Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 11 February 2015.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:30): I rise to support the Address in Reply. Firstly, I wish to congratulate and thank the Governor, His Excellency Hieu Van Le AO, for his address on the opening of the Second Session of the Fifty-Third Parliament. His Excellency's personal story is one of incredible achievement. Having been born in Vietnam, he and his wife left the nation in 1977 and were in one of the early groups of Vietnamese refugees to arrive in Australia by boat.

I understand that His Excellency is the first Vietnamese born person to have ever been appointed to a vice-regal position in the world. I have had the pleasure of meeting His Excellency on a number of occasions, particularly in his role as chair of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, and I know how hard he worked in that role. He has already brought, and I am sure he will continue to bring, the same dedication and commitment to the role of Governor of South Australia.

I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the great work of our former governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce and his wife, Liz. They have represented this state and its interests with great distinction and I wish them both well in the future. I know they will continue to be active in the community. As we all know, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce will be the royal commissioner looking into the nuclear industry and its potential in South Australia. I should also acknowledge Uncle Lewis O'Brien for his Welcome to Country.

On Tuesday, the government outlined a dynamic and bold vision of the Weatherill government to ensure our future is bright. The Labor vision continues to keep building South Australia. It is a vision that we on this side are proud of. It also looks to keep South Australia moving forward to transform and to continue to modernise our economy by ensuring a strong partnership between government, business and the community.

South Australia has some significant challenges ahead of it. Many of these challenges are made a lot harder by the shambolic federal Coalition government, which is wreaking havoc on the state's finances by abandoning previous commitments to various partnership agreements, particularly in health and education. It does not stop there. The federal government appears to be hell-bent on repudiating a commitment to build 12 submarines at Osborne, or at least until it comes time to buy some votes in the federal Liberal parliamentary room.

Even now, it is very unclear what the commitment is. Where do those opposite stand on the issue? Let us not talk about how the federal government is seeing off the Australian vehicle manufacturing industry and the subsequent impact that will have on this state.

The Governor's speech outlined a number of bold initiatives that the Weatherill Labor government wishes to pursue to transform South Australia to meet the challenges we face. I would like to expand on some of those, in particular the government's proposal in relation to planning reform, the renewal of South Australian Housing Trust stock and Transforming Health.

The government is soon to release its response to the Expert Panel on Planning Reform's report 'The planning system we want', chaired by Brian Hayes QC. The independent panel was appointed to review South Australia's planning regime. The government's response to the report will establish the most significant changes to South Australia's planning system in over two decades. These changes will be taken to the parliament, and we hope they will be supported in a bipartisan manner. These changes are too important to be held back.

In an environment where the states are competing for a share of national economic growth, South Australia simply cannot afford to have a planning system where delays are frustrating investment. Our reforms will reduce red tape, generate short and long-term employment opportunities and catalyse complementary development. Most importantly, they will also contain important mechanisms to provide transparency and ensure the continued liveability of our city and suburbs. It is the government's intention to legislate an urban growth boundary to prevent the encroachment of suburban areas where it is unsuitable to do so. A modern, vibrant and liveable city does not simply sprawl.

Reforms to housing do not end there. Guided by a comprehensive new strategy—Renewing Our Streets and Suburbs—Renewal SA will be charged with renewing the assets of the South Australian Housing Trust and delivering more dwellings. It will align the activities of the South Australian Housing Trust and Renewal SA to allow for a stronger focus on urban renewal in line with South Australia's strategic plan and the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. It will provide certainty to both the not-for-profit and private stock sectors to work with one government agency, accelerate the transformation of our social housing system and provide more houses in the suburbs of Adelaide.

These changes will ensure there is no disruption to South Australian Housing Trust tenants and tenancy and maintenance services. These changes will allow for a focus on renewing old stock built before 1970 and giving more people a chance for home ownership in the community where they grew up, where they want to live and in properties appropriate to their needs.

As part of Transforming Health, the South Australian government proposes to invest $252 million over four years to improve the state's health infrastructure. This comes on top of significant investment in health by the government here in South Australia over the past 12 years with major infrastructure upgrades to hospitals.

Under Transforming Health, significant investment will be made over four years at every major hospital. Proposed investments include $15 million for a centre of excellence for the treatment of post-traumatic stress, $154 million for the Flinders Medical Centre, $32 million for Modbury Hospital, $20 million for The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and $15 million for Noarlunga Hospital.

Funding for capital investment proposals comes from the Health Capital Reconfiguration Fund announced in last year's state budget. The establishment of this fund was the result of a $655 million cut in health from the federal government, which caused the state government to pause the rollout of many of its planned health infrastructure improvements.

