Motions

Port Pirie Unemployment Rate

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:31): I move:

That this house calls on the member for Frome to take advantage of his position as a cabinet minister and compels the Labor government to immediately address the jobs crisis and economic decline impacting the Port Pirie community; and—

(a) provide residents with job certainty;

(b) stem the flow of young people out of the region and South Australia;

(c) ensure vital industries are sustainable and have the opportunity to grow;

(d) give our regions the attention they deserve and desperately need;

(e) recognise that Port Pirie can play an important role in South Australia's economic recovery; and

(f) avoid the social harm caused by unemployment.

There are two key numbers, to me, in presenting this motion to the house, and they are sad ones, I must say. If I can start with our young people first, and the minister will know that this affects both of us because it is for the Yorke-Mid North area. The youth unemployment rate is 19.4 per cent. I, and the minister, I believe, are disgusted by that. I do not know how to say it.

Young people are looking for an opportunity to start their life and have a level of financial independence, to allow them to ensure that they start to make plans for their future, and for one in five to not have an opportunity for a job is a sad indictment upon our society because I think one of the important issues for all society is to ensure that we give all generations access to opportunities, no matter what.

In this case, I am disgusted that youth unemployment is 19.4 per cent, and I think that is where the focus has to be—no matter where the youth are from, from across all South Australia. While this motion is targeted at Port Pirie, and they want the future as much as anyone does—there is no doubt about that—that we have an opportunity to ensure that that is removed completely.

Minister, I recognise that we do not live in the society that you grew up in. I was slightly after you because I am a little bit younger, but not by much. You were provided with opportunities as a young person, even with the challenges that you had in your life, to get a job. I know that opportunity was provided to me, too, and that is because our society worked hard to do it.

The responsibility of parliament and the policies it puts in place and the responsibility of expenditure and revenue policies has to be focused on employment opportunities, because I consider it to be the basis of society. That is why the last comment in the motion is about the social harm that comes from unemployment. While positivity needs to be exhibited by those who, for whatever reason, are unemployed or have become unemployed and seek opportunities, when they present they have to do so on the basis that they are the best person for the job and they can do it.

However, where you get multiple kickbacks occur the impact upon one's belief in yourself becomes so profound that that is where the social challenges come because you become introverted to some degree. You do not have the same level of confidence, and it impacts upon so many different ways in which our state operates.

This 19.4 per cent figure is a damning one, I believe. It is pushed even further by the fact that, sadly, it is the highest in the state, but we have the far west in New South Wales, for example, at 16 per cent and the outback of South Australia is at 15.5 per cent. The figures do vary, I understand that, but the importance to me is that a figure is a person, and that is the emphasis that I take from it.

I know that in previous shadow portfolio roles that I have held, in talking about unemployment rates across all sectors I have related it back to what has impacted upon a person and, by association, the impact upon their friends, their families and, indeed, their futures. So, we put this motion forward on the basis that we compel the minister, who has a rather unique opportunity within the cabinet and the ministry, to ensure that he puts in place—demands—issues to be done that actually do not allow this to continue, because we want the policies to be right and we want the policies to reflect an opportunity for all people.

Across the broader unemployment range, the Port Pirie area is the sad case. The statistics provided to me on 16 March reveal Port Pirie's unemployment rate for those being 15 and above at 12.9 per cent. In the part of the community that I have the opportunity to serve it is 8.5 per cent. Now, minister, for you in your home area it is one in every eight, in my home area it is one in every 12, and, again, it is a person.

We put forward this motion on the basis that, while having two portfolio roles, at the time of being appointed as the minister—and I am pretty sure this was reported to me accurately from those who heard it—you talked about being there for all regions, and I believe that, I understand that. That is where I have had great frustration, minister, to be honest with you, because when issues have been put to you that impact upon regional communities the response provided has been that it is not your direct ministerial responsibility.

I understand that, but you are the person who has been provided the opportunity to sit amongst that table of 14 or 15 people who actually make the decisions. Sadly, democracy has not given me or my colleagues that opportunity yet but it will one day, but you are the person who is actually in this chamber making those decisions, and you have to consider all these peripheral issues when you make those decisions and you put your voice forward. I know you do that but the voice has to be a strong one.

That is why the call has been for this motion to be specific about the minister and, indeed, specific about the community that the minister has the opportunity to serve. There is no doubt that the members who sit to the left-hand side of the Speaker are different to those in the government because many of us come from regional areas, or we have direct associations with them. We feel for our community, and that is what it comes down to for me.

Like the minister I have to exist and work and operate in the city, but it is not my comfort zone it is fair to say. For me my comfort zone is being around communities that I know, talk to, get feedback from and love being in. I love the whole state but the emotional attachment is one that will always be with us. But while we are here we work diligently as best we can and it is here that provides us with the opportunity to make the substantial change.

Minister, it is here and within the cabinet room within which you sit that provides you with that unique opportunity to make that substantial change that will make a profound difference in getting these figures down as much as humanly possible because, again, each figure relates to a person. I know there are other members who want to speak about this. It is one that the Liberal Party takes very seriously because the arguments being put here translate across all regions in South Australia.

Minister, can I just say that, while political differences do occur, I can say to you that I know that there are those of us here who want to help, too; that is just it. So, use, please, the skills of the shadow minister for regional development in the discussions that you have, as I know you have done with me when I held that portfolio in the past, and I appreciate that, because there are a variety of experiences that exist in this chamber.

We are not all perfect, but we come from different backgrounds that allow us to put perspectives into discussions that you have and decisions that you make because those eventual decisions become your voice within that chamber that makes it a really important one that controls $16 billion worth of expenditure per year in the state.

I hope that the house has a fulsome discussion about this motion and that we translate what is being discussed here today into actions, and actions that make sure that unemployment is reduced as much as is humanly possible in South Australia. By doing that, we give all a strong opportunity for a prosperous future.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:40): I move an amendment to the motion as follows:

Delete everything after 'house' and replace it with:

congratulates the member for Frome for the hard work he does for his electorate and regional South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We can't hear—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet.

Mr Tarzia: Disgrace.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard the member for Hartley's voice after I am on my feet, and you know what that means. If we could all observe the standing orders we will all get a lot further. You have not even heard what he is about to say.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! While you may conjecture, I ask you to listen to him in silence. The member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The amendment will make the motion read:

That this house congratulates the member for Frome for the hard work he does for his electorate and regional South Australia.

