Supply Bill 2016

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 April 2016.)

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:54): I am pleased to be able to continue my remarks from yesterday, which all seems a long time ago now, doesn't it? In checking yesterday's Hansard I see that I was onto the subject of water, and before I leave that I would like to reiterate my opinion that the pressure on our southern basins on Eyre Peninsula will not be relieved until we have sourced some new water.

Now, I am not sure what form that new water might take—it may be from a desal plant, it may be from an additional supply, or it may be from a mining company, in fact, that contributes something extra to the Eyre Peninsula supply. However, until that new water is fed into the reticulated scheme then, as I said, the pressure will not come off our southern basins either as a resource or as a supply.

It makes me think that throughout the history of European settlement on Eyre Peninsula we have always battled the scarcity of water and it has always constrained and determined what we are able to do in the way of agriculture and business. I do sometimes wonder what we might be able to achieve if we have what I would describe as 'ample water'—enough water to do all the things we want to do, who knows what the future might bring.

The issue of the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS) remains an issue on the Eyre Peninsula. I know that a review was undertaken last year and the findings of that review, some of which were implemented last year, have gone some way to relieving some of the difficulties that patients have on Eyre Peninsula—those patients who are required to travel for specialist help.

It is particularly designed. It is a support scheme, it is a reimbursement scheme to those travellers who are out of pocket out of necessity because of the need to travel for specialist treatment. Now, PATS dictates that patients are required to make their way to the nearest available specialist, and this is the cause of some anxiety and difficulty for patients on Eyre Peninsula, because often the closest patient is sighted by Country Health as being in Whyalla and Port Augusta, as I have explained to the minister on a number of occasions.

The minister heard me out, although his inclination was not to review PATS any further than what was undertaken last year. The difficulty is that, although distance wise, the closest specialist can be in Whyalla or Port Augusta for people in Port Lincoln right across the Eyre Peninsula out to Ceduna and beyond, it is not the most convenient. And the reason I say that is because you are quite entitled, if the doctor indicates, to fly to Adelaide from Port Lincoln or Ceduna to see a specialist, and that is a much more timely and less demanding way on the patient to travel than getting in a car or a bus, which I might add only travels every two or three days a week. So, it is out of convenience.

I know that the cost is probably slightly more to the government because it has to pay an airfare rather than mileage, but the long-term cost to the individual patient and the community is far less because, rather than take three days out of a person's working week or out of their lives, then we can often bring it back to one. We have had really significant investment into both the Ceduna Hospital and the Port Lincoln Hospital in recent times, and we are grateful for that.

We have two wonderful facilities there, and I do hope that it entices specialists to visit both Ceduna and Port Lincoln. I know that some already do, and we are very grateful for that, but it would be lovely to think that the state can make available through its public health system the opportunity for specialists to visit those two regionally-important hospitals to provide treatment to patients who would otherwise have to travel to Adelaide.

I am going to make a bit of a plug for a wish list, if you like, and it is hard to pick favourites always, but I want to make mention of the Port Lincoln High School. I was able to meet with the members of the governing council late last year together with the Minister for Education. We put to the minister how desperately the Port Lincoln High School needs some upgrade in its facilities.

I would highlight the number of temporary classrooms which, I might add, are not air-conditioned, which were placed there on site on campus at least 40 years ago. They might have been good buildings at that stage, but even back then, they were only ever intended to be temporary. As I said, they are still being used. They are not air-conditioned and it is hardly acceptable accommodation for a school in this day and age.

In all of the spending priorities, I think that one is a highlight. The school council, the previous principal and the current principal as well did a lot of work in building a case and presenting it to government for a funding opportunity. I am assured that Port Lincoln High School is on the shortlist for the next round of funding and I hope that comes to fruition because it is, after all, the largest single high school in my electorate and deserves some investment in its infrastructure.

While we are in Port Lincoln—and of course my electorate extends far beyond that—I was pleased to see an announcement from the city council just last week that there is an expenditure of some $4.5 million to upgrade and improve the London Street Bridge. The London Street Bridge joins the town centre to Kirton Point and goes over the all-important railway line and Port Lincoln Railway Station, and it has been in place for many years.

It is not up to standard and it is not up to the capacity required these days and I see that $4.485 million is to be spent in 2017 and the bridges review program will contribute almost exactly half of that at $2.24 million. It is a big commitment from the local council. It is also wonderful to see the program being used to source grant funding. That is exciting news. Having run out of time, I would say to the house that we do support the Supply Bill and we look forward to the closure of debate.

Bill read a second time.

Supply Grievances

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:02): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:02): I will continue reading the letter from the 42 members and former members of the Onkaparinga SES. I will remind the house that those 42 signatures are not just signatures on a bit of paper: they represent 545 years of experience in the SES. The letter goes on to say:

The issues and concerns raised are not confined only to the Onkaparinga Units response area, but affect the greater community as a whole and we are reliably informed that surrounding SES Units and CFS Groups have similar concerns.

The community is currently not receiving the nearest, fastest and most appropriate resource. The previous Unit Manager, Peter Wicks, AFSM—

That stands for Australian Fire Service Medal—

was threatened with disciplinary measures and investigated for ensuring the principles of dispatch in response to emergency incidents agreed to by the CFS, MFS and SES Chiefs were adhered to. He did this by ensuring the nearest, fastest and most appropriate resource was responded to incidents ahead of Onkaparinga SES; only to be accused of putting lives at risk by SES Management for doing so. We are reliably informed other SES members from surrounding units have also been disciplined by SES Management for following Peter's sensible approach.

On 9^th of March, you—

That is, the minister—

addressed the Chamber following a question from the Hon. A.L. McLachlan, in which you state that the principle concern of this government is, of course, to ensure the ongoing safety of residents within the area who may be beneficiaries of SES services in the event that an emergency arises. We believe you would be less than confident and dissatisfied if you knew the reality of how SES now prioritises and responds to calls for assistance throughout the State. These [alternative] arrangements put in place by the SES Chief, if nothing else, have highlighted there is an issue and that the public are at increased risk with significant delays in response to incidents. They go completely against the nearest, fastest and most appropriate resource principle. For example, would you send a SES crew from Norwood to clear a tree across a road in Oakbank?

Countless other examples include trees down blocking high speed roads or buildings at threat of flooding. These roads are not back streets in Metropolitan Adelaide, [they] are high speed (100kph) country roads with bends, crests and often unfavourable weather conditions and reduced visibility and the buildings at risk are people's homes businesses and livelihoods

The letter continues:

SES triage policies categorise these incidents as Priority two (P2) and sends only a SES response to many of the above mentioned incidents. It allows for a unit to job stack up to 27 of the above-mentioned P2 incidents, before passing incidents to other units or agencies. Meanwhile local CFS crews that may be minutes not hours away are oblivious to the emergency and unaware and unable to provide assistance to the community.

This lack of common sense should raise concerns amongst informed members of the community. The emergency services organisations which are charged to protect the community are failing them, by not sending the nearest, fastest and most appropriate resource.

The public don't care what colour uniform turns up. They have a problem and we the emergency services are the problem solvers. As long as the response is timely and professional we have done the right thing by them.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you urgently to explain the current situation and to discuss an amicable resolution in the best interest of the community and its safety.

