Bills

Appropriation Bill 2015

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

(Continued from 29 July 2015.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:32): I rise to speak on this motion to receive the reports from Estimates Committee A and B and, in doing so, indicate that I will be the lead speaker. I commence today's contribution by acknowledging the passing of the late Adrian de Bruin and note that members of the parliament will be attending his funeral today, including our leader. In so recognising his contribution to the state, I am following the lead of the Premier in recognising eminent South Australians, which we did earlier this week.

Can I say first some preliminary comments in respect of the process of which I have had the responsibility to contribute to for the last 14 years in respect of what was, I think, clearly intended by the late David Tonkin, as premier of this state, to be a process of enlightenment for the parliament of the executive's published proposals for the future of the state over the following four years and, in particular, the following financial year, arising out of their budget. Disappointingly, in that 14 years, it has not fulfilled the expectation of late premier Tonkin and, I think regrettably, fallen considerably short.

Can I say that, in making a contribution on the process, I want to acknowledge those who were members of the government party who chaired those committees and thank them for doing so. Largely it is an unrewarding task, and the management of recalcitrant ministers is an ongoing difficulty for them.

I think it is fair to say that, whilst it was premier Tonkin's intention that there would be an opportunity for ministers in his government and in following governments to be able to proudly expand on the identified projects for funding and to pursue the policy initiatives that were announced as a result of the budget address given by the Treasurer each year, clearly this year the government again failed to take hold of that opportunity.

Certainly, there are circumstances where, in some of the committee contributions by ministers, they invited questions to be answered from those of the same political persuasion, which added to the expansion of information—most of which was already on the public record but nevertheless helped to advise the committee on important new initiatives, many of them quite commendable.

Where we strike some difficulty—and I think the late Hon. David Tonkin would be turning in his grave to see this—is over the behaviour of ministers, consistently displaying their ignorance and incompetence at gross insult to those sitting next to them, and the wilful contempt of the parliament, in some examples that I propose to give today. It is concerning because we as a parliament are expected to provide some scrutiny and opportunity to be here on behalf of the public of South Australia to promote what is good and highlight what is not.

You will hear repeated speeches in the parliament post budget and post estimates which highlight those who are disappointed with what they have not got, and those who are singing the praises of what they have got. It usually covers some fairly strict lines according to political allegiance. We have had Independents over the past 14 years who have sometimes slipped from one side to another, cherrypicking projects of merit or being critical of expenditure which is unwarranted and which displays a level of priority that is not in the best interests of South Australians.

But, those speeches pretty much highlight the plight of members of this house who are espousing the views of people in the community and their expectation that, when we are spending about $15 billion a year of the public's money, it is spent wisely and in a manner which will actually provide the services for which governments are responsible, and ensure that programs which are good public policy are promoted.

Let us return to what has happened this year. Again, the estimates committees comprised of members of the House of Assembly, not members of the Legislative Council. For those who are new members, that is a practice which has endured since the establishment of estimates. It is done on the basis that the House of Assembly is the house which accommodates the government, and it is the government which is accountable through this process. So, it is unsurprising to me that we would continue that practice.

It is true that there has been a practice of various governments, over the past 35 years or so in which we have this estimates process, to appoint members of the cabinet in the other place. They make themselves available for scrutiny by members of this house who form the committee. They have an opportunity—in fact, a responsibility—to attend for that scrutiny. It is a process of scrutiny of the House of Assembly. I think that is a practice which should continue.

Can I say that, for all of the criticism of the government's performance, which I am about to outline some aspects of, it is a process which is still important. What is even more important is that the government ministers understand the opportunity they have to present and enhance what they claim is of merit but, also, the responsibility they have to provide information and have full and frank disclosure of material.

Again, before I address the individual committees which I sat on and present the opposition's scrutiny, can I say that, generally, the observation that I have made this year is that the people who attended with the ministers—indeed, the Premier and the ministers, I should say, because, of course, the Premier also attended—were senior men and women of the respective departments. These are the people I call the million dollar men and women. Most of the people seated adjacent to the minister in question, or the Premier, have aggregate incomes over $1 million. These are senior people in the Public Service who had very substantial folders in front of them which represented the hard work of many other people in their respective departments in preparing responses and advice to the ministers on every possibly conceivable issue that might be raised in the estimates.

I know that that is a comprehensive list of issues and an extraordinary amount of work because, when I first came into the parliament after 2002, there was a practice of seeking to produce these folders under the freedom of information process. Before the government had the wit to present these folders through a cabinet process in an attempt to protect them against viewing by potential members of these committees, they disclosed to us a very comprehensive schedule of advice, sometimes running for pages on areas of importance.

I can remember starting with my first portfolio responsibility of education and having a folder centimetres deep of material that had been produced under freedom of information on everything from seatbelts on country buses to class sizes to the enterprise bargain agreement with the teachers union: you name it. It was not just A to Z: it was multiples of the alphabet in the number of issues that were canvassed.

Quickly, the government realised that this was something they did not want to make available to members of the committees because the fulsome work that had been done by members of the department might alert them to issues that they were not even aware of and would be of concern to the government if they were questioned about it. It was interesting to see how quickly they promoted a process which then enveloped these folders with cabinet protection against freedom of information applications. Now they have been a secret I think for the last 12 or so years and we no longer have access to them: but the ministers do.

So, when I say that they present here to the committee with a huge folder of advice, with the million dollar men and women sitting next to them, often with an entourage of other people from their department who have undertaken an extraordinary amount of work, it is extraordinary to note the lack of detail that is then provided to the committee in response to questioning. It is absolutely extraordinary.

They not only have the answers in front of them in folders to many of these questions, but indeed they have got the very people who are responsible for managing and implementing a number of the projects that are under scrutiny sitting right next to them, yet again this year we have seen ministers, and even the Premier, attend before these committees and represent answers which are repeatedly taken on notice for production at a later time. Instead of being this opportunity of enlightenment and promotion by the government to the people of South Australia, it remains a dark cloud of concealment.

I mention, first, the ignorance and/or incompetence of the ministers. The standout for me this year is the same minister who presented to the estimates committee last year for the first time as a new minister, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. I think that last year he was asked 44 questions and he gave zero answers. This year, I think he set a new record for the number of questions he took on notice, notwithstanding that he had Mr Deegan sitting next to him, the chief executive, a senior member of experience in public service prior to coming to South Australia and now in the Public Service in his second year of service.

He continued to be the champion of the minister's displaying either an ignorance or an incompetence. It may be naivety, it may be a level of arrogance that he displays, which suggests that he thinks that it is somehow or other clever or cute or smart to refuse to answer questions that clearly are within his portfolio. Let me give members an example of one of the answers he gave when asked a question in respect of the abandoned courts precinct project of the government, which was announced to be abandoned in March this year because it was not value for money by the Attorney-General.

When the Attorney gave evidence to the committee he explained that it was his colleague minister Mullighan who had the management of the tender process and matters associated that fell within the purview of the department and that it would be a matter, he believed, for minister Mullighan and/or Mr Deegan in his words 'to probably be the best placed to assist you with' in respect of answers to questions about that aborted project.

When we came to minister Mullighan, his helpful, informative response was not only to refuse to answer any questions unless there was an item line (notwithstanding the Attorney-General's indication to the committee), but to say, 'I'm not interested in what the Attorney-General does. I'm interested in my portfolio of responsibilities.' His rude and dismissive approach to the committee highlighted for me that he has learnt nothing in the last year.

He displayed a wilful contempt of the committee in refusing to consider or to provide information, when clearly his more senior cabinet minister, the Deputy Premier, had outlined whose area of responsibility it is in. It has been an ongoing project in the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and it is clearly within his responsibility. He is not only dismissive of the committee's inquiry but he rudely insults his senior member of cabinet, the Deputy Premier. Regrettably he has learnt nothing.

One of the things he might like to consider prior to next year's estimates hearings, assuming he remains in the cabinet, is that to be helpful to the committee gives him an opportunity to present the best from his department. He had a dismissive approach to matters that are clearly relevant, matters that were referenced in the statements of the Attorney-General, which would have been helpful to the committee and ought to have been seen as a promotion. To continue to grossly insult the men and women sitting next to him, from Mr Deegan down, by not even inquiring of them as to whether there might be information they would have that would be helpful to the committee is a lesson that he could learn.

If he thinks it is cute or clever, let me say this: even members of the committee of his own political persuasion, by the body language they exhibited during that performance, were not impressed. Some of them—and I will not name them—have been members of this parliament for a long time. Some of them have even been former ministers and some of them understand the benefit in actually making a contribution which is helpful and that does not expose the minister as being ignorant or incompetent.

If you were to add to that the body language of others listening to that contribution to the committee, including members of the media, it would be a lesson of instruction for the minister to appreciate that he is impressing no-one. He just continues to insult those who have done the work. He continues to display a level of arrogance and, quite clearly, rudeness towards even a senior member of his cabinet. Assuming he is here next year, I invite him to have a more respectful approach to the parliament and indeed the committee.

