SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 May 2011.)

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (11:06): I rise today to place on the record some comments about the Supply Bill 2011 which, of course, provides interim funding to keep the state's Public Service afloat until the budget and Appropriation Bill have been passed in this and, indeed, the other place.

First, I indicate that I will be supporting the bill, as the Public Service must be able to operate in order to provide services to the people of this state. However, I must say that I am somewhat disappointed that the government needs to introduce this bill at all. It would be preferable to be speaking to the actual budget bill and its associated Appropriation Bill, but it seems that the government has not quite got its act together to this extent as yet.

I cannot help but think that this government may not be spending our money effectively. I often think, for example, about those people who are fit for discharge but are stuck in our hospitals waiting for in-home support. For many of these people it costs much more to keep them in hospitals. I thought that it was all taxpayers' money, but the silo mentality of the Department of Health and the Department for Families and Communities means that, if the DFC budget does not stretch far enough to pay for the in-home support, then the person will be left waiting in hospital relying on health budget's purse.

This government does not get it. Whether it be funds provided to the DFC or the Department of Health, it is all our money; it is all one purse. I would like to take the opportunity to remind this government to think long and hard about the way in which it is spending our money and to recognise that it is letting some of our most disadvantaged and vulnerable citizens down, while, at the same time, flittering away hundreds of millions of dollars on football stadiums and the like.

One only needs to look at the unmet needs data to realise that this government is letting people with disabilities down, to say the least. For example, this government is further disabling the 1,117 people with disabilities who are waiting for the government to provide them with supported accommodation. This includes people like Tiffany, who has been on a priority 1 waiting list for more than 12 months and who has been told by the department that it will take years to find the accommodation that she needs.

It is further disabling the 993 people with disabilities who are waiting for the government to provide personal support services. This includes people like Rebecca, who has been waiting in hospital for nearly one year for additional in-home support. It is further disabling the 599 people with disabilities who are waiting for this government to provide with community support such as therapy services. It is further disabling the 344 people who are waiting for this government to provide them with community access programs such as day options and recreational holiday programs.

It is further disabling the 429 people who are waiting for the government to provide them with respite. This includes people like Tanya, who has a child with significant disabilities, but has only had respite once in the past five months. It is further disabling those people with intellectual disabilities who will be forced to transfer their funds from Disability SA Trust Management to the Public Trustee. This may seem harmless; however, as I have touched on earlier in this place, this decision could result in disability support pensioners paying thousands of dollars in additional charges each year.

It is further disabling the 10 students with disabilities from Trinity Gardens School who have lost their accessible school bus and will now have to rely on the already overstretched access cab service. This government is further disabling Carolyn, who has an intellectual disability and is unable to use public transport; nonetheless, she is ineligible for Journey to Work Scheme vouchers and is therefore forced to spend $200 a week on taxis. This government is further disabling people with disabilities like Charmaine, who is waiting for the government to provide her with orthopaedic shoes. This government is further disabling the families and loved ones of people with disabilities—people like Christine, who is worried about what will happen to her sister when her ageing parents, who have provided a lifetime of care and support to their daughter, are unable to care for her sister.

This government is further disabling the hundreds of people who wanted to use access cabs last Christmas Day but were unable to make a booking because there are only 90 wheelchair-accessible taxis to service 6,800 people. This government is further disabling people with MS and Parkinson's Disease, for instance, who have heat intolerance, as a result of their disability, and cannot afford cooling costs. This government is further disabling young people who are forced to live in nursing homes—people in their 20s living with people in their 90s.

I could clearly go on all day about how this government is further disabling people with disabilities in South Australia, but I think what I have said here today paints enough of a picture to show that the government is letting our people down. I appreciate that this government, in the last budget, did provide additional funds for people with disabilities. It provided an additional $4.2 million for people with autism, plus an additional $70.9 million over four years for Disability SA, plus an additional $13.8 million over four years to reduce the equipment waiting list. However, this additional money does not seem to even touch the surface. This money seems to be a drop in the ocean compared with what is really needed.

There are thousands of people in this state who are in crisis because their needs have been ignored for too long, and an additional $88.9 million in the disability budget does little to assist these people. Frankly, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am incensed that this government is happy to spend $535 million on a sports stadium while offering an additional $88.9 million to help people with disabilities live a full and dignified life, as we all hope to do and have the right to do.

The government accepts that there is a significant level of demand for disability services in South Australia, which is rapidly growing and will continue to grow, particularly as the population ages. I cannot help but note that as this level of unmet need grows so does the quagmire of despair and, as the quagmire deepens, the problems are becoming more entrenched, more difficult to overcome. So, as I said, I cannot help but think that this government may not be using our money effectively and is therefore playing a bizarre type of 'human lottery' with the life of our fellow South Australians with disabilities.

I am all for choice and autonomy and I would therefore not usually dare to assume that I speak for all people in the disability community, but I think that, in this instance, it is pretty safe to assume that I speak for all of us when I say that we have had enough. We have had enough of going without the very basics which we need in order to live and enjoy the same intrinsic dignity and rights which are afforded to our non-disabled peers. We have had enough of this government saving itself some precious cash by relying on unpaid family carers, including ageing parents, to take care of people with disabilities until they are too old, too frail or too dead to do so.

We have had enough of living in a South Australia where families even have to consider, and sometimes proceed with, relinquishing a child or loved one with disabilities in order to give the family a chance to be a family instead a mere team of carers. We have had enough of people with disabilities not being afforded control and autonomy over their own disability funding and therefore their own life. But most of all, we have had enough of people with disabilities being told constantly, time and time again, to wait—wait for the results of this report and then another report; wait for a reply from the minister's office; and, most of all, wait for next year's budget.

So, yes, Mr President, the government is spending our money ineffectively when it comes to disability. Yes, we need a complete paradigm shift in the way in which the system is managed and services are delivered, such as self-managed funding and a national disability insurance scheme, which I, of course, have touched on previously in this place many times and will continue to do so. We need this government to address the silo mentality which exists between the health and disability budgets so that people with disabilities are no longer treated like boomerangs, constantly being tossed back and forth between the two. Broadly speaking, we need a disability services system which enables us, not further disables us. But what we also need, as well as this long-term systematic change, is this government—and in fact every member in this place here today—to join me in standing up and saying 'Enough is enough.'

People with disabilities are among the most disadvantaged, both socially and economically, in this so-called rich country in which we live. South Australia, and indeed the nation, has the opportunity to demonstrate best practice and become a world leader in disability care and service provision. We have the opportunity to do that right now, yet this government continues to ignore that amazing opportunity, and we continue living in a state in which people with disabilities feel—and are—disadvantaged, mistreated, frustrated, desperate, shunned, ignored and shut out. Yes, we need planning and forward thinking—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Ms Vincent—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Take it outside!

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Yes, we need planning and forward thinking, such as that which is proposed by Monsignor David Cappo and the Social Inclusion Board with their blueprint for the future of disability services. We also need this government to recognise that without immediate change in the form of funding, the tragic fact is that people with disabilities will not actually have much of a future, just the woeful status quo.

As the government is well aware, the Productivity Commission recently handed down its draft report into the feasibility of implementing a national disability insurance scheme in Australia. Not only that, the productivity commissioners—who, as I understand it, are usually known for being somewhat economically conservative—recommend the implementation of an NDIS, despite the fact that it would require an extra $6.3 billion; that is, a doubling of the current disability budget. They also recommended an urgent and immediate injection of funds to address the crisis in the sector, and address it now.

In light of this, I would like to conclude by demanding that this government not only listen to me, not only listen to people with disabilities all around this state, but also listen to its own Productivity Commission, which says that enough is enough. I once again call on this government and its Treasurer to clear the disability unmet needs waiting list—and, clearly, the government must do this now, unless, of course, it is willing to look its citizens with disabilities squarely in the eye and tell them outright that it is going to willingly deny them their futures. If the government is willing to do this through inadequate funding and constant inaction and resistance to change, then, simply put, it would seem that my beloved state is perhaps not as great as I thought she was.

