Bills

Supply Bill 2016

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:02): I rise to complete my speech in regards to the Supply Bill 2016. I want to talk about something that we have committed to in regards to the emergency services levy, which just seems to keep getting raised whenever there is a fire in this great state of ours. We have committed on this side of the house to give back to the public $90 million of remissions annually over four years.

It is ridiculous that, apart from the fact that the government have taken these remissions away from people, they will use fires as an excuse to raise the emergency services levy, so a land tax; it is just a land tax. It is just not good enough for a state that is already struggling. We heard today in question time how we are an ageing population. I think that is because a lot of people are looking at getting out of the state because of the lack of opportunities. Power prices are cheaper in other states, there is less regulation, less red tape. Somehow we must bring hope back to this state so that we can have young people, young innovators, starting up businesses, working for businesses, and making this state great again.

Something else I want to speak on today is the obsession of this government to reduce speed limits in country areas, and this affects us regional members greatly. A lot of us on this side of the house do up to 60,000 kilometres a year and some do 100,000 kilometres a year, and every 10 kilometres that comes off the speed limit means we are out there for extra hours over the period of that year.

I believe fatigue is a great factor—it is not a great factor, not a good factor at all—but it is a huge factor in road accidents and deaths. You only have to have a look at what happens on the Dukes Highway at times when there are cases where, I believe, fatigue has been at fault. There are also suicides, I will admit that. Sadly, people decide to haunt a truck driver's life forever when they decide to drive under a truck.

We need to stop this obsession in the country to keep restricting speed limits from 110 km/h down to 100 km/h and just put some more money back into regional roads. We are driving very good vehicles these days. As I have said in this place before, we are not driving EHs any more. Some may.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond is speaking.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Another one for you, member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: I appreciate your protection. We have to manage these things better and, instead of restricting and just looking at one factor of what happens on the roads—and, yes, speed can be a factor in accidents, but there are certainly many cases of fatigue impacting on accidents as well.

Another issue that is happening in my patch is about Mobilong Prison. As we have seen through the Public Works Committee, that is expanding to 440. It was originally built for 160. I think this state needs to have a good look at how it is managing these correctional facilities. I am well aware that when the former chief executive, Peter Severin, left correctional services to go to New South Wales, he reminded me not long before he left that we still own the land at Mobilong, and I am well aware of that. I am mindful of what could happen there in the future.

As to metroticketing, I have been campaigning for metroticketing to come up to Murray Bridge the whole time I have been here. Now the government have included all of The Rural City of Murray Bridge council and the other end of my electorate out to Goolwa in its environment and food production area or, as it is described, the greater Adelaide area.

Let's have metroticketing out to these places. If they are good enough to be fenced off and told to be in the environment and food production area, they are good enough for some of these other benefits that should come to these areas so that they can get access through to the city cheaper. It will encourage more people to have the ability to live at home but still travel into the centre of the city whether it is for education, university or general day-to-day shopping or business needs. This would be something that would create much more equity in the seat of Hammond.

I have a few other subjects that I will bring up in the grievance debate in regard to the Supply Bill. I think this government needs to have a good look at itself and govern the whole state and not just the urban areas because too many times, as I have indicated earlier in my contribution, decisions are made blatantly on politics. We see money taken out of the regions, whether it is for the diversification fund or whether it is a blatant disregard for the mobile black spot areas for phone towers and other areas that this government continually disregards.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (16:09): I, too, rise to speak today briefly on the Supply Bill. Whilst later this year our Treasurer will articulate his and our government's vision for our economic and community priorities through our budget, it is important at this time to reflect on our economic climate and, indeed, on our spending priorities. As Joe Biden said, 'Don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.'

Even when—in fact, especially when—our economic climate is difficult, when traditional industries that have been the bedrock of our state's economy are under threat, and when we are transitioning to a new economy, our state government has rightly continued to financially commit itself to ensuring the wellbeing of our most vulnerable.

Our values are clearly shown by our spending priorities in our community. In particular, we have prioritised funding for measures that help prevent domestic violence and ensure adequate support for those who experience it. I specifically speak to the house about funding for the Multi-Agency Protection Service (MAPS), an innovative partnership funded by our government relentlessly focused on bringing together agencies who support those who experience domestic violence and deal with those who perpetrate it to ensure that community members do not fall though the gaps, to ensure that dangerous domestic violence situations do not accelerate, and to ensure that we are harnessing and mobilising our resources around the prevention of domestic violence in the best possible way.

MAPS was created by our Labor government. It comprises a partnership between South Australia Police, the Department for Community and Social Inclusion, the Department for Education and Child Development, SA Health and the Department for Correctional Services. MAPS, at its core, is about utilising, aligning and mobilising resources to create a whole-of-government approach to responding to and intervening in domestic violence cases and child protection issues. It is an essential part of our government's commitment to eradicating domestic violence and providing support and assistance to those who experience it.

MAPS is an initiative that came out of our government's deep and abiding desire to ensure that everything that can be done by government to protect those who experience domestic violence and to prevent domestic violence is done. MAPS establishes a process for the gathering and sharing of information and for multi-agency action planning to reduce risk and harm through early points of intervention.

Crucially, MAPS complements the Family Safety Framework which ensures that services to families most at risk of violence are provided in the most structured and systematic way possible. One of the key features of MAPS and a principle of the service is the co-location of partner agencies. This simple yet effective action has ensured integration of information from multiple sources and improved systems around action and intervention. Different arms of government working together in a cohesive and systematic way has achieved excellent results for our community.

As we all know through working with and for various people in our communities, when people are at their most vulnerable and reach out for help, the best support and intervention that we can provide are those that are of course compassionate and focused on the person's needs, but are also those that are efficient, streamlined and that do not subject the person to unnecessary duplication in terms of having to provide personal details or having to repeatedly tell their difficult story.

Our South Australian government has proven, through the funding of MAPS and through many other domestic violence initiatives, that it is the leader in this space, and that we will continue to lead. Rosie Batty, former Australian of the Year and probably Australia's most prominent campaigner against domestic violence, has endorsed our South Australian model and praised our innovation in both prevention and protection. Rosie said of our facility, 'I wish it had been in operation for me.' She further told reporters that she was moved when touring the facility, and said:

I will go as far as to say that if this kind of service had been operating for Luke and I, the outcome could have been very different.

[There is] absolutely no doubt in my mind that this [service] will save lives.

Our MAPS is so far the only one operating in Australia and has around 400 cases per week referred by SA police. The co-location of services ensures that families have prompt access to the specific assistance they need to keep them safe. Also housed within MAPS has been a domestic violence response review which has been established to address any process flaws or gaps in a government agency's response to cases of domestic violence. The initiative was a state government response to the Coroner's findings on the tragic domestic violence murder of Zahra Abrahimzadeh.

This review ensures that we are constantly assessing the way our systems operate to ensure the best outcomes for those experiencing domestic violence. It is imperative to always be vigilant about preventing potential cracks that could see victims slip through. Housing the review under MAPS ensures that agencies can see in real-time any areas of concern and that they can be rectified. MAPS is so important, because each department can bring specific expertise so that everyone is working together for the best outcomes for people affected by domestic violence. Former South Australian police commissioner Gary Burns said of the service:

We owe it to every victim; to every woman living in fear; to every child forced to witness the brutality of domestic violence, to provide a collaborative and comprehensive response to domestic violence victims.

I am very proud that our state government has and is leading the way in funding MAPS, and I look forward to being involved in discussion about how we can extend this important collaboration between agencies to a collaboration between agencies and the community organisations who support those experiencing violence.

The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness gives priority to front-line services focusing on women and children experiencing domestic violence and on homeless young people. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness is an agreement between our state government and the commonwealth government to co-fund homelessness services. After much campaigning, post cuts in the 2014 federal budget, this agreement has been funded until 2017 and is an important part of our domestic violence service provision. I am committed, and I know many others in this house are committed, to campaigning again, if necessary, to ensure that the federal government continues to fund this agreement beyond 2017 into the future.

The agreement assists 80,000 people each year and funds around 180 programs and services for people who are experiencing or who are at risk of homelessness. These are vitally important services that must always be funded to ensure the most vulnerable in our community are assisted. Again, I am proud that our state government has and will honour its commitment to fund its share of this important agreement.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:16): I rise to say a few words in relation to the Supply Bill. Clearly, this side of the house will be supporting the Supply Bill. It is critical that we do. You only have to look back to what happened in Canberra some 30 or 40 years ago, whenever it was, to see what happens when supply does not get through. Indeed, at that time, it was probably the best thing that could possibly happen, because it got rid of the dreadful Whitlam government and brought in Malcolm Fraser. Anyway, that is another story.

I would just like to refer to a few things in my electorate that are obviously part of the South Australian scene and part of what makes the place tick. Can I just talk about the Oceanic Victor enterprise for a short time. I am very aware that there are a number of people who are opposed to this project and do not want to see it happen, but equally there are many residents down on the south coast who do want to see it happen.

Indeed, at a breakfast just recently, that came out very strongly. It is going through a process at the moment in the environment and resources area, but hopefully ultimately it will happen. The business community and many locals are keen to have another activity take place down on the south coast for visitors to participate in, and I for one look forward to Oceanic Victor traversing the necessary bureaucracy and ultimately commencing and starting up in waters adjacent to Granite Island.

