APPROPRIATION BILL 2013

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (11:20): Sir, just to conclude my remarks: when we look back at the results of Labor's 11-year reign, it is clear that they have left a solid path of destruction in their wake. This Labor government has delivered the loss of our AAA credit rating, the state experienced its worst consumer confidence in 16 years, reaching a 41 per cent full-time youth unemployment rate in Adelaide's northern suburbs and having us being labelled Australia's second Tasmania. It goes without saying that the state economy is a disaster.

The only chance South Australia has to return to prosperity is to elect a Liberal government come March. Our state needs stability to be seen once again as strong and reliable. It needs certainty. It needs promises that are delivered upon, not promises made to be broken. We need to return the state to a place that is attractive for families and businesses but, first and foremost, we need to fix this utter mess that Labor has left us with. The only good thing to come out of this government's latest budget is the fact that it will hopefully be their last.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (11:21): I rise in support of the 2013-14 budget and congratulate the Premier and Treasurer, in the other place, on his first budget. South Australia, like all other states, faces constraints at the financial level and, at the same time, the government has social and economic goals to pursue, all in a responsible manner. The 2013-14 budget captures the tenets of the Labor government, as one would expect it to do. If I may, I will echo the comments of the Premier and the Treasurer in the other place:

The choices we have made in this budget stem from our belief that government has a crucial role to play in helping industries to change and grow, in protecting and creating jobs, and in building a better quality of life for people.

Even with the pressure on our manufacturing sector and our soft retail expenditure, South Australia has still seen more jobs being created than lost—I understand some 10,600 in the last 12 months.

Seven priority areas were identified at the beginning of our term and the economic statement, which was released earlier this year, built on that, with four focus areas identified. The statement was built on independent economic modelling, with our long-term outlook being strong. One should also place on the record that the economic backdrop of the budget in South Australia is one of facing declining tax and GST revenues. So, Mr President, many challenges.

There is also a change in accounting treatment which sees a reduction in the two forecast surpluses of 2015-16 and 2016-17. Nonetheless, government debt is expected to fall to $8.8 billion by 2016-17, an estimated improvement of over $450 million against the forecast in the Mid-Year Budget Review, with a moderate 7.6 per cent of gross state product.

I think it is worthwhile reiterating the Premier's words in the other place that this budget does deliver a significant strengthening of the budgetary position by the end of forward estimates in comparison to the position at the Mid-Year Budget Review.

Whilst the Premier acknowledged that it is true that the government did not take decisions that would lead us to surpluses more quickly, he responsibly outlined the reasons that we have chosen not to sell the state's remaining significant government assets, not to abandon our program of infrastructure spending, which those opposite sometimes fail to support, and, at the coalface, not to cut deeper into the important services which support or protect the community. All in all, a very responsible budget by a very responsible Premier and Treasurer. The Premier rightly highlighted the areas of health, disability and education—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: What about mental health?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I will be speaking about mental health, the Hon. John Dawkins—and I write my own copious notes. The Premier rightly highlighted the areas of health, disability and education where the commonwealth government has partnered South Australia in the provision of these services, which will have a positive budgetary situation for many years to come.

I would like to take the opportunity today to focus on a couple of areas, if time permits. I have already had the opportunity to speak on the disability sector during a matter of interest yesterday. I have in the past talked about the strong infrastructure spend of this government in the health area, and I noticed the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars also doing so this morning. This year's budget continues to provide funding for works at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, as well as $328 million to rebuild and upgrade hospitals around the state, as well as continued support to make South Australia a leader in medical research and deliver better dental services for South Australians.

As pointed out by health minister Snelling, despite the need to live within our means, this government's continued growing investment in health is showing excellent results. Over the last decade, this government has transformed every metropolitan hospital with major redevelopment, as well as having some of the best-performing public hospital emergency departments and the highest rates of elective surgery in the nation, with lower than average waiting times.

