APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 July 2008. Page 3648.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (11:26): I must say that, after hearing the budget speech of the Hon. David Ridgway yesterday, I wonder whether the speech I am going to give refers to the same budget. I am very proud to rise today to support the intention and the terms of the state budget recently handed down by the Treasurer.

This is the seventh Rann government budget, and it is undoubtedly a true Labor budget. This budget is about providing the elements that form the foundation for an inclusive society; a society that allows people to achieve their best in an environment of growth and prosperity; a society that protects its vulnerable members; and a society that recognises the enormous opportunities—and the challenges, too—that await it as it moves with confidence through to the 21^st century.

This budget epitomises the government's commitment to taking action now for the future, to keeping faith with those who elected it. Investment in a skilled and educated workforce, first class infrastructure, public health and public security and an energetic and competitive environment for business is the key to Labor's plans for our state moving forward. Let us not forget that, in moving forward, it is only a few short years since the Rann government took up the task of alleviating the damage done by the previous Liberal government—damage done over the years by under-investment, disinvestment and the profligate sale of our state's assets; years of decline in our rural and regional areas; and years of neglect in health, education, transport and many other vital areas. This is a legacy that Labor has addressed and this is the damage the Rann government has worked so hard to repair.

As The Advertiser Editorial of 6 June last so accurately pointed out, this budget tackles the areas of long-term neglect—Adelaide's public transport network, metropolitan rural roads, the health system, the guarantee of reliable domestic and industrial water supply, the upgrading of the courts system, and the protection of at-risk children. Now that South Australia is on the brink of an unprecedented period of growth and development, Labor will deliver the infrastructure and the front line services to support that growth and the coming prosperity. Labor will achieve this within the context of a seventh consecutive surplus and while retaining its AAA rating with ratings agency Standard & Poor's.

We need to only consider a few brief statistics. This budget will spend 69 per cent more on health units than when those opposite were last in office. This budget will spend 62 per cent more on police than when those opposite were last in office. This budget will spend 52 per cent more on education spending on each student than when those opposite were last in office, and this budget will provide tax relief for business which, when fully implemented at 1 July 2012, will bring our total tax cuts to almost $3 billion. This is a budget of which South Australians can be justly proud.

I want to now discuss some of the broad themes of the government's expenditure program. The government is committed to investing $2 billion in public transport over the next 10 years. Once complete, this plan will see the electrification of the major rail lines; the purchase of 50 new electric trains; the conversion of the majority of present stock from diesel to electricity, with provision for its refurbishment; the extension of the train service, initially to Hindmarsh to serve the Entertainment Centre, and later to Semaphore, Port Adelaide and the AAMI Stadium; provision of extra trams for the future network; the purchase of 80 new buses to augment the existing fleet; and the new ticketing system. For the sake of the Hon. Mr Stephens, 'augment' means to make larger or increase. It is a word that can only be used in a Labor budget because, for the Liberals, the words would be 'decrease, slash and burn'.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I hear the State Bank mentioned over there. A large part of the population was not even born at that time. How far do we go back to blame you for your incompetence while you were in government?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: How far do we go back? The next four years will see an injection of nearly $650 million into the first stage of the rebuilding program. Work on the extension of the tram service to Hindmarsh is starting immediately. More than $700 million will be spent on our roads over the next four years. The added federal funding means a total of $1.6 billion for roads over that period, with major projects at Oaklands Park, Warradale, the intersection of the Victor Harbor and Main South Roads, and the continuation of major works on the Northern Expressway and South Road. An allocation of $125 million has been made for roadworks in the AusLink network, with a further $28.6 million to be spent on improving efficiencies on our freight routes.

Transport infrastructure is not the only area in which the Rann government is revitalising our city and our state. As all members present may be aware, planning is well under way for the new Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital. The Lyell McEwin Hospital, Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Flinders Medical Centre are already benefiting from major and continuing redevelopment works to the tune of more than $95 million, with an additional $16.2 million for the Lyell McEwin Hospital's $202 million stage 3.

Indeed, this budget signals a record level of investment in health, specifically $3.246 billion for health units in 2008-09. That is around $1.3 billion more than was spent in the last year of the Liberals' time in office. As the Treasurer has noted in another place, this additional funding allows more patients to be treated and the employment of more doctors and nurses. Between June 2002 and June 2007, an extra 2,406 nurses and 699 doctors have been employed to work in our health system. Those figures are staggering by anyone's standards.

An allocation of more than $357 million will ensure the availability of even more services for South Australia where they are needed most—and that is in the regional areas. I must say that this has been one of the most disgraceful, misleading and deceitful campaigns the opposition has ever engaged in–going out and scaremongering in regional areas about the benefits of the new health plan. The problem is that the opposition is so desperate to seem relevant to country people that it is prepared to go out there and scaremonger in small country towns saying that we are out there to rape and pillage their health system. That is an absolute lie.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: One can understand why they are desperate. After the next election the only country representative in this chamber will be the Hon. Mr Finnigan. He will be the only person representing the country. The Hon. Mr Dawkins seems to think that he represents the country but I think he lives at Gawler. He ought to look out his front door and see how the suburbs are moving into his area. If you look at the meaning of 'country' (and I have it here), it is 'rural districts, including farmland, parkland and other sparsely populated areas, as opposed to cities and towns'. He cannot claim to be a country representative. After the next election the only person to represent the country will be the Hon. Mr Finnigan.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The Hon. Mr Dawkins calls me a fool. One only had to read the Border Watch after the recent preselections to see the dismay that it outlined about the fact that you no longer represent the country, and how you had an opportunity (in the last preselections) to put in people from the country but, instead, you chose latte-slurping, middle-class people living in the leafy eastern suburbs. You will end up suffering the consequences, because Labor is the party that looks after rural Australia. That is proven by our health plan.

I received phone calls from a number of people in Port Augusta who said that they had heard this Liberal scaremongering campaign and they wanted to know what was going on. I sent out a newsletter to 5,700 people in Port Augusta explaining the outcome of the government's health plan, and I also put a questionnaire with it asking them to respond to the key initiatives of our health plan. I have some results here of that: 100 per cent of those who responded were supportive of the major initiatives of our health plan.