Also on that score, there is a good degree of frustration going on about the proposed Coles Bunnings development. Equally, there are a large number of people who want this to happen; there are some that do not, as is always the case. It seems to be snowed under somewhere in the bureaucracy—whether the Minister for Planning might take note of my comments and see if they can hurry this up—but it is going to happen.

People do not want to drive over the hill to the southern suburbs to go to Bunnings and Coles, and they want improved local services, so I look forward to in a short space of time this kicking off. Hopefully July or August this year would be a good time for it to commence. I spoke this morning in here about the zoning on food production. That again has caused a good deal of angst to primary producers on the entire Fleurieu Peninsula and other areas where it has been put into place.

I raise in this forum not for the first time the issue of ice, methamphetamine, and the wider drug issue, recognising that still the drug most highly in demand in Australia is heroin, according to the information that I have been able to glean around the place. Ice is causing a good degree of agony to many families and people associated with its use in my electorate, as I am sure it is in other members' electorates as well. It is something that we have to get on top of.

The federal justice minister is holding a forum in, I believe, Glenelg on Thursday this week and another one at Victor Harbor that night to talk about the federal government's reaction to what is going on with ice. The Prime Minister made some comment recently on dealing with the problem. It is good that, in my case, the member for Mayo is holding a forum down there on Thursday.

The member for Hammond and I are keen to also have a combined couple of forums on the Fleurieu—one at Goolwa and one at Victor—and I would like another one over on Kangaroo Island so that we can get SAPOL and people experienced in the impact of this drug to come out and talk to communities. If we can save one person from getting hooked on it, I believe we will have done a good job.

But overwhelmingly the problem that is affecting constituents of mine is the cost of living across my electorate, as it is across the rest of South Australia. Simply just making ends meet, buying food, paying for electricity and paying for water is absolutely driving people to the wall, and by the time they have done that they have not got enough money left to do anything else in many cases. I know my electricity bill regularly is way too much—$600 or $700 a quarter I think the last one was, and that varies. We are not high electricity users; we have no children at home—I believe when they do come home it spikes, I might add.

These costs of living are absolutely making life a misery for families across my electorate. It is something that former premier Rann said he was going to fix many years ago. Of course, nothing has happened, but power prices have gone up, water has gone through the roof, and we have this ongoing series of debacles in Adelaide with burst water mains on a never-ending basis which is not helping things at all.

A number of constituents come to one or other of my offices, or they meet me in the street, see me out and about, and they just say that they are really battling to make ends meet. Of course, that goes side-by-side with the lack of job availability. This government has done its best to destroy the South Australian economy, quite frankly, and it is a sad indictment on them that jobs are not available. They have let TAFE rundown very much in regional areas.

This government simply does not care what happens to regional people; they never have and they never will, unless it happens to be to their advantage to pump money into an area like they did with Nyrstar at Port Pirie to get the member for Frome on side in their government. It is pretty pathetic, I say.

On the other side of the Fleurieu, along with the member for Chaffey, I recently met with the proponents on an update of the Normanville Meat Works. This is a critical industry down on the Fleurieu that has been shut for some time. New owners have stepped in, with part of that ownership being Malaysian and part of it being a South Australian owner.

They have to spend considerable amounts of money on plant to get it up and running; they want to put goats through it. They are currently exporting live goats through to Malaysia to an abattoir that they lease from the government over there, but it is their preferred option to slaughter the goats in South Australia at the Normanville Meat Works, and to provide job opportunities for local people, local South Australians, wherever they can source staff from. I would suggest it will come down to that.

One issue on which I have written to the Minister for Transport is in regard to trying to get a B-double route into the Normanville Meat Works. That is part of the process that the new owners need to have put in place. We really do not need a great big series of impediments to that. It needs to go in; it is ludicrous to have to bring B-double goats, in this case, down from somewhere like New South Wales, and to disconnect the trailers just to take them for a kilometre or two up the road into the meatworks, so I am hoping that the minister will give us some assistance with that, and that he will make it happen. That will certainly expedite recommencement of works in that abattoir and get it off to a cracking start again.

I turn to the issues of schools and hospitals in my electorate. Schools, I believe, in some cases are getting pushed and shoved by the central bureaucracy in Flinders Street in the city. It is not helpful, and I have an issue which I have written to the minister about to do with special-school education down on the Fleurieu at one particular school, which will remain nameless at this stage in this place.

The fact of the matter is that the special-school scenario and those students run under a different budget system to the rest of the school. They have their global budget for the school, but the special school is treated differently. These students are suffering under the system because, simply, the money does not come through in the global system in which it is allocated, and the bureaucrats have manipulated things around so they do not get the money at the school when they need it.

I have parents coming to me on this. It is concerning them, and I do not believe that there is any equity in this for children who have special needs, as opposed to those in mainstream education. I think the minister might know what I am talking about, and it is something that needs fixing up, quite frankly. It is simply not appropriate to differentiate between children with special needs, and make the funding difficult to obtain. They get it eventually, as opposed to being part of the global budget for the running of the school itself, and that is something I will be pursuing.

Likewise with the hospitals, the South Coast District Hospital and the Kangaroo Island hospital are the only two health services that I have in my electorate, and they are both considerable-size operations. Some weeks ago, I put it to the Minister for Health to come back into the house and tell me that people on contracts were not going to lose their jobs. He has not done that, and I can tell you that staff in these health services around South Australia are nervous that as their contracts expire they will not be re-employed, and it is going to make life particularly difficult for many families if health-service staff find themselves all of a sudden out of a contract and out of a job.

Further, it is highly annoying that patients who present themselves at emergency at the South Coast District Hospital are bundled into the public hospital even though they may be private-hospital patients, and the public hospital will not put them in the private part of the hospital because they are picking up the income from it. I think that is inappropriate. You do not pay for private health cover to have to go into a public hospital if there are private facilities available.

The healthcare is terrific in both—do not let me be misunderstood on that. Put simply, if you are paying a considerable amount for private health benefits to receive private care, and if you have to go into a hospital such as South Coast through the emergency department and are then transferred into the rest of the hospital, it is untoward.

I want to make a few comments in relation to Kangaroo Island, the other side of my electorate across the water. Some time ago I spoke about what has happened with the number of undesirable elements who are being moved to the island. Only this week I walked into a service station to get fuel before I caught the ferry and the operator of the servo said, 'It's time you spoke up about this again. They are sending more and more over.'

Only today I was advised that one of these people that has been sent over to the island at Parndana, as I understand it, has allegedly been caught peering through windows, has been arrested and shipped off the island. It has to stop. I have said that before: it has to stop. There are not the facilities available over there to deal with these people, unfortunately, whereas they can be dealt with in the metropolitan area. Them being trundled off out to rural areas by Families SA or whatever is no good. It cannot be dealt with and has to stop fairly quickly.

A few weeks ago in this place I made mention of Kangaroo Island Council. I want to raise that briefly, because today we hear that the Victorian government have moved in and sacked the Geelong council and are putting in place an administrator. I think I mentioned that a few weeks ago in relation to the island. There has been some sort of reaction to that. The mayor has said a few things he probably should not have said but, anyway, I will leave it at that. I am not going to stoop to play games at that level.

For the benefit of the Minister for Local Government, he might want to pick up on this. After I made those remarks, three former staff members of the council came into my Kangaroo Island office when I was not there one day. They were desperate to speak to me in relation to being supportive of what I have said. I have also been supplied with a list of names—and this is only 30—who have left in the last four years due to pressure regarding administration and management matters. That is not all the staff who have left.

I am not going to go through the list and read them out. However, let me say that in this list of 30, 22 are directly related to management issues with the management of the council over the last four years. I did not come into this place lightly, as I said last time, and I put this on the record again. There does not seem to be any strength of purpose or will by the minister to do anything about this. I did say I am not going to let it go away, and I am not going to let it go away. I will not be making this list public, but I do call on the minister to put someone in place who these people can talk to in confidence, raise their matters and get them out in the open.

Many of the things that relate to the island could be fixed up by doing something about the cost of getting back and forward to the island. The cost of transport is one of the key issues which is holding the island back. We have the government running around full of froth and bubble, spending a million dollars on a commissioner, and doing this and that and everything else, when they are not dealing with the most critical issue.

I have raised this issue of the cost of transport with the commissioner. I would imagine that she has been told to shut up and not discuss it, because the government do not want to know about it. However, the cost of getting back and forward across the water is too much. There is also widespread angst about the cost of flying back and forward to the island with the one provider, Regional Express, which is a very reliable carrier, but the cost is exorbitant. You do not have the option of getting in your motor car and driving, as you can from any other part of South Australia, when there is a stretch of water between you and the mainland.

There are a lot of other things that I would like to talk about, but I really do not have the time here today. I will listen with interest to what my colleagues have to say about the Supply Bill. It is interesting times in South Australia. You have the Treasurer made to look a complete dill today on a number of issues where he has been railroaded, for example, Uber and then on the gas and oil exploration.

