Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Privatisation PRIVATISATION The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council PRIVATISATION The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning representing the Treasurer a question regarding privatisation. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: This afternoon I was privileged to listen to and see constituents from the South-East primarily (but not only the South-East)—some estimating their number at 800 or more, including people who had made the long bus trip from the South-East—send a strong message to this government on their opposition to the privatisation of the forests that they have tended and harvested for generations in the South-East and, of course, throughout South Australia, including Kuitpo and areas in my own region. I note that the Sustainable Budget Commission, commonly called the 'razor gang', in its report to the government before the September state budget 2010-11, stated: Asset sales with an estimated total value of $144 million have been recommended by the commission in this report. It goes on: These include the commission's recommendation that the government should explore the options for the sale of SA Lotteries and Forestry SA, noting that the government has previously announced the intention to sell the harvesting rights of Forestry SA's plantations for up to three harvesting cycles. The razor gang made a range of recommendations, adding to a host of things that the government has considered for privatisation, such as the TAFE system, SA Lotteries, HomeStart Finance, the Land Management Corporation, Shared Services, Adelaide's bus services and Housing SA. These are items that the government has considered. My questions to the minister are: 1.	Is anything that is not bolted down fair game for this government to sell to fund its out-of-control spending promises? 2.	Does this government remain committed to its policy of no privatisations, particularly when they do not have a State Bank debacle to deal with and it is cashed up, in a sense? 3.	For the sake of clarity, will it add to that no outsourcing and no forward selling of timber assets? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management 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) (15:05): It is rather extraordinary that the person who asked this question was, I think, at the time a minister in the government which in 1996 introduced the South Australian Timber Corporation (Sale of Assets) Act and sold Forwood Products. It sold the shares of Forwood Products and related operating assets which were owned by the old South Australian Timber Corporation to Carter Holt Harvey. The honourable member and members opposite who have been wearing the T-shirts today—that is what they did it back in 1996. They sold the old Timber Corporation, and that was real jobs. It was the timber mills that were sold that employed workers. This government has considered—and it was nothing new; it was first raised in a budget at least a couple of years back or a Mid-Year Budget Review—and the Treasurer announced that the state would be looking at harvesting rights. That is quite a different thing than selling the actual assets, which was what the honourable member, when he was in the Liberal Party in another place, sold back in 1996. For the honourable member to suggest, 'Will this government sell anything that is not bolted down?'—well, this government has consistently had a no-privatisation policy, and it is one that this government has adhered to. It was not this state that sold off the Timber Corporation, the TAB, the ports, the Electricity Trust and a whole lot of other businesses at the time. For members opposite to suddenly try and sound pure on the subject of privatisation is total hypocrisy. The honourable member who asked the question, as I say, should know better in relation to the history of this government. We have consistently had the attitude. In relation to harvesting rights, that was something that was canvassed by the Treasurer in a Mid-Year Budget Review some time ago and that the government would be investigating it. It is something that is being investigated, and the decision will be made following the investigation. The honourable member did talk about what he called the razor gang and the Sustainable Budget Commission. Well, there were a lot of things in the Sustainable Budget Commission which this government did not accept. What the honourable member and members opposite have not done is put up their own alternative. It is all very well to criticise the decisions that this government is making in trying to make our budget balance to try to ensure that future generations are not saddled with the burden of debt because of the operations of this government. They have not put any alternative forward as to how they would deal with it, nor have they put forward any alternative about how they will deal with the growing burden that will inevitably come to this state as a result of the ageing of the population, the rising health bill, the rising bill for disabilities and other sectors. Whatever happens in the future, the demand for services within health and other sectors is going to grow and this government—or whatever government is in power in the future—will have to deal with them. It is all very well for members opposite to criticise decisions made by this government but, of course, what they have not done is come up with any feasible alternative whatsoever about how they would deal with the challenges before us. All we have had through question time today is criticism of every measure that we are taking. We had criticism of cuts within the department for— The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink Legislative Council The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Heritage. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, we had heritage, that's right. There is the shadow minister saying, 'No, we should not make any cuts there.' The Hon. Mr Parnell was asking about the population sector. Is that what all the non-government members in this place stand for: just do nothing, just keep spending on what we have done in the past and have no attempt to balance the budget whatsoever? We just keep doing what we have done? Now— Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order! Opposition members should not let their past haunt them so much. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: My comment to the honourable member who asked the question and to members opposite is: yes, of course; we are a democracy. They can criticise the decisions of this government, but I challenge them to put up some alternatives. We know that they will not. Every financial decision this government has made should be judged on the basis of the alternatives available. At the end of the day we will be judged on that, but the opposition pretends that you can just do nothing, that you can just leave the situation as it is and not make the billion dollar cuts that are necessary to bring the budget into balance. If you do not do it, you see what happens. In the United Kingdom you can see some real austerity measures; they have cut 500,000 public servants, increased retirement ages, cut government programs by 20 per cent and done a whole lot of other things. Those are the sorts of austerity measures that other countries in the world are facing. This government is trying to deal with our budget challenges in a way that has minimum impact upon the people of this state.