The only negative response in Port Augusta was that 37 per cent did not support the increase in health services for Aboriginal people to help close the gap. Some of the comments that came back were that Aboriginals get more concessions now than non-Aboriginals and that there should be increased services not just for Aboriginals but for all South Australian citizens. That is the only aspect of the health plan with which people in Port Augusta had problems. I think that members opposite should hang their heads in shame at the most deceitful, dishonest campaign that the opposition is waging in small country towns in this state. It is embarrassing. It is so immoral to frighten poor people in small country towns—

The Hon. C.V. Schaefer interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I am looking at the fools here. They are the ones in opposition. They are the ones who were rejected and annihilated at the last election, not members on this side. Anyway, Mr President, enough of this disgraceful, deceitful campaign being waged by the Liberals with respect to our Country Health Care Plan.

Berri hospital in the Riverland area, which is so important to me, will be rebuilt. In other regional initiatives, Whyalla hospital will be redeveloped, as will Ceduna hospital. Funding to the South Australian Ambulance Service will be augmented by an additional $26.6 million over the next four years.

Emergency services have not been neglected in our projections. Additional funding of $19.6 million over four years has been allocated to the CFS, including provision for aerial firefighting and its attendant staffing, management and infrastructure. These initiatives represent an important commitment to rebuilding our health sector and to keeping our people safe. Labor is also delivering to our communities in education. I have already mentioned the 52 per cent increase in spending per student since the government took office. This year, our investment in each student will be increased to $11,568. Some 10 schools will be upgraded this year, at a cost of nearly $35 million. This includes major works at Woodville and Willunga high schools. More than another $35 million will be invested in new school buildings across the state.

South Australians will also reap the benefit of the establishment of six new super schools to be built across the metropolitan area as a public-private partnership project. Intended for students from kindergarten right through to year 12, the schools will be leased to the government by private sector builders, who will also maintain them. School retention programs will continue, as will further development of trade schools. The government is committed to an ongoing program of reform in education, including an increased early childhood focus, a higher compulsory education age, the new SACE and the capital works agenda.

Mr President, as you would well know, the Labor government will never abandon vulnerable members of our community. This budget allocates more than $190 million for the needs of children in care. All members of this place are aware of the recent cases of children in very great need, and we are dedicated to the provision of high quality front-line services directly to families and carers. Additional funds will also be made available for those members of our community who are disabled and for their families and carers.

South Australia has secured commonwealth funding of $72.9 million to match our own commitments over this and the last budget. The total will provide new services over the next four years. New group homes for people with disabilities are to be constructed and more supported accommodation provided. Meanwhile, disability compliance in our public transport network will be enhanced by an allocation of $8 million. And those who are homeless will find increased accommodation availability at Port Adelaide and Port Augusta, which are both areas of considerable need.

I now move to take a brief look at the security of our community. In the past, I have spoken to a number of bills to do with the government's commitment to a strategic program of law reform in relation to firearms, organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs. This bill augments those measures (there is that word again, 'augment'; it means to increase and be made bigger—it is a word that can be used only in a Labor budget speech), with the intention of building on the decrease in reported crime since this government took office.

Once again, record funding has been allocated to South Australia Police. Its operational budget will increase by 11 per cent this year to nearly $630 million. Efficiencies in service delivery will also result from SAPOL's move to purpose-built state-of-the-art premises in the central business district.

New courtrooms are to be provided. Forensic and legal aid services will receive additional funding, and significant funds have been allocated to provide for the growth in prisoner numbers. This is in stark contrast to the wild west days under the Liberal government, when police numbers were at an all-time low. The government does not resile from its commitment to law and order. As I said in this place earlier this year, it must be made abundantly clear that the government is determined to deal with those who demonstrate, through their own actions, that they would willingly participate in criminal enterprises.

None of these measures would be possible without continued strategic support for the economy and the economic development of our state. Among others, the defence sector and the mining industry have made great strides in recent years, and these must be carefully managed for optimum success.

The government is once again taking action now for the future and encouraging further exploration and development. Whilst looking towards the provision of skills training—so fatally neglected, particularly under the previous federal government—the government is also committing increased funds to its program of attracting and retaining skilled migrants. This is one of the many strategies by which Labor is fostering a rejuvenation of the South Australian economy. However, it is common ground that such rejuvenation cannot happen without appropriate resource management. The government has taken action now for a sustainable future.

No-one can be oblivious to the clear and very present danger of climate change. Among other measures, we are committing $7.7 million from 2010-11 for the purchase of carbon offsets and green power. Most immediately, the government is acting now, in cooperation with the federal government, to secure water supply for our state. We have entered into a historic agreement for the management of the River Murray and are committed to the delivery of improved outcomes to all those South Australians who rely on its continued flow.

To secure water supply into the future, Labor will this year spend $97 million on planning and groundwork for the desalination plant to be constructed at Port Stanvac. That construction will commence in 2009-10. Over the next four years, $426 million of water-related projects will be completed. These include upgraded and expanded wastewater plants and water recycling infrastructure; upgraded water quality plants at Myponga, Mount Pleasant and in the Riverland; and the continuation of the rebate package to encourage water use efficiency by our community.

In the arts, as in sport, South Australia is renowned as the home of innovation of excellence and creativity. Its calendar of cultural sporting events is second to none. This budget includes significant new support for these sectors which not only tell us so much about ourselves but which also contribute to the success of our unique tourism industry.

An amount of $43 million has been allocated to the construction of a film and screen hub at the Glenside Cultural Precinct. Theatre and music and our world renowned festivals have been provided with continued support. Special provision has been made for upgrades to our zoo, which will soon be the sole southern hemisphere zoo to house two giant pandas. As well, the Tour Down Under will receive a further $14.6 million over the next four years to ensure its continued status and presence in a state so naturally suited to its operation.

I must mention tax relief. Further payroll tax reductions will come into effect in South Australia from 1 July 2009. In addition, there will be a two-stage increase in the threshold. These reforms will stimulate employment and business investment. Moreover, the first home buyers bonus grant has already been warmly welcomed. A $4,000 grant for purchases up to $400,000 will be offered in addition to the existing $7,000 first home owners grant. It is estimated that more than 9,000 home buyers will receive the grant this financial year, and that relief of $130 million will be provided over the next four years. I again quote from The Advertiser's editorial of 6 June, as follows:

This is a budget that ensures the Rann Labor government, now in the second half of its second term, will be remembered for its work in health, hospitals, education, public transport, child protection, industrial development, justice and law enforcement. It is a budget which begins the process of converting promises into material outcomes. Perhaps, more importantly, it is a budget which overlays broad policy with tangible results.

I could not agree more. I need not remind those present that we live in very interesting times. On the positive side, we have seen a change in the federal government, an event that furnishes an unprecedented opportunity for enhanced commonwealth/state cooperation. On the negative side, global markets have experienced considerable instability over the past several months.