In short, health is the single largest area of investment in our state and the 2013-14 budget continues with that outlay. Whilst there may not be a massive amount of new health spending announced in this year's budget, this government is still making a record investment in South Australia's health system and making important reforms, such as in CTP, which I will briefly mention in a minute—reforms that go to the core of our Labor values: looking after the most vulnerable—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You don't have any.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: —and those in our community who are doing it tough. We will wait to hear what you have to say, then, because we are all waiting. New measures in this year's health budget see $41.3 million of funding to support the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and attract specialty medical research groups. I know that there is enormous excitement about the addition of SAHMRI.

There is $1.5 million in 2015-16 for the Adelaide Dental Hospital and partnering with the commonwealth to deliver $16.1 million over the next two years to treat more dental patients around the state. Dental treatment is a very basic health need, which can change people's quality of life. The discomfort and sometimes misery that people can suffer with dental health problems are recognised by this increased spending.

The budget also includes support over three years for those most in need in our Indigenous communities with $32 million over three years for the Closing the Gap Indigenous healthcare initiative and $3.5 million over two years for communities on the APY lands. As politicians, many of us have the opportunity—and, I think, privilege—to travel and meet members of our Indigenous community who live on the lands and I am certain all would appreciate the need to close the gap at many levels. I believe the great levellers in any society are jobs and education, but one must first have the opportunity to access good health care to start with.

As honourable members would know, the health minister was responsible for initiating the reforms to the state's compulsory third-party (CTP) insurance scheme. Several months ago, the parliament passed the Motor Vehicle Accidents (Lifetime Support Scheme) Bill 2013. From memory, I made a short contribution to the bill when it was before us. The intention of the legislation was to help those who are catastrophically injured in vehicle accident or crashes.

It will see those people able to access a new lifetime support scheme—a scheme that essentially would relieve the burden on struggling families who currently have to care for loved ones with little help. It will mean that people who have been catastrophically injured will be able to get everything that is reasonable—and, more importantly, necessary—for their treatment, care and support, which does include the necessary home modifications and good quality equipment.

The health minister has referred to the scheme as a once-in-a-lifetime legacy that this government will leave for South Australians and I do concur with those comments. The changes in the CTP scheme have seen savings to motorists and South Australian families commencing on 1 July this year.

As a former minister for mental health, I just want to quickly touch on those reforms. The government has invested more than $300 million to modernise the system with both more mental health beds and investment in preventative mental health. I am pleased to see the continued funding towards the redevelopment of James Nash House as well as the Glenside campus redevelopment. The misinformation about the Glenside campus doing the rounds was extraordinary, suggesting that mental health services were no longer going to be run from there. Instead, what we have on the campus is a redevelopment of $142.6 million with the building of a new 129-bed mental health hospital, a 15-bed intermediate care centre, and the provision of 20 supported-accommodation places.

Other continuing funding in this year's mental health budget focuses on community mental health centres, intermediate care, mental health centres and towards the expansion of older persons' mental health community facilities. As part of the 2013 budget, we also see health funding focusing on the continued redevelopment/improvements in country South Australia. What it means on the ground is essentially more services being delivered directly in regional communities, improving the outcomes and reducing the stress and expense of travel for country South Australians and their families.

I know that we have some assistance in housing country people in Adelaide for medical treatment, and many other organisations do some good work and provide assistance in that area, but I think we all agree that any level of care delivered in the local community, with one's family and support network, is so beneficial at a time when the news and subsequent treatment for serious illness is being faced. Amongst the other projects announced in this budget, it is good to see $6.6 million towards the $16.5 million new and improved cancer facilities and equipment for Whyalla, regional South Australia and the Lyell McEwin Hospital, in partnership with the commonwealth government.

One of the areas I want to quickly touch on is the food and wine industry. As a former convenor of the then Premier's food council, I have always had an interest in those areas. When I kept the role in the first year I was the minister, I remember, Mr President, the comments of agreements coming from you on the backbench as I talked about premium food and wine. On a more serious note, the food and wine industry is worth over $14 billion to our state and is responsible for 36 per cent of our state's total merchandise exports. It is an industry which is constantly ensuring that we deserve and keep our reputation as clean and green to attract better prices and new markets as well as ensuring that innovation is at the forefront.

