Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 29 February 2012.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (11:05): I rise to support the Address in Reply and to thank the Governor for his speech for the opening of this session of parliament. There are two or three issues that I want to address in my contribution. The first relates to freedom of information and the government's position in relation to a number of issues under that broad heading.

Members will be aware that on a number of occasions I have expressed the view, and I suspect some are coming to agree with that view, that this government is the most secretive government in this state's history, not just in relation to its attitude towards freedom of information but in a range of other areas as well. This morning I want to address the issue of freedom of information, because the government always seeks to pat itself on the back in relation to how open, transparent and accountable it can be in relation to freedom of information.

I would like to raise a number of issues, at least, which would certainly prove that claim as wrong and erroneous as many of us would know it to be. I noticed earlier in the week that treasurer Snelling took a Dorothy Dixer from his own backbench and indicated that the government is now going to make information in relation to Treasury analysis of economic information available on the Treasury website. Having patted himself on the back—because he couldn't find anyone else to pat him on the back—he went on to say:

This news may be of particular interest to the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place. Mr Lucas has a habit of submitting monthly freedom of information requests to my department for their internal economic briefings rather than doing his own work and sourcing his own information directly from the ABS. I hope that by—

Then members interjected, and that would include, of course, Messrs Atkinson, Koutsantonis and a variety of others. Then Mr Snelling went on to say:

[I hope that publishing Treasury's] economic briefs online will relieve some of the burden that Mr Lucas has placed on the hardworking public servants of the Department of Treasury and Finance, who spend considerable time and precious taxpayer resources—

Then he went on to say:

They spend considerable time and precious taxpayer resources to process his requests for information he could just as easily gain directly from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I want to quickly analyse those particular claims of the Treasurer. During the period of the former Liberal government, I became aware, obviously, that Treasury, on a regular basis, provided internal economic briefings to the treasurer of the day in relation to economic statistics, whether they were provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, or companies like Access Economics or organisations like the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies.

It would not just be a summary of the statistics because, clearly, that is publicly available or available by way of subscription: it would provide a free and frank assessment of the information included in that particular bulletin and, on occasions, a free and frank assessment as to, potentially, the warning signs for the government of the day and the treasurer to take into account in relation to the health of the South Australian economy. Certainly, during that particular period, they were useful briefings because, as I said, they did not just provide a verbatim statement or summary of what was publicly available: they offered Treasury analysis or commentary as well.

For the first few years after the change of government in 2002, obviously being aware that these documents were provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer on a regular basis, the Treasurer is correct, on a monthly basis we would submit FOI requests for these confidential economic briefings provided to the Treasurer.

As I said, for the first couple of years the documents that were provided to the opposition under that freedom of information request continued to include the same level of free and frank advice that I had seen when we were in government; that is, on occasions there would be commentary from Treasury raising warning flags to the Treasurer and to the government about what these particular figures indicated. On occasions they might even raise issues about policy directions in a number of areas, levels of taxation, for example, and the impact of government policies on economic indicators such as retail sales, etc.

For the first few years that was what occurred. Obviously what then happened—this was under former treasurer Foley—was there was increasing concern that the opposition was getting access to this sort of economic analysis that was being provided by Treasury. What we gradually saw over a period of time was, firstly, a sanitising of the commentary from Treasury. Clearly, a note had gone out to indicate that the opposition was getting access to this information and that needed to be borne in mind when analysis was being put to paper in relation to the economic statistics and indicators.

Further along the track the government then developed, together with Treasury, a device to avoid disclosure in any way of the full and frank advice the Treasury was providing in these areas. The device they used, and that they continue to use these days, is that that sort of advice is now provided to a cabinet committee. For example, over a number of years now, when the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies produces a quarterly bulletin on the state's economy and government policy, the Treasurer and Treasury have refused access to that, claimed exemption in full under clause 1 of the Freedom of Information Act, because that particular briefing, which had been provided to the Treasurer, has been walked into a cabinet committee and provided to other members of that particular cabinet committee as well.

By using that particular device, which had not been used under the previous government, that advice provided to the Treasurer would have been subject to the FOI process if the Labor opposition at that time had either had the wit to seek that particular briefing under FOI or were prepared to get off their backsides and work hard enough using the FOI process to seek that document. What this government did was that it, through the device of the cabinet committee, used that device to prevent the disclosure of what was previously being provided under freedom of information through the requests that I had submitted.

