Bills

Appropriation Bill 2018

Estimates Committees

Debate resumed.

Mr PATTERSON (Morphett) (16:14): I would like to speak on the reports of Estimates Committees A and B. I start by acknowledging the Chairs. The Deputy Speaker was one of the Chairs, as was the member for Waite, who conducted the hearings mostly in an orderly fashion and, where not, brought them back into order as soon as possible. I also acknowledge the ministers who opened themselves to questions and scrutiny of the budget lines and initiatives that related to their portfolios, and in particular, to the ministers in the committee hearings that I participated in: the Treasurer, the Minister for Human Services, the Minister for Environment and Water and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Local Government and at the same time Minister for Planning. Additionally, I thank the public servants who attended the hearings and those who put work into the lead-up to the estimates process, some of them many weeks prior.

This was the first state budget for the Marshall Liberal government and the papers outlined a return to surplus in 2018-19, a net operating surplus of $48 million and projected surpluses across each year of those forward estimates. It really demonstrated that the 2018-19 budget was a strong budget that put in place the plan for not only the 2018-19 budget year but also the next four years of this government that will help South Australia's future. There is no doubt about that. At the same time, it was the first Liberal budget for 16 years and came with new priorities. So most of the ministers who made themselves available for questions were undertaking this for the first time, except for the Treasurer.

Certainly, it was these priorities and programs that were detailed in both the Budget Measures Statements and the Agency Statements that were opened up for questioning as part of the estimates process. The first hearing I participated in was with the Treasurer, and he fielded a wide range of questions and made himself very open. He did not make lengthy statements or opening statements, but rather went straight to the questions to allow his budget lines to be investigated. It showed that the government was committed to making South Australia an affordable place to live and, included in that, is affordable water prices, which is important to help South Australians manage their cost-of-living pressures.

One of the budget lines outlined that funding of $1 million in 2018-19 had been allocated for the establishment and operation of an independent inquiry into water pricing in South Australia. This will be used to inform the government if the methodology used to determine SA Water's bills is reasonable. This independent inquiry into water pricing will commence, if it has not already, very shortly and will hopefully be finalised by 30 June 2019. This again delivers on one of our election commitments.

One of the questions I asked the Treasurer to outline during the estimates process was in relation to the former government's commercialisation of the lands titling and property valuation services in South Australia. It was revealed that a private sector consortium had paid $80 million up-front to have exclusive rights to negotiate with the state for any future government registry commercialisation projects. Under this agreement, the state was and is contractually obliged to use its best endeavours to commercialise the motor registration and driver licensing registry within three years, repay that $80 million amount or grant a seven-year extension to the existing 40-year term of the land services agreements, which will be at the state's discretion.

We also talked a bit about the interest rates. That $80 million comes with a 10 per cent interest rate as well, so it will be some direction north of $80 million. Given this contractual obligation, $500,000 was set aside in the 2018-19 state budget for a scoping study to be undertaken on the feasibility of commercialising the motor registration and driver licensing registry.

In relation to probably more appealing matters for the population of South Australia, both for the business and general communities at large, the budget also saw the introduction of the removal of payroll tax for all small businesses with an annual taxable payroll below $1.5 million. They will be exempt from 1 January 2019. This will mean that approximately 3,200 businesses will become exempt from payroll tax, making a saving of up to $44,550 a year for those businesses.

The reforms in the budget will help to grow the economy and create a level playing field for businesses. As you heard today in question time, the Premier detailed how all South Australians will benefit from the reduction in their emergency services levy, some $360 million over the next four years. The first of those bills has arrived in South Australians' letterboxes and the savings that they are now experiencing is money that they can elect to spend how they see fit, providing a $90 million boost to the South Australian economy this financial year. That is some welcome news in the budget lines.

The Minister for Human Services took questions and really demonstrated that the Marshall Liberal government is committed to helping the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community. The budget in the Human Services portfolio not only delivers on key election commitments but also strengthens communities and looks at ensuring greater efficiencies. The Agency Statements outlined the abolishing of volunteer screening check fees for South Australians, which really recognises the huge contribution volunteers make to the community and how it strengthens them.

At local sporting clubs, whether that is football, soccer, or at the lifesaving club, and in all opportunities for people to volunteer, we know how many countless hours volunteers put into South Australia and the economic impact that makes. In fact, over 1.7 million volunteer hours are put in each week. This measure will provide $677,000 in 2018-19 and $1.4 million from 2019-20 onwards.

It is also worth mentioning that funding of over $11.9 million over the next four years has been allocated to a suite of domestic violence measures to ensure that women living in violent or abusive relationships are better able to access immediate support. Some of that $11.9 million includes establishing 40 new crisis accommodation beds. These are very critical for emergency needs as, often, domestic violence occurs at night time.

There will also be $5 million in interest-free loans to non-government organisations to fund new domestic violence support housing. In my role as Mayor of Holdfast Bay and working with Vinnies, the council was able to provide two cabin-based transportables to be used by Vinnies so they could use them for domestic violence support and emergency housing for people.

In addition, another $1.66 million will be made available over the next four years to help extend the Women's Safety Services SA Domestic Violence Crisis Line to 24 hours a day. That, again, is very important. Also, an amount of $2.6 million will be provided in 2018-19 to continue to support the transition of the state disability services to the non-government sector as a result of the reforms that are currently underway with the NDIS.

In terms of social housing, the minister was also able to touch on the initiatives that this government is undertaking to try to reduce homelessness and increase access to appropriate housing. I heard that today on the radio as well—the pressing need for investment into housing. The government has recently signed the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, which sees $118 million per year directed towards improving access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing across the entire housing spectrum. Under that agreement the federal government will contribute about $108 million per year and the state government $9.6 million per year. That will be a fantastic way to try to alleviate some of the problems associated with housing.

The Liberal government is also trying to work through a backlog of maintenance ranging into hundreds of millions of dollars for what is left of the broken housing system that we have inherited. Many of those $34,000 homes are run down and in a chronic condition. From the budget it is a step in the right direction, but you can see, though, that the public housing system is not going to be fixed overnight. However, with the establishment of the new SA Housing Authority we are working to clean up the mess we have been left with.

I move on to the Minister for Environment and Water. He is particularly articulate and passionate about his portfolio and outlined how this budget will deliver strong and practical environmental outcomes for the people of South Australia. It really does reset the environmental agenda here in this state. You could definitely pick up that there is a renewed focus on not only the coasts but also the parks and ranges, with ambitious plans to create a new urban national park and to unlock the state's reservoirs for recreation.

In fact, the budget includes $27.7 million of new funding to some key environmental programs that will see some lasting benefits for our state's environment and deliver lasting impacts across the state. Part of this package, as I said before, includes $10 million over four years for the once-in-a-lifetime Glenthorne national park, which extends right the way through down to Marino and which is on the coast not too far from the seat of Morphett. They are certainly fantastic recreation spaces that are a really short drive away for the residents of Morphett.

I know that the member for Black and his community are fully supportive of this initiative. Also, there is $5 million over the next two years to open up reservoirs. We talked at length about the Happy Valley reservoir—which is one of those that will be opened up—and what the opportunities will be there as well. In terms of other initiatives, $2.9 million was set aside to undertake crucial preservation works on the Waterfall Gully summit trail—a very popular walking trail for all people in metropolitan Adelaide. Once you are up the top it gives fantastic views of the city itself.

Also, $300,000 is committed to deliver an independent marine parks review, which was one of the promises made prior to the election, and at the same time $2 million is committed to Greener Neighbourhoods. In the estimates the minister spoke of how the Greener Neighbourhoods will be really important to reduce the heat island effect that can occur in built-up parts of metropolitan Adelaide, particularly in new developments. Certainly with respect to the Resilient South project, the members of the councils of Holdfast Bay and Marion looked at the heat island effect and it really was stark.

Looking at the established suburbs, which have trees and bigger spaces between housing, the heat map on those was starkly cooler compared with newer developments where houses are packed in a lot closer. There are fewer tree canopies providing that important shade, so certainly this Greener Neighbourhoods is going to be a good step in trying to reduce that heat island effect.

