Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 20 May 2014.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:47): I rise somewhat briefly, given the hour that we have reached in this place, to present an address in reply to the Governor's speech. I thank Uncle Lewis O'Brien for his generous welcome to country and appropriately noting that we are in Kaurna land when we meet in this place. I also thank the Governor and his wife for their ongoing service, not only to this parliament but the state of South Australia.

I note that the Weatherill government has continued to identify the key seven strategic priorities as continuing in their importance to this government and those priorities which were outlined when this parliament gathered for the last Address in Reply in 2012. Indeed, the Greens support an affordable place to live; creating a vibrant city; a chance for every child; safe communities, healthy neighbourhoods; growing advanced manufacturing; and realising the benefits of not only the mining boom but any other industries for all and sharing whatever wealth we have as a state and, indeed, we support premium food and wine from a clean environment. These are all quite constantly held strategies that would be endorsed by the Greens, but I think in some areas we would have a different way of going about achieving those goals. Certainly we commend the government on those particular goals.

We agree that we need to keep the best and brightest in this state and that they cannot just be attracted by small bars and vibrant cities. While they will not have a skate park for at least a few months, if not a few years, they certainly need not only great jobs but good jobs, sustainable jobs, clean jobs, green jobs and jobs of the future. If our state is to have a future, we need to have future-focused jobs to get us there.

I note that the government has outlined that WorkCover reform will be a key issue that it will bring into this place. I have not been in this place for as long as my Greens colleague, the Hon. Mark Parnell, and I pledge never to speak for over eight hours in a speech; however, I certainly look forward with some trepidation to the debate on WorkCover.

I would not necessarily use the word 'buggered' in terms of the Minister for Industrial Relations' reference to the system of WorkCover. I probably would have said broken. Certainly, it is not serving either injured workers or those who pay into the scheme; however, I also would not have used the unfortunate words of minister Rau, when he said that he would be playing hardball on WorkCover in this place. I certainly do not think that that is a way to frame any debate that is so important to our state and, indeed, impacts so profoundly on the lives of those who are injured in their workplace.

We have to have a focus on recovery. We have to have a focus on not sacrificing those people who are injured at work and not having a scheme that does not serve them. I look forward to a debate that does not seek to play hardball but looks to create a supportive model that is also sustainable for our state.

I also commend the government's ambition to reduce red tape, but I note that, while they have extolled the virtues of the small venue licence, across liquor licensing in particular, the entertainment consent provisions mean that we still have an archaic and outmoded approach to those particular small businesses that have a licence other than the small venue licence. The Greens have long argued against the culture cops and liquor enforcement having anything to do with policing entertainment and culture in our licensed premises, and I will certainly be bringing that legislation back before this place so that all licences, where appropriate, can enjoy the freedoms and flexibilities that are now enjoyed by those who are able to access that small venue licence.

Small bars, indeed, have been a hallmark of the Jay Weatherill Labor government. I certainly note that they have started to thrive in our vibrant city but, obviously, those small bars do not necessarily provide the breakfasts that some in the government might wish to see available before football games.

In the election when I came to this place, the prime issues were the building of the stadium, the blowout in the costs and the paying off of the SACA debt to create the ability to have football in the city. Of course, we now have a football stadium. It was up and running before this 2014 election and, certainly, people were able to walk over the bridge which, I think, opened three times—three soft openings—prior to the election. I think I walked across it a few times at various events or opportunities, and I have to say that I have noted that South Australian people do actually love the football stadium, and that we did build the bridge and people seemed to get over it with the results of this election.

However, that does not let the government off the hook—and that was not to make a pun—when it comes to its priorities. This state has prioritised the building of a very expensive upgrade to our football oval, particularly in comparison to other AFL stadiums built around the country, such as Metricon or Patersons Stadium. I am not sure that we got the best deal of all of the states. We certainly could have got a lot more money out of the AFL, I would contend.