Under Transforming Health, we have had a look at the entire health system and spoken to our doctors, nurses and allied health professionals about what we need to invest in to make our health system work better. Transforming Health is the biggest transformation of the South Australian health system ever undertaken and it is one that needs to be made.

Over the past nine months, the South Australian government has listened to our healthcare professionals about the way the system could work better. Three clinical advisory committees have found many areas of excellence providing world-class health services, but they also found areas where our health system is not delivering consistent quality of care. These professionals have worked together to develop quality principles for health care that will guide the state's transformation of our public health system. Improving quality is the primary driver of Transforming Health: best care, first time, every time.

After the Transforming Health discussion paper was released last year, an extensive consultation process was undertaken, with over 39 community information events held across metropolitan and country areas. Over 2,225 South Australians provided feedback to the Transforming Health discussion paper, and over 90 per cent of respondents endorsed the need to improve our health system, particularly supporting the six quality principles. These principles state that a quality, world-class health system is patient centred, safe, effective, accessible, efficient and equitable.

More than 6,000 people who attended the Transforming Health Summit in late November, hosted by the Minister for Health, the Hon. Jack Snelling, agreed that transformation was needed to ensure that the state's health system delivers the best-quality health care first time, every time, beginning with our metropolitan hospital system. The evidence for change is compelling. There are challenges in providing contemporary health care, given an ageing population, changing health needs and, added to that, the advances in technology and medicine and how services are structured and operate.

We know that we can improve in many areas to meet the challenges and to ensure that South Australians experience consistent, quality care. This allows us to focus on how we deliver health care in these upgraded hospitals. We have an opportunity to embrace innovation and to transform our hospital system to be sustainable and to meet the future needs of South Australians.

There are some important areas where excellent health care is delivering great outcomes, but there are areas that require improvement to ensure consistent care is provided. There are many factors that contribute to this, such as historic service layout and working arrangements, as well as the adoption of new technologies and medical advances.

Simple cuts to health spending will not deliver the best outcomes and will not result in the health system focusing on quality. Instead, we must improve quality, innovation and adopt best practice. International evidence shows that, if we deliver quality health care consistently first time, this will be more cost-effective. The government, along with our doctors, nurses, and scientific and allied health professionals, is working to transform our health system so that South Australians receive the consistent, quality care they deserve in a modern health system.

SA Health has been undertaking an intensive planning program over the last nine months and, with its clinicians, has worked through how to deliver health care to incorporate the vision of 'best care, first time, every time', the agreed six quality principles and the clinical standards of care.

Last week, the Minister for Health publicly released the Delivering Transforming Health Proposal Paper, detailing draft decisions to implement Transforming Health. The draft decision details the Delivering Transforming Health Proposal Paper are designed to deliver consistent quality care to South Australians and to set the foundation for continuous improvement across the healthcare system. The government is now asking the community for feedback on the Transforming Health proposal. I encourage South Australians, including South Australian health staff, to provide feedback on the paper during the feedback period, which closes on 27 February.

I would like to also congratulate the new Labor member for Fisher, Nat Cook, who, along with her campaign team, worked so incredibly hard. Nat, until recently a nurse at Flinders Medical Centre, along with her husband Neil, formed the Sammy D Foundation after the tragic death of her 17-year-old son in an unprovoked one-punch assault. Sammy D, as we know, runs a range of programs and encourages young people to reach their potential, stay safe and make positive life choices. I am sure Nat will be a great asset to our Labor government team and will represent the Fisher electorate well.

Labor's win in Fisher created history, being the first non-first term government in Australia to gain a seat in a by-election since 1973. This is a reflection on the achievement of this government and on Nat Cook's hard work, but equally it is a reflection of the deep levels of distrust and contempt that South Australians have for the federal Coalition and their frustration that time and again Steven Marshall and the state Liberals fail to show backbone and stand up for the interests of South Australians.

I should remind members that on 9 March 2011 the Hon. John Dawkins moved a motion in this place on youth violence which in part thanked organisations such as the Sammy D Foundation for proactively seeking to discourage youth violence by empowering young people to make safe and positive choices. This council passed the honourable member's motion on 18 March. Given this, I must say that it was disgraceful that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire chose to denigrate Nat Cook and the Sammy D Foundation in this place late last year, under the cloak of parliamentary privilege, by suggesting that the state government, in giving a grant to the Sammy D Foundation in 2012, was doing something improper.