So we now regularly get, under the monthly FOI requests, it is correct, the sanitised versions. The first one, on retail sales, has been placed on the Treasury website in the last 24 hours, consistent with the Treasurer's announcement earlier this week. The opposition has continued to get those, but the full and frank advice provided by Treasury is prevented from disclosure by being walked into cabinet committees on a regular basis. That, of course, is not referred to in the Dorothy Dixer by treasurer Snelling in the house earlier this week.

Clearly the FOI that has now been submitted by the opposition has led to this policy change; it would not have occurred without the persistence of the opposition in lodging these FOI requests, and journalists and others other than the opposition will now have access to that sort of information.

I might also add that, when the Treasurer is critical, when he says—disingenuously I might add—that this is a waste of the time of hardworking public servants in Treasury processing the request, they have been doing it for eight years. It is a simple 'yes, yes, yes' to documents that have already been produced because they have been sanitised and they know them to be, and it is 'no, no, no' when they walk them through the cabinet committee process because they know that they do not want to release that particular document.

Whilst we obviously welcome the fact that some limited, sanitised Treasury advice and analysis will now be placed on the website for all to see, journalists, commentators and others should not be deluded into thinking that this is part of some open, transparent and accountable government and a change of heart. It is consistent with a minister and a government that is the most secretive in the state's history, particularly in relation to freedom of information. The government continues to hide from public release, through the FOI process or indeed any other, a range of documents by walking them through the cabinet committee process.

Secondly, in relation to freedom of information in this most secretive government in the state's history, there have been recent examples that I want to draw to the public's attention. I notice that in the last 48 hours or so—certainly that is when I became aware of it—The Australian has, on its website, an example of a recent freedom of information request that it submitted. I do not have a copy of that particular one at the moment—but I am sure my hardworking staff will have it on their desk or my desk—but I raise the general example of a similar one submitted by the Leader of the Opposition's office in relation to the office of Jay Weatherill.

This particular FOI request was for all files, documents and briefs held by the office of Jay Weatherill MP for his information as the incoming premier. I will not go into the actual drafting of that particular FOI request, but the element of it that I want to address is that the request actually said 'the office of Jay Weatherill MP'. The purpose of the FOI was, in essence, to try to get the incoming brief for the incoming premier. This was at the time when the former premier had been knifed by the incoming premier and Mr Malinauskas, the head of the shoppies union in South Australia. There are incoming briefs prepared by the Department of the Premier and Cabinet on behalf of all departments and agencies for the incoming premier, and they would have been on the desk for incoming premier Mr Weatherill.

However, the FOI request had been drafted specifically to say 'the office of Jay Weatherill MP'. That request, which had been addressed to the Minister for Education and Child Development's office because that was the position the Hon. Mr Weatherill held at that time, and which went to that particular office, was rejected on the following grounds:

In my view, your application has not been made to a Minister of the Crown as defined under section 4 of the FOI Act, which states an agency is defined as a Minister of the Crown.

As your application seeks access to files, documents and briefs held by the Office of Jay Weatherill MP and is not an application to Hon. Jay Weatherill, in his capacity as Minister for a particular portfolio, such as Education or Early Childhood Education, I have declined to make a determination on your application under the FOI Act, on the basis that your request was not made to an agency for the purposes of the FOI Act.

There are a number of examples like that. The example from The Australian, which is up on their website, was for information in relation to the current Minister for Education and Child Development, the Hon. Grace Portolesi. It obviously related to the scandal from late last year, where the minister took, at taxpayer expense of $7,000 each for herself and for her daughter, business class flights on an overseas trip. The Australian was obviously seeking information of public interest in relation to this. It said:

Information...specifically, all travel-related expenses—summary documents, applications and acquittals, not including receipts—for Grace Portolesi and, where applicable, her daughter Allegra.

It is absolutely clear what was being sought in relation to this particular freedom of information request. Again, the Minister for Education and Child Development officer's response to this, in the letter back to the Freedom of Information Editor, Mr Sean Parnell, of The Australian, was as follows:

In my view, your application has not been made to a Minister of the Crown as defined under section 4 of the FOI Act, which states an agency is defined as a Minister of the Crown.

As your application seeks access to documents that relate to 'Grace Portolesi and, where applicable, her daughter Allegra', and does not relate to Ms Portolesi as a Minister of the Crown, such as, Minister for Education and Child Development, nor indicate a time period for such documents, your application cannot be processed.