With that, I implore that what I have just said be treated as more than rhetoric and empty words because to me, to my party, and to anyone within the disability community who understands the issues and sentiments I have just described, they are so much more. These words are our lives, these words are our hope, these words are our present, and only the government can write our future.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (11:19): I rise to make a brief contribution on the Supply Bill 2011. The passage of this bill will fund the activities of the government from 1 July to when the Appropriation Bill passes sometime after that. From what we have seen in recent years with this government, I cannot imagine that the Appropriation Bill will not attract a hell of a lot of scrutiny and, therefore, could be debated for quite a while.

It is pertinent that I talk about some of the poor decision-making of this government when it comes to public money, particularly in portfolios which I shadow, including supply. In Aboriginal Affairs we have seen the minister announce many programs, spending millions of dollars which have had or will have little effect on the Indigenous community. Recently, I met with representatives from the Mai Wiru Regional Stores group who are deeply concerned about the affordability of food on the APY lands.

The minister's solution was to drive around the APY lands giving cooking lessons to local women. If they cannot afford the food in the first place, cooking lessons are not going to be of any value at all. Instead, what the government should be focusing on is trying to reduce the real cost of food on the APY lands by subsidising the cost of the regional stores, particularly in the area of transport, which is one factor, if not the major factor, on the remote APY lands.

The drug rehabilitation centre in Amata—another brainwave. There is no doubt that substance abuse has been an issue in Aboriginal communities, but to spend $1 million upgrading the facility to have no-one in it is hardly worth the money. The annual $1 million could easily have been spent in areas where it would have had a real effect. People at Mai Wiru informed me that a $300,000 subsidy has the potential to reduce food price on the lands to near Adelaide prices. That would create a real effect. Mismanagement and wastage of funds are, unfortunately, what we have come to expect from this government. A million dollars here and there may not seem like much on paper but, as I have just mentioned, that kind of money can have a real impact on communities in South Australia.

I will now touch on Correctional Services. The government has really dropped the ball in this area. The conduct of the minister and the department is nothing short of disgraceful in recent times and I am glad that the council has agreed to form a select committee in order to review this conduct and the flawed culture that exists within the department. It must be stressed that any failure of the department to act with the utmost integrity risks the genuine rehabilitation of prisoners and undermines our entire corrections system.

The recent escapes go to the heart of the department's shortcomings. The failure of this department to keep the people of South Australia safe is a direct reflection on the performance of the minister whose conduct through this entire saga has been pathetic and completely unbecoming of a minister. He has refused to take any responsibility for the string of escapes that have occurred recently, all of which were meant to be low to medium risk inmates. All three of the escapees went on to commit further violent crimes while on the run. I can say that there was a fourth escape but because the violent criminal did not get past the gates of the carpark of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, it was not actually classified as an escape, even though, at the time, the offender stabbed a guard with a pencil.

The minister went on to blame everyone but himself. He blamed G4S, the company subcontracted to transfer prisoners. If they are the problem, then why hasn't this happened before? The minister blamed the opposition for subcontracting out the responsibility in the first place but, apart from the year 1998-99, prisoner escapes never got above one in the entire time the Liberals were in government. There have been three so far this year—we have had three and counting.

This government has renewed the contract twice. The only difference between now and then is a toxic minister in a toxic government who has infected the department. It is clear that we have a Premier who has no control over his cabinet and flawed decision-making which is so typical of his ministers. He is not doing the appropriate background checks or screening when it comes to promoting members to cabinet and is allocating important portfolios to undeserving members. If he cannot even choose the right people how can he be expected to handle the state's finances?

In tourism we have seen millions of dollars being ripped out of the department's allocation, affecting the long-suffering regional areas of South Australia. Many towns in country South Australia will now have no tourism representation, no information centres, and local businesses and tourism operators are predicting large shortfalls in revenue as a result of these budget cuts. This policy of centralisation, pulling tourism funding from the regions, cannot benefit regional South Australia one bit, yet the government will say that this is a good thing for them—much like the electricity price hike in Coober Pedy. The government is centralising tourism in Adelaide, yet it is closing the Visitor Information Centre in King William Street. How can this policy make any sense?

At the end of the day these are just ill-thought through budget cuts which will impact on everyday South Australians. In a further blow to tourism and sport, this government has seen the loss of another major event, the Rugby Sevens—an event which was not only good for the sport of rugby here in South Australia but for tourism also. So far there has been no replacement for it and many businesses in Adelaide and elsewhere rely on the dollars that international visitors bring in and this needs to be sorted out.

The Adelaide Oval project is the budget white elephant. There is a massive cost for an inadequate stadium, and as Rod Sawford, the former federal Labor member for Port Adelaide said, we are now going to get a 20^th century stadium for the 21^st century. It is a massive cost for an inadequate stadium while South Australians are losing jobs and having their livelihoods threatened, particularly in regional areas. I am not suggesting for one second that we break the age old convention of granting supply to the government but I recommend that this council take a good hard look at what this government is proposing, because if there was ever a time when it could be justified it almost could be now.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (11:25): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill. This important bill ensures that our public servants and our departments continue to be funded, pending the announcement and subsequent approval by this parliament of the 2011-12 budget. As I understand it, the Supply Bill provides for some $3.3 billion to be expended prior to the required appropriations being in place. It is important that we ensure that those billions of dollars are spent efficiently and effectively in areas that will provide the very best benefit to the 1.6 million people living across South Australia.

As we know, the traditional and continuing areas of state government responsibility have included the state education system, the public health system, public transport, roads, public sector housing, the state police force and the state judicial system. Other types of collective services at state level include the administration and control of crown lands and state forests, the supervision of water, soil and mineral resources, emergency welfare, an increasing range of community services, preschool, child care, and industrial disputes.

Sadly, the state has never seen the high number of protests following a state budget that we have seen in the last 12 months. These protests are across a whole range of issues including cuts to the Public Service, plans to sell the forests, cuts to the community hospitals and the list goes on. So many protests have happened on a continual basis since the delivery of the budget. The people in South Australia express how unhappy they are and they demand change, but guess what? There is only one change. The position of treasurer has changed. The former treasurer has gone and has been replaced by a new Treasurer.

The Labor budget has been so unpopular and the government has been so divided that the treasurer has gone from the portfolio—nine years as treasurer have now gone. What you have is a government that is internally divided. It has lost its direction and is on the nose with the South Australian public. This was further demonstrated in a Newspoll on 10 March, where Premier Mike Rann, the nation's longest serving leader, has taken a devastating hit to his personal standing. It was found that the man, who was once the most popular premier, has dragged Labor's vote down to its lowest level of support in 16 years.

The supply debate is about any government action that is funded by government money. That is why, by definition, it is a wide-ranging debate. On the first day the Treasurer took over from the former treasurer, the opposition asked the Treasurer some very simple questions about whether he would change any policies that were announced in the very unpopular budget announced by the previous treasurer. The Treasurer's response was he would not be changing any of the key policy settings. So, even though the Treasurer has changed, the cuts to the Public Service, the cuts to community services and the government waste continues.

It is not difficult for the new Treasurer to realise how hard it is for the government to deliver what has been promised. People should be very wary to hear the announcements in relation to two key major infrastructure projects to be delivered by the money in this Supply Bill. One is the Royal Adelaide Hospital project and the other is the selling of the forests. The Leader of the Opposition and shadow treasurer have been asking the government to come clean with the total cost of building the Royal Adelaide Hospital project. There was an interview with the Hon. John Hill, the Minister for Health, on the radio this morning, as well.

Let us look at the hospital. The government went to the election saying that the hospital is going to cost $1.7 billion, yet it knew all along that it was, and had actually approved in cabinet, $1.8 billion. It was not honest enough with the people of South Australia though to tell them that before the election. We know that Premier Rann said in 2002, in his election promise, that there would be better hospitals and more beds. After nine years of this Labor government, we are seeing hospitals in crisis and a health system in crisis in South Australia.

We recognise the need to build modern hospitals and refurbish hospitals so that people can access the best quality of care. This government has been here for nine years. What improvements to hospitals and health services has it introduced? Instead, we are seeing the closure of country hospitals and many hospitals in crisis. Our metropolitan hospitals are over capacity much of the time on any given day of the week.