The other general matter is the conduct of the Deputy Premier. I will come to his general contribution. He spent a long day before the estimates committee covering multiple portfolios. It takes quite a sustained effort to be available for questioning over the long day, and I thank him for that. What I found extraordinary was that, although he provided quite a bit of information to the committee, again he almost completely ignored the people sitting next to him, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who I think had the opportunity to make one comment in respect of the failure to replace judges in judicial vacancies. There may have been other comment, but it was certainly minor to the extent of having an opportunity to present material to the committee. But at least he did provide some answers. I will come to some areas where he had not before.

Let's just go back to last year's estimates and the performance of the Deputy Premier, who at that time also had responsibility for the Attorney-General's Department, the courts, housing and urban planning, Renewal SA, and a number of other matters on which I was not in the committee to question him. Last year he took a number of questions on notice. He answered some questions and took a number of them on notice. The wilful contempt of ministers is illustrated this year by the Deputy Premier providing to the parliament yesterday answers to questions that were put to him on 17 July 2014.

So, not only has he not made any contribution in those answers within the 14 days as recommended to respond to at estimates, having not made the inquiry even on the day in the estimates committee, but over a year later after the 2015 estimates committee he approves the production of answers for the 2014 hearings of those estimates committees. If that is not a wilful contempt of this parliament, I do not know what is.

The data that was provided largely related to the 2013-14 financial year because obviously it was the subject of inquiry at the 2014 estimates hearings. We have a situation where the government has perpetuated again insult to those who sit next to them and undertake an extraordinary amount of work in their departments, contempt to those of us in the committee who make reasonable inquiry of matters of significance and a display of ignorance and/or incompetence of ministers.

The situation, as I would see it, has not improved because, even after inquiry this week in respect of matters relating to the Urban Renewal Authority, in question time yesterday the Deputy Premier still could not answer questions in respect of that matter, and I will refer to that in detail shortly, but it is very concerning. I would have to say that it is also significant that the media, who are really the eyes and ears, to a large degree, on behalf of the people of South Australia, who we have the benefit of providing a lot of material to the public, did appear to highlight areas of merit and deficiency subsequent to the budget.

However, during the estimates committee, I would have to say that appeared to be more interested in the performance or lack thereof in respect of the committee process, rather than in the substance of the information that was either elicited or refused to be provided. That is disappointing in itself as well because if, as members of the public, we are to continue to rely on the scrutiny of us in the parliament and the publication of that by our mainstream media outlets, and they are to continue to have respect for that, I would ask them to look carefully at what level of publication they are giving to matters raised in estimates.

One of those issues I think relates to the Urban Renewal Authority. It is disappointing that the government's approach in its presentation of this entity in the budget, and then during estimates, was less than transparent and about which there appeared to be little concern from our friends in the media. During Estimates Committee A of the Attorney-General, the Attorney was asked about the payment of the $11.6 million dividend to the government that was published in the budget. In short, he told the committee that it had not been paid and that it would not be paid.

Further, and I paraphrase this, he indicated that it arose as a result of various conversations between the Urban Renewal Authority Board, himself and the Treasurer or Treasury, and that it would not be paid. Why is that so significant in its first instance? What is significant in the first instance is that the Urban Renewal Authority, under the new structure instituted by the Premier, was to have a completely novel approach by making the chief executive responsible to the minister directly and not responsible to the board. It is a novel approach. It is not a structure which I think actually serves the competent management of such an important entity as the Urban Renewal Authority, which is the keeper of public asset and has a responsibility to sell and develop various assets of the government. It holds assets and deals with assets to the value of millions of dollars, so it is a very important entity.

The Premier introduced a new structure, as I said, where he made the chief executive accountable to the minister and not the board. The deficiencies of that structure in itself have been highlighted in the tawdry story surrounding the government's development of a parcel of land at Gillman and the refusal to put it out to public tender and the ultimate exercising of an option to a preferred unsolicited proposal consortium. Coupled with that, the Premier appointed Mr Fred Hansen some three years ago to head this new structure. He has since been sent back to the United States, clearly an abject failure in respect of the management of the Urban Renewal Authority, the Gillman project in particular.

However, let's return then to the importance of understanding how this affects the operation of the Urban Renewal Authority. When the government hands down its budget and includes a summary of activity of the Urban Renewal Authority and the projects which they have promoted and pursued and the financial position of that entity, the public are entitled to rely on the information that is published (in this year on 18 June, but in fact in every year) in the budget.

The budget said that there was an estimated dividend to be paid of $11.6 million. This is an entity which, since its restructure by the Premier, every year has delivered for South Australia an appalling financial outcome—major deficits in its balance sheet. Each year they have provided an explanatory position in the budget to suggest that there has not been a progression of the sales and settlement of sales of property that they had forecast, being largely reflective of the market conditions and the circumstances under which this entity was not able to fulfil its projected sales and provide a healthy response to government and, therefore, South Australia to be demonstrating itself as being a productive entity, one which complied with its charter, namely to operate in a commercial manner and to provide best value for money for taxpayers.

So after a history, year after year since its inception, of complete financial disaster and pathetic excuses being presented to estimates over the last three years (the last answers from which came in yesterday, from 2014, to tell us what they sold or did not sell or what their forecast was for estimated revenue, etc.), it is even more important that the information in the budget this year for Renewal SA—that is, the Urban Renewal Authority trading as Renewal SA—is accurate.

The fact that it presented a dividend of $11.6 million to the government just five weeks ago when the budget was handed down was, at first blush, encouraging. In fact I read it, and I am sure that others in South Australia read it and were comforted in some degree by that publication, because they would have thought, 'Well, it got off to a pretty rotten start financially, but it seems to be turning around, so much so that it is able to provide a dividend to government in the order of $11.6 million.' Great.

However, within four weeks we had the minister responsible, the Deputy Premier in his role as Minister for Housing and Urban Development, tell the committee that, in fact, no payment had been made: not the $11.6 million, not any lesser amount, nothing, not one single dollar. Furthermore, there had been this discussion, this conversation, which resulted in the expectation that nothing would be paid.

It is concerning to me, and I think it should be to other members of the house, that there was no public statement by the minister on that issue, post the budget, to advise South Australians that what was published in the budget was not going to happen, that there had apparently been a change of circumstances, and that there was an expectation that that money would not be paid. Far from it, in fact. The minister, in his role as minister, came into this parliament in the weeks after the budget had been published and made statements, including in respect of projects managed by Renewal SA—in particular, I recall a statement to the parliament a week before the end of the financial year in respect of the progress of the conditions precedent being fulfilled under the Gillman consortia project—yet he still did not tell the parliament or make any public statement to correct the record.

It was not only him as the minister, but indeed the Treasurer, who also presented to this parliament in the weeks following the budget; not a single word from him to say that there had been a change in that. There had been no disclosure to the people of South Australia until this committee convened and questions were asked as to the payment of that dividend. It gets worse, because the Treasurer has also been asked how this matter was to be pursued and what had happened, and what his answer might be as to when he had apparently approved the release from the obligation to pay the dividend as published in the budget.

On 28 July, during Estimates Committee A hearings, my colleague, the member for Schubert, asked the Treasurer when the Urban Renewal Authority board had considered the payment of the dividend and in particular the release from it. His response to the committee was:

As required under the Urban Renewal Authority Act 1995, the Urban Renewal Authority board considered the payment of a dividend before the end of the financial year. The board recommended to the Minister for Planning and Urban Development that no dividend be paid. The board would prefer to use the funds to pay down their debt rather than pay a dividend to the government.

I am aware that in this estimates committee the minister indicated he is supportive of the Urban Renewal Authority retaining these funds. As required under the act, the minister is required to consult with the Treasurer prior to this matter being finalised and I understand that the minister has recently written to me on the issue. I will consider his correspondence.

Let us just consider that statement. The Treasurer has told the estimates committee that, some time in the 12 days from 18 December, when he published the budget, and the end of the financial year, the Urban Renewal Authority board had considered the payment of the dividend and had put a recommendation to the Minister for Planning and Urban Development. On 22 July 2015, when the Minister for Planning and Urban Development answered questions about the Urban Renewal Authority, he indicated that there had been conversations for the release. He made no mention of having written to the Treasurer, as the Treasurer had indicated to our committee on 28 July. He made no mention of the fact that the approval by the Treasurer was yet to be received.

In fact, yesterday, on 29 July, a day after, minister Koutsantonis told the committee that he could not even provide the date of the board meeting, that we would need to refer back to the Minister for Planning and Urban Development, who, incidentally, did not know when he gave his evidence to the committee on 22 July. Then, the minister yesterday tells the parliament that, yes, a letter was sent and that it had been sent since 22 July, since he had given evidence to the committee and that he still did not have a date for when this board meeting had occurred.

All of this just confirms to the committee, and it ought to this parliament and to the people of South Australia, that the government is prepared to publish a statement suggesting at least the improved if not flush circumstances of one of its bodies, namely the Urban Renewal Authority, rather than admit to South Australians that it is in this mess. They will do whatever it takes to keep the circumstances surrounding it a secret from the people of South Australia. It gives no confidence to the people of South Australia that these people have any clue about whether they know what they are doing in relation to the financial management of the state or the responsibility to supervise the operations of this entity.