I certainly support football in the city, though; indeed, it does bring in a vibrant culture to the city on those particular days. However, for a minister of this government, which states that they support small business, to be advocating in social media that a particular small business in Leigh Street should be opened so that he and his colleagues might be able to have breakfast before a football game does show that they are a little out of touch when it comes to the needs of small business. Indeed, it makes me have some reservations about whether or not they really are truly looking to remove red tape and support small businesses, particularly when they do not understand that a particular business might not be the appropriate business model to provide breakfast if it is more geared to either a week day market, a corporate market or, as many businesses on both Leigh and Peel Street precinct are, a small bar.

I look forward to the government's attention being placed on the Education Act. I certainly think that, in this state, while quite rightly we have had a lot of debate and discussion, in this place and elsewhere, on child protection and child development, we have not been talking about education in this place. I look forward to that perhaps becoming more of a focus of all sides of politics, because if we let our education system fall behind and become out of step with the most progressive and modern approaches we will not be able to have those fantastic future-focused great, green, clean and high-tech jobs that we would like to see in our state and indeed are essential if we are to remain competitive.

I also welcome the Premier's indication that mental health will again be placed higher on the agenda. Certainly, suicide levels are unacceptable not only in this state but, of course, across the country and regional areas in particular and in some cohorts of the population more than others. I welcome finally that the Weatherill Labor government has rectified an ongoing lack of support to Lifeline in the metropolitan area and, indeed, did announce funding for it during the election period. However, I note that we were the only capital city around the country not to fund Lifeline until that point; so that was a sorry state of affairs that certainly needed to be addressed. There is nothing like an election to put these issues to the fore and see those great community services get the recognition they deserve. There were many cases of that.

What I would also ask is, since the Social Inclusion Board's Stepping Up report, which, of course, ran for five years to 2012, where was the state government's response to mental health between 2012 and the current day? An update of the Stepping Up report is well overdue, more than two years overdue. While I commend the government for saying that they are going to look at mental health as a priority, I do observe that the last report, Stepping Up, did expire in 2012.

On that note, I also cannot fail to observe that the Weatherill Labor government is also extolling the virtues and successes of having a community visitors' program in mental health and is looking to extend that to disability. Again, the Labor government was dragged kicking and screaming by the Liberal opposition into introducing the community visitors' scheme under mental health. It took long debates in this place and it was a Liberal opposition amendment to the government bill that finally saw the introduction of that scheme.

At the time, again, we were the only state in the country not to have a community visitors' scheme for mental health; so that was to our shame and detriment. I commend the work of those opposition members who saw that happen and rightly acknowledge that that is indeed where that particular idea came from.

I also find it interesting that the government has talked about premium produce, yet I cannot fail but to make some observations that the government's free range eggs, the 'free range, not fake range' campaign, during this past state election indeed fell foul—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did not even mean to make that one, but I just went there. It is a late hour, my puns come out, sorry. One might have noticed that when we talk about eggs in this place the puns are there. It fell foul of the Electoral Commissioner and, despite the election campaign advertisement on Facebook, the 'Jay for SA' campaign, it is not yet possible for a South Australian consumer to go and buy free range egg products under the South Australian label. Despite being assured so in the election, it was handy to have that election process to be able to report that particular falsehood in advertising to somebody who could then adjudicate, and the Electoral Commissioner did adjudicate and rule that the Jay for SA's 'free range, not fake range' egg campaign was misleading and incorrect and that they not only print an apology but also withdraw it.

The Greens' legislation, which we moved with the member for Finniss in the previous parliament, I believe remains the better way forward on this, rather than an onerous impost on those true free range producers to somehow come up with working together on some sort of label or sticker on their cartons, which will enable their competitors to have 'free range' written on their egg cartons, even if they are not true free range, but somehow the consumer is meant to know that this little 'laid in SA', or whatever the slogan ends up being, will be the difference.