We invite you to meet, tour the district and discuss the current situation with Mr Peter Wicks AFSM, and the local leadership group of the SES Unit. Peter is currently the Onkaparinga CFS Group Officer, and is the previous Unit Manager of the Onkaparinga SES Unit. With over 46 years volunteering with both the CFS and SES, Peter epitomises what volunteerism and community spirit is about. He is highly respected within the CFS organisation and is a mentor and a leader within the Onkaparinga CFS group.

Through this meeting we hope that you will gain a better insight into the issues affecting communities that are solely reliant on volunteers to assist them in times of need. With the current economic climate volunteers are becoming a more valuable resource and to demonstrate public value it is crucial that efficient utilisation of the volunteer pool and sharing the workload between agencies occurs.

We feel the SES Chief Officer's reluctance to close the unit, instead opting to temporarily place it on suspension, is an effort to avoid the required public meeting. This would have provided a forum for the Unit to voice concerns to the public and media about the risk to life and property that in our opinion the SES have failed to address. We think this is a strategy to avoid the embarrassment of having an SES unit off-line for 2 years. That decision alone challenges our confidence in the SES chief officer.

The Onkaparinga SES unit by default (integration with the Onkaparinga CFS group) had an enviable fleet of 14 appliances and around 120 members across 4 stations. I challenge you to find another SES Unit that has as many 'human and physical resources' as Onkaparinga had while operational. Whether it was a CFS or SES incident, members turned up and ensured an efficient, timely and professional service was provided to the public. Combining volunteers, fleet, infrastructure and equipment delivered exceptional value for money for the community. Crews could often be seen working in the rain in CFS yellows and an SES raincoat, chopping up a tree or filling a sand bag, caring not what they wore but how they could help their neighbours, their mates, their community.

The community has lost something very unique and special. What they haven't lost is the passion, experience and professionalism of the Onkaparinga CFS Group.

Yours sincerely and without prejudice,

The membership of the Onkaparinga SES Unit, present and past.

As I say, that is signed by 42 members totalling 545 years' experience. The members of the Onkaparinga SES and the members of the Onkaparinga CFS brigades are very frustrated. I do not think that we should have a hybrid model here; all we need to do is have the MOU that was signed in 2007, and the closest, fastest, most appropriate response. That is all it says in the MOU, 'The nearest and fastest appropriate resource will be responded.' That was signed by all three chiefs.

It is not about one fire service, it is not about hybrids, it is not about amalgamations, it is not about demarcations; it is about giving the public what they deserve and that is what these volunteers want. So I urge the minister in the other place to talk to the CFS volunteers and get a coalface briefing on what is going on and see it for himself. That way he will not think that the Onkaparinga SES is in the southern suburbs when it is at Lobethal.

In the few minutes I have left I want to talk about one of the biggest industries we have in South Australia. This is an industry that will always be here and can never go away. All that can happen is that it is going to get bigger and better. I will give credit to the person who put me on to this thinking, the Swedish Foreign Minister. You say, the Swedish Foreign Minister? Well, one of the things you get to do in this job is meet many wonderful people and go to many wonderful places.

I was privileged to be representing the Liberal opposition when the King of Sweden visited SAAB at Mawson Lakes. The Swedish Foreign Minister was there at the time and we had a long discussion about opportunities to build modern technology, high-level infrastructure and also other opportunities to develop the economies of states. She talked about the Swedish experience industry. That industry involves tourism, sport and recreation, and performing and visual arts. When you look at those in South Australia, they employ tens of thousands of people. That experience is here in South Australia, the jobs are here in South Australia. They can never go away.

We have got 2 billion people to our north who want to travel, they want an experience, even only if a small proportion of those are wealthy enough to do that. That is what the Indian tourist operators told me way back when we had the Australian tourism exchange here in, I think, 2005. They told me there were hundreds of thousands of Indians ready to travel, ready to tour. They could come here ready to spend their money. We offer that experience.

We have more navigable islands than the Whitsundays, a greater marine flora and fauna than the Great Barrier Reef, we have more hours of sunshine than the Gold Coast. We have the most wonderful state right around us, and we should be grabbing with both hands the opportunity to bring people here to give them this wonderful experience, whether it is sporting infrastructure that is going to be developed, whether it is tourism opportunities, or whether it is the bigger theatres and arts opportunities, a Guggenheim-type building in South Australia.

I visited the Guggenheim people in New York, and they were very enthusiastic about coming to Adelaide. There are costs involved, but it is not what it costs you: it is what it saves you or makes you that you should be worried about. Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity—that is one of the things that I used to say about my business. In the experience industry we can do that. We can develop the industry here in South Australia.

We have the Rock, the Reef, the Bridge and the Island. What is the Island? Kangaroo Island. They are the four icons of Australia. We need to make the island not just an icon of Australia but an icon of the world. If we need to use Kangaroo Island to help build upon all the other wonderful opportunities and experiences we have in South Australia, we should do so.

As I say, those jobs cannot go anywhere else. Those jobs are here in South Australia. People will come to South Australia. We offer a five star or six star experience. Those jobs will then pay good wages, because people want a six star experience, they want well-trained people helping them, guiding them, looking after them and enhancing that experience. It is a huge opportunity we have in South Australia to develop the experience industry.

People will say that we have sporting infrastructure, we have an arts minister, we have a sports minister, and we have a minister for tourism. Well, combine them altogether and let's have a ministry for the South Australian experience. Let's make sure that we get people down here. It is a massive opportunity. As I say, the jobs will not go anywhere else; they will be here. People will be coming and they will continue to come. It is not going to stop, it will only get bigger and better, and it will not happen unless we allow it to happen.

We need to get behind all of this, behind our tourism operators, and our sporting infrastructure needs to be expanded, and certainly our arts facilities need to be expanded. I appeal to the government to look beyond the issues we have at the moment and look to where we want to be in five or 10 years' time.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:12): I rise today to speak on a favourite subject of mine, which is the Oaklands crossing. I make no apologies for continually raising this issue in this house, because my community wants to know and see what is happening in this space. The government has at times thrown some plans out there, but that was quite a while ago, and my community is very confused about what plans the government has in place to fix the Oaklands crossing.

It has been an ongoing issue my electorate for 30, 40, 50 years, depending on who you speak to, and I know that is something that we need to get a solution for. The minister has indicated, from conversations I have tried to have and questions I have tried to ask in this place, that it is a medium-term priority, which under their 30 year transport and land management use plan says it is 15 to 20 years away from having an infrastructure project put in place, which is still quite surprising, given that there were plans for an overpass back in 2012. No more detail other than that has been given.

I have asked the minister to come down and have a look at the intersection and discuss the issue with people in the community. What the people in the community really want to know is what are the latest plans. We know there were plans for an overpass in 2012, and wooden sleepers were left in the intersection to allow that overpass for rail-over-road to happen. It has not happened. The electric line has gone in and those wooden sleepers have been left there, again slowing down train traffic through that intersection.

The other question they want to know is: what is the cost? If we are going rail-over-road what does it cost and what are the other options? What has the minister done within the department to find other solutions? While I have asked and asked pretty much once a month in the time that I have been in this place, I have not received any answers.