We asked about the construction and finance costs of the new RAH build and then the ongoing cost to the South Australian public over the 29-year contract period after it is built in a five or six-year period. The government has promised that it will put all of those financial details on the record, but those details are yet to be released. So, we do not know exactly what the taxpayer is going to be up for for the move of the Royal Adelaide Hospital from the east end of North Terrace to the west end of North Terrace.

What we do know is that it is going to cost more than $1.7 billion, and it is going upwards. We were told that accessibility is going to be an issue. We were also told that fewer services will be delivered from the new site than are currently delivered at the existing site. What this means is that a new hospital on the rail yard site will be a great waste of taxpayers' money.

When I visit regional areas I find that country people tend to suffer more as a result of inadequate health information and inadequate health services. The biggest issue is that people in country areas often have to wait to get medical treatment.

Doctors at the front line inform us that they are very concerned about the lack of consultation, and we see that time and time again with this government. We saw it with the country hospitals: $200,000 would help to save hospitals like Moonta, Ardrossan, Keith and even the Glenelg hospital, where they are providing an excellent service, supplementing the public hospitals with good community hospitals. This government chooses to deny these hospitals their real worth by denying them subsidies and denying people the right to access services which will take the pressure off our public health system.

With regard to law and order, it is frightening to learn about people robbing service stations in broad daylight and breaking into houses early mornings and at night. Innocent people are getting hurt and even murdered in suburban Adelaide. It is not just a problem for the police department, there is obviously a significant increase in social problems and mental health problems across the community. This government, which is supposedly tough in law and order, must address this endless cycle of crime.

The government intends to collect about $1 billion extra in taxes and revenue. The cost of living is starting to hurt South Australian individuals and families. This government is completely out of touch and has stopped listening. All of the key economic data presented shows that our debt level and our tax level is growing.

There have been three independent reports in the last 12 months, all confirming that South Australia is the highest taxed state in the nation. We are also the highest spending government per head of population in Australia. There is no doubt that this Labor government is a high tax, high spending government. One of the hallmarks of the most recent budget, and the matters that the government is going through with regard to the finances of this state, demonstrate that the budget is out of control.

Economics affect the day-to-day living, material welfare and security of everyone in this state. The economic choices made by government have a big impact on the speed and direction of economic development. The government also exercises a profound effect on the level and nature of economic activity simply because of the volume of revenue it raises and the expenditure it undertakes.

The former treasurer had lost control of the expenses in the budget, and he admitted that himself. The state and this government finds itself desperate for cash and is doing whatever it can to increase revenues or to bring forward cash revenues. One key example is the proposal to forward sell the forests in the South-East. It is an outrageous plan for the government to even contemplate bringing forward rotations to the forests.

Treasury has obviously done the work, but what the government wants to do is to grab the cash now, because it failed to manage its finances and allowed its expenses to get out of control. It wants to grab the cash now and has put no thought into the future of the people and the industry of the South-East.

Similarly, we have seen a great waste of taxpayers' money in things like Shared Services. The budget to develop Shared Services has already blown out from $60 million to $100 million, and last year the Auditor-General pointed out that the projected saving is falling short of $100 million as well. What we can take from this sort of data is that this government is not capable of managing the state.

We have also seen water prices double, and they will double again—and this is even before the federal Labor government introduces a carbon tax, and it was revealed in recent times that it would add $863 to average household energy costs. No doubt, the average water bill will also go up. Let us be clear that this government has not been overly honest with the people of South Australia on what the impact of that will be on the cost of living and operating their businesses.

Once upon a time, South Australia was the third largest state in terms of the size of its economy and its population. Our share of the national economy has declined under this government. Yesterday, I spoke about the Business Confidence Index being down by 3 per cent in the March quarter 2011. The latest MYOB Business Monitor reveals that South Australian business owners are among the least optimistic in the nation about the economy. We have high taxes across a range of things, such as stamp duty and payroll tax.

Our reputation as the high-taxing state is not something to be proud of. It is a real risk when we do not have the right climate to retain business or attract new investment into our state. What are the incentives or benefits for businesses to stay here or move to South Australia? That is my great concern because the issues surrounding the cost of operating a business and the regulations that surround a business create an enormous burden for some people to actually get out there and extend themselves, to grow their business, to give job opportunities to young people and capable workers, and to have the skills and capacity to grow our economy. This has all been lost.

It is so frustrating and frightening to watch South Australia accumulating a mountain of debt. How can this government allow it to happen? Debt is expected to go to $7.5 billion. The 2010 budget has had a detrimental impact on the regions of South Australia. The Labor government has forgotten that the primary industries, such as agricultural and mining sectors, are driving most of South Australia's economy, yet all the costs for operating a business in the region have gone up, putting pressure on regional South Australia. There are few incentives or initiatives by the government to help stimulate growth in the regional economy.

For example, family businesses in regional areas have spoken to me regarding the need for power upgrades to expand their business, and the government put them through years of red tape and barriers. It really just stifled the growth of that business. Red tape seems to be the issue with any business that wants to come to South Australia. Any new or existing business that wants to expand continually has a barrier of red tape put in front of them. It is so frustrating to see that this government is not interested in encouraging investors to come to South Australia. It lacks the motivation to promote the state as a great place in which to invest, to build a new industry or to expand an existing industry.

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member should get back to supply.

The Hon. J.S. LEE: Well, it is all about money. Time and time again, many businesses have said to me, 'We're going elsewhere. We're going to other states because the government over there is prepared to stand up and help us, and this government is not.' This Supply Bill gives the government the opportunity to change its policy and direction, and I encourage the government to reassess its priorities.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:39): I rise to support the second reading of the Supply Bill. We do not have much choice but to support it, but certainly I can flag some concerns I have about the direction in which the expenditure of this state is headed at the moment with respect to the government's Supply Bill. There are a great many matters that could be and need to be addressed on how the government is currently running its budget. This is a budget being run by a government that I see has lost at least three things: one, energy; two, vision; and, three, teamwork come discipline. I believe those three matters are having a negative impact on the state's best interests. It is certainly not the government that I saw in the first term, and it is a surprise to me that I see such a lack of discipline and lack of focus on the direction of South Australia's future, which is what you should be doing when a government.

The PRESIDENT: What you should be doing is sticking to the Supply Bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you for your advice, sir: I am trying to do that in the context of monetary matters and issues around economic expenditure and mismanagement. In this speech I will cover major projects and the economic mismanagement of at least two of those, which are directly related, I might add, to the Supply Bill; the scramble for cash to pay for those projects; and also the continued pork-barrelling of marginal electorates and other related matters.

First, I want to talk, with respect to the Supply Bill, to an issue that is a hot topic even today in the media, namely, the Royal Adelaide Hospital. We have leaked documents that the media have. I have not seen them yet—I am not sure whether you have, Mr President. I would certainly like to get a copy of that leaked document so I can better examine issues that will have not only immediate but long-term impact on this and future supply bills.

It appears that, whilst the government was able in the budget papers to jump $100 million from $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion in their estimated costings for the hospital—and not a lot was said about that; suffice to say that it was $100 million that the government did not have—that is small beer compared with what we are possibly facing now, where we may see a blowout of an additional $1 billion.

Whilst listening to minister Hill this morning on the radio while driving down to Adelaide, he said that you always had to put the furniture, fittings, plant and equipment and everything else in after. Unless I was not listening or reading properly, I actually understood that the total cost for the RAH, including the beds, scanning equipment, MRIs and everything else, was in that figure. That is what I believed and what I understand most South Australians believed.

The anger is building when they hear that $1 billion of additional money has to be found. That is a massive increase. I also put on the public record, relevant to the Supply Bill, that I know Dr Jim Katsaros very well. He is an honourable man. I do not believe he would ever leak a document, and the minister needs to apologise in writing to Dr Jim Katsaros.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Get out of cowards castle, put a written letter there and apologise to an honourable plastic surgeon who is highly respected in the South Australian community.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Go say it outside the house.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. Holloway: You can say it in the house.