Remember that this is an entity for which the chief executive is directly legally responsible and accountable to the minister, not even to the board. He or she who is appointed—it is currently filled by Mr John Hanlon, who was appointed earlier this year—attends the board meetings and they are a member of the board in a role that is obviously important, but they have a direct line to the minister.

They have a direct line of responsibility to the minister, not even to the board, yet we have sat through an estimates committee in which, in the last five weeks (but according to the Treasurer, in the last 12 days of June), the board has met and determined that it would request a relief from the dividend to be paid, yet the minister responsible was neither able to give a date to the parliament on 22 July, nor was he able to give it to the parliament on 29 July.

We are not talking about some new minister that was appointed yesterday. We are talking about a senior member, the Deputy Premier, of the government who is clearly an experienced minister who is capable of giving a number of answers to questions during his day contribution to the estimates committee and who had Mr Hanlon sitting right next to him as the chief executive of the Urban Renewal Authority (trading as Renewal SA) throughout the questioning in respect of this matter and who is a member of this board, and he is still not able to give that information to us. At first flush, the government clearly—even on the best interpretation of this—is wanting to give a good impression of the functioning of this entity at the time of publication of the budget and has done nothing to inform the community of the proposed relief of payment of $11.6 million.

I do not know whether the government thinks $11.6 million is just nothing or whether it is something so minor in the scheme of things that it does not really deserve any attention, but any right-minded member of the community and any right-minded member of this parliament would have to say that $11.6 million is a lot of money, especially when we have people out there begging for consideration by the government for grants or allowances to be made or an increased contribution for the services they are providing. In that environment, and in an environment in which the state is faced with the highest unemployment in the country and in which services are under pressure, for the government to be somehow rather dismissive of $11.6 million, I think, is disgraceful.

In any event, the government, I suggest, have a long way to go in explaining to the people of South Australia what has happened in relation to this and why they were was not prepared to make that clear in the explanatory material in the budget, even if it was an aspirational target of payment and to be able to indicate that in the published material. They have made no public statement subsequent to that and then continue to, frankly, absolutely refuse to provide information to this parliament. They might think they are cute. They might think they are clever. They might think they are able to avoid questioning by the committee and therefore will avoid public scrutiny.

I will say that I am so concerned about this matter that I have referred it to the Auditor-General for further inquiry. Late last year, the previous Auditor-General tabled a damning report in respect of the functioning of the Urban Renewal Authority and, in particular, its failure to properly manage the unsolicited bid proposal, amongst other things, in respect of the Gillman fiasco.

The process was so exposed to be of inferior application that in fact the government published, at the same time, a new process for the consideration of unsolicited bids, and a new set of guidelines were promulgated. A new person (the Coordinator-General) was appointed to undertake the scrutiny of that, so it has been taken away from the Urban Renewal Authority, who handled that disaster.

We are in a situation where the Auditor-General has been highly critical of a number of aspects in respect of dealing with that unsolicited proposal. They were all critical of the Urban Renewal Authority. There was some fairly damning comment about individual members of the board in respect of conflict of interest issues and of the disclosure of information by the relevant ministers of the time to the cabinet and the like. But, on this issue, in respect of the operation of the Urban Renewal Authority, the Auditor-General's office has already had, in recent history, some damning report to his parliament about how it is operated.

The other scathing reports were provided by a judge of the Supreme Court, and in fact even more recently, in the dissenting judgement as to the conduct of the Urban Renewal Authority and members of cabinet, in particular, the Treasurer. This is not the place to go into that today. It just seems to me that the government, if it even read last year's report and took any serious notice of it as to the operation of this entity, it would have been absolutely scrupulous in the information that the Treasurer published in the budget, and it would have been scrupulous in its attempt to implement the disclosure of changed information about this entity. It would have disclosed that to the parliament, and would not go through this pantomime of contribution by ministers refusing to even give a date of the apparent board meeting, to resolve to seek relief from payment of this dividend.

We will see what the Auditor-General has to say when we have his report. A new Auditor-General has been appointed, and I wish him well in his challenges in managing to audit not just the finances but also the processes of this government. In the time that I have been here, the report seems to be an ever-thickening number of volumes that come to the parliament each year. I did actually recently have a look at an Auditor-General's Report from about 25 years ago; it was one volume. Now, I think we get about five volumes, which probably tells us something about the concerns that are raised.

It may be that there is just a much greater scrutiny of government operations by the Auditor-General's Department and that there are many more rules and processes to follow. But, sadly, we have an extraordinary and ever-increasing number of matters of concern and matters for comment which are published in the annual report of the Auditor-General. Frequently, we have interim reports relating to entities where there has been some very specific and further investigation by the Auditor-General. That in itself is concerning.

We pay hundreds of millions of dollars to operate the Auditor-General's Department, and we do so because this parliament, through processes of committee referral and the like, appoints the Auditor-General on behalf of the people of South Australia to undertake this very important role of scrutiny.

I have personally sent him this issue. It is, of course, entirely up to him to consider it but I, for one, say to this parliament: I think the government have been derelict in their responsibility—multiple ministers, particularly the Treasurer and Deputy Premier—in advice that they have given in the publication of this budget and in the evidence they have given to this committee and, therefore, they have taken a course, I suggest, of deliberate concealment from the people of South Australia of the real state and plight of this entity.

That is, I think, a disgrace, and they should hang their heads in shame and, quite frankly, it is a matter which the Premier should address. We had this absurd situation, as I say, just in the last couple of days where the Treasurer says, when you ask for further information, 'I don't have that,' and he says, 'I would refer you to the Minister for Planning.' What a joke. He did not have a clue, either, according to his evidence to the committee.

I turn now to other matters which were raised during the course of the estimates committee and I refer, firstly, to the Attorney-General's and courts areas. On the courts matter, the parliament would be aware that we have a separate statutory body, the Courts Administration Authority, which is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is responsible for the general management of the courts. I put that in a general sense. It is not a universal practice for heads of the judiciary to be a head of a government department but, for several decades now, it has operated in South Australia.

I think it has some merit, certainly in its establishment. It was important as an extension of the significant aspects of having a separation of power and independence of the judiciary that the head of the judiciary be the head of the department and, in that way, there would be at least some form of independence in the application of the budgeted money of the government of the day towards the operation of courts and the services that are provided to the public for that important service.

Except for a small amount of court work that is within the purview of the High Court and federal courts, South Australia's state parliament and the state courts deal with the overwhelming majority of court matters for South Australians. They almost exclusively deal with criminal matters. There are some customs and other aspects that are dealt with at a federal level but the criminal conduct of South Australians and the prosecution of those are put through our state courts, and still a very significant amount of our civil litigation and applications made by South Australians to have access to injunctions, protection, compensation and the like are dealt with by our state courts. So it is a very, very important service.

During the course of estimates, the Chief Justice, accordingly, attended the committee as the head of the Courts Administration Authority. I thank him for doing that. He is, obviously, in a senior position. He has an important role to carry out as the chief judicial officer of the state. I want to particularly thank him because, as I say, except for a very small opportunity for him to give some comment to the committee, largely on the government's failure to fulfil judicial vacancies in the District and Magistrates courts, he sat through the estimates time, which was, I think, a couple of hours covering that part of the scrutiny, without any invitation otherwise to make a comment or contribution.

Again, this is an area for which I have been responsible on behalf of the opposition and therefore asked a number of questions on during estimates hearings. In that time former chief justice His Honour John Doyle appeared. He was, particularly under the previous attorney (now Speaker), given the opportunity to outline to the committee aspirations that he had for the development of the Courts Administration Authority and its services, including its infrastructure.

However, this year, even more stunning than the last few years, was the effective exclusion of the invitation to the Chief Justice to be able to make any contribution to the committee. What was even more concerning to me was the frequency at which the Attorney-General would answer questions without even conferring with the Chief Justice. Now, it is possible they had a long briefing before and the Attorney said to the Chief Justice, 'Look, I'm likely to be asked by Chapman a whole lot of questions on this, this and this, what do you think I should say?', or 'What's your view on it?', so that he was fully briefed and able to say to the committee, 'Look, this is the situation'.

But time and time again he had the Chief Justice sitting next to him and time and time again the Attorney-General just said, 'Well, I'll take that on notice.' He did not even have the decency, some level of civility and respect, to the turn to the Chief Justice—whose time is precious, who is trying to run a court system in archaic infrastructure and without his full complement of judges—and inquire, question after question which were taken on notice, what the government's response ought to be.

I think that is indecent, and I think that it shows a level of respect which should be a concern to South Australians, especially in this important area. I will not go through the detail again, but I will say that similarly when the Deputy Premier in his role as Attorney-General for the Attorney-General's Department similarly had the chief executive of that department (who had given evidence this year, as you would expect, before the Budget and Finance Committee of the parliament on a number of the issues raised during estimates) sit next to him, with again an army of advisers who had information either in their head or at their fingertips to be able to provide information to the committee, and he was effectively excluded from both consultation and contribution to the committee. That is, again, contemptuous and insulting, and I think a gross insult to the senior members of the departments.

On the particular issues that were raised was the questioning and request for information to the committee on the abandoned courts precinct project. That is a project which in March this year the Attorney-General announced after years of promises and after two years of direct planning since the announcement of a scoping report was being funded (I think, at some $300,000) to develop a courts precinct and which previous reports given to the committee indicated it was advancing.