In the middle of last year, the minister put out a $1.6 million Moving Traffic program for South Australia. Again, I have requested to see how much of those funds will be used in moving traffic through the Oaklands intersection where we have extended delays. Again, we have had nothing from the minister on that, so none of those funds are going towards fixing the Oaklands crossing as far as I am aware.

We have not even had the minister come out and have a look, and perhaps look at moving pedestrian crossings or adding an additional pedestrian crossing to help alleviate part of the problem. My request goes out to him again to come and have a look for himself and see what we can do to fix Oaklands crossing in the short, medium and long term. We want to know what options are on the table. When I say 'we', I am talking on behalf of my community.

We have had a campaign going for over 12 months now, and the people in my community have been engaged with this campaign. It is a way we can keep them in touch with the things we are doing and the things we are asking of the government, bearing in mind the government and the minister has thousands of people at his disposal within the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure to do this work, to come up with plans and to find out how we can fix Oaklands crossing, and to date we have nothing.

Most recently, I have been encouraged by the Marion council coming on board and joining our campaign, which is absolutely fantastic. We thank them for their support, for joining with us and adding their push to the energy of the community that is behind the Fix Oaklands Crossing campaign. It is good to have Marion council now, just in the last couple of days, getting on board and pushing to fix Oaklands crossing, as myself and the community have been doing for the past 12 months or more.

I have had some success, I must say. There were a couple of issues that were happening a little while back around Oaklands crossing where we had some damaged rail line through the heat, which was slowing trains down as they went through the crossing and causing the boom gates to stay down longer than had previously been the case, and ultimately longer than what was necessary.

The buckled train line, in fact, caused trains to travel slower through the intersection and that was what was causing the boom gates to stay down longer. We did raise this through the media and to the minister, and the department did go about getting this fixed. That was back in July last year, so we are grateful for that. That did just take a few seconds off, but every second does count when we are looking to fix Oaklands crossing.

We have had correspondence with federal ministers, who have said that the state government has not raised it as an issue with the federal government, which I find surprising. Again, we would love to know more about why the minister perhaps has not done that from a state perspective. I have had a number of listening posts around the local community and local area, and they have been very well attended. We thank everyone for coming along to those and helping make people aware.

We have said all the way along that this is an issue that is often referred to as being a localised issue around the suburbs of Oaklands Park, Warradale, North Brighton, Hove, Sturt, Dover Gardens—in and around those regions there, the ones that really touch on the Oaklands crossing issue. However, what we have found from speaking with people at our supermarket meetings is that this is an issue that spreads wider.

We had the Australian swimming titles at the Marion Aquatic Centre recently and that has brought people from all over the state, and potentially all over the nation, to come to this venue. It has been wonderful to see so many people in our local community, but it has then rolled over to more people from right over the state realising this issue and the problem that we do have. We have a stand-out sporting precinct for the state based in a location that has this terrible traffic congestion that does cause a whole world of hurt to a lot of people when they live and/or come through the area.

I have written to the minister, as I said, to try to find out more information and I have put in some FOIs to request more information, again, so that the people of the community can see what work is being done, what work has been done, what the traffic flow indicators are, and where and how we think we can find a solution to fix this problem. What needs to happen? Do we need to reassess this and put road under rail or road over rail? Again, do we need to put rail under road or rail over road?

There are a few options that can be looked at here. As it stands, despite the questions and despite the freedom of information applications that I have put forward, I have been blocked from getting this information. I am wanting to get more detail from the original plans that were done by the government back in 2012 also. I know the Marion council did have these plans on display at the Marion council. I have asked them to be able to show them to us, but at the moment it does not seem like we can get hold of these plans.

I have followed this through on a number of websites—obviously, government websites—that have shown they have access to this plan. Interestingly, as you click through and find the portal that says, 'Here are the plans for the Oaklands crossing intersection and the upgrades that are on the table,' you actually need a login and a password to be able to access these plans. It is quite obscure, and it has me and a number of people in our community scratching our head as to why these plans are being kept secret, why no-one can see what they are.

I must stress the community I am talking to wants to fix Oaklands crossing. We want to find a solution to fix this problem, but we need to see the information. My two staff, a trainee and myself have worked tirelessly to try to find this information so we can assess it and perhaps talk to engineers and other people out in the community to see what we can add to this solution, but the government has the department.

The government has thousands of people working in the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. They are the ones who are doing this work, and the people in my community want to see this work. We want to see what it is, we want to see what the options are and we want to see what the costings are so that we can work out what the best solution is for the people of this community.

As I said, I have been banging my head against a brick wall, and it has been very frustrating to be asking for this information and for it not to be coming forward. It makes it very hard for me to relay that information to the people in my community. They have been patient, but the patience is wearing thin. It is just disappointing, I think, that we are not being given this information that, really, the government and the department has, I hope, been accumulating and, I hope, has ready to put on the table so that we can look at this and consult and talk to our community about this.

I mentioned the listening posts at Westfield Marion. They have been fantastic. We have had some wonderful support there from people coming through, having a look and talking to us about it. As I say, I grew up in that area, and I often have a joke with people and say that, if I had a dollar for every time I have been through that intersection and $5 for every time I have been stopped there, I could potentially pay the $110 million that the minister suggests it would cost to fix this project and build the infrastructure that is needed to remove the congestion that is there where, again, two main roads meet a rail intersection. Of course, this is where Diagonal Road and Morphett Road meet the Oaklands rail crossing.

It is a big problem in our community; we are very aware of that. Everyone is disappointed that the government has not been forthcoming and the department has not been forthcoming to let us know what the situation is and what the update is. I will keep pushing for it. I will keep pushing to find a solution to fix Oaklands crossing. It is what my community wants, so I am listening to my community, and we will work hard to make sure we can get a solution to this problem that has been going on in our community for quite a number of years.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (16:22): I wish to continue with my satirical comments regarding Public Service reform and the culture of political advisers infiltrating the service—a theme I spoke about at length in my Supply Bill speech yesterday afternoon. I have to use the word 'satirical' because a quick survey of the Twitter and Facebook comments by Labor staffers reveals consternation at some of my statements. 'But I don't eat sugary foods,' says one. 'I'm paleo,' says another. 'I completed my Arts degree, #tookmesixyears,' says yet another. If they had spent more time concentrating on their studies rather than playing student politics, they might have heard of satire!

I have been quite taken by the level of response to yesterday's speech, with many, many public servants contacting my office in the last 24 hours to thank me for speaking up about the politicisation of the public sector—not just the presence of advisers blocking the provision of frank and fearless advice, but also the revolving door of political operatives moving from adviser to public servant, from adviser to public servant, with little in the way of merit-based selection. This is a matter that public servants feel entirely voiceless regarding.

One thing I have been particularly interested in was the defensiveness of the Labor government on this matter. We had a couple of text messages to Matt and Dave on 891 this morning from the member for Kaurna and the member for West Torrens. I found interesting the member for West Torrens's comment about the fact that I remained working in the cabinet office being evidence of the government's tolerance for people of all political persuasions.