It should be noted that Nat was not a member of the ALP at the time. I understand that the honourable member actually met with Nat and the Sammy D Foundation at his request in February 2013, following the announcement of the grant to the Sammy D Foundation in September 2012. The honourable member was even put on the Sammy D Foundation's mailing list as a supporter. I will read an excerpt of an interview in November last year with David Penberthy and Nat Cook on FIVEaa. David Penberthy asked:

Nat, have you had a history with Mr Brokenshire? You said that you did have a conversation with him about the good work that the Sammy D Foundation does.

Nat's response was, 'He requested a meeting with us post this announcement in September 2012.'

The PRESIDENT: Order! Just a moment, Hon. Mr Kandelaars. First, the lady to whom you refer, Nat Cook, is now the member for Fisher and ought to be referred to as such. Secondly, I caution you, as I would caution any member, that this is an Address in Reply to the Governor's speech, and I am not sure to what part of the Governor's speech this matter actually refers, but I will ask you to continue.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: I will continue, sir. As I said, I am quoting directly from an interview. The now member for Fisher's response was:

He requested a meeting with us post announcement in September 2012, he requested a meeting with us to talk about what we were doing...I met with him. I would warn any not-for-profits now regarding meeting with people like this who really clearly—I do not know what the agenda was back then or now, but he left that office very, very happy with what we were doing. I talked to him about the rigours that we were going through…micromanagement that was happening from government regarding the spend…that was what we talked about…I left that meeting, he left my office, and we were happy, he was put on the database to keep informed as a supporter of the foundation and I leave it to the public to make their own opinions about it; it's not for me to defend any of that…government needs to work that out…in terms of the process, that's the only…association I've had with him.

I also note—and I quote from an article in InDaily:

A complaint by Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire about World War II imagery in the promotional film clip of a song by the now defunct band, The Spooks, in which Woodyatt played drums and also garnered media attention two days before the polls closed. That was referring to the Fisher by-election polls.

I wonder whether the honourable member was acting as a proxy for those opposite. All I can say is that I have come to expect the honourable member's hypocrisy.

It should also be noted that the Liberal Party was asked by the Electoral Commissioner, Kay Mousley, to withdraw material they distributed in the seat of Fisher because it was materially misleading. As I intimated in my Address in Reply speech last year—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: A racist campaign in Elder.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: We on this side will not be lectured by those opposite—

The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind the Hon. Mr Kandelaars that this is the Address in Reply to the Governor's speech. I am struggling to work out what aspect of the Governor's speech you are replying to. I think you have made your point in this issue, and you ought to continue. I think it is important that members remember that this is the Address in Reply to the Governor's speech, so matters raised ought to be related to an aspect of the Governor's speech. I am not sure where this relates to that speech. I ask the honourable member to continue.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: I think it is quite normal practice for members to actually discuss—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: So you are defying the chair?

The PRESIDENT: Hon. Mr Kandelaars, I think I have made myself quite clear, and you should move on.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: The point I will make is that we on this side will not be lectured by those opposite about the ethics of campaigns.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Your racist campaign—give me a break.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: In the spirit of welcoming new members, I also acknowledge the new member for Davenport, who outdid himself by taking a blue ribbon safe seat and turning it into a marginal. I also thank him, as without his politically inept campaigning in the seat of Fisher at last year's general election—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member—sit down please. I have been quite clear about this and members ought to relate to it. It is fine to welcome a new member, but you are saying things that have nothing to do with the Governor's speech, and I ask you to continue.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: In conclusion, I will deal with the issue of the Sampson Flat bushfires and acknowledge the tremendous work of the various organisations that assist in fighting the terrible Adelaide Hills bushfires that ravaged the northern Mount Lofty Ranges just after New Year's Day. Thankfully there was no loss of life but 27 homes were lost as well as many sheds and fences and, sadly, wildlife. The fires were a reminder of the damage that can be inflicted on our landscape when uncontrollable bushfires occur.

A special mention, as I said, must go to those who assisted in fighting the fires and who have been assisting those impacted—organisations such as the CFS, the SES and SAPOL to name a few, but I would also like acknowledge other organisations such as Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Housing SA staff, Centrelink staff, and local service clubs such as Rotary and Lions.

I took an opportunity to visit local emergency relief centres at One Tree Hill and Golden Grove and spoke with a number of volunteers who worked tirelessly supporting those affected by the fires. I also spoke to a number of people who had suffered damage to their properties as a result of the fires. One couple in particular whom I met lost their home at Upper Hermitage and, in the case of the wife, her business. They were overwhelmed by the support that they had received from many and varied organisations.