Inflation, the insidious legacy of a previous federal government that played fast and loose with mining revenues instead of providing for the future, has risen. Interest rates are up, as are fuel prices around the world. The population is ageing and there will be increasing demand for services in health, aged care, disability, community services and transport. Some of these variables are within our grasp; others, patently, are not.

This is the environment in which the Rann government has produced a responsible budget, a budget that identifies savings and will generate surpluses while ensuring growth in the years ahead. It is a budget that is economically sound and which at the same time provides a boost to social improvement and infrastructure which is unprecedented in South Australia's history.

The people of South Australia have made their expectations clear. They expect industry growth, high employment, forward-thinking economic policy and progressive, compassionate social policy. Those expectations prompted them to re-elect the Rann Labor government at the last election; and those expectations are being met.

Let us look at a few of the present economic signifiers. Forecasts indicate that GDP (that is gross domestic product for our friend the Hon. Mr Stephens) will increase by 2.25 per cent in 2008-09 and employment by 1.5 per cent. Our population is growing, reversing a sad trend of former years. Investment, mineral exploration and the housing construction sector are burgeoning. Would not those opposite have crowed had they been able to produce these sorts of statistics?

I would like to make a comparison of what the Liberals did during their time in government and what this budget is delivering. Labor is delivering in education the most significant investment in school infrastructure in a generation. What did the Liberals do? In 1994 and 1995 the Liberal government cut 522 teachers and 287 school service officers. Between 1994 and 1997 the Liberals closed more than 40 schools, many against expert advice—and this is only the previous government—and the wishes of our community. Having promised in November 1993 that (then) current class sizes would be maintained, the Liberals announced in August 1994 that all primary and junior primary class sizes would be increased. Another blatant lie.

What is Labor delivering in justice, law and order? The operational budget for SAPOL will increase by 11 per cent to nearly $630 million. SAPOL is moving to new state-of-the-art premises in the CBD. New courtrooms have been made available, forensic and legal aid services are to receive additional funds, and the increase in prisoner numbers has been anticipated and will be met. What did the Liberals do? Despite their promise to increase numbers, recruiting for SAPOL reached dangerously low levels under the Liberals. There were only 28 Fort Largs Police Academy graduates in 1998.

What is Labor delivering in health? This budget signals a record level of investment in health: $3.246 billion for health units in 2008-09. This is about $1.3 billion more than was spent in the Liberal's last year in office. The Berri hospital will be rebuilt, and the Whyalla and Ceduna hospitals are to be redeveloped. In the five years to June 2007, Labor has employed an extra 2,406 nurses and 699 doctors. What did the Liberals do? Despite promising increased funding and short waiting lists, the Liberals cut the health budget from 1994-95 to 1997-98 by more than $234 million in real terms.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Shame!

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Absolutely; absolutely shameful. The Liberals left the department of human services with a debt of $21 million for unfunded work in hospitals.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: That is the problem with members opposite: they cannot handle the truth and they have to walk out. The Liberals left an impoverished health system.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You are the last country representative and you are going to walk out. That is outrageous. Although I suppose it puts you in training for after the election. The Liberals left an impoverished health system in a state of complete chaos.

What is Labor doing with transport? Labor will invest $2 billion in public transport over the next 10 years. It will rebuild our rail and light-rail infrastructure, electrify the Noarlunga and Outer Harbor rail lines, extend the tramline to Hindmarsh, increase public transport capacity and replace more than 130 of the current bus fleet. What did the Liberals do?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I do not even know whether we are talking about the same budget. The Liberals allowed vital public transport and freight infrastructure to run down to a shocking extent during its time in office. I believe that the Liberals were borrowing to pay wages in their last days. This indicates the extent to which they had ripped funds out of the system.

So, there is a stark contrast between what this government is delivering for the people of South Australia to what the Liberal Party did in its almost decade of government. During the Liberal Party's term of office, it sold off the family jewels. It basically almost gave away our public assets. I will read out what it actually did: despite saying that ETSA was safe, it sold off ETSA, and it gave away the TAB, if I remember rightly, the Ports Corporation, SGIC, the Island Seaway, Fleet SA, State Print and the Modbury Hospital. They still could not generate a surplus, such is the incompetence.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: He is not here—he is too ashamed. He is probably hanging his head on the backbench. It gives me great honour to stand here today reading out this budget speech. It is the seventh budget Labor has delivered and there will be many more. It is all part of achieving what is set out in our Strategic Plan. It is up to Labor to do the hard yards, to repair the years of neglect and to take on the future and plan for the expectations of South Australians, for themselves and for their children. I commend this budget: as a proud South Australian I commend it wholeheartedly.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (11:53): I rarely comment on contributions of other members in this place. However, I will make a brief exception and trust you will indulge me briefly before talking about supporting this bill. The Hon. Mr Wortley just read out in his speech a definition of the word 'country', and then proceeded to demonstrate to all of us here that he does not have the first clue about the people who live anywhere outside the metropolitan area of Adelaide. He demonstrated as he went through his speech that all he can do is stand up here and read out the stuff printed in front of him. The day he starts preparing his own speeches and questions, it will be a great improvement. I will continue.

In supporting the passage of this bill I recognise its importance in providing finance to the various programs incorporated in the 2008-09 budget. It is my intention to focus on some particular areas that relate to my responsibilities for the opposition as they relate to the budget presented early last month. The first area I wanted to pick up relates to infrastructure. I recall in last year's appropriation bill speech I asked questions about the Northern Expressway and understood that the normal procedure was that they would be responded to at some stage or another, but I am still waiting.

In relation to the Northern Expressway, I expressed some concerns about the fact that the contracts were being let out to large interstate operators and that a lot of smaller companies had been ignored in getting contracts for that project. Many were concerned that the interstate companies would come over here and poach their experienced personnel. There is ongoing concern that, while those interstate companies may well have attracted valued personnel from other earthmoving and associated companies, they have set up large work camps around the place which in some areas are causing a few social problems. It would have been much better if the government had focused on giving the work on the Northern Expressway to the many companies who have expertise in dealing with South Australian conditions and who have done work in that part of the Adelaide Plains before.

