Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 20 February 2020.)

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart—Minister for Energy and Mining) (11:01): It is my pleasure on behalf of the people of the electorate of Stuart to make my contribution to this Address in Reply debate. Let me start by saying that I personally thank His Excellency the Governor, Hieu Van Le, and his wife, Lady Lan Le, for the work they do, and I do that on behalf of my electorate. They work tirelessly. They work—I use the word 'professionally', but I do not mean in the sense of their doing it for the money—to an incredibly high standard and I especially appreciate the work they do in country South Australia.

As a country and outback MP, I know that people genuinely love the visits, whether they be formal or informal, by Mr and Mrs Le. I am continually impressed with how those two people can oversee the most formal and structured of gatherings that we have in our state and also be so down to earth, warm, friendly and easygoing in a country environment. The people I represent really do warm to that. That is not to say that the things they do in the country are easy, relaxed or frivolous, as most of them are actually very meaty, genuine, real and significant, but they do it in a way that is appropriate for the country lifestyle, and that is absolutely outstanding.

It was very good to hear the Governor's speech laying out the agenda for the government. I think it was quite appropriate that parliament was prorogued and that we were able to segment, if you like, the two halves of this four-year term in a very sensible way and for very pragmatic reasons. As I look through the Governor's speech, I will cover some of the things that seem most important to me.

Before I do so, please keep in mind that the Marshall Liberal government, and in fact our team when in opposition, has a very clear philosophy about wanting to support people who need support. That is one of the most fundamental philosophies behind our Liberal team in South Australia, but we know that we cannot do that as well as possible if we do not have a strong economy. We have a very strong focus on the economy so that we can deliver services. The stronger our economy, the lower our taxes can be, person by person or business by business.

The stronger our economy, even with lower taxes per taxpayer, the more the total tax income will be and the more money the government will have to support South Australians, whether it be supporting people on incredibly low incomes; whether it be supporting people with some form of disability that makes it very hard for them to earn money; whether it be people who are in accidents; whether it be support that flows through the education system, the health system or the police; whether it be in some of the really big, lumpy expenditures on infrastructure so that people can drive with as little congestion as possible around metropolitan Adelaide; or whether industry can thrive in our country and outback areas because the infrastructure they need is there.

The philosophy deeply ingrained in our government is that we need a strong economy so that we can provide all the services that South Australians need. It is not surprising that one of the first things the Governor mentioned in his speech was the cost of living for families—before that, he touched on bushfires, and I will come back to bushfires—and lowering the cost of living for families in our state is one of our very top headline ambitions. It goes along with increasing employment and it goes along with providing better services. Reducing the cost of living is absolutely vital.

Lower costs, more jobs, better services: people have heard this from us for a very long time, for quite a few years now, from even before we came into government. Mr Speaker, let me make it very clear for you and this house: those priorities are not changing. Those three core priorities—lowering the cost of living, creating more employment and providing better services—are the things that we will continue to work towards to the very best of our ability.

It is also true to say that these are things that are never 100 per cent achieved. We know that. We are not trying to get past the finishing post. As low as we get the cost of living, we want it to be lower. As many people as we can get into work, we want more into work. As good as services can become, we want services to be even better. We are not pretending that there is a finishing line where we can say, 'Good, we have ticked those three things off.' It is a never-ending pursuit by our government. There are many ways that we will do that, one of which has been quite topical over the last few years—that is, to allow extended shop trading hours.

We have a crazy situation in this state where people want to work, people want to shop and business owners want to be open and provide a service, yet many of them are not allowed to because of the rules in our state. The completely bizarre situation was revealed a couple of years ago when some of the smaller traders were campaigning, or at the very least speaking vocally, against relaxing shop trading hour restrictions because they thought they would lose an advantage they have compared with some of the bigger traders, but it turned out that some of those smaller traders were trading outside their entitlement with regard to the rules and regulations about shop trading. That is quite a strange situation.

We have also had a situation where, when some of those traders were given the opportunity to take up temporary options to trade outside of the normal rules and regulations, they took that opportunity. They campaign against relaxing the rules but, when given an opportunity to temporarily trade outside the rules, they seem to take it every time. I do not mind any business operator focusing on what is best for their business. That is one of the things that he or she should do, of course, but we need to relax shop trading hours in our state so that we can improve services, grow our economy, reduce the cost of living and get more people into work.

Rate capping is another one of those issues that is quite contentious. We took a rate capping policy to the 2014 election, and we took it again to the 2018 election. We were successful at the election, but to date we have been unsuccessful in implementing the rate capping policy. The rate capping policy is not about trying to hamstring local government. I know that many in local government are not comfortable with this policy, but I also know that many in local government, and more and more in local government over time, are becoming more comfortable with it as they understand it a bit better.

Rate capping is not about trying to control councils or saying that you can or you cannot do this across a whole wide range of things. At its simplest, it is about saying that councils cannot increase their council rates in excess of a local government appropriate inflation rate, and they cannot do that without putting a case to the Essential Services Commission and receiving the ESCOSA blessing. When I have talked to mayors and councillors—many of them very good friends of mine who do not see the benefit of this policy for their council—they say, 'We'd never, ever get that blessing. Once you put in the rate capping, once you put in the local government CPI, sure, you would give us the chance to go and make a case but we'd never get it.' I say to them: you would get it if you could show that a strong majority of your ratepayers were in favour of what you are proposing.

To pick an example, let's say they want to increase council rates because they want to build a new swimming pool. If that required that rates be increased in excess of inflation to be able to make that investment in important local community infrastructure, particularly in country areas where typically we have very hot summers and we do not have all the services we would like to have, and if you can show that your ratepayers are happy to pay an increase in council rates in excess of the inflation rate, why would the Essential Services Commissioner not give the go-ahead to do that? It seems to me it would be crazy not to do that. It should be pretty straightforward. If a council wanted to increase rates in excess of inflation, and as long as you could demonstrate that a strong majority of your ratepayers were comfortable with that, you would not be hamstrung by this proposal.

While in government we have been unsuccessful in getting these two issues I have mentioned through parliament because the opposition and crossbenchers have chosen not to support them. I say very clearly that we are not leaving these issues behind, just as we are not leaving the issue of allowing our farmers on mainland South Australia to grow genetically modified crops—another very sensible, very practical and very popular move that we would like to make on behalf of the people of South Australia, which the opposition and crossbenchers have objected to.

I say to them: please think it through. Are you really going to stand in the way of our government doing what we know the people want us to do, what we know would be good for our economy and, when it is good for our economy, will actually then be good for the provision of services throughout the state to people? Do you really want to stand in the way of that? We are more than happy to accept suggestions. I know, for example, that the Minister for Local Government is revising his proposal for rate capping in local government. We are not beyond saying, 'Sure, if that's a good idea, we'll take it on board,' but the basic principles of what we know we need to achieve are not going to change.

Another principle that we took to the last election and that we are delivering on is a very significant infrastructure spend. It is the largest infrastructure spend that our state has ever seen: $13 billion over four years. It is an enormous spend. As well as knowing that we are spending taxpayers' money in the right places so that taxpayers will benefit, I am also very pleased that we are delivering on some of the very specific commitments that we made with regard to infrastructure.

One of those key commitments is in my electorate of Stuart, namely, to duplicate the Joy Baluch AM Bridge in Port Augusta. This, of course, will be very handy for all local Port Augusta motorists, but it also has statewide benefits and interstate national benefits. It is a key piece of infrastructure for all heavy road freight going from Sydney to Perth or from Adelaide to Darwin. It is very important for the resources industry as well.

Another key piece of infrastructure that we pledged before the election and that we are delivering now is the duplication of the highway through Port Wakefield and building the overpass to improve the intersection of the Augusta Highway and the Copper Coast Highway. That piece of work is sometimes described unkindly as being something just to ease the traffic congestion on long weekends and on Easter and summer holidays when people from Adelaide are going to their holiday homes on Yorke Peninsula. As a Port Augusta-based MP, I would never support something like that, if that were all it was.

I think people will often quite unkindly forget that that intersection of the Copper Coast Highway and the Augusta Highway is notoriously bad: it has a disproportionate number of serious accidents and fatalities. In my observation, because I drive through there a lot, it has near misses as well. When I say 'near misses', I do not mean near miss fender benders: I mean near miss tragic accidents. It is not at all uncommon to see that happen, so we are going to upgrade that intersection and improve access, north and south, through Port Wakefield, for very good reasons.

You would know, Mr Speaker, that on the weekend the Minister for Transport, Planning and Infrastructure announced the coalition of three prime contractors, essentially, who will do the design and construct work for those two projects, but that is not all we are doing. There is lots of other work being done, both metropolitan and in the country. Approximately a thousand kilometres of country roads will be upgraded.