I am afraid I have bad news for the Treasurer because I was actually the subject of significant difficulty because of my private political views and, someday, and that day will come, I will tell this parliament how difficult a number of former staffers made my life as a young public servant in my early 20s. When that day comes, I will unveil the true repulsiveness of the Rann regime, and I will use parliamentary privilege to describe and for the first time name (because I have not done that to date) the people who bullied and intimidated me during my time as a 23 year old in the Premier's department. I have been very specific about not naming individuals to date, but that day will come.

The government's defensiveness on this matter has simply been a confession of guilt. However, my speech was not solely aimed yesterday at our state Labor government, although their particular crop of under-qualified advisers writhing, giggling, cowering, sneering and dribbling in the Speaker's gallery did provide me with a visual case study for the speech. It is a problem that 21^st century governments in Australia and in other western jurisdictions are grappling with, and that is why I was delighted to be able to contribute to chapter 9 of 2036, the Liberal Party's vision-setting document released last month.

That document outlines the value we place on the Public Service and the fact that we see it as an asset to be nurtured rather than slashed, our desire to end politicisation and restore merit-based selection and career pathways forged through contribution as opposed to political patronage. This is not a problem isolated to South Australia or the current Labor administration, and it is an issue which people far more credentialed and experienced in public and business administration than me have raised as a significant problem. This is a serious problem for the delivery of good government, for good decision-making, for good public administration, for good ministers of Labor or Liberal persuasion, and it is something that we desperately need to address.

Jennifer Westacott, Chief Executive of the Business Council of Australia, has weighed into this debate, calling for the halving of the number of ministerial advisers back in 2012 and blaming them for triggering a series of botched decisions which had cost the nation up to $20 billion. Ms Westacott told a gathering of public servants in 2012 that 'a culture of intimidation and bullying' had taken hold in ministerial offices, in part because of the dominance of political advisers over civil servants. She told these public servants at the conference that:

Your authority has been undermined by political gatekeepers, often with little expertise and no accountability. Australia now has more personal staff per minister than many other comparable countries.

Terry Moran, the former head of the federal public service, has backed Ms Westacott's arguments, saying that:

The private (ministerial) offices need to include a significant number of people experienced in the business of government.

He went on to call for a legislated code of conduct for ministerial advisers to prevent them from directing public servants. University of Queensland Professor of Public Administration Ken Wiltshire also backed Jennifer Westacott and warned that bad decisions were costing billions of dollars. He was quoted in The Australian as saying:

Ministerial advisers are a worry—they're part of the politicisation of the public service and having heads of departments on contracts is part of that politicisation as well.

The public service should provide frank and fearless advice to the minister. If the minister wants political advice, they should go to the advisers but we shouldn't mix the stew.

That mixing of the stew, as Professor Wiltshire neatly describes it, is the real problem. Sure, have a couple of taxpayer-funded advisers to point you in the right direction politically, but do not allow them to become a filter, a blocker, a barrier to good policy based on sound evidence and expertise from public servants.

I can joke about this, and I have in this chamber earlier in the week, and I can use satire to broaden interest in it, but it really is a serious concern for our state's effective public administration. Back when I worked in the Public Service, we had an unsubtle code name for politically appointed public servants or advisers. We called them 'snouts': snouts in the trough, lapping up the spoils of office, the gruel of government. When they walked past our desks, we would flick the tip of our noses and oink, likely too obvious, indicating a snout in the house, someone sniffing around looking to make the transition from political adviser to public servant or back again.

I will not name individuals in the speeches I make about the Public Service and certainly will not name the advisers. They are faceless and nameless, shadowy dealers doing their own political bidding. Instead, I prefer to give them sartorial names: Old Major, Napoleon, Snowball, Squealer—appropriate names for snouts.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to that great satirist, George Orwell, whose Animal Farm portrays the corruption of a system as power is taken and then corrupted. In the end, those who started off with pure intentions—and maybe many of these staffers do back when they are studying those arts degrees; maybe they start out thinking they can make a difference. Eventually, many of them rely so much on the system and their contorting of power that they have been given that they begin to take on the ugly features of the humanity that they represent.

In that final scene of Animal Farm, as the memories of good governance and life before corruption begin to fade away, a few old animals look on and see that those who were once supposedly there to do good have become unrecognisable. You look to the pigs, then to the farmers, then to the pigs, then to the farmers, and they tragically, hopelessly merge into one.

When I look to the Speaker's gallery during question time, I am not sure if I see people or snouts. People or snouts? I see Twitter-loving, game-playing branch stackers with arrogant smirks who are overpaid and destined to under-deliver. So, with Orwellian dismay, like the last paragraph of Animal Farm, I wonder whether it is an adviser or a snout, an adviser or a snout, an adviser or a snout. You look, you stretch your eyes and you look again. Is that a curly tail? Adviser, snout, adviser, snout, adviser, snout—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Bright, we have a point of order.

Mr Goldsworthy: There's no point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since when have you been the arbiter of points of order? You are an Animal Farm in the corner yourself this afternoon, oinking and wheezing.

Mr Knoll: Well, actually, that is unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I asked him yesterday not to oink and wink and grunt, and he is still doing it today.

Mr Goldsworthy: I'm not grunting or oinking.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you were.

Mr Speirs: That's his bad chest.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's his bad chest; yes, that's right. Minister, you have point of order?

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON: I am concerned, and I ask for your opinion. I think that language is unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, there is no record of that word being used anywhere, I wouldn't have thought. Because it is not directed at any one person in particular, the table is quite prepared to let it go.

Mr SPEIRS: The sensitivity. The games, the fake Twitter accounts, the spinning stories, all the while suckling on the taxpayers' teat. It simply creates the impression of a government that is only interested in itself, filling its trough rather than being there to serve South Australia. It does not make Hallett Cove, Marino, Hove or Brighton better communities.

It does not reduce crime, make buses run on time or balance the budget. It does not improve educational outcomes or create jobs. It is just a sad corruption of our Westminster system, and it is going to take some real guts from politicians of either political persuasion to break this snoutish cycle. I look forward to one day being part of a Liberal government which, as outlined in our 2036 manifesto, will work hard to ensure the public sector is fair and free from snouts.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:32): I rise this afternoon to give a grievance on the Supply Bill as it relates to the unsurpassed electorate of Schubert. We may not have coastline—we may have, though, a dam that becomes open for non-motorised recreational boating and fishing activities in the Warren Reservoir, and I am looking forward to seeing that happen. The absence of coastline is more than abundantly made up by some extremely picturesque scenery and the best shiraz, riesling and semillon in the known world.

The future and the present of the Barossa is extremely strong, and so too the Murraylands. In what is a very tough international environment and market for Australia's grape and wine industry, the Barossa stands out as real bright spot. We have seen, last year and this year, record grape prices, especially for A and B shiraz, which are some of the largest parts of what we do in the Barossa. We have seen record prices, and we have started to see that confidence flow through to the broader Barossa economy.

We see this week that tourism numbers are up in the Barossa, and indeed we have had record amounts of spending on tourism. There has been just a tick under $200 million worth of combined domestic and international spending in the Barossa. Again, that gives cause for confidence and that gives cause for optimism for the future of this very important region.

We also see the unemployment rate. In contrast to the 7.2 per cent statewide unemployment rate that we see today, the latest figures out of the Barossa have various towns somewhere between 3 per cent and 4 per cent, in some cases half of what the state's rate is; and, again that is something that can give the Barossa cause for optimism and confidence in the future.