The PRESIDENT: We all know the Hon. Mr Lucas says a lot outside the house. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: What we need urgently, as we examine the Supply Bill, is a briefing to the Legislative Council, an in-confidence, in-camera briefing that has some transparency, honesty and accountability in what we are actually facing with respect to the government's commitment to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

One other thing that I found absolutely hypocritical: I thought the Premier, into a third term, would have got away from these gimmicks. We had a magnificent royal wedding last Friday night—and that was good; I watched some of it and enjoyed it—but after milking the cows on Saturday morning I sat down at the kitchen table to have my cornflakes and picked up the paper, and I could not believe that the Premier is still on the tricks and gimmicky media releases where he is inviting Prince William and—

The PRESIDENT: What's that got to do with supply?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: A lot.

The PRESIDENT: Why?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Well, he is going to invite them to come and open the hospital in 2016. I am not sure whether the Premier will be here in 2016. I am not sure, but I just find it amazing that although he did not even want to call it the Royal Adelaide Hospital he now wants the royals to open it.

In terms of the desalination plant, I am very pleased the Hon. Tammy Franks has a select committee into the desalination plant. We may see some transparency and honesty when that committee reports to the parliament, but there is incredible concern about the project blowing out significantly. That risk, if it was known at an early stage, should have been addressed, as well as issues around the occupational health and safety and well being of those people working there.

The doubling of that desalination plant has always had a cloud hanging over it. How a prime minister and a premier can just make a decision to go from 50 gigalitres to 100 gigalitres without proper scrutiny and probity is beyond me, but I hope that as part of the importance of the ongoing supply bills we can see some answers to all of that when that select committee reports.

In terms of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, there are some people who support that redevelopment, there are some people who do not support that redevelopment. My colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood, thinks it is a great idea and that it will reinvigorate Adelaide and help to get more people to football, cricket and other events. I trust that will occur, but my concern again is that, when we are discussing a Supply Bill that is so tight, and when we see small cuts that have major impact on basic social service delivery, this government can find $534 million plus whatever else it is going to cost to do all the other work around there, simply because the AFL demands the government spend our money—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: So Family First are opposing the oval?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No; I just said the Hon. Dennis Hood loves the oval. In fact, the Hon. Dennis Hood will be able to go with the Hon. Russell Wortley from Prospect to the oval very easily, but it is not so easy if you live in the country.

My point is: where is the contribution from the AFL? They come over here heavy handed and demand $534 million of expenditure and, as the Hon. John Darley just said, at best it sounds like the AFL may contribute up to $5 million max—$5 million. That is not much more than the chief executive officer gets paid.

What an indictment that is on the government that they are prepared to spend that sort of money with less than $5 million contribution from the AFL, which, sir, has just signed off a $1.25 billion media contract. Yet, I can tell you, sir, that there are sporting facilities in Adelaide, the metropolitan area and the country that cannot get five grand to do the basics like putting showers into the ladies netball rooms in my own town. They have to keep the sausage sizzles and fashion parades going and all the other things that they do to try to deliver basic facilities and yet the government overnight can spend $534 million.

My question in the Supply Bill—and I would love the minister to answer this in her summing up—is: where are you getting $534 million from? Where are you getting it from? We need to know. There are lots and lots of other issues that we could talk about in the Supply Bill, but some of the basic management needs addressing: Housing SA vandalism and damaged premises via poor housing allocation enforcement on disruptive tenants; school vandalism, costing between $6 million and $10 million a year out of the Supply Bill; and accidents at schools and particularly bullying and harassment of teachers and students, costing hundreds of thousands in compensation.

In terms of evidence issues, the Hon. Ann Bressington pointed out how, in the Families SA context, social workers get tied up in a matter when they have no substantive evidence to empower them to withhold a child from its family. There are issues around Families SA; there are issues around the lack of staff at the grassroots level to manage the core business of Families SA. Particularly worrying to Family First is the fact that it appears that if you are over two and you get a report as a potential child at risk, it is not even investigated under priority 1. Where is the money in the Supply Bill to protect these young children? This is the basic stuff we need to be delivered in the Supply Bill, and it is not happening.

I know the Premier and the Treasurer are running around now saying that we have $80 billion worth of capital works projects. I would like answers also from the minister, first, in relation to how much of that $80 billion is rock solid, signed up, locked away and about to start; and, secondly, in relation to the Treasurer saying that the state government is now going to be in control of $10 billion worth of projects, how much of that $10 billion is from the state, how much is from the commonwealth, how much of the state government contribution is going to be borrowed and then a break-up of what that $10 billion is going to deliver? These are things that we need to know, as a house of review, so that we can scrutinise the expenditure of the government.

Just a couple of nights ago, I spoke on Today Tonight about a court case where people had lied to police about an incident where they stabbed a man, who was himself charged with assault. The resources of police were wasted and the court found that the alleged victims had lied to police and the court, yet, at this point in time, it is possible there will be no repercussions for those people who appear to have committed straight-out perjury. So, we have issues when it comes to resourcing, follow-up proper justice and the democratic process.

With respect to the Supply Bill, let's have a quick look at the dash for cash. Labor's dash for cash to pay for some of what can only be described as ill-conceived promises—I wish I did not have to describe it in those terms but is the only way I can see it. In relation to the forestry sale, as the chair of the select committee, I have been careful as to what I do say. The select committee is now going to have a very, very important job to get some transparency, some real facts and figures and some honest answers on the pros and cons in respect of this sale, particularly after the tabling of the ACIL Tasman report. I would suggest that we will have to look very closely at that report because it has already been noted from that report that, whilst apparently the report is all systems go, a net cost benefit has not even been done on the forward sale of—

The PRESIDENT: The honourable member should not be pre-empting something that has been referred to a select committee. The honourable member should have enough experience in this house, and in the other house previously, to know that.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank your for the advice, sir. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong; I am just saying that has been noted in the report.

The PRESIDENT: It's pre-empting.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will leave it at that, sir, and we will look at it later.

The PRESIDENT: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Thank you, sir, for your wise words. The NRM water levy is certainly one I can talk about. Taxing rainfall is a desperate measure. In the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges alone, they are going to hit the irrigators for $160,000 next year. I ask: why are they hitting them for $160,000 because they did not need the $160,000 last year? Simply because they now have a water allocation plan, they all of a sudden find that they have to take $160,000 from the farmers. To me, taxing rainfall is something that is totally unacceptable. Sir, given the advice you gave me previously, I will not dwell anymore on that, either, at the moment because I know we will have an opportunity to debate in full those matters when we get back to the NRM bill.

I want to touch on a couple of other things that are really affecting primary producers, and it leads into a pattern that I see of concern with respect to the Supply Bill and the forward estimates. The property identification code fee is one of those. The government wisely agreed to national property identification codes and biosecurity measures—and I support the government on this. However, I do ask: why does this state have the highest charge for the property identification code fee and why is it that we are one of only three states out of all the states and territories that is charging at all? It is just about full cost recovery to offset the mismanagement of the global budget of this state.

I cannot conclude my remarks on the Supply Bill without talking about where we could see some levies taken away. The Save the Murray levy is one, for a start. It was not the Premier or the former minister who saved the Murray, even though they said they needed this levy to save the Murray: it was nature that actually saved the Murray—the God-given rain and the floods that came down. That is what saved the Murray and, given that something like $6 million is still sitting there unspent when the community are seeing utility and government charges going through the roof, I think it is time, in this budget, that the government actually stopped charging people the so-called Save the Murray levy.

With regard to the community hospitals at Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan, I trust and hope that those communities will continue to fight against these draconian cuts. These are small cuts in the big picture, but I remind members that in just nine years the government has seen the budget double, yet it is cutting out $800,000 of essential money to stop opportunities at Keith hospital, for example.

If we are serious about road safety—and I am sure that all members are—why is there not more focus on traffic policing, and why is there not more focus on fixed and mobile speed cameras being located in blackspots, rather than in top revenue spots? It is classic that just to the north-east of the parliament here, at the War Memorial Drive intersection, over $1 million a year is raised from one set of fixed speed cameras. There were eight crashes there last year; it is not a blackspot area. Yet, from some work I have done, blackspot areas do not have fixed speed cameras or enough traffic police.