Their journey along with other South Australians affected by the Sampson Flat bushfires will be challenging but with the support of families, friends and the broader South Australian community, I hope they will get their lives back on track.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:56): I rise today to second this motion in support of the Address in Reply. I want to commend the Governor's Address delivered to us on Tuesday and I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record my congratulations on his appointment as Governor. It is an excellent appointment and I am sure an appointment that the state can be very proud of, and so far the Governor has not let us down.

His Excellency Mr Hieu Van Le, and his wife, Mrs Lan Le, continue to uphold themselves with utmost dignity. They are representing this state and its interests with distinction. Before I discuss the legislative program that the Governor has outlined on behalf of the government, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the dedicated service of our former governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce. During his tenure, he and Mrs Scarce rendered most distinguished service to our community. The warm regard in which they continue to be held by all who encounter them is the measure of their contribution to the social and economic wellbeing of our state.

I would also like to place on record my condolences regarding the five former members who have passed away since the opening of the 53^rd parliament: the Hon. Donald Hubert Louis Banfield, the Hon. Cecil Creedon, Mrs Heather Southcott AM, the Hon. Dr Bob Such MP, and the Hon. Arthur Whyte AM, for whom we moved a condolence motion today.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome and congratulate the parliament's two new members in the other place. To both the Member for Fisher, Ms Nat Cook, whom I have met and who is a great woman, and the Member for Davenport, Mr Sam Duluk, whom I have not met, but I am told by my opposition colleagues that, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway just said, he is 'a good bloke, I wish them the very best of luck in their time in this place.

In fact, that a 13-year-old government was the recipient of significant swings to it in both those by-elections is a testament to the enduring vision this government has which was reflected in the Governor's speech the other day. Today, I want to assure our Governor and our community that this government has not lost its sense of urgency when it comes to the continued program of reform so necessary to our collective wellbeing now and into the future. I can assure His Excellency that our government has not lost any of its impetus and is ever vigilant.

Labor constantly renews itself with new blood, as can be seen with the recent appointment of my good friend the Hon. Kyam Maher. Many of you will agree that he will make a great minister. We have a continued vision for the prosperity and the momentum of South Australia and its people. It is at this stage that I would like to turn my attention to elements of this reform agenda that were outlined by the Governor.

We all know that the state is in need of economic transition. and I was hopeful that we would have had the support of a commonwealth government in this difficult process. Unfortunately, the need for collaboration of governments, as discussed by the Governor, has to date been non-existent on the part of the Abbott government. This has led to the effective shutdown of our automotive industry. It has also led to what looks like the loss of capability in our defence industry, an issue which I have regularly raised concerns about in this place since being elected.

South Australians have overcome adversity before and we can do it again, even if we have to do it on our own. In recent years, Australia has grown off the boom in the mining states. Whilst this has been a good thing nationally it has led to a two-speed economy. This has led to the decline of our state's traditional sectors as activity within the boom states pushed the Australian dollar to historically high levels. Conventional commentary following the Holden closure from the conservatives was to blame the Labor government for all the handouts, and then they blamed the workers for apparently accepting high wage demands

Let me put on the record these facts: first, Australian government assistance to the automotive sector was some of the lowest levels when compared with other countries; secondly, Holden workers were some of the most productive workers in our workforce. It did not matter what pay cut Holden workers accepted, it was always a difficult business model to sustain with a high—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Do you drive a Holden?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I do—Australian dollar and other macroeconomic decisions at play. Any intelligent economist will tell you that the boom in the mining states has been at the expense of the manufacturing states. Rather than assist South Australia in the necessary transition the Governor discussed in his speech, the Prime Minister has decided to take the big stick approach. My question to the Prime Minister is: what value do you see in states competing against each other to export the same products to the same markets, with each state having to compromise its tax system for the sake of competition, which then compromises basic services?

This is the paralysis that Europe has found itself in, where nation-states have sacrificed their independent currencies to the European Union, forcing them to impart harsh cuts on their populations with no genuine prospects of sustainable growth in their economies. Surely this is not the way to run a national economy. A national economy needs diversity in its industries, and there will come a day when all Australians, not just South Australians, will regret the dismantling of strategic industries like the automotive manufacturing and defence industries.

The commonwealth government's interim federal tax paper shows an alarming disregard for these facts. It is an attack on the Australian ideal of equality that, regardless of which state you live in, you will receive the same quality health care and education. We have already seen a tax on federal health and schools funding which disproportionately hits South Australia compared with other states.