The most dangerous entire road in this state is the Horrocks Highway. We have a very strong focus on the Horrocks Highway, which, in my electorate of Stuart, will include upgrading the Spring Creek Bridge between Wilmington and Melrose. It is a bridge which, when two trucks or two caravans are passing in opposite directions, is very tight. I have to say, with an unskilled person behind the wheel, it is a very risky manoeuvre, so widening that bridge is very important.

Upgrading the rail crossing at Gladstone on the Horrocks Highway in my electorate is another very important piece of work that is part of this infrastructure spend. Gladstone is the largest inland grain-receiving silo we have in South Australia. I believe it is one of the largest inland grain receivals in the nation, actually so it is very important. It is highly trafficked at certain times of the year. The grain industry affects both heavy vehicle and rail transport. It is a lot of work. It is an enormously important pipeline of infrastructure coming through in that regard.

Returning to cost of living, we have already made very significant headway and we intend to make more headway. We have reduced payroll tax for small businesses; in fact, for small businesses with a payroll of less than $1½ million a year there is now no payroll tax. We have reduced people's emergency services levy bills. We have pledged to and will, on 1 July coming, reduce the cost of water for South Australian water consumers. We have also reduced NRM levies and I congratulate the Minister for Environment and Water on his very good work in that regard, in relation to not only water costs but also NRM levies, and for his very good work to have the new Landscape SA Bill put through parliament as a key part of that.

The Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing has doubled the value of sports vouchers for families, which then goes directly to reducing cost of living for those families. We have introduced free screening checks for volunteers, and the Minister for Human Services has done tremendous work in that regard. It was something that amazed all of us on our team when in opposition, and I would like to think that when they were in government those opposite were amazed, but for some reason they were not able to address that adequately so that people volunteering in a wide range of ways to support vulnerable people, typically very old or very young people, needed to pay for and sometimes have multiple volunteer screenings and checks so that they could assure the organisation with which they were working that they were the right sort of people, or, more importantly, not the wrong sort of people. We have gone a long way in that regard.

One of the most important areas, and one which is key to me, is the delivery of lower electricity costs to South Australians. It is one of my highest obligations and it is one of my highest priorities in my work. We are doing that. We still have a lot more to do, but ESCOSA, independent of government, assessed that last financial year average electricity costs for households dropped 3 per cent on the year before, and that year was a per cent and a half lower than the year before that. After years of increased electricity prices forced on South Australians by the previous state government, the tide has turned. I do not, I cannot, I must not suggest that the work is done in that area, and I personally take on an enormous obligation in that regard.

We need to get electricity prices lower. We will get electricity prices lower. The tide has turned, but we need to get the tide moving swiftly in that direction, and we are doing that in many ways. We are not doing it by pursuing single, one-off, haphazard energy policies, as we have seen over the last several years. We took to the last election a very clear set of policies in energy, half-a-dozen-odd key components of energy policy, including interconnection with New South Wales, a household battery scheme, a grid-scale storage scheme, demand management, a range of other measures, and we are rolling them out.

I receive comments from the public and industry quite regularly that they are very pleased that our government set our policies before the election. We did as much homework as we possibly could. We got as much advice as we possibly could. We did everything that we could with the limited resources that you have in opposition to determine our policies, and then when we got into government we had the benefit of all the advice of the department.

We were able to actually allocate budgets to the election spending commitments that we had previously made, but we did not have to change our policies. We developed them further. We got to the implementation stage. Essentially, people are very pleased that we are not chopping and changing because one of the most important things we need in energy policy is a certain level of stability so that industry will invest. It is very easy for me as the minister to say, 'We're doing this, we're doing that and we're doing the other.' We are, but in energy policy and mining policy we are always doing it in partnership with industry and in partnership with consumers.

If we do not have policies that are attractive to industry so that they are willing to invest, then we do not have a supply side. If we do not have a supply side, then consumers have nothing. I say quite openly to energy industry gatherings that our government is overwhelmingly on the side of the consumer. We want them to get the best service and we want them to get the lowest price, but we recognise that if there is not an attractive, sustainable, long-term business model for the supply side then they will not be here, nothing will be supplied and consumers will have nothing.

We are very clear about that balance. We are overwhelmingly on the side of consumers but determined to make sure that we can attract investment. I am very pleased to see investment growing in South Australia in generation of all sorts. We are not wedded to this, 'It has to be all fossil fuels or it has to be all renewables,' argument, which in my opinion far too many people all around the nation seem to want.

That fervour is fanned by activists and campaigners who have an interest in only one or the other and who are trying to make everybody take a side: 'What kind of an energy person are you? Are you a coal person or are you a renewables person?' That is absolutely ridiculous and completely unproductive. We need to use all the tools that we have at our disposal, all the fantastic, outstanding new renewable energy technology, which, by the way, provides the cheapest marginal cost electricity that we will ever see.

We also need to use the new technology in fast-start gas generation so that they are more efficient, they use less gas, they create less pollution and they can enter and leave the market incredibly quickly. We need to use storage at the household level and the grid-scale level. We need to use the really smart technology which we have at our fingertips these days and which is perpetually improving with regard to voluntary demand management so that consumers can choose to surrender—voluntarily surrender—some of the control of their demand for electricity in return for a financial benefit. They weigh it up; if they want to take that choice, they do it, and when enough of them do it everybody else benefits. Interconnection is absolutely important.

We are doing everything we can to get the cost of electricity down. On the mining side, on the resources side, another of my highest priorities, I am very pleased to say that the industry is actually in good shape. It is never perfect, but the industry is actually in good shape. Prices are pretty good from an industry perspective. We are seeing more and more activity in the Cooper Basin and in the Otway Basin in the South-East from the petroleum side of industry.

There is a bit of a conundrum there. Higher world prices for oil and gas encourage more investment, create more jobs and get more gas and oil out of the ground, which is all very positive, but of course higher gas prices, particularly, are not what we want from an electricity price perspective. There is careful treading to be done there, but jobs, lower costs and better services will all be delivered when we have healthy, sustainable industries. The petroleum industry is one of the most important in South Australia.

Another critical industry is broadly part of what we describe as mining, but if you break it up into petroleum and minerals the mining industry in South Australia is going very well. It is hugely pleasing to have received Canadian Fraser Institute's report last week, which ranked South Australia as the sixth most attractive jurisdiction in the world for mining companies—tremendous—up from 24 the year before, so a very significant improvement.

It is easy for people to say, 'The department is too slow, it's too cumbersome and it costs too much. It's just getting in the way. It's not helping me get my project up. It's slowing me down.' It is easy for people who are frustrated to say those sorts of things. The Fraser Institute said that our Department for Energy and Mining is actually one of the best in the world and doing an absolutely outstanding job helping projects get up at the moment. Again, we do this in partnership with industry.

BHP intends to expand the Olympic Dam mine and OZ Minerals is transitioning so well from Prominent Hill to Carrapateena and has delivered its first ore at the end of the last calendar year in such a short space of time. There is the Oak Dam investment and the things that we are doing as a government, including the Accelerated Discovery Initiative, the Gawler Craton challenge and other things that have not yet been announced. I am hopeful these things will make our state more attractive. They are all vitally important in creating jobs, creating industry and giving us a very healthy economy.

Mining exports account for a third of our state's total exports, an incredibly important industry and one on which we must—I must—work better with landholders. I accept that agriculture is our largest industry and probably will be for a long time. Mining is one of our strongest growth industries. Another one of my very high priorities is to improve the way the government leads those two industries to interact together.

There is an enormous amount of wonderful work that our government is doing, which I would be very pleased to talk about but, in the time I have left, I will just touch on bushfires. I have deliberately not spent a long time on this topic because many previous speakers have done a good job on it. Nobody can ignore the fact that our state and, in fact, other states around the nation have been very seriously impacted by bushfires. We are on the recovery pathway. We are past the emergency stage and we are on the recovery pathway.

It was wonderful to be in the Adelaide Hills today with a mother and daughter, Nelle and Maddie, on their cleared block where they are going to rebuild a new home. They will get the support of council, the federal government and state government. In fact, the state government will give them a household battery to complement their new home build and their new solar installation, which they were going to have anyway. We are doing that for any one of the 188 homes around the state, in the South-East, Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula, Kangaroo Island and the Adelaide Hills. We are doing everything we can to support bushfire victims.

Mr BOYER (Wright) (11:32): Here we are with a fresh parliament opened and a golden opportunity for this now two-year-old government to set the agenda and deliver on the election commitments that they failed to deliver in the first session of parliament. It certainly was a long speech that the Governor delivered on behalf of this government. In fact, one would be forgiven for thinking that those opposite were conscious of just how bare their own policy cupboard was, so they instead added an extra 15 pages to the speech in the hope that nobody would notice.