I might just add that I went along today to the presentation from the Wilderness Society expecting to hear exactly what I heard, which was fear and emotion and no facts related to it. This group does this all the time. It puts up scenarios of the Gulf of Mexico with an oil well in flames and the disaster that was perpetrated over there—and it was a disaster—and tries to relate it to what may or may not happen in Australia.

Simply, you cannot play on emotions, because it is not reality, and for that reason they fail dismally, in my view. I went along because my detractors will say, 'You won't listen to both sides.' Well, I did listen to both sides and I just thought that what was said was ridiculous, quite frankly. I did not think it was any help in the debate.

I actually look forward to oil and gas exploration being successful in the Great Australian Bight, whether it be by BP, whether it by Chevron, whether it be by Bight Petroleum, I do not care. Our whole way of life revolves around our industries being successful, and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the wheels would fall off and that we would have this dreadful catastrophe that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. I want to see good precautions put in place like anybody else. I certainly do not have that argument with those in the Wilderness Society or others who detract from it, and I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the house agree with me as well as members on the other side.

I just thought today was extremely disappointing and not much use at all. I do not feel the need to have any more nonsense spread around about the Gulf of Mexico disaster as it may occur in the Great Australian Bight. I think they are almost willing it to happen, to be perfectly honest, to say they were right. It is not going to happen, it should not happen and it will not happen, and with those few words I resume my seat.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:36): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill, and I see this as an opportunity to raise some of the issues that are affecting my electorate and the concerns of the people I represent here in parliament. Some of those include the police station in North Adelaide that was recently closed. Many people in North Adelaide utilised the police station there, and it was very reassuring for them to have somewhere they could go.

I have had people give examples of being tailgated or followed in their car knowing that they could drive to North Adelaide and find a police station that they could quickly access. Having to go to Hindley Street makes it pretty impossible to get a park or to be able to just pull up and run into a nearby police station.

There is also the cost of living, in particular, the emergency services levy doubling. A lot of people have really felt the pain not only of that but also from the fact that the increases to their gas bills, their water bills and their council rates have also contributed to the stress that many people on fixed incomes, particularly pensioners, are feeling in my electorate.

The closing of the Repat is a huge issue not only in my electorate but also in the whole of the state, and it is incredibly disappointing that, even with 121,000 signatures on a petition against the closing of the Repat, this government has completely ignored the will of the majority of the people of this state and it is still going ahead and closing the Repat.

So, on the one hand it is closing the Repat, diminishing some of the hospital services and closing hospitals, yet another issue that concerns my residents is the fact that they found, somehow, $160 million to expand the O-Bahn track. Now, remembering that this is after cancelling the Gawler electrification due to a lack of money, somehow it was politically motivated to find $160 million to improve the O-Bahn by a mere 3½ minutes. I have not met anybody who actually thinks that was a good use of money.

Just to let members know the disadvantages, whilst we are saving on the one hand 3½ minutes for the people using the O-Bahn there is a loss of 83 car parks on Hackney Road. There is a loss, as we saw documented recently, of 77 trees in the Rymill and Rundle parks, including four significant trees and 10 regulated trees. The so-called tunnel is more like an open cut through one of the most beautiful parks in our Parklands, being Rymill Park.

There will be 30 extra buses per hour along Grenfell Street between East Terrace and Frome Road, where hundreds of my residents live. Not only does this have traffic and safety implications for people trying to enter or exit their driveways, but there is also pollution. There is also the loss of the right-hand turn access into Gilberton from Park Terrace, which was disclosed only more recently, and that also gives the appearance of secrecy. This government is just trying to find spare seconds anywhere to try to make successful this knee-jerk plan that they thought of weeks out from an election by changing and ruining other people's suburban amenities.

Removing the right-hand turn from Park Terrace into Gilberton means that people will have to drive an extra couple of kilometres to a major intersection where there are often car accidents (near the Buckingham Arms), turn right onto Walkerville Terrace, and then turn right into Gilbert Street, a very narrow suburban side street, where potentially there is far more likelihood of accidents, danger, cats or children running out in front of cars.

It is far more dangerous than doing a right-hand turn with an arrow in front of the O-Bahn, which has been happening for many years. The residents of Gilberton would like the right-hand arrow to remain and just see how it goes, and if there are problems then perhaps they will concede; however, at this point there is no valid argument for the right-hand turn to be removed.

Even the people in the north-eastern suburbs question this use of public money and would prefer park-and-rides for increased safety and time saving. By 8 o'clock in the morning the existing car park spaces are often full, and people are walking for up to 10 minutes from where they have parked their car to the bus stop; so, the 3½ minutes they save is more than taken up by the 10 minutes that they have to walk in the morning and then 10 minutes in the dark at night, which is also completely unsafe.

For $160 million not one single extra bus has been purchased. Not one extra single bus has been mentioned that would be added into the timetable; so this $160 million does not help one extra person in the north-eastern suburbs to have access to public transport. In fact, if they somehow squeeze more onto the very popular service that already exists, it will just create more parking issues for those who are already using it and, therefore, probably eat up the 3½ minutes that they have just saved. It is a completely ridiculous use of public money.

There could have been many other ways, as Rod Hook suggested in his deposition to the select committee; for example, at the moment the O-Bahn travels at 80 km/h when it used to travel at 100 km/h. Had the government maintained the track correctly, they could be travelling at 100 km/h and probably saving the same 3½ minutes.

It is the same with different ticketing methods that could be used, so that entry could be from both the front and middle doors, which would save maybe half a minute or a minute at every stop, which would all add up. There could be better traffic management at the major intersections. Having them observed during the one to two peak hours that we experience in Adelaide in the morning and afternoon could save far more time and cost hardly anything. The priorities of this government are very disappointing.

I have mentioned before in the house that prior to coming into parliament I never really had an interest in being a member of parliament, but what I could not stand to see was my state being destroyed by this Labor government with their poor priorities and their lack of prioritisation—and this O-Bahn is a very, very good example of $160 million being spent for 3½ minutes in marginal Labor seats—when I have got homeless people sleeping in the Parklands.

Only weeks ago an unidentified homeless man was found in the River Torrens. Last year, or the year before, a homeless woman was found dead in the Business SA car park. We have people sleeping in our Parklands who are in great danger. For $160 million I could build a lot of facilities and change a lot of people's lives; but, instead, we are saving 3½ minutes for the same people who already are catching the bus, and not allowing any more people to catch the bus, and we are doing this at absolutely great cost to our Parklands, to our trees. Hackney Road has had all its roses and grapevines removed.

I do not know how people are going to access the Botanic Gardens or the Zoo in any safe manner. You have to cross all the bus lanes now to get in. I think it is going to cause traffic hazards and a lot of danger. The other issues also concerning the people of my electorate are the high-rise developments throughout Prospect. My great concern is that Churchill Road and some of Prospect Road could end up looking like the commission housing in Fitzroy. They are all tilt-up concrete buildings that look good when they are new, but after a while when they look old and you have people drying their clothes out their windows, I am very worried about what that will look like and so are my residents.

Today in the chamber, the Deputy Premier said that he believes people should be involved; the community should be involved at the beginning of the development planning when you set the plan. That is what happened in Prospect. In Prospect the residents were sort of okay about three storeys on the urban corridor. So, people conceded that with three storeys on Prospect Road—yes, we have to allow for development and population growth.

They did not envisage that to mean a four-storey development in a narrow side street, Richmond Avenue, which is not an urban corridor. Ten units onto a 500 square metre block that had one heritage-style house will now be 10 units; that is 10 cars, if they only have one car per household that have to fit. That is more traffic, more congestion, and it is certainly not in keeping with the nature of the area. Many people in Prospect are very concerned.

They moved into Prospect because of the tree-lined streets, the sandstone houses, the big backyards and the lifestyle. To suddenly have tilt-up high-rise high-density buildings in your narrow side street is not what people moved into Prospect for. It is more acceptable for high-rise to be in the city; that is accepted. In the case of the Mayfield development it certainly was not expected to be 12 and 14 storeys. I think one of the towers is meant to be up to 17 storeys. It certainly was not expected to be that high.

In fact, Jan Gehl, a very well-known architect who I visited when I was in Copenhagen, said that it is lazy architecture and planning if you cannot design high-density housing to a maximum of five storeys. He said anything higher than five storeys does nothing for the vibrancy of a city because it actually means people do not interact if you go higher than five storeys. So, if we want a vibrant city, we should not be building over five storeys if that is your intention.

We have so many houses and units in the city that are empty and available for sale. I do not know what the rush is to keep building and building because all you will do is devalue the properties we already have. We should wait until we have the demand. As we saw with the UNO Apartments that were built by the council, which are three and four storeys high, they sold like hot cakes. In fact, they were released well after the Mayfield development was announced. I do not think Mayfield even have their first building off the ground yet, and UNO Apartments are fully built with everyone moved in and it is fantastic.

If you give people what they are actually looking for, they will sell and they will do well. It was the same with Park Terrace at Gilberton when that was a high-rise building with units. I think it was about a 10-storey building; it did not sell. Now they are two-storey townhouses that sold fast and they look amazing. They are the people who have recently purchased homes who now might have their access blocked to their homes. It may see them having to drive several kilometres out of their way just to get back to their home which they will be able to see 10 metres from the intersection.