I would like to touch on pinching pensions from public and community housing tenants. If finances were managed properly, you would not be hitting the most vulnerable people in this state—the people in public and community housing—by ripping off money to the tune of $30 a fortnight that then prime minister Rudd committed to back in 2009 to help those people catch up on increases in food and utility costs. We now see that a letter is going out to those public and community housing tenants taking further money away from their pensions, and I understand that in September another lot of money will be taken away from those pensioners.

It is unfortunate that I cannot be more proactive in my comments on this Supply Bill, but from the government's point of view perhaps it is time to stop and reflect on just where we are with the monetary situation in the state at the moment. Where are the real priorities? What is going to stimulate and grow the economy in this state? Why do they continue to put money into about seven marginal seats in an effort to hold government at the next election in 2014, at the expense of governing and supplying adequate state government facilities, infrastructure and services across the state?

I will just finish with a couple of other questions that I do not have the answers to yet. We have this marine parks saga before the parliament and the community at the moment, and we have suggestions that up to perhaps $10 million or more a year could be needed to manage those marine parks. I do not see any of that in any budget figures at the moment. Why are we bringing in legislation, and why are we stopping people from going about recreational activities that they have been able to go about since we were a colony, when we have not even considered how to fund the management of those parks?

My final point with respect to the Supply Bill is related to regional matters. We are fortunate that we have the Minister for Regional Development in our chamber, but a member in the other house has been running around the state in recent times—and I commend him for that because it is nice to see members get out and about. He came back and said that he wanted a 14-day visiting plan for ministers. First, in fairness to the ministers—

The PRESIDENT: Order! What's that got to do with supply?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am about to explain, sir, with respect to the monetary side of it.

The PRESIDENT: Supply to minister, all right.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I cannot speak any quicker than I am. In fairness to the ministers of this government over nine years, they have been out and about in rural areas. Ministers have not spent all their time in the city, and I see that as an indictment against those ministers, because I have seen plenty of ministers in my own region and I know they are seen regularly across the state. However, what it has to do with the Supply Bill (and the point that I think the member in the other house was trying to make) is that it is one thing for ministers to go out to the country, but it is another thing to deliver the services, facilities and infrastructure, and pay more than lip service to country people when they are having a cup of tea and a scone in a country hall.

I do not think it is a matter of ministers coming out and spending a rostered day on watching the footy and the netball—although if they want to come to Mount Compass and watch the great Southern Football League at any time, I would love to look after them—but, in respect of the Supply Bill, it is a matter of ministers ensuring that fair and reasonable amounts of money are distributed across the state, across 47 seats rather than seven seats.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (12:01): I was not intending to have a reasonable speech on the Supply Bill but a great person once said that abuse is a poor substitute for a debate. What we have here is a bill looking at supply and many of the statements made by members here should have really been saved for the budget bill. That has prompted me to basically go through and really re-educate everyone in this chamber on exactly the sort of job and the great job this government is doing.

What amazes me is the concept of growing the cake: you must have a bigger cake to share the slices out, but that has not sunk in to many people in this parliament. On one hand we are criticised if we do not spend money in certain areas, but then we are criticised because we are lifting taxes and levies. You cannot have it both ways. A responsible government has to make sure that the cake is big enough to provide the essential services required to live in a decent society.

This bill looks towards an act for the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Account. Supply is required for the first three months of the 2011-12 financial year until the budget has passed and the Appropriation Bill receives assent. The amount being sought is $3.32 billion. The premise of the bill is clear and its passage is crucial. It ensures that the required moneys continue to flow to the numerous areas and agencies of the state until the budget proper is brought down later on in the year. That continuity is absolutely crucial.

Unlike those opposite, we in the Labor Party actually have a plan, a cohesive plan that builds on the achievements of previous terms and a plan that looks to the future. It is a plan that looks to a dynamic state that steps up proudly to the national plate, a growing resource powerhouse that will help to fuel our country and, most importantly, a community that allows people to achieve their best while continuing to protect its vulnerable members.

We on our side of the chamber look forward enthusiastically and proactively to a society that recognises both the opportunities and the challenges that lie ahead. Those opposite can carp, complain and carry on until the cows come home—they have nothing. Their leadership is invisible, the remainder are a rabble with no vision, no plan, no cohesion, and no internal unity.

Let us have a look at some of the initiatives that feature in the budget and the key features. Those opposite knows a bit about infrastructure. They let it moulder into decay when they were in government from the 1990s to the early 2000s. It took the Labor government a long time to rebuild and help develop the infrastructure that makes our society so much more productive and liveable. This government will invest a total of $10.7 billion in our state's infrastructure over the next four years.

Transport is also a crucial priority. We are delivering the South Road Superway at a cost of $843 million, and the Southern Expressway will be duplicated at a cost of $445.5 million. At last, the debacle which saw the Liberals treat workers and people in the southern area with total contempt by building a one-way expressway will now be overcome.

The riverbank precinct, with all its new works, will go ahead at the cost of $394 million, revitalising the precinct and making our city even more attractive and cosmopolitan. The recent SACA vote means that improvements to Adelaide Oval will proceed at a cost of around $530 million. Upgrades to, and extensions of, our railway lines, costing $1.5 billion over four years, have been provided for.

Those opposite might pause to reflect on the fact that, since taking office, the Rann government has delivered more than $5 billion to our state's moribund infrastructure. I will repeat that: $5 billion on infrastructure. This had to be done to make up for lost ground during almost a decade of the Liberals, from the late 90s to the early 2000s.

Another of our major priorities is the health and wellbeing of all South Australians. This year's budget earmarks a massive $4.5 billion for health expenditure; that is more than twice the amount allocated to health in the last year of the former Liberal government.

Over the next four years, the government aims to achieve a maximum waiting time in casualty of four hours for 95 per cent of patients, and this will cost $111 million. More than a quarter of a million elective procedures will be carried out, in both metro and country hospitals, at a cost of $89 million.

The Women's and Children's Hospital will be upgraded at a cost of $64.4 million, and additional funds will be allocated for related costs from 2010-11. The sum of $12 million has already been allocated for the remodelling of the emergency department at Modbury Hospital and will be augmented by a proportion of total funds of $46 million, with the balance to be expended on a rehabilitation unit.

Further, a new emergency department, operating theatres and outpatient facilities at the QEH are to be funded by way of nearly $39 million over two years as part of that hospital's $125 million redevelopment. There will be additional subacute beds and support care services at the repatriation hospital and more equipment for elective procedures and the casualty department.

Education is also, of course, a top priority for our government, and this year's budget includes $720 million in capital expenditure. In fact, the total budget for the current financial year will amount to an increase of more than $200 million on the last financial year—an increase which equates to almost 50 per cent more per student than was expended in the last year of the former Liberal government.

This was a government, I might add, that achieved consistently only in delivering us deficits; a government that, during its tenure, chipped and chipped away at health, education, transport and police services, leaving them depleted and our people in real trouble as a result. That took a long time to rebuild, both physically and in terms of community confidence.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Who wrote this bloody rubbish?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: An additional 700 teachers—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Don't you read these speeches first?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It's all true. It's all on the record. It's all very well to attack us from over there. It's all true. It's all on the public record. I know it is hard for you, John. I know it is hard for you to listen to this. I can understand that, because you ought to be ashamed of yourself for being part of the government that allowed this state to go into decay. Your legacy from the 90s and early 2000s is that you allowed this whole state to run into decay. So, just allow me to finish my factual speech and then you can get up and give yours, John. You are there after me and I will have the decency to respect your right to speak without interjection. Okay?

An additional 700 teachers and support staff will be employed across preschools and schools from the beginning of 2011. Moreover, this budget gives solid attention to students with disabilities. Special schools will be renewed and six disability units will be located on school grounds. Staff levels will be augmented and there will be extra funding for students with disabilities enrolled at non-government schools. In addition, four of our specialist high schools—Adelaide, Marryatville, Glenunga International and Brighton Secondary—will be expanded to accommodate a total of 800 students at a cost of $60 million.