When former prime minister John Howard introduced the GST, it was obvious that it was done in order to lower the burden of income tax. Where the real reform lay, however, was the way it would be distributed to the states. It continues to be distributed on the basis of horizontal fiscal equalisation. Lower growth states impeded by growth in other states receive larger amounts of grants. Effectively, the GST has become an important regulator of Australia's two-speed economy.

The federal government has already been suggesting that these funding formulas need to be changed. This is a dangerous policy which will have a disastrous effect on our state. This is why it is important that this government continues to forge this state's own future. We will have to because we will not get much support from the current commonwealth government. This means we need to assist in the creation of industries that give our state a comparative advantage over the rest of the world as well as over other Australian states.

The obvious reform outlined by the Governor that fits in this category is the establishment of the nuclear industry in South Australia. I commend the proposal of the royal commission into the nuclear industry as it demonstrates that the Premier gets it when it comes to addressing the economic challenges in our state, as opposed to the opposition leader, who labelled this announcement a 'distraction'.

I call on the opposition to support this process and provide constructive input. The creation of a nuclear industry in South Australia would see the creation of many jobs and would not be subsumed by the same level of cost pressures imposed by other countries on South Australia's other exports. Put simply, there are not many nations that have uranium, and of those countries that do not many would come close to the safeguards and political stability that South Australia offers to potential clients. This explains a good deal of where our comparative advantage would lie.

It is no secret that South Australia has an abundance of uranium, yet we export only a fraction of the world's resources. South Australia has 25 per cent of the world's known uranium resource, and it would be expected that over time there would be more uranium mines here in South Australia. Whether Australia builds nuclear power plants is virtually irrelevant because one or two plants will hardly make a difference in terms of our production of uranium in South Australia. China alone is building 120 nuclear power plants, and that is actually only going to shift their reliance towards nuclear fuel by an extra half a per cent—not even 1 per cent. They are still building coal-fired power stations and other power stations at a much higher rate.

We sometimes forget, as a state with such plentiful sources of energy, be it coal, gas or renewable energy, that other nations do not have the same energy security and are forced to look at other forms of energy, like nuclear power. These nations need a stable supplier. Simply shipping off unenriched uranium will not do for South Australia. We need to be involved in the enrichment process, but this requires the establishment of local expertise to drive technological innovation. Our universities would have an important role to play in this scenario.

The Governor talked about greater collaboration between industry and our educational institutions. Nowhere would this be more critical than the establishment of a local nuclear industry. Value-adding through enrichment has three clear benefits:

1. We will get a much better price for what we are shipping out.

2. The build-up of intellectual property required would buffer the locally established industry from future competition in other markets.

3. We would be contributing to the wellbeing of international safeguards currently in place for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

Whether South Australia enriches or not, there will always be countries participating in this market. Surely the entry of a politically stable country like Australia into this market can only be a good thing, particularly as we now have bilateral agreements on trade with countries like Japan and China. Australia could have more of a direct say on safeguards through bilateral trade negotiations.

South Australia could host a nuclear waste facility for three particular reasons: first, there is the political stability of our state, and secondly, as has been very well explained by Professor Stephen Lincoln, a lecturer in nuclear chemistry at Adelaide University, our terrain is conductive to hosting such a site. South Australia has rock strata which are very stable. They are likely to be stable for many more millions of years, and so you could quite confidently make tunnels into this substrata and install nuclear waste there for however long you wish to. Lastly, technology continues to advance in waste management. After over 50 years, it is getting to a point where nuclear waste facilities are being referred to as recycling repositories as scientists continue to develop ways to continually extract energy from reprocessed uranium.

Whether we like it or not, many countries have decided that nuclear power is an important source of energy in a carbon neutral future, and it is time that we as a state play a greater role in this development. The royal commission established by the Premier will bring out all the issues I have raised and many more into an appropriate form of debate so that we can decide collectively as a state what the best way forward will be.

The second way in which I believe our state can actively forge our own future economic growth is through the sustainable growth of our population. The Deputy Premier's reforms to our planning system address this issue. A report provided by the Minister for Planning by an expert panel on 12 December last year has made a number of recommendations to the government. It looks towards the creation of regional planning boards across the state, a model widely acknowledged to be the most effective way to generate economic benefit, coherently plan infrastructure and protect our environment.

It looks towards a charter of citizen participation to promote and enhance citizen engagement, consultation and debate. Regional areas will each be served by a single integrated planning scheme, so that the views of citizens in those regions may be better heard and understood. A single statewide menu of planning rules will reduce complexity and eliminate planning policies that are no longer relevant or applicable.