Another matter I raised last year related to the River Murray ferries. I talked about one of the targets, the completion of the second replacement ferry along the River Murray. Since then we have had significant concern about the number of ferry crossings in this state that are no longer able to take vehicles of more than 12 tonnes in weight. The government has received advice that for a relatively small amount of money, about $500,000, it could alter most of those ferry crossings so that larger vehicles could again be transported across on the ferries. The former minister for emergency services told us in this place that there was a strategy for getting CFS and SES trucks across the River Murray because, if you were at Swan Reach and there was a fire on the other side of the river, trucks have to go up and around via the Blanchetown bridge or down to Murray Bridge and back up again. We know what would happen, if a house was a fire on the other side of the river, while the truck was going up to Blanchetown and down to Murray Bridge. Of course the Hon. Mr Wortley would not understand that.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: That is your strategy, is it? Those ferries are an important part of the state road network in this state. They have been neglected, and the government refuses to do any work to fix them up. There are so many communities along the river and Swan Reach is one, along with Walker Flat, Purnong and a number right down through to the Lower Lakes, and at the moment those ferries are not able to take the large trucks that are part of our CFS network or SES vehicles in many cases.

I turn to some areas of the budget relating to regional development. Most issues were taken up in the estimates process but, as one of my colleagues reminded us yesterday, you can have questions asked and asked well by lower house colleagues, but the fact that you do not get the opportunity as an opposition spokesperson to go on to the floor of estimates and ask questions means it is sometimes better to put them on the record in this debate.

Certainly, I remain frustrated by the now former minister for regional development's lack of understanding of the impact that the delay in funding certainty for the regional development boards had on those bodies and their staff. The minister and her officers seem to think, 'Oh, yeah; we always said we were going to fund them, but the fact that we actually didn't tell them how much we were going to fund them or about the different facets of that funding until early May has no impact at all.' That is just rubbish, and I am sorry that the former minister and the Office of Regional Affairs have that view, because it is not shared by many others in the regional development sector.

The situation was repeated with the business enterprise centres that do such a good job in metropolitan Adelaide—and I will refer to them again shortly. While I am dealing with the area of regional development, I should also put on the record that in the life of this government we have now had a fifth—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: If you got your hair out of your ears you might be better off!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Before I was rudely interrupted, I was trying to inform the council that during the life of this government there have been five different appointments to the position of minister for regional development. The Liberal government, when it was in power, was the first to appoint a minister for regional development, and it happened to be the then deputy premier—and, for a period, premier. That gave some impetus and importance to the position of regional development within the government.

However, I think probably the best minister for regional development this government had was the late Hon. Terry Roberts. They gave him the job for 10 months and then took it away from him and gave it to the Hon. Rory McEwen, who had it for a while. It then went to the Hon. Paul Holloway, in this chamber, and then for a couple of years it was undertaken by the Hon. Karlene Maywald. What has happened now? It has gone back to the Hon. Rory McEwen, the recycled minister, who did not understand the sector in the first place. I hope to work with him in the future, but we really need to get some consistency there and some impetus for regional development.

I return to the point I was about to make before the Hon. Mr Wortley interjected. The other point raised in the estimates committees was, as I said, that when the funding increase was finally determined—about seven weeks before the end of the financial year and before the end of all the resource agreements—the regional development boards were given an indexation figure of 2.5 per cent. My colleague in another place, the member for Goyder, asked a very good question as to why the figure of 2.5 per cent was determined as indexation for the resource agreement funding, given that there had not been an increase in regional development resource funding for 10 years. The member wanted minister Maywald to clarify why 2.5 per cent was chosen for this year, and she replied, 'Treasury said 2.5 per cent.' The member for Goyder then said, 'So, no scientific magic formula, just a declaration', and the minister responded, 'That was the indexation figure across the whole of government.' To my mind 2.5 per cent for those boards, after they have had no increase for 10 years, is ludicrous.

Another matter I took up was one that had been of concern to me for some time in relation to both regional development boards and business enterprise centres. While regional development boards are required to employ a small business adviser, the total funding provided for these advisers has not been increased beyond $65,000 per annum. That is not just a salary: it is also for the provision of a motor car and a mobile phone, etc. I think most of us here in this chamber would know that if you have only $65,000 in total to employ an experienced, competent business adviser in a regional area you will have to find other money to top that up. Unfortunately, the boards are having to do that; they are somehow having to find money out of other pots—and they do not have pots of money to try to get adequate experience to assist the businesses in their area. The former minister's response to that is, 'Well, they can get money from other parts of their budget.' She just does not seem to realise that there is very limited capacity to find that money.

Another area that has been highlighted by both the member for Goyder, in the estimates process, and myself is that, due to the fact that the commonwealth-run area consultative committee business development positions ceased on 30 June under changes made by the new federal government, there will now be a sharp increase in the workload of small business advisers out of the regional development boards. In fact, one former business adviser from an area consultative committee, who was to become redundant the next day, said, 'I've just handed over 70 clients to the small business adviser from the regional development board. How he's going to cope with them, I don't know.'

The anomaly that causes is that the new federal government has decided to place all of its funding for business development positions with business enterprise centres. That is good news for our business enterprise centres in this state, but we are rather unique in Australia, in that I think we are the only state where we do not have BECs in the country. We have a very good network of regional development boards that do the work that in many other parts of Australia business enterprise centres operate, so we have lost out.

In response to the member for Goyder, the minister indicated that they were taking up with minister Emerson from the federal government that South Australia has been disadvantaged in the regions as a consequence of not having a BEC network, and I think she meant in the country. I just urge the new minister, the Hon. Rory McEwen, to make sure that this happens. I will take that up with the new Minister for Small Business, the Leader of the Government in this place, in relation to that matter as well, seeing that he has some responsibility for business enterprise centres.

Yesterday in this place I asked a question about the details of the regional development infrastructure fund and in relation to the individual projects that were funded in the last budget period. I am certainly keen to know what projects will be funded in the next 12 months through the annual $3 million allocation to that fund. Certainly I am on record, as are many others, saying that that should at least be returned to the level of funding that the Liberal government gave it when it was commenced, which was $4.5 million a year, but I think we would advocate now that it should be much more than that.

There is no doubt, as I highlighted yesterday in this place and as the former minister said, that the leverage that this state has received out of that small seed funding, if you allow me to call it that, just demonstrates that we should put significantly more sums into assisting projects to get off the ground with that funding.

There are a number of other areas that I will not go into in quite as much detail, but I just want to cover some other areas that I think we need to follow up in relation to regional development in this state. As I have said many times, that sector is very important in developing new industries for areas and highlighting new opportunities, but they also do a terrific job in working to the strengths of their regions and allowing economic development to build on top of those strengths.