I now turn to the government's commitment to water security. Almost $900 million will be allocated to water security and diversification this financial year. The desalination plant is nearing completion. We know that every drop of water should be conserved and re-used. Our significant investment in wastewater treatment plants, stormwater harvesting and re-use and non-potable wastewater projects recognises this. The health of our river and its communities will always be a major focus for the government. Continued robust consultation with our federal and relevant state partners will ensure guaranteed water supply into the future.

I will now look at our justice system and police. The security of our citizens is also a major concern. As I have said on previous occasions, the Rann government is extending its commitment to maintaining law and order in our community, and this year's budget provides proof of that. More than 300 additional police officers will be sworn in over the next four years. These men and women will supplement the 400 extra officers recruited over the past four years.

At the Legislative Review Committee inquiry into criminal intelligence the other day, Assistant Commissioner Mr Tony Harrison gave evidence. I asked him that very question about resources: was he happy with the amount of resources provided by the government? His answer, which is on Hansard, was that, yes, he is very happy with the extra 300 police this year, over the 400. So, not only is it me saying this, but this is actual evidence from the Assistant Commissioner of Police.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! You should not be talking about committee evidence, or anything like that.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government is also investing in the latest technology for SAPOL and in better security on our public transport services. That is genuine action for the protection of our community. The operational budget for the South Australian police has increased to more than $693 million this financial year. The 2010-11 budget will, in fact, invest over $186 million in new police initiatives targeting domestic violence and street crime: compare that with the mid-nineties when the Liberals had our police force down to about 3,500. It was the lowest per population in the history of this state.

On the latter, $15.5 million has been allocated over four years. This provision includes the establishment of a southern community justice court—a first for our state—a model that has worked well in other jurisdictions. Domestic violence is not on for our community. Assessment and intervention programs are to be established and interventions will be implemented through amendment to the relevant legislation at a cost of $7.8 million.

How does that total stack up against the expenditure in the last Liberal budget? I will tell you. It is 88 per cent more. Members opposite might not want to acknowledge that, as they do not, but that is just one of this government's achievements—88 per cent more. That figure includes, over the next four years, $12.9 million for the continuation of the bushfire awareness program and $5.5 million for new infrastructure, equipment and technology for the emergency services.

I will now look at the regions. Regional Australia has been receiving a lot of additional and long-awaited attention recently from our federal counterparts, both in government and opposition. The budget we are discussing today looks towards significant investments in the regions, particularly in infrastructure and services. The commonwealth's extension to the exceptional circumstances interest rate subsidies for drought-affected areas program will be met with a $38.8 million commitment over the next two years by the Rann Labor government.

Meanwhile, infrastructure improvements in health, housing, schools and roads through our regions have been provided for. These include funding of $23.5 million for Ceduna, $14.7 million for Whyalla and $12.7 million for Berri. Maintenance and equipment in country hospitals will garner $8.4 million and there are increased allocations for ambulance services and aged care in areas of particular need.

Remote Indigenous housing will receive $46.2 million and affordable rental units will be established in Port Adelaide at a cost of $5.6 million. Road and ferry improvements and improvements to our rural freight network will couple with improved roadside rest areas. Work on high risk roads and road safety initiatives to decrease road accident related deaths and injury will continue, and rural and regional education infrastructure will be augmented at a cost of $30.6 million.

The Port Bonython jetty, so crucial for our state's economic future, will be refurbished. A desalination plant in Hawker will be established and a variety of plans promoting sustainable futures, exploration and mining, plague control, drought support and rural cancer services, among other initiatives, will be implemented.

The Rann Labor government is investing $20 million in re-establishing and renewing the Riverland through four areas of endeavour: retirement and aged care, and alternative agricultural production, coupled with food processing, tourism and education, and these will focus on jobs, economic diversity, productivity and emerging industries.

I will now turn to the disadvantaged members of our community. We in the Labor Party will never abandon people in trouble. Unlike those opposite, we will not countenance a society of haves and have-nots. Major new investment over the next four years include: more funds for the care of children under the guardianship of the minister, at a cost of $137.7 million; increased assistance for Disability SA for support, access and respite services, at a cost of $70.9 million; increased and indexed concessions and extended eligibility for energy and emergency services levy, at a cost of $70 million. There is also new investment in disability equipment, home visiting for seniors, services for children with autism and a rebate scheme for the seniors' personal alert systems.

In other initiatives aimed at fostering healthy lifestyles, the government is investing more than $28 million over the next four years in local sports facilities and grounds. In fact, funding for facility development and upgrades will increase fourfold, and clubs, local government authorities and school councils can now apply for grants of up to $500,000.

The Department of Trade and Economic Development will welcome the redevelopment of Tonsley Park. The Eco-Innovation Program and the Cleantech Partnering Program will be key areas of the department's focus. These and related initiatives and programs will ensure that our state has new and sustainable industries, enabling us to move forward competently into the future. Those opposite take note: just sit back and see how it is done. Further, in a move that will save money and reduce carbon emissions, the government will replace over 1,000 six-cylinder fleet vehicles with smaller four-cylinder vehicles.

Value-adding is essential to a healthy, growing mining and minerals sector. A new system of minerals royalty, meanwhile, will provide a fairer return to South Australians by encouraging not only mining but also the refining of mining products in our state. There are many more features to this budget, including new arrangements for first home owners, which will not only target those most in need but also promote building and construction jobs and deliver savings, including additional funding for the festivals and exhibitions that are so much a part of South Australia's vibrancy and cultural leadership.

I am not going to pretend that there is no pain, because there is pain. As I have said, you have to have a big enough cake to share to provide the services that we enjoy in this state. There will be workplace reforms in the public sector. These are very difficult decisions that we had to make. People in our community will be affected by these necessary revenue and cost-recovery measures, and we understand that. However, we all have to share the pain and this government is doing its utmost to ensure that savings are garnered from those areas of government that have the least adverse impact on families and citizens.

There is work still to be done to mitigate the effects of our last exposure to those opposite—the neglect of health, education, transport and many other vital areas, the years of decline in our rural and regional areas, and the rear-vision parochialism used in those days to characterise our state. The Rann Labor government is determined to act on this state's needs for the future, and the measures I have outlined represent that determination. Far from neglecting vital nation building investment, this government takes hard steps and the hard yards to ensure a safe, prosperous and equitable future for all in this state. I commend the Supply Bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): The Hon. Mr Wortley has stretched some of the boundaries that normally pertain to debating a supply bill, but I understand that he was following on from precedence from the opposition.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (12:19): I rise to support the second reading of this bill, which provides, I believe, some $3.332 billion to ensure the payment of public servants and the continuation of state government services from 1 July until the Appropriation Bill for 2011-12 passes both houses. As we know, the Supply Bill gives parliamentary authority to the government of the day to continue delivering services via public expenditure. The government is entitled to continue delivering these services in accordance with general approved priorities—that is, the priorities of the last 12 months—until the Appropriation Bill is passed. Before moving on to make some comments on particular areas of those priorities, I note that the use of that money is for the work of public servants to service the constituents and residents of South Australia.

Initially I want to go into the work of the regional coordination networks, the first being established by the previous government in the Riverland. They have been rolled out across most of non-metropolitan South Australia by this government. Those networks have been established on the basis that they incorporate the senior public servant across each portfolio within a region, and they have also been based around having representation from members of the local government bodies in the area, as well as the regional development sector, previously the regional development boards and currently Regional Development Australia.

I have been concerned in recent times that the focus of those bodies has not been given to them by the government on their work. I recently asked the Minister for Regional Development about the government's commitment to those regional coordination networks and whether they would continue to work with the RDA network and local government in developing solutions for areas without having to send matters off to North Terrace or to the Adelaide CBD and wait for months, when sometimes those decisions can be made very quickly by people who have local expertise.

In her answer the minister indicated to me and to the chamber that she had actually no understanding whatsoever of the regional coordination networks, and in fact talked completely about the fact that Regional Development Australia (the RDAs) 'are the tripartite mechanism to bring those different levels of government together'. In addition to not knowing anything about regional coordination networks, which I thought would be something a regional development minister would know, the minister continues, as she did in the Riverland press recently, to tell everybody that they need to take all their grant funding applications and projects to boost communities through the RDAs.