Even if you take all of the points listed—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you have a copy of that?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Yes, I do—in the member for—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —Goyder's motion, on all of those the member for Frome has performed outstandingly. If you are making an effort to address—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond is called to order.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: And, of course, the single greatest issue in Port Pirie affecting employment in that town or that regional city is the future—or was the future, because it is past tense now—was the future of the smelter. The smelter was in dire straits. The future of the smelter was uncertain. It was unclear as to whether the single greatest employer in that city would even exist. If it was not for the work of the then member for Frome and current member for Frome around the time of the formation of government in this state in 2014, that would not have happened and the future would have remained uncertain. It would not have been underwritten. What the Liberal Party would have done—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —is open to conjecture, but it certainly was an issue for—

Mr Pederick: He is misleading the house now.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: You can move a substantive motion should you wish to do that. It certainly was unclear and would not have been front of mind without the member for Frome bringing it to the attention of both parties, making it an issue and making it a defining issue for the formation of government. It would not have happened. The single greatest employer in the City of Port Pirie was brought front and centre to the economic and political debate in 2014 because of the work of the member for Frome.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: It was already a national issue.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart is called to order.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: No-one else was as focused as he was on that particular issue.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members need to remain silent. The member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: You can set them all up for question time if you like.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, they need to ask themselves: is it worth flouting standing orders at this point of the day? That is what they need to ask—

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I don't think it is for them. I don't think they should do that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you just need to speak. You just need to speak.

Mr Pederick: You need to just stick to your script.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned for the first time.

Mr Pederick: I'm going to get a holiday.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you want that on the record? No, I don't think so. The member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The single greatest prospect for job certainty in Port Pirie is to secure the future of the smelter, which of course the member for Frome did. In terms of addressing job security, the single greatest piece of work that could have been done, close to a half a billion dollar project, was undertaken and achieved by the member for Frome. The best—

Mr Whetstone: How much Australian steel?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is called to order.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —future for young people in the City of Port Pirie was to secure the future of the smelter, and the member for Frome did that. The member for Frome secured the future of the smelter, and that has had a number of flow-on benefits, each of which benefits the future of young people in that city in the north of our state.

The original motion states: 'ensure vital industries are sustainable and have the opportunity to grow'. Well, they have, because the vital industry in Port Pirie is the smelter, secured by the member for Frome. It was the member for Frome who gave the best chance for sustainable jobs, because not only did he secure the smelter but it is also a state-of-the-art smelter. It has some of the lowest lead emissions for a lead smelter in the world, it uses cutting-edge technology, and it will be a multi-metal facility able to process not just lead but a whole lot of other metals as well as part of that process. It is hard to think of any industry in Port Pirie more sustainable and with a more assured continuation than that involving the reconstruction of the smelter. Once again, it was done and achieved by the member for Frome—no-one else but the member for Frome.

We recognise that Port Pirie can play an important role in South Australia's economic recovery; everyone agrees with that, but the single most important piece of economic infrastructure in Port Pirie is the smelter, secured by the member for Frome. So, on any reading of it, the member for Frome deserves not the questioning of his ability, not the questioning of his effort, but recognition of his efforts in securing the single most important piece of economic infrastructure that Port Pirie has—the smelter—and all of the economic spin-offs that are a part of that.

Again, we saw with Holden that it is not just the 2,000 jobs that are the problem; it is all the jobs that hang off Holden that are important as well, and it is exactly the same with the smelter in Port Pirie. If you get rid of the smelter, then all of the contractors, maintenance people, cleaners, everything else that hangs off that, disappears as well. Time and time again we are coming back to the fact that the smelter is the single most important piece of the economy in Port Pirie, and it is the smelter that was saved by the member for Frome, who made sure that it was brought to the very forefront of everything that needed to be done to ensure the best possible economic future for Port Pirie.

Everyone agrees that the smelter itself will not have an effect just on Port Pirie, but it will have the ability to do multimetal processing and to open itself up to receive ore from all over the state and, indeed, even other parts of the country if need be, and that means that it opens up the economic opportunities and contributes to the economic future not just of Port Pirie but the whole state.

Making sure that the economy does not collapse in Port Pirie is the best possible way of ensuring that the social harm caused by unemployment is absolutely minimised. No-one here disputes that, no-one here disputes unemployment is a social harm; of course it is. Everybody in this building is working to ensure that the improvement of the unemployment situation in the state. That is a given, but the single most important part of that was the smelter, and the future of the smelter was secured by the member for Frome in his negotiations after the election in 2014.

I do not think that the member for Frome deserves anything other than the congratulations of this house for the work that he has done in Port Pirie. I do not think anyone else could have done it as well as he did at that particular time. He used his position excellently, and he continues to use it excellently for the future of the state, for the regions, and for Port Pirie. On this side of the house we have nothing but support for his position, and we congratulate him on the work that he does every day in such a dedicated way for the people of Port Pirie and the regions of South Australia.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:48): I would like to point out some of the home truths that the member for Newland just pointed out for the benefit of the house. He said it repeatedly and I think he said it with no mistake that the member for Newland has belled the cat on the fact that this government was asleep at the wheel when it came to dealing with issues at Nyrstar. His comment that the member for Frome is the one who brought this issue to the table underlines the fact that this government had no plan to help deal with Nyrstar, they had no plan for Port Pirie, and indeed it was only, in his words, the white saviour, or the great saviour, the member for Frome—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The white knight.

Mr KNOLL: —the white night, the member for Frome, who came into this place and fixed their issues. It is an absolute disgrace that the truth has come out today, that the member for Newland tells us that this government had no plan for Port Pirie before the member for Frome. I think that is a point that we all need to be very clear about, because it is a fundamental truth, and I think the people of Port Pirie need to completely understand how disjoined they are from this Labor government.

The second point I would like to make is in response to the member for Newland, who argued against his own amendment, because he went through point by point and said how the member for Frome had accurately dealt with all of the points made in the original motion. So why change the motion in the first place? If the member for Frome is doing such a good job on (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), then why do we need to change the motion?

Again, it is politics; it is the government trying to hide from the real issues that exist in the member for Frome's electorate and specifically Port Pirie, and it is an issue that we, as members who look after and represent the regions, hold very near and dear to our heart. It is something that we grapple with every day. Again, we have a government that seeks to move an amendment to sweep these issues under the carpet because it does not have a plan to deal with it.

When it comes to keeping existing jobs, I think that is extremely important. It is extremely important to underwrite and underscore the fundamental industries that exist in many of our regional centres, whether it be Arrium at Whyalla, Nyrstar in Port Pirie or, for instance, the wine industry in my electorate. These industries are fundamental, they are essential to the future of these towns and they need to be supported.

The member for Newland talks about the fact that it is the saving of Nyrstar that stopped Port Pirie from collapsing—well, a 2 per cent increase in unemployment in the last 12 months I would consider is an economy that is on the verge of collapse. The idea that by saving Nyrstar the job is done shows that the government is ignoring the fact that when the member for Frome first came to office unemployment in Port Pirie was 5 per cent. Now, here we are, and it is 12.9 per cent, having increased by 2 per cent in the last month, after the member for Newland claims that Port Pirie has been saved.