During my time as councillor on the Port Adelaide Enfield council many businesses and residents often complained to me that they were frustrated with the current process. Heritage laws will be consolidated into one legislative instrument, and Aboriginal heritage will be better integrated with the planning system. Changes to plans will become easier, quicker and more transparent and this will be to the benefit of our economy. I am certain that these ideas canvassed will be taken seriously by this government and that many, if not all, of these priorities will be achieved.

In conclusion, I would like to briefly address the government's health reforms. Reforms contained within minister Snelling's Transforming Health discussion paper address the issue that, while we have pockets of excellence in the health care system, unfortunately there are not consistent quality outcomes across all services and sites. Rectifying this issue is at the heart of these reforms, not cost cutting as those opposite will claim. Yes, the status quo is inefficient economically, but more importantly it is extremely dangerous to health outcomes if we continue with business as usual in our current health system.

Our highly skilled clinicians need to be performing procedures in their areas of excellence on a regular basis to maintain their skill sets. Consolidating services at specific sites will ensure this occurs. This government has an integrated and coordinated plan for our health system, with each hospital having a role to play. We do not have a plan from the opposition. We do not even know if they want our public hospitals to stay in government hands.

I note an article in The Advertiser recently, dated 9 February and titled 'Doc takes scalpel to Lib lack of action'. In the article, Dr Philip Tideman, a senior Flinders Medical Centre clinician who says he is normally a Liberal supporter, told the opposition leader, Mr Marshall, to stop wasting taxpayers' time and money with useless political stunts, to stop insulting the intelligence of health workers. Dr Tideman went on to describe the state Liberal Party as being 'so embarrassingly ineffectual in day-to-day public debate'. The doctor went on to say that Mr Marshall should:

Rather than lazily resist any change in this intellectually bankrupt rote way, please ensure that you and your parliamentary colleagues spend the time understanding the challenges that have to be addressed and put some effort into making some positive alternative policy proposals like those of us actually providing the services continually try to do.

I could not agree more.

In closing, I want to express my thanks once again to our Governor. I thank him for presiding over the opening of this parliament and for setting out so eloquently the goals to which the government aspires.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:19): I rise to contribute to the debate on the Address in Reply. Firstly, let me thank our new Governor, the Hon. Hieu Van Le, for his first speech to the parliament as Governor. I do not recall him coming as Lieutenant-Governor. I think, when Marjorie Jackson-Nelson was Governor, Mr Bruno Krumins may have come once or twice, but I do not recall the Hon. Hieu Van Le coming as Lieutenant-Governor; so he was here for his first speech.

I will also again put on the record that I think his selection has been warmly embraced by the whole community. He is somebody who has worked tirelessly in his life prior to being appointed to Governor. I think Hieu Van Le's contribution to public life has been exceptional, and it is wonderful that he has been rewarded with the position of Governor. I know that he takes that as a great honour, and I know that he will certainly serve with distinction over what I hope will be many years of being our Governor. Listening to him speak on Tuesday was a real pleasure.

I think the crux of the Governor's speech was that we are in a state of transition. Our economy is in a volatile state, and the way we manage the transition will mean make or break for this great state. For the members in the chamber today, it may be the difference between having our children find employment in South Australia or having to leave to get work.

I am reminded of a speech I suspect a lot of us have heard in various different forums from Raymond Spencer, the chair of the Economic Development Board, who thinks that South Australia is at the crossroads. He thinks that it could be the Harvard study in 20 or 30 years' time of a great small economy, if we get it right—or we could be the Harvard study of an economy that destroyed itself. I think we do find ourselves, after 13 years of Labor government, definitely at the crossroads.

The essence of my reply to the Governor's speech is this: I do not have confidence that the Weatherill Labor government can manage South Australia's economic transition. I believe that a great deal of our community does not have that confidence either. This Labor government has had 13 years to strengthen our economy in preparation for changes we are now experiencing, particularly in the manufacturing sector.

It is interesting to see that the Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, has been a minister for those 13 years, yet it is only now that he is out there advocating some of the things that I will address later in my speech such as tax reform, the nuclear debate, a whole range of other issues and health as well, which of course I will also touch on. He has sat there in cabinet. I know that he says they have very few votes in cabinet, as it is always done by consensus. I assume that was the way that former premier the Hon. Mike Rann ran cabinet as well.