Another aspect that was really important to the residents of Morphett, and also to visitors (because the coastline is very important along Glenelg, Glenelg South and Somerton Park) was the $5.2 million that has been allocated to our metropolitan coasts in particular. I pressed the Minister for Environment on this issue and he outlined how South Australia has 5,067 kilometres of coastline. However, it is a coastline with many points of vulnerability, particularly along metropolitan Adelaide as it is the case that 80 per cent of South Australia's population is located along this 100 kilometres, or so, of coastline that makes up the western side of metropolitan Adelaide. It does certainly bring pressures to bear on that coast.

It was clear from the minister's response that this government sees coastal protection as a critical area that really does require considerably more investment in the short, medium and longer term, and that is why this state budget and also the forward estimates mark the beginning of our coastal protection undertakings over the next three years. The $5.2 million will be dedicated to protecting our pristine coastline and beaches by investing in sand replenishment on those beaches and also the research associated with that sand retention.

These beaches are constantly battling a northward littoral drift of sand, starting at Hallett Cove, in the member for Black's electorate, and then making its way up past Kingston Park, Brighton, Somerton Park, Glenelg and Morphett. It is then interrupted by some man-made structures, such as the marina at Glenelg and the marina at West Beach, and that sees West Beach suffering in a way because the natural drift seems to bypass West Beach, and that really is where the initial focus is.

Certainly, the beaches at Somerton Park have seen some success with sand retention measures. Even big textile bags filled with sand and put along the shoreline to form groynes have been successful in increasing the beach over the last 10 years. Whilst still visible at times, especially at low tide, they have increased the amount of sand not only on the beach near the tideline but also up closer to the rock walls.

In the week before the estimate hearings, I was fortunate enough to attend West Beach with both the member for Colton, who has West Beach as part of his electorate, and the environment minister when the minister announced significant funding towards that beach to help with this coastline: $500,000 a year for the next two years, which involves 100,000 cubic metres of sand. This will be brought in from Semaphore, where there are sand retention measures, which is built up sand at that end, and brought down to West Beach to help alleviate the problem. We need to look at other measures as well around that, and that is why the $1 million of funding towards research is so important to try to initiate that sand retention.

We also talked in estimates about seagrass, how it is an important element inhibiting sand drift below the water, and some of the opportunities, focusing on seagrass meadow restoration as well as some stormwater harvesting schemes to prevent nutrient-rich stormwater entering the gulf with the impacts this has on seagrass. The minister outlined that he sees a real opportunity for the blue carbon industry for South Australia for not only seagrass but some of the wetland habitats around there and restoring those particularly around the saltmarshes and mangroves.

The point was made at the Paris climate talks that Australia has become the international leader on blue carbon. This really is a fantastic opportunity for South Australia to be a leader with this funding that will lead to habitat restoration, as well as carbon sequestration opportunities, and put us at the forefront of driving a blue carbon economy, so we are really keen to move forward with that.

In my concluding remarks, I will say that, whilst I was not present to hear the Minister for Police, I did read through his contributions. It was pleasing to note that he outlined that the government is increasing the operating hours of police stations at Norwood, Henley Beach and also Glenelg, which is a premier seaside tourism destination. This really is a positive move that has been well received by the community of Morphett. The budget itself dedicates $12.9 million to implement this new staffing model in metropolitan police stations, which will enable more sworn police to be available for patrols and the three abovementioned police stations to open when the community needs them.

These and similar measures demonstrate that the Marshall government has delivered a strong budget that really delivers the reform that South Australia needs and lays a strong foundation for the future. It is a budget that is fair and responsible and fulfils the commitments made to South Australians at the recent election to lower costs, create jobs and provide better services.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:34): I would like to make a contribution to the report of the estimates committees. I will be reporting on Estimates Committee A, which I sat on. From the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge your chairmanship of that committee. You did a very good job under very difficult circumstances, and I was glad to be there to support you, given the hassles you had from government members on the day.

I would like to give some context before I address some of the issues in my portfolio areas that came up during Estimates A, and it is perhaps useful to quote some of the things the Deputy Premier, the member for Bragg, said this morning in her contribution to this debate. She said:

…we are very proud as a government of the new budget and of the commitment we made in the lead-up to the election to make provision in the budget for those commitments, to honour those and keep our promises to the people of South Australia.

It is a very interesting quote. Right through the whole budget debate and all through the appropriation process and the estimates committees, it would be fair to say that the members of the government actually spent more time talking about ALP policy, the Labor Party and the Labor government than about their own policies. One can only assume that they are not really keen to talk about the budget. If my seat were in the north-eastern suburbs, I would not want to talk about Service SA or perhaps the other issues about park-and-rides. I can understand why some of the members in those seats would not want to mention those.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: However, putting that aside, I am actually going to talk about my portfolio areas. I am happy to talk about Light any day, and I will be doing so later this week. It is interesting that through the whole process the government spent so much time talking about the opposition's policy, rather than about theirs. The Attorney-General went on to say:

Let us be clear: the new government is there to provide information and to provide that support in our responsibility to the parliament.

If you had been here in question time today, you would not have thought that it was the same political party making those comments because most of the ministers spent most of their time avoiding the questions, to the extent that even the Speaker had to uphold our point of order that the minister's answer had no relevance to the questions themselves. The Attorney-General then said:

We have, as a new government, an obligation to expect that questions will be asked about what we are proposing…

I will quote from The Advertiser of the Friday after the estimates process finished and what Daniel Wills said about some of the minister's answers to questions during the estimates. He talks about one particular issue, but the part I thought really interesting is when he talks about the estimates committee I was on, as follows:

Infrastructure Minister Stephan Knoll gave a series of ridiculous-looking non-answers, which included repeating ad nauseam—

etc., etc. I think that Mr Wills has got it right. That was the whole tone of the estimates committee I was on; that is, the minister kept saying the same thing and avoiding the questions. He was only saved by a few Dorothy Dixers from the members of the government.

Getting to the more substantive issues which came up in estimates and which I think provide some commentary, the first portfolio I sat on was Veterans' Affairs with the Premier in his capacity as Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I will be very careful about what I say because I am a strong believer that this is an area we should be bipartisan on, given that we need to show the utmost respect for those people who have served this nation in overseas conflicts—those who have given their life and those who have come back and given their lives in other ways.

An issue I would like to put on the record, which I did during estimates and on which I had hoped to have an answer by now, is one I put to the minister about whether the government would consider changing shop trading hours on the 11^th of the 11^th to enable people in the community to attend 11am services. The minister did say on the day that they would consider it, but I am not aware of an answer or of a decision being made public. As you will be aware, shop trading hours commence at 11 on a Sunday, and I do not think it is an unreasonable request to put it back an hour on that day to mark the centenary of the end of World War I.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: If the 11^th is a Sunday.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, it is.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: I know that it is this year.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That's right. I do not think it is an unreasonable request to enable those people who work on a Sunday to go to local commemorative services to honour those people who gave their lives—and not only those people who gave their lives but also those families left behind by the war effort.

The minister gave a commitment to provide an answer to that. I understand that it was being discussed, but I have certainly not yet had any confirmation. It would be good, first, to do it and, secondly, to have the answer made public. Obviously, a number of RSLs right across the state, if not the nation, are organising their commemorative services, and it would be good to know what sorts of numbers they can expect. I fully understand that shop trading hours are a bit of a sensitive issue for the government at the moment. Putting that aside, it is important that we have an opportunity to come together as a community to show respect and to honour those who fell during World War I, just as we do on ANZAC Day, so I look forward to that.

I must confess that it was also good to hear that the government are now investigating and have done some preliminary work on collecting data on veterans who enter both the health system and the criminal justice system, and I commend them for that. It was one request made through discussions with veterans groups to me as shadow minister for veterans. They are very keen to make sure that, when veterans enter either the health system or the criminal justice system, there are a number of veteran-oriented or veteran-focused organisations to provide the necessary support.

