SUPPLY BILL 2012

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 May 2012.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:26): I rise to be the first of a number of speakers, I suspect, from the opposition to speak on the Supply Bill 2012. As members would know, the Supply Bill allows the government to pay its bills, including the wages of public servants, until the passage of the budget. The passage of this bill does not mean that the opposition or the people of South Australia support the Labor Party racking up ever-increasing bills while raking in ever-more taxes.

I suspect that other speakers on this side will speak about their shadow ministerial portfolios and issues affecting their constituents, and, of course, I do not have to remind everybody in this chamber that our constituents include every man, woman and child in South Australia—in excess of 1.6 million of them. We are concerned about them.

As members would be aware, I am the shadow minister for economic development, the shadow minister for planning and the shadow minister for tourism. I want to look firstly at the area of economic development, in particular Labor's record over the last decade.

While the Supply Bill is, as I said, the bill that ensures wages for public servants, they obviously work under the guidance of ministers, such as the Hon. Russell Wortley, the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Gail Gago, and the half a dozen or so who have come before them in the last decade: the Hon. Paul Holloway, the Hon. Terry Roberts, the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. Bernard Finnigan for a brief period of time. I do not think I have missed any. There are probably not all that many in this chamber over the decade. The Public Service has worked under their direction.

In those 10 years we had the nation's highest taxes. In the last 12 months we have had the nation's worst economic growth. We have the nation's highest capital city water charges; the nation's worst business confidence; the nation's worst retail figures for the last 12 months; the nation's worst export performance for the last six months; and the nation's worst performing workers compensation system, which is something that the Hon. Russell Wortley is responsible for—no, he's not responsible, they did not trust him with it. I can see some workplace dispute going on within the chamber about who was responsible for the Dorothy Dixer.

I think it is a disgrace that the minister would blame either the Hon. Carmel Zollo or his hard-working staff for what was obviously his mistake and his cock-up this afternoon. I was distracted; I did not realise that a dispute was going on at the other end of the chamber.

We also have, as I said, the nation's worst performing workers compensation system. We also have the nation's slowest growth in wages, but sadly the fastest growth in consumer prices. On one hand, under this government, for a decade people have been worse off in their pay packets, but the prices are escalating beyond their reach.

We also have the nation's highest electricity prices, and recently we saw that we are the third highest in the world. Of course, we have some of the highest penetration of wind energy in the world. We certainly lead this nation in wind energy. I am looking forward to the very important select committee, one of a number of important select committees that we have established in this chamber, and I know that the Hon. Carmel Zollo is quivering with excitement about the wind farm select committee. One of the aspects I would like to explore, and I hope other members will also be interested, is the link between the level of wind power generation in our market and the highest electricity prices in the nation.

We also have the worst jobs growth in 20 years. Bill Evans, a respected Westpac economist, has been in that job for about the same length of time. At a breakfast recently, when discussing economic growth, he indicated that our jobs growth was now back to 1992 levels. We have the lowest quarterly dwelling commencements in 10 years and the worst property sales figures in 27 years. In fact, when you speak to people in the property industry, the people who build homes, the new home builders, they say now that it is the worst it has been for 40 years and dwelling approvals or commencements are back to 1992 levels. You can see that it is not the public servants who are to blame; it is under the guidance of this inept and incompetent bunch of ministers for a decade that we have seen this state back to pre-State Bank conditions when it comes to the economic indicators that I have just listed.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Just look at the number of cranes out there.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Russell Wortley talks about the number of cranes. Yes, there are several cranes. Just add another $4 billion to the state's debt. When you talk to the construction sector, they are quite excited right at the moment about the construction activity but they are very worried about what happens in about 18 months' time. Sure, there is the hospital project, the hospital that—

The PRESIDENT: They think they might get in.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I didn't realise that the President was going to be interjecting from the chair. Maybe you would like to excuse yourself and come down and join the debate.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Maybe you should just wind up.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I really haven't started. When I get wound up properly, then it will be going on a bit longer. There is a real concern that this economy is going to drop off the edge of the cliff. We saw today the Minister for Regional Development unable, unwilling and too frightened to give an answer about what the impact on the economy would be of postponing the start of the Olympic Dam expansion project.