In fact, if it had progressed, building would have already started and finished by early 2017. In any event, the government announced that it had been abandoned. As to simple questions to the Attorney up until the abandonment in March this year about the money spent in the nine months of the preceding financial year and any funds that are there for future allocation of this infrastructure project in a new rescope form or otherwise—again, little information.

Yet the government were clearly on notice because, again, the head of the Attorney-General's Department, Mr Persse, and others (I think Ms Burgess, for example) had just in recent months given extensive evidence to the committee about the ongoing project and their involvement in it. So, even a simple question about how much money had been spent so far was unable to be answered.

Here, again, is a classic example of our not only not getting answers from the Attorney-General—who had been publishing the great commitment of the government to build a new courts precinct over the last few years, espousing its virtue, understanding its necessity, obviously promoting its haste up until the day of abandonment—but of his coming to the committee and not being able to answer questions. When pursued about a number of questions in respect of the tender process and the like, he says:

…I think you would probably need to direct those questions to my colleague minister Mulligan because the management of the tender process and all matters associated with that fell within the purview of his department.

Then later:

That would be a matter which I believe minister Mulligan and/or Mr Deegan would probably be best placed to assist you with, because that was their bailiwick.

After a further question, he says:

But, then again, because it is not specifically my business, if you understand what I mean, I have not had myself tuned into those matters in any particular way. So, again, I think I can do nothing better than suggest you inquire of minister Mulligan about those matters.

That was on 22 July. Of course, as I have indicated to illustrate the juvenile behaviour of the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure on these matters, he responded in his committee on 23 July, the next day:

I am not interested in what the Attorney-General does. I am interested in my portfolio of responsibilities—

Well, we have been through how disrespectful that is to his own cabinet colleague. In any event, having been furnished with page of the Hansard on which the Attorney-General had made these statements of which I have just read out, he declined to give any answer to the committee.

Then, of course, on this matter, interestingly again, on the merry-go-round of inquiry, this wild goose chase of inquiry with no answers the committee is sent on—there is certainly no goose at the end—was the statement on 28 July this week when the Treasurer was asked questions by again the member for Schubert about the details of any compensation the government had paid to any of the bidders involved in the courts precinct PPP and other questions in relation to the value of that and other liabilities. And guess what the Treasurer said? This is the Treasurer who is supposed to be in charge of our money, who would be aware that his own government has paid out other compensation payments when the government has failed to advance projects, including, as some members would remember—I am sure the member for Hammond would remember—the aborted prisons project, of which I think there was about $10 million paid out to bidders who had gone to the expense of presenting material.

I can remember statements of treasurer Foley to the parliament explaining that for some reason they suddenly could not afford a $500 million new set of prisons. I bet they wish they had built them now, given the overflowing nature of what we have. They are hanging off the rafters. In fact, I think we have the biggest number of prisoners in prison in the history of the state, as we speak. So, the current Minister for Correctional Services would have been pleased if that had happened. In any event, it was aborted and money had to be paid out in compensation.

Guess what the Treasurer says when he was asked, on 28 July (for members' benefit), only a few days ago? He says, 'I would refer you to minister Mulligan.' Well, what a joke. What a joke. Mr Mulligan says he is not going to answer, after it has been referred to him by the Attorney-General, and when the Treasurer is asked he says, 'Go back to minister Mulligan.' It is just laughable.

If it was not so serious, if we were not talking about the abandonment of the one and only, the most significant, the highly promoted promises of this government to build a new courts precinct and the abandonment of it and the, clearly, years of energy and expertise, including that of the Chief Justice, who has supervised committees and panels for the purposes of looking into the design and development of this project, and the cost that clearly has been associated with that, including a scoping study which we know had a budget of $300,000, it would be laughable if it was not such a serious matter. But here we have this comedy playing out in estimates of the most senior ministers, on the face of it, not having a clue about what is going on and referring it back and forth to each other. I mean, what level of competence is in this cabinet?

So, it is a disturbing situation. For a matter which had been the basis of, I think plea is not an unreasonable word to use, of members of the legal fraternity, not just the former chief justice who had given evidence year after year in the time I have been here of the desperate need for an infrastructure upgrade of the courts. He gave evidence about his incapacity to even access his own courts at one stage when he had an injury overseas and was in a wheelchair. So, not only were the facilities not contemporary but they were of such a poor state and such inaccessibility for wheelchair—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Non-BDA compliant.

Ms CHAPMAN: Indeed. Certainly, the existence of a number of our heritage buildings are plagued with some of the difficulties in accommodating new facilities but because there had not been an upgrade, because there had not been a new precinct for the courts being built, he could not even get into his own court.

Then we had, last year, the extraordinary situation where it was disclosed that there was what I described as a mattress, a plastic covered foam piece of equipment about the size of a single bed mattress, as has subsequently been exposed on mainstream television media, placed at the end of a stairway in the Supreme Court building to avert injury for anyone who might slip down the stairway. It is a disgrace. When I asked this year about the Attorney-General's knowledge of this mattress, now that it had been exposed on statewide television, his answer was that it is not a mattress. Well, what a joke!

Again, that is just dismissive and disrespectful of those who work in the precincts of this court and the South Australians who appear there as claimants, plaintiffs, witnesses, support persons, interpreters—the people who are employed there on a daily basis—all the court staff, reporters and the like. These people have to work in a building in those conditions. Year after year we have heard about that and we have heard from the chief justices who come here, now two of them over a sustained period, and from bodies such as the Law Society of South Australia, the Bar Association and representatives from the Legal Services Commission about the failure to provide that for the people who, at a professional level, work on a daily basis in the precincts of these facilities.

Whilst we have had this public persona and profile of the government espousing this important project, we saw in March this year the government's abandonment of it. The abandonment of this state-of-the-art, highly necessary piece of infrastructure that was being promoted by the government about how good they were in getting a pat on the back for proposing to do it and how they had spruiked it had another direct consequence of not having a reasonable standard of infrastructure and contemporary design.

It has very substantially delayed the introduction of e-technology into the courts—whether that is the electronic filing system or the provision of the tabling and reference to documents that are tendered during trials in relation to video technology that is available for adjacent or off-site witnesses. All sorts of processes have been impeded in their implementation as a result of the inaccessibility into a heritage listed site, which includes the facade around the Sir Samuel Way Building, but particularly relates to the Supreme Court house, the original Supreme Court house on 1 Gouger Street.

I think it is fair to say that the profession and others who were working with the government on developing the new court system had a general understanding of the false economy of progressing to try to implement a number of these advances and technologies that would help to make it more accessible to justice, reduce the cost of administration of justice and the operation of our courts, if the government pursued an attempt to retrofit the old infrastructure rather than building the new. So there was a level of patience—stretched to the limit, but a level of patience—exercised by repeated presidents of the Law Society, presidents of the Bar Association, other leaders and important law stakeholders who accepted on the face of it that it was going to be cheaper, quicker and easier and a lot less waste of money if they just waited until the new courts infrastructure came forward rather than trying to retrofit the old.

I commend them for that. I think they displayed an enormous amount of patience and certainly were keen to work with the government in developing the new project. So they were, understandably, very disappointed at the ultimate announcement of the abandonment of this project.

I also place on the record, in respect of this project and its abandonment and apart from the lack of detail provided to the committee, the disappointment of, and again, the failure to recognise, on behalf of the government and particularly the Attorney-General, the independent judiciary and the profession, but largely those who work in this field. When the government made the announcement—which occurred on 12 March 2015 with a published position in the paper—the prompt response, within a very short time, was that the President of the Bar Association, Mr Andrew Harris QC, published his disquiet (and that is an understatement) and obviously concern about the announcement that there would be a delay in the proposed new court development. He made some fairly scathing comments in respect of the publication on behalf of the South Australian Bar Association.

Bear in mind that at this point the government had not given any notice, other than, 'Look, you can read it in the paper that this project has gone west,' but it was certainly talking about a delay. Shortly after that Mr Harris was sent a letter from the Attorney-General, as the President of the Bar Association from the Attorney-General, which said:

As you have no doubt seen reported in the media, the government recently terminated the existing procurement process for the Courts Precinct Renewal Project. I want to explain to you why the government made this decision.

Government must ensure that value for money considerations are paramount when making decisions concerning infrastructure spending. The proposal put to government did not meet this requirement, although the design was certainly fit for purpose.

The government continues to recognise the need for the courts to be renewed, although not at a cost that does not represent value for taxpayers. The government will now consider further options

I will continue to advocate for investment in the courts. Further consideration of a courts precinct development and IT provision will now occur in the context of regular budget deliberations. I will keep you updated on progress.

Well, guess what? There was not much of an update. There was an announcement by the government in the budget speech by the Treasurer that there would be some window-dressing in maintenance of the facade of the Sir Samuel Way Building, that there would be provision of some funds to overhaul the current primitive case filing system, and that there was an allocation of $20 million in funding for an electronic case management system in the courts. However, it is a far cry, as one would expect them to say, from the proposed state-of-the-art court building that was being spruiked by the government.