I am still keen to get some information from the Department of Trade and Economic Development via the minister in relation to the achievements and cost benefit of the six regional managers who have been employed by DTED and who, in most cases, are based in country areas. Most of these officers are physically situated within a regional development board, but the manner in which they work in relation to the boards, other rural groups and local government etc. is one that I think many people within the sector still do not understand.

One matter that came out of the estimates process followed a question from the member for Goyder about the fact that the Director of the Office of Regional Affairs has now taken over the position of the Director of the Office of Small Business, but it seems that he is doing the job without any extra pay. How long he is going to do that is something that I have yet to be advised. I think it was suggested that this would be seamless, because the minister responsible for both offices was the same person. That is no longer the case. The Office of Regional Affairs is under the Hon. Rory McEwen and the Office of Small Business will be under the Leader of the Government in this place, so I would welcome some further information about that.

It is interesting that, in relation to the regional impact assessment statements which are mentioned quite strongly in the budget papers and the regional statement in particular, there seemed until very late in the piece that there was no regional impact assessment statements regarding the South Australian country health care plan. It is quite a curious thing that something like that would not have automatically gone to a regional impact assessment.

Another area in which I am very interested is the regional facilitation groups, which have now been renamed the regional coordination networks, which is almost the same as they were called by the previous government. I am not sure they know that; there would be some who would not be very keen on going back to what they were called under the previous government. Certainly, at this time last year there were five boards that were outside the regional facilitation groups, or regional coordination network. The former minister assured the estimates committee that all boards are now involved in a coordination network, and I would appreciate some information in relation to the makeup of all those boards and those in which local government has been invited to participate.

Also, during the estimates committees process, the minister indicated to the member for Goyder that none of these regional coordination networks includes any federal agencies. My understanding is that that information is wrong, because the network that operates in the Port Augusta area certainly does include federal agencies, and I think that is something that probably could be done in other areas.

During the estimates committees, the opposition was advised that the rural coordination networks are to play a role in the process of regionalising the South Australian Strategic Plan. Certainly, I think they could play a very important role in alerting people to the fact that there is a Strategic Plan because, as has been reported in the media recently, there are very few people in the community who even know the Strategic Plan exists—and, when most of the major infrastructure announcements by this government in recent years have not even been sighted in the South Australian Strategic Plan or Infrastructure Plan, you would not wonder why that is the case.

I will now return to a couple of areas that have interested me in relation to my infrastructure responsibilities. They have also been the subject of some questions and limited answers in the last two estimate committee processes. First, there is the proposal that has been put forward by Primary Industries Resources SA, the Yorke Regional Development Board and the Wakefield Regional Council, among others, for an extension of a water main through Balaclava and the Northern Adelaide Plains area. A very strong bid was put in by these various groups for the 2007-08 budget, given the enormous potential for intensive agriculture development in that Adelaide Plains area, which is close to Adelaide and is deemed to be very suitable for that very necessary production. It is also an area that interstate producers favour. However, that significant potential for development of those intensive agriculture operations will not go ahead without more water capacity in that area.

That bid was successful for last year's budget, and during the estimates committees the minister said that this would be pursued by her office and that more work would be done on getting this greater capacity. I am unhappy to say that there has been no further advancement in that area. As I have said, it is certainly something that is vital for the further development of the intensive agricultural pursuits that are planned for that region, and I urge the new Minister for Regional Development to actively pursue that proposal. As I have said, PIRSA has done an enormous amount of work on this, along with the regional development board and local government.

Another area involves the lack of piped natural gas for a number of significant residential and industrial communities in the country areas of South Australia. During the estimates committees in 2007, this issue was raised in relation to towns such as Renmark, Loxton, Tanunda, Port Wakefield and, while it is not a significant town, the area of Bpwmans, which is in that Northern Adelaide Plains area I have just referred to and is becoming quite an industrial and transport hub, particularly for the export of hay.

Twelve months ago, during the estimates committees process, the minister indicated that the commercial provider of gas in that form (Investra) would need some assistance from government if it was to provide piped gas to those communities.

It would seem that, in the intervening 12 months, the Minister for Regional Development and her officers have done nothing to try to advance the cause of those communities in the provision of gas. The former minister indicated to the estimates this year that it is up to the individual regional development boards to determine possible assistance for such a project. I would have thought that the Office of Regional Affairs and the Department of Trade and Economic Development would do a considerable amount of work to see how much additional funding needed to be provided to assist Investra to make sure that those significant communities had access to piped natural gas. I talked about the provision of water in the Wakefield Plains or Northern Adelaide Plains area and, similarly, the ability to access gas in that form is vital for the further development of industry in those centres.

I am grateful for the opportunity that this debate has given me to highlight some of the areas that I think are deficient, particularly in the rural infrastructure and regional development area. The debate provides all of us with an opportunity to note the funds appropriated in the budget to various agencies and to raise particular issues (as I have done) and to point out the areas in which we on the opposition benches are prepared to make suggestions about what government can do to assist various groups to enhance the development of their areas. Having said that, I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (12:25): If one wants to get a proper indication of the government's priorities, rather than looking at the legislative agenda it is far more informative to look at the budget. The Greens' assessment of this most recent budget is that we described it as little more than 'bread and circuses'. In fact, the 'circuses' analogy is pretty clear to members, I would think. We have massive funding for elite sports stadiums, such as the expansion of the AAMI Stadium, but we also have things like $1.5 million for a big TV screen at Hindmarsh Stadium. To put that into context, it is 30 times more than the budget provided for spending on cultural programs for at-risk Aboriginal youth. So, there is a neat little summary of the government's priorities.

We could not find very many references to 'bread' but I understand that we will soon be getting a bill in this place that does enable bakeries to give away their excess bread to the poor, so perhaps 'bread and circuses' really is the correct analogy.

The government, through this budget, has failed on crime prevention. It has particularly failed in working with young people and putting in place proper measures to help them keep out of crime. It appears that the government's only solution is to build more gaols to 'rack them, pack them and stack them' and to support that strategy with more and more 'tough on crime' legislation.

I recently had the pleasure of spending a few days in Tasmania, including down at Macquarie Harbour and visiting the Sarah Island penal settlement. If one wants to see an example of where the 'tough on crime' approach does not work and how, in fact, it simply degrades humanity, you can go no further than Sarah Island. Anyone listening to Radio National this morning would have heard a review of a new book about convict Pearce who ate his fellow convicts in his attempt to escape from the hellhole of Sarah Island.