We have seen the discussion and commentary last year when we sat down as an opposition, the taskforce members, and I think it was probably one of the best examples of a bipartisan approach to legislation with that indenture. The former minister and former member for Port Adelaide the Hon. Kevin Foley facilitated that, and I think that was one of those operations conducted at a high level of trust where we were able to get access to the indenture document from an opposition perspective and access to all of the departmental officials for briefings because we, as an opposition, wanted to see that project start as soon as possible.

The commentary and the language was that we had to have it through by the end of the calendar year because BHP would be making a decision in the second quarter of 2012. While at best we had better not delay it, of course, we would not want any impediment to BHP making that decision. That was the decision the opposition took, that we would be happy to facilitate the passage of that legislation. As soon as it was passed, the language changed a little bit more. It was then that they would probably make a decision in the second half of 2012—so not the second quarter, second half; we are talking third and fourth quarter. Then in the last couple of days, it has been published that it will be later in the year which clearly means it is likely to be in the last quarter, if at all, this year.

As shadow minister for economic development—more and more people are coming into the gallery. I am delighted that they have come to listen. After a decade of Labor, we have a disastrous set of figures before us. I do hope that, at the next election, the government is treated the way it should be treated at the ballot box.

However, I would like to move on now to the area of planning. As shadow minister for planning, I have had lengthy contact with planning officials in Planning SA, who have given me countless briefings over these last five or six years. They are good, hardworking people. However, we have a strange sort of planning system. We have seen the development of the 30-year plan. The Hon. Mark Parnell has been very interested in the 30-year plan, and the work that was done in the development of the 30-year plan.

We had a growth areas investigation report for the development of the 30-year plan. Of course, that was all outsourced from the department, we are told, because there was not sufficient expertise in the department or Planning SA. Of course, we saw this very convenient matching up of areas of land owned by prominent developers who were also prominent supporters of the ALP. It just happened to line up: the growth areas just happened to be, coincidentally, the same parcels of land owned by prominent supporters of the Labor Party, and that really has fuelled a belief in the community that this current government has been subjected to some influence through the political donations system.

If we look at where things have not worked, the first one that comes to mind is the Mount Barker rezoning—a ministerial DPA, where the government stepped in over the top of the local community. The local community had been undertaking some expansion for a significant amount of time. I am sure the local council had put in a lot of work—another level of public servants, certainly not paid by the state budget but certainly a group of people doing a lot of work—coping with the growth in the area. But at the time the minister and the department said, 'No, we've got a better plan for you,' and they plonked that in on top of them.

It was the same for Seaford Heights. It had been rezoned for housing development for some 30 years, even through the state bank period, when the state finances, sadly, after another long period of Labor government, were in a parlous state. The Liberal government at the time chose not to put that land on the market. We knew the value of it; we knew that it should be preserved but, no, this government decided to put it on the market. Interestingly, the member for Mawson, Leon Bignell, was quite happy to support that. It was only after the election that he stood up and started to complain.

That leads me to the year-long effort the Department of Planning and Local Government and, more importantly, Planning SA, has put into the Barossa and the McLaren Vale protection bills. I know we are not meant to ask questions about bills, but I am sure I would not be out of order if I make some brief comments about those bills.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: Nobody is listening.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, then maybe you should just keep your mouth closed, the Hon. Mr Gazzola, and listen, rather than talking.

The Hon. J.M. Gazzola: It's not even worth taking a point of order on.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: These were announced early in 2011. So, well over a year ago. A significant amount of work has been done by the public servants in the department to come up with a package that the minister thought the community would accept. I am not sure of the level of consultation. I went to a couple of the public meetings. Certainly, from the feeling in those public meetings, I am sure that the staff from the department would have gauged that there was quite a level of concern about the unintended consequences of these two bills and the impact they may have on the community.