There was further disappointment that day. Whilst the Attorney had allocated his department money to do some justice reinvestment review and inquiries, there is absolutely no money in the budget to follow through with any projects that might be recommended from that inquiry with the view to, in theory at least, reduce the dependence and use of the court systems—length of trials, etc.,—so that whatever was to come out of those trials would be more effective (crime prevention models and the like). There was absolutely no money to them for initiation. We will have to wait until next year for any advance, it seems, on whether the government is going to even progress those initiatives with any funding.

Quite clearly, during estimates the Attorney-General talked about a five to eight year time frame realistically before this is even back on the agenda as far as the court precinct project goes. That means that we will continue to have archaic infrastructure. We will continue to have what the former chief justice described as the worst superior courts in the nation. We will continue to have what I suggest is an unsafe and unsatisfactory workplace and a public precinct where members of the public, when they require the services of the courts for enforcement of their rights, their lawful protection and entitlements to compensation, are faced with that disgraceful level of infrastructure.

Secondly, in the estimates was the indication by the government that they are not giving any commitment to fulfil the vacancies for judges in the District Court and Magistrates Court, two in the first and one in the latter, or even a commitment to replace the Chief Judge of the District Court. Whilst the Attorney was prepared to say that there would always be a chief judge, because of course he has power to appoint one of the existing judges to undertake the role, a commitment to replace the Chief Judge on his retirement in the next 18 months or so has not been provided for.

After quite a bit of questioning about that, the Attorney-General then announced, I think to the shocked surprise of the Chief Justice sitting next to him, that he is considering a restructure of the courts. From the media that followed that—although the Chief Justice made no public statement that I am aware of—from other legal stakeholders, it was totally new to them. His ultimate excuse for not filling the vacancies so that the courts can administer its services and obligations to South Australians was to say that he is now considering a restructure of the courts. That could appear, on the face of the model that he floated—that is, having a permanent appeal court and one superior court and a magistracy—effectively the abolition of the District Court.

I had occasion to reread the debates of the late Len King, who was member for Coles, attorney-general in the 1970s in this parliament and later a long-serving and well-respected chief justice of the Supreme Court. He was, at the time of the establishment of the District Court, the attorney-general responsible. Very powerful arguments were presented to the then parliament, under the Dunstan administration, about the efficiency of operating a District Court to do a significant amount of criminal law—that it would be cheaper, more efficient, and so on. They were very persuasive arguments, sufficiently so that the then Dunstan government established a District Court. The parliament passed that and the government appointed District Court judges to undertake the role.

I have not heard the Attorney make any public statement in his time as Attorney since 2010 to suggest that there is some deficiency in the operation of the District Court or the Supreme Court. There may be a valid reason for introducing a permanent court of appeal; some other state jurisdictions have that. I have not heard of that personally, but I think by the sort of shocked look on the Chief Justice's face, it was probably the first time he had heard about this novel approach that was apparently under active consideration by the Attorney.

I would suggest to the house that, whilst he might have been thinking about it, he certainly had not shared it with the general legal fraternity, let alone the judicial hierarchy, as to what his intentions are in this regard and what he is thinking, and he certainly has not brought it in here for consideration at the public debate level or extended any issues paper. His department has been pretty prolific in putting out issues papers on every possible thing you can think of since the 2014 election, probably because he has run out of ideas and needs to harvest a few from the rest of the state, but there is no mention of the restructure of the courts that I can find in the documentation he has produced to date. In any event, that was his answer to not filling the judicial vacancies that are currently vacant, separate from those which are long standing which have not been filled over a number of years.

Finally, can I just say in respect of his contribution to the estimates committee, which I thought was appallingly deficient at best, there was his attempt to present to the committee about the ongoing profit making of the Victims of Crime Fund under his jurisdiction, which is now running at a net $40 million a year increase to that fund. It is a fund which is now over $200 million and which is now running at an estimated $40 million a year that it is going to make over and above payments out for legislated purposes, including provision of victims' services, the operation of the Victims of Crime Commission, various other projects that it has, and the payment of compensation to victims of crime.

Even with the foreshadowed legislative increases to the amount available to the most catastrophically injured, the extra provision for bearing costs and the provision of service for counselling for children of victims of murders—even with all of those initiatives which are under consideration by the parliament in another bill—it is going to make $40 million a year.

What came out of the committee inquiry in relation to this, I suggest, was a pathetic attempt by the Attorney to make it look like he did not have any choice in the ever-accumulating fund that was burgeoning with money and that that was all under the control of the Treasurer. He gave some weak, limp-wristed, pathetic contribution on the fact that he was thinking about some men's training program to deal with domestic violence which, incidentally, when I come to minister Gago shortly, she did not seem to have a clue about.

In any event, that was his excuse for allowing this fund to keep increasing at $40 million, that he was thinking about dealing with this pressing and clear problem of domestic violence in this state, and that he is thinking about some projects that he might bring to the parliament for consideration. Why? Because, more than likely, he will need amendment to the legislation to implement them.

I and other members of this house have made public statements here and in the general public arena which support the fact that domestic violence is a scourge in our community, that there are women and children in particular who are victims daily, including of murder, in this state, and yet we have a burgeoning fund for victims of crime and the Attorney comes into the estimates and tells us he is thinking about a possible program that he might activate.

So, when he is asked, 'Well, we have got the victims of crime legislation open; do you think you might consider adding into it a charter to develop some programs to apply for the benefits of these victims in order to help with anger management training and the like of people who perpetuate these crimes, or directly to the victims, or advertising campaigns to make people more aware, or information that might be available to victims or to people who suspect they may be in a risk situation as to where they might get protection, or extra provisions to deal with the coronial inquiries in which women and children have been victims of domestic violence and have died at the behest of crimes such as these?', the answer is no, he did not even think about whether he might do that.

Did he think about whether he might, on the other hand, with this burgeoning amount of money accumulating, which is there to bolster the Treasurer's budget, give some relief to some of the people who are convicted of crimes, and in particular, children? He admitted to the committee he was aware that magistrates had no capacity to have any discretion to relieve the obligation for levies to be imposed when those children are convicted. So, unless their parents come up with the money (assuming they have parents who are in a position to make those contributions), we have this burgeoning amount of unpaid levies and fines that apply to children. He, as the Attorney-General, knows about that.

Did he offer to the committee, when asked about whether there might be some relief to children who are victims, anything in relation to whether there could be some discretion to give to magistrates to suspend the operation of that, in light of the circumstances where we have this burgeoning amount of money accumulating in the coffers of the Treasurer's office? No. He came back with this pathetic excuse that he was really under the control of the Treasurer—the Treasurer had all the power.

The Attorney-General happens to be the Deputy Premier and he is a member of the cabinet, and I think it woefully irresponsible on his part to not have acted to ensure that these funds are either applied for the purpose which they are being harvested, or that there be some relief from the operation of those, particularly in circumstances where the government has no hope in hell of recovering that money.

I have dealt with the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. His contribution was arrogant and juvenile, and I am not going to keep going on about it. I will just make one observation in respect of his puff and wind about the great contribution his government is giving to infrastructure in this state. Every single group, whether it is Business SA, the CCF, the Master Builders Association and SACOME (which of course deals with mining and resources), has been publishing submissions and repeatedly presenting to the government the need for infrastructure in this state, whether it is in roads, bridges, or deep sea ports.

These are things that have been around for years, and yet we have seen a plummeting in the allocation of funds for infrastructure in an environment which I think is very dangerous: namely, high unemployment and a number of large and small entities who rely on a continuous flow of work in this area to be able to stay financially alive, or alternatively, to stay in the state and not go to greener pastures in other states to be able to pursue it.

To see a situation where we have gone from $1 billion, $1½ billion to $2 billion a year in infrastructure down to something like half a billion dollars a year is despairing. I do not know whether the minister walks with his hands over his head saying, 'I can't hear, I'm not listening,' like some two year old or whether he has actually read some of these submissions and understands the importance of the continuous and regular provision of government contracts for infrastructure. Our own leader has invited him to bring forward some of what the Treasurer has already allocated to use to advance further infrastructure. I just think it is juvenile and arrogant.

Finally, I conclude on the performance of the Minister for the Status of Women. The current minister, who is a member of the other place, I think is the longest serving minister for the status of women in the parliament. Previously, I can recall the Hon. Steph Key (the member for Ashford) was the first minister I dealt with and worked with, I think, quite cooperatively, at the time of the establishment of the then new Rann government. Anyway, the current minister is long serving, and can I just highlight a couple of things about her contribution to Estimates Committee B.

It fulfilled my general expectation that it would be disappointing, at best, and display a level of ignorance, at worst. I do not think it was incompetence, and she has, generally, a desire to do good things for the recognition of women in public and private life; I think she is genuine in that regard. But she came to the committee again, after all those years of experience, petulant in her refusal to even address the fact that ministers in the cabinet are not doing what the government promised in their targets and their obligations to ensure that women are represented not just on boards and in high levels of departments, but in ministers' offices.

Under the Hon. Steph Key, we used to have not just compliance but also pride in ministers' offices recognising a complement of women advisers and the like, but now we do not even get that. She could not even tell me the breakdown of females in her own ministerial offices.

Mr Picton: Yes, she did.