There are lots of issues going on in my electorate. One of the most recent ones that was in the news is the riding on the footpaths laws. I think it was irresponsible for the government to bring in riding on the footpaths with no rules. It was carte blanche. Good idea, let's have people riding on the footpaths which means that the footpaths actually have the same speed as the adjacent road which is extremely dangerous. As we have heard on the radio this week, two pedestrians have been fairly badly injured by bike riders who then rode off and there is no way of identifying them.

I suspect that is only the tip of the iceberg. I have had multiple people in the Prospect area call my office, very shaken, particularly old ladies, who find it very overwhelming to be nearly bowled over by a fast moving bicycle when they are going to get their paper off the footpath or they are going to put their bins out and they are nearly cleaned up. It is very dangerous the way it is.

It was poorly thought out, and was brought through as a regulation instead of legislation, which means there was no opportunity for debate, for us to improve this bill, or for us to have a proper and reasonable discussion on what should happen. For example, when I drive out of my driveway at work, you expect fast-moving things to come from the right on Prospect Road, and pedestrians are slower moving. You look as you are driving out, then you look to the right for fast-moving things. Twice, I have nearly had a bike ride into my car coming from the left.

Whether we improve the bike laws to state that if you are riding a bike, firstly you should be riding at walking speed (say, 10 km/h), or that you should ride in the direction of the traffic, as people are used to looking to the right first, so they do not get cleaned up. It might be that where there are outdoor eating areas, as there are on Prospect Road, Gouger Street and Rundle street—to me, that is a completely inappropriate place for you to be on your bike. Maybe you should be made to walk your bike if you want to be on the footpath.

There need to be some sensible rules put around riding on the footpath. I sent out a survey, and I had 662 responses filled in and sent back to my office. Of those, 60 per cent opposed riding on the footpath—so, the majority of people. I would suspect many people who have not even responded would also agree that it is quite dangerous. Some might think, 'Yes, it's good to ride on the footpath, but there needs to be some rules.' I think the percentage would be even higher if I had asked, 'Do you think there should be more rules around riding on the footpath?' I think it probably would have got to 90 per cent.

From my portfolio areas, I have already mentioned the lack of housing, and the two homeless people who recently unfortunately passed away due to not having a home. They were homeless and living in the Parklands, and that is particularly sad. I do not think that the gentleman who was found in the River Torrens has even been identified, and it is even sadder that we do not know who this person is. According to the ABS statistics from the last census, which I think was in 2011, I believe there were over 800 people considered to be homeless, under their definition, in South Australia. We need to do more.

In the child protection area, I think we all know there is chaos. Potential strikes are being threatened by the union this Friday. There are two ministers dealing with this area, which makes it confusing and splits the responsibility. It has been combined with the Department for Education, which is a huge department that has faced many different issues. The Liberal Party believe that Families SA should be removed from that department.

We also believe that there should be a children's commissioner. Although the government agreed to 19 of the 21 recommendations that were handed down one year ago regarding the Chloe Valentine inquest, remember that in 2003 they agreed to a children's commissioner after the Layton review. It is my job to hold the government to account and keep checking whether they have done it yet.

I know that child protection is fraught with issues in every state of this country and in every country of the world; however, this government has had multiple reports, and has spent millions and millions of dollars. Even though the government has agreed to recommendations, they have not implemented them all. I know that it is a difficult area, but if you spend millions of dollars on reviews, you accept the recommendations and then you do not implement the recommendations, you should be held to account.

One of the recommendations to come out of the Layton review was the recommendation of a children's commissioner, and I do believe that should go ahead very soon. I know the government is waiting for the Nyland royal commission report. That report was due in November 2015, was then extended to 31 May 2016, and has been extended again until 5 August 2016. I think the government needs to do more, and they cannot hide behind a royal commission. They know there are lots of things that need to be done and should be done.

In my volunteers portfolio, the issues that volunteers are facing are the cost of screening, particularly for those working with children or vulnerable people, the time—it is still taking time, even two years later after the changes—and the need for multiple screening. I know the government is working on this, but if the government was a private business, they would have gone under by now, because their service has been appalling. They need to do more and they need to be responsible and responsive far quicker than they are.

Jobs are one of the biggest worries for our young, with my youth portfolio. We have the highest unemployment and our youth unemployment is incredibly high. It is very sad. The other issue for youth is homelessness. For children leaving care under the guardianship of the minister, the statistics that I found most recently, from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, are that between one-third and half of all young people exiting care will experience homelessness in the first two years after leaving care, which is terrible. That means we are not setting children up well for life. They have been under the guardianship of the minister and this government. What is being done and how can that be an acceptable figure? That is just shameful and more has to be done for our young.

The government is predicting a surplus this year, which—as an accountant, to get a surplus from selling your assets is hardly definable as a surplus. I cannot even believe they are allowed to call it a surplus when selling the Motor Accident Commission is probably the only way you got the surplus, and in GST you have had a windfall of half a billion dollars. I find it embarrassing that our state takes more than it gives, year on year on year, and we actually fight for more. Rather than being the proud state we started as that contributed to this country and was a wealthy state, we now beg for more money all the time, expecting all of the other states to prop up our overspending because we cannot live within our means.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (16:57): I also rise today to speak in support of the Supply Bill 2016. I have been very interested to hear from members today about their thoughts on this issue, and I am hearing some recurring themes. Obviously, the state is being let down by the state government in an array of areas. That is the first thing I want to point out. The second thing, though, is it is not all doom and gloom. We on this side of the chamber certainly have a plan. We have a plan to make South Australia better. We have a plan to put South Australia first. With us in government, South Australia will certainly be winning again.

I speak in favour of the Supply Bill 2016 for the appropriation money from the consolidated account for 2016-17, and obviously the Supply Bill is necessary for the first three months of 2016-17 until the 2016-17 budget bill has passed through parliament and receives assent. I understand that the amount being sought under the Supply Bill is $3.444 billion. I speak in favour of the bill, and I wanted to take this opportunity to do two main things: firstly, to highlight some issues of concern from a state level, and then also at an electorate level for my electorate of Hartley.

On the topic of exports, we held the minister to account today. We heard him give an explanation about the most recent trade mission to China; however, we heard only as late as last week that China exports were actually in a $500 million decline as that trade mission began. As the Premier and the Minister for Trade embarked on the trade mission to China, there were some damning statistics released by the ABS that actually show that the value of South Australian merchandisable exports to China had decreased by more than $500 million in the 12 months to February 2016.

South Australia's merchandisable export values to China for the month of February 2016 were actually the lowest since 2010. Naturally, we are raising this as a point of concern. Whilst there are some individual wins, we have always said that you cannot just try and pick winners, because when you get it wrong, it is at the cost of the taxpayer.

Here in South Australia we need to provide an environment that promotes competition and investment, and provides for an overall environment in which businesses can win. As it stands, the current government is obviously spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these trade missions and, despite the implementation of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, the state's export values to China are still significantly in the red.

One must question the government strategy here. Obviously, it is not producing the fruit that it should be, so therefore, because it is not, they need to be doing things differently. We know that as a state we cannot get wealthy by selling to ourselves. We understand the value of exports and that we should be doing everything we can to promote facilitation of rising exports for the benefit of mums and dads, companies and workers in our state. However, what the state government is doing at the moment is not working. Those facts show it and they need to be improving rapidly.

With regard to ESL hikes, on this side of the chamber we have called on Labor to reverse the savage ESL hikes. The state Liberals are calling on the Labor government to reverse its cruel, unfair hikes, to put $90 million back into the pockets of South Australians. How can this government expect to grow our economy when it is taking money out of the pockets of mums and dads and ordinary South Australians? We know that the way that you grow the economy is to put money into people's pockets and then they can put it back into the economy through expenditure, through going to the shops, and it flows back into the economy.

Taxing is certainly not a way to grow the economy. If you want to promote economic activity, you need to tax less, not tax more. This government does not seem to understand that and they continue to ignore us. There is no excuse for the Premier and his government to keep slugging ordinary South Australians with these massive, enormous ESL bills.

These savage government ESL increases have been, and will continue to be a massive hit to South Australian ordinary businesses and ordinary households. Quite frankly, a failure to reverse these cruel hikes will do nothing but hinder the South Australian economy because, as my colleague pointed out a little earlier, we continue to have the highest unemployment rate in all of Australia. That is right; we are even lagging behind states where we should not be.

We have enormous potential here in South Australia, but we are being let down by this government. Therefore, why would the government not be doing everything it can to be reducing that rate of unemployment? We have seen some very dire, worrying unemployment trends in recent times, as recently as March, that have emerged across South Australia according to some recent ABS data, whereby in February 2016, for the Adelaide central and hills area, unemployment was 6.8 per cent; Adelaide's north, 10.2 per cent; Adelaide's south, 8.4 per cent; and the South-East, 7.1 per cent.

This is before you even talk about mining jobs, which have declined from 8,600 in November 2015 to 5,400 in February 2016. We now have almost 70,000 unemployed South Australians looking for work as well. We know that South Australia's unemployment rate skyrocketed from just under 7 per cent in January to 7.7 per cent in February, being, as I said, the highest in the nation.