Both those examples—and there are others—are an outrageous perversion of the intent of the freedom of information legislation. They are indicative of a government comprised of ministers, such as former minister Weatherill, now premier Weatherill, and minister Portolesi, who are part of a government that is the most secretive government in this state's history. These are devices being used to prevent freedom of information. They are devices being used to stymie access to information of genuine and general public interest, such as The Australian's request, which was seeking information, as I said, on the minister spending $7,000 for business class travel for herself and her daughter. No-one can argue that is not a genuine matter of public interest.

The request in relation to incoming briefing notes to an incoming premier who had just knifed a former premier are matters of genuine public interest. In both cases, and in others, this government, its ministers, its agencies and its officers are using these devices to prevent the release of information which is being genuinely sought and is a matter of genuine public interest.

This device that 'because in your request you did not refer to Grace Portolesi, Minister for Education and Child Development, and because you just said Grace Portolesi', when everyone knows who Grace Portolesi is—it has been addressed to her office as the Minister for Education and Child Development. It was not addressed to her personal address, whatever that might be: it was sent to the Minister for Education and Child Development's office. It related to the name of the minister—in this case Grace Portolesi and, in the previous one, Jay Weatherill—and had clearly been processed as correspondence through the ministerial office by ministerial officers and then this device was used to subvert the intention of the Freedom of Information Act by saying, 'Well, you didn't describe the minister by the correct title.'

What next? If someone makes a spelling error in the spelling of the name of the minister—and this is after some weeks, because this doesn't happen straightaway. It is not as if 24 hours later you get a response. This government makes sure these things are strung out for some weeks and, in some cases, months, even though they are all meant to be processed within 28 days. You eventually get a knock back on the grounds of some absurd technicality such as this which, as I said and I repeat, subverts the true intent of the freedom of information legislation.

The third example of freedom of information I want to highlight is again in relation to another monthly request that we have put in since the turn of government for the monitoring that was being produced by a taxpayer-funded media monitoring branch for all government ministers and members and, as we have now subsequently found out, some government agencies as well. I know that the monitoring brief goes to all of the spin doctors—not only in the ministers' offices, but also the hundreds existing within government departments and agencies.

Members are familiar with the fact that we receive a summary on a regular basis through the day, Monday to Friday, containing a transcript of matters of state interest on radio. I was aware, after the change of government in 2002, that the media monitoring did not just provide that, it actually provided transcripts of television news services—not just the news service but current affairs programs, for example, and the like. Those transcripts were provided to the government of the day.

We were intrigued as to why, as an opposition, we could not get access to that sort of information. So, from 2002, on a regular basis, we submitted this monthly request to the government to get a copy of the actual transcript which was submitted to ministers so that it would be even-handed. Now, after months on each occasion—we would get it months later—we eventually, on a regular basis, started getting the media monitoring transcripts and then, ultimately, in recent years it has turned into a CD which is provided to me as the opposition and I then share it amongst my colleagues and others as well.

That monitor, in those days, provided the TV transcripts but, of course, in recent years, we have started to receive a service through the parliamentary library, which now provides transcripts of television services and, indeed, the vision as well. That is a very good service which is made available to all members of parliament.

But the media monitoring CD-ROM that is provided still provides to us now, albeit on a delayed basis, access to information which is not available to all members of parliament. It provides transcripts of the Country Hour, it provides summaries of TV news—which, as I have said, are now available through the library—it provides an hourly talkback radio summary and radio news from every station is provided in that particular media monitoring. So, as I said, in recent years, the difference between what is provided to the government, other than on timing, has been reduced due to the work being done by the parliamentary library, which we acknowledge.

On varying occasions through the last 10 years, we have raised this with government ministers and said, 'Look, why don't you save yourself a lot of trouble with your FOI requests you keep complaining about? We get these things every month. Why don't you just release them publicly (the TV transcripts) in the early years? Why don't you just release them publicly to all members of parliament rather than us go through the process every month of having to submit an FOI request and getting them eventually, albeit late?'

The government response on every occasion was a refusal to provide it. What it did for a period of time, until the library came into play, was it gave the government an advantage for a period of months. The government had access to the transcripts of TV news services and current affairs programs, and the opposition did not have the same access. It had a competitive advantage, and it wanted to keep that advantage all through that particular process.

Even through the period when we had the supposedly independent Peter Lewis as the speaker, who said that he was interested in transparency and accountability, he refused to ensure the release of this sort of information to the opposition as part of his arrangement with the Labor government of the day.