I must admit that that does make for a happier and more content electorate. That is, I believe, one of the main reasons why the Barossa LSA (the local service area for police), which also does take in Gawler, makes it the safest place South Australia. It has the lowest crime rates in South Australia, and, again, I think that is a consequence of having a good, productive, strong economy, as opposed to the other way around, and long may that continue because that again gives confidence and optimism to the beautiful place that I call home.

But not everything is hunky dory, not everything is as it should be, and there are a number of things I would like to talk about today that I would like to see resolved in order for the Barossa to become even more perfect. The first of those and the perennial issue of those is the Barossa hospital. In 1992 the Tanunda Hospital Board and the Angaston Hospital Board were advised by the government (which was the Labor Party in the dying days of the Bannon/Arnold administration) to merge, and the idea was that, if those two hospital boards merged into one, under one CEO for the two hospitals, that the case could be built for a new single health facility in the Barossa.

Then in 2001, after recovering from a State Bank disaster the likes of which this state has never seen and hopefully should never see again, the Liberal Party committed to building this facility. Unfortunately, losing the 2002 election saw the reversal of this promise by the Hon. Lea Stevens, if I am correct, saying that the money was not in the budget. The money was supposed be there in the 2002 budget but, unfortunately, losing the election meant that that money was no longer there, and that is a disgrace and that is a shame.

Now, here we sit 14 years later and we are in the same predicament. The need in the Barossa grows ever greater. The Angaston Hospital built in 1910 and the Tanunda Hospital built in 1955—both of which have not seen decent upgrades for the last 30-odd years—are in various states of disrepair. And, having had cause to take my three-year-old daughter to each of the hospitals actually on one occasion, I have seen first-hand the brilliant nursing staff working in otherwise disgusting conditions. The Barossa deserves better.

Now I know that an outline business case has been completed by the Country Health local health network. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to have a copy of the document, and that is fine. I know that the copy of that document is sitting on the minister's desk, and I am imploring the minister to pull the trigger on taking that document to the next stage. Put the $60,000, or so, on the table to get a full business case.

If nothing else the people of the Barossa have waited 25 years. They may as well now get a decent consideration from this government, and moving to a full business case shows that next step. It also helps to open up the debate about the ways in which the community can help get involved in that project. On that score, along with a group of interested individuals and prominent individuals from my communities, I am working on a plan to help make that hospital cheaper to build for the state government, because the people of Barossa do not sit from the sidelines and just whinge and say, 'Give me what I want.'

We are more than prepared to roll up our sleeves and get involved in getting this thing done. We are looking at ways to gift the land to the state government on which the hospital will be built. We have got money that has been fundraised and held in trust by the Health Advisory Council ready to go for a new Barossa hospital and that money does number in the millions.

We have two facilities that will be vacated in the building of a new hospital on a separate site, the selling off of which can help to offset the capital cost. I have got local builders who have said to me that they will build the building for cost to get it done such is the need for the community.

I have so much goodwill and so much practical help, as is the norm for the way the Barossa gets on and does things, that I think we can make this hospital between $5 million and $10 million cheaper for the state government. Surely that will help improve the bottom line. What will also help get this project along the line are the savings that will come from essentially merging three facilities—the two hospitals and a third administration site—into one.

Again, that should not be understated because in the longer term, as the cost of staff increases, those savings become ever more important and it is another reason why we should move to a full business case to look at how a new Barossa health facility will actually end up saving the government money. We will continue work on that topic and I have more to say and more to do about that in the community in coming weeks. I look forward to a positive resolution from the minister.

Another project is being run by the very august body known as the Barons of Barossa. They have put on the table an idea for a Barossa grand cellar and they are looking for support from government, from the community and from business in order to get it built. The concept behind this is that the Barossa Valley is the fifth most recognised wine region in the world. It is home to the most prestigious wine brand in the world in Penfolds.

Our story is significant, our story is unique and our story needs to be celebrated in a facility that is worthy of the quality of the wine we produce. I would love nothing more than to see the grand cellar built and become a home and a hub for the best and iconic wines that the Barossa produces, a place where we can take significant buyers and high net worth individuals to try our best and put them up in the type of surroundings that befit the best wines in the world.

The third project on the table at the moment is around ensuring that the quality of our road surfaces is improved. I commend the government on the money they put forward to resurface the main street of Tanunda, Murray Street. Unfortunately, we are still waiting on the NBN to finish its work before that road is resurfaced in two sections and, even though the work was supposed to start in March, it looks like it will be August or September this year before it starts.

My community is crying out for it. Indeed, on social media this week, I had a lot of inquiries and a lot of people are interested in getting that project finished. There is a 2.8 kilometre patch of road from the corner of Yettie Road right through to the Playford council border and that is a stretch of Para Wirra Road that needs to be bitumenised. I know that council has put in submissions to Supplementary Road Funding and also Roads to Recovery to see if we can get the money to bitumenise that patch of road.

I implore all levels of government—local, state and federal—to get behind that piece of infrastructure because it is sorely needed. We are seeing an increase in the level of traffic through that area as it has become slightly more urbanised and it is high time that that dangerous stretch of road is bitumenised. Those are the three wishes on my wish list for this year and I look forward to having those three completed next year and renewing my list with some new projects.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (16:43): I will not hold up the house for too long. I have listened with great intent over the last couple of days during the supply speeches and the grievance speeches. I am quite happy to be standing here today to provide a grieve. In regard to what we saw today, it is the right of the opposition to move a no-confidence motion any time they see fit and who would blame them, really, because they never lay a glove at question time on the government, so why wouldn't they look at a different tactic? That strategy failed dismally today. What we saw was the Leader of the Opposition provide his 10 minutes on the no-confidence motion and it was as vacuous as the 2036 document.

Just on the 2036 document, I have had a good look at it. It did not take me long to read, I can say that, because of the lack of substance in it, but who does not want there to be a vibrant economy? It is almost like saying, 'Who does not want the sun to come up and for it to rain in the regional areas?' It has no substance whatsoever. It is a collection of fatherhood and motherhood statements that do not provide any substance or direction to the people of South Australia of what they really mean in the statements that they make within this document called 2036.

The opposition clearly believes that it is purely a political document that might hoodwink the people of South Australia into believing that the opposition has a plan for South Australia. Anyone who bothers to flip the pages of that very thin, almost vacant document will understand that this has no direction whatsoever beyond those fatherhood and motherhood statements that are contained therein.

I think it is a very disappointing document and one that will expose them as really still having no proper policy direction, because that document is bereft of policy beyond these broad statements that say, 'We believe in a vibrant economy, we believe in full employment, we believe in—' I do not think on this occasion it said 'taking the handbrake off the economy', but that was certainly implied within it.

We saw today a no-confidence motion in the Minister for Health. I will say that, having sat around the cabinet table for a period of time and enjoying my time there, I know there is certainly the need to make changes to our health system. What we have done on this side, under the auspices, direction and drive of the Minister for Health, is to put in place those things that we believe are going to provide for the people of South Australia not only a sustainable health system but also one that is going to be able to cater for the clinical needs of all South Australians in all aspects of the health services that they require and, in fact, deserve.