However, we have outlined a plan to address this through growing the economy, through reducing the tax burden on businesses and households, through cutting red tape and unnecessary regulation, through supporting export businesses and encouraging their growth, and through fostering entrepreneurialism. How long did the government take to come to a position on UberX? The state government does not have an innovative bone in its body, when it took as long as it did to make a decision about UberX. It is farcical. We will also invest in productive infrastructure but, not only that, we will support growth opportunities for our regional businesses and industries.

Quite frankly, the Weatherill Labor government has failed to do any of this over the last 14 years. As a start, we would be calling on the state government to extend the small business payroll tax rebate which is due to be abolished in July this year, because payroll tax is a regressive tax; it is a ridiculous tax burden; and it punishes employers hiring more people. When we have the highest unemployment rate in the nation, it is taxes like payroll tax that should be at the front of the government's mind to either reduce or abolish, because it is absolutely ridiculous.

Businesses need to have confidence in the future, because we know that it is businesses that create jobs, not government. This government might think it is the government's job to create jobs, but it is not. It is actually the role of business to create jobs. What we need to be doing is giving business a shot in the arm; giving businesses an opportunity to grow the economy, invest and put on more people here in South Australia.

As we have seen, our economic credentials are trending in the wrong direction at the moment. I have no doubt that, if we reduce the tax burden on South Australian businesses, owners will certainly have much more beneficial, stronger incentives to invest but not only to invest but also to make more opportunities in search of a job, and provide more hours for those who already have a job but would like to work even more as well.

My colleague before me has also spoken a little about the O-Bahn and the $160 million expenditure on that process. We are not in government: we are in opposition; I do understand that. The money is being spent, and the project will go ahead. However, I say to the minister: when you spend $160 million on a project and claim that it is going to save you three or four minutes, if more people are using that service in the north-eastern suburbs in an area like mine and they do not have ample car-parking space to park their car to catch the O-Bahn, the time that they are spending on the O-Bahn is eradicated by the time they actually have to walk extra to get to the O-Bahn services.

We know that the government is playing political games in my electorate. They promised a car park before the election, and they have withdrawn funding for the car park since the election. Again, I utilise this speech today to call on the state government to stop playing games at Paradise Interchange and build the car park that they promised, and I will keep holding this government to account on that promise. We have already made the announcement, and we continue to hold firm on the position that, if elected to government, the state Liberals will build that car park at Paradise Interchange. The state government needs to stop playing games in that area and build the car park.

In relation to East Marden Primary School, I have made speeches time and time again about that school. It is a great school, a fantastic school, with an excellent culture and exceptional facilities. It is in dire need of upgrades in some of the areas there, and I know that the minister has visited East Marden primary in recent times. My understanding is that it is at capacity, and I call on the government to make funds available to upgrade the facilities at that school.

There is also another broken promise in my electorate which made the local paper two weeks ago—funny about that—and that pertains to the Glynde substation. That is another example where the state government—a desperate state government—made a promise to the people of Glynde before the last state election. The promise was that they would make alternative land available for a substation to be built out of residential Glynde.

Here we are, about 703 days away from the next election—closer to the next election than we are to the past election—and the state government still has not delivered on that promise. The people in my area of Glynde have not forgotten this promise, so I again call on the state government to come through on that promise and deliver to the people of my area a parcel of land out of the residential area where SA Power Networks can build that substation, because the state government has broken its promise, and it has lacked credibility from the start.

Lochiel Park is another example where many residents bought into the area because it was sold as this sustainability hub, if you like. They were promised recycling water facilities. They have purple pipes in their dwellings; however, these purple pipes do not work.

They have not been able to access recycled water at Lochiel Park for over eight years, I am led to believe. Water minister after water minister and planning minister after planning minister still cannot get water flowing through the pipes in Lochiel Park. I say to the state government: 'Come through on your promises from a long time ago. Please deliver to my residents in Lochiel Park and Campbelltown the recycled water facilities that they were promised and that they deserve.'

Burst water mains has been another topical issue in recent times. It has not been handled well, to say the least, and we know that there is an array of factors that comes into consideration in regard to water mains. However, I will not tolerate and I simply cannot stand to see residents in my area: (a) flooded out of their own homes, or (b) have maintenance that is so bad that their water and sanitary needs are not being met after some two weeks in some instances.

It is absolutely appalling in this day and age, given that we are paying so much for water. Given the amount of increases that we have seen for water in recent times, it is simply not good enough for people in my electorate to put up with what they have had to. I ask SA Water and the state government to have a good hard look at themselves to see what they can improve in that area, because it cannot go on the way that it is.

I also had a quick glance at a speech that I made last year in regard to this issue. The unfortunate news is that the broken promises that I speak of here by this state government were broken promises a year ago. Some of the claims that the state government made a year ago have proven to be false. What this shows is that this government will do what it wants and it does not care who stands in the way. If we look at the Repat, we had over 100,000 signatures on paper pleading for the Repat to stay open, but did the government listen? No. I have also pointed to some examples in my own electorate where the government just do not listen because they are so arrogant.

We have nine key priorities to reclaim South Australia's greatness, and I have no doubt that, if we are elected to government, we will do that by growing our economy, by ensuring that we do have the best education system in Australia, by ensuring that we do have a healthy state and by ensuring that we strengthen the ever growing vibrant communities that we have.

We will continue to build our state, and we will ensure safety and justice. While we are speaking of the justice system and the court system, again, we have seen examples of where the court system is in such disarray with not only backlogs but also the physical buildings are in dire need of upgrade, yet the government continues to ignore that need. We will continue to protect our environment, we will embrace our unique culture and we will run a stable and efficient government, that is for sure.

It is with those comments that I bring the house's attention to areas that I would like to be considered by the government both across the state and in my electorate of Hartley. We need to be doing much better in this regard. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:13): It is fairly safe to say that our state is not travelling well. On a number of key metrics, our state has the unenviable reputation of being at the top of some of the worst statistics in Australia. We do have the highest unemployment in Australia. We used to say we had the highest unemployment in mainland Australia, but now we find we are actually the highest in Australia. I think it is very, very damning to say that we are even worse than Tasmania, which has often been used as the benchmark for stagnation in Australia. We have had the highest unemployment rate now for over 12 months.

We also have the highest levels of net interstate migration in Australia. We are losing a generation of our young people who seek opportunities interstate. They do not leave South Australia because it is not a great place to live or a great place to play and relax. They leave because they are looking for job opportunities.

They leave because they perceive that there simply are not the jobs here in the industries that they want to work in to be able to encourage them to stay, so they go, and that has huge detriment for South Australia because we are losing that generation who need to help care as our baby boomer generation retires. We are losing the generation who are most likely to take risks and be entrepreneurial and to innovate and to understand the modern digital economy and to create small businesses that interact and deal in those spaces.

We also have a very stagnant housing and construction industry. It is interesting that we are seeing now, as the mining boom turned to the mining bust, the issues that the Queensland and Western Australian governments have, especially in terms of the high debt that they are now saddled with. After spending even more than the royalties that came in, they are now saddled with the high levels of debt that they going to have to service whilst going through a mining-bust scenario.

But we did not get that, and, in common with us, New South Wales and Victoria also did not get a mining boom. It is interesting now that we should be looking forward to a brighter future. Now that we do not have a mining bust we should be able to look forward to a lower dollar, and with China moving from a construction boom to a consumption boom that will naturally benefit South Australia we should be seeing a pick-up in growth, but we are not seeing that.

In Victoria and New South Wales they have had a construction and housing industry boom that has helped to kickstart their economies that then flows on to further growth prospects in other areas. In South Australia we simply have not had that and that is why we are stuck where we are, and we are relying on exports into places like China to try to lift the economy that simply at this stage cannot provide us with enough heavy lifting to get us out of the doldrums of where we are.

We are looking at gross state product growth of about 1½ per cent, but we are only looking at employment growth of about 1 per cent, which simply is not enough to help kickstart our economy. At the same time that in South Australia we did not have the mining boom we are now also seeing the de-industrialisation of our economy. We are seeing Holden leave in 2017. We are seeing Alinta now shutting up shop and the Leigh Creek mine is closed, and it is not long—a couple months, indeed—before the Port Augusta Power Station runs out of coal and shuts down.

What we are not seeing is the ability of those people to transition into other jobs, and it creates a lot of fear and a lot of uncertainty in our state and in our economy and, again, is a damning indictment on where we are at. The government talks about us being a transitioning economy, but we can keep talking about it all we like until we actually start to transition, and that is what we are not seeing.

It is not a new problem. It is a problem we have seen since the 70s. It is a problem we have seen since tariff reduction happened in the 80s. It is a problem that John Bannon identified, yet we still have not been able to make the transition. Indeed, the spectre of the State Bank, which hung over much of the Brown-Olsen government's time in office, stymied us from being able to tackle a lot of the issues that we should have tackled at that time; and, indeed, there is probably a decade there that we lost in being able to help transition the South Australian economy.