They are just three broad areas where this government has been subverting the true intent of freedom of information legislation. There are many others. I do not propose to canvass those today, but I did want to raise those particular areas and express my concern about the government's ongoing role in seeking to prevent the release of information.

The second and final issue I want to raise today relates to a matter of interest to members of parliament in particular—I guess it is also a public interest as well, of course—regarding those journalists who seek to cover the proceedings of parliament. I hasten to say, given that it is Address in Reply, that the views I am expressing are my views. I do not purport to represent the views of all of my colleagues and certainly my party on this particular issue. It has not been an issue, as far as I am aware, about which there has been recent debate in our party room.

I want to canvass the issue of the access of cameras and photographers to the proceedings of the parliament. On a number of occasions—and I think as recently as the last sitting week—you, Mr President, as the Presiding Member of this chamber, were moved to issue a warning to a television cameraman, and possibly a photographer as well, in relation to the guidelines that govern the access of cameramen and photographers to the proceedings of this chamber. I guess similar arguments could be made in relation to the House of Assembly as well; however, I speak in relation to this chamber.

On those occasions, Mr President, you issued a warning from the chair that the cameraman, in your view, was seeking to film or photograph a member of parliament who was sitting at the time—he was not standing and speaking—and, if that was to continue, they would be removed from the chamber. There was always the potential for a presidential-imposed sanction or ban on that cameraman or photographer, or that news organisation, for a period of time in terms of access to this particular chamber.

Looking back at the history, debate on these matters was not much of an issue many decades ago, but certainly through the period of the 70s and 80s, when the role of the Legislative Council became quite controversial, there were issues in relation to what sort of access, if any, we would provide to photographers in particular, and camera people, to the proceedings of the parliament. That went on through the 70s and 80s.

I have been reminded of a real stoush that went on between this chamber and its former president and the former editor of The Advertiser back in the early 1990s when the Liberal Party was in opposition and the Labor Party was in government. The former president, Gordon Bruce, was a meek and mild-mannered member of the Labor Party in most people's experience, but he, on behalf of this chamber, engaged in a blazing row with the editor of The Advertiser, who was then Mr Piers Ackerman.

I will not trace the whole gory history of that dispute, although it involved the exchange of correspondence and a statement to the house by the then president in February 1990 where he detailed blow by blow the derogatory remarks which had been exchanged in conversations between Mr Akerman and himself. The end result of that ended up on the front page of The Advertiser at that particular time where he was described as the new president in a flowing wig and a big white car. Some very critical comments were made of the Hon. Mr Bruce, as the president of the Legislative Council, by The Advertiser and of the Legislative Council and its chamber generally as well.

That all related to a blazing row about whether or not The Advertiser should have access to a photographer to take photographs of members of parliament when the house was sitting. This was 1990, only 20 years or so ago. We are not talking about 100 years ago; we are talking about 20 years ago. In that correspondence and in that debate, it highlighted that even at that stage there was limited access to upper houses generally, not just in South Australia, for news organisations in relation to filming.

Part of the problems in the 1970s and 1980s was that there had been a former Labor minister who had once been unflatteringly filmed picking their nose (I will not give away the sex of the minister). There have been concerns at varying occasions that the cameramen or photographers may well take film or photographs of members asleep in their chair while the parliament is sitting or may well take photographs or film of members in an undignified or unflattering pose or in undignified or unflattering behaviour.

This is not a criticism of one party or another because under both governments of both parties, these particular conventions have prevailed forever. We still have the situation (as you did recently, Mr President) where a cameraman comes in here wanting to film or photograph a member who does not happen to be speaking at the time, and that particular person is threatened from the chair with eviction from the chamber, potential bans and other sanctions.

As I said, the view that having witnessed this over a number of years is I guess informed in part by the power of social media as well. In recent times I remember seeing on Twitter someone who had been into the federal parliament and had reported that such and such a member had been playing solitaire on their computer when they should have been following the debate in the federal parliament. That prompted various other tweets in the Twitterverse of people saying, 'I have been there and I have seen members do this and members do that.' This is instantaneous. It does not rely on journalists in the radio, the press or the television to report it. It is being reported firsthand by those who tweet or use other social media in terms of having been into parliament and seen it.

There is nothing that prevents a radio, TV or print journalist, because they do cross media presentations these days, from writing or reporting that 'the Hon. Mr Smith' was asleep in his chair, or 'the Hon. Ms Brown' was scratching her nose inappropriately, or that 'the Hon. Somebody Else' was playing solitaire or reading a book or looking at travel brochures. That was one of the criticisms in the past that a TV camera once saw a member of parliament reading a travel brochure for what was portrayed by that member of the media as an impending overseas trip at taxpayers' expense.

