Question Time

BUSINESS ENTERPRISE CENTRE

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:22): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question about reconnecting with the people of South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Leader of the Government and former small business minister said yesterday that he had doorknocked in Port Adelaide as part of reconnecting with the people of South Australia. On budget day, Thursday 16 September, the government withdrew its annual $150,000 worth of funding to the Port Adelaide Business Enterprise Centre. This was on the same day that the centre won two national awards.

The BEC is part of the Northwest Business Development Centre and helps businesses get off the ground and grow through a range of advisory and other services. The Northwest Business Development Centre general manager, Lynette Hay, says that the centre now faces a choice of cutting services from up to half the 855 businesses on its books.

My question to the minister is: while he was doorknocking and reconnecting, did the Leader of the Government talk with any of the hundreds of small businesses who will be denied support from Port Adelaide's award-winning Business Enterprise Centre because of state government budget cuts? If so, how many of them requested that the funding be withdrawn?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:24): It is quite extraordinary; we have had a budget brought down within just the last couple of weeks and the honourable member expects that when we were doorknocking following the election some months ago we would have been discussing technical details of what might be in the budget some three or four months later. What I did do when I was doorknocking—and subsequently, because I talk to all sorts of people involved in all sorts of areas of life all the time, as do my colleagues—was discuss a range of issues.

I think people understand that we do need to realign the budget of the state. Demands are always changing and we do not live in a static environment. We note that members opposite (certainly those in the lower house; we have yet to hear the views of people in this chamber) seem to have this expectation that the economy is somehow or other static, fixed in time and does not move, and that the services provided 30 or 40 years ago should be what you provide today.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I thought you were a Minister for Small Business a few months ago.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, I was up until the election.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: If the honourable member has any questions about small business, I am happy to refer them to my successor in that portfolio. If the honourable member has any questions specifically in relation to that, I am delighted to do so. What I do know in all the discussions is that people understand that there are these structural changes taking place in our economy and they want a government that is responsive to them.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: You guys have stuffed it up.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, 'stuffed it up': this is the sort of line that people have, trying to suggest that you have a static economy. They resist every change. Let us just reflect on the fundamental contradiction of Liberal ideology. They seem to think that somehow or other the budget and other areas of expenditure are static in time; in other words, what was good enough 10 years ago should be good enough now. They continually attack the government if it makes any changes to long-standing policy: 'Oh no, we did that 40 years ago; we need to keep doing it today.' But what about all the new areas of need?

This government is a dynamic government. We are happy to move with the times. We are happy to address the needs in 2010, not what they were back in 1975 or some other time in the past. That is why this government is prepared to look at all its programs, and we will go through and reorder the priorities of government to meet the needs, as we do, of the time.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: What about the Parks?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We have this talk about the Parks. Does the Leader of the Opposition really think the only need—

The PRESIDENT: The honourable minister should not respond to interjections, because they are out of order.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: They are, Mr. President; they are quite out of order. Do honourable members think that there has been no change in areas of need in the last decade, or even in the last year? From year to year, changes occur in terms of needs within our community. Our society is a dynamic one; it is changing rapidly, governments need to respond in kind.

What I would love to hear from members opposite, as I am sure the public would, is some alternative vision. 'Oh, don't cut that, don't cut this; just keep things as they were and somehow or other money will come': that is a magic pudding solution. They are advocating that, whatever happens, somehow or other there will be a magically provided solution.

What was remarkable about all of the responses of members opposite (in the lower house, anyway) was that none of them could come up with any alternative whatsoever in terms of either revenue or programs. All they can do is criticise. It is easy to be a critic but if you want to be in government, as well as being a critic, you have to be able to write the book. Sometimes you have to actually create something in the first place. That is what members opposite seem to be incapable of doing.