I would go as far to say about the vacuous mob that is the opposition, that has no policy in any direction that, if they ever achieve government—and, of course, that is yet to be seen, because I do not see anything that is going to attract the voters of South Australia beyond that percentage of people who vote for them in their own areas changing their vote to vote for a party that clearly does not stand for anything with respect to policy development—they will ultimately be thankful that we are making these changes to the health system.

It is safe to say also, and I think the member for Lee made a very good contribution today on our involvement as members of the western suburbs in our negotiations and discussions, not only with our community but also with the Minister for Health, about those changes that are being proposed for the hospitals in our area, particularly The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I have been going through that with my minister and my community for a significant period of time.

I am not going to have a crack at my friend Mark Butler. He did what he did for whatever reason he did it, and the simple fact is this: I have been raising the same issues that Mark did with the minister but doing it in an appropriate way, that is, by providing him with both correspondence and discussion points about the issues that he raised publicly on this occasion.

As I said, I am not going to have a go at Mark; he did what he did for whatever reason he did and that is history now, but I will also say this: those issues that he raised were issues that my colleagues of the western suburbs and I have been raising with the minister anyway, and we expect those to be addressed appropriately and accordingly.

I think it was a very disappointing performance today by the Leader of the Opposition, and no wonder he is under a great deal of pressure from the members on his side. We saw what I would call—how would you say it—'auditions' from the other speakers on the other side. We know that the deputy leader will continue to audition as she has for the last decade almost, and I think those auditions have failed to the extent that she is not going to get a look in. Today we saw one of the new, young, rising stars, the member for Schubert, provide a contribution in this area.

I do not think it was a very good contribution at all. I was always brought up to say that you have to crawl before you walk, you have to walk before you run, and I think he is trying to run a little bit earlier than what is appropriate. I thought that he might think that it was a good performance today, but the one who would be disappointed I think is the member for Stuart.

The member for Stuart, of course, is being seen as a rising star. We saw the wonderful expose on him in the media. I do not disagree with anything that was said in the media about his profile and all these types of things, but I think he would feel a little bit let down today by the fact that he was not given an opportunity to undertake the audition that was this motion of no confidence in our current competent health minister.

The health ministry is a tough gig. I have never done it, and I am thankful that I never did, because it is a tough gig. What we do know is that fundamental to all aspects of our lives, no matter what age we are, is the ability to be able to access excellent health services. We have—

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: The member for Light just interjects and says, 'At my age.' I acknowledge that I am now an old man.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, no, no!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes; I am quickly becoming an old man, and I will require those services that are available at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital. I am thankful that the focus of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital will be on those services that I require, as do my other constituents who are reaching or are already at these ageing years. I am thankful that they are the services that will be provided, because that is what we have to do.

We have to make sure that we have hospitals that cater for the needs of the local area, but also that they are not a one-size-fits-all hospital for everyone, that we have specialties in acute care that people require and that we focus on those specialties at what I call the spine hospitals, and we all know what hospitals they are.

Just like in your area, Deputy Speaker, you will have a very good hospital called the Modbury Hospital that will cater for 90 per cent-plus of the needs of your local constituency, and they will continue to be served very well, just as will be the case for my constituents at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

When we require those high level acute care services, we will go to those hospitals that we are assured will provide those services 24/7—the Lyell McEwin, the Royal Adelaide, the Flinders—and it is quite appropriate for that to occur. I am very confident that the system that we will put in place through Transforming Health is the right thing to do. I do not want to harp on, bang on, or bag the opposition but, look, if today was the best—

The Hon. S.W. Key: Go for it.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am being encouraged and I'm not going to—

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I am not going to succumb to that encouragement. I have been here for a while and I will say this: in 14 years this is the most disappointing and inept opposition I have seen during this period of time. If they do not lift their game it is quite likely that the opposition will not only have spent 16 years in opposition but they will be an opposition that spends 20 years in opposition; I hope that occurs. I feel more confident this time in the electoral cycle than I did this time before the last election; but we cannot just rest on our laurels. What we have to do is continue to have policy that drives reform in this state, and that is what we will continue to do.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:53): I would like to add a few comments to this debate and perhaps highlight some priorities that I believe are important in my electorate, and I would also like to provide some commentary on a couple of the issues discussed in this chamber over the last few months before we went on our Easter break.

A lot has been said today about Transforming Health. From my point of view, I certainly support what is being done. It certainly will assist people in my electorate and deliver more improved services. This is not just for people in the metropolitan area but also for people in the country area. One of the benefits of Transforming Health is that by having specialist elective surgery centres people have greater guarantee of having it when it is scheduled.

I understand that about 20 per cent of elective surgery is for country people. Often, that elective surgery is put off when more urgent matters come up in an existing hospital. By having a dedicated centre for elective surgery, it ensures that those sorts of disruptions do not occur as much, which provides a greater service to country people. I think one of the spin-off benefits of Transforming Health is that people in regional and rural South Australia will have a much more accessible service, in the sense that it will be reliable and it will be there when they require it.

A person who lives just outside my electorate sought my assistance recently. Not only did he need some elective surgery but also he suffered immensely as a result of the fires, and his elective surgery was about to be put off once again. Not only did he have the trauma of a physical condition to be dealt with but he obviously had the emotional trauma of the fire. He lost his house, his property and he was literally five seconds away from being killed himself.

This man's elective surgery was about to be put off so, like all MPs do, you lobby for your people. We lobbied and we were able to keep his elective surgery on schedule. That is the sort of thing that country people put up with. By having specialised elective surgery centres, which is proposed under Transforming Health, people in country areas will have a much more reliable service.

One thing I touched on earlier this week, which I would like to finish on, is that, with ANZAC Day approaching, we have an opportunity as a community to acknowledge the contribution made by our service personnel, not only people here or overseas—people who were involved in some conflict over the century—but also people who are behind and made a contribution to the war effort, as well as partners and family members who had a partner overseas fighting, etc. They are a part of that war effort as well.

ANZAC Day is really a day where we reflect upon those conflicts and what they mean to not only our nation as a whole but also our communities, so the services in our communities are very important. For the centenary event of ANZAC Day last year, in my community we had about 10,000 people participate in the dawn service, which is a huge crowd for a community of our size. One of the things that the Gawler RSL is involved in is doing a march. They do an annual march, usually the Sunday before ANZAC Day, but this year it was actually going to be the Sunday prior to that because they are getting a bit older and they did not want two events within 24 hours.

They are required to close off streets, get the police involved and local government involved, like a lot of community organisations. These days, community organisations have to really jump through hoops to actually do some events, and I touched upon this issue a bit earlier this week. I understand the issue of risk and a whole range of occupational health and safety things, but at some point we are going to make things so difficult as a society, where people are trying to protect their patch—it is probably not appropriate to say today—that it is the case where the operation was a success but the patient died, where we are risk free but we actually do nothing in our communities. We will live in a community lacking culture, lacking community, lacking events, etc. That is the sort of imposition we place on community organisations.