Really, at the end of the day, both the Barossa Council and the Onkaparinga council had been pretty much managing things with the community's concerns at heart. We have seen this has been going on for a year, and now the bills are being debated in the House of Assembly. I think it is fair to say that the minister is a little disturbed that the Barossa Council has now come out with a public statement to say that it is opposed to the bill and would like the bills to be defeated.

The Supply Bill pays people's wages. We have a team of public servants working in the department, and now a year on, the major stakeholder, local government, the sector that will be absolutely impacted and affected by this change in legislation, has said, 'No, we don't like it'. So you have had a waste of 12 months' work. It is fair to say that the minister is quite frustrated that it is 12 months of his work and the department's work, and now he does not quite know why the local community is opposed to it. That is an example of how this government really has lost touch with the community.

We have seen other areas, such as Newport Quays—again government decisions were made and supported and through the Land Management Corporation a master plan was done for the area, but at the end of the day it fell foul and it has cost the taxpayers of South Australia $5 million to break that particular development deal. I know that there is further court action, and I suspect it will continue and may well cost the state. I am sure there are legal costs; even if the legal action is not successful, it will cost the state dearly just in legal costs.

Of course we had some issues with the St Clair land swap and the oval, and even now I think there is an issue with Brocas Avenue. It could simply be reopened. It is closed past where there are tennis courts on the other side of a school. It could be reopened, but, no, a whole new road will have to be built through that green parkland area. I wonder whether that is a sensible use of the state's taxes or whether it is a sensible use of ratepayers' money in the City of Charles Sturt, as it may well be local government funded.

Another issue where we see waste and frustration within the public sector is in relation to developments that are happening in the city and the government's recent announcement of reactivating, enlightening and re-energising the city. Prior to that, certainly under the leadership or stewardship of the Hon. Paul Holloway as minister for planning, we saw the preparation of the metropolitan inner rim structure plans and the north-western corridor right out along Port Road.

I know that a tremendous amount of work was done, a lot of effort put in by the Public Service and a lot of effort put in by the local government partners in that process, and now the plans are sitting on the shelf, ready to go. The current Minister for Planning is no longer responsible for urban development—he had that ripped often him and it has gone to the Hon. Patrick Conlon and he is just the Minister for Planning. I am not sure whether the responsibility lies with the Hon. John Rau or the Hon. Patrick Conlon, but at the end of the day we have seen a tremendous amount of taxpayers' money spent on the structure plans for the inner rim and the north-western corridor, yet they are sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

We still do not have a transport plan. We have seen the Hon. Chloe Fox given responsibility for the public transport system, and we saw a lovely photograph in TheAdvertiser today of her live on the computer. I was intrigued to note that minister Conlon's Chief of Staff was behind her in the photograph with his iPad. I do hope he was not providing the questions for her to answer. It was interesting to see that lovely photograph of the two of them in large colour today in The Advertiser.

We can see that after a decade of Labor there are serious concerns. I am concerned about waste in the public sector, where people are set to do a task and then, for whatever reason, the government or minister of the day decide not to take up that work, or they have no clear instructions to start with.

As the shadow minister for tourism, just give me again some little facts after 10 years of Labor. Really the tragedy now, when you talk to the community and the operators, is that they really do feel that they have a minister who does not understand and does not really appreciate the industry. We heard today the minister giving us the prepared answer in relation to a tourism question. I guess at least she had a prepared answer whereas, sadly, the Minister for Industrial Relations had a prepared answer but to the wrong question. I guess, in fairness, we should—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: He says he had the right answer; he got the wrong question, and that was obviously what the dispute at the end of the chamber was about. You may have been out of the chamber, Mr Acting President, but there was a little dispute between the minister, his chief of staff or his adviser, and the Hon. Carmel Zollo, as to who was at fault and who had provided whom with the wrong information.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): I think the member will return to the Supply Bill.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I think it is a disgrace that he did not supply the right information to the Hon. Carmel Zollo. We certainly see the tourism sector really struggling. Obviously, a high Australian dollar is out of the minister's and government's control, but there are all the state taxes and charges and the fact that, for small business, it is more and more difficult to do business in this state.