Nothing prevents journalists from writing that; nothing prevents them from reporting that on television or radio; nothing prevents them from tweeting it; nothing prevents them from posting it on Facebook. It is and can be public knowledge, but our conventions and guidelines say that it cannot be photographed or televised because it will hold us up to ridicule or it is undignified to allow that to occur.

Social media and modern media today are a reality and, it is, in my humble view, time. The President is a mere representative of the members of this chamber, and in the stoush with The Advertiser 20 years ago he said, 'Look, I represent the views of my colleagues in the chamber, and these are the guidelines that they support.' I am sure that this President, and the Hon. Mr Gazzola when he takes over later this year—Hon. Mr Gazzola, who thus far has not been seen as a radical reformer of anything, other than assiduously collecting the highest amount of remuneration of any backbencher in the living history of this chamber; to his credit, he does have that record on his CV—see this as an opportune time to actually do something worthwhile.

With the greatest respect to you, Mr President, as you near your retirement, I am giving up on you. But here is an opportunity for the Hon. Mr Gazzola to forge a path to consult, obviously not just myself but other members in this chamber—the Independents and minor parties—to see whether in the year 2012 we are prepared to jettison the guidelines of the past, move with the spirit of where we are now and allow access, in a more open, transparent and accountable way, to members of the media to the proceedings of the chamber.

Personally, I do not have a concern if a member of parliament is caught snoring or sleeping on the backbench: it might be a concern to some of the government ministers and some of the backbenchers. In the end, we are here being paid a reasonable, but I will not say excessive, amount of money (certainly nowhere near as much as the public servants ministers oversee), and there is the capacity for members in this chamber to work with an incoming president to see whether or not we are prepared to open up the proceedings. As always, I will accept the majority view of members of this chamber. It should not be just the two major parties, that is, the government and the opposition. We have seven Independent and minor party members—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Eight.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Eight? Who is the eighth? Have you snuck another one in? The Greens are sneaking another one in here without me looking!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The unknown, yes. Given that that person is unnamed, I did not want to refer to them. Seven or eight—I take the point the Hon. Ms Franks is making. Anyway, we have a significant number of members in this chamber who are not representatives of the two major parties at the moment. I think it is time for us to reflect on it to see whether we are prepared to move with the times. We are accountable, and we should be accountable, and when we are in here on show in my humble view, as I said, we ought to be part of that process.

The photographers from The Advertiser or The Australian should have access to the chamber. They should not have to go through the device of sneaking in here trying to get film or photographs of unnamed MPs, or particular MPs who might be in a scandal or controversy at one point in time and who are smart enough, under the guidelines, not to stand on their feet and say anything because the current guidelines protect them from being filmed or photographed in the chamber. There will still need to be sensible guidelines, even if we do open it up, and that should be part of the debate. If media organisations transgress those guidelines, clearly, there should be sanctions. I am not supporting open slather, but there should be greater access.

The other aspect of media access is that there have been restrictions on media being able to film or photograph what occurs in the public galleries. I must say, on reflection when thinking about this, I think there is probably still good argument for those tighter restrictions. The reason I submit that is that, for it to be otherwise, it may well be that it would encourage protesters and demonstrators to come to the public galleries and dump asbestos, or whatever it is, on members below, to make public protest, knowing full well that they can be filmed and photographed.

I think that, in itself, is a dangerous and demeaning spectacle of the parliament and I think the restriction we have probably makes good sense. Then again, I am interested in the views of other members on that but I do see the argument in relation to, in essence, discouraging protesters coming to parliament and being filmed or photographed doing that. If they want to protest and be filmed or photographed, they can certainly do that outside the parliament walls. It should not, in my view, be encouraged within the public gallery of this chamber. With those words, I support the Address in Reply.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (11:47): I rise to support the motion that the Address in Reply be adopted. At the outset, I, too, would like to thank His Excellency the Governor for the opening of parliament and congratulate him on his reappointment for a further two-year term. I would also like to thank both the Governor and his wife for their exemplary service to our state.

The Governor's speech identified seven primary areas of focus for action by the government. Those areas included: clean green food industry, the mining boom and its benefits, advanced manufacturing, a vibrant city, safe and active neighbourhoods, affordable living and early childhood. I want to read into Hansard a speech that I think picks up on most of the primary areas identified in the Governor's speech.