Fair enough, Nyrstar was one component, but it is the other components that the government fails to address—and one is creating new jobs. Fair enough, we need to hold onto the old jobs but we also need to create new jobs, and this is the fundamental failure of this Labor government. It is a fundamental failure because the government failed to understand the drivers of jobs. The drivers of jobs are indeed our small businesses, the ones who incrementally employ more and more people, the ones who put their hard-earned capital back on the line to try to do their best to grow their business. Indeed, if each of the over 100,000 small businesses that exist in South Australia put on only 0.1 extra of an employee that would go a long way to solving the unemployment crisis that we have here in South Australia.

The other thing that the government failed to understand and address is the fundamental cost of doing business in this state. We on this side of the house understand that in order to create jobs for families and individuals in South Australia businesses need to grow. In order for those businesses to be able to grow, they need to have an economic structure that underlines job creation and business growth, and on those scores, this government has failed.

If I go to payroll tax, the government has failed to continue with the reduction in payroll tax for businesses just on the threshold. We look at the emergency services levy; a levy that is levied upon businesses in South Australia as well as social clubs, community organisations and many of the things that keep our social fabric together. They removed the rebate on the emergency service levy which would have a great impact especially upon the agricultural parts of Frome—a huge impact.

We move on into the current debate we are having around natural resource management levies and their increase. Again, another cost of doing business on the productive part of our state, the part of our state that the Minister for Tourism and Agriculture keeps bleating on about but, instead of actually doing something to help those industries fundamentally, all we hear is the froth and bubble, instead of dealing with the fundamentals that sit underneath that.

We are also having a debate in this place at the moment about increases to minimum rates when it comes to trucking for small and family businesses across this state. We have seen no leadership, we have seen gutlessness from this government on that issue by failing to speak out against it. What is going to happen as a result of those changes potentially coming in on 4 April is an increase in the cost of trucking across the state. That cost will be passed on to businesses and would then be passed on to consumers. It is another cost of doing business in South Australia that has increased and it is going to fundamentally undermine employment growth in the member for Frome's electorate.

We then move on to this government's position and obsession when it comes to electricity. On this side of the house, we understand the need for a sensible policy on renewable energy. We understand that completely, but when that policy ends up undermining the security of our electricity supply in South Australia, when we see the government's policy has directly led to the increasing cost of electricity in South Australia to the point where we have the third-highest cost of electricity in the known world (and I consider that most of the world is known at this stage), it is pretty hard for businesses to get on and create jobs.

When it comes to tax, when it comes to fundamental utilities—and we should not even get started on the cost of water in South Australia that I know the member for Stuart highlighted the other day in this chamber—when it comes to ESL payroll taxes, natural resource management levies, charges on trucking, electricity, and we have not even started on the level of regulation that exists in South Australia.

It was interesting to read in The Australian the other day, there is a worldwide company that sets up endurance courses; they call themselves Tough Mudder. He said that Australia is the hardest place for him to be able to set up his business—the hardest place in the world to set up his business. He said even the Germans, who you would consider to be a very risk-averse, very bureaucratic people, take a very common-sense approach, but we here in Australia cannot get that done.

When I hear comments from Costco that this is the hardest place in the world to get a development application through to be able to build a Costco, then you know that something is wrong. When it comes to issue after issue, every time South Australian businesses have to deal with regulation and government bureaucracy, they are stifled. If the Labor government want to understand how to fix job creation in this state, instead of sweeping it under the carpet like they are seeking to do with this amendment, they should actually look at the fundamentals of the cost of doing business.

Whilst we on this side of the house may be charged with being the party of business, it is because we understand that it is business that creates jobs, and those businesses do not have to be huge conglomerates. Most of the time it is the job creation from those small, family-owned entities that gets the job done. They are the ones risking their hard-earned capital, putting that on the line in order to be able to grow and see a better future for themselves and their children and, more importantly, to provide opportunities for other people's families and children so that we can actually have a prosperous and growing economy.

This amendment that the member for Newland is putting forward is an absolute disgrace. It fails to deal with the fundamental issues. Until the Labor government starts to tackle those issues, we are going to see a continuation of things like 19.4 per cent youth unemployment and 12.9 per cent overall unemployment in Port Pirie, and we will be here debating these issues, lamenting the situation we find ourselves in, for generations to come.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:57): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Goyder:

That this house calls on the member for Frome to take advantage of his position as a cabinet minister and compels the Labor government to immediately address the jobs crisis and economic decline impacting the Port Pirie community; and—

(a) provide residents with job certainty;

(b) stem the flow of young people out of the region and South Australia;

(c) ensure vital industries are sustainable and have the opportunity to grow;

(d) give our regions the attention they deserve and desperately need;

(e) recognise that Port Pirie can play an important role in South Australia's economic recovery; and

(f) avoid the social harm caused by unemployment.

As we have heard from the previous speakers today, apart from the member for Newland who tried to move a ridiculous amendment in regard to this motion, all of the issues in Port Pirie are happening not just in Port Pirie but right throughout South Australia.

I want to go back to the election, where I think some people in Frome thought so much of the current member for Frome that I believe they thought, 'If we elect the member for Frome, Mr Brock, we will get him and we will get the Liberal Party as well in government.' Well, we only have to look at how history unfolded, where the Leader of the Opposition, from what I understand, was told a decision would not be made until the Wednesday, yet we see the supersized ham and pineapple pizza that was purchased in Port Pirie did the job over the weekend. A few slices of pizza have cost this state a great price.

If people believed that they were going to get the Liberal Party because polling was supposedly looking so good, and also elect Mr Brock as their member, I hope they have a good, hard look at what happened. It is exactly what happened in Hammond way back in the 2002 election, when the former member ran as a so-called Independent liberal and then put the Labor government in power. People need to be absolutely certain of who they are voting for and why they are voting for them, because it can come unstuck very, very quickly.

Look at what has happened with regard to Port Pirie, where we have 19.4 per cent youth unemployment and 12.9 per cent general unemployment, with a recent 2 per cent increase. This is disgraceful. There needs to be job certainty in that region, and not just there, but in all the regions.

There are all these comments about Nyrstar and what was going to happen, and whether they would have been underwritten. The member for Frome basically embarrassed the state government into underwriting the Nyrstar redevelopment proposal because he said so on the radio. This immediately forced the Labor government to do the underwriting—

Mr Griffiths: ABC radio!

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, ABC radio—to several hundred million dollars. Our federal government was let off the hook. It was fantastic for them; it was just a gift. The Premier had to come up with the price of probably several hundreds of thousands of ham and pineapple pizzas to underwrite the Nyrstar redevelopment. It would have absolutely happened from our side of the chamber.

We on this side of parliament have had an interest in Nyrstar and what has gone on there in previous years. In fact, when my wife was an environmental scientist, she worked up there when Pasminco operated the facility. We all know how critical it is. Some friends of mine who work in jobs related to the Nyrstar facility are in the trucking industry, and they freight material from around Broken Hill down to Nyrstar. Certainly, when the Strathalbyn Terramin mine was operating, the ore was carted to Nyrstar. Not only does the result impact on Port Pirie, but it is felt right throughout South Australia, and certainly affects people based in and near my electorate.