Pretty much every tourism operator is a small business. There is a handful of larger operators but, pretty much, they are family-owned, husband and wife, family-type operations. A lot of the small ones across regional South Australia are certainly suffering and, really, I do not think they get any comfort from the minister at all.

We have seen some of the issues that we have had to deal with, such as the visitor information centre move. The minister was a member of cabinet. She was not the minister for tourism when it moved, but she certainly was the minister for tourism when it all fell apart. To move that particular facility to an underground, side street location from a main street, ground floor location on King William Street—it just beggars belief that you could even have that move and think that was a positive step for the industry.

For all of us who assist international and interstate tourists when we bump into them in front of Parliament House, it was so simple to say, 'Look, see where the big yellow I is? It's just across the road. You can get all the information you need.' Now, you have got to say, 'It is down there. It is the second turn on the left, then you have got to turn left again and it is downstairs. If you are disabled, there is a chairlift to get you up to a lift, then take you back down.' It is just a joke, and how a minister can sit there and say that this was a sensible move is beyond me.

We then saw the situation in relation to the chief executive of the Tourism Commission. The minister said in here, day after day, that he has done an excellent job and has done great work, then his contract was terminated, I think, under the guise of a cost saving. She certainly has not been able to offer any explanation as to why.

Just let me remind you about the cost saving. The chief executive was paid roughly $300,000 a year. His termination payment was $250,000, but then, of course, we have a part-time chief executive on $150,000. So, to save $300,000, we are spending $400,000, and that is the sort of logic that this mob opposite thinks is good, sound economic management.

Of course, we have also seen them paying former premier, Mike Rann, $200,000—not to him, but providing him with services to the value of $200,000. Never, ever before in the history of this state have former premiers had that benefit. He is probably on a taxpayer funded pension of in excess of $200,000 a year and he gets an extra couple of hundred grand worth of services for the first six months.

We also saw the commission decide to take the visitor guides back in-house. They were all published in the regions, all the advertising revenue gained was spent in the regions but, probably under the guise of some cost saving measure—although, when you spend $400,000 to save $300,000, I am not sure there is anybody, especially in the minister's office, who has any idea of how to add up and how to balance the budget. We saw that disaster where, only now, some five months after the beginning of the year, are we starting to see those visitor information guides out.

So, right through our 'Mad March', with the Tour Down Under, the festival, the Fringe, the Clipsal—everything that was happening—we have had all of these information guides with last year's events. So, we were publishing stuff that had already happened 12 months before. You could not pick one up and look at what you might do later in the year and what might be happening later on. It was almost like a historical summary of what had happened, rather than a guide to what you could do in the future.

I am still of the view that the situation of having the chief executive of Tourism SA and the chairman of the board being one and the same person is a recipe for disaster. I do not wish to comment on the individual person, but I think but to have that potential conflict of interest is a recipe for disaster.

The minister said that it is a 12-month temporary situation. I am sure that in the budget that we will see in a fortnight's time tourism will suffer another massive cut, and I wonder how serious the government really is about fixing that. I think the minister said today that it is $4.7 billion—and she may have even claimed that it is up 6 per cent since last year—yet she thinks it is sensible and responsible to provide that organisation with a part-time chief executive. What other industry that generates close to $5 billion for our state would have a part-time chief executive? I think that just outlines the parlous state of this state's economy.

I know that the Supply Bill is there to ensure that public servants and the Public Service sector are paid while we pass the budget. I think the budget will be a digest of disappointment and government waste yet again, but with those few comments I support the passage of the Supply Bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.