Unfortunately, it is very sad that a number of veterans who come back from conflicts overseas still do not enjoy good mental health. The rate of suicide amongst veterans is still far too high. If we can provide support to our veterans when they enter the health or the criminal justice system, hopefully the outcome will be much more positive. I am aware that the government has started that process, and I commend them for that; hopefully, that work will continue. They are the few comments I wanted to make about the Veterans' Affairs portfolio. As I said, we will continue to work closely with the office for Veterans' Affairs in South Australia and the Premier to make sure that we continue to have a bipartisan approach to veterans in our community.

I would now like to make a few comments about the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. I sat on that committee and asked some questions about the government's position and policies regarding a greater level of transparency and openness in the planning process. The minister indicated that he was looking at that and would seek some advice from the state Planning Commission, which unfortunately now has a new head.

I would like to thank the previous head of the Planning Commission, who provided very helpful advice to me as the shadow minister for planning. I would also like to congratulate Michael Lennon, the new chair of the Planning Commission, who comes with a wealth of experience in the government, non-government and private sectors, as well as many years ago in local government in South Australia and across Australia and internationally in the non-profit housing sector. I look forward to working with him to improve our policy frameworks and settings.

One concern which I have and which I expressed at the estimates committee, and the minister was not really able to provide an answer, was in regard to the process for developing policy codes. One of the biggest criticisms and concerns I hear is that despite it appearing to be a very engaging process in fact it is not. In fact, it involves key stakeholders, and the community at large have been largely excluded from the process in a ministerial way. In fact, my colleague the member for Badcoe raised some of those concerns today in her grievance.

The question I put to the minister was about how we were going to open up the process, and one of the concerns I have is about the resources the planning commission, which will have the responsibility, if you like, of endorsing the policies, will have. In reality, what will happen is that they will be given a whole range of documents by the department—and I am not suggesting anything improper by the department at all—but they will have very few resources to be able to question those policy documents. We could have policy documents that are not actually supported by the community at large—and, in the end, one has to govern by consent.

Another concern raised with me by the development sector is that, with a new system coming into place—and generally speaking there is overall support for that new system coming into place—it does not hold up the process by having existing DPAs in the system slowed down. The minister gave me an assurance that that was not happening, that in fact things had sped up, yet when I go around to the regions and speak to councils one of the issues they raise with me is the fact that a number of their DPA processes have slowed down.

Some have taken years, to the extent that it is some causing difficulties for the proper development of those rural communities. So I ask the minister look at the DPAs, in particular, that are actually for some minor adjustments or that are to remove an anomaly in zoning, which is becoming more difficult to adjust. Those are some issues that have come up in the planning area.

One of the other issues is that this Minister for Local Government and minister Speirs as well have talked about how they are going to stop the process of cost shifting. That is interesting because there are a number of things this government is now doing, or is contemplating doing, that are, in effect, cost shifting. You can call it what you like, but it is cost shifting, particularly for local government.

When I asked, for example, about the e-portal or the new planning process, the new system, and whether council would see the benefit from the investment they are required to make in the system, the minister made it very clear, that they would be required to pay up-front to set up the system and benefits would be some years later down the track. That is, in effect, shifting the cost from the state to local government.

Another issue I raised with the minister was that in the next section of Service SA—and this came up today in question time as well—he talked about equity actually being achieved by increasing access to Service SA centres. I am not sure how you increase access by closing two centres down. The minister made it very clear that one of the reasons for doing that was to try to make savings and provide these services more efficiently, yet by his own admission he is going to open up a new centre on the very same existing model for the ones he has closed are based on.

He then went on to say that people can actually get a lot of these services at post offices now, but it is interesting to note that he is proposing to open a new centre in Mount Barker, and the last time I looked I think Mount Barker did have a post office. I am not sure on what basis he drags those services away from two communities and then opens up an identical service in another community. There is certainly no equity in that. The greatest inequity in this whole issue, though—and the minister was quite glib and quite arrogant in his response on this, saying 'I can actually do these things online'—is that not everybody can do things online, minister.

In fact, it is often members who represent rural communities who get really upset at that sort of answer about just sending people online. There are a number of people in our community who are not IT literate for one reason or another; some older people as well. So what this minister is saying is, 'If you cannot go online, bugger you. You just have to drive extra kilometres to an extra service point.' What he is saying is that the most vulnerable in our community, those people who least have the ability and resources, are the ones this government is going to target.

This government then justifies that decision by punishing the poor and those people who are less literate by saying, 'We had to make tough decisions.' That is how he justified making tough decisions, so it is a tough decision to hit the poor and make their life more miserable and then actually help those who are more wealthy. That is the value system of the Liberal Party that sits opposite.

Then we come to Renewal SA, formerly the urban renewal authority. I must confess that, in my opinion, the stuff-up by the government in the way it has handled this issue in terms of the ICAC inquiry into some personnel is of its own making. They can blame nobody else except themselves. It is interesting that the minister handled this whole matter really poorly. They must get some better media advice because not only did they stuff up the original announcement of this, then the Attorney-General decided to add to their misery by issuing a media statement to confirm everything they were denying throughout the whole estimates process which made it very interesting.

On one hand, the minister said, 'I know nothing,' and then the Attorney-General said, 'Well, we do know something. We are not going to tell you and we are not going to tell you what we do know.' The unfortunate part, though, is that it has tarnished the urban renewal authority. It is an authority that is very important in terms of the role it plays, particularly in overseeing the major investment on the old RAH site. That is a key site in the development of our city. The key agency that is responsible for that has now lost its CEO and senior executive. Just on that, I congratulate Mark Devine on his appointment as acting CEO. I think he is acting or is he the CEO?

Mr Picton: I don't know. It changes day by day.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, but Mark is an excellent operator.

Mr Brown: He's acting.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Acting CEO. I did not ask that because in estimates the minister had confidence in his then acting CEO and he said he could be acting CEO indefinitely until the other CEO who was on indefinite leave would come back at some point in time, so it is hard to know.

Mr Picton: What a mess!

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What a mess! It is unfortunate. But I have a lot of confidence in Mark's abilities to steer the urban renewal authority, given his background. He is a very level-headed man and will do good. One thing I would question in the minister's answers in relation to the whole fiasco with the urban renewal authority was his claim that he did not raise putting the CEO on indefinite leave with the chairman of the authority itself at all, and that was unusual. That was unremarkable, according to him, that the authority's CEO was put on indefinite leave and another person was then put on leave as well. The chairman would say, 'Nothing to see here. Look elsewhere.' It really does sound incredible.

With the few moments I have left I would like to touch upon local government. It is interesting that the minister decided to hand over $200,000 to ESCOSA to look into their rate oversight bill to develop their model, and when asked what they were doing, his answer was 'I do not know. ESCOSA answers to the Treasurer. I am just the Minister for Local Government.'

Mr Picton: I just work here.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I just work here—and working very hard, of course. That was the mantra we heard today—that they are all working very hard. They are working very hard on working very hard. We heard that quite a few times today, so that was interesting. We have the rate oversight bill which has not been passed. He does not care whether or not it gets passed because he has shown no interest in actually pushing it through the upper house but then went and spent $200,000 this year on developing a model to implement it.

If things could not get any worse, then we come to Leigh Creek which is part of the Outback Communities Authority where the minister is the minister responsible for the authority but showed very little interest in the outback communities. Again, he said, 'I am just the Minister for Local Government. You have to ask this minister, that minister and that minister for the other thing,' so it is unfortunate that there is no lead minister to look after the welfare and wellbeing of the people of Leigh Creek. That contrasts with what we did at the time, which was to make sure that we had a lead minister who would take responsibility to make sure we had a comprehensive cross-government response. This government, through this estimates process, has shown that it is not ready and not fit to govern.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (16:54): I rise as well to comment on the 2018 estimates process. This is the fifth estimates process while I have had the honour of sitting in this parliament, but probably the most intensive that I have been involved in. In the first two years, I was a government backbencher. As I am sure a number of backbenchers learnt during this process, it is a very boring process to go through if you are a government backbencher, to sit there through many, many hours of discussion.