As has been mentioned earlier, there needs to be more done in the regions so that we can achieve growth in other industries such as agriculture. What really scares me about this Labor government, which the member for Frome is happy to support, is that they say one thing but they say it with forked tongue.

We have the Premier going out there and saying, 'The clean, green image of South Australia is fantastic,' and now it is supposedly backing the farmers of this state. This is only because mining has collapsed, and everything else has collapsed. The Olympic Dam proposal did not go ahead, as far as the big open-cut mine, and there are a lot of other factors that come into play.

The Premier was a bit under the pump when we delivered our manifesto the other day and he had a crack at our side of the house. He said that the Liberal Party was full of 'retired farmers, failed businessmen and Pyne apparatchiks'. That is a disgraceful comment from a Premier who is supposedly putting the future of this state in the hands of the farmers. All he can do is talk about who he thinks represents the Liberal Party in this state.

People need to be quite aware of the government that the member for Frome has supported. What we also need to be aware of are the things that have happened within this government since the member for Frome supported them, and the things that have not. For example, the $25 million diversification fund. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria took their $25 million each, but where was South Australia in that mix? Gone and forgotten, because it did not affect Labor electorates. That is the simple cut and dried of it, and that is as simple as the Labor Party in this state runs its politics, right down the line. If there is not a vote in it, they absolutely do not want to know about it.

They put out this story that it was going to cost so much GST and that we would only have got $4 million. At the worst case scenario, the state would have been $4 million better off if we had taken the $25 million diversification fund. That money was vitally needed throughout the Riverland and, certainly in the Murraylands, which missed out on previous bequests of the $20 million that went into the seat of Chaffey.

That is fine. Now was the time for the Murraylands and the Lower Murray to shine, but, no—the government decided it would just cut that off, even after the terms of the millennium drought and what happened to the people in my area and the destruction that went on with the river. The Premier bleats on about 3,200 gigalitres of water being put back into the river, but when we get past all those fine words that he can put out, action is severely lacking when it gets down to the ground floor of what really needs to happen in the Lower Murray region.

When we look at blackspot funding for phone towers, where was the Labor government? Where was the member for Frome advocating for this? What was he saying around the cabinet table? I would love to know why every other state put in submissions for mobile phone tower funding, yet South Australia did not. This is how this Labor government treats regional South Australia: they just do not care. I urge the member for Newland to drive around South Australia and see how often his phone does not work. He will realise how bad it is.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: You know I do.

Mr PEDERICK: That's good. I just hope he fully understands the threat to safety when mobile towers go out. Recently, the tower at Yumali was not functioning appropriately and we had a fatal accident just out of Coomandook, between Coomandook and Cooke Plains. Sadly, the person was already deceased, but if we had needed instant calls to get people there to save people, it could have been another matter. Also, we have seen these huge rises to the emergency services levy, and the natural resources management levies are going through the roof.

We have seen basically the shutdown not only of Leigh Creek but also the Port Augusta power station as well. I believe some of those residents would have come from Port Pirie and would have had jobs in that area. These are errant proposals that the government has been running, that the government has forced on this state and I would just like to know what the member for Frome has been doing advocating for regional South Australia, because my end of the river and my electorate and Port Pirie and the rest of the state deserve a lot more.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL (Mawson—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Recreation and Sport, Minister for Racing) (12:08): I rise to congratulate the member for Frome for the wonderful work he does in his own area and also the great work he does on behalf of every region in South Australia. It is really interesting to hear the Liberals get up and bleat and bleat and bleat. You do not learn from history, do you? You went out and attacked Karlene Maywald, you attacked Rory McEwen and you attacked Bob Such.

You always have this philosophy that if they are not with us, they are against us, instead of working with people, as the public expects us to do. The public expects us, the 47 members of this place, to actually work together. All you want to do is come in and have a gripe with the member for Frome because after the election he looked at both options. He looked at the Liberal proposition and he looked at the Labor proposition and he went with the Labor Party. He did that because he saw that it was the best thing to do for his region and the best thing to do for all regions in South Australia.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I remind all members of standing orders 131 and 142.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: He was given the choice and he looked at the prospect of a Labor government for a further four years or a newly-elected Liberal government with his support, and he chose to come with the Labor Party. Right from day one, the venom from your leader and from your federal Liberal representatives in South Australia was disgraceful with the sort of language that was used against the member for Frome.

When the member for Frome talked about the guaranteeing of the loan for Nyrstar, which is $291 million, yes, he did go out there and say that a Labor government would back that in. What did we have? We had the spurned Christopher Pyne and the spurned member for Mayo, Jamie Briggs, out there saying, 'Well, we're not going to pay for it now, it's up to the state to do it.' Were you guys ringing them up and saying, 'No, look, if this happened in any other state or territory it would be the federal government's responsibility to step in and guarantee that loan. Why are you insisting it comes back onto the state government coffers?' You should have been saying that.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have reminded you all nicely about standing orders 131 and 142. This is the last time I will remind you and I will have to start warning people. It is before question time which means you will not be here, and I know you will want to be here for the last question time this week, won't you?

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: What that loan guarantee did was lock in the future for Port Pirie. Was anyone in the Liberal Party in South Australia, whether they be state members or federal members, interested in that? No, you were not. You were interested in playing base politics—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is called to order.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: You were interested in playing base politics. You could not get over the fact that, given the choice—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Chaffey is warned for the first time.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —of going with a Labor government or a Liberal government—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley is called to order.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —this great man went with a Labor government because he thought that was the best thing for South Australia's future.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Hartley is warned for the first time.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: What you want to do is actually look at why you have been on the opposition benches for so much of the past quarter of a century and ask yourselves why. It is because you only want to go in your own little cohort and fight against anyone else. You do not actually stand up for your state. You are in your own little Liberal Party bubble and you do not stand up for your state.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Now, what we do over here—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. We can stop right now. We do not have to continue this debate. If you want it to continue you must remain silent. These are the standing orders of the house. You either want to respect the standing orders of the house or you do not, and I think we will have to take a very dim view if I hear another outburst. The member for Mawson.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: The member for Hammond talked about South Australia missing out on Murray-Darling funds. This state got $240 million in SARMS funding because our Premier went out there and fought for the Rolls-Royce.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order for the second time!

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: What did we hear from the Liberal Party? They were happy with the Datsun 180B model.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond has a point of order. We will deal with that first.

Mr PEDERICK: Relevance, madam Deputy Speaker—the minister is not responsible for anyone in the Liberal Party and what they decide or not decide or what they do.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He certainly isn't, and do you have a point of order about something else?

Mr PEDERICK: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Alright, continue, member for Mawson.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Well, if it was relevant for you to bring it up it is relevant for me to respond to it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just continue with the debate.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I will tell you something about the member for Frome, and perhaps if you spent more time in his electorate you would actually understand how he is thought of up there. You want to come out—

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is warned for the first time.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —and attack this man. Why don't you go and spend some time with him up there? I was at the Smelter's Picnic with him last year. That is a day off for everyone in Port Pirie. It is a magnificent day. It is like the Royal Adelaide Show. There are helicopter rides and all sorts of activities going on there and I walked around with Geoff for the day. Do you know how many high fives and g'day Geoffs he got? Everyone loves this man in his electorate.