That would indicate to me, if I did not know better, that this government values RDAs. But do they? They are going to pull out the funding as of 2013, and have not indicated any way in which the Regional Development Australia boards can recoup that money. Their commitment is not even flimsy. They stand up here and say. 'Oh, you must go off and use the RDA bodies because they're the one's we quote as the tripartite mechanism', and then they just pull away the money. I find that extraordinary.

I hope this minister in her time as regional development minister comes to learn that the regional coordination networks have the capacity to work very well if the public servants who are part of those feel they have the commitment of their ministers and of the government to actually allow them to work. I have also recommended in the past that similar bodies would work very well, certainly in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and maybe in other sectors of the metropolitan area.

Moving on, I am concerned about the lack of commitment to Regional Development Australia because, when agreements were made between the federal, state and local governments in this building—I was witness to the signing under minister Caica—there was a commitment that funding to RDAs would go on for the future without any time limits on it, yet within 12 months of it all being fixed up the government came down last year and said, 'Oh, sorry, from 2013; that's it. See you later; go and find some money from somewhere else.'

That brings me to the Business Enterprise Centre Network. The business Enterprise Centre Network I think is well known to many members of this house. Like regional development boards or now RDAs, they actually provide a terrific service to the community on, relatively, the smell of an oily rag, compared to the services that the Department of Trade and Economic Development provides.

The BECs have had their money taken away from them. They have been told to go and find money from alternative sources. This government seems to use this phrase a lot lately. 'Go and find an alternative source,' and they rely on the federal government. The federal government came into the Business Enterprise Centre Network, and they particularly noted that South Australia is leading the way with those networks. They came in and put the money there. They said, 'Yeah, we'll put money into this as long as the state government's remains.' Of course, the state government pulled their money away, and the BECs are now trying to scramble around to say to the federal people, 'Please don't pull your money out.'

Local governments have been asked to put more money in; they can't find it, so the BECs are, I think, in significant doubt of their continuation. That is a great shame, because they are providing extraordinary advice for people going into small business and those who are in a small business and having some financial difficulties, and they provide that free. It is a service to the small business sector that cannot be replicated by any other body. I urge the government to have a look at these decisions to pull the money out of these organisations, because it is hurting the community across South Australia.

I want to move on to the area of the horticulture industry in this state but also a matter that affects the whole of South Australia, that is, South Australia's fruit fly free status. That status is something that has given us a reputation overseas that has been built over many years, and it is the envy of other states and overseas nations. It has been a great asset in selling fruit and produce, and it is built into most supply agreements.

Any proposal to remove the 24/7 vigilance of our major quarantine stations sends a terrible message to our overseas markets but, of course, that is what was done at the last budget, where the government decided they would remove the 24-hour, seven day a week staffing of the major quarantine stations at Ceduna and Yamba.

I have been here long enough, and I am sure there are other colleagues who would know that there have been a number of ministers of agriculture or primary industries over the years who have had submissions put to them by their department to say that we can save some money by cutting back on the fruit fly inspection timelines at Yamba and Ceduna. I know that there are a number of ministers on both sides of parliament who have told the bureaucrats to go away and said, 'No, we're not going to do that; we need to protect that fruit fly free status.'

Unfortunately, on this occasion minister O'Brien allowed that to go forward, and the government indicated last year that they would remove that 24-hour service at those stations. There has been extraordinarily strong opposition to that and, subsequently, the government has changed its mind. It does concern me that, for those markets overseas—the citrus industry and other industries—that status is built into the agreements, but the government entertained this notion, stuck to it for a number of months and then promised a review and eventually backflipped. It must create concern in those overseas markets that this is on the agenda. It must not be on the agenda. It will not be on the agenda under a Liberal government, because the economy of South Australia is very reliant on our horticultural industry.

I should emphasise that the government's own Horticulture Plant Health Consultative Committee and the Tri-State Fruit Fly Committee, which operates across South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, strongly support the retention of 24-hour fruit fly road blocks. Having said that, I would ask that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries do the horticultural industry and the state as a whole a service and rule out any attempt to remove the 24-hour inspection regime indefinitely, because this has been a huge cloud over the horticultural industry of this state.

I now move on to another area that has had an impact on the agricultural industry of this state. I know that one or two of my colleagues will think that this is a blast from the past when I mention the words 'branched broomrape'. Branched broomrape is a parasitic weed of a wide range of broadleaf crops in the Mediterranean, Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, South Africa and North and Central America. Broomrapes are root parasites that extract all their nutrient requirements from their host plants.

We have had a significant issue with branched broomrape in the Murraylands, where a very large area was identified as having infestations of this parasite. About 10 years ago, a program was established to work towards the eradication of branched broomrape in South Australia. Funding for the program has a national component and a state component and is over $4.2 million per year, of which the national component is $2.5 million; also, there is involvement from local government. I think there are four councils in the affected area.

For some time there have been suggestions that industry beneficiaries should be responsible for part of the cost and, whilst there is a reluctance for voluntary contributions because of fragmentation, there also does not appear to be many simple options for collecting contributions. The initial agreement for funding of the program was for 12 years, subject to three-year performance reviews, and this ends on 30 June 2012. A review panel visited the program earlier this year and talked to participants, and we understand that its report is imminent.

To give some data on the area that is involved in this program, there are 15,000 hectares in the managed spray program, and 9,000 of that has been sprayed by air, including 280 hectares by helicopter because of the nature of the terrain. I think you, sir, would understand that some of this area includes floodplain and cliff faces on the river, so it is almost impossible to do it by any other method other than helicopter. The remainder of the area is done by ground boom spray. This is in addition to on-farm spraying carried out by landowners. An eradication time frame, estimated by modelling in the current program, is by the year 2030.

There are 370 farmers and 960 other landholders in the program and 207,000 hectares under quarantine, including 5,230 paddocks, of which 768 have had branched broomrape infestation, or about 15 per cent. Because of buffer zones that have been implemented in the scheme, about 7,000 paddocks are surveyed each year. The program has 45 seasonal and 14 permanent staff. Almost 2,800 paddocks in the quarantine area on branched broomrape-free farms have had no infestation and are eligible for release at the end of 2012, and 180 infested paddocks are eligible for release by 2013. The area is a large area, extending from north of Swan Reach to Tailem Bend on both sides of the River Murray, east to Karoonda and west to almost the base of the Adelaide Hills.

As I said, the program was reviewed earlier this year, and that review was conducted by the federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and its Consultative Committee on Exotic Plant Incursions to establish whether the pest is still considered eradicable. The concern is that if it is deemed ineradicable the program's funding will cease. I know that largely relates to federal funding, but I think that the commitment of the state government towards this program needs to be emphasised.

Minister O'Brien has made some supportive noises about continuing the funding, but I think he needs to make sure that the federal funding is continued and focused on that aim of eradication. Eradication may not be completely achievable across the whole area—in particular, there are those areas I mentioned where it is so difficult to address this parasitic plant—but I think that the government needs to make sure that it does not take its eye off it. Certainly it is a major issue in many parts of our agricultural community.

I want to briefly relate to the government's commitment, or lack of it, to maintenance of outback roads. In recent times we have heard about the amount of wet weather we have had in the outback in the last 12 to 18 months, which has been unprecedented. People who have been through the outback are just amazed at the amount of water lying around, and the green feed that is there that people have not seen for a very long period. That has an impact on the status of the roads in the outback.

As someone who has travelled widely as a shearer and in other occupations, Mr President, you would know that the status of those unsealed roads is reliant on the behaviour of the people who use them, particularly after wet weather. We have a lot of tourist activity in the north of the state, particularly with Lake Eyre filling up and just with the magnificent state of the country of the moment, and while a lot of people behave properly on outback roads many do not.