Ms CHAPMAN: No, she didn't.

Mr Picton: She did. I was there.

Ms CHAPMAN: She claimed that there was a majority.

Mr Picton: She said that there was only one guy.

Ms CHAPMAN: That was in the office of the Minister for the Status of Women, not all areas of her ministerial responsibility, and the interjecting member might observe she does have some areas of responsibility. I know it would be hard to pick sometimes, but she does. There was a wealth of advisers, which she is entitled to have appointed, in her other areas of ministerial responsibility. She had the opportunity to come to the parliament and say, 'Look what I've done. This is important. This is an advance of the government.' Has she had a little bo-peep at what is happening in the Premier's office or the Deputy Premier's office or the Treasurer's office (that is a real winner)?

She came back to the committee again this year and did not even say, 'I've actually taken this up with my cabinet colleagues and our government is committed to this not just in statements but in deed and, as the representative for the status of women, I have been taking this matter up and I can report to the committee, confidently, that there has been an advance in this area and this area.' She said, 'The member for Bragg asks me that question every year and I'm not going to give it to her.'

Here is an opportunity for her to make a difference. She is a senior member of the cabinet. She is the Leader of the Government in another place. She is not someone who has just been preselected for the Labor Party last week. She has been here all the time I have been here in the last 14 years. She has been a minister and in a senior role for a large part of that, yet we have this pathetic rejection of any invitation to advise the parliament what they have been doing and doing well.

For all the rhetoric about domestic violence, the biggest disappointment to me this year was the minister's advice to the committee that the Premier's Council for Women had not even been sent or referred the amendments to the intervention orders which were recently passed in this parliament for the protection of women and children in domestic violence situations. Now she says, quite correctly (and I agree with this, and I did in the committee and I do every year), that the Premier's Council for Women set their own agenda—they look at the matters they consider important; and, in fact, apparently they did a survey to identify what the community thinks important and they have taken up and identified a number of issues.

One of them is domestic violence. So would you not think that the first thing that the Minister for the Status of Women would do would be to send a letter to the chair or co-chairs of the Premier's Council for Women and say, 'Dear council, given your indication of commitment to working with and developing processes and programs to deal with domestic violence, the scourge of this issue in our community, I would like to bring to your attention the proposed legislation by the government (it's going to be introduced by the Attorney-General) to deal with the fix-up in relation to improving, apparently, the intervention order process for you to have a look at.' Would you think that you would even have just the wit to do that—not to direct them, not to insist that they look at it but to even ask for their advice to consider it? No. As usual, she is asleep at the wheel on this, and it is very concerning.

I listened to the minister's statements on a number of occasions in respect of her personal commitment to the advancement of women, the representation of women in public and private life and the protection of women in a number of areas and I accept that they are genuine, but, frankly, she has either got to follow through or the Premier has to rethink who is going to be in charge of this important area.

Finally, can I say that the budget is, of course, generally a disappointment. The processes of the government in its elaboration of its budget in the Estimates Committee does not resolve the fact that the government has decided to increase the emergency services levy revenue, to close the Repatriation General Hospital, to significantly downgrade and close in some areas the emergency departments at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Noarlunga and Modbury hospitals and that the state debt will still reach a massive $37.7 billion by 2017.

There were no new major infrastructure projects that have even been earmarked. The government has broken its commitment to create the 100,000 new jobs by 2016—and daily we hear the pathetic response of the government, particularly the Premier, as to the capacity for that to ever be anything other than a dream—and the government's broken promise not to sell state-owned assets, including the sale of the Motor Accident Commission.

I mention the privatisation of the insurance in respect of this area (and I think a bill is to be introduced today) for the future regulation of that area (currently government business) which is going to be open to the general private market, but in addition to that the failure to put back any funds which it has previously raided out of the Motor Accident Commission and its further carnivorous raid on the Motor Accident Commission all are to be condemned.

South Australians are already in a situation where we have a massive unemployment rate, the worst in the country, a scandalous rate in the northern suburbs of youth unemployment and no recipe or pathway out of it, and in that sense the budget is very disappointing. I just see it as a misrepresentation. If the government were in the corporate world it would be prosecuted for misrepresentation to suggest that this is a budget which is designed to be a jobs budget when clearly it is not.

Can I ask the government, as I have been watching the publications of the Centre for Economic Studies—from time to time the government seem to pick up its recommendations when it suits them and ignore when it does not—to read a series of current publications, and the second was published just this week, dealing with, essentially, the demise of certain manufacturing industries in South Australia—some of them are prominently well known, of course, the car industry for example, but there are a number of others—and how we might ensure that we have and maintain manufacturing industries and job opportunities for South Australia.

The publication in this series is titled: 'Where do we go from here? South Australia's Economic Prospects Going Forward and the Role of Government'. Can I urge that they read it, every single one of the cabinet, and recognise that the policy deficiencies that they are proposing are in direct contradiction to what is being recommended here, and what is given, and what is known.

What they highlight is that certainly total manufacturing employment in South Australia has continued to be under pressure, largely because of the demise of manufacturing and the overall loss relating to motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts manufacturing. However, there have been some signs of hope, they tell us, in relation to the development of jobs in food production. They particularly highlight meat and meat products, seafood, dairy and fruit and vegetable processing, and grain milling and bakery products as an area for opportunity.

They make the important observation, which the government should take notice of, that other identifiable areas showing some growth are in transport equipment, specialised machinery and equipment manufacturing, and other machinery and equipment manufacturing, which they point out largely appears to be on the back of the growth of sectors in agriculture, horticulture, etc., and the development of manufacturing they have identified. But they say that the focus for policymakers, business and employees should be on, and I quote:

what are the sustainable factors, natural and created, that South Australia can use to advantage to have competitive and growing manufacturing businesses in very specialised areas; and

what are the regulatory; other public policy issues, such as defence or nuclear cycle policies; and cost and training issues that might hinder or support such growth?

They talk about the comparisons with other states, which is rather distressing reading actually, but, nevertheless, it gives us a wake-up call as to South Australia's position in this, but they say here, on page 17 in particular:

The public policy responses are particularly important in the South Australian context as on current trends our workforce and local tax base will be declining faster in relation to the overall South Australian population than will be the case in most other States. How we sustain our living standards relative to the other States will therefore likely depend increasingly critically on how effectively local public policy responses impact workforce productivity; business investment and profitability; industrial adaptiveness and flexibility; and the efficiency and efficacy of public sector spending.

They later say:

Returning to the issues of which sectors can grow relatively faster to help improve South Australia's economy relative to the rest of the States, we should not try to pick winners. We can, however, discuss what may be the 'right conditions' for increasing sectoral and overall employment and income growth.

So I ask the government to have a little look at what is being done to try and help the government understand where it is to go. The Treasurer seems to be clueless. The Premier keeps defending his aspirational targets of employment and trying to pretend that it is all still a problem from the GFC and other nonsense. The Minister for Trade, who is pretty new to his job, has been making, I think, some general statements which support the direction in which we should be going, but his influence in cabinet seems to be zilch because he has not actually attracted any outcome from that. In fact, he has not even been able to convince the representatives of the cabinet to stay at the ALP National Conference last week to insist, as Simon Crean suggests, that the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement be advanced.

Surely he would have said, 'Look, Premier, if you're going to dip out of the conference and not hang around for that debate, can you send me or send somebody else so that we can have a say on this and make sure this is passed and that they are not playing politics with it over there to prop up the federal Labor leader in Canberra in further debate on it. Get it passed. It is important for South Australia.'

So, for the Minister for Trade to stand here as a member of the government, of the cabinet, and say, 'Yes, well, actually it's got some merit,' and then have the Premier of the cabinet he sits in abandon even the opportunity to make sure it passes in the federal convention of the ALP is just ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous. It indicates to me that they are all very good on the rhetoric but refuse to actually address the big issue.

If I could give you one example of how absurd the policy of the government is, it is that it is in direct contradiction to what groups such as the Centre for Economic Studies at the universities of Adelaide and South Australia contribute to public policy debate. Just let me give you a little insight into an example of the ridiculous, superficial and ineffective policy they perpetuate without understanding the significance to the state.

When the government announced its new WorkReady program which was to have a new regime of how they would fund training places, in particular to provide for training within the TAFE structure and to rip away from the independent sector those training organisations that had developed and taken on employees in the genuine expectation that they would have a longstanding and productive contribution to the provision of training for South Australians, because this was a repeated policy direction of the government, before that was ripped away the government announced that instead of there being a major expansion for funding in rural training places in certificate III in agriculture, it announced that there would be 20.

The Centre for Economic Studies says this is an area of high performance. It has actually been an area of high performance in value-adding in manufacturing and food production. It actually is in the equipment that goes with it and the transport and other development of material that is necessary to pursue that. What does the government do? It not only totally sabotages a well functioning training industry in this state and rips out the jobs of people who are in those industries, it then announces a policy for 20 funded rural training places.