Mr Whetstone: No-one's attacking him.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I want to put on the record that the member for Chaffey says that no-one is attacking the member for Frome. You have done nothing but attack this gentleman since he sided with the Labor Party to back in a Labor government. You have done nothing but attack him. You have done nothing—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is warned for the second time.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: When I walked around there not only did everyone know who the member for Frome was, but the member for Frome knew all of those people as well and he asked how their families were going by name. He is very well thought of. While you might think that you are going to win this big political point and, come 2018, you will regain the seat of Frome, I think you might want to rethink your strategy. You thought that about the seat of Fisher and the seat of Mount Gambier when Rory McEwen was in that seat and—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is on two warnings.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hartley, I can hear your voice and I shouldn't be able to.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I urge you to get on with the member for Frome and the Minister for Regional Development. This man is the chairman of the cabinet committee on regional development and he is in there fighting every day for regional South Australia—seats that so many of you represent. Instead of squabbling and fighting, get on with this guy.

There is money there that he has fought hard for out of the budget to be disbursed throughout the regions. He is out there spending that money, and the best thing you can do is get on and work with him to make sure that your local area gets its fair share of the money. People in South Australia are sick of seeing politicians squabble. At the midway mark of this term, instead of bringing in motions like this attacking the member for Frome—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, you will be leaving us if you move your lips again.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: —you should be working with him as a very important minister in this Labor government. We are out in the regions all the time. I forget how many days of last year—

The Hon. G.G. Brock: Forty-three.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: Forty-three days the member for Frome spent out in regional South Australia.

Mr Bell interjecting:

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: An interjection from the member for Mount Gambier asked—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope not, because that would be unparliamentary and your response to it would be, also.

The Hon. L.W.K. BIGNELL: I will not respond, but I will say that we talked a lot to the member for Frome before the election. In fact, in the two weeks before the election I was in Clare and we went to some bowls clubs at Port Broughton and Snowtown. We went around and met with sporting clubs up there and talked tourism, and this was because the member for Frome had invited me up there. It was not my first trip to see the member for Frome.

We also worked very closely on the grain handling committee, and that was a great bipartisan committee that was chaired by the member for Frome. The members for Chaffey and Hammond were on that committee, and I think they saw then the calibre of this man and that he was not interested in playing partisan politics. He was interested in doing the best thing for people in regional South Australia and doing the best things for the prosperity of this state. We all know that the engine room of this state is out in our regions. We know that. We want a champion, and we have that champion in the member for Frome in his role as the Minister for Regional Development.

As I said before, it is the midway point. Stop the squabbling and get over the fact that the member for Frome sided with the Labor Party for a four-year term and let us see you guys doing the very best you can in winning more money for your regions and increasing prosperity and jobs in the regions, because the Minister for Regional Development (the member for Frome) is passionate about that—I would say more passionate than anyone else in this chamber, when it comes to fighting for the rights and economic future of our regions.

I congratulate the member for Frome for the work he does as a local MP. I have seen firsthand the adulation that he receives from the local people up there and, if you think you are going to win the seat from him at the next election, you have another think coming, because I have never seen a more popular member who is so well thought of. When I get out in the regions—I spend almost as much time out there as the member for Frome—I hear great things about the wonderful work that he is doing as the Minister for Regional Development in the South Australian government. I thank him for the hard and tireless work he does on behalf of all the regions.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:19): I rise to support the member for Goyder in this motion. I think it is very important, and I disagree with a lot of the things that the member for Mawson has just said. First of all, this motion is actually not having a crack at the member for Frome at all. It just says:

That this house calls on the member for Frome to take advantage of his position as a cabinet minister and compels the Labor government to immediately address the jobs crisis…

Now, that is a very, very positive statement. That is not about having a crack at him: that is about saying, 'Please use your position to the best of your advantage to address the jobs crisis.' I also take issue with the member for Mawson saying that we do not work constructively with the member for Frome. I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, that I work very, very constructively with the member for Frome.

We are neighbouring members of parliament, we are a minister and a shadow minister for regional development and we have a personal friendship as well. We work very, very constructively together, but that does not mean that we agree on every single issue. It does not mean that we agree on everything, but we have a very constructive working relationship.

I would say that there are any number of members in this house who could be described the way in which the member for Mawson described the member for Frome as having their whole heart in everything to do with regional development. I think there are number of us who could be described that way. This is about unemployment. This is about the fact that very recently we were made aware that Port Pirie, the Mid North and surrounding areas have a 19.4 per cent unemployment rate—

Mr Griffiths: For youth.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: —for youth, and that is too high. It would not matter what part of the state it was in, that is too high. So, we are calling on the member for Frome as a member of cabinet to use his position to address that issue. It is as simple as that. We deal very constructively together, the member for Frome and I, with the member for Giles, in a collaborative group that we have in the Upper Spencer Gulf dealing with unemployment. We look at these numbers all the time.

The latest numbers broken down to Upper Spencer Gulf cities, which is the September quarter (so, nearly six months ago, but the very latest that we have), has the Upper Spencer Gulf at an unemployment rate of 9.3 per cent compared to the Australian average of 6.2 per cent. In Port Augusta it is 7.4 per cent, in Whyalla it is 6.7 per cent and in Port Pirie it is 14.3 per cent.

We have sat down together as a group, and the member for Frome and I have sat down as individuals to try to nut it out. Now, why is it that Port Pirie has numbers like the ones I have just read out consistently quarter after quarter after quarter higher than the other Upper Spencer Gulf cities? And we will continue to try to get to the bottom of that. We work very collaboratively in that, but I do not have the opportunity to influence cabinet to do that: the member for Frome has the opportunity to influence cabinet to do that.

It is very much a shared issue. We know in the Upper Spencer Gulf that all of our three cities are interdependent on each other. Every single one of us worries about Nyrstar, every one of us worries about Alinta and every single one of us worries about Arrium. So, the member for Mawson could not be more incorrect when he says that we do not work collaboratively together to try to address these issues. It is just completely inaccurate, but the member for Frome knows how hard—including the member for Giles—we work on our patch to address unemployment.

I heard the member for Newland say before that the member for Frome brought the Nyrstar issue to prominence, that it was an issue that nobody in government or nobody was aware of before. Again, that could not be further from the truth. He may not have known about it, some of his colleagues may not have known about it, but we certainly knew about it. Everybody in the Upper Spencer Gulf knew about it. It was actually a national issue that the federal government was addressing at the time, so it is crazy to say that nobody knew about the issue and nobody was addressing it. It was certainly something that was being addressed.