The march was planned for this Sunday. Subsequently, the local RSL decided to pull the pin and cancel the march. There has been an uproar in the community, and understandably. I got more hits on my Facebook on this issue than any other issue for many months, and the community were quite rightly angered. What disappointed me the most about that was not so much that the event was cancelled as a result of miscommunication, and perhaps some people in authority could have done a bit more than they are doing to support our returned services people, but that as soon as the event was cancelled out went the media statements, and everybody protected their patch and started blaming others for it. It was not a reflection as to why the event was actually cancelled or a reflection of, 'What can we do better to make sure the event goes ahead?'

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. S.E. Close.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As I said, my disappointment was that all of the parties went to the trenches and decided to protect their patch rather than ask, 'What has gone wrong here? What can we learn, and what can we do to ensure it does not happen again?' Fortunately, people have seen the community anger, and the event is back on, but it should not have come to this point.

We should be supporting our community organisations because, without them, our communities would be very sparse—culturally sparse and sparse in a sporting context. There are not many walks of life in our communities which are not touched upon by a volunteer in some way. Certainly, volunteers require support, etc., but they do important work.

I am glad the ANZAC Day march is back on in Gawler this Sunday. I will be there supporting our Gawler RSL and our returned service personnel, but I am hoping that, from this experience, those people involved in government in some way, whether it is local, state or federal, reflect upon what they can do differently. It is easy to give a community organisation a whole book of things to do and say, 'This is what you need to do to meet the requirements today,' but we actually need to help these community organisations through that process. We need to make sure we do not lose what is really important about local communities.

With the few moments I have left, I would like to talk about some of the important things I hope to see included in this year's budget. One of the things I would clearly like to see is some money to deal with blackspots in terms of telecommunications. I realise that was a responsibility of the commonwealth and they have not done as much but, putting that aside for a moment, particularly in my area, I have Wasleys and a couple of other communities which would benefit immensely from improved communications.

I understand the sort of investment required is not a huge amount, so I have been talking to some ministers behind the scenes to ensure that they are aware of my desire to have some moneys put aside for that—not because it is my electorate but because the Pinery fires identified a problem there not only from a community safety point of view but just purely in terms of running businesses in rural towns. People trying to run online businesses find it very difficult.

There is the issue of economic activity in those towns, there are issues of safety in those towns, but there are also issues of making sure those people do not miss out on engaging with community as well. I know a lot of people in the community find accessing the internet quite difficult or quite expensive, so I am hoping that the government will look at that.

The other issue I would like to see addressed is maintaining our air coverage in the emergency services area. I think it is very important. While I accept that fires are fought on the ground, and won and lost on the ground by our volunteers and other people working in that area—all the people in the emergency services area—the air coverage provides a level of comfort and confidence, and actually helps our people on the ground. I am hoping we will be able to reach some sort of agreement with Victoria, Tasmania and the other states who I understand are having discussions with the state government and the commonwealth to make sure we maintain that coverage.

With only 15 seconds left, I would like to say that the opposition has, on a number of occasions today, reflected on the government. It is interesting to note they do not actually reflect on the fact they have been in opposition for 14 years. Perhaps there should be some reflection about their own performance.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:03): There are so many things a member could speak and grieve on because we have a wide-ranging choice of things to bring to the attention of the house, but I particularly want to talk about and bring to the government's attention a couple of things with regard to the South-East of the state. All we have seen in the last few years in the South-East from this government is more and more taxation, and, principally, we have seen it in two areas.

The removal of the rebate under the emergency services levy has impacted greatly. Because that levy is a capital-based tax, the removal of that rebate has impacted greatly upon the farming community, and my electorate is basically a farming community. There are other industries, obviously, but the majority of the people who live and work in my electorate are either farmers or businesses associated with farming. The impact of that removal has been quite dramatic, as I say, being a capital-based levy.

The other one has been the impost of an increase in the levies under the NRM Act through the Natural Resource Management boards. Those impacts will, again, affect my electorate quite dramatically. I want to put this in context, because I think there is a mindset in this government, and certainly within the cabinet room, that people in the South-East are wealthy and that they can withstand being taxed at a greater level.

A couple of bits of information—and I presented some of this information to the Natural Resources Committee recently when I was giving evidence with regard to their inquiry into the NRM levies, or the water minister's want to extract even more money under the guise of water planning and management fees from landholders and particularly landholders in my electorate.

It came to my attention recently that the Australian government Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development published a Progress in Australian Regions—Yearbook 2015. It gives a whole range of statistical information about the economics that are occurring in regional Australia and it gives good insight into what is actually happening out in the bush. I can report to the house that the numbers for my region show that, indeed, the South-East is not doing particularly well at the moment and has not been for some years, and anybody who suggests that the South-East is full of very wealthy people who should be taxed more is just not aware of the reality.

In chapter two of the book that I refer to, there is a sub-chapter 2.4.1 which has statistics about real median weekly household income. It is at page 112 in the book. Just to put into context what they are talking about, the introduction to the chapter says:

Real median weekly household income represents the middle of the income distribution for households. It is an indicator of Australians' capacity to consume goods and services and is a key measure of Australia's economic well-being.

So, it is the median (the middle household in that area) and it tracked the changes over a 10-year period between 2001 and 2011. Across Australia, real median household income increased by $190 a week. In real terms, from 2001 to 2011, the median household across Australia had an increase in disposable income of $190 a week.

In South Australia, that statistic was $175 a week, so the increase in real median household income was slightly lower in South Australia than across Australia. That is for Greater Metropolitan Adelaide, not the whole of South Australia. So, for Greater Metropolitan Adelaide, there was a $175 a week increase. For the rest of South Australia, outside of Greater Metropolitan Adelaide, it was only $75 a week. So, for the 10-year period between 2001 and 2011, the median household income in real terms rose by $100 a week more in Greater Metropolitan Adelaide than it did in regional South Australia.

In my electorate in the South-East, which is again separated out from the rest of regional South Australia, the figure was less than half of that: it was only $36 a week. So, where the median household disposable income in real terms increased by $175 a week over that 10-year period in metropolitan Adelaide, in my electorate in the South-East it only increased by $36 a week.

I think that is a fairly powerful piece of information. I think that information explains why my constituents get so angry, when the only thing the government sees the South-East as being useful for is to extract more taxes. The reality is that the ability of my constituents to continue to pay increasing taxes is less than it is elsewhere in South Australia.

Late last year, the government sent its cabinet down to the South-East in one of these jaunts they call a regional cabinet. Last week in my local paper, The South Eastern Times, which is published in Millicent, the Premier had a letter published saying what a wonderful government he leads, what a wonderful time they had in the South-East, and what wonderful things they are doing for the South-East. He put a few dot points in the letter, highlighting how wonderful they were to the South-East. He says:

…our funding commitments to the region include:

$9.73m to improve safety on local roads

I am not quite sure, but I suspect a fair bit of money has been spent on the Dukes Highway. I know there is a project upgrading the road and sealing the shoulders of the Riddoch Highway at the moment. I do not think that is anywhere near $9 million. I think it is a fraction of that, but it is welcome.

They did spend some money—it would have been in the last financial year, I think—just outside of Kingston on the road that goes to Millicent—the Princes Highway—against Maria Creek, where they have put in one of those barriers to stop people from driving into the creek, and also sealing the shoulders. This was all within the 80 km/h zone.