I will say this, Mr Speaker: when you start using the achievements of the previous Labor government as a filler, people are going to notice. For example, Labor's virtual power plant, which, according to the Governor's speech, is a key plank in the Marshall Liberal government's renewable energy policy, is just one example of the thoroughly shallow policy platform of this government that after 16 years in opposition and already two years in government looks tired.

What we saw instead was the recycling of old policies that have already come before parliament and been rejected, due not so much to the stubbornness on this government's behalf to pass those key election commitments as to the fact they have such a limited and myopic vision for our state that they are still working off the same playbook that has been under the Hon. Rob Lucas's pillow since 1982.

We like to take the mickey out of our monarchy pretty regularly, but sometimes our monarchs or their representatives are called on to do some pretty awkward stuff on behalf of the government of the day, perhaps none more so than His Excellency Hieu Van Le, an incredibly decent and respected man, who had to utter these words on behalf of those opposite at the beginning of his address:

My Government is delivering on its commitments made to the people of South Australia at the 2018 election.

Costs to families and businesses are being lowered.

More jobs are being created.

And there is a continuing focus on providing better government services.

I think I speak on behalf of all those on this side of the chamber when I offer my heartfelt congratulations to His Excellency on being able to utter those words whilst simultaneously keeping a straight face. Honestly, what an absurd beginning to a speech!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order, Mr Speaker: I have been listening carefully, and although the member is on the one hand recognising the important role of the Governor, he ought to be conscious of the fact that to reflect on Her Majesty or her representatives is not acceptable in this house. I was just trying to find the immediate standing order.

The SPEAKER: 121.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I would hope that the member would refrain from suggesting that the Governor is under some form of duress in providing his presentation to the parliament. That is completely disrespectful—

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —to the Governor—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —and I would ask that the member refrain from doing so and, indeed, apologise when we visit the Governor on Thursday.

Mr PICTON: Point of order, Mr Speaker: for the minister to suggest that some apology needs to be given is an impromptu speech. This is a bogus point of order.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I have the point of order. It is standing order 121—Irreverent use of the Sovereign's name or the Governor's name—as I took it. I will reiterate to members:

A Member may not use offensive or unbecoming words in reference to the Sovereign or the Governor nor may the Sovereign or the Governor be gratuitously referred to for the purpose of influencing the House in its deliberations.

I do not respectfully believe that we have met that threshold, but I caution the member and I will be listening very attentively to the member. I am sure that that was not his intent, but I thank the Deputy Premier. The member for Wright has the call.

Mr BOYER: As always, I appreciate the Attorney's wise counsel.

Mr Picton: She's always got a view.

Mr BOYER: Indeed. Of course, this speech was delivered not long after unemployment data had been released showing that South Australia had, at that time, the worst unemployment rate of any state in Australia and just days before it was uncovered that further cuts were being imposed upon the Service SA centre in the CBD. Nonetheless, this government thinks absolutely nothing of making remarks about how it is still focused on lower costs and better services. In light of those comments:

Can I say that the proroguing of parliament which we have just gone through and the ceremony for opening of a new session of parliament which we have gone through…is an indulgence on behalf of the Premier, and it is an indulgence he has inflicted on the South Australian taxpayer, and the South Australian taxpayer will have to pay.

Those are the words of the member for Schubert from 2015 after the then Labor government prorogued parliament. The difference, of course, is that the then Labor government moved forward after the Governor's speech, compared to what we are seeing now, which is that the Premier is so preoccupied with containing the infighting in his own party that he is completely incapable of delivering a fresh agenda for this state.

They say that if you do not create your own narrative someone will create it for you, and that is certainly true in the case of this almost two-year-old Marshall Liberal government. In the vacuum that has been created by this government's failure to implement any of its key election commitments, the narrative has already been written. But, even so, I for one do not believe that this government's abject failure to implement its own election agenda is the dominant feature of that narrative. Is it an indictment of the government? Yes, of course, it is.

But it is actually the host of cuts and savings measures that this government has handed down in its first two years that is its true defining feature, and that narrative is that this is a government that lacks compassion and this is a government that lacks empathy. How else could one explain a government that cuts more than 1,000 jobs in SA Health while simultaneously promising the South Australian public that it will improve waiting times and stop the explosion in ramping at our metropolitan hospitals?

How else do you explain a government that cuts bus routes and closes Service SA centres even when it continues to promise South Australians lower costs and better services? How else could you explain a government that uses hospital car parks as a revenue measure by increasing the cost of parking for staff by 129 per cent and the cost of parking for visitors and patients by, on average, 25 per cent?

How else could one explain this government's decision to cut funding for the SHINE SA sexual health clinics—clinics including one in the north of Adelaide that were providing vital health care around contraception, education and the testing of sexually transmitted diseases?

How else could one explain this government's decision to cut money to the Way2Go program, a children's road safety and bicycle safety program—a program designed to give students between the ages of nine and 13 the skills and know-how they need to ride safely and, later, on our roads?

The Minister for Transport had the audacity to come to Tea Tree Plaza recently and join the members for King and Newland for what appears to have been an announcement about extra O-Bahn trips during the Fringe Festival. I had messages from a number of residents that day who recognised the minister, probably from the stories about the pending closure of the Service SA centre in Modbury, who were understandably hopeful that this was the long-awaited announcement that the Marshall Liberal government would reverse their cut and make good on its promise to build a new park-and-ride at Tea Tree Plaza—a park-and-ride that was funded by the previous Labor government but forgotten about by this Marshall Liberal government. Indeed, it was noted by many that the Governor's speech included mentions of park-and-rides at Golden Grove and Paradise but nothing about Tea Tree Plaza.

It is odd in some ways, because this is a government that has shown itself incredibly willing to unveil plaques and cut ribbons on Labor projects. I have spoken in this place before about how Labor not only set aside funding but signed contracts with builders—contracts this government tore up soon after being elected.

The huge $250 million STEM works program is another fine example of this. The Minister for Education has been busy in these past two years unveiling plaques and cutting ribbons on projects that were conceived, funded and built under the previous Labor government. This has been very convenient for the Minister for Education because, when you look beyond those Labor building programs, the cupboard is pretty bare.

There is, of course, the government's flagship education policy of moving year 7s into high school, which I have no doubt will end up being far more expensive than the government estimated, all predicated on a desperate need for a point of difference firstly in the 2014 state election and then the 2018 election and without any sound basis and data which show academic improvement for those year 7 students studying year 7 in a high school setting as opposed to year 7s studying in a primary school setting.

Of course, large amounts of funding set aside for the Building Better Schools program have now been moved from those projects that those schools chose and instead used to prop up the transition of year 7 into high school. They can do all this because at the heart of this government's philosophy is a lack of empathy for those people who are doing it tough. It comes back to what is almost, in my opinion, an intrinsically held belief amongst those opposite that if you are not thriving, if you are not successful, then it can only be through failings of your own, and it is not the government's responsibility to step in and support you when your dire circumstances are, according to them, of your own making.

I think that the value the Labor team places on empathy and compassion has been best exemplified by the member for Mawson during the catastrophic bushfires that hit our state in December and January. Members will be well aware of the actions of the member for Mawson across that period as he took it upon himself to reach out to people doing it tough, no matter their circumstances, and make a commitment to them to try and deliver whatever it was they needed, whether it be UHF radios, generators or, in many cases, a hug and an attentive ear.

I got to see this up close in January when the Hon. Kyam Maher and I spent the best part of 2½ days on the island with the member for Mawson. We joined him in getting our hands dirty a little bit and assisting a private landholder move fallen trees and spending a morning with BlazeAid pulling down fences that had been destroyed in the fires.

It is easy to say that politicians have no place doing these kinds of things, but in my experience it is less about the contribution that you make in terms of how many limbs you move or how much fence you roll up and much more about being able to connect on a much deeper level with people who are doing it really, really tough. One of the fundamental rules of human interaction is that, if you get to know someone on a more personal level, they will in turn feel more comfortable in seeking you out for support or, at the very least, opening up about how they are travelling.

The willingness the member for Mawson has shown to stand beside people, firstly as they fought the blaze and then as they confronted the aftermath, has encouraged many of the people he represents in this place to speak to him more candidly about their own state of mind and what assistance they really need. There cannot be many things more offputting than a pack of dark suits and ties being followed around by a TV camera, and anyone who fools themselves into believing that people who have just been through an incredibly traumatic experience in which they possibly lost loved ones or at least property will willingly open up in a setting like that is horribly mistaken.

My Address in Reply would not be complete without talking about this government's botched zero tolerance fruit fly policy. The Minister for Primary Industries is very fond of regaling us with tales of how successful it was, but in a speech that stretched beyond 7,000 words biosecurity was mentioned just once. In fact, the Marshall Liberal government's plans for biosecurity took up just one solitary sentence in the entire Governor's speech.