Then for two years of estimates I was a parliamentary secretary or an assistant minister. One of the perks of the job of being an assistant minister is that you have no involvement in the estimates process whatsoever, either as a participant, in that you do not have to front the estimates process, or as a member of the committee.

Mr Brown: Dream job!

Mr PICTON: It is. I recall a number of colleagues being rather jealous that I got to skip those two years. I was then appointed a minister, but sadly after the estimates process finished last year, so I got to skip that process. However, now, as a shadow minister, I got to more fully appreciate the estimates process. Particularly, from my perspective as the shadow minister for a minister who is in the other place, this is the first and only time every year you actually get to properly front up to that minister and directly ask some questions, so I did relish that opportunity.

I have a couple of comments generally about the process. In particular, Deputy Speaker, I thought you did a sterling job as the Chair of committee A. You were not kind to us, but you were fair and you were firm, which is the right approach in terms of the standing orders. Unfortunately, in the other place, in committee B the member for Waite did not do such a good job.

The member for Waite, as all of us know in this parliament, has been overlooked for a position in the ministry. He has been overlooked for a position as a parliamentary secretary. I think he was going out of his way in this estimates process to try to show that he has what it takes to be a minister one day. Because of that, we did not see the fairness and the firm hand of an impartial chair in that committee. We saw somebody who was just trying to look to make his mark and to hopefully—whether it is replacing the Minister for Police one day or the Minister for Child Protection, who knows? There are people who are speculating, but I am not one.

Mr Brown: He could sub in for anybody.

Mr PICTON: That's right. He is willing to step in at any time and fill that. That is what we saw in his approach to chairing, unfortunately. I have to say that I noticed some of the comments from the Deputy Premier earlier about her views on estimates, and I am sure that she has repeated them ad nauseam during her 16 years in opposition, which is obviously a significant period of time. She said this morning that maybe it would be better to have an approach where public servants get to front up and answer questions, as they do in Senate estimates.

From my perspective, I have to say that, if that is what the Deputy Premier wants to put forward as an amendment to the estimates process, I think we would say, 'Bring it on.' If she is interested in public servants fronting the process, we would welcome the opportunity—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: But they are not going to be transparent; that's the problem.

Mr PICTON: That's right. I do not think that there is any chance of them doing that because their claim to be open and transparent is purely a political slogan for this government and there is absolutely no accuracy to that whatsoever. I have to say that this is probably the most interesting estimates in probably the last 17 years. Estimates have generally not produced that much news or that much information, but quite a lot of information and quite a lot of news came out this year, largely due to the shadow minister for government accountability. I would encourage people to look at the website koutsmp.com.au and send in their tips. There was quite a lot of interest in that.

My major focus, of course, was in relation to my shadow ministerial responsibilities as shadow minister for health. There were a number of areas where we gained a greater insight into what is actually going on in this government—that is, rather than their rhetoric, their press releases and their photos ops what is actually happening under the hood of this government. I have to say that what is happening is very worrying.

The first order of business was in relation to the KordaMentha report. The government commissioned this report from the firm KordaMentha. It is not a health advisory firm, not a specialist in terms of giving advice about public hospitals; it is a specialist firm in relation to liquidation and administration. In fact, the minister could point to no examples of its providing any similar advice in relation to public hospitals. It has been brought in to look at the Central Adelaide Local Health Network, which is the largest health network in South Australia and includes two major hospitals, as well as a whole range of statewide services.

What we found was that the government paid KordaMentha almost $1 million to provide this report, but they went through no procurement process whatsoever in the lead-up. The minister and his officials admitted that there was no call to the market and that there was no approach to any particular people, other than KordaMentha, to provide the service. Originally, they had intended to hire somebody, but they decided not to hire somebody and just go to KordaMentha. That is pretty dodgy, I have to say.

From our perspective, it looks to be a serious breach of the state procurement guidelines, and that is why the shadow treasurer has referred this matter to the Auditor-General to investigate. There are very clear guidelines in terms of how procurements should happen; in particular, large procurements over half a million dollars need to go through a process of contestability. That did not happen here. There are some exemptions, but none of those exemptions is applicable in this regard. Clearly, other people could have done this work. Clearly, there was no emergency risk to public safety, such as a natural disaster, that had to circumvent a proper procurement process. We look forward to the Auditor-General considering this matter, because we think it is a very serious matter.

Secondly, we learnt that the government has the first KordaMentha report. They have had it at least since the start of estimates because on the first day of estimates when the Treasurer fronted he said that he had received the report. He quoted selectively from it, but then he refused to release the report. There is this perverse idea that you can claim cabinet confidentiality over a document, quote the bits that you like from it, just pick out particular bits that you like, but that somehow that does not ruin the cabinet confidentiality of the rest of the document.

We are calling on the government to immediately release that report. Once again, this is a sign that their claim to be open and transparent is nothing more than a slogan. We know that there is a second report coming; if it has not already landed on the minister's desk, it will be coming within weeks. We are very concerned about what this report is going to mean in terms of significant cuts to services, cuts to beds, cuts to doctors, cuts to nurses and cuts to other services at our hospitals.

The third thing we are particularly worried about is what this means in terms of privatisation of our services. We have seen already that this is a government addicted to privatisation. They have announced in the budget that they are willing to embark upon a track of privatising SA Pathology and SA Medical Imaging Services, some of the crucial back-of-house clinical services that people need when they are in hospital in South Australia. They are willing to see these privatised in South Australia as well as a range of other things, such as prisons and ambulance transfers. Clearly, KordaMentha are looking further into privatisation.

One thing we learnt through the estimates process was that there are some very significant conflict of interest issues in terms of one of the people who has been appointed by KordaMentha to undertake this report. They have engaged Dr Michael Stanford as part of this review. Funnily enough, Dr Stanford sits on the board of Australian Clinical Labs, which is one of Australia's largest providers of private pathology services. I am sure that he is one of the people who would be very eager to run pathology services in this state, maybe counting a loss for a few years and then jacking up the price, as we usually see in all sorts of privatisations that happen across the board. That is a very significant conflict of interest.

The minister was asked in detail about the process and how this was being managed. Certainly, there was no revealing of this on the government's behalf before questions were raised in the estimates process. It is clear that they did not engage any probity advice about how it should be managed. I think this probably does need to be investigated, and I think it will be a cloud that will hang over the report that we will see.

Another significant thing that came out of this estimates process was more murky details about what is going on in terms of the management of the Australian Craniofacial Unit and the minister's promises that the unit would not be changing and that it was going to continue the work of the South Australian of the Year, Professor David David. Sadly, what we have learnt through this estimates process is twofold. Firstly, overseas patients, who have been a hallmark of the unit from day one, are in jeopardy. South Australians are very proud of their ability to provide this expert care for people across the world who need it.

There are patients stuck in Indonesia who, sadly, are waiting for this treatment, and Professor David has been contacted by doctors there who are very concerned. This goes against the commitments made by the health minister that this would not be happening, and the minister was not able to provide us with any assurances that these treatments would be provided. He has referred the matter again to the Office of Public Integrity for investigation, highlighting the serious nature of these concerns.

Secondly, the other thing we learnt about the Craniofacial Unit is that, behind the scenes, people within the health service have been emailing each other saying that they want to change the nature of the service and, in particular, that they should not be committed and that the minister should not be committed to having overseas and interstate treatment as part of the unit in the future. That has always been part of the unit, but there are clearly people working within the health service who want to see that changed.

This could easily be fixed by the minister; in fact, it should have been fixed by the minister. If we actually had a strong, decent minister who was committed to continuing this work, they could have fixed this many months ago. Sadly, we see no action from the government. They are willing to let the degradation of this world-leading service continue and not listen to the advice of the South Australian of the Year, Professor David David. Sadly, I do not see any sign that that is changing any time soon, although I hope that it does.