Anyone who has tried to buy true free range eggs knows how confusing it is already. The simplest thing would be to go to into your supermarket, market or local shop and, if it says 'free range' on the carton, then you know it is free range inside the carton. It is not that hard—there are ways to make that happen, and we may be pointing out to the government the way the ACT has done that in previous years as another way forward.

The result of the election has, as we know, left us with a minority government in the lower house where government is formed, with two elected Independents holding what are called the balance-of-power positions. Of course the new minister Brock has been labelled 'a kingmaker', but this is not a monarchy, this is a democracy. If you want to look at where a democracy's power lies, it lies in the numbers.

I welcome that the lower house will now have debates in which the results are not foregone conclusions. Like this place, it will have to have some debates that may be real debates and not going in with the government that has the numbers no matter what are the merits of an argument. I wish the new minister, Geoff Brock, well with his role and I also wish the member for Fisher, Dr Bob Such, well with his recovery and return to this place.

I note that our former members, the Hon. Ann Bressington and the Hon. Carmel Zollo, made extensive contributions to this council. I welcome the new members, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Andrew McLachlan, to this place. I have come to respect that there are many aspects to this council that are different from other houses of parliament.

It has been remarked to me by a former senator that this council is a very intimate place, so you cannot really pick too many fights and have to many enemies in this place. In fact, a good debate will sometimes win the votes in the end as well, and I have learnt from this place that people can put forward new and fresh ideas and actually have opposition, crossbench or government members listen, absorb, reflect and sometimes work together. I believe that brings quite good outcomes when those processes are followed.

I also do particularly want to note the victories in the lower house of the re-elected members for Ashford and Colton and in particular I congratulate Steph Key on her victory. Like many others, I was probably quite surprised on the night and I am sure the Hon. Steph Key—former minister—was probably quite surprised as well. I cannot help but reflect that the member for Ashford brought to this place in my time in this parliament quite controversial issues—issues of sex work reform, issues of marriage equality, issues of voluntary euthanasia, yet she achieved not only a victory in that seat but a swing towards her against the predictions of all the psephologists, all the pundits and all the betting polls predictions, so I particularly congratulate her for that.

I also congratulate the Hon. Kyam Maher for defying those odds. Certainly many did not believe he would be returning to this place and, as has been remarked upon elsewhere, he is back and indeed elevated not only to Acting President currently but also to parliamentary secretary. Other aspects of the election of course have been raised by many other speakers in this place but I do join with many people in expressing some concern about the Habib flyer—a pamphlet for an electorate in the southern suburbs of metropolitan Adelaide that showed bullet holes, was bullet ridden, and used the font of those horrific and disgusting ads which proclaimed in mainstream media under the Gillard government that, should you enter Australia by boat to seek asylum, you would not be staying here.

I think that while I would not call that pamphlet racist, certainly the federal Labor MP Ed Husic called it racist. I believe it was a dog whistling pamphlet. I believe it was a pamphlet designed to appeal to those who might suspect that Caroline Habib might be Muslim, and certainly dog whistling should be something that all of us should not use in either electioneering or indeed in government. Unfortunately, in Australian politics, I think we have seen dog whistling not only used but also perfected over the last few decades.

I look forward to the various select committees or other committees exploring the entrails of this last election. I certainly think that we could learn something from the federal government here with a committee that crossed the houses and looked a bit beyond the square, looked at other issues of more ably reflecting the will of the people when they go to vote. Different electoral methods such as multiparty electorates and more proportional representation should not just be restricted to this house.

Indeed, our House of Assembly would look very different if we did not have a single member lower house electorate where 50 per cent plus one of the vote meant winner take all. I think we would have a lot more women in the other place if we had different and better and more reflective proportional systems and, certainly, when we do talk about electoral reform, I would like to see those issues countenanced as well. With those few words, I commend the motion to the council.

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

At 21:10 the council adjourned until Thursday 22 May 2014 at 10:30.