Also, in reflecting on the government's 'rack them, pack them and stack them' approach, I recall that the very first university essay I ever wrote, as a young student in 1978, was looking at whether 'tough on crime' approaches worked, in the context of British legal history. The clear evidence was that they did not. In those days they made yet more and more offences capital and then were surprised to find that, if the penalty for robbing someone was the same as killing them, then you might as well kill them as well as rob them. We have seen a very similar approach just this week in this chamber in relation to drugs policy.

One of the things I was encouraged to see in the budget was some recognition, finally, for public transport. However, of course, it does follow decades of neglect and it does come from a very low base. As large as the expenditure may seem, it is still nowhere near enough when we look at the effect that that expenditure will have on the genuine provision of new services. In fact, we have only some 10 kilometres of new track. Really, the budget announcements in relation to transport were ad hoc announcements and they did not follow any comprehensive transport plan for Adelaide.

Building a Park'n'Ride centre at the Entertainment Centre at Hindmarsh is not a transport plan for Adelaide. The government really needs to go back to the drawing board and put these initiatives (many of which the Greens wholeheartedly support) within the context of a proper plan for transport.

South Australia is not alone in its ad hoc approach to public transport planning. Just in the past day or two the New South Wales government has announced some cuts to public transport fares, but it has missed the point that the fares are not the major inhibiting factor for people using public transport: it is the frequency of the service, the convenience and the accessibility of public transport. Re-sleepering our lines in South Australia, as worthwhile as that is, does not take any more services to people's doors. So, we really need to do much better than the very mild announcements in this budget.

When we are planning for the future of Adelaide and for South Australia, we have to make sure that we do not continue the mistakes of the past. A classic example is the Buckland Park development, and the idea that we can dump 15,000 people on the outskirts of the metropolitan area with no commitment to providing services or to public transport. When I asked the Minister for Planning and Urban Development about that this week in parliament, he seemed to imply that it is a matter of choice and that people will choose to live in new dormitory suburbs that do not have public transport.

I do not know anyone who chooses to do that. People will certainly choose affordable housing, cheap land and cheap houses, but they will not choose to be car dependent—most families will need two or more cars—and they will not choose the isolation that will come from the inevitable rises in petrol prices and the stresses that that will put on family budgets.

The rail network needs to be extended. The Onkaparinga council is pushing very hard to make sure that the Noarlunga line is extended down to the growth suburbs in the south, and the government has made the right noises, at least, in relation to transit-oriented development. That is a concept that is widely supported in planning circles. However, where the government has missed the point is that it seems to think that that only applies to the existing built urban area and that it has no application to new urban areas. That is why it will be an absolute crime if something like Buckland Park goes ahead, with no public transport infrastructure, because transit-oriented development is not just about a couple of existing suburban railway stations and a few flats in the local vicinity.

The other thing that is disappointing is that the time frame for these expansions of public transport is 10 years, which will take us to well beyond the time that the international panel on climate change says that we as a planet must have peaked our emissions and started to reduce them. The government has made the right noises, it has started to invest funds, but it needs to be more and it needs to be faster.

We have no excuse any more to pretend that we do not know what is happening to the climate and the planet's oil supplies. However, we continue to take baby steps rather than the transformational change that is needed if we are to face the challenges of climate change and peak oil into the next century. We have to start getting more serious about these issues.

The Greens believe that, of all the challenges, the one that has been least addressed is probably peak oil. I am flabbergasted by the continual claims of bureaucrats, planners, governments and economists that, somehow, they were taken by surprise by these recent large increases in petrol prices. I think that we are done no service at all by some of the motoring organisations, which continue to peddle the myth that it is a short-term problem and that prices will go down. I believe the NRMA today said, 'It will be back down to $1.20 very soon. Don't worry.' I think the RAA here said, 'Maybe it will get back down to $1.40. We don't need to worry.'

If we allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security that the world's declining oil supplies, increasing demand and inevitable increase in price is somehow just a bad dream that will go away, we will find ourselves with a major social problem in years to come, and we will not be well prepared to deal with it. That is why the Greens for many years have being trying to get decision makers to listen to the calls of experts that we get serious about peak oil. In fact, the Greens' response to the 2006 federal budget, which was one of the first where we saw big surpluses, was, 'Let's use that surplus to oil-proof Australia.' That same call can be made in relation to the state government and to state spending priorities.

The good thing about peak oil and climate change is that the solutions to those problems are the same. We can kill two birds with one stone. The solutions to climate change and peak oil will lead to a better quality of life in our cities, better air quality, a healthier population and more connected communities.

The starting point will be the redesign of our cities, and we will see more walkways, bicycle paths and a lot more localism as we move towards urban villages that are linked by rapid mass transit, and as we encourage businesses to take their jobs to where people are, rather than simply trying to move people to where the jobs might be. So, there is a chance to get off the treadmill of unsustainable urban development, but we have to be serious about doing that.

I will mention briefly the tram overpass that we discussed yesterday. I do not want to revisit that whole debate, but just to make—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Hear, hear!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Although I can. In relation to the budget and public spending, we should not have to be fighting individual battles to make sure each individual piece of public infrastructure incorporates all of our needs into the future. It should just be a basic part of all planning. If we are serious about peak oil and climate change, there should be no piece of transport infrastructure that does not provide for alternative modes of transport.

In connection with the debate that we had yesterday about cycling, and cycling generally in the context of the budget, I would point out how much money we can save by promoting cycling as an alternative form of transport. Members might have seen the article headed 'On your bike to save health' in The Australian dated 4 June. It states:

Pedal-power saves the national health system $227 million a year by cutting sedentary lifestyle diseases, according to a study that puts a dollar value on cycling for the first time. But health and safety reasons—including the fear of injury from crashes—are still being cited as the main reason would-be cyclists are putting off making two-wheeled commutes. Elliot Fishman, policy adviser with the Cycling Promotion Fund and editor of the government-funded study report, said the research proved the value of cycling as an antidote to the inactivity that contributes to diabetes, heart disease and obesity. More people were acknowledging the benefits, with the cycling population up 29 per cent between 2001 and 2006. While most of cycling's economic value came from health savings, it also cut traffic congestion costs by $64 million and other costs by $9 million.

The article concludes by stating:

Environment minister Peter Garrett is expected to announce a $45,000 grant for a cycling training scheme at the national cycling awards in Canberra today.

I think the reason Siobhain Ryan concluded her article with that quote is to highlight the disparity between what we spend, as governments, with the benefits that we actually gain from cycling—in that case a measly $45,000 commonwealth grant; and in the context of South Australia, a bare $2 million going into the cycling budget—when we know the benefits are huge.