And in that time that the member for Mawson described where both Liberal and Labor parties were talking to the member for Frome and the member for Fisher, who sadly is not with us anymore, both parties were doing their best to get those two members of parliament to join with them to form government. In that time I guarantee you—and the member for Frome knows and I expect that other Labor government members know it as well—the Nyrstar redevelopment was the top of the list for matters of discussion between the Liberal Party and the member for Frome.

Now, it was also between the Labor Party and the member for Frome, but for anybody to suggest that we were not discussing that as our No. 1 priority with the member for Frome is completely incorrect and deceptive. That was very much a front-of-mind issue for us. We talked about Nyrstar, we talked about regional development funding, we talked about regional infrastructure, and we talked about regional health, regional education and a whole range of other issues which were very, very important.

It is another statement of fact that the financial elements of the agreement that the member for Frome struck with the Labor Party to form government gave regional South Australia less money and less resources than the Liberal Party actually took to the election as their up-front election commitment. The member for Frome made his decision on a wide range of issues. He has made his decision, and we accept that decision. However, it is completely inaccurate for anybody to suggest that the Liberal Party did not have a very good deal for regional South Australia on the table, even in advance of those discussions happening, because in advance of the election none of us knew how the cards were going to fall.

In fact, from a financial perspective, the deal that was struck with the Labor government was $116 million over four years, which is an average of $29 million per year. What we took to the election—our flat-out election commitment before even starting to negotiate with the member for Frome—was $139 million over three years, so an average of $46 million per year. I say again that the member for Frome had a range of issues he needed to consider when he made his decision, but for any member of the government to suggest for a minute that the Liberal Party is not working as hard as it possibly can for regional development is inaccurate and deceptive.

One of the areas that I am very frustrated about with the member for Frome—and I have said this to him personally and I have said it openly. As I said, we have a very good working relationship, but we do not agree on everything. I consider that regional development is an umbrella portfolio for all of the other portfolios when it comes to their involvement in regional areas. The Minister for Regional Development is not the Minister for Health, but the Minister for Regional Development needs to be incredibly involved in health issues in regional areas. The Minister for Regional Development needs to be involved in health, education, transport, police and economic development—in absolutely everything that goes on.

I would like to see the member for Frome as the Minister for Regional Development taking a more active role: saying, 'Yes, if it is in a regional area, I am going to be involved in that.' I say again that we have talked about this and obviously the minister is welcome to have a different opinion. I would never ever say anything in here about any member of parliament that I would not say to them to their face, and we have had that discussion. I will leave it at that, but I make that very clear.

I do not think it is good enough to say, 'Look, that's health, leave it to the Minister for Health; that's education, leave it to the Minister for Education.' We need a champion for regional areas in the Minister for Regional Development who will take all those issues on, and that is what this motion is about. We are asking the Minister for Regional Development to use his authority and to use his membership of cabinet more actively and more aggressively with regard to addressing the unemployment issues that we see before us at the moment. Regional development is a portfolio that really has responsibility for the entire state except for the Adelaide metropolitan area.

This is intended to be a positive motion. I am incredibly disappointed with the member for Newland for essentially bastardising it, turning it upside down and turning it into something that it was not at all. A call asking the member for Frome, as the Minister for Regional Development, to use his authority and to use his position in cabinet to address the unacceptably high unemployment rate across our state is not unreasonable at all. It is a perfectly fair thing to do.

I know that the Minister for Regional Development (the member for Frome) would be extremely saddened and extremely disappointed by the unemployment figures that exist at the moment. He would want to do that and we want him to do that. We very much have shared boundaries in our particular part of the world, and we all live and breathe together. We will all be successful in the Upper Spencer Gulf or we will all be unsuccessful in the Upper Spencer Gulf together, so we need to all be working on this issue together, and I will work with the member for Frome on this any time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy) (12:29): What a cowardly attack. The shadow minister for mineral resources and energy attempting—

Mr Bell: He's started off well.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Oh, I notice—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that the member for Schubert?

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just a second. Was that the member for Schubert?

An honourable member: No.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, who was it, then?

Mr BELL: It was the member for Mount Gambier—me.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on your second warning. Second warning for the member for Mount Gambier.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It was a completely cowardly attack—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —on a good man who fights for his community. Quite frankly, in terms of the softly spoken approach of the member for Stuart in saying, 'Oh, I don't do this out of anger; I do this out of regret', I have never heard once a criticism of the commonwealth government for allowing an unemployment rate that he speaks of in the Upper Spencer Gulf. It is as if the commonwealth government has no responsibility within the South Australian borders—not one.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Oh, there it is. No, no; you cannot blame Rowan Ramsey for anything. Where is the motion condemning Rowan Ramsey, asking him to do more with the commonwealth government?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Where is that motion? Of course, the member for Stuart will not do that, because it is not a positive motion; it is an attack on one person. He is targeting one person. Why? Why is he attacking this one person? Because of his failure to win the seat in the most recent state election. Who can be held to account for that? Who is the closest shadow minister to the seat of Frome? The member for Stuart. How did he go during the election campaign? How much money was spent in Frome? How much money was allocated out of the Liberal Party's finances to win that seat? And he failed.

Mr Knoll: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert has a point of order.

Mr KNOLL: The minister is getting nowhere near the substance of this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we've allowed everyone to sail precariously close to the other side of the question. I shall listen to the Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So, here we are: the member for Stuart, basking in his failure after being unable to get the liberal candidate elected in Frome, and what does he do?

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier unfortunately will need to leave us for 30 minutes.

The honourable member for Mount Gambier having withdrawn from the chamber:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What does he do? When he cannot attack his policies, when he cannot win through the advocacy of his own ideas, what does he do? He attacks the man. And that speaks volumes about the member for Stuart and who he is. It speaks volumes about who the Liberal Party are considering making their leader.

Mr Tarzia interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hartley—second warning.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It speaks volumes about him, because I have not heard in his speech a criticism about programs that he thinks are not working and that should be changed. I have not heard him offer alternative policies for the Upper Spencer Gulf. I have not heard him advocate Liberal Party policy; simply attacking the man, simply attacking the man. Quite frankly, if that is all we have to expect from the member for Stuart—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: What are you doing?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am defending the member for Frome.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Stuart is warned for the first time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am defending the member for Frome—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —because I am exposing the hypocrisy of the member for Stuart.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey unfortunately has to leave us for 30 minutes.

The honourable member for Chaffey having withdrawn from the chamber:

Members interjecting:

An honourable member: Oh, no.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, it's sad.

Mr Whetstone: Read the motion before your mouth off.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The Port Pirie Recorder, which is an independent voice in the community in the Upper Spencer Gulf, headlines on page 3 of the most recent addition Pirie's $800 million 'Brock boost' and spinoffs linked to the Nyrstar revamp, which the opposition have attempted to take credit for. The commonwealth government and Rowan Ramsey were deeply involved in negotiations with the state government about using EFIC and offering guarantees in standing with us to help Nyrstar.