He has sat there for those 13 years, and I think the Leader of the Government opposite has been a minister now for nine years. If you start to add up the tally of the senior people in the government who have actually been in the cabinet through the good times and did nothing with the good times, you now start to be concerned about where this state is going. You cannot just sit on your hands and hope that it is going to be good forever.

Premier Weatherill expects us to have confidence in his governance because of the pipe dreams and motherhood statements. We have had various iterations of the State Strategic Plan, along with his seven strategic priorities the last time the Governor addressed this chamber, and then, of course, towards the end of last year, the 10 economic priorities which I think were the same seven regurgitated and another three added, but really, where have they got us?

When this parliament reopened some five years ago after the 2010 election, a pillar of the Governor's speech was the creation of an extra 100,000 jobs over six years, which, of course, takes us to March 2016. I asked some questions about that today, Mr President, as you would recall. Our unemployment rate now is at some 7.3 per cent, which is the highest in the nation—higher than Tasmania. Of those 100,000 jobs, roughly a year away from the deadline, there are 99,400 jobs still to be created.

So, you see what has happened. Jay Weatherill was in cabinet at the time that decision was made. The Hon. Gail Gago was in cabinet at the time that decision was made. They all signed off on it, but they have not delivered on it. So, we have seen this decline right across a whole range of sectors, where they talk the talk, but they never ever walk the walk. It is also interesting to see that, at that time, minister Hill also said that health and health care would remain a core priority for the government.

Five years on, what we see with this health transition program we are dealing with at the moment is that we are going to close the emergency department at the Noarlunga hospital, close the emergency departments of The QEH and the Modbury, close the Daw Park Repatriation General Hospital, close the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre and close St Margarets Rehabilitation Hospital at Semaphore.

This morning, I was listening on the radio I think to the clinical advocate for Transforming Health. I do not recall her name, but she was a very articulate lady—a professor, I think. She said that this has been an issue that people have been talking about for 10 years. So, we have had a government for 13 years: it has been 10 years of that 13 years.

I recall the Hon. Kevin Foley saying many years ago that health was an issue, yet they have done nothing: the Hon. Jay Weatherill, the Hon. Gail Gago—a health professional herself, from a nursing background. She has been in cabinet for nine years and the Hon. Jay Weatherill for 13 years. We have been talking about it for 10 years, and they have done nothing. That is what poor governments are made of: people who talk about stuff, but they do not actually do anything. We should have had some action well before this, but they sat there believing that they would have the rivers of gold from a well-managed national economy and a world economy that was booming at the time—but they did nothing with it; in fact, they squandered it.

Over that time, in the very early stages of that 13-year journey we have been on—it is more like a nightmare than a journey—we had the Menadue report, which talked about decentralising health services. Then, out of the blue, minister Hill, minister Foley and premier Rann decided to build a new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

I recall minister Foley at a function, when he was open for questions, turning to me and saying, 'Ridgway, you ask me a question. You're in the other house; you never get to ask me a question.' It was at a property function. I said, 'Tell me, Treasurer, what expert advice did you get on the location of the new hospital?' He said, 'Well, none. John Hill, Rann and I decided on the location.' So, they did not seek any expert advice on the location of it.

The amount to be spent will now be $2½ billion to $3 billion. The current government talks about a bipartisan approach to things like the reforms in WorkCover and reforms in taxation, so one would think that if you were going to spend $2½ billion to $3 billion, which I think is $1.1 million a day for 30  years, which our children and grandchildren will have to find to pay for it, you would actually speak to the opposition.

Interestingly, after the 2010 election, everybody knew two things about both parties, regardless of who won: we wanted footy in the city and we wanted to spend a lot of money on new health facilities, whether rebuilding the RAH on its existing site or obviously the new one the government was talking about. The bipartisanship was not anywhere to be seen. We have had this discussion on health—it started at least 10 years ago—but a lazy, lazy government has done nothing to address it.

In 2010, the Governor confirmed that the government would continue to boost the mining sector. Prior to the 2014 election, in trend terms, mining expenditure in South Australia actually decreased for the seventh consecutive quarter. We have watched the closure of a number of mines: the Honeymoon uranium mine, the Angas zinc mine, and the scrapping of plans for the $1 billion Arafura rare earth processing plant. Various major projects were touted and, over following years, associated epic cost blowouts became apparent: the desal plant, Adelaide Oval, the rail yards hospital.

Rather than preparing our economy for transition, this government has long been spending out of control. I think that it is important to look at the spending, and I will come back to the Governor's speech in more detail shortly—because I recall the direction from the chair that contributions should stay more focused on the Governor's speech. I think it is important, in the context of the Governor's speech and some of the new things we are talking about, to look at where we are at.

