the WorkReady program and the folly the government is about to embark upon, when we see real jobs, people's lives, people's communities, people's livelihoods, people's mortgages, being challenged by government decisions.

We can sit in our beautiful chamber, with beautiful green leather and green carpet, and we can discuss things in the abstract. We can yell and scream at each other across the chamber, and that is not always as edifying as we would like it to be but, at the end of the day, we make decisions that impact on people's lives. We have to take the opportunity created by regional impact assessment statements and the like to make those things real for us, so that it is not about debating some abstract political point, but the real impact of the decisions that we make in this house. I think those things need to be given primary consideration. With those few remarks, I commend the motion to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:55): I rise to support the motion from the member for Goyder:

That this house—

1. Supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact statements, with the ability to call witnesses.

2. Urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(a) guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(b) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

Nothing came to the fore more for me soon after entering this place than when the budget was laid down in September 2006—because it was an election year, the budget came in late—and the first I knew of a proposed major prison upgrade at Murray Bridge was in the newspaper that morning. I think it is an absolute disgrace to have that sort of proposal put out like that. I remember that the Mayor of Murray Bridge rang me on my way to parliament and I said, 'I don't know anything about it.'

This was going to have a huge impact on Murray Bridge and surrounding areas: a $500 million men's prison with a separate women's prison. I do not know if the government had any idea how much this would impact on the local community. Since then there has been much discussion as to what was needed if this proposal was to get up not just as a piece of logistics for the state—and it is obvious that our prisons are bursting to overflowing at the moment—but also in terms of the social impact on our community. I know that that land is still there and perhaps one day in the future a government will have some consultation about whether an expanded prison will be built at Mobilong.

I am reasonably ambivalent on the issue but if an expanded Mobilong—a high security prison, a Yatala replacement—does come to Murray Bridge, it has to come with trade-offs. If public transport is not already coming to Murray Bridge, it has to come; Bremer Road needs to be extended and bitumenised; health services need to be expanded. Those are just the first three: there is so much more that needs to happen in terms of consultation with the community on a proposal like that.

When I look at the training services that are being altered at the moment, it is absolutely outrageous to think that TAFE can pick up all the slack from what the regional providers are providing at the moment. I look at Regional Skills Training from the Yorke Peninsula. I know Caroline Graham and her husband, Mark Graham, personally because they used to live down the road from me at Coomandook and she does a great job in her training across 56 schools, but here we have a government that, after years of gutting TAFE—and I mentioned this in the parliament yesterday—has almost stripped TAFE bare.

We have had cut down on cut down on cut down, certainly in Murray Bridge and in other centres across the state. I am not too sure how they are going to deliver the training, because all we have seen are staff cuts, resources cuts and financial cuts to these services. There is a lot of work to do, and I know the government should have a major rethink of that proposal.

In my final couple of seconds, I just want to talk quickly about the diversification funding that the government turned back—the $25 million that was going to come to river communities from the Victorian border through to Goolwa. All those communities suffered during the drought, yet the government made a big decision, 'We will just turn our back on $25 million,' but, thankfully, my friends in the federal government at least came up with $5 million through the National Stronger Regions Fund to fund one of my projects in Murray Bridge, the Gifford Hill project, and I am truly thankful for that. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.