To this end, we have seen funding to the EPA to protect the environment, where we source and produce our products, funding to establish innovation clusters in regional South Australia, funding for the promotion of our markets in China, funding to boost food safety and public education, and funding to the High-Value Food Manufacturing Centre to bring all parties together to focus on processes that will add value to our produce.

It is interesting to see how the government-private partnership has evolved over the last 13 years or so to this important time where we are now, where the government is providing the right environmental conditions, food security, the research capacity and the promotion of markets, amongst other assistance, whilst the private sector is promoting its leadership and expertise and built-up knowledge, amongst other capacities. To that end, I congratulate the Leader of the Government in this chamber, the Hon. Gail Gago, who holds the important portfolio of Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, on her leadership.

I think that it is worthwhile to place on the record the six areas the Premier in the other place highlights in the 2013-14 state budget as being: investment in infrastructure and transport, with the support of 8,700 jobs in this budget year alone; the extension of the Housing Construction Grant and the establishment of an affordable housing program to support jobs and home ownership; the small business support, in particular, help to win government work; the provision of funding in helping people train for job opportunities in growing industries; the reduction of car registration costs by $148 over the next two years, which I have previously mentioned; the provision of front-line services, with more police and more hospital care and more support for people with disability, through DisabilityCare Australia.

I add my support for the 2013-14 budget and again congratulate the Premier and Treasurer for this, his first budget. It is no secret that this is my last budget contribution and I know how deeply I will miss having to hear those opposite (I assume you will still be in opposition) trying their very hardest to find faults, as indeed good oppositions do, whenever our government brings down their responsible budgets.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:35): I rise to make a contribution on the budget bill and would like at the outset to place some remarks on the record about the estimates process that precedes the Legislative Council dealing with this piece of legislation which provides the appropriation for various government departments.

The estimates process, I think, is useful for the government and the opposition in terms of auditing, if you like, the budget lines, although certainly under this government, things have been aggregated to the point where it is very hard to find the details of where the funding cuts are and so forth, which I think is just an indication of the fact that it has become trickier and trickier as it has gone along. It has done so in the health portfolio as well, particularly with the amalgamation of hospitals into boards and so forth, so they no longer report individually.

From the preparation point of view, for the government and the opposition to determine as much as they can and prepare as much as possible for what is in there and what is not in there, that is useful. However, when the estimates committees take place and the floor of this place is taken over by those rogues from the House of Assembly to quiz ministers (members of the Legislative Council, unless they are ministers, do not participate in the process at all), that is where it all falls apart.

We have this process where the ministers have an opening statement and they take up as much time as possible. In recent years they have been trying to do so-called deals with the opposition and say, 'Well, we will trade off our opening statement and cut down the total time.' As a shadow minister, I have always instructed whoever is asking my questions never to agree to that, because I think that the amount of time that we spend on the examination of each department is a pittance in any case.

From memory—I have not checked this, but I think it is in this order—for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources it was two hours in total. When you take out 20 or 30 minutes of an opening statement and Dorothy Dixers, that might leave the opposition with an hour at most. SA Water and the River Murray combined is one hour. Zero Waste SA gets half an hour and the EPA gets half an hour. That is just not good enough.

I am a member of the Budget and Finance Committee, which is chaired by the Hon. Rob Lucas, and we have a much more useful process where each department comes in without their minister for two hours. I have found that that is a much more transparent process than estimates. I think estimates needs some reform, but you would not expect that under the tricky Rann-Weatherill government, so we will have to wait for the next premier to come in and clean up the place.

I am going to make some general remarks about the budget and then talk about the portfolio areas for which I am responsible. It is a tragedy that we have had 11 years of Labor, because there are so many missed opportunities. Over the years—and these are all well documented—we have had promises of prison rebuilds and we have had electrification of some lines which have then been cancelled; there have been so many different promises written on the back of an envelope which have then been cancelled.