The speech is entitled 'Murray Murmurings: emotive people aren't the lunatic fringe, they're the residents'. It was delivered by Finley High School principal Bernie Roebuck at the Murray-Darling Basin Plan consultations in Deniliquin on 16 December last year and subsequently posted on Crikey's Murray Murmurings blog. Murray Murmurings is a series of articles on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan from different interested parties, including farmers, lobby groups, environmentalists and other concerned groups.

According to Crikey, Mr Roebuck received a standing ovation from 3,000 people present at the Deniliquin consultation, including federal water minister Tony Burke and Murray-Darling Basin Authority head, Craig Knowles. Crikey reported that after the speech minister Burke commented:

Everything at these meetings obviously stays with me but I don't think there's been a presentation that I've been to probably in my life that will stay with me like Bernie's.

I share minister Burke's sentiments. Mr Roebuck's speech struck a real chord with me and simply to quote from it would not do justice to the sentiments Mr Roebuck expresses. The speech reads as follows:

My name is Bernie Roebuck and I am currently the principal at Finley High School. Previously I was principal at Deniliquin High School and for a two-year period worked as a principal consultant across all schools in the Riverina.

Though I might be called a 'blow in' by some standards I have lived and worked in communities in the Murray Valley for 34 years. My grandfather settled in Deniliquin during WW1 and my father was born in Deniliquin in 1919. My children have all been born in the Murray Valley and two have started their working lives there. So 'blow in' maybe, but for 96 years and four generations my family have lived in this part of the world and it gives us a claim of having a vested interest in the future of Riverina communities.

I represent the New South Wales Secondary Principals Council, a professional organisation of public school secondary principals. You may well ask, so what has the Murray-Darling Basin Plan have to do with school principals? In truth, heaps. The reason for our existence, our students, are the group of people that will be most affected by whatever the final decision is in regard to the Basin Plan—the full effects of these proposals will fall on my children's heads and their children. We must not forget this.

It also affects our staff—their future employment is at stake, the value of the homes that many of them purchase is at stake. It also affects school communities. Uncertainty has already taken its toll in many instances. The young people that we work with on a daily basis are not oblivious to the pressures that their mums and dads are under, and there is no question that affects many of them.

This is my second stint at Finley High. In 1990 when I was first appointed there as a head teacher the student population was 720. Currently our enrolment is 450—a decline of close to 40%. In the Deniliquin area of schools known as South West Riverina this enrolment decline is similar across all schools. In fact, apart from Albury, and to a lesser extent Wagga, it is the pattern across the whole Riverina.

What has this meant for schools? Less students means we can give students less options in terms of curriculum choice, recruiting staff is more challenging. Because there is uncertainty of employment the pool of quality students in each year group continues to get smaller and this can have a critical impact on student outcomes. We have any number of schools that are so critically small now that they are absolutely in danger of closing or of not being able to deliver a quality education.

This is not some emotive throwaway line, it is the honest truth. Of greatest concern for students is their life after school. Increasingly they know that local jobs are hard to come by. Increasingly young people see no future in their communities. Some see no point in studying when there is a limited future. We constantly hear about things such as skills shortages, but as an example try and find a building apprenticeship easily in this part of the world. Increasingly they seek work away from these communities and so not surprisingly rural communities have less and less young people.

The decline of schools in our communities has other effects as well. Less students means less teaching and admin staff, and often affects trades that support schools such as builders, plumbers, electricians, local grocers, bus drivers etc, so that income therefore disappears from the local economy and the multiplier effect on local businesses rolls out. I feel bemused, and confused and quite frankly angry when I hear criticism as soon as someone makes any emotive response to the plan, or when someone wants to talk about the human cost of the plan, such as what I am doing right now.

Constantly I hear that emotive calls, emotive language, emotive pleas, emotive people should be dismissed as the lunatic fringe because they exaggerate, they misrepresent, they do not produce balance nor facts in dealing with the plan. I would say how can one not be emotive if your livelihood, and all that is important to you, is at stake. I see no reason for us to need to apologise for being emotive. But that does not mean we cannot be rational or that we do not understand what is happening in the basin.