The third thing we heard about was in terms of the boards. The government's approach to the governance of the health system is to set up a whole series of boards across South Australia. There are going to be three metro, six country and one statewide, in terms of the women's and kids' board. Clearly, this process is off track. Clearly, this process is stumbling. The minister has not made a series of critical decisions he needs to make before this process comes in in the middle of next year. This is a massive reform operation, particularly in terms of how to split up country health services into six new entities. It is way behind track and turning out to be a very expensive exercise.

We found out that $13 million is going to be spent on fees alone, but there is still no clarity in terms of how much money is going to be spent on all the other bureaucracy that will have to surround this bureaucratic change. It is clearly money that the government did not get from Treasury. They got no provision for this funding, and they are going to have to use resources that could otherwise help patients on the front line. Unfortunately, what will happen is that they will go into hiring bureaucrats instead.

We have talked about a number of the very harsh cuts that this government is progressing in this budget, and I think that chief among them is the closure of South Australia's statewide HIV service, Cheltenham Place, run by Centacare. Centacare have been vocal in their opposition to the closure of this service. It is not as though they have taken the funding and are putting it to some other service to help HIV positive-affected people: they are just going to cut it entirely. They are just going to leave those people stranded with no services whatsoever.

It came out through the estimates process that the minister has not visited there, he has not spoken to them, he has not been briefed about it. This was a callous cut that was made with no information and with no understanding about what this service was. In fact, they stuffed it up so much that they even described it completely incorrectly in the budget papers and said that it was a homeless service when it is absolutely not a homeless service.

If they had taken a first step to investigate what they were actually going to be cutting, they could have learnt about it. They would have learnt that this is a necessary service and that this is something that should be maintained. It is another example where, sadly, the government is making callous cuts without thinking about the consequences.

We also discussed a very important matter in terms of the north-eastern suburbs. People in the north-eastern suburbs know all about privatisation because they had to suffer through the privatisation of Modbury Hospital under the previous Liberal government. Within months, what has happened under this government is that the ambulance transfers between the Modbury and Lyell McEwin hospitals are going to be privatised. They are going to be put out to the market and, sadly, it looks like they are not going to be run by SA Ambulance Service anymore.

This is very concerning for patients there. Also, particularly the paramedics have been very concerned about this because a number of very critically ill people go in that ambulance. This is not an ambulance that is used only by people who are non-urgent. In fact, we are told that the vast majority of people—some 80 per cent to 90 per cent—would require some sort of medical attention while they are in that ambulance. So, to have a service where it would be the lowest common denominator, where you would not have a paramedic in the back with somebody attending to them, potentially could put lives at risk.

The government clearly has not thought this through. We saw the minister trying to flip flop on the day and say that this is going to affect only non-urgent patients. Well, that is only some 10 to 20 per cent of people who use this ambulance service. This whole thing is up for privatisation, sadly, in the north-eastern suburbs, and it is yet another example of how people of the north-eastern suburbs, who backed the member for King, who backed the member for Newland, have been let down in this budget of cuts and privatisations to their area in particular. They have been singled out in this budget of cuts to their area.

There are a number of very significant concerns, chiefly in terms of the north-eastern suburbs as well, and this was borne out by questions asked by the member for Wright. One of the key promises made to people there was about reopening the high dependency unit at Modbury Hospital. People in the north-eastern suburbs are expecting that to happen. However, we are seven months in and it has not happened. In fact, what we heard during the estimates process was that it is not going to happen in the next few months and that it is not going to happen next year. It is maybe going to be right at the end of this entire term of government that they start treating patients there.

Through FOIs, we know that they are actually looking at not establishing a high dependency unit but potentially something of a lower order than that but dressing it up to look as though the government have delivered on their commitment, but they are not actually not going to do anything from years on end from now on. Time after time, when you look at the government's rhetoric about health, what it is saying about health, the truth is clearly different. We heard again today the Minister for Energy trying to defend what the government is doing in terms of health by talking about investments all over the place.

Well, the budget documents are very clear: 880 staff to be pulled out of the health service this year. That is just to happen in one year. There is no way you can tell me that pulling out almost 1,000 doctors, nurses and other staff from our health services is not going to have a material effect in terms of how patients are treated, in terms of our waiting times, in terms of ambulance ramping. This government's recipe for our health system is clearly about trying to dress that up as though it is doing a good job, but if you look at it in any great level at all what you see are privatisations, you see a cuts agenda, you see getting rid of 900 staff and you see a whole range of other issues, such as changes to our world-leading Craniofacial Unit in this state.

This is the result of what we have been finding out through estimates. I think that there is a lot more that we will find out over coming months about what this government's true intentions are, and I think critical to that will be what this KordaMentha report says about what the government's cuts agenda is at two of our biggest hospitals. Sadly, I think that that is going to be a recipe for patients not getting proper treatment and for the government to break their supposed mantra of better services in this state.

Mr DULUK (Waite) (17:14): I was not going to make a contribution to estimates because I felt that, being in the chair the whole time, it may not be appropriate. I do thank the member for Kaurna for his backhanded compliments, in terms of my ability.

Mr Pederick: Faint praise.

Mr DULUK: I hope that his faint praise was no reflection on your ability to chair. I have not been to as many estimates as the member for West Torrens, but I have been through two or three. I know that, for the last two years, the member for Schubert and I have thoroughly enjoyed—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: He's done much better than you, though.

Mr DULUK: —it has not been before ICAC yet—the process. What I—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I know it is tempting, but the member for Waite will be heard in silence. Member for Waite.

Mr DULUK: Thank you for your protection, sir. What I find really interesting is that the member for Kaurna goes out in the media a lot and he did some media around estimates. He gets out and about in his new-found role. I know he wants to be a little bit further up. He wants to be further up the backbench.

Members interjecting:

Mr DULUK: He wants to be further up the backbench in opposition, but the member for Kaurna has been intimately involved with health policy for this state for many, many years. He was an adviser to former minister Hill. He was an adviser to former federal health minister Roxon. He then came into this place with no jobs outside advising. He had no real-life experience outside of his bureaucracy. He then served in the dying days of the Weatherill Labor government. The reality is more so—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Waite, just take a seat. There will be no—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert. Sorry, minister. I call you to order.

Mr DULUK: More so—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not finished yet, member for Waite. The member for Waite is making a valued contribution to this debate. Others have been heard in silence and he will as well. Member for Waite, you have the call.

Mr DULUK: More so than any other member of this opposition has the member for Kaurna been tied up with the health policy of the former Labor government. At the point of time that estimates came about in September and the budget handed down at 30 June, the new Marshall Liberal government had been in power for about three or four months and so we are looking at the year in its entirety.

The moment that the member for Kaurna got in those strange seats on the other side, he pretended that everything that is ill with the current health system is somehow our fault, somehow Stephen Wade from the other place's fault. It is just phenomenal. I suppose my message to those who are following this debate, especially those in the media, is not to take at face value the words of the member for Kaurna when he is talking about issues of health policy and the position of the government.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Don't flatter yourself, mate. No-one is watching.

Mr DULUK: Correct, no-one is watching. The media rolls out and gets the press release from the member for Kaurna and then they report his lies. Time and time again the member for Kaurna, in his position as shadow health minister, has been found wanting. We have seen it when he has come out of late with his statements around certain issues at the Flinders Medical Centre where the government has had to come out and correct the record. The member for Kaurna is very, very good at stretching the truth and I suppose I am saying to him that he is better than that. I think that he can actually work with the government in finding some solutions to the problems because he created most of them.

The member for Davenport was in committee with us. In the whole day of health estimates, not once did the member for Kaurna ask a question about the Repat. The first question on the Repat came from the member for Davenport. The member for Kaurna did not ask for clarity about who closed the Repat and about the issue that we have right now in SALHN where 100 beds have actually been taken out of SALHN due to the decision of the former Labor government.