I do not know that I have ever heard of anyone actually driving off that road and into Maria Creek, but they probably spent at least a couple of hundred thousand dollars there in the guise of a safety measure. I do not think it has improved the safety, whereas sections of that road badly need shoulder sealing. The second dot point is:

$221,000 to help job seekers find work and meet employer needs

With the unemployment rates in South Australia and in the South-East, I think that is a pretty miserable amount of money. The letter continues:

$1.09m in grants so businesses can expand their operations, develop new products and create more jobs.

I would imagine there is a small amount of money through the rural infrastructure fund to give businesses the ability to increase employment in the region. I would have to say, for a region that produces so much for and contributes so much to this state, that is a paltry amount of money. I think it is outrageous that the Premier would suggest how good his government has been to the South-East when the proposed NRM levy increases in the same region will be $5 million per year.

In relation to the emergency services levy, I do not know the direct impact on the South-East because it is statewide, but I would estimate that regional South Australia is contributing in the order of $10 million a year more than what is being spent in regional South Australia on emergency services. It is outrageous that the Premier would write a letter to the local paper suggesting that they are good government when all they do in the South-East is increase taxes and refuse to spend money where it should be spent, as per this morning's story in The Advertiser about the South-East drainage network.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:13): I rise to make a grieve contribution to the Supply Bill 2016. Transforming Health was quite topical today, but I just want to talk generally, not just about health services throughout the metropolitan area, but certainly throughout regional areas. I am concerned; with all the headaches we are seeing with Transforming Health here in the city, what is going to happen in the regions?

In the past, before I was in this place, there were moves by the Labor government looking to cut 68 hospitals in the country. So, what is on the books now to cut down services for country people? I can remember, probably 25 years ago, campaigning on the steps of this place to make sure that we had a good hospital still at Tailem Bend, and, thankfully, it is still there, because my family have had to make use of it. In fact, we had three generations there one day, but that is another story. It is a great service to the local community.

I am concerned. I do know that our next inquiry reference in the Social Development Committee, which I am on, will be with regard to regional health and certainly how the Health Advisory Council operates, how funding is raised in local areas and how that will be spent going forward. There are a lot of concerns in regional areas about how locally raised funding gets spent, because from what I have heard there is not as much being bequeathed to hospitals anymore, because people see it as just going into the big hole of government and the health bucket.

So, we will certainly be having a look at that, but we certainly must make sure that there is equity in the health system because, as we heard today and on a number of days in this place, there are a lot of issues in health at the minute, and the biggest one is probably the $600 million-odd blowout in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and the issue that paper files cannot be stored there, even after $420 million-odd has been spent on the EPAS electronic filing system which just does not work.

Certainly another issue that is brought to mind (and, hopefully, I will be pleasantly surprised when the budget comes out) is that, I think, about five years ago the new Murray Bridge Police Station came through the Public Works Committee. I was very pleased to see that happen, and I was very pleased to attend the opening with the then minister at the time, minister Michael O'Brien. That has been a great boon for the area of Murray Bridge and its surrounds.

It gives our police better facilities to operate from and a lot more room. Instead of having somewhere where you are diving around through corridors and adjoining buildings, it is all in an ergonomically-designed building and working extremely effectively. Part of that (and it is noted in the documents from the Public Works Committee hearings of the time) is that there is room there for the courthouse to shift from where it is located currently on Bridge Street and be located out on Swanport Road with the new police station.

The new police station cost over $12.6 million, and I would assume that it would probably cost at least that, and maybe more, for the courthouse, but I would urge the government, if it has not done so already, to have a good look at making that synchronicity in the rural city of Murray Bridge and moving ahead on that program of getting a court built there, because, sadly, as with every area, we do need our police services and we do need our court facilities. It would be nice if we did not have to, but it is a fact of life, and It would certainly make things a lot more streamlined, especially in light of prisoner transfers and ease of access between the court and the Murray Bridge Police Station.

Rail freight is another thing that I am a big supporter of in this state, and the sad thing that we have seen in the last couple of years is the winding up of people using the Mallee rail lines out through Karoonda to Loxton and out through Lameroo to Pinnaroo out to the border. Sadly, what that will do is just put thousands of extra trucks on the road bringing produce in from those areas, especially at harvest time, into at least as far as Tailem Bend on the Dukes Highway.

The issue for me is that, apart from not having a good resource—sadly, majorly underfunded with respect to maintenance on the rail lines—there is going to be all these extra trucks on the road. There are no overtaking lanes on either of these highways that lead in and out of my electorate and through the electorate of Chaffey, and it certainly needs attention.

There need to be overtaking lanes built on both these roads for the safety of people into the future, because, if we are going to lose access to the rail line—as it has happened, because essentially Viterra has been the only customer using it of recent times—there needs to be something done to keep our citizens alive and safe on our roads.

I just had a meeting with the Minister for Road Safety, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas, and I was heartened with the debate we had on a range of issues. Certainly, this was one thing we debated and I said, 'You just need to do something about it to keep people safe and keep them alive.' I will acknowledge that there has been a bit of shoulder-sealing work done on some of these roads but more needs to be done to make sure they keep our people safe and keep the freight coming in to where it needs to go.

Something else that concerns me is the threat of loss of allocations in the river system. We have not seen this since the River Murray came back in September 2010, and there is obviously serious talk out in the community from departmental people, and from the minister down, in fact, on allocations being cut in the next irrigation year, the next financial year. I think we have the perfect opportunity, with the desalination plant basically idling along at 10 per cent, to see if it works at 100 per cent.

Let's crank it right up. That is what should be happening so that we can grow food production in this state because currently mining, sadly, has almost fallen by the wayside. Thankfully there is still mining going on, but it is very a tough environment out there at the moment for mining. The economic environment is not flash and I do hope it kicks its heels up again in the very near future. We need to look after our agricultural producers and do what we can to make sure they get what they can—especially our irrigators.

Another concern I have both across the state and locally is with disability housing. I had an issue over a couple of years with a client. It was not his fault; it was a very tragic case. In the end he could not even have a share house. He had his own house on one of the main streets in Murray Bridge and it just did not work. I walked into my boardroom one day in my office and there would have been a dozen or 15 people there to meet me in regard to the situation. I was working with the local NGO to see what we could do to get some appropriate housing for this poor person, so that the community could live in concert with this person.

We talked about having a small property just on the outskirts of Murray Bridge. Sadly, bureaucracy ground along and ground along and we ended up, once we pushed along with the minister, with what turned into a pretty ugly situation. Essentially, a place was being converted for disability housing up in the hills, and a local constituent was engaged to be the security contractor. He was getting a whole lot of emails saying, 'This is going to be good; you're going to get the contract.' He hired people for the contract and, in the end, it all fell over and it became very ugly.

The government needs to have better oversight of what needs to happen. Instead of acting in a panic, as it appeared to here in conjunction with this NGO, it really needs to have a better look at the needs of these people who do need decent housing, but we also need to make sure that the community lives together. This poor man could not help his condition and he would make the local community unhappy yelling out at night and that kind of thing. We really need to make sure things go the right way.

Just quickly, another conversation I had with the minister today was about locally-built fire trucks. Moore Engineering, I believe, make the best fire trucks you can buy whether locally built or from New Zealand. It is outrageous that we import trucks from New Zealand and I think we should make much more use of our local suppliers.