Andrew Robb was in my office apologising for the change in that offer—apologising to me. He felt very strongly about this, and he thought that the commonwealth government should have been more involved than they were. There has not been a single motion from this side of the house condemning Rowan Ramsey—not one. Not one motion from this side of the house saying Rowan should have used his position holding the largest seat in regional South Australia to fight for regional South Australia in the commonwealth parliament—not one single motion.

The Hon. G.G. Brock: Leigh Creek.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Leigh Creek—not a single motion from this side of the house condemning the commonwealth government for their lack of action. In the South-East, how many times has the member for Mount Gambier or the former deputy leader of the opposition moved motions condemning Mr Pasin for his lack of action in the seat of Barker? Very little, yet they target the member for Frome. Why? Because it highlights their own failure—it highlights their own failure—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —their failure to articulate an argument in regional South Australia and they lose.

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert is warned for the first time.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will be interested to see in the upcoming federal election how the Liberal Party goes in its regions and how it does. I understand that there could be some very interesting candidates in the upcoming federal election. This motion and their frustration all boils down to one aspect: they are no good at politics. They are no good at it. They are run by amateurs and their leader is an amateur, so when they fail they cannot blame their own failures; they cannot look internally and ask, 'Why is it we cannot win the seat of Frome?'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: We need to get back to the substance.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Why is it that they cannot do that? Because everything in this motion that they have moved speaks to their failures. 'Provide residents with job certainty': the reinvestment in Nyrstar speaks volumes for the member for Frome's commitment to giving job security to the people of Port Pirie. It speaks volumes for it and yet members opposite cannot look internally at it and understand why it is that they keep on re-electing the member for Frome. 'Stem the flow of young people out of the region and South Australia': why is that the sole responsibility of the member for Frome and not for Rowan Ramsey and Tony Pasin?

Mr Knoll: Because they're not in your cabinet.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Oh, they are not in our cabinet! So, where are the motions condemning them? Where are the motions? Nowhere to be seen—silence. They do not think these things through because they cannot play the game of chess. They are good at draughts but they are no good at chess. The reason they are no good at chess is because they are amateurs. The reason they do not win seats like Frome is because they are amateurs.

The people who run the campaigns in the seat of Frome are the member for Stuart, who people can see through. I personally hope he takes the leadership of the Liberal Party because in terms of target-rich areas, the bigger they are the harder they fall. I look forward to the softly-spoken, 'I'm everyone's friend' member for Stuart being exposed for the hypocrite that he is. By this motion and the way he spoke—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I take offence at that remark and I ask the Treasurer to unconditionally apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is unparliamentary definitely, and he should withdraw that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I apologise for using the word 'hypocrite' about the member. However, I think he will be exposed by attempting to say the same remarks—I think it is this 'change but consistent' line that the Prime Minister is using. He has a great deal of respect for the member for Frome, he just thinks he is bad at his job. He really likes him, but he is no good at it. He is a really nice fellow, 'I work really well with him, but it is not my fault we are not achieving anything; it's all his.' That is the argument the member for Stuart makes.

He does not have the ability to reflect internally on his own failures; his own failure in the Upper Spencer Gulf. He cannot seem to replicate what he has done in his own community anywhere else. When he goes to the seat of Port Pirie and argues and advocates for a vote for the Liberal Party he falls flat on his face and fails.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: I have no idea what you're talking about.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Stuart seems—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —to have a bit of a glass jaw.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Treasurer, order! Back to the substance.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: A bit of a glass jaw, because the member for Stuart was talking about how well he works with the member for Frome but then he campaigns against him. He comes into this place and moves these motions but when he goes out into his region he says what a close working relationship they have with each other.

This motion is all about politics and has nothing to do with unemployment in Port Pirie at all. The Liberal Party, rather than attacking the man, should consider what their real failings are. Their real failings are not the member for Frome. They should ask themselves: why is it that an Independent gets elected in Frome? Why is it that the people of Frome will not elect a Liberal? They are the questions they should be asking themselves, not about why Geoff Brock is successful and they are not.

That is what all this boils down to. It is not about unemployment. His local community and his local paper celebrate his achievements. We have seen it in Port Pirie in The Recorder; we have seen it in his re-election time and time again; we have seen him win a by-election; and we have seen him win at a local government level. His community likes him; his community elects him; he works for his community and he knows his community and he understands his community. That is why they keep on sending him to this place to fight for them.

The Liberal Party cannot seem to accept that. Long may they sit in their ignorance about what their failures are. These motions are self-serving and, in my opinion, are a waste of the parliament's time, and speak volumes about those who move them rather than those they are intended to criticise.

If they were serious about Port Pire, if they were serious about unemployment in Port Pirie, rather than moving these motions they would be putting up policy alternatives about what they would do differently, and we would be debating that today rather than attacking the man, but there is none of that.

There is no alternative tax policy, no alternative industry policy, no alternative regional development policy, nothing, just personal attacks on the man because they are not good enough to beat him. If you cannot beat him, attack him. Quite frankly, it speaks volumes about the member for Stuart and the people who moved this motion, and it speaks volumes about the integrity of the man they are trying to attack.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome—Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Local Government) (12:39): I also rise to respond to the member for Goyder's original motion and also the amendment brought forward by the member for Newland. The honourable member calls on me to take advantage of my position as the Minister for Regional Development to address economic decline in my home town of Port Pirie. I can understand why the member has asked me to do this. Having spent so many years in opposition, he does not understand what it means to be a cabinet minister.

I serve the electorate of Frome as the local member, but as a minister and a member of this parliament I serve all South Australians. I am not here to take advantage of my position in the cabinet. My regional development portfolio allows me to work with industry and communities to drive regional economic development and accelerate jobs and investment in regional infrastructure that will continue to have an impact on our regional economies and communities for many years to come.

I also have the privilege of travelling through all of our regions—I repeat, all of our regions—on a regular basis. I meet with people, hearing their concerns and their aspirations. I am always struck by the optimism that is out there. I repeat: I am always struck by the optimism out there. People say there is nothing happening in the regions, but I am out there. I know, I see, and I have seen how much is going on. It is a transition; it is a journey we are on. People out there in the regions are making things happen.

The honourable member has also called on me as the member for Frome to address economic decline in Port Pirie. That was part of the original motion. When was the last time the honourable member was in Port Pirie? I would be more than happy to take him on a tour to show him that this is the busiest and best it has been in many, many years. The city is believing in itself again. The city has been promised so much; never, ever has so much been achieved. But with the Nyrstar transformation, people know they have secure jobs. They know they have a future; they know that the future of the city is secure.

As the Independent member, I did drive the negotiations that resulted in this government underwriting the $563 million transformation project. It is so rewarding to see the transformation in progress, with the skyline full of cranes—more than has ever been seen in the history of our city. There are cranes lined up: five cranes and one massive crane that will lift 2,000-odd tonnes. In the words of local reporter Greg Mayfield:

We're witnessing an enormous expansion of the lifeblood of our city... The cranes on our horizon serve as a reminder of a positive future ahead.