We should have had a proper plan right at the outset, and I think transport is one of those areas which is a classic area. The government has never had a transport plan in 11 years. It never had a transport policy when it came into office and before it was elected. Everything is done in this ad hoc way that is driven by whichever seats Labor thinks it is trying to hold onto.

In 2002, when Labor came into office, it had revenues of some $7 billion or $8 billion. That has now doubled. We are in the situation where more revenue has come into the budget each year than the government realised was coming in, and yet every year, at the time of the Mid-Year Budget Review, it found that it had still overspent and in many years were saved by GST and property windfalls—but those days are gone; the golden years of growth have gone.

Labor does what it always does when it is in government: it finds that it runs out of money and undertakes cuts itself, in areas where they should never have taken place, and it has overspent. We all know their white elephants: the Adelaide Oval; that blasted $40 million footbridge, which is an abomination; and the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. There have been wasted opportunities in every single budget.

In the current budget, we are going to have a deficit of $1.3 billion, but you can bet your cotton socks that it is going to be a lot more than that. We will get to the end of the financial year and the Premier and Treasurer will say, 'Oh, gosh, well, the growth forecasts were a little bit optimistic and we are very sorry, but there is less money available.' Our debt in this year alone is approaching $14 billion.

We have had six budget deficits in seven years, after promises that the budget would be in surplus. We just cannot trust the Rann/Weatherill governments to bring us into surplus—or anything they say, in fact. The AAA credit rating impacts on the state's borrowings: the lower your rating, the more your money costs to borrow. Treasurer Snelling made the rather valiant claim in September 2011, 'We are committed to making sure we retain the AAA credit rating,' but it has been downgraded; the latest downgrade is to AA under Mr Weatherill.

In the water area, there have been huge price hikes, which I detailed in a recent matter of interest. However, I think it is worth mentioning what factors are contributing to increased water costs. Obviously, there is the desalination plant with 100 gigalitres we are not going to need even in 2050, according to the experts. The carbon tax is costing an extra $14.6 million; renewable energy, $43.7 million; executive salaries, $69.6 million; and the mothballing of the desal plant will cost us $90 million—huge amounts of waste. The socialists who run this show do not really worry about it because it is other people's money and who cares? Just stick it on the credit card and the great-grandchildren will pay for that one, thank you very much.

For each of the portfolio areas, because I do not have the privilege of sitting in on the estimates process, I do have a number of questions. I appreciate that the government may not have time to reply to them by the close of this debate, but I would like to signal to minister Hunter that I would appreciate answers to these if he can provide them over the winter recess when the parliament is not meeting.

SA Water, Budget Paper 5, Capital Investment Statement, pages 58 to 60 of the budget. My questions are:

In relation to the pipe network renewal, nearly $40 million is allocated to that program. Is that a regular annual funding amount and was this program reduced during the funding of the desalination plant and interconnector program?

What estimates has SA Water undertaken for future costs and liabilities of our ageing pipe infrastructure?

The Adelaide desalination plant (which is an existing project as per page 58), the payment of $32.374 million will be paid in 2014. What services does South Australia receive from this payment? Will there be a similar payment every year?

The total capital expenditure for 2013-14 is $407 million. What is the impact on the regulated asset base?

I think that is all I have on SA Water.

The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. This is a fairly modest sized budget, one would have to say. It has undergone lots and lots of restructures since the last election. The environment was one of the areas that Mr Rann liked to fancy himself as being quite a guru in. Most of his projects were tokenistic and all designed for publicity and most of them, I have to say, are gone. The latest one is the NatureLinks program, which has been cut to the bone, to the point where it is just about finished.

So, we have had a number of restructures. We used to have the department of water, land and biodiversity conservation and the department for environment and heritage. They got folded together. They then had the department of water folded into that and now they have had natural resource management folded into those. So, a significant number of restructures in the last three to four years.