The state is headed in the wrong direction, and the longer we head down this path the worse off we will be. It is why we as a Liberal Party was so passionate to try to win the last election, not only because we believed that we would be a better government but also the South Australian people need a change of direction, and they are only going to get that through a change of government.

Our state is like a large ship. It is hard to move, it is heavy, and once it is heading in a certain direction it will tend to head in that direction naturally. It takes a lot of effort, it takes a lot of work, to be able to turn that ship, and indeed for us to be able to turn at 180 degrees is going to take a lot of work, but that is what needs to happen.

The reason I believe that we are heading down this path, seemingly irreversibly, and seemingly without any real understanding from the government of the position that we are in, is because I believe the Labor Party does not fundamentally understand what it takes to grow an economy and all of the social, economic and community benefits that flow from full employment. They simply do not understand because the culture that exists within their party does not allow them to understand. I am so proud to be in a party that has small businessmen as part of its number.

I am so proud to be a part of a party that has retired farmers in its team, because they are the people who understand at the coalface what it takes to grow an economy, what it takes to grow jobs, what it takes to risk capital in order to help the broader community grow and prosper. From the Labor Party perspective, what we have is people who have either lived off the teat of the union movement or lived off the teat of the government, and those jobs have to be the safest jobs in South Australia. Without that real world experience of what it is like to actually have to face tough economic times, tough times within your own household, it is simply impossible to understand what it takes to deal with an economy in a state that is in tough times.

This is a government whose rhetoric speaks as one that tries to help businesses create jobs but whose actions speak to another truth. I am talking here about a payroll tax rebate that is due to expire on 30 June this year, which will hit those very businesses that we would like to start growing. I am talking about a government that levied increased ESL rates onto many sectors of the economy, community sectors of the economy, our farming sector, businesses, the very people that we expect and want to grow and help recover the South Australian economy and the people who got punished in order to prop up a failing Labor Party budget.

I am talking about a federal Labor decision to put in a remuneration safety tribunal for the trucking industry that will punish owner-drivers simply because they are independent contractors. If the determination goes through we will see the cost of freight on everything rise. Again, the state Labor government has not understood, and it has failed to stand up and speak out against this disgusting decision that will impact on every single household when they go to buy groceries from major and minor supermarkets alike. It is disgusting and again shows the fact that, whilst the government may be rhetorical on one hand, their actions speak to a different truth.

We are talking about a government whose decision to double the size of our desalination plant has led to water price increases that South Australians will have to continue to pay for decades to come. South Australians are being punished every single quarter when they get their water bill because this Labor government decided to look at their egos as opposed to need.

I am talking about this government's over-exposure to non-baseload renewable energy, which has seen our electricity prices at the highest level in Australia and the third highest in the world. It is absolutely disgusting when it comes to trying to run a business and, indeed, an industrial manufacturing business such as the ones that we are losing. We also see the increases to natural resource management levies. This government is trying to punish one of the true lights of our economy, our farming sector, which is being punished by this government with increased NRM levy rates just for the privilege of trying to help our South Australian economy recover. Again, this speaks to a truth that this government does not understand how to help businesses grow and prosper.

What I think is missing from the opposite side is a consistent set of values that underpin why they do things. It seems to me that there is a grab bag of policies that they institute on the whims of individual ministers, that they institute on the whims of their union paymasters, instead of looking at a holistic ideology that helps to underpin how we can turn around our South Australian economy.

As it comes closer to the election, this fact is going to get starker, because we on this side of the house do have a consistent ideology. We have a liberal and conservative philosophy that underpins everything that we do, and it is a philosophy that has proven itself to work; it is indeed the only philosophy that has proven itself to work over many, many decades, indeed hundreds of years. It is the reason that we are here today. I look at the emerging economies of India and China, and it is their embrace of the very philosophies that we have tried to employ here in South Australia since proclamation that is working over there. We should be looking to those examples to see what we need to do here.

Recently, the Liberal Party released our 2036 document, which outlines what we stand for as the Liberal Party and what a future Liberal government will do in office. It is by its nature a broad ranging document that is underpinned by principle and values. It is not going to be a complete policy manifesto; indeed, it would be irresponsible for us to go out and announce a policy platform two years out from an election, when things evolve and change and where economic circumstances change. It would be completely irresponsible.

The first step towards building an alternative government is to tell the South Australian people what you stand for, and that is precisely what we have done in 2036. Is it a document that will continue to make sense, and increasingly make sense, as we move closer to the election and we flesh out our policy platform in line with the values that underpin what we stand for? By the time we get to the election, the South Australian people will have a strong contrast but they will also understand fully what the alternative Liberal government will look like.

In this document there is a lot of detail. To the contrary of many comments, especially some of those made by members opposite, this is a document that tells a lot about a future Liberal government. First off, it makes an undeniable statement that we are a government of lower tax because that is precisely the way we are going to be able to drive our South Australian economy.

We have already committed the Liberal Party to reversing the disgusting increases to the emergency services levy that the Labor Party pushed onto the people of South Australia post the 2014 election. To the householders, as well as those who create jobs, we are going to be a lower taxing government. The detail on that is to come but the South Australian public can know that a future Liberal government will lower tax.

The second thing that South Australians can understand is that we will have a regional focus. Indeed, understanding the regions is ingrained in the very nature of our party. It goes back to the fundamentals and to the formation of our party in understanding what the regional economy is all about. It is those regions that are going to provide the basis for which our economy will recover and grow.

As the party that understands the regions, we are going to be able to unlock the regions, given that they are 50 per cent of our merchandise exports and one third of this state's population. There is a wealth of resource out there that is waiting to be unlocked, instead of punished, and that is what will happen under a future Liberal government.

There is a very strong theme across a number of areas around decentralisation—again, another fundamental underlying value in line with Liberal philosophy. We want to increase school autonomy, give principals the ability to run their schools in line with what their local communities need. We want to return control of hospitals to local communities—indeed, potentially down to individual hospitals—because communities understand what their community needs in terms of health services.

We want to re-engage with the private training sector, which this government has shut out because they are beholden to the Australian Education Union, so that we can re-engage and create diversity in a sector which will not only provide better education outcomes but do so at far less cost to the taxpayer, which will in turn increase the amount of training that can be provided to help more South Australians get the skills they need to get into the jobs of the 21^st century.

We will have a greater focus on working with non-government organisations in the welfare service delivery area where it is not about creating big government bureaucracies but about creating and supporting community-based organisations that are in touch with their local area, that understand more intimately the needs of their local area and can help to build stronger, more resilient communities as opposed to simply creating stronger, bigger bureaucracies.

There is a very strong focus on preventative health. There is a very strong desire to split education from child protection because we do not believe that those two things belong together. Indeed, being shackled with education has meant that child protection has been marginalised in its department's focus, and this idea that child protection is an important enough issue, considering that this government has made such a mess of that area, that it needs its own department and it needs to be separate so that its single focus can be protecting South Australia's vulnerable children where their parents are unable to do so.

We have said very strongly that we are going to be a government that has a more rigorous process around infrastructure development and infrastructure projects. We have talked about Infrastructure SA, we have talked about a productivity commission that will give independent analysis on what is the best way forward for our economy, some rigour around the billions of taxpayers' money that we, as politicians, get to spend every year. It is a very strong signal to South Australians about what a future Liberal government is going to look like.

Perhaps most importantly from reading this document, South Australians will be able to understand, and can already understand, what our future economic budget strategy is going to be. This document says very clearly that we are about balanced budgets, and this idea that the tax we collect and the money we get from different sources (state, federal and otherwise) should be enough to run the day-to-day of our government. A balanced budget is very much a principle and a philosophy that is underpinned by what the Liberal Party stands for: this idea that we should live within our means, this idea that we should have as much government as we can afford, and this idea that we should be mindful that the money we spend is not our own; it is the hard-earned money of every South Australian taxpayer, and we should do well to remember that fact.

Whilst running a balanced budget, this document also talks about an increased infrastructure spend to help kickstart and improve the productivity of our economy. On the one hand, we are talking about balanced budgets on a recurrent spending sense, but then on an infrastructure spend sense, we are willing to invest in good debt in order to help improve the productive capacity of our economy. This will help South Australians have a better quality of life and make it easier to transport yourself around our cities and our country regions. I think that that is fundamental.

Indeed, where that ends up will be determined in the first budget post 2018. South Australians can be left in no doubt as to the budget strategy that we are going to employ. This idea of a balanced recurrent spending—so, we are not borrowing money to pay wages, but that indeed debt is good debt when it is used to develop infrastructure projects that benefit South Australians—is not a bad idea. It is a very clear policy and a very clear understanding.

This document also does go through a number of other policies. It talks about, in the education space, our desire to move year 7s to high school. An area where we are unique in the country is still having year 7s in primary school. In unlocking that, it means that children get better access to specialist science and maths teachers that exist in high schools, as opposed to the generalist teachers that exist at primary school level.

This document talks about us not wanting to merge South Australia's emergency services, very much in response to the botched reform process that the member for Light undertook when he was the minister. Indeed, probably one of the reasons that he was sacked was this idea of merging very distinct organisations that should otherwise stand on their own two feet.