There can be only two possible reasons for this: either this government have absolutely no plans for biosecurity in this new session of parliament, or they are so embarrassed about the unmitigated stuff-up that was operation Yamba that they dare not mention biosecurity again. Of course, the minister himself is still ploughing on as if nothing happened, continually justifying fines of $375 for people found with one piece of fruit or one vegetable, in many cases elderly people who did very thorough searches of their vehicles and voluntarily handed over the fruit or vegetables but because of inadequate signage, because of inadequate community education programs, did not realise that the zero tolerance policy was in effect.

We have seen now in freedom of information documents that were very reluctantly handed over by the minister's office that the reason the signage and education programs were so poorly executed was that this minister personally defied the advice of biosecurity executives in his own department to delay the commencement of the zero tolerance policy until all these vital elements of the plan had been implemented properly. On top of that, after repeatedly denying in this place that rotting fruit was left in bins for weeks near the Yamba quarantine station, those very same FOI documents showed that, in fact, again the minister's refusal to take the advice of people who knew better than he meant the policy was not ready to be rolled out.

Stubbornness seems to be a hallmark of this cabinet. We have seen some vintage examples of it already from the Attorney-General, who has still not introduced new laws to crack down on the misuse of nitrous oxide or nangs coming up to five months after voting down my private member's bill that would have done exactly that. So, because of the Attorney's pride, because of her refusal to acknowledge a good piece of legislation even if it does come from the other side of the chamber, there are still kids getting their hands on these nitrous oxide canisters and inhaling the contents. In fact, I have been sent images by members of this place in the last 48 hours of piles of disused empty nitrous oxide canisters around Hindley Street, so the problem is still very real.

Just last week we saw another rolled-gold example of the Attorney's pride getting in the way of her doing her job. Members may have seen new reports of a CBD jeweller conducting second-hand gold buying sessions at gaming venues in the Adelaide metropolitan region. When it was first brought to my attention by a concerned local resident of the north-eastern suburbs, I wrote to the Attorney, bringing it to her attention and asking if she thought the practice was legal and, if it was, what action she would be taking to stop it. More than a month later I received a one-page response from the minister that not only seemed to completely miss the point but also denied that there was a problem.

First of all, the Attorney seemed to think that I was inquiring about only one venue, but a cursory look at the jeweller's Facebook page would have shown that the sessions were far more widespread. Secondly, the Attorney claimed that because there did not appear to be any more sessions at this particular venue there was no need to take any action. Thirdly, the Attorney did not believe that the gaming licence holders had breached any conditions of their licence by permitting these second-hand gold buying sessions to take place on their premises.

So I will give notice later today of my intention to introduce a private member's bill to amend the necessary acts to outlaw this behaviour. I do not expect to have the support of the Attorney because this was not her idea and therefore, by definition, not worthy of pursuing. Nonetheless, I feel that the people I was elected to represent in this place would expect me to take action when presented with a practice like this, which is quite clearly designed to take advantage of vulnerable people.

It would be foolish to think that this government's approach will change in this session of parliament, even after the commencement of a brand-new session of parliament. I fear that it is not so much a question of policy direction as a fundamental difference between our world views. Because of that, the South Australian public should brace for more of the same: more cruel cuts.

Ultimately, there is no agenda from those opposite because they believe that the government only has a very small role to play in our state. That is the great irony here: what might have been the longest Governor's speech in living memory served only to remind us all of what a narrow vision the Marshall Liberal government has for our state.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (11:50): Today, I would like to rise to speak on the Address in Reply to His Excellency the Governor. I would like to thank His Excellency the Hon. Hieu Van Le as well as Mrs Lan Le for all their work and wonderful service to the people of South Australia.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the impact of the terrible bushfires that have affected South Australia and, indeed, the nation. I would like to express my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of those who have lost loved ones, including those who came to Australia from the other side of the world to support us in our time of need. I would also like to share my sympathies with those who have lost homes, businesses, other property or livestock, and those who are managing the terrible toll that these fires have had on our native wildlife.

The recovery is a long and hard road but one I think the whole of the South Australian community, our nation and, indeed, others from right across the world are right behind. Through the terrible events we have seen in the last few months, we have also seen some of the best in our communities across South Australia and certainly within my own electorate.

Large parts of the communities in the Hills parts of my electorate, around Kersbrook, Forreston, Humbug Scrub, Sampson Flat, Millbrook, Chain of Ponds and parts of Upper and Lower Hermitage, know firsthand the terrible impact that fire has had following the Sampson Flat fire of early 2015; in fact, for many that recovery is still ongoing. Whilst there will be other opportunities in this place to cover some of the great support shown by volunteers, community groups and local businesses in the current fires, many people from the Hills area have shared with me the sense of responsibility they now feel to provide support for those communities affected in these recent fires, essentially returning the enormous support provided to them in 2015 when they needed it.

In March 2018, I was elected to this place as part of the Marshall Liberal government with a clear commitment to implement a strong plan that would create more jobs, lower costs and improve services for South Australians. Since the election, the Marshall Liberal government has sought to reform South Australia and deliver the kind of change that will bring benefit to our state now and also for decades to come.

Genuine reform takes time and commitment as well as a backbone to deal with difficult issues, including those that had been simply kicked down the road or hidden under the carpet after 16 years of the previous administration. In that period, we had a government that was more interested in attempting to win the daily news cycle with announcements dressed up to create the impression that more was actually happening than there really was and a preference for overpromising and underdelivering. South Australians were rightly sick and tired of politicians overhyping their achievements when in reality they knew that South Australia had a bad government that was running the state into the ground.

The Marshall government is doing the complete opposite. Having listened to our communities, we know that what they actually want is for us to just get on with the job we were elected to do—that is, to represent their interests in this place, keep our promises, work to deliver real, tangible outcomes and underpromise and overdeliver.

One of the most important projects in my community is the upgrade to Modbury Hospital. Prior to coming to government, Modbury Hospital had been progressively downgraded with some of the largest cuts to services occurring under the Transforming Health plan, which saw the stripping away of services from hospitals such as Modbury and dramatically increasing patient transfers to other hospitals much further away. The locals will also tell you that even prior to Transforming Health other services, such as the maternity and paediatric wards, had been removed.

It is clear that in Newland many people actually chose to live in the area because they believed they would be living near a hospital that would provide the services they needed if they were in trouble. The previous government betrayed the local community and severely undermined trust. They increased patient transfers, forcing many people, particularly older members of the community, to drive further away than they were comfortable with in order to visit their loved ones in hospital.

Since being in government, we have wasted no time in working to turn around the fortunes of Modbury Hospital and the broader health system. We have reinstated multiday surgery at Modbury Hospital, allowing many patients who may have needed to stay in hospital only overnight to support their recovery to now have surgery done at Modbury. Unfortunately, under the previous government surgery had been downgraded to only day surgery, which had dramatically increased the number of patient transfers.

The Marshall government has also delivered on the long-promised but never delivered emergency extended care unit, which helps to take pressure off the emergency department and, in turn, other emergency departments around Adelaide. In recent times, I spoke to one of my local constituents who was very happy with the new facility and having their own private space.

There is much more work to do at Modbury and, late last year, along with the Minister for Health and Wellbeing (Hon. Stephen Wade), the member for King and the member for Florey, I was pleased to see some of the construction work currently underway. We saw some of the preliminary works on the new purpose-built palliative care ward and the new outpatient department, both located adjacent to where the main entrance had previously been.

The palliative care ward will see 20 individual private rooms with their own en suites. The palliative care ward will also have a new private garden adjacent to it. I must say that I have never heard a bad word spoken about the palliative care service, but it is clear that the current facility is somewhat outdated and in need of modernising. This wonderful service will now be even better able to serve the community in its new purpose-built facility.

We went to the first floor of the main building at Modbury Hospital to look at the work going on there. This is where the new expanded surgical ward and the high dependency unit are going. It had been completely cleared out, so quite a massive change is going on there. This expanded ward will allow for not only a greater complexity and diversity of surgeries but also a greater throughput, with more patients coming through. We also went up to the fifth floor where the new admin will be located. Currently, it is on the ground floor where the palliative care unit is going, and there is also a short stay general medical unit being built at the moment.

For those fortunate enough not to be admitted to hospital, probably the most obvious upgrade that has been occurring is to the facade. This is not only about making the hospital look nicer, as bits of it had, in fact, been falling off onto the ground below, to the point that scaffolding had been built around the base of the hospital to protect people on the ground from bits of the falling facade. It is certainly good to see that upgrade happening to not only improve the look of it but improve the safety of people walking around it.