In the 2010 budget there was a huge cut to DEH, which would have an impact in 2013-14 (that is, this financial year) of $30 million. This is on top of the cuts that have been outlined in this budget. Natural resource management had $26 million taken out in 2011-12. Courtesy of, as I have mentioned before, that very useful committee that both the Hon. Rob Lucas and I are members of, Budget and Finance, we have discovered that the cuts to this department, the cumulative savings expected in 2016-17 is $169.4 million. The current cumulative savings expected for the year 2013-14 is $107.148 million, and then in 2014-15 $159.35 million. So, I will be surprised if there is much left in that department if we are elected next year.

We were provided with a list of all of the programs. This was asked of the minister in estimates and he refused to answer. It was rather cute, I have to say, but we did manage to get a useful bit of information at our committee. So, there are a range of things: workforce reductions (obviously), reductions in various business functions, field support, aquatic ecology, development referrals, applications for water-affecting activities and managed aquifer recharge schemes, the Border Groundwaters Agreement Review Committee, surface and groundwater monitoring, heritage grants—well, that has been attacked over many years now—science monitoring and knowledge events, media monitoring, brochure production and online services, feral animal control—an area that is always under pressure—further amalgamation of regional natural resource management and DEWNR delivery programs, regional support unit volunteers, NatureLinks and Bounceback.

On that, which is one that I mentioned at the start of my contribution, this was a Rann election promise. There are six regions, and I would like to comment on some of the things that various ministers have said about this program over the years. Former minister John Hill described in 2003:

The NatureLinks program is a particularly important program, because it links public lands with private lands to ensure that there are habitat corridors to allow species to travel.

Our own leader in this place, as minister for the environment, in 2007 said:

Healthy biological and diverse ecosystems underpin South Australia's environmental, social, cultural, spiritual and economic wellbeing...The five biodiversity corridors identified in South Australia's Strategic Plan provide a bold vision for biodiversity conservation in South Australia to enable South Australia's species and ecosystems to survive, evolve and adapt to environmental change.

Those are pretty strong words. This is a program that has, effectively, had some seven people and, as a result of this budget, has been cut down to one.

People might not support this program and, if they do, they should be particularly concerned because like many in the environmental space it provides seed funding and it also leverages commonwealth funds. This program, which one might have been sceptical of at the start of the program, has actually been recognised by the commonwealth government as being very important to the commonwealth wildlife corridors. So, it is one that I think the commonwealth was interested in providing some funding for but in its rage with the razor gang the government has decided that it will just slash it.

I have a number of questions in relation to the environment department as well. I would like to receive some responses from the minister. In relation to the south-east drainage scheme, which is in Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, Agency Statements, pages 149 to 198, particularly on page 154 under the title Investing Expenditure Summary on the South-East drainage scheme, I would like an update about what the program to divert the water from the South-East to the Coorong is.

Under Strategy, Science and Resource Monitoring, which is on the same page, the government expects to reduce the number of staff from 500 to 410. What programs will be cut as a result? In the highlights on page 157, as to the Hanson Bay land purchase, can the government explain the rationale behind the purchase of this property? What due diligence was undertaken? Did the government consider that the $1.8 million may have been better spent on the River Murray or numerous other essential programs which have now been slashed?

The old office of sustainability and climate change, which is on page 180: how many staff have been retained from the old days when it was in DPC? On page 158, the targets for 2013-14, what is the state koala strategy? Is it limited to Kangaroo Island or other regions? Is there a similar one to manage New Zealand fur seals?

Activity indicators on page 159 refer to the number of heritage applications received. What is the current level of funding for the heritage branch, heritage assessors and grant programs? How does this compare to the previous financial year? Sustainable water resources on page 159: is there more detail available on the remediation of the Hume Dam? Was less water provided for environmental purposes under the decrease of expenditure of $7.9 million for water for environmental purposes? Yes, we know there is no money for stormwater, so that question has been answered at some point.