I also mention the state government's insistence on growing South Australia's population, and its continued indifference to the impact that that policy will have on other aspects of the environment and society.

As members would know, our state population is growing at the fastest rate in 25 years. Clearly this has massive implications for water, our urban form, transport and other services. As a state we have to come to grips with the fact that, if this growing population is to continue, we have to be smarter than just opening up new greenfield sites. Affordable housing and appropriate housing for the community is not dumping 15,000 people out at Buckland Park or similar locations.

I mention briefly the Country Health Plan, which other members have referred to in the debate. I start by acknowledging that the Greens did support the government's Health Care Bill.

Honourable members: Shame!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: That does not mean we support the current ham-fisted process being followed by the government. The Greens believe every South Australian deserves decent access to quality health services. We acknowledge that for a country town to lose its hospital or GPs is devastating, and that people are scared of having to drive huge distances in an emergency as more local services are lost. It is too early to say what the final impact will be of the government's Country Health Plan, but communities are deeply concerned whether the health and well-being of their children and elderly will be put at risk and whether communities will be able to attract and retain good quality health professionals and services.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am trying to avoid responding to the out-of-order interjections of the Liberal Party, but I make this point, which I am sure they are well aware of: there is nothing in the Health Care Bill that closes a country hospital and nothing that reduces services. There is a very big difference between putting in place sensible administrative structures and the government's current ham-fisted approach and ignoring of local people's concerns about their health needs. Country people have a right to have a decent say in the future of their communities, but so far the government's consultation processes have been very poor. The Greens are calling for the government to slow down, go back to the drawing board and start genuine consultation with country people.

I will mention briefly some of the impacts of the budget, especially on the environment. I note that the Conservation Council's press release on the budget is entitled 'Environment budget: trains win, species lose'. The Conservation Council notes that the budget fails to adequately recognise climate change, but it is particularly concerned about the threat of climate change on South Australia's unique plant and animal life and points out that the budget of the Department for Environment and Heritage has been cut yet again, this time by $18 million.

The Conservation Council says that it has serious concerns that the vital NatureLinks and marine parks programs simply will not be able to be delivered adequately and that threatened species, both terrestrial and marine, will be pushed to extinction. I note that apparently we do not have any threatened marine species because the National Parks and Wildlife Act does not acknowledge marine life and does not list fish or other marine species in the tables of rare, threatened and endangered species.

The Conservation Council's response to the budget goes on to say that the government's approach to water security is inadequate, and it states:

While we have seen the fast tracking of the desalination plant at Port Stanvac come hell or high water, what should have been the state's first resort measure for water security has been all but ignored. Harvesting all that stormwater that currently goes out to sea barely rated a mention, despite the CSIRO study showing that we can use wetlands and aquifers to purify and store potable water at half the cost of desalinated water.

'Instead of prioritising this solution, a meagre $3 million has been set aside for floodplain mapping, management plans and priority stormwater infrastructure works,' Mr Danenberg, from the Conservation Council, said.

We also know that the budget has not addressed some of the other shortcomings in the environment field, such as allowing our conservation agencies to adequately respond to the mining boom. We know there is only one full-time environmental officer responsible for assessing the impact of mining in our reserves, under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, which comprise some 21 per cent of the state. A consequence of that neglect is that we end up with situations such as Arkaroola, where the cowboy mining company operators get away with damaging geological monuments and with dumping hundreds, if not thousands, of bags of waste in shallow graves; and it is up to members of the community to actually discover that and draw the situation to the attention of the authorities. Clearly, we are failing the environment by not putting sufficient resources into our environment departments to adequately monitor the mining boom.

As the Conservation Council said, the budget does fail in relation to water and stormwater, and in relation to the potential we have to reuse that stormwater rather than the option of trying to manufacture fresh water from the sea, which is the most expensive and energy-intensive way we know. That is why, in relation to the Port Stanvac desalination plant, the Greens have taken the position that we cannot support that sort of project unless it meets some important criteria. The first of these is that we must power any such plant with 100 per cent new, renewable energy, because to do otherwise invokes a terribly tragic irony: the reason we have a water crisis is, most likely, due in large part to climate change, and the reason we have climate change is that, as a planet and as a society, we have burnt too many fossil fuels. So, what do we do? We fix the water crisis by burning more fossil fuels to desalinate sea water—a tragic, circular irony.

The Greens have also said that projects such as desalination must have, as a precondition, that there is no harm to the marine environment. We also believe that such important public infrastructure should be owned and controlled by the public sector rather than being privatised and, in relation to the government's design, build, operate, maintain (DBOM) model, it is still uncertain how much control the public will have.

Clearly, with its focus on projects such as desalination, the budget focuses far too much on supply-side solutions and ignores demand-side solutions. So, whilst the government's rhetoric is big on long-term strategies, the reality is that it goes for piecemeal options. We need to look for genuine transformation of the way our cities work and the way we provide services such as energy and water. If all we do is tinker around the edges of business-as-usual, then we will not meet the challenges of the future.

The water pricing issue has received a great deal of attention lately and, without going into the question of who knew what and when, for me one of the big tragedies of the debacle has been an erosion of the trust that exists between governments and people. Clearly, SA Water is a monopoly: we cannot have an alternative when it comes to the supply of water to our homes. It is not a mobile phone company, or even an energy company, where you can simply move if you do not like the service you are being provided.

We are stuck with this public monopoly and, as a result, the contract between that public monopoly and us as citizens needs to be a contract that involves trust and good faith. When people find that they have been overcharged and there is no commitment that they will be repaid in a timely manner, then that trust dissipates. That is a real tragedy because, on the whole, most people are ready to pay more for water. Most people do recognise that water has been underpriced, and yet, when the government gets it as wrong as it has in this last week, the trust that the community has in our government and in our statutory authorities is eroded.

I want to conclude with two other quick points. One is to mention the failure of the budget in relation to education and, in particular, public education. The Greens were very pleased to support the teachers' campaign for decent conditions, not just for themselves but for our children in whose care we put them for most of the day during the week.

It was great to see not just all those teachers on North Terrace outside Parliament House but also parents and students as well, because this is not just a selfish grab for more money by teachers: it is actually the action of a motivated body of people who have at heart the best interests of our children. When we see that public spending per student does not even keep up with the rate of inflation, we know that the government has missed the point in relation to public education.