These important upgrades to Modbury Hospital are in addition to other upgrades the government is implementing right across the health system, and that includes to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. Not long after the 2018 election, along with the minister and the member for King I was fortunate to visit the new interim short stay mental health unit and see its opening. The former unit had been closed in anticipation of a new mental health unit being built, but there was no interim solution, so instead these patients were required to stay in the emergency department, which was clearly not the appropriate place for them. We went to the election committing to build an interim facility and very quickly we put it in place to provide that interim solution.

We are also seeing expansion of the car parking available at Lyell McEwin Hospital. This is not only because of the massive expansion that is occurring in the emergency department that will increase its footprint, so we will also see a net increase in parking. One of the complaints of constituents who have had to travel to Lyell McEwin Hospital is certainly the availability of parking, so I am really pleased to see that we are working to address that issue.

We are also reactivating the Repatriation General Hospital, which will see some very important services that will benefit the entire state being located there. This is on top of upgrades and work at Flinders Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Noarlunga, also country health, which is very important, and much more. On top of what is actually happening in hospitals is the important work happening in the community and the different policies being implemented to help reduce the demand for our hospitals.

Priority care centres are an important part of that plan. These are for patients with non life-threatening injuries and illnesses who are deemed to be clinically stable and not in need of emergency department care. These priority care centres are community treatment centres that will continue to treat their current patients but will now also be supported to accept a specific cohort of SA Ambulance Service patients, offering an alternative to going to a public hospital emergency department. Initially, these priority care centres were located in key areas where there is the greatest demand for services that could be provided outside our hospitals.

There is also the home hospital program. This is for patients who present frequently to emergency departments who could perhaps receive the care they need in a more appropriate and comfortable environment. This involves linking tailored care within their home and the community. The pilot program was conducted in the north-east and this demonstrated a halving in the number of presentations to emergency departments by this cohort of patients. This is another program that when fully expanded will go quite a long way to helping reduce demand on our hospitals and treat those people before they need to go to hospital.

We have seen some positive signs in recent months with a decline in ambulance ramping, but there is no doubt that there is still a long way to go before we can be satisfied with what we have achieved in health. There is no doubt that we have righted the ship that had been heading hopelessly off course. I think we will see much better outcomes for people into the future. I commend the Minister for Health and Wellbeing for his work in this area.

Another very big issue that was raised with me prior to coming to this place was out-of-control electricity prices that households and businesses had faced in South Australia. Before coming to government, we saw South Australians suffer some of the highest power prices in the world. In fact, when we talk about issues that really resonate with our local community, I recall doorknocking in mid-2017 when there was an announcement that there would be a 20 per cent increase for some electricity customers. Almost every person I spoke to that day was talking about electricity prices, which really highlights the importance of this issue.

One of the critical things that had led to this problem was a disorderly transition to renewable energy. Whilst all of us on this side completely support the direction to renewable energy—there is no doubt that is where the world is heading and that is where we should head, and in fact there are some real benefits and advantages to us positioning ourselves to take advantage of those new technologies—that transition needs to be conducted in an orderly manner and planned in a methodical fashion, but that simply had not been the case. What we were faced with were situations where it was more about flashy announcements, creating the impression of action and photo opportunities without a proper and detailed plan for how we can make that orderly transition to renewables, particularly intermittent energy sources.

In contrast, the Marshall government is delivering on a comprehensive plan to reduce the price of electricity to increase reliability and stability of the system. This involves greater interconnectivity with the National Energy Market, household storage, support for grid-scale storage and demand management. The Home Battery Scheme is an important part of this plan. It allows households with solar panels to store their own power during the day. It has to be during the day because that is when the sun is up. It is particularly beneficial to those who are not home during the day, as they can then discharge the energy they have stored in their batteries during the evening.

This not only reduces the cost of the households' own electricity consumption but also takes those households out of that peak demand period in the evening, helping to take pressure off the system as a whole and reducing the wholesale price of electricity at those times, which will ultimately benefit the entire state. This program has already had a fantastic take-up within my electorate. I believe that almost 120 households are already accessing the subsidy, with more than 70 of those having those batteries installed.

The interconnector with New South Wales is also progressing well. This is a very important initiative because at the moment South Australia is located very much at the end of the line. In terms of interconnectivity, we are reliant on Victoria, which can have some problems in certain circumstances. One example is the fact that we are reliant on one link, and that link can go down. Recently, there was some impact on the interconnector with some infrastructure damage in western Victoria.

Also, South Australian and Victorian weather patterns are often quite similar. As much as we like to criticise Melbourne's weather as being a lot worse than ours—and generally it is—if we are having a 40° day, or a really hot and dry day, then there is a pretty good chance that Melbourne will have a pretty hot day following that. That means that the peak demand can often be at similar times. This is quite different from New South Wales where Sydney's weather differs greatly from that of South Australia, so it is much less likely that we will have those similar issues with demand at the same time.

This not only helps us deal with days of a lot of demand, and we can supplement that with power from interstate—from New South Wales—but it also allows us to export excess renewable energy that we quite often generate. If it is a relatively cool but sunny day and there is a bit of wind around, then we are not necessarily using a lot of power but we will be generating a lot, and this is another way of being able to export that power. It helps with stability and helps to reduce that volatility in our local market, and that helps to stabilise the wholesale price of electricity. There has been modelling on the impact of the interconnector and on wholesale prices, and this is certainly going to be to the benefit of South Australians.

It is very easy to run a parochial political argument around doing it alone, putting up the walls and building everything here, but at the end of the day that will cost South Australians more, and I do not think that they will appreciate that. Our role is to work in the best interests of the state, and I think that greater interconnectivity is a very important part of helping to deal with not only the evolving nature of our generation mix but also the issue of high power prices.

Our plan is already beginning to see some real benefits in this area. Recently, the Australian Energy Regulator determined that the default market offer for electricity will be cut by between 4.4 per cent and 7.1 per cent. This means that 75,000 South Australian households and small businesses will see cuts to electricity bills from 1 July this year. Households on the default market offer will save on average $85 per annum, households with controlled loads will save $138 per year and small businesses will save on average $691 per year.

The Australian Energy Market Operator's latest report shows that South Australians on market contracts can also expect to see cuts in the price of electricity. This is on top of the $62 per annum average reduction in power bills for market contracts that occurred in the 2018-19 year as reported by the Essential Services Commission of South Australia. These achievements to date are not only examples of us delivering on our commitments to deliver lower costs, they also help create more jobs by reducing the cost of doing business and supporting household consumption.

By no means am I suggesting that the work here is done. The price of electricity has just started to turn downwards, which is a very positive start and a demonstration of the fact that our plan is working, but there is no question that there is still a lot more work for us to do in this area. This work is ongoing, and I would like to commend the Minister for Energy and Mining for his work in this area.

Another very important project for my local community is the opening up of our reservoirs for recreational activities. People love the outdoors and they love exploring the natural environment. We recently opened up the South Para Reservoir, on the northern edge of my electorate, for hiking, mountain biking, kayaking, fishing and all sorts of activities.

We have also removed the restrictions on kayaking on the Warren Reservoir, just up the road from there. It is important to emphasise that the South Para Reservoir is only 30 minutes from Tea Tree Gully, so it is not very far away. There is also work currently underway to open up the Hope Valley Reservoir for land-based recreational activities. This will likely occur at the end of this year and is a very exciting initiative of the Marshall Liberal government.

There were certainly plenty of people—before we came into government and, in fact, since—who said this could not be done, but we are doing what we said we would do and we are going about it in a responsible way. I am very excited and pleased to be part of a government that is not negative but has a positive and can-do attitude when it comes to getting things done. I would like to commend the Minister for Environment and Water for his work in that area.

We are also seeing the upgrade of the Chain of Ponds intersection at Kersbrook, the intersection between North East Road and South Para Road. There has been a lot of concern about this intersection in that part of the Hills; it has been a problem for a long period of time and has been long neglected. Right before the election there was a bit of a flurry of activity and talk about doing something about it, but unfortunately there were no detailed plans about what fixing it would actually be.

Since then the current Marshall government has completed concept designs for that intersection and is now working on the more detailed technical designs, and it is expected the work on this intersection will start later this year. There have been some challenges in improving the intersection, particularly with sightlines, given the difficult topography, but that work is progressing and I am very pleased to see that we are working to improve the safety of motorists using that intersection. Importantly, community consultation will come in the next few months.

Education has also been an important focus of the Marshall government and I am very pleased to see upgrades happening in many of my local schools. Banksia Park International High School is receiving $9 million for various upgrades, and it is worth pointing out that Banksia Park International High School is one of the five entrepreneurial specialist schools. This program helps support schools to develop dedicated entrepreneurial spaces and resources, hire specialist staff and support engagement with business and industry. The program is well underway and a great assistant principal has been appointed to oversee it.

