MATTERS OF INTEREST

LIBERAL PARTY

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (15:23): It brings me no joy to rise to speak about further shortcomings of the Liberal opposition in this place. The people of South Australia deserve a better opposition than this, and I am very hopeful that my constructive criticism might help to contribute to such an outcome.

The underlying problem is that the South Australian Liberal Party constantly wants to settle for second best and is not prepared to stand up and fight for this state. The prime example of this that is talked about time and time again is the Liberal support for a second-rate plan for the River Murray, the proposal they supported to return only 2,750 gigalitres to the river—at a time when the South Australian government and pretty much every other group said that this was not good enough, they wanted a better deal for South Australia, they wanted it based on good science. But, no, not the South Australian Liberal Party. The now famous line came from the then shadow minister, the member for MacKillop, who said:

This is obviously not the Rolls-Royce, but it's a very good Mazda, and we're quite happy to drive in the Mazda.

While it is the case that the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have different ideas and different policy prescriptions, in years gone by I think that it is fair to say that it was the case that both parties were trying to do, in their own way, what they thought was best for the state. But now it appears that the Liberal Party does not do that anymore.

Imagine if Tom Playford had decided that we should not fight too hard for the state, we should not make waves, we should not support the establishment of ETSA or further industrialisation because it was all too hard or might not fit in with what colleagues wanted interstate. Fancy where we would be if the Liberals of the past had the same attitude as this mob. Imagine if we had taken this attitude to our major events. 'Let's not have the best events. Let's not have premium events, the Clipsal 500 or the Tour Down Under, because conservative governments in other states might want to put them on. Let's roll over; let's take second-rate Mazda-type events and let them have Rolls Royce events.'

In some other areas the Liberals have shown that they are more than prepared to advocate and fight for the second-best solutions. The Liberal Party fought very hard a few years ago to retain the second-best option for the health of South Australians, by advocating a patch-up job for the RAH instead of a new state-of-the-art hospital. This was despite all the evidence to the contrary: the health outcomes, the unsuitability of the buildings, and the insolvable access problems. The Liberals fought tooth and nail for mediocrity and they wonder why they lost the last election. 'Vote for us and we'll give you second-best,' oddly just did not appeal to the South Australian public.

This chamber yesterday was told that the South Australian Liberals did not even make a single submission to federal inquiries and looks at the plan for the Murray—just as when there was a review of the GST that could have seen $1 billion a year stripped from South Australia, and the Liberals again, the South Australian Liberals, vacated the field. They just did not have our state's interests at heart.

We should not be surprised that they did not make submissions on these two crucial areas. After all, what would their submission say? 'We, the South Australian Liberal Party, submit that our state should just accept whatever our mates in the Eastern States want to impose. We are not interested in the science or the evidence about what the river needs. We are happy to settle for a second-rate, or as we prefer to call it, Mazda, plan. Also, about changing the GST distribution, potentially making South Australia $1 billion a year worse off. We don't mind what you want to impose on us, because we really don't want to rock the boat and we are steadfastly committed to second-rate things. Yours sincerely, the SA Liberal Party.'

It is little wonder they did not put in a submission. And the person who let the cat out of the bag, Mazda Mitch of MacKillop? Well it just shows how committed the Liberal Party is to second-rate things. After all, he was their deputy leader at the time and if the Liberals had wanted to take their policy of wanting second-best to the extreme, they would have made him leader rather than sacking him from the ministry completely. Poor Mazda Mitch, but enough of him, really. If we had settled for the second-best option, the Mazda plan, the results would have been disastrous.

Experts tell us the plan that Labor fought for, that includes 3,200 gigalitres, much more than what the Liberals were prepared to fight for, achieved 17 out of 18 Murray-Darling Basin Plan Authority environmental water requirements compared to just 11 out of the 18 under the Liberals' plan for second-best. Other things that would have happened if we had settled for the Liberals' second-best plan: there would be an extra two million tonnes of salt in the system each year with all the salinity problems that would cause. The Liberals' plan would increase salinity risks for Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina. It would have put at risk the health of the Coorong, the health of world recognised flood plains, and would have increased the risk to important plants, animals and fish.

The SA Libs further showed their disdain for the River Murray by removing the portfolio from their shadow cabinet. I hope the Liberal opposition finds some of my suggestions helpful, and I hope they lift their game and do the right thing by South Australians.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps you can take it outside and have a coffee together. The Hon. Ms Lee.