This document also talks about us and our desire to work with the federal government to examine SA's defence sector and export capacity, so that it is not just about federal government spending propping up jobs in South Australia for domestic defence infrastructure spend, but about how we can build technologies that we can further export to the world. That is happening on a small scale, but it is something that we should be looking more towards doing as an advanced economy into the future.

When this document is attacked by those opposite, it should be seen in the light of people that do not have any ideas themselves or have a grab bag of policy ideas, whose outcomes, when it comes to the South Australian economy, are deeply flawed and sending our economy in the wrong direction, and as people that are not credibly able to critique our policy and our manifesto in detail.

This is a document that will become the basis for which people can understand what a Liberal government is going to look like. It is something that I am extremely proud of and that I know the entire team is extremely proud of. We will gladly take it to the next election and pit it against what those opposite have to provide.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:33): I will rise and make a brief contribution. I stand with concern. I stand here, looking at a state that I live in and I love, and in which I represent a very important region of South Australia. I stand for my contribution with concern, because we are seeing a government that has a citycentric focus, and yet they are looking to the regions for the prosperity they provide to South Australia's economy.

We have the Supply Bill, relating to the appropriation of $3.44 billion, and yet we do not seem to be growing the economy. We do not seem to be able to grow the level of money that the state is bringing into our coffers. We see a government that is desperate to spend money on populist projects that, for me, in essence, are all about ensuring that they get elected at the next election. What I do not see are royal commissions into sustainable farming. I do not see royal commissions into longevity of food production, how we can do it better and how we can grow more with less water.

I see royal commissions into the nuclear industry that has been all but ruled out. We do see a small glimmer of hope that there might be some storage facility in some faraway place. I am sure no-one on the government side would want a storage facility anywhere near their electorate. It is funny that the government is using that royal commission to pinpoint a storage facility potentially in the regions—the regions that are growing clean, green food, grown under a blue sky with clean water.

I think what underpins all of our economy is the opportunity to be able to do business with confidence, to be able to invest with confidence, and to be able to employ people, and that takes confidence as well. What we are seeing at the moment is a distraction from South Australia's prosperity, and it is about coming to this state for a reason, and that is to do business and do business successfully.

I see many businesses that come to my electorate, particularly the Riverland and the Mallee, because I have the Victorian border right on my doorstep. They make a comparison on a very regular basis and, when they are looking at the business case scenarios, they say, 'Why am I going to come over here and do business when I want to set up a processing plant or a nut-cracking plant or a fruit packaging facility?'

Then they do their sums, and they do their sums because they have to put transformers on poles, they have to cut through the red tape and they have to deal with the green tape. They go to Victoria, as an example, and the Victorian government will come to them and say, 'How can we help you? What do you need to do business in our state? How can we be a part of your business model to make sure that you do business here in Victoria?'

I will give you a very good example. I had an investor who came to the Riverland, and he wanted to inject into the economy $30 million that was going to employ people and put expertise on the ground. It was going to be a primary industry property that was going to grow almonds, and they were going to put a significant amount of money into the local economy.

That business went to the state government looking for some assistance to start up because, as everyone in here would know, $30 million is a lot of money and it is a start-up business. Farming does not return money from day one. Farming is a long-term strategy. It is a strategy where you invest heavily today for a moderate return over many years; it is long term.

In the end, this company that came to South Australia and wanted to do business has gone, and where do you think it has gone? They have gone to Victoria and set up, because the Victorian government helped them with their power and got out of the way so they could actually set up their business and grow, and that is exactly what they are doing. That was a missed opportunity.

I look at particularly the Riverland and Mallee. I will look right across the state; I will not just generalise with the Riverland and Mallee. What I will say is, in the trade minister's recent review of the latest ABS export stats, he basically said, 'If you take out all the bad stuff, the rest of it looks pretty good.' That is a great thing to say: 'If you take out all the bad stuff, the rest of it looks pretty good.'

Of course, that is not laying the facts on the table. That is telling you that, if you take out all the resource numbers, if you take out wheat, if you take out all the statistics that are going backwards in a big way (basically the major commodities from here in South Australia) and you look at all the good stuff, we are going along just beautifully.

I am outraged to think that he can pick the stats, much like the way the Treasurer, the Premier and many of the government's front bench say to us that we pick out stats to make them look bad. Let us just keep it clear here. We look at South Australia's export economy—where is it going?

When the government came to power back in 2002, God forbid, South Australia had a national export footprint of 7.7 per cent, so we were going along pretty well. We were riding along with good horticulture; we had a booming wine industry; we had resources going along pretty well; and our agriculture sector was doing beautifully, albeit that a lot of the commodity prices were a little low.

But we are farmers; we get on with it, we are eternal optimists, and that is what makes a good farmer. Every morning you get up; it is like going to the Casino, but you are an eternal optimist. You look at the bright side, you look at ways in which you are going to do things better, and you look at the way in which you could return more money by doing more.

Today the Minister for Agriculture stood up and said, 'What a wonderful job we are doing as a government standing side by side with lamb growers.' Well, please minister, what are you doing to support lamb growers? Every now and again you might give a Thomas Foods, or one of the abattoirs a bit of assistance. We have seen plenty of PIRSA programs that are not really doing a lot for long-term sustainability within the lamb industry.

What I do want to say is that the export footprint in South Australia today is 4.7 per cent, so we are going backwards at a rate of knots. The footprint for South Australian exports is 4.7 per cent on the national scale. I noticed that the minister got up, perhaps a sitting or two ago, and said along the lines of, 'Well, that's outrageous, because Queensland have had an increase, and Western Australia have had an increase, and New South Wales have had an increase, and that is making us look bad.' Well, of course it is making us look bad, because we are not increasing our export footprint at the same rate that they are.

Why is that so, minister? Well, he is in China. Let's talk a little more about China. A KPMG report about Chinese investment came out yesterday, and it is about putting a bit of perspective here. So this is Chinese investment in Australia, and this is the Chinese showing confidence in Australian states. Who topped the list? New South Wales; 49% of Chinese investment into Australia is done in New South Wales. That is commercial investment into the country. They are closely followed by Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland. Then we get down to the bottom of the pack; 4 per cent, that is the Northern Territory. Then we go one under that, and we get to South Australia.

The Chinese invest 3 per cent in South Australia. Why? Because it is so damned expensive to do business in South Australia. The taxes are high. You go to make an investment in the commercial sector and it is so hard to cut through to make it work in South Australia that they go to the other states that are inviting people in and are making life easy for people to do business. Tasmania does trail South Australia, but it shows that international confidence in South Australia is a major concern.

Yes, we are looking at Chinese export opportunities for South Australian businesses. Let's have a look at the export markets that have experienced a decline in the year to February 2016, a stark reminder of where South Australia sits in the overall export picture globally. We are not jibbing figures or facts here: these are just ABS stats, 12-month rounded out. China is down $536 million; Japan is down $57 million; Malaysia is down $53 million; Hong Kong is down $48 million; and the Middle East is down $37 million. India, another one of our shining jewels in the crown, between China and India, where the minister spends half of his ministerial life, is down $25 million.

So let's be really serious about this. China and India are the two countries which South Australia has turned much of its focus to over the last five years. So that is five years that South Australia has turned a focus to China and India. They have now turned a focus to a number of countries, but let's just stay focused on these two countries.

The trade minister has come out and said that 79 per cent of businesses on the government's trade missions found them effective in some way. What he did not tell us was that 31 per cent found them just slightly effective, and 21 per cent found the trade missions ineffective. It is not that the outbound and inbound missions are not working: it is the strategy behind those missions that is clearly not working. I will not go on, but I am very concerned for the prosperity of South Australia.

South Australia is relying on horticultural and agricultural commodities to prop up our ailing export sector, and current policies are clearly not working. The minister needs to have a good, hard look at what he is doing; he needs to thump the table with the Treasurer because, obviously, the Treasurer is not giving him enough money. He tells me that he needs more and more funding. Well maybe he has to target his strategies, and be a little bit more pointed. Maybe he needs to put some real people on the ground in those markets so that when people want to buy Australian products they have somewhere to go.

At the moment, people have nowhere to go to buy our product—no contact. If they go to one city or one province in China, yes, they have somewhere to go. But it is otherwise if you go to Japan. I have recently come back from Japan, and there is no presence on the ground in Japan. Where is the presence on the ground in South-East Asia? We do have some presence through Austrade with agent-general offices in the US and the UK, but where are the real people on the ground who are going to help our economy?

I could go on for quite some time; I am prepared to share a bit of the clock with the member for Goyder because I am sure he has a very interesting contribution to make on the Supply Bill, but I do have real concerns exactly where South Australia is situated on the global economy. We are meant to be playing in an open free-trade market. We have free-trade agreements and trans-Pacific partnerships that are currently being signed off; and yet are we taking advantage of them?

I think not. I think we are missing the golden egg. I think the goose has laid it, but it didn't lay it in South Australia, because we charged it too much to come here. It cost too much to lay the egg in South Australia. I will finish my contribution in my 10-minute grieve that I am sure is coming up in the next sitting, and I hand over to the member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:47): I do appreciate the debate that occurs about the Supply Bill, because we all bring a slightly different perspective to the contributions that are made. In particular, it allows the interest areas that the various members of parliament have, and particularly those who have portfolio responsibility from a shadow perspective, to put the concerns that they have. So, it is a very worthwhile contribution to have, because it informs all of us about things that are occurring.