The people who are producing cattle in the north are very concerned about the state of the roads, and they believe that government should put more money into their maintenance. We know that they have reduced the number of crews available to work on the roads. I think there should be a return to the method by which the previous government allowed local councils to contract and do some of the work in the areas close to them. Certainly, in the Gawler Ranges and the north-east pastoral area that is something that I think will allow a lot of those roads to be kept in better order.

There are two main aspects to that, and one is that there is a lot of cattle from south-west Queensland that would come through to South Australian markets if they could rely on the road structure. At the moment that is not the case and so we are missing out on a lot of that livestock coming down through South Australia. They are going to Queensland because at least in Queensland they have a network of bitumen roads. Even though some of them are very narrow, they are still all-weather roads.

It is time that the government had a look at how it can better service those residents of South Australia. The public servants who work within DTEI and who look after the pastoral area do a terrific job, but they need to have access to better ways of dealing with the issues of that connection into the north of South Australia. I am also concerned about the government's decision to cut funding from the Advisory Board of Agriculture. That body has been around for well over 100 years.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Some very famous people have been on it, too.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: My grandfather was chair of it twice, and I am not sure that too many others have had that privilege. The Advisory Board of Agriculture has given great service to the state with very little remuneration (if any), and it has been faithful to all ministers of all flavours over a very long time. We now have a decision by the minister and the government to replace it with an agribusiness and seafood council or similar, which we are told is going to be formed soon. I note minister O'Brien's response to the member for Schubert in the estimates process, where he said:

This new Council will have a more clearly defined role with a focus on what happens pre farm gate. It will be a Council that will cover all aspects of South Australian agribusiness and fisheries activities. This will allow Government to capture advice from people within the industry who have something of value to contribute, using their expertise to determine opportunities for agribusiness and fisheries/aquaculture and economic development opportunities for South Australia.

The Advisory Board of Agriculture, as the governing body for the Agricultural Bureau movement may continue to exist, if its members see that it has a future, but it will not be funded by the South Australian government. The Bureau movement is a very effective and extensive network through the rural community, which PIRSA and other government agents will continue to collaborate and use to deliver information and to seek advice.

So we are going to utilise them and use them for everything we can get out of them, but we are not going to support them with any funding. The agricultural bureau movement in this state is unique; there is no other organisation like it in other states. It is something that I am very proud of and I think it has served South Australia very well.

The answer that the minister gave talked about getting 'a more clearly defined role with a focus on what happens pre farm gate'. If we're talking pre farmgate, the best people I know who know anything about what happens before it goes out the farmgate are the producers themselves: the farmers, the people who are on the Advisory Board of Agriculture. I am not quite sure why this government would want to change that. The amount of money that has been committed to the advisory board is—I go back to that smell of an oily rag—very little. Here again, they are being told, 'If you want to continue to operate you can, but we are not going to give you any money. Go and find some alternative sources.'

Very briefly in conclusion, the other issue that concerns me out of the previous budget that I think is affecting local communities is the government's decision to reduce its funding assistance to local government to run community libraries. I am aware of the concern in the District Council of Loxton Waikerie that there has been a cut of $30,000 to the operation of the Waikerie and Loxton libraries.

The community is very upset about that. They believe that these libraries play a very valuable role in the community. State governments have had a commitment to assisting communities in running libraries for a long time, but this has been pulled back and that area of Loxton Waikerie is just an example. I know local government bodies across the state are concerned about the government's decision to pull back on those libraries.

I appreciate the opportunity to make some comment about the public services which the Public Service provides to the community of South Australia via the government. I support the facilitation and continuing delivery of public services by public servants, which is facilitated by this bill. I support the role of public servants in their commitment to delivering services to the people of South Australia and I support the bill.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (12:46): I rise to speak in support of the Supply Bill. I am concerned that the government is not seen to be following the simple principle of household budgeting of living within one's means; that is to say that your expenses cannot exceed your income.

Should the budget not meet the expenses, there are two courses of action that can be taken: either reduce non-essential expenditure or increase income. We all know that one of the few ways for government to increase income is to increase taxes, which would cause an outcry from the public who are already suffering from higher taxes and new taxes. So, the focus should be on reducing expenditure.

With regard to reducing non-essential expenditure, my understanding is that 70 per cent of the expenditure of the government is used in paying salaries. Therefore, an obvious area for the government to reduce expenditure is to cut salaries. I am not suggesting that front-line staff providing essential services to the public should be cut or suffer a salary decrease. Rather, as I have suggested previously, I do not believe that the government's 20 per cent reduction of executive level staff in the Public Service goes far enough. As a matter of fact, I openly refer to an executive director of an agency, who today I shall call John Citizen, as executive director John Without-a-Job Citizen, simply because there is no job.

Savings seen from these reductions should be put back into ensuring essential services continue to be provided to South Australia. I understand that the Public Service Association probably will not like my comments, but even they have to admit that the government needs to live within its means.

Further to this, my experience in the Public Service has shown me that the requirements for public servants are constantly changing. Whilst people have been employed in various activities over a number of years, as a result of changes, there is a need for certain activities to cease and for new ones to commence; that is to say that there is an ever increasing need for an ongoing review of each and every activity being undertaken. CEOs should look at their staffing requirements from a zero-base point of view—how many people are required, and at what level, to carry out the essential activities of government.

A good example of this would be an issue we are currently involved in—the staffing of escort services for over-dimensional loads. I understand that the police commissioner has about 20 highly qualified police officers engaged in this program, instead of on more important crime prevention. By comparison, Victoria has no police officers providing escorts for over-dimensional loads. Rather, they have staff from their equivalent of road transport undertake this task.

Another example can be found in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. During the drought, the department contracted a team of about 47 contract officers to address various drought-related issues concerning the Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. Following the inflows from interstate into that area, I understand the same people are still employed, irrespective of the recovery of the Lower Lakes.

A final example of the need to review process and identify areas that need improvement was seen yesterday during the debate on the Summary Offences (Weapons) Bill. The minister asked the Hon. Stephen Wade whether he had discussed one of his amendments with the department. The Hon. Stephen Wade commented that the department would not discuss his amendment unless the request came through the minister's office.

I have long suffered with this policy, or convention, that public servants need the approval of ministers before talking to members of parliament. Without making myself sound like a broken record, I have had over 39 years in the public service and had never encountered this policy prior to my entering parliament. In my experience, public servants were free to talk to whomever they liked and if it was thought that the minister needed to know about the conversation, they would be told.

Unlike the Hon. Paul Holloway, who said yesterday that it was a matter of courtesy for matters to be referred through the minister's office, in my view it is a matter of sheer inefficiency and a waste of time. Further, it shows the government and ministers are distrusting of their public servants as they feel that public servants need to be nannied and supervised. I believe that only the weakest ministers strictly uphold this policy.

With regard to leave loading, I have previously expressed concern about the way leave loading has been reduced rather than phased out over a number of years, but in hindsight, and this goes back a bit, perhaps leave loading should only have been provided to those people who were working shift work, as it was intended.

Similarly, long service leave provisions have been cut and probably on this issue there should have been a more strict direction as to when people should take their long service leave, rather than the current situation where people accumulate their leave, which is taken as a lump sum payment when they retire.

There is much discussion in the media about the new Adelaide hospital. I have always been of the view that the Royal Adelaide Hospital should remain on its current site. At a briefing with the minister on the need for change, I was told that there was a lack of suitable space to rebuild the hospital where it was. I stated that one of the reasons for this was that a previous Labor government had given the area of land used for car parking between the zoo and the existing hospital back to parklands.

Rather than build the Adelaide hospital at the government's preferred site, which I still believe is potentially the most valuable commercial property with water frontage, I believe a more appropriate approach would have been to demolish the old nurses' building, replace that with a new tower and then move the north wing into the new tower. The north wing could then be completely refurbished and other sections of the hospital could be moved into the new building, and so on. The new hospital could be built incrementally as funds became available.

With regard to reducing expenditure, the government should examine its outgoings on non-essential infrastructure projects and weigh this up with maintaining existing services. Similarly, with increasing income, the government would provide the best outcome for the people of South Australia, both in the long and short term, and act accordingly. With these few words I support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade.

[Sitting suspended from 12:54 to 14:15]