Few would deny that the Murray-Darling Basin has a complexity of issues to address. And find me an irrigator who would not applaud the concept of a sustainable Murray-Darling river system. Many of my students have real mums and dads who are farmers. The very same people who produce the quality wine, rice, rockmelons, potatoes and grains that are in such demand in the supermarket. The vast majority of them are not environmental vandals. They are in many cases hard-working, highly skilled operators who have a vested interest in protecting and preserving their land, and they do so. Why would they not want a sustainable future for their sons and daughters? These people are happy to discuss changes to aspects of water policy that would lead to a sustainable future. They would love to see real investment in the infrastructures that would save enormous quantities of water that could contribute to environmental flows.

I for one applaud the announcement this week by Mr Burke of some major infrastructure programs. But why has it taken till this week for such an announcement to be made? And in truth, I would like to think this is but the first step. Let's be frank here, our nation is currently spending tens of billions of dollars to ensure that Australia has the technology base for the 21^st century through the national broadband network. The infrastructure base for our irrigation systems is in many cases 70-80 years old—what we are asking for is a fraction of the NBN but it would give this nation a base for huge water savings and at the same time allow for productive 21^st century agriculture. It would also create the jobs and the certainty to give the young and not-so-young people of rural communities hope, security and to feel that they can make a real contribution. Without a commitment to long-term sustainable development in rural Australia our future is potentially very grim.

My staff and my students and my community are full of some of the very best people. These are the very same people who endure higher fuel prices, higher food costs, poorer medical facilities and poorer educational outcomes than any other part of our country. It is not reasonable, nor acceptable, for people in these communities to continue being treated as the rural underclass. We are not second-rate—we have some of the best brains, the best thinkers, the most creative talents and the best students. I cannot continue to accept that my students and the students of my colleagues at other basin schools should have a quality of life that is less than that of any students in Sydney or Canberra. How totally inequitable and unAustralian would that be?

I do not ever want to see my school become so small and so residualised and marginalised that it cannot deliver top-quality education as it now does. Yet that is clearly the fate in the very near future of many of our rural schools. I implore you not to sell us down the drain. This issue needs serious and sustained consideration.

The [Murray-Darling Basin Administration] chairman Craig Knowles has said that in consideration of the plan there have been vastly opposite views of what needs to happen and what should happen. None of us doubt that. We accept that, we are reasonable people, we will compromise. Some of those views, however, come from those whose livelihoods are not at stake. They come from those who do not have to worry about their kids futures.

In comparison our governments and business magnates are hell bent on digging everything and anything from the ground. The environmental issues in so many places related to mining receive scant consideration—such developments are perceived to be in the public interest and therefore environmental costs are deemed acceptable. The hypocrisy is totally unacceptable.

In truth, rural people do not accept that they are treated with respect. Their opinions, though considered, are often derided as second-rate compared to their politically powerful, well-connected urban counterparts, and rarely if ever are rural communities given the chance to be a part of the solutions. In my 34 years in the Riverina I have seen the slow but constant decline in communities to the point where we now have those publicly saying 'Are communities under 15,000 people worth saving? Is it a waste of government money to keep them afloat?'

All this at a time of urban congestion, rising urban social violence, transport gridlocks, a lack of affordable urban housing, and the need to feed a rapidly rising population in this country and the rest of the world. We have a rapidly declining manufacturing base and a massive over reliance on the mining sector that has a limited life span. There is a clear and obvious reason why vibrant and sustainable rural environments are critical to this nation. In conclusion, I want to give my students and my community hope. I want them to vigorously support the concept of long-term sustainability, but I want governments to give them the sensible, pragmatic means to do that.

I plead for some commonsense, practical solutions, not those concocted in the pristine halls of power away from the very people who are most affected. Include rural people way beyond flying one day visits, way beyond fly-in fly-out three hour meetings. Way beyond tokenistic representation on committees and working parties. Engage with the people here, negotiate with them. Properly and sincerely and seriously engage with them—work with them to find some reasonable solutions. I implore you not to be so naive as to think that the people of these communities are unreasonable or are not important.

There is no doubt that Mr Roebuck's concerns about his community apply equally to those of not only regional communities but also the wider community of South Australia. His comments that emotive pleas should be dismissed as the lunatic fringe because they exaggerate, misrepresent or do not produce balance nor facts in dealing with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan are entirely appropriate. I cannot but agree that, when your livelihood and all that is important to you is at stake, there is no need for apology.

I also think there is a lot to be said about his comments in relation to rural people not accepting that they are treated with respect and their opinions often being derided as second rate compared to their politically powerful and well connected urban counterparts. Rural communities need to be given the opportunity to be part of the solution. Mr Roebuck's pleas for practical solutions rather than solutions 'concocted in the pristine halls of power away from the very people who are most affected' should not fall on deaf ears. It is up to each and every one of us to ensure that this happens.