Can I say from the very start that my contribution is going to be based a lot around cost-of-living pressures. I think that those of us who look at the contact that we have with community members on a regular basis will recognise that a lot of it is focused around the challenge to those who run businesses, those who have families, those who are living by themselves, and those across the full spectrum of our society, about the challenge that it is to pay their bills.

That is where I believe it is absolutely critical that this next budget for the 2016-17 year, of which we are talking about just one quarter of it coming forward, needs to reflect that in its policy direction. From the Liberal perspective, it is going to drive what we do, and it has driven some of the policy announcements that we have made in recent times.

While I have introduced a private member's bill on this, and I will not talk at length about it, the cost-of-living pressures are what have driven the local government rate capping bill which I introduced two weeks ago and about which I am now giving a series of presentations before local government groups. It is not necessarily a pleasant experience, talking to councils about suggestions that they should control their rate increases, but it is important debate to have. So, I look forward to not just tomorrow morning, but in future weeks, talking to a variety of groups.

I have taken very strongly one of the requirements that come from the Planning Development and Infrastructure Bill, which is now finally through the parliament, which is the fact that an e-portal is to be established. That refers to the electronic version, or the electronic capacity, for the treatment and lodgement of applications, and information available in the library, and information available to the community, and it requires resources to occur. Most importantly, it requires resources upfront, designed to assist local government in providing what it needs to do.

In a Local Government Association document that came out yesterday, I believe, they have made a suggestion that the planning reform investment needed to occur from the state to assist in ensuring that it comes through is $20 million. In questioning in this chamber last year, minister Rau talked about the fact that, if the legislation got through before Christmas, as part of the Mid-Year Budget Review, it was intended that an allocation be made to ensure implementation. It has not occurred.

There was a fulsome debate about it and there were 208 amendments to the legislation, but we have got that in place now. Now the minister is challenged with ensuring that he gets from the Treasurer the resources required to implement this, one of the most important reforms in the initial stage that can occur. I will be very interested to see on budget day what level of the $20 million will be provided, as estimated by the Local Government Association, because it is important that it comes forward.

This next issue is an issue that impacts upon many of the communities that I have the honour to represent, as well as many communities across the whole state, which is the issue of mobile phone towers. Other members will talk about this issue too. I commend the federal government on putting in $160 million over two years—$100 million in the first tranche of funds and $60 million in the latest one to come forward. States that have seized the opportunity to co-invest have seen significant investment in infrastructure that is occurring across their states. Sadly, South Australia was not one of those. I believe we were the only state or territory in the nation that chose not to invest. By that, we became very much the poor cousins when it came to investment occurring.

Of the $100 million put up by the federal government, there was a significant amount of co-matching from state governments, as I understand it, ranging between $5 million and up to nearly $30 million in some cases. That has resulted in the nation receiving 499 additional mobile phone towers. In South Australia though, because of the decision made by the government to not co-invest and seize that opportunity, we only got 11 additional mobile phone towers.

I am so disappointed that we got 11 out of 499. I—and I know others will—implore minister Maher from the other place and the state government to ensure, as part of its budget deliberations that it makes in coming months, that there is a contribution there, because the return on that investment will be significantly magnified. It will be a good investment to ensure that our state has the technology it needs to move forward.

Another issue I want to talk about is health services in regional communities. I was able to attend a health advisory committee for the northern Yorke Peninsula driven community meeting that occurred at Kadina about two weeks ago. There were 40 people there. There was excellent feedback from across the community. Some of the HAC members were also in attendance. Some of the professional staff were there, too. There was a good turnout, because people want to be involved in the provision of health services across their region.

I know all members of parliament, in the regional areas in particular, are provided with an opportunity for a local member appointment to a health advisory committee body. I am blessed that I have two of those people nominated across two of the three areas, and they do an excellent service and give me good feedback about the deliberations of that committee. This was a group that was involved in the creation of a 10-year health plan, which has been around for about four years now, or thereabouts.

I asked a question about whether it is a living document or, once it was determined four years ago, is it in place for 10 years with no flexibility? For me, health needs do change and it is important that there be some capacity within the provision of services to recognise that, yes, you create a vision for it, but you can also change it, too. I received good feedback about that, and hopefully it was recognised by others who contributed towards it also, because I know the outcomes from that will assist the northern Yorke Peninsula health advisory body to determine what they want to ensure becomes part of their vision.

I also want to recognise, as part of the cost of living pressures debate that will be going on in this chamber for some time to come, the emergency services levy. Two years ago there was a significant increase: a $90 million impost upon property owners. In the Goyder community, one farmer came to me who said that he was quite willing to pay an increase. Indeed, very generously I think, he suggested that he could accept up to a 100 per cent increase—very magnanimous of him. However, he showed me the bill and I am quite sure that it was an 1,137 per cent increase.

This is an example that has occurred in many areas with a total change of philosophy from the previous remissions and rebates that had been in place since the emergency services levy was introduced in 2000 to the fact that now Treasury does not support this any more, it is totally reliant upon property owners and, 'You've got to pay it and don't complain about it, because it's still going to go up.' In the following financial year there was an increase, I believe, in the range of 9 per cent. Initially, we had something like a good 80 per cent increase, and now it has gone up by 9 per cent. I am also scared about what is going to occur in the coming financial year. This is a worry.

People want to contribute to the provision of emergency services, and the ESL levy does provide for a reasonably wide variety of contributions to a lot of important services; but, we have to get it right so that people can feel as though they are getting some level of fairness attached to it. It worries me when that is not the case.

I also want to talk about the suggested changes to recreational fishing. I have attended two of the fisheries department-driven meetings, one at Wallaroo and one at Yorktown. I thank minister Bignell for assisting with the provision of a second meeting at Yorktown on Yorke Peninsula held last week. I also attended on Easter Sunday a community-driven meeting, and I have to tell you that a wide level of concern exists.

Minister, can I ask that, as part of your deliberation upon recommendations made to you by staff, following the series of meetings that have been held around South Australia, you give really serious consideration to the impact of these changes. There are various suggestions: nothing west of Port Lincoln, only impacting east of Port Lincoln, 136 degrees, and suggestions of maximum sizes, spatial closures, extended closures in some places, bag limit changes. All of this I do respect, and those people I have spoken to respect the fact that is designed to ensure that the resources of the marine environment will be with us forever, and that those who choose to go fishing have the opportunity to do so, because it is important, but there has to be some balance in this.

In a letter that I recently wrote to minister Bignell I asked him to ensure that economic modelling takes place. It was to some degree undertaken as part of the marine parks debate that occurred, but it is disappointing to me that, while the recreational fishing restructure that has been considered looks at social impacts—and that is also very important and there is no disagreement from me on that—there is a concern the economic impact will be significant if there is the belief in communities that you cannot go fishing in some spots.

The area that I am lucky enough to represent has something like 20 per cent of the state's boat ramps, so there has to be confidence in the fact that fishing opportunities remain, to ensure that it continues for the approximate 40 per cent of properties that are owned by people who do not live there permanently but who choose to go there because they love, in many cases, the fishing opportunities that are there. I ask the minister to do all he can about that and to give it due consideration and not rush into a decision, but make sure the right one is made.

On behalf of those I know I express my real concern for the people impacted by Arrium. It is a terrible situation; there is no doubt about that. I know that the absolute best efforts are being made to ensure the future exists, because with it comes the future of Whyalla and the over 7,000 employees across Australia.

In the Goyder electorate we are impacted to the degree that Ardrossan has a dolomite mine that has existed since 1948, and it is owned by Arrium. For us, it is 20 employees, but these are 20 people who make important contributions to not just the Ardrossan community but also the area around it. I spoke to one of those people on Sunday, and they are really worried about it. They want bipartisanship to exist, to ensure that there is an outcome that gives this company a future moving forward.

Finally, can I finish off with the Pinery fire. I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Communities spoke to me today about some updates on the effort that has been made in the recovery from the Pinery fire. I put on the record that I think it has been a magnificent response, where every effort has been made to ensure that the community, such a large number of people, and over 82,000 hectares impacted, have been supported in every way possible.

There is still such a wide variety of efforts being made to ensure that not just what we physically see but the mental health of the community is being supported. I am attending a function at Mallala on Monday next week, where a men's watch group will be held. It is their second meeting. There is a lot of worry, because they do not want any of their friends to suffer in silence, and they want to ensure that support services exist, and they want to recognise that all of us have a responsibility to help those who go through challenging times.

I am also very pleased that the Local Government Association published recently a strategy for regional growth. I absolutely agree with it. I want to see growth in regional communities. Local government is a strong advocacy group with an opportunity to do it, with 43, or thereabouts, of their councils coming from regional areas. As part of what South Australia puts out as policy, and as part of what the budget will do for the 2016-17 year, regional communities need to be supported so that, indeed, all South Australians, no matter where they come from get that equal opportunity.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Odenwalder.

At 18:00 the house adjourned until Wednesday 13 April 2016 at 11:00.