As to the $445 million for South Australia for environmental infrastructure and industry diversification, is there more information about guidelines or what specific purposes? When will we first see the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? Will a review of the environmental watering plan take place since the change of water ministers? What stage is the current annual environmental watering plan at? When is an environmental watering requirement including a draft long-term environmental watering plan for the River Murray and the water quality and salinity management plan expected to be implemented?

On page 169, Highlights, there is $23.1 million over four years for prescribed burning in national parks. How many hectares of lands are in high risk areas and how regularly should they be burned and are they burned? As to the nine natural resources centres across South Australia, what are their locations, what is the capital cost and how many staff are in each? Page 170, people and parks, what has happened to that strategy? Pages 172 and 173, again these are highlights. One of the highlights was the commencement of the construction process for regulators and pump relocation for priority River Murray wetlands and flood plains. Where are these sites located? Can the minister provide an update of the costs to install the Chowilla environmental regulator? Of the 750,000 seedlings planted at the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray sites, what percentage of them survived and why did those that died fail?

Licensing and permits, page 181, in relation to prescribed water resources areas and crown land, how much of the income comes from water levies under the NRM Act? Volumetric conversion of water licences has been rolled out across the Mallee prescribed wells area from 1 July. What percentage of an irrigator's allocation has been impacted by these changes? One of the targets for 2013, at the top of page 183, is to 'review the existing meter reading programs, with a view to developing a state-wide management program'. What does this mean?

In relation to the EPA, I also have some questions in relation to solid waste and the liquid waste levy, as follows:

1. What is the average amount by weight of solid waste collected per household per year in South Australia?

2. What scope is there for councils to increase rates in line with increases to the solid waste levy?

3. What was the total solid waste levy revenue in 2011-12, the budget for 2013-14 and the projected for 2016-17?

4. Who pays the liquid waste levy and what are examples of liquid waste?

5. What was the total liquid waste revenue in 2011-12, the budget for 2013-14 and the projection for 2016-17?

6. For the solid and liquid waste levy revenues, what are the funds hypothecated with moneys to be spent only on waste recycling related projects? What are the terms of reference for the spending of these funds? Can we have some examples?

7. Are funds collected entirely spent each year and where are the funds held?

Referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, the Zero Waste budget showed a $12.9 million deposit in the Waste to Resources Fund. What quantum of funding would be in the Waste to Resources Fund by the end of the financial year 2013-14, if there were no outgoings? How much of the Waste to Resources Fund was expended in 2012-13? Can we have a list of programs and projects?

One of the highlights of 2012-13, on page 232, was to prepare a background study on contaminated soils in South Australia. Has it been published and what were the objectives of the study? For example, was it the Royal Adelaide Hospital site contamination or typical contamination of South Australian soils from foundries or other manufacturing activities? One of the highlights in 2012-13, on the same page, was to prepare a background paper on waste to energy technologies; has it been published or is it publicly available? What proposals are there for this technology in South Australia? Finally, on Zero Waste, does Zero Waste still advocate fortnightly waste collection as a means to reduce waste to landfill?

I apologise for having to read all those questions into the record. However, if we had an adequate estimates process, it could have all been dealt with there and we would know the answers by now. Such as it is with this tricky government, we do not get answers to fair and reasonable questions and we have to detain people, including the poor people in the gallery, to whom I apologise for putting them through all that, but that is the situation in which we find ourselves.

I cannot say that I endorse this bill because it is full of red ink, but, be that as it may, it is the standard process in this parliament that we do not oppose budget bills, so with those remarks I reluctantly endorse the bill.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (12:00): In supporting the passage of this bill, I recognise its importance in providing $12.245 billion to the various programs incorporated in the 2013-14 budget of the government. It is my intention to focus on two particular areas that have come to my attention, as they relate to priorities of the government and the manner in which public servants carry out those wishes.