Where are they at the moment, and where is the head of the nurses' union, Ms Dabars? Where is Ms Dabars in terms of fighting for my community and her members who work in SALHN? She is nowhere. She was happy to work hand in glove with the Labor Party in closing the Repat and in closing 100 beds in SALHN at the Repat, Flinders Medical Centre and of course Modbury and the services there.

Where was she? I will tell you where: she was nowhere to be seen because she wants to be in the Legislative Council, like all former members of the ANMF who have gone there. I want to see Ms Dabars come out and say that she does not aspire to office within the Labor Party. The next time she is on Ally and Dave or Will and Penbo or Leon Byner, I want to see if she comes out and says, 'I am just going to put my conflict of interest. Before I criticise the current government, I am just putting on the record my intention to stand for Labor Party preselection at some point in time in the future.' But we will not see that from her, although that is what she wants.

Ms Dabars is out there, right now, doing the proxy work for the member for Kaurna, trying to defend the abysmal record of the former Labor government. The member for Kaurna knows that we are in a huge mess in health at the moment. We have obviously had the preliminary KordaMentha report showing the issues in CALHN, as Treasurer Lucas outlined in his estimates contribution.

The member for Kaurna was part of the decisions that have taken CALHN to where it is today. Once again, I urge the member for Kaurna to work with us on the solutions. Come and work with us on the solutions. I am sure the Minister for Child Protection would like to see some reports released as well. I am sure that, in the fullness of time, the South Australian public will see what they have inherited, through this government, after 16 years of Labor mess.

We see it across the board. We saw it today in energy, where we have spent $800 million on generators. We saw it in the report from Mr Livesey QC, and we are seeing it again in health. We have seen the way Country Health has been decimated across the board in your community, sir. We see the legacy of Labor's decision-making. I remind all those who are following the debate, member for West Torrens—and I am sure they eagerly are—that it is Labor's legacy that we are dealing with and trying to fix up. It is the closure of the Repat, and it is also the morale within SA Health staffing and the intimidation and bullying that members of SA Health and its employees were forced to endure by the former government, where they could not come out and criticise government policy that was affecting their communities.

We know that the former Labor government left us with huge problems. They know it, but they do not want to admit it. They move on to the next story of the day whenever they can. They do not want to be part of the solution. They are just there for their cheap media grabs.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: koutsmp.com.au

Mr DULUK: Correct: koutsmp.com.au. When the member for Kaurna goes on ABC radio and the presenters have to push back and say, 'We are getting a stream of negative responses from our listeners on our ABC,' we know that the members of the public are on our side in this debate. They know that the member for Kaurna has been a terrible architect of the former government's Transforming Health policies. I urge him to join us in fixing the solutions. I look forward to seeing him next year in Estimates Committee B.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (17:23): That was an extraordinary vomit into the parliament. The worst part—

Mr DULUK: Point of order, sir.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —about vomit is that it smells after it is done.

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

Mr DULUK: Yes. I think it is unparliamentary for the member for West Torrens to refer to my contribution as vomit, and I ask him to withdraw it, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is not necessarily unparliamentary, but it has offended the member for Waite. So, member for West Torrens, at the outset you could withdraw that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I could, sir, but I am not—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would prefer you to.

Mr DULUK: It is offensive to vomit, too.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Waite is offended. Withdraw it and continue with your remarks.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: If the member for Waite—is it Waite or Davenport? I cannot remember because you move seats so often.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I withdraw the remark.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for West Torrens.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In the contribution, there was an extraordinary attack on the motives of a hardworking union official, Ms Dabars.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, see the mockery of working people who dare to organise; the mockery of hardworking nurses who dare to say, 'We have our own independent voice'; the mockery from the landed gentry opposite, who believe that whatever workers organise somehow they are in it for themselves.

I find it remarkable that the member for Waite would make an accusation that is defamatory and cruel, that the only reason Ms Dabars is raising issues that are affecting nurses and their workplace is that she is somehow attempting to receive preselection or endorsement from the Australian Labor Party into the Legislative Council. Why anyone would do anything to enter the Legislative Council is beyond me. That is point 1. Point 2 is that it is a terrible slur on Ms Dabars and the people who elected her.

In the middle of a dispute in which the Premier is not intervening, which clearly sees nurses pitted against the government, to have a junior backbencher get up and make an accusation like that against Ms Dabars (1) is offensive, and (2) I think is defamatory. Luckily, the comments are covered and cloaked in privilege for the member for Waite, but if he repeated those accusations outside the parliament I think he would be in some serious trouble.

Ms Dabars showed no fear or favour whether it was a Labor government or a Liberal government. I can tell you that she gave me no quarter as treasurer. She gave me absolutely no free ride as treasurer. The idea that somehow she serves a political party other than her members is just wrong, and I think that the member for Waite will come to regret his comments in the parliament today. I think he has done the government a huge disservice. I think he has done the health minister a huge disservice. I think he has done the Premier a huge disservice. More importantly, he has done himself a huge disservice.

Ms Dabars cannot reply in this chamber. When you attack someone without any evidence in this chamber, using privilege is appalling. Privilege is designed to hold the powerful to account, not so the powerful can use it to attack workers and their representatives, which is the reverse of what privilege was designed for. The member for Waite should reflect on his contribution and on the motives of Ms Dabars and all those hardworking nurses who get up every morning to deal with some of the most difficult and traumatic situations that South Australians could ever comprehend.

Nurses are our first responders. They are the ones who are dealing with our loved ones who are dying. They are the ones who are dealing with our children who are suffering. They are the ones who are seeing people on their knees needing health care, and the best that the member for Waite can do is to question their motives. The South Australian parliament deserves better than that.

We can disagree on health policy, and that is okay. There is no problem whatsoever with a government coming in and saying, 'After 16 years we feel that there should be a different direction and this is that direction.' We are entitled to say, 'We think that new direction is unfair, it is cruel and it hurts the people who are most vulnerable.' We can have that debate, but I do not question the motives of the people involved in the debate. I think that the member for Waite will come to regret those remarks, and the shadow health minister will drive it home like a stake through the heart of those words.

Quite frankly, even though you asked me to withdraw the term 'vomit', Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to say that having that sort of bile ooze out over the parliament is unfair and it has degenerated this debate. They should look to my example to lift the tone of a debate in the parliament. One thing the member for Waite is right about is that his office has never been raided by ICAC and he has not had three chief executives govern his department in three weeks. That unenvious title goes to the junior minister—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Unenviable.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —yes, whatever you like—that unenviable title goes to the junior minister who is currently here in the chamber.

We saw in estimates a pretty appalling level of cover up from the Minister for Housing and Urban Development or Transport and Infrastructure—whatever portfolio structure Renewal SA has given authority to the minister. We have now had John Hanlon go on leave, we had an interim CEO put in place and we had a new chief executive put in place yesterday, Mr Mark Devine. That is three chief executives of Renewal SA in three weeks. Renewal SA, more than any other agency in government, deals with the private sector. They are the ones who touch developers, excavators, demolishers, people involved in industry. They, more than any other agency, are out negotiating private contracts, and right now there is a cloud over this agency.

The estimates process discovered a number of things. One was that the government is not as open and transparent as it claims to be, that it is not prepared to tell the public what is occurring in its government agencies, that it is not prepared to tell the people of South Australia that law enforcement officers have executed search warrants and seized computers, telephones and other equipment from government agencies.

This is the people's property. The people own these computers, the people own these telephones and we have a right to know what has occurred in this agency. We have a right to know if there is a cloud hanging over this agency. We have a right to know if the stench of corruption has seeped into one of the most important agencies in government that touches the private sector—but we get nothing from the government. Ralph Jacobi always used to say that the best disinfectant is sunshine.

The parliament is given privilege for a reason. The parliament is the highest forum in the state, and parliamentarians are given that privilege for a reason: to inform the public, without fear or favour, about what is occurring in this state—and we do not know. The government are not talking, and when they do talk I fear they do so illegally. I have grave concerns about the conduct of the Attorney-General and the manner in which she has conducted herself. She refuses to tell the House of Assembly whether or not the ICAC commissioner authorised her to make a public statement; she refuses.