Mr Roebuck's concerns were further confirmed in an article published in The Australian newspaper just yesterday. That article, entitled 'Growing pains become unbearable', talks about the fact that the future looks far from certain for Australia's food producers. According to the article, a 50-year-old tomato growing business, SP Exports, owned by the Philip family in Queensland, has now gone into voluntary administration, owing some $31 million. This is a company that produces a third of all tomatoes eaten in Australia.

Andrew Philip, who took the helm of the family business some 13 years ago, was nationally acclaimed as the best future-focused farmer of the year in Australia in 2009. Now his family's company's future looks bleak. If honourable members have not already read the article, I strongly recommend they do. In closing, there is no question that our state faces many challenges. I hope the government is truly committed to the reforms expressed in the Governor's speech.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (12:03): I thank the Governor for his opening address to parliament. I join with the Governor in acknowledging the passing away during the First Session of the Fifty-Second Parliament of former governor, Sir Donald Dunstan; former member and minister, Mr William Alan Rodda, in 2010; and, lastly, in 2011, the Hon. Leonard James King AC QC, former member of parliament and chief justice of the Supreme Court. However, on a happier note, I congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their wedding and wish them well for the future.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You old monarchist, you.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I hope to be, fairly soon.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: The President's dinner is coming up soon.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: Yes; well, not that soon. I wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Kaurna people, and I fervently hope that the Fifty-Second Parliament sees further positive resolution for Indigenous people.

I note that, 10 years ago, I made my first contribution to the council, when I commented on public concerns over the trust in which politicians are held. Politicians can do much to improve the standard of debate, as the Governor noted and as the Premier has raised on several occasions. The opening day question time in the house shows that we have room to improve here.

Acrimony and personal attacks are a poor substitute for substantive debate and policy, nor are they conducive to public faith in politicians and the political process. The slew in interpretation of some addresses in reply by the opposition and some Independents is alarming in the lack of balance and, frankly, coherence. As politicians, we need to resist the example set by some sections of the media to let shock and awe set the tone and substance of political debate. This is our collective responsibility.

This brings me to the reply by the Leader of the Opposition in this council, which should be read in conjunction with The Liberal Way—the guiding principles of Liberal philosophy. 'Liberalism,' it says in part, 'is the enemy of...sectional interests and narrow prejudice'. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition's reply is based on broad prejudice as he opens up on all fronts in his enfiladed response. Is he seriously suggesting that the government program has no credibility in the eyes of most stakeholders and constituents in this state? Even against his own party's tenets in The Liberal Way, he opposes the good work of this government as offending the 'wellbeing of all', whatever this could precisely mean.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You have been some doing sound research, better than the usual stuff you read, John.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: I would refer to Stephen Hawking. The facts, the public interest tests and much-needed utilities of the new hospital, the oval and Riverside redevelopments, to name some important achievements, are repudiated as 'exercises in vanity' by the Leader of the Opposition, but they meet, I would argue, the spirit and the letter of his own party's doctrinal stance.

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

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Lensink should sit there and suffer in silence.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA: The opportunity of Address in Reply deserves much better than this fanciful flight of hyperbole, grandstanding and confected righteousness. I might add that over time I have expressed concerns with government priorities, but credit where credit is due is required in debate.

I also noted in my first speech the responsibility of government to improve both the quality of living for all and the wellbeing of workers, families and the less privileged in our society. It is pleasing to see that, in outlining the government's priorities and legislative program, the Governor spoke of the government's commitment to continuing economic growth as well as reaffirming those initiatives that are the building blocks and cement of a responsible and caring society.

I finally note that in the 10 years of state Labor government much has been accomplished and that much is in the process of being accomplished. Under this government's strenuous efforts, the City of Adelaide is being revitalised. I will not, however, reiterate those initiatives, as they have been more than adequately covered by the contributions of the government mover and seconder, but we should note that it is and will be an impressive list of planning and achievements that we should rightly be proud of—projects that are necessary to carry our state forward.

I congratulate the new members of parliament—Zoe Bettison, in the seat of Ramsay, and Dr Susan Close, in the seat of Port Adelaide. I am confident that they will both do well despite the warm and graceful welcome of the Hon. Rob Lucas. Finally, in salvaging something from the wrecks of other contributions, I continue to be a proud ASU member, a proud ALP member and a proud member of this great state. I commend the motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.