First, I want to take the opportunity to express grave concern over the decision to cease, in 2013, funding for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's Native Fish Strategy, otherwise known as the NFS, and the resulting impediment to the recovery and sustainability of the basin's native fish populations and ecosystems into the future. It is disappointing that state and federal funding has been removed. The NFS has achieved outstanding success since its establishment in 2003, including:

the establishment of highly successful river rehabilitation demonstration reaches across the Murray-Darling Basin. This program has engendered community engagement in river restoration, and showcases the benefits to native fish species which result from improved river system health;

advice on the construction and operation of fishways, which has assisted greatly in unrestricted fish movement by restoring fish passage along the River Murray;

measures to manage and control the invasive European carp, including integrated pest management exercises, 'daughterless carp' technology, and the development of the Williams carp separation cage;

research and development addressing key issues affecting native fish communities, including flow regulation, cold water pollution, introduced disease management, drought impacts, habitat enhancement benefits, and innovation in fish community monitoring;

development of a population model for Murray cod to assist decision-making for the management of this iconic species;

workshops on fish management and conservation to facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration across jurisdictions; and

emergency rescue responses to preserve at risk fish populations.

The success of the first nine years of the 50-year Native Fish Strategy was underpinned by a cooperative approach by all basin governments, linking objective science with community input and engagement, and serving as an example of best practice ecological management.

The NFS is regarded as a highly successful and essential component of the cross-jurisdictional efforts to restore the environment and health of the Murray-Darling system. It is the view of many in the basin that the period since the establishment of the NFS in 2003 is an unreasonably short operational time for what is designed as a long-term strategy to sustain native fish populations and recreational use of the fishery. They consider that terminating the NFS, without establishing a national authority to continue the present successful management structure, is a major step backward.

It is considered vital to preserve the native fishery of the basin from ecological, social, cultural and economic perspectives. Native fish populations in the basin are unique, and form an integral part of the basin's overall ecology, as well as being culturally significant to local Indigenous Australians. Recreational fishing contributes approximately $1.3 billion to the basin economy.

At this point I should indicate that the strategy has had strong support from a range of community and recreational groups throughout the basin, including the constituent bodies which make up Field and Game Australia, one of which is Field and Game SA, which is well known to many members in this chamber.

Having noted these concerns, it is relevant to acknowledge the commitment of many public servants within PIRSA, SARDI and DEWNR to the Native Fish Strategy and the overall restoration of the Murray Darling system. It is also important, of course, to note that these good people have had to implement the priority of the government. The government has its right to do that and, unfortunately, governments—both state and federal—have seen the need to remove the funding, and that is a pity.

I want to move on to another area and that is the government's suicide prevention strategy. That strategy was developed in the last year or so and resulted largely from a motion that I put through this chamber, with strong support, and a similar one that was put through the House of Assembly by the member for Adelaide.

I think sources in the government realised that they were not doing enough about suicide prevention. They did have a large number of consultation meetings in the development of the strategy. The strategy is a commendable document. It has got some very broad aims and I think that is something that a lot of people support; however, it becomes more and more apparent to me that there is a significant lack of resources within the mental health area and within the health portfolio to back up that suicide prevention strategy. I think that those who are in those departments certainly have very little resources to implement that strategy.

There is an ongoing need for more work within government to assist our various communities to deal with suicide in matters that best befit the local areas. I think the strategy can fulfil those aims, but at the moment it will not happen because the resources from the government to back that up are not there. That is something that I say with great sincerity as someone who deals daily with people in relation to the prevention of suicide and also, very importantly, dealing with the families of people who have committed suicide and those who have been unsuccessful in trying to take their life. Those issues go on for many years and, unfortunately, in some cases decades.

I do support the people who are working within government to assist communities in dealing with suicide prevention and related matters through the strategy, but unfortunately the commitment to back that up, particularly from the health department and other departments, is not there at the moment. I am very strongly of the view that it is something that needs to be rectified and I will do everything I can to urge policy makers. Certainly within our own party we have a strong policy of arming the community and arming those with life experience to assist those mental health professionals in dealing with this terrible blight on our community. With those words, I am happy to support the passage of the Appropriation Bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.