I was very pleased late last year to attend a great event with students who were working on a disaster recovery project that looked at all parts of the process, from identifying the problem, coming up with a solution, building a model using 3D printing—still a technology that blows my mind; it certainly did not exist when I was at school—and then marketing their solution. It was a very impressive project from the year 9 students.

The infrastructure built at that school will see additional learning areas, a new performing arts centre, an indoor/outdoor commercial kitchen and cafe, new covered outdoor learning areas, new heating and cooling systems across the school, upgraded disability access areas and upgraded facilities to support the school's international program. Just last week, I visited Modbury High School with the Minister for Education to announce designs for the $7 million upgrade to that high school. This will see a new year 7 hub, wellbeing and technical studies areas and a new outdoor learning area. I know that the school community is very excited about it.

Broadband in schools has also seen massive improvements. We had some of the slowest internet speeds in the country, but under this government we now have some of the fastest. This is part of the government's $8 million partnership with Telstra, which has delivered faster internet to all of my local schools.

We have had upgrades to crossings at Kersbrook Primary School and also Ridgehaven Primary School, improving safety for students travelling to and from school. We are also seeing upgrades to Paracombe Road, which is a project happening in partnership with the Adelaide Hills Council that will see upgrades to the one-kilometre stretch of road from Lower North East Road, heading east. This is to improve safety for local road users.

The Tea Tree Gully Toy Library received a $100,000 commitment to provide greater funding certainty for them over the next four years. The toy library is an important local resource for many families. We are also seeing significant investment in our local sporting club infrastructure, including $350,000 for six new netball and tennis courts. The work for that should be coming online soon. This is for the Tea Tree Gully Tennis Club, as well as the Tea Tree Gully Netball Club and Banksia Park Netball Club. Tea Tree Gully Gymsports has its new sprung floor, which was part funded by the Marshall government.

The Hope Valley Sporting Club received a grant in the first round of the Grassroots Football, Cricket and Netball Facility Program, which will provide new unisex change rooms to support their teams. I visited the club with the Premier on the weekend, and they told us that they now have five women's football teams and one women's cricket team and certainly a lot more interest on top of that. Their change rooms had become quite outdated and not really fit for purpose, so these facilities will ensure that all members of the club have access to appropriate facilities.

The Tea Tree Gully athletics club is being supported for their new jumps track. The Tea Tree Gully BMX Club is getting new lights, which are particularly important during winter when the sun goes down a bit earlier. They will be able to extend their training and competition nights. The Tea Tree Gully Golf Club will be installing a new lift, which I am very pleased to support. It is a wonderful facility. Dimples Restaurant is very popular amongst a lot of local community groups that hold their meetings there, such as Rotary, Kiwanis and Lions. I know U3A held an enormous Christmas lunch. I attended with the member for King last year. Having a lift to get up to the top floor will certainly be very welcomed by the community.

There are many other exciting things that are happening. I would like to commend the Minister for Innovation and Skills for his work on increasing the number of traineeships and apprenticeships. The latest survey of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) has seen massive increases in the take-up of government-funded apprenticeship and traineeship programs, as well as South Australian government-funded subject programs.

In the case of the South Australian government-funded subject programs, we are talking about increases of 18.7 per cent, compared with a national increase of 2.7 per cent, so enormous increases. This is really important in making sure that our state's young people—particularly young people but people of all ages—have the skills they need to take advantage of jobs that are coming, particularly in defence industries but also in many other sectors.

There are a lot of very exciting things happening at Lot Fourteen, particularly with the national Space Agency and other space companies that are coming and setting up shop there. The SmartSat Cooperative Research Centre is the largest space research project in the nation's history. This is really very exciting, particularly when you visit local schools and they see all the opportunities that are coming in the future. It gets kids really excited about studying science, which I find pleasing, as we are going to need a lot of people with those skills in the future. I think the excitement that generates really puts a sense of confidence in where South Australia is heading.

We often look back at things we may have been doing that we do not do anymore, but when we look at the opportunities for our children going forward into the future I think they really are very bright with what is happening particularly at Lot Fourteen but not only there. I would also like to congratulate the government on its investment in the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, which is a $9.6 million investment from the state government. This is to support critical research infrastructure in South Australia, which supports a whole range of different fields. It is incredibly welcomed by the sector, and I think it will have a very real benefit.

I am very pleased to be part of a government that is delivering on its promises. We went to the election, we made promises and we are now doing exactly what we said we would do. That is what the people asked us to do. There is plenty more work we need to do, and our team is very much up to that task. I, for my part, will certainly be working as hard as I can to ensure that we deliver all the benefits of lower costs, more jobs and better services for my community and South Australia more broadly.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (12:20): It is great to have the opportunity to speak, notwithstanding the fact that the honourable member must have thought this was a grievance debate—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue with your contribution.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —since he continued past the allocated time in an unparliamentary way contrary to standing orders.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, it has happened from time to time.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Yes, usually during grievances, sir, which is specifically provided for by the standing orders. Nonetheless, we find ourselves belatedly with the chance—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, at the moment we are speaking to the Governor's speech.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Indeed, we are.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have that opportunity now.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I look forward to commencing, sir.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: It is always a pleasure to have the Governor, His Excellency Hieu Van Le, come to this place. When I say 'this place', I mean the other place because we know that, after the unpleasantness in the 1400s, we do not accept sovereigns or their representatives into this specific place. Nonetheless, it is lovely to have someone of the Governor's standing come in. He is a remarkable person. I think it is impossible to find a South Australian who has had contact with the Governor who does not have gushing things to say about what a wonderful man he is, how hardworking he is and what an extraordinary contribution he makes to this state.

All of us, particularly those of us in this place who have the fortune of coming across him more regularly than most South Australians would, each have at least one anecdote where the Governor has done something truly remarkable in the conduct of his duties to enhance the position he holds and bring South Australians into closer contact with his position. We had a speech from the Governor to open this session of parliament, a speech from the Governor prepared by the government. The government heralded this as the big reset, the big recalibration, the big restart of the government's agenda.

It is curious to listen to the contributions from those opposite, who have been going on and on as if things have never been better, as if things are peachy and rosy in this state, which begs the question: why on earth is the leadership of the Liberal government claiming that it needs to reset if things are going so well? Of course, the honest answer is that things are not going so well. Things are not going so well for the government but, more to the point, things are not going so well for this state.

It was interesting to hear the member who has just concluded his remarks say that the Liberal Party made promises at the last election and that this Liberal government is now delivering on those promises because nothing could be further from the truth: they are not delivering on their promises. They continue to break their promises. They have broken their three fundamental promises, which they repeated literally ad nauseam, of lower costs, more jobs and better services—fail, fail and fail on all counts.

In relation to lower costs, there were extraordinary increases in fees, charges and taxes in the last state budget, which all those opposite have remained silent about. They are all happy, of course, to see extraordinary increases in people's motor vehicle registration costs. They are all happy, of course, to see extraordinary increases in hospital car parking fees. They are all happy, of course, even those members opposite who have come from local government, to see council rates increase because of the bin tax imposed by this government through the enormous hike in the solid waste levy.

All these fees, charges and increases—including the increase in business registration costs, the increase in the cost of migrants wanting to come to South Australia, the increase in public transport fares and the removal of the two-section public transport fares, the increase in costs for people wanting police presence at major gatherings and events, and the increase in expiations for high-risk offences which we were told was all about speeding drivers but is not about that at all but about small businesses that are not able to identify drivers driving one of their fleet vehicles having to pay an enormous increase in the corporate fee (and that is the bulk of the increase of that charge)—have not met the lower costs pledge. All these increases have washed away any benefit from the claimed reductions in the emergency services levy.

They certainly have not delivered on the 'more jobs' mantra. More than 9,000 full-time jobs have been lost here in South Australia in the last 12 months. Most troubling is that all that momentum—which had been built in the lead-up to the last election in both economic growth and employment growth as the state recovered from the enormous shock of losing automotive manufacturing from this state by not only all Holden's operations ceasing but all the component manufacturers' operations being lost as well—has basically come to a halt. Employment growth over the last 12 months is not even 0.1 per cent. Jobs growth has stopped and we are losing nearly 10,000 full-time jobs.

The economic growth rate has nearly halved here in South Australia, so the economy is underperforming. You ask why. It is not because of coronavirus. It is not because of an issue that we have been confronting as a state, as a nation and as a globe for the last few weeks. We are talking about economic trends that have extended over more than the past 12 months. It is the decisions this government has made to withdraw government support for economic activity here in South Australia.