I want to finish up with WorkCover, because I know members are keen to hear the Greens' views on WorkCover. There is much more that could have been said when we were debating that legislation but, in the context of the budget, what of course is completely missing is any recognition of the fact that there will be pieces to pick up. There will be people who lose their homes. There will be people who are forced onto income security and other parts of social security.

That will be a direct consequence of the cuts that come from the WorkCover changes, and yet the budget fails to recognise that, as a state, we have some responsibility. I do not think it is appropriate just to say that we can transfer those costs to the commonwealth and let Centrelink pick up the pieces. We need to make sure that we have programs at the state level that recognise the harm that these changes will cause.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (12:52): I want to take the opportunity to speak about Aboriginal issues in this state in response to this particular bill. I am concerned about developments related to Aboriginal people. It is a number of years since the Rann government took apart the freestanding Aboriginal affairs portfolio and amalgamated some of its functions into the Premier's department, and I think there have probably been some consequences to that. On Sunday, I attended the launch of the latest reprint of the book Survival in Our Own Land, which is a book about the Aboriginal history of South Australia.

During a barbecue lunch, I talked with many people there and it was very interesting to hear the negative comments being made by these people who are activists on Aboriginal issues in regard to the Rann government. I simply was not expecting to hear these comments from people whom many would regard as being on the left of politics, and quite a number of them expressed disappointment in the current Aboriginal affairs minister. If there was a common catchcry, it was that he must be getting very bad advice from his department, and I wonder whether that has to do with influence from the Premier's department.

As I said, I was at the launch of the reprint of Survival in Our Own Land. That book has a history in regard to ALP governments, anyhow, because it was one of three books that were chosen to be printed with state government support for the sesquicentenary in 1986. Three books were chosen. The first was a production from Flinders University about South Australia's history; the second was about the South Australian police, and the third one was the Aboriginal perspective of the invasion and all that had happened since then, and there was quite a saga about that, with public meetings and stories in the Adelaide Advertiser and the Adelaide Review. There was a great deal of angst over it for assorted reasons. In the end, because of a government decision about the books having to be printed in South Australia, only two of the books were printed, and they were the white people's versions of South Australian history.

Survival in Our Own Land was eventually printed in 1988, and the government effectively double crossed on that, and the original group of people who had put that together had to fight to get back control of the rights of the book. Right at the last minute, the government turned around and said, 'Yes, you can have control of it, but only after the first print run has sold out,' and it then announced that it would double the numbers of the print run. Fortunately, there was great support for the book, and the first print run sold out within six weeks and the rights went back to the Aboriginal people. It is interesting, having gone to the launch of a reprint, to see that it was actually the fifth reprint and the second edition. Ironically, the other two books to which the Bannon government gave priority for printing back in 1986 have had no demand for reprint; there has only been the one.

It is a matter of record that, in May 1991, the Hon. Mike Rann, as the then Aboriginal affairs minister, announced that two new police stations would be built at Ernabella (known these days as Pukatja) and Amata. Seventeen years is an awfully long time to wait for a promise to be kept, particularly as that former Aboriginal affairs minister has been the Premier of this state for more than six years. It is now more than four years since the then AP coordinator, Bob Collins, identified the lack of police stations as needing urgent attention. He recommended an immediate upgrade of the two short-term holding facilities at Amata and Pukatja, and these were the same townships that were in Mike Rann's 1991 promise. I wonder what 'immediate' means to the Rann government. The government responded to Bob Collins' recommendations and said that money was allocated in—

The Hon. R.D. Lawson: What Bob wants, Bob gets.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: What Bob wants, Bob gets. Well, he didn't get it, because we are still waiting for those two police facilities to be built at Amata and Pukatja. One has to ask: how long does the APY have to wait to get anything done? The Mullighan inquiry recommended that fully operational stations with adequate staffing be established in six APY communities. Commissioner Mullighan's recommendation 39 proposes:

That fully operational police stations with an adequate number of personnel be established at all of the main communities on the lands, namely, Pipalyatjara or Kalka, Amata, Pukatja (Ernabella), Kaltjiti (Fregon), Mimili and Iwantja (Indulkana). In the alternative, that police stations be established at Amata, Pukatja and either Mimili or Iwantja. That the police stations be established as a matter of urgency.

I think maybe commissioner Mullighan made a mistake in giving a fallback position in that recommendation, because that is what the government has now said that it will have, that is, the fallback position. Again, I wonder how many more years the Anangu will have to wait.

The other issue of concern about Aboriginal people relates to the resource centre that we have in this state. South Australia has one of only two libraries in this nation that are dedicated to Aboriginal people and their history. This very special place is the Aboriginal Education Resource Centre at Enfield. It has been in existence for 30 years and it has increased in stature over that time. It is known to the Aboriginal community and used by them. It is not just a library; it is a place of culture and the cultural material that is held there is highly valued.

The centre gets internet requests from around the world. It is a place of safety and community for Aboriginal people and it is somewhere for them to sit down and have a cuppa and a chat. Aboriginal people come in to do family research. They bring their children or their grandchildren with them and there are puzzles and games to keep them occupied. They have even established a grandmas club for older women who are now bringing up their grandchildren. They are learning the skills necessary to do that in the 21^st century. They are having to learn literacy and numeracy so that they can help their children with homework. These grandmas are even learning to use the internet.

What do you do when you have a special place like this? You downgrade it by amalgamating it with a language and multicultural affairs centre. The school campus in which the resource centre is located needs the space and, similarly, the school campus that currently hosts the language and multicultural centre at Newton wants their space. So, someone has come up with the harebrained idea of putting the two together at Croydon. Apart from convincing the Aboriginal people that they should make the trip to Croydon, we are going to abuse years of trust that have been built up.

There will be one librarian shared amongst these competing interests. The linguistics centre is aimed at teachers and student teachers and is certainly not a place of community. This is not about reconciliation; this is going back to the old policies of assimilation. Why is the government not consulting with the Aboriginal people who use the resource centre at Enfield and asking them what they think? The Aboriginal cultural material needs to be a discrete collection and it must not be mixed up with multicultural material.

I invite members to listen to that word—Aboriginal. The South Australian government is effectively telling the original people of South Australia that they are on a par with recent immigrants to this state. Although responsibility for this comes under the education portfolio, I am still left wondering whether the culture of the premier's department, in relation to Aboriginal issues, and the inadequate advice I was told about on Sunday, is the cause of the downgrading of such an important place. It is disappointing that a government which invokes the name of Don Dunstan still fails to consult with and understand the needs of Aboriginal people.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

[Sitting suspended from 13:03 to 14:18]