Compared to that—and this is what I want to highlight here—this is the government's priority. The government's priority in this ill-fated WorkReady program it has introduced for training is it wants to have 120 places for a diploma in screen and media, it wants to have 110 places for a certificate II in retail make-up and skin care, it wants 100 places for design and decoration, unlimited places for a certificate in painting and decorating, unlimited places for retail baking for cake and pastry, unlimited places for watch and clock service and repairs. I mean, I ask you: where is there a document from any reputable economist that tells you that the future of South Australia's prosperity, and in fact survival, is in make-up? It is scandalous.

Let's not pretend that you can have a blueprint policy revival for everything that is a train wreck financially in this state—we cannot. The government pretends and comes in here making statements about small projects, boutique and embryonic as they might be. If there is some advance in some major makeup and skincare company that is going to move to South Australia and set up their headquarters here, I have not heard it. In any event, if there is going to be some burgeoning industry in this field, let's have a look at it. Let's see if we are going to have a lipstick-led recovery in this state or whether we are going to have a cabinet that wakes up and understands the responsibility it has.

The cabinet needs to think about those children out in the northern suburbs. The Premier came in here this week to say that he is going to have the formal launch for the Stretton Centre later this week to develop public policy to help the people of the north. He could think about whether that is going to be the answer. He needs to have a good think about his future decisions and understand that the performance of his ministers in the estimates has been a disgrace, and the ignorance of the Treasurer in presenting some of these proposals for publication in this year's budget has been an utter failure to the people of South Australia.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (12:31): I promise you I will speak for less time than the deputy leader.

Mr Pederick: Well, that is because you have to.

Mr PICTON: Because I have to. I note that we heard a good two-hour contribution from the member for Bragg and I think it is a good lesson for new members such as myself to never plan on speaking directly after the deputy leader because you are never quite sure at which point you are going to be speaking. You wonder whether you should go to the toilet, but what if she finishes? Then occasionally she will say things like 'in conclusion' and you think here is my chance, I am ready to go, and then out comes another pile of papers and another whole speech starts.

I will speak briefly on the estimates process that we have just gone through. I was very happy to be a member of estimates committee B throughout the process. I was not lucky enough to be part of your committee, Deputy Speaker, on estimates committee A, but I hear that you did a very good job there. I can certainly congratulate the chair of estimates committee B, the member for Little Para, on the excellent work he did in chairing that committee. I think that all the ministers who presented to our committee did a good job in explaining their aspects of the budget and answering the many and varied questions that we had.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: That was my committee.

Mr PICTON: That's right. The Minister for Disabilities and Police was certainly there as one of the witnesses and I think he did a very good job. I have to say I think that the level of aggression and the tone of the committee was a lot better than estimates committee A from what I read in Hansard and it was generally quite pleasant on both sides. People asked their questions and got the opportunity to hear a response and it all worked quite well.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Because the member for Hammond wasn't there.

Mr PICTON: That's right. That's a bit of a slur.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

Mr PICTON: Did he? Outrageous! I congratulate all the ministers we had. The Minister for the Environment was the first up, then the Minister for Higher Education, the Minister for Communities, the Minister for Disabilities as I said, and the Minister for Local Government were those I was there for. I sadly missed one day of the committee but I am sure that worked really well as well. I congratulate the many staff who spent an outrageous amount of time preparing for the estimates process so that they could be asked questions on a very slim range of topics that they had prepared for. I am informed that the general process provides some benefit in terms of the government in being up-to-date with all of its briefings, so I am sure that that is of some benefit.

I think this whole process when we come back from estimates and have the opportunity to make speeches on what happened in the estimates process is quite an interesting time. It usually seems to be where members of the opposition get up and either (a) tell the parliament what great things they have found out in estimates to score some political point or other or (b) get up and complain about the estimates process and say that the government was stonewalling or the whole system is skewed against them and we need some new system. I think that people who give a speech in category (b) tend to be the ones who did not really have much of a strategy going into estimates and did not really find out anything of any political value to them, so they get up and complain about the process.

This is, of course, the same process that has been around for a very long time, it is the same process that was in place when we were in opposition and, I am reliably informed, there were a lot of revelations that came out about the Brown and Olsen governments through the estimates process whereas we have seen very few revelations come out in this estimates process. We have had a lot of speeches complaining about the process itself but nobody on the other side has actually come up with any ideas on what they would like to do that is different; they just complain and say that we have a bad process and it should be fixed.

No matter what the process is, I think we have very good ministers and they will present well no matter what estimates process there is. If there were good people in the opposition then they would find good questions to ask and they might find some interesting revelations. Unfortunately for the opposition that did not happen in this estimates, and we had very few revelations.

One change to that usual flow of the two complaints—or either a complaint or success at some revelation—that we hear in opposition speeches is that today we have heard, from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, a third category of estimates speech: that is, complaining about the media during estimates.

Mr GARDNER: Point of order. I am not sure that the member for Kaurna is either correct in that assertion or indeed reflecting on the merits of the motion in question.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will listen carefully, and will ask you to listen in silence. We have listened mostly in silence to the member for Bragg for a long—

Mr Gardner: Up until now I have been—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; there is no excuse for it. I have listened to the member for Bragg, as has nearly everybody else in this chamber, almost entirely in silence this morning. I just—

Mr Gardner interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I said almost entirely, and I ask you to extend the same courtesy to the member for Kaurna, to whom I am now giving my total and undivided attention.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The member for Morialta, in his interjection (as I will call it, rather than a point of order), said that he was not sure whether I was correct in saying that the deputy leader did criticise the media in her speech about estimates. I have to confirm for him that, sadly, she did. She stood up in this place and said that the media was more interested in the performance or lack thereof of the committee process than the substance of the information being provided. She said that was disappointing, and she asked them to look carefully at the level of publication they are giving to matters raised in estimates. She said, in relation to the Urban Development Authority, that there appeared to be 'little concern from our friends in the media'.

That is an outrageous slur upon the media in this state, and I think the media deserves an apology from the deputy leader. My impression is that we have a very good media in this state and that they do an excellent job. If the deputy leader is upset about any reporting, or lack thereof, that she got from the estimates process, then that is because of the opposition's strategy or lack of strategy during that process. If she had wanted to highlight any particular matters she could have done that, she could have sent out press releases, she could have held press conferences (she did not do any of those things) about the matters she was so concerned about. She is now blaming the media for not reporting on particular matters when it is she herself who should look at her conduct during estimates and consider whether her strategy was right or not.

I think that generally, in government, the media is usually criticising us; that is what happens. However, we do not get in here every time the media criticises us and make a speech about how awful the media are and that they need to look carefully at themselves, that they show little concern and are not caring about the substance of the information—but that is exactly the deputy leader did today.

I think that if she wants to be leader of her party, as we understand she does, then she needs to stop attacking the media and needs to actually do some hard work in the estimates process and outside the estimates process in terms of developing policies, developing what the Liberal Party stands for. Then she might get some better media reporting than the reporting she is complaining about. I would like to hope that before question time she will stand up and offer a personal explanation and apologise for what she said about the media, because I think that was absolutely disgraceful conduct from such a senior person in the Liberal Party.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:40): I rise after a blistering performance from the member for Bragg and a less than insightful performance from the member for Kaurna. Be that as it may, I rise to speak in the aftermath of estimates, which is a rather interesting process—and some people think it is an absurd process. Certainly, the member for Kaurna reflected that the opposition do not put up any ways the process can be improved. Well, yes we do and yes we have many years running in respect of some ministers who have the courage to sit up and say, 'Well, give it to me,' like the former member for Port Adelaide, Kevin Foley, which he did regularly. That is the one thing that I will give him credit for. One or two ministers in this place for estimates and in the other place basically did the same thing, but they were very much in the minority.

The sad thing is that we have got ministers who seek the protection from that dinosaur of parliament, Dorothy—Dorothy Dixer, the dinosaur. She raised her ugly head many times during estimates. I think it is, quite frankly, an abuse of process when the government ask questions of themselves that could be asked inside closed doors, inside their own party room. It would certainly give us a lot more opportunity to ask questions on our side, when we do not have department of thousand or more behind us, so that we can get some valuable information for our electorates.

I certainly note that in one of the estimates I was involved in the Minister for Regional Development was constantly shielded with either Dorothy, that ageing dinosaur, or with his staff providing answers. I congratulate the ministers that take it on the chin and say essentially the same as the former member for Port Adelaide, 'Well, give it to me,' but the others, well, I think it leaves a lot to be desired.

The interesting thing in the budget, and what we found during estimates, is that there are fewer jobs this year than were proposed in last year's budget. We have got a jobless rate of 8.2 per cent currently. I note that in a major town in my electorate the jobless rate is currently at 10.6 per cent. We have increased registration costs for our good people throughout the state and we have a rise in the emergency services levy once again, which essentially, for a homeowner with a $500,000 house, would mean a rise of $205. This was in regards to the cost of the Sampson Flat bushfire.

Well, I would hate to see, when we have a very busy bushfire season, and maybe five, six or seven, or worse, big events, what is going to happen then. Are we just going to have the emergency services levy jacked right up every time we have an incident? It is absolutely outrageous to think that the government can throw this land tax on the good people of this state and then expect our 13,000 plus volunteer firefighters and the CFS, of which I am one—and there are many members on the side who are—to go out and fight these fires.