The government also promised better services. It is remarkable to hear those opposite, particularly those in marginal seats and particularly those in marginal seats in the north-eastern suburbs, claim that there are better services. They are actively trying to close down a Service SA centre, they have stopped the expansion of the park-and-ride facilities at Tea Tree Plaza and they are selling a TAFE campus at Modbury. How is that consistent with better services? The answer, of course, is that it is not.

I have not even mentioned the broken pledge of no privatisations. We have the privatisation of train and tram services on foot. We have the threatened privatisation of SA Pathology, remarkably as this state, like other states, is having to confront the potential pandemic of the coronavirus. We have also had the privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre. The poorer services, of course, continue with hospitals overflowing, the worst ramping ever and the bus and train cuts of $46 million, the worst yet to come.

If you want to look at the lived experience of these broken promises, you only have to visit my electorate. You only have to visit the electorate of Lee to understand how this government's inability to deliver and this government's broken promises are punishing the community. We have had bus cuts now where whole communities within my electorate are not being serviced by bus services at all. We have had security guards removed from night-time train services. This strategy was specifically put in place to encourage people who feel vulnerable on public transport, including women, school students and the elderly, to feel more comfortable on public transport. That has been yanked from train services, particularly on the Grange line.

We have had the threat of privatisation of these services which, of course, most likely means a lower quality service or an infrequent service. As we have now found out through documents released through freedom of information requests, the government is actively considering closing or reducing train services on the Grange line. We have also seen the delay in The Queen Elizabeth Hospital upgrade.

Those members opposite, those marginal members I made reference to before from the north-eastern suburbs of South Australia, think that it is a big joke for Grange line commuters to potentially lose their services. They think it is fine because they have no knowledge of what exists west of West Terrace. They are not interested whatsoever.

The fact that they laugh about it, the fact that they call out about it and the fact that they conduct themselves in an unparliamentary way by laughing and sneering at the electors in my community is an outrage. I thought the member for King wanted to see an improvement in parliamentary standards. It is bad enough that everybody is sitting back while the allegations about the member for Waite remain unresolved, but now she is laughing and sneering at my constituents. Shame on the member for King.

You do not have to stop at The QEH upgrade being delayed—the $270 million promised and funded by the former Labor government—because of course we have had the massive increase in hospital car parking fees. The new car park, funded by the former Labor government, was not only delayed but not even opened until the Labor Party called public attention to the fact that this apparently completed facility remained closed for no reason. It was opened hastily with higher car parking charges.

We have not even had a start on the intersection upgrade of West Lakes Boulevard, Cheltenham Parade and Port Road—a project funded by the former Labor government that was meant to be completed in 2018. Why has it not been done? This government is sitting on its hands, breaking its commitments to South Australians.

We hear that they have cut research funding for QEH cardiologists. Of course, rolling over once again to the federal Coalition government, which this Liberal government loves to do, and accepting the Gonski-lite funding deal for our schools means that Grange Primary School, West Lakes Shore School, Hendon Primary School, Westport Primary School and Seaton High School are receiving less money than they would under the original Gonski deal supported by the former state Labor government and fully funded by the former state Labor government.

They have delayed upgrades to Grange Primary School: rather than being at the front of the queue for those important upgrades to this wonderful school in the western suburbs—one that is bursting at the seams—they are now being delayed. They have been told that it might not be in the next three, four or five years. The $20 million funded for the upgrade of Seaton High School has now been changed for this government's pursuit of putting year 7 into high school, rather than demolishing old buildings and building new ones for the existing school.

It is extraordinary that this government, through breaking all these promises, have also significantly changed this state's economic strategy. Rather than putting the state government's shoulder to the wheel to support South Australian businesses and industries in our economy to grow where they have genuine opportunities to grow and thrive in the face of competition from other states and other jurisdictions around the world, they have withdrawn government support for these areas. They have cut 29 job-creation and job-sustainment programs across South Australia. They said, 'No more will we pick winners,' and they cut funding.

Funnily enough, though, it was not too long before funding was quietly restored to the Economic Growth Business Fund. Rather than have a robust strategy where businesses could apply for government support in an open call to the whole state in a competitive process, where businesses would be funded up to $50,000 in the first stage to have a robust business case demonstrating that they are worthy of government investment, they have just been handing money quietly to businesses without any such open call, without any open process, with no analysis, with no business case and with dubious benefits.

We cite, for example, paying Mitsubishi Motors millions of dollars to stay here in South Australia. Why? We cite giving $42 million of taxpayers' money for a hotel at the Adelaide Oval. Why? How do you think the other hoteliers around South Australia feel who have to do the hard work to try to raise funds? Well, they cannot.

If you look at the analysis of the final years of the former Labor government and the performance of the first two years of the Liberal government, you find that this government has been failing on jobs. Jobs growth over the first two years of this Liberal government has been 0.8 per cent; over the last two years of the former Labor government it was 4.2 per cent. Annual jobs growth currently sits at 0.03 per cent. Economic growth has slowed to 1.4 per cent, down from 2.3 per cent in 2017-18. Annual state final demand sits at 0.2 per cent and has only grown 1 per cent since the Marshall government was elected. Over the last two years of the former Labor government, state final demand grew by 8.5 per cent.

Construction work has fallen through a hole. Our share of national exports has fallen through a hole. In the last 12 months, we now sit at 2.9 per cent of national exports; at the election, we were over 4 per cent. Retail trade has slowed and, most notably, it slowed in the month of December, the month when the great big experiment for deregulated shop trading hours was conducted by this government. The big reset, of course, is necessary for all these reasons because the government is not performing well and the state is not performing well. The government is performing terribly and, as a result, so is the state.

So what is in the big reset? Almost completely nothing new. They are going to have another go at the shop trading hours. They are going to have another go at rate capping. We were told in the media only a day before the last Liberal Party love-in that rate capping was not back on the agenda: it was off. Then we hear, by press release, that it is back on. The government have no idea what is going on. Regarding GM crops, it will be third time, fourth time lucky perhaps, for the Minister for Primary Industries. I thought land tax was bungled over the last year, but nothing comes close to how badly the Minister for Primary Industries managed his attempts to get the GM crops legislation and associated changes through.

The Growth State plan is nothing new. The same industries, the same growth sectors that have been highlighted in previous state economic plans, including under Labor, have just been rebadged into a new economic strategy called Growth State. It is not really a reset but a pretty tepid reheat of the leftovers of the first failed two years of the Marshall government. It is just extraordinary from a political party waiting more than 16 years to get into office that you would think would be brimming with ideas about how to carry this state further forward and higher into a brighter future.

Not only did they not have those ideas, the tepid, small-minded ones they did have have failed miserably to carry our state forward. Rather than admit that, rather than reset the agenda, rather than actually find something after being in government for two years that might carry this state forward, instead they choose to reheat those failed strategies that have not worked over the past two years. One thing the government could be doing is actually getting on with some infrastructure investment.

Remember, just as the first federal budget of this Liberal government was being handed down, we were told that we were going to get $1.4 billion for the future stages of South Road. It was front-page news—literally. How much was actually in the federal budget over the next four years, over the budget period? Only a tenth of that: it was only $144 million. When the second federal budget was released, just before the federal election, we were told, 'Now we are going to get an extra $1.5 billion,' and that it would be $2.9 billion in total. How much of that $1.5 billion was actually in the next four years in the budget period? It was not even 10 per cent; it was only 1 per cent—it was $15 million.

We have been promised $2.9 billion from the federal government for the future stages of South Road and how much was actually in the budget? $159 million. That is blatant spin. It is blatantly misleading, but it is something that was celebrated by those opposite. It is something that was celebrated by this Liberal government. Time and time again, when it comes to any sort of relations with the federal Coalition government, when the state's interests are on the line this government rolls over.

They have rolled over in accepting this dud infrastructure funding deal. They rolled over, of course, about how badly we are being treated as the end state in the Murray-Darling Basin. We have been dudded by those opposite sitting silently as former prime minister Tony Abbott and former federal treasurer Joe Hockey chased Holden out of Australia, meaning that we lost—and eventually, of course, Victoria then lost Ford and Toyota manufacturing operations—a major employer and a major industry out of South Australia.

We now see that we are right on the cusp of being dudded for the deep cycle maintenance jobs for the Collins class submarines, losing jobs that are already here, jobs that are already underway. As I mentioned before, we also see the impacts on local schools in my electorate signing up blithely to the Gonski-lite funding agreement, which saw hundreds of thousands of dollars less come to South Australian schools. And what does this government and what does the Premier do? Nothing. They roll over and have their tummy tickled.

But, of course, this reset, this reheat has been completely overshadowed by the dark pall that hangs over this place as a result of the behaviour that occurred in this building on 13 December last year. There are still to this day, here on 3 March, nearly three months after 13 December last year, serious unresolved allegations about the behaviour of the member for Waite at more than one function. We learn from media reports that apparently there was one function in this place where apparently some misdemeanours or misadventures took place by the member for Waite, if I can be so euphemistic, and then, of course, the attendance at a crossbencher party when very serious allegations, which have been aired publicly, are alleged to have occurred.