She mocked the parliament in question time, mocked the process of question time, saying to the house, 'I refuse to answer. No matter how many times you ask me,' she said, 'I will not answer that question'. The first law officer of this land is entrusted with upholding the laws of this state, and what we found out in estimates on that day, 27 September, was that the Attorney-General may have broken the law. If that is true, she must stand down. She must stand down and there must be an independent inquiry to ascertain whether or not she has.

More importantly, we hear today that the Attorney-General sought advice from no less than the Solicitor-General about whether or not she had broken the law. That is Caesar checking into Caesar, the Crown offering advice to the Crown on whether the Crown had broken the law. Who would prosecute the Crown if the Crown had broken the law? It is the Crown. The Attorney-General cannot seek the Solicitor-General's advice about whether she broke the law. She needs personal legal opinion about whether or not she broke the law. She cannot use the offices of government for that process.

The estimates process has worked well because it has uncovered a stench that has already festered in a government that is less than a year old—already, three chief executives in three weeks and the Attorney-General with a massive cloud hanging over her head, a payment to an accused murderer. Everywhere the Attorney-General goes, along with her go controversy and potentially something larger. This house should be very concerned.

Today, we have also heard that the budget has been impacted again by the attempt to privatise the state-owned power plant that the former Labor government committed to buy. There are two points I wish to make about that. The first is that the former government released an energy plan, and within that energy plan we made two commitments in relation to generation; one was that we would procure backup generation for two summers to get us through the peaks of summer, and then we would purchase a permanent power station to provide for the needs of the state.

We always said to South Australians that we would be purchasing our own generator. What the General Electric generators give us the ability to do is to do both. They were able to offer us temporary diesel generation over two summers and would then be moved to a permanent site when they would become a permanent power station to offer us backup supply. What the government is doing now is removing the safety net the state had, the safety net the former government had put in place—and worse, the government has broken an election commitment.

The Premier, before the election, said they would not privatise the generators. They just wanted to understand the contract. He made a solemn commitment to the people of South Australia. I refer the house to another commitment made by another premier before an election, the Hon. John Wayne Olsen, who said that if elected they would never privatise ETSA, that there were no privatisation plans for ETSA.

Indeed, Graham Ingerson, his deputy premier at the time, said, 'We are not selling ETSA full stop.' After the election, what did they do? They privatised ETSA. What did the current government say before the election when they were in opposition? 'If we are elected, we have no plans to privatise the generators.' What did they do after the election? They announced that they are privatising the generators.

The estimates process has also shown that the government claims that there is money procured of $200 million in the budget papers for an interconnector, yet the budget papers nowhere reference anywhere on any page any line item or any procurement for $200 million for an interconnector. Nowhere. This is the people's money. Yet the government wants us to believe this. The government has told the estimates committees, and therefore this parliament, that the Treasurer and this Appropriation Bill procures $200 million but it is not mentioned anywhere in the budget. I do not believe them.

I do not believe them. I think this parliament has not been told the accurate facts within the budget. How could it have been? The budget papers set out all expenditure proposed for this financial year and over the forward estimates with not a single line or reference to the interconnector or $200 million. The answer from the minister? Held in Treasurer's contingency. The last refuge of a scoundrel—Treasurer's contingencies.

An honourable member: Under the couch.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Under the couch. In my bed. In my mum's bank account. I have a girlfriend at another high school. The usual rubbish you hear from people making up things that simply are not accurate. I see what they have done in the Livesey report, which I understand cost nearly half a million dollars, which is a dramatic expense in itself. They have used operating costs amortised over 25 years to claim as a blowout in the cost of the generators to hide the deception the government has of privatising an asset they promised they would not.

Deception this early does not bode well for the government. Broken promises this quickly set a very difficult path. I feel sorry for the backbenchers who were told to go out and sell this rubbish, even though they had absolutely no say whatsoever in the structure of this budget, its formulation or its delivery, yet they have been asked to go out and sell it. I think some of the cruellest cuts have been outlined by the member for Kaurna who had to sit here and tolerate a childish rant back at him.

One that concerns me a lot also is public transport cuts to services. The idea that this government is cutting over $40 million in public transport routes over the next four years, without telling the people of South Australia which routes are going to be cut and why, I think is scandalous. I think any reasonable person who has been following this debate would ask themselves, 'If the government wishes to make efficiencies on public routes, which ones are they?' That way you could consult with people who might be affected, you could ask them questions about how they would be impacted by this and do a cost-benefit analysis of whether or not it is worthwhile to cut these routes. In effect, what we have is no consultation, no discussion with the public and an arbitrary decision just to cut routes.

In conclusion, I think that the estimates process overall will probably cost the Deputy Premier her job. I think that the Deputy Premier is in more trouble than the early settlers. She has already had to come into the parliament today and correct the record. She claimed in parliament today that she had two conversations with the ICAC commissioner, the Hon. Bruce Lander QC, on 27 September. That was not true.

The questions we want answered as the opposition are: when did the ICAC commissioner authorise the Attorney-General to make a public statement in relation to the law enforcement raids on Renewal SA? Did the ICAC commissioner at any stage authorise the Attorney-General? The ICAC commissioner, from my reading of the act, has no retrospective power to grant an approval retrospectively for a statement already made.

I also point out to the house that the Attorney-General today said clearly that she will not let this parliament or this house know whether or not she did receive any advice about whether or not she could make a public statement. If she has received no authorisation or written authorisation by the ICAC commissioner to make a statement about an investigation of the ICAC, the penalty is imprisonment or a fine, depending on what a court finds.

I make no judgement on the guilt or innocence of the Attorney-General, even under privilege, because that would not be appropriate. However, what I do say is that, on the merits, it looks as though at the very least someone should investigate and look at this because if the first law officer of the land, who is authorised and someone who administers the ICAC Act, breaches it themselves, what faith or trust can any South Australian have in any law and its implementation in the state? What faith or trust can any of us have in the Attorney-General? I have to say that estimates bore that out.

Estimates bore out exactly what a poor Attorney we have and what a flagrant disregard she has for the rule of law, and I am shocked that she will not even provide to the house evidence of her authorisation by the ICAC commissioner to speak. It is important to note that the ICAC make it very clear to anyone who has any dealings with them that you must have written authorisation by the ICAC commissioner to make any comment. In his statement, the ICAC commissioner made it clear that he authorised the media to publish their statements. I have not seen any authorisation by the ICAC commissioner, the Hon. Bruce Lander QC, authorising the Attorney-General to make any public statement, yet she did.

Not only that, but today a member of the public sector was thrown under the proverbial bus when I asked, 'Why did the Attorney-General seek to have her public statement withdrawn or not published from the media outlets she had sent it to?' She said, in response to that question, that she had not. I have spoken to media outlets who received calls from the Attorney's office.

If the Attorney-General is using this parliament to claim that she had no knowledge of a statement being put out or that it is all her staffer's fault, that is disgraceful. Staff act on instructions and on instructions from their ministers. You cannot hide behind your staff. It is not fair, it is cowardly and the people of South Australia should not accept it from the second highest ranking politician in South Australia.

My remarks on the Appropriation Bill will end with this: the great economic managers opposite have borrowed an extra $3.3 billion in claiming that they are fixing up a mess. Since when do you borrow your way out of trouble?

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (17:44): I rise to make a contribution to this debate, which centres on the estimates but essentially is about the Appropriation Bill. I note with interest the contribution of the member for Kaurna. Listening to that contribution, I was of a mind to come in and defend the member for Waite, having been in his position before for a while. That was, of course, until he made those extraordinary remarks about Elizabeth Dabars, the nurses' union and the motivations that might be behind their recent actions. As the member for West Torrens conveyed in much better terms than I ever could, it was an absolute disgrace.

I think it is a disgraceful performance born out of frustration. I should not be too harsh on the member for Waite because I understand that frustration. I was in his position for four years. I chaired Estimates Committee B for the previous four years as the Chair of the Economic and Finance Committee, as he is. As the member for Wright rightly points out, I chaired it with distinction. I think I set the tone for all future Estimates Committees B. I think the member for Waite let the team down a little.