I will repeat that: 'The cranes on our horizon serve as a reminder of a positive future ahead.' As I said a minute ago, this is a transition period. Building approvals are up from the city council, and businesses are investing in upgrades and expansions. There is so much going on, with projects either underway, recently completed, or in the pipeline, amounting to nearly $800 million worth of both private and public-private investment in our city. I should repeat that: almost $800 million private and public-private investment in our city. That is unheard of in a regional city in South Australia.

The Flinders Motel on Main has undertaken a $2 million refurbishment. There is a Foodland doing a $1 million upgrade around the corner from my own home. The Sportsman Tavern and the Risdon Hotel are also undertaking major renovations. The Ellen Hotel in the main street is an old social security building and is being converted and upgraded to a 4½ to 5-star hotel. That is $10½ million between them.

Because of the growth in the number of primary and secondary students, St Mark's College is investing nearly $5 million. In residential care, Helping Hand is investing $6 million. Again, this will improve and increase employment opportunities. Air Liquide is investing $88 million in a new state-of-the-art air separation unit for the smelter transformation. This is a French company that has been there for many years—$88 million.

Then there is the Wandearah Road redevelopment. I also want to congratulate and thank the opposition for allowing this to happen. This was an excellent project which will generate $60 million to $80 million of investment, and will create up to 350 jobs when it is finished. We had to change the Port Pirie Racecourse Site Act to allow this development to go ahead. I have been honoured to champion the passing of this legislation to open the door for this investment. These are just a few of the projects and a few examples of the confidence that businesses are showing in the strength and future of our community; $800 million in investment is a lot of confidence.

I was recently speaking to a local real estate agent and his comments to me were, 'The last 12 months have been our busiest in the last 12 years,' and others are saying the same. Houses are being built and houses are selling, and that again shows the confidence that our community has. To quote an article in The Recorder:

We are weathering the economic downturn in the Upper Spencer Gulf…Port Pirie is building its way to a better economy.

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are plenty of challenges, not only in Port Pirie but across the region, and I keep saying that. But, there are plenty of opportunities, and enthusiasm and optimism are out there. We have been through tough times, but there is a vision for the city's future direction, and we need to continue to work together to actually achieve this.

This government is working with the city to help make sure that it has a successful future and fulfils its vision. I do not stand silent on what this Labor government has done for Port Pirie. I stand firmly behind everything this government has done and continues to do, and I will continue to stand up for my electorate as the member for Frome.

Again, I will not stand silent. I am doing the best I can as the Independent member for Frome and as Minister for Regional Development. We are advocating, but we need to have both sides of politics working together, and not say, 'You are the minister; this is your job.' It is my honour and privilege to be part of the bright future of Port Pirie and to represent my hometown and its people in this place.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:47): It has been an interesting debate. We have had people like the Treasurer, who has come in here and argued that the debate is about something that it is not. We have had the member who the motion is about tell us what he has been doing in his electorate. None of us deny that. This is not about that.

This is about the fact that we have a government in South Australia that the people have rejected, not just at the most recent election but at the one before as well. This is a government that has been ignoring rural and regional South Australia for 14 years, and by the end of this term, it will be 16 years. I invite the member for Frome to reflect—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —on what has happened to rural and regional South Australia. I agree with what he just said about the wonderful things happening in our regions. Madam Deputy Speaker, they hare happening in spite of this government, not because of it.

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister scoffs, but when—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No personal reflections.

Mr WILLIAMS: —he recently handed over millions of dollars to Treasury Wine Estates in the Barossa Valley, supposedly for 22 jobs or something, I brought to the house's attention that there were 20-something jobs lost by that same company in McLaren Vale and 11 in my electorate in the Coonawarra. There was a net loss of four jobs. The minister knows this, because we have had a private discussion on this matter.

This is the sort of nonsense that rural and regional South Australia have been getting from this government. I ask the minister to reflect on what happened in my electorate to the good people of Keith and their hospital, and they may well be facing a similar scenario very shortly. Does a community of that size in rural and regional South Australia deserve to have its medical services closed down?

We have a government that the people of South Australia have been trying to get rid of, but they cannot through the democratic process because democracy does not work in South Australia. But, minister, you have a very unique opportunity and we are making a plea. Unlike what the Treasurer said, we are not condemning you. He suggested we are condemning you, but we are not. We are urging you to use your unique position to deliver a little more.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: You're a joke.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, I might be a joke, and you're a waste of space.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! It is unparliamentary to interject and to respond to them.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will only respond if I am provoked. Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, stop. No responding. I will call her to order if she does it again.

Mr WILLIAMS: You could throw her out, too, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She has not gone as far as some of your colleagues and she will not. I know her. She will not interrupt you, and we are all listening to you now.

Mr WILLIAMS: I make an impassioned plea to the member. I have seen nothing but cuts, cuts, cuts to expenditure in rural and regional South Australia under this government and increases in taxes and levies on rural and regional South Australia by this government. It has been a disaster for rural and regional South Australia. I make a plea to the minister that he ask his colleague, the minister for water, the environment and those things to fulfil his obligation under the National Water Initiative before he imposes millions of dollars of additional burden on my electors. Ask him to meet his obligations, which are simply to publish what he has to publish under the National Water Initiative.

This government signed off on that initiative, which means it is obliged to do certain things and one of them is to publish the real costs and the justification for imposing those costs. This minister refuses to do it and do you know why he refuses to do it? Because he cannot justify his actions. That is impacting on those good people down in my part of the world who are trying to do those good things that you are talking about. As I said, they are doing them and they will continue to do them in spite of this government.

Please use your unique position. You will get full support from this side of the house every time you stand up to this government and stand up for rural and regional South Australia. That is all we are asking you to do and I know you are doing good work in your electorate, but you must be a very worried man after hearing the words of the member for Newland who basically said that, but for the outcome of the election and the unique situation you found yourself in, if this lot had been returned to government without the need of your support, nothing would have been done at Nyrstar.

I think you know in your own mind that if we happened to have got into government at the last election, we would have bent over backwards to save that operation, but if that lot had got into government without your support, God knows what would be happening in Port Pirie now. You should be very worried. You have been able to save Nyrstar and I congratulate you for that. I am asking you to save other things in rural and regional South Australia, and the Keith hospital might be one of them. I might be knocking on your door shortly about that. I know my colleague wishes to close out this debate, so I will leave my comments there.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:54): I confirm that the opposition will not accept the amendment. I personally believe it is a direct contradiction, anyway. In closing, I emphasise three key points. First, as I said and as other members have said, it is about using your position created by being virtually a member of cabinet to ensure that things occur. That is what the focus was upon. It was not a personal attack. The two key numbers that I emphasise, and others have also, are 19.4 per cent youth unemployment and 12.9 per cent overall unemployment, and that is what we have the responsibility for. The opposition will not support the amendment.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 23

Noes 17

Majority 6

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.

Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00.