It is extraordinary that we can be here in this place three months on from allegations of one member of parliament slapping another member of parliament on the backside and still have these unresolved. What it has now created is a resigned acceptance amongst the community that they are held to one higher standard when it comes to this sort of misbehaviour in a workplace, and it is a higher standard compared with what—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, there is a point of order.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I have listened carefully in the hope that the member might be moving on. The member is well aware that there is a matter under assessment by the Speaker, which has been suspended pending a police investigation in relation to the instance referred to.

I think that, whilst it is not unreasonable that the member could in this presentation make reference to the fact that an incident has occurred, I would ask you, sir, to remind the member that this matter is under police investigation and that we should not be doing anything in this house that might prejudice that investigation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Attorney. The matter that has been brought to our attention, again, by the member for Lee is under police investigation. The member has not been charged, however, so we need to bear that in mind. This particular topic has been canvassed in this place over a number of question times. It is reasonable for the member for Lee to want to talk about it, except that I do not think he should dwell on it. I think that we are talking to the Governor's speech here, and the member for Lee would do well to direct his comments to the Governor's speech.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: First of all, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your ruling. I am sure you would not agree, but I would regard the Deputy Premier's point of order as a completely bogus point of order. I have not made any reflection yet on how this matter has been handled whatsoever.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: As a member of parliament, I am entitled to the full privileges and immunities that this place affords me. The point I am making, sir, is very clear—that those constituents I represent in this place are now in a situation where they are led to believe that there is one standard that applies to them in workplaces and another standard that applies to us. Some people may be comfortable with that: I am not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Lee. Can I speak now? I take your point. I gave the Attorney the call on her point of order. She raised a point. My ruling was that even though there was a police investigation underway charges had not been laid, so you were within your rights. But, further to that, I also made the point that we are now addressing the Governor's speech. Thank you, member for Lee.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. To place it in context, as I did already, the Governor's speech has of course been made at a time when the government seeks to reset the agenda at the same time that its agenda has got so off track, for example, because of how badly it handled the land tax reforms and of course, as we now find out, how badly handled this matter has been.

There may be members opposite who are comfortable with how this matter has been handled. For example, the behaviour was alleged to have happened on 13 December. The Premier told the media that he knew of it immediately and asked the member for Waite to apologise. He told this place as late as last sitting week that the first he heard about it was when he read about it in the paper on 4 January—conflicting statements.

We have had these changing stories, and with the effluxion of time here we are, more than three months later, and we have had a member who has at first come into this place, a workplace nonetheless where serious unresolved allegations remain about his conduct, including to staff employed by the parliament, and then, of course, subsequent decisions have been made—by whom we are not sure—where he has not only excused himself from being a member of the Liberal Party but he has excused himself from even attending this place.

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order, member for Lee. Yes, member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK: The member for Lee knows darn well that you cannot reflect on whether or not a member is physically in this place. That is an absolute fact, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, the fact is that the member for Waite has taken leave from this place.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: the member for Waite has not sought the leave of the house to be absent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My apologies.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Point of order: with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is a time limit upon which a member cannot be prejudiced in any way as a result of their non-attendance in the chamber without leave before the processes of by-elections become imposed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are quite correct.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: I made no comments about whether he was on leave or not, so I am not quite sure what this point of order is.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that was my comment. You take a seat, please, member for Lee. I will hear the Attorney out.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: All I would ask the member to do is not to reflect on the absence of any member from the chamber at any time.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: When you are the Speaker, you can ask him to do that, but until then you can't.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you are sitting down; the Attorney is on her feet.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the member continues to contribute in relation to this debate, the Address in Reply, I ask that he not reflect on any member who is not in the chamber at present. That is all I am asking him to do. I would ask that that be abided by. It is in breach of the standing orders.

Mr BROWN: A point of order on the point of order: I hear the impassioned defence of the member for Waite by the Deputy Premier, but I think what the member for Lee was attempting to do was reflect on the public comments that the member for Waite has himself made about how he is not here, about how he intends not to attend the parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Playford. I do not need this to turn into debate in its own right, given that we are speaking to the Governor's address. Back to the original point of order, which came from the member for Hammond, I have been listening carefully and I do not believe that the member for Lee has been speaking in this place about anything that has necessarily not been in the public arena. I believe that to be the case so, given that we are speaking once again to the Governor's speech, member for Lee, you will bring your comments back to addressing the Governor's speech, please.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Thank you, sir. Those of us who have been approached by constituents asking, for example, what on earth is going on in parliament at the moment, where these sorts of allegations can remain unresolved, find ourselves at a loss. We find ourselves at a loss because I cannot explain it to my constituents. I cannot explain it to those people who say, 'What would this mean, for example, if this sort of thing were to happen in my workplace, outside this place, in a professional environment? Would this stand?' Of course it would not stand.

How can we be three months on and it not be resolved? How could there have not been decisions immediately taken to make sure that this issue was dealt with expediently so that, whether somebody is here or not, we would not have to still be discussing this; it would be resolved one way or another? And how can we be in a situation where so many members of the community start feeling that this place, which is meant to be the arbiter or the decider of what is wrong and right in this state, cannot get it right when it comes to this sort of issue?

The Deputy Premier says we need another commissioner to look into this, to look into MPs' behaviour. I would argue that what we actually need is some leadership and some action on this particular matter so that it gets resolved. First of all, we had the honourable member of the other place Rob Lucas conducting an investigation. We are waiting to hear back from that. Then we had a two-week delay from between 4 January, when it broke in the media, and 17 January, when the Speaker announced a gumshoe to investigate, and then there was some delay, and now we finally have a police investigation—three months on. That would not stand in any other workplace.

How, for example, do I speak to women in my electorate when they ask me questions such as, 'Well, what should I expect in a workplace if this behaviour were to happen to me?' Would there be, for example, a three-month delay before any action could be contemplated? Would it take weeks of the alleged perpetrator continuing to front up to the workplace before finally the leaders of the workplace adjudged that something should be done and the alleged perpetrator should be removed from the place? It is just extraordinary.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The Deputy Premier can call out and interject as much as she likes, but she is the first law officer of this state, so people might ask questions about where her judgement was and what counsel she was providing, as the first law officer of the state, to the Premier about what action should be taken. We know that what is being told to everyone about this house is that it was either the Deputy Premier or one of her moderate faction colleagues who was responsible for backgrounding the media in the second half of December.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, I am going to interrupt you here. You have four minutes left, probably 3½. I have asked you on a couple of occasions to bring your comments back to the Governor's speech. Now would be the opportunity to do that, to wrap up your contribution, without taunting the other side.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Perhaps I could make this contribution in the last four minutes. Perhaps like some others—in fact, only one other, according to the contributions I have heard or read in Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition—I could wish my fellow colleagues well for the year to come and for the remaining session. I would hope for the remainder of the session that, not only are we not confronted with this sort of behaviour in this workplace, but, regardless of what behaviour occurs in this workplace, I would hope that the leaders of this workplace would put the interests of victims, the interests of staff, the interests of those people who might be offended by homophobic or racist remarks and the interests, broadly, of the people of South Australia, first.

That is so that, when there are these sorts of allegations in this sort of workplace, something gets done about it, something meaningful gets done about it and something gets done about it quickly to send the right message to the community that we are not beyond the law. We are not some separate species of inhabitants here in South Australia and we should be held to the same account as everybody else because that is not what is happening at the moment.

We are being held separately by the poor action or lack of action that has occurred since the events of 13 December, and that is a blight on all of us whether those opposite recognise it or not. It reflects on all of us poorly throughout the community for that reason and it reflects on all of us in here as well. What message does it send to the employees of Parliament House when this sort of behaviour is alleged to have occurred? Nothing happens until it becomes public, when somebody gets shamed into doing something about it.

Even when they get shamed into doing something about it, what they do is designed to (a) obfuscate scrutiny, particularly during question time, and (b) sweep it under the rug as much as possible so that nobody can really get a handle on who knew what and when, particularly the Premier, the Deputy Premier and other people in positions of authority. It has been one of the most unsatisfactory, unseemly occurrences that I can possibly think of, and the reason it has got to that level of unseemliness is because of how badly it is being handled. The Deputy Premier can sit there with a big smile on her face laughing and joking about it as much as she wants—

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: At least I am doing something about it.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: You are not doing anything about it. Did you ask the equal opportunity commissioner to investigate? You did nothing.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: All you did was leak it.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: You did nothing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The time has expired.

Motion carried.

Sitting suspended from 12:56 to 14:00.