I did notice he picked up some tips from me. He was pedantic, which I enjoyed, but I think he was rather too stilted in his approach. He interrupted the flow of questioning. It is important in estimates to have a fairly informal atmosphere so that the minister can relax, as much as anything. I noticed in the estimates committee in which I was involved, with the Minister for Police, the constant interjections from the Chair were, in fact, discombobulating the minister and perhaps preventing him from providing some of the answers that he should have provided. Perhaps I am being too generous to the minister; perhaps he intended not to provide some of those answers.

In any case, I thought the member for Waite did a fair job. I go back to my initial remarks. I think the member for Kaurna was a little unfair in relation to the member for Waite's performance in estimates, although I do only have my interactions with the Minister for Police with which to compare it. He was firm at times, and he was fair at times, but I think the pedantry overtook the fairness and the contribution to the flow of the debate.

We have spoken many times in this place, since I have been here at least, about reform to the estimates system. Some of those things have been mentioned today in passing. We have pointed to Senate estimates committees, where public servants come in on a regular basis, on a triannual basis, and are grilled by senators. I think that is a fairly good model. As the member for Kaurna said, it is something we could probably talk about, and other models have been suggested. As the Chair of the Economic and Finance Committee, which I was for at least as long as the member for Waite will be, we did discuss this many times at various conferences. It was always a hot topic at ACPAC, which is the peak body of economic and finance committees and public accounts committees across Australia. They are always looking at ways to improve the estimates.

I think that our estimates committee system here does set a pretty poor example. I do not know that it has been reformed in recent times. It certainly has not been in the last eight years that I have witnessed it. In many ways, it embodies many of the problems we have inherent in our question time system: the government questions, which pose as government questions. They are Dorothy Dixers. I have never liked them. I do not like them now. I certainly do not like them in estimates. I think they waste everybody's time. It is always particularly on show in those ministers who are not particularly confident in their portfolios or who fear making a mistake. It really does prevent the parliament and the people from investigating the budget properly.

I take my role now as shadow minister very seriously, at least as seriously as I took being the Chair of Estimates Committee B. These are portfolios which, in their total, add up essentially to public safety. Public safety is something of a given: you do not notice it being there; you only notice it if it falls away. There is a genuine danger of seeing public safety fall away or being pushed away by some of the cuts, the measures and the privatisations in this budget. Public safety is inexplicably under attack in this budget.

There are thousands of little cuts—apart from some of the bigger ticket items, which I will get to—which do not seem to make any sense. Minor cuts to road safety programs and minor cuts to police cadet programs and those sorts of things by themselves are relatively minor, but they add up to what amounts to a genuine risk to public safety. The CCTV grants in the city, the safe city grants and the crime prevention program grants that go out to the suburbs and provide things like CCTV and lighting in places like the Parklands to keep people safe, for some reason—to save a few dollars—this government has got rid of them.

I heard the member for Kaurna also make comment about the process of estimates drawing out more information, drawing out some clarity from the government and drawing out the reasons and the motivations behind why these cuts are necessary. I did not find that at all, frankly, talking to the Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services. I found that it was a struggle getting a straight answer. It was essentially a replay of every question time and, in fact, every radio interview of the minister's I have heard.

In the time I have available to me, I will go through the portfolio areas and start with road safety, which was the first item on the agenda that day. This goes to the heart of what I am saying about some of the structures of estimates being particularly obstructive to the parliament and the people getting straight answers out of the minister. There were some absolutely perplexing cuts and omissions in the road safety budget, and I regret that we had only half an hour to really interrogate that.

Believe me, half an hour in the estimates committee process, particularly with the style of chairing the member for Waite exhibited, goes very quickly. We even had a Dorothy Dixer in there—a lengthy government question in a half-hour session on road safety—which is inexplicable. I have said before in this place that road safety is a genuine passion of mine. I have told this story before in this house, but just to contextualise the estimates process I will tell it again.

I joined the police intending to be a detective and, at certain points, became interested in prosecution and thought about studying the law while I was doing that. During my short time in the police, I was convinced very quickly that almost the most important job they do is keep our roads safe. Road safety—I know the previous shadow minister agrees with this entirely—is at the heart of community safety. That is why the very first question I asked the minister was why this government had made the decision the drop the road safety portfolio as a stand-alone portfolio from the ministerial suite of portfolios.

Again, the answers were incomprehensible, but it seems to me that it demonstrates a certain blasé attitude towards road safety. It is simply seen as an adjunct to police policy; a casual attitude, perhaps. Genuinely, to give it half an hour and to have a minister there who is not even, by name, the minister for road safety—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Yes, he is.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, he is not. In fact, it is interesting that the Minister for Transport interjects because apparently the responsibility for road safety is spread across two ministers—and you are one of them. That is right: you are, in fact, also a minister for road safety.

I managed to get from the Minister for Police that he was in charge of the strategic direction of road safety, but upon subsequent questioning I could not get him to outline a particular vision that he has for the next four years in terms of the road safety portfolio, other than to say he was continuing the excellent work of the member for Kaurna and the member for Croydon.

There were, as I said, inexplicable cuts to this particular part of the portfolio. Given the time allotted, it was very difficult to get to the bottom of any of them. Perhaps the Minister for Transport can answer this in his contribution. There was $1.1 million cut from road safety programs, unspecified in the budget. I have put a question on notice to the minister. Hopefully, we can get some answers on which particular road safety initiatives the government is cutting.

I know that organisations like the RAA run some excellent road safety programs for young people, old people and other organisations, too. Many small organisations, Rotary groups and local councils all run road safety programs. It would be very interesting to find out which of those road safety programs the government deemed fit to cut.

Another interesting aspect was that they did not fund, as the previous government had promised to fund, a full rollout of the RAA's very successful Street Smart Primary program, which provides, as the Minister for Education would know, road safety instruction to primary school children across the state. The RAA advised me recently, and they advised the government last year, that just $400,000 a year would see their program rolled out from their current rollout, which is a third of the state's primary schools, to all of the state's primary schools. Inexplicably, despite the RAA's submission, the government chose not to pursue that line of funding. I do not know why. It seems to me a wholly reputable and worthwhile program.

The previous government also promised $8 million for road safety programs around schools for community-initiated road safety programs. Everyone who is a local member of parliament—perhaps not the people in the other place but everyone here—knows that, in local electorates, for local MPs road safety around schools is a very big issue. Every school thinks that their school is probably the most dangerous place in the world to drive around, and that is because they all are. Over the last 15 or 20 years, the traffic around schools has increased exponentially for some very good reasons, including some structural and planning reasons, but these are things we need to address as governments.

The previous government promised $8 million in the budget to ask communities what they think the solution is. Is it speed control devices? Is it parking around schools? Is it kiss-and-ride or park-and-rides? Could any of these things make the community and the roads around your school safer? Sadly, this was an initiative that the current government did not pick up. I could not see any new initiatives for road safety at all, but I would have thought that a simple program around school road safety was at the heart of what a minister for road safety should be about: keeping our kids safe around their schools. Any local MP who is in touch with his or her community knows what a big issue this is.

I will touch briefly on rural speed limits. The government, or the then opposition, made a big deal going into the election about restoring very high speed limits on certain rural roads, which the previous government, on very good advice from the department, had chosen to decrease. They made a promise—a very popular promise in rural communities. You cannot blame them for making that promise, but they made that promise seemingly without any consultation with any road safety expert or anyone in government departments. They did not seek any briefings.

They made this commitment and then, six months from the election, we discover that they can no longer fulfil that promise—surprise, surprise! Those roads at those speeds are quite unsafe and so they cannot fulfil their promise. They go back to those communities and say, 'Sorry, we cannot fulfil our promise because the roads are slightly too unsafe. We need to have studies. We need to see how we can improve the safety on those roads.' It is all fairly obvious stuff but all stuff that should have been done before you make a promise.