I think there should be better management of what goes on instead of coming up with ideas of reform, as the Minister for Emergency Services did and then had to drop, but not until he lost a very good man, the head of the Metropolitan Fire Service, Grant Lupton. We need far better ideas about how we manage these events instead of just slugging the poor taxpayers of this state.

We also see that it was said in the budget that the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital will close, and I congratulate the veterans and their friends out the front of this place who are into well over 100 days of protest over that closure. I just cannot understand. It just shows that the member for Waite has become one of the comrades. The Daw Park Repatriation Hospital is right in his electorate, just on the edge of his electorate.

Not only has he been a traitor and gone over to the other side from this side of the house, and signed up as a minister with all the perks, the car and the money, but now he has obviously had the secret handshake and said, 'Yes, I will go along with that because I probably won't get elected again anyway.' He is shafting not only the constituents of his electorate but the state of South Australia, and I think it is utterly disgraceful not just for him but for the whole Labor Party.

What will happen with hospitals like Daw Park and the other changes that are happening is that it will mean more travel for regional residents. We are already seeing the impacts of changes in Goolwa, in that end of my electorate, where people cannot be triaged at Goolwa Medical Centre anymore: they have to go to Victor Harbor, which is at least half an hour by road.

There are many elderly citizens in Goolwa and in aged-care facilities and the like, and it is affecting them. I have written to the health minister about several of these people who have had terrible experiences, and he had better come back with a good answer to why the health services in the south have suddenly gone backwards. Also, we see in the budget that there are no new major infrastructure projects to keep this state going and get employment back on track.

What I want to talk about now is the Department of Primary Industries and Regions estimates and a subject I have been campaigning on for quite a while now, that is, the New Zealand/long-nosed fur seals, which is the new name so that people realise that they are actually a native seal. I acknowledge that, but for many years now they have been called the New Zealand fur seal. I asked the whether the government had instigated a new management plan for the commercial Lakes and Coorong fishery.

I reminded the minister that three years ago I called for a plan to implement an overabundant native species management plan to tackle the New Zealand fur seal problem which, as I stated in the estimates, has now become a crisis. I asked whether the management plan noted in the targets included such management of fur seals, whether the minister had received any advice from the department on what measures would be used to tackle the fur seal problem and whether any assistance was being offered to the Lakes and Coorong fishers.

The minister said that he shared the concerns and noted that, yes, from SARDI research there are about 100,000 and that they are growing at about 5 per cent. The minister noted, 'One thing we have ruled out is a cull,' but he is saying that pretty much every other option is out there. He talked about the acoustic deterrents that are going to be tried and, from my understanding, explosive underwater crackers are also going to be tried. These things should have been tried at least three years ago. This has been an issue that has been in the Coorong and Lower Lakes—Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina—for at least eight years.

Professor Mehdi Doroudi, who I have a great respect for, helped the minister out with some of the answers on what they are going to do. I will quote this section from Mehdi:

To start with, in collaboration with the environment department we came up with about a $100,000 cash investment to investigate modified gear and technologies that could address the issue by separating seals from attacking the fish tangled in their mesh nets.

Also, when he was asked about how they are going to assist fishermen (and I am thinking more along the regulatory process and the managing of the licence), he said:

For instance, we have a policy of owner-operator in marine scale fishery where you need to own the licence to be able to operate on the boats.

He also mentioned how they came up with 28 days of relief for boat masters, and also that:

[They] are in discussion with industry to increase that to about three months for the Lakes and Coorong because one of the ways that they can better address their fishing activity is if they could have relief masters and get inspections of their nets quicker than the normal way they do; therefore, they can collect the fish and harvest the fish before they are damaged by seals.

This is a constant conversation. The minister in the other place (Hon. Ian Hunter) keeps saying, 'We are asking the fishers to change their practices.' Well, they have been doing that for years and still getting hit with a huge impact by these New Zealand/long-nosed fur seals. In fact, one fisher, who has a 100-net licence, only strings 12 nets at a time because he cannot get around them quick enough before they are severely damaged.

Professor Mehdi Doroudi also talked about relief of fees, and he did admit that matter is under consideration and that the government are looking into that. He said there is a possibility to work with those with mesh nets, or withdraw the fees to stop them from paying that. He also said:

That is a matter that needs further discussion with the Treasury and we need to look into regulatory aspects to see how we can help them.

During estimates, I also asked about the $100,000 that was recently announced by the minister in the other place, and the percentage that PIRSA were paying. I also asked:

…when this fishery is decimated, and I believe it will be, because this is just ridiculous how slowly any action needed is taken, will the minister buy out licences and fully compensate fishers..?

The minister said that cost of the $100,000 trial process of acoustic and explosive devices is being shared on a fifty-fifty basis, and, 'in relation to the buyout we are not ruling anything in or out'. I guess that gives some hope to people who are actually considering getting out of the industry. To be truthful, some of these people are right on the edge, and their families are very concerned for their wellbeing.

In another question, I asked about time payment licence relief. I did note, in my question, the huge support for my motion in relation to an overabundant native species management plan, including a sustainable harvest of New Zealand/long-nosed fur seals. In regard to that, I will be tabling a petition later today that has close to 1,600 signatures calling for the same thing.

In light of that, I note that Coorong council has unanimous support for my motion and certainly the Ngarrindjeri (the local Aboriginal tribe), through the Ngarrindjeri Regional Authority, have full support for getting rid of this feral pest out of the waters of the Coorong, Lakes Albert and Alexandrina, and the River Murray. In fact, when I talked to one of their representatives earlier this week and asked him about support for my motion, he said, 'We want it eradicated; work that out for yourself.'

I know there is a meeting tomorrow between the Ngarrindjeri and the minister, because the government needs to take on board what they are saying. The Ngarrindjeri are over having their totems, pelicans, native birds, swans and musk ducks attacked. You only have to go to the 'Save Mr Percival' Facebook page to see the damage that these fur seals are impacting on our environment. I believe they are posing a major threat to our Ramsar status in the Coorong and lakes Albert and Alexandrina.

I note that the minister commented, 'To talk about the cull, we all remember the images out of Canada a few years ago of fur seals.' Never have I said that we should be clubbing fur seals, but the comment I did make during estimates was, 'It did not stop tourists going to Canada, minister.' There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done, and it should have been done long ago. The professor talked about issues of buyback and that sort of thing and it is under consideration, evidently.

One thing that was not brought out in estimates in the answers from the minister was the simple fact that of all the absurd things that have been looked at by this government in the last 12-month period on the seal issue was the fact that there had actually been a conversation between the tourism department and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources in regard to building a viewing platform at the Goolwa Barrages. What an outrageous proposal, to spend $112,000 to put up a viewing site so that people could look at the fur seals coming in to attack our native birds, our pelicans and our fish, and just cause havoc. Of all the absurd proposals I have ever heard, for a viewing platform! Some of the email conversation went along like this:

It has been brought to [someone's] attention that the South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC) has several million dollars available to fund projects that promote tourism in SA. They have contacted the DEWNR as they have had trouble spending the money. You mentioned a viewing platform for Long-nosed fur seals—

I assume DEWNR have mentioned that in all their wisdom—

—at our meeting a few weeks ago, but that didn't eventuate due to lack of funding. Wondering if this funding might be an opportunity to get your idea about a viewing platform happening?

The project needs to be matched dollar for dollar and be ready by September, but, as this was an existing idea, plans may already be created.

Yes, there are plans put to work through water-engineering technologies at SA Water for the design, fabrication and installation of an anodised aluminium walkway platform. It specifies that the walkway will have three gates with key-type locks, walkway mesh, 316 stainless steel fasteners insulated from aluminium components, chemical anchors to be used to fasten the walkway to the weir, and the list goes on.

The thing that gets me in all of this carnage that is happening to our environment in my electorate and in adjoining electorates, is the stupidity of the ministers in charge of these departments to let this type of work go on when this should never happen—it should never happen. It never fails to amaze me the fact that, after all the pleading of industry, after all the people in my electorate to get some action, the government makes out it has done a good job to come up with $100,000 to try out some acoustic devices and some underwater crackers to scare the seals. Yet here we see something that was certainly in discussion in December 2014—over seven months ago now—plans were drawn up by then to put a viewing platform at the Goolwa Barrages. How outrageous!

The next thing we will see is a ridiculous proposal to lay bitumen along Goolwa Beach so that people can watch the New Zealand/long-nosed fur seals invade the Coorong from that angle. I have seen some crazy things in my time, but this one tops the cake; it tops the list. It is just crazy stuff and it shows how out of touch this South Australian government really is. It really needs to stand up and listen to the Ngarrindjeri and have a look at what is going on down there, the carnage that is happening to pelicans especially, the musk ducks and swans. As we approach the native bird and migratory bird breeding season, the government really needs to have a proper look at this and stop coming up with mickey mouse ideas about viewing platforms at the Goolwa Barrages. One local said to me, 'What are they going to do? Put gun rests on there as well?' That is how ridiculous a notion this is.

The people of my community want to see some real action and some real funding. I know it is not Labor electorates but the world will stand up and take notice when our Ramsar listing for the Coorong, Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina comes under threat, and I believe it will. Perhaps then we might see a minister sit up and take notice. They may not care about the 33 fishing licences that are down there.

Time expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.