By the end of the 2016-17 financial year, the public sector debt will be around some $13.2 billion. In the 2014-15 period, the Labor Weatherill government will run a $185 million deficit, even after extracting hundreds of millions of dividends from SA Water and the Motor Accident Commission.

If that is not concerning enough, this year the government will borrow nearly $260 million just to cover its debts. If we look at the public sector borrowing expense, it is some $530 million this year; in 2016-17, it will peak at $725 million. That is interest of $2 million a day. So one thing that has become very apparent over the 13 years is that Labor does not understand the budget basics. When a household budget comes under stress, it is logical: you curb your spending and not look to additional revenue measures.

In regard to where the budget is at, where the state's economy is at and the way this government operates, you have to live within your means, and we have never, ever seen that in 13 years. We have squandered the good times. Only a bunch of imbeciles would think that the good times would be there forever. We all know that state economies, national economies and world economies are cyclical things and that when things are booming you should be putting a bit away and provisioning for the future, or investing in productive infrastructure and productive investments that can help to grow and support the economy throughout the tougher times. Instead, this government promised no more privatisation during that period but went on to privatise our forests.

I point out again that the government has privatised the forests. It actually sold them at the bottom of the market. It is a bit like the Labor Party—not the government but the Labor Party—owning a pub in Port Adelaide that went broke. Only the Labor Party would have a pub that went broke in Port Adelaide. I know that has nothing to do with the Governor's speech, so I will come back.

We have sold the forestry assets, SA Lotteries and HomeStart Finance, and the Motor Accident Commission is up for sale. It is interesting that the Treasurer and the government announced that. They were not really quite sure how they were going to sell it and they were not quite sure how they could make that stack up. Of course, the ESL has gone up exponentially and the government has also moved to take away pensioner concessions on rates.

Also, just by way of context and background, in 2010 the Governor spoke of business needing an operating environment which encouraged enterprise and tailoring our tax system to that end. He said that our tax system's success should be measured by the jobs growth in our economy. Well, we have not seen too much jobs growth.

In 2014, the Sensis Business Index noted that South Australian small and medium businesses recorded lower expectations of all indicators for the June quarter and the worst perceptions of all states about the current state economy and the economy in a year's time, which of course is the economy we are in now. Sadly, I think those perceptions were right. We recorded the worst employment expectations of all states for both the June quarter and the next 12 months which, of course, we saw today with the 7.3 per cent unemployment rate. Of all states, South Australian small businesses were the least supported in state government policies.

I could continue at length on this government's track record, but the point of my reciting this evidence is that talk is cheap. Labor has spent 13 years talking about various lofty goals and plans, but there has not been enough action. After 13 years in government you cannot pass the buck to previous governments anymore. Labor must take full ownership of South Australia's position.

When I was first elected in 2002—of course, we had a Howard federal government—it was all the Howard government's fault, or it was the former Brown/Olsen/Kerin government's fault. Then, of course, we went into a bit of a silent period during the unprecedented tumultuous time with the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government, when it was not the federal government's fault. Now, of course, where we have a change federally, it is the Abbott government's fault. This government has always looked to try to blame somebody else for its problems.

This government cannot even get its finances right and now it wants to make Adelaide the world's first carbon neutral city. It is an admirable goal. The Governor mentioned it in his speech on Tuesday, but what is the plan? We have asked questions of the Minister for Climate Change, the Hon. Ian Hunter, who after being sacked from Aboriginal affairs was given (I do not know whether it was a promotion) the task of being the Minister for Climate Change.

I really do not know how we will be the world's first carbon neutral city. Will it help grow our economy? Will it create jobs? Will it make Adelaide a tourism destination? It may have some tourism potential. How big is 'Adelaide'? Is it the CBD, the council area or Greater Adelaide, as per the 30-year plan? We are very scant on detail on how this might work.

If we are talking about carbon neutral city, how will things like the Clipsal be taken into consideration during that process? I am a great lover of motorsport, but a reasonable amount of carbon goes into the atmosphere during that wonderful four-day event, which of course was a Liberal initiative. I wonder how that will it be calculated.

We saw premier Rann put wind turbines on offices in Adelaide because that would be a way that they could be self-sustainable—none ever worked and none were ever connected. It intrigues me that we will see another round of wind turbines that do not work in Adelaide to fund or promote or try to achieve this goal of a carbon neutral city. The Governor mentioned we will legislate for driverless vehicles. It is promised that these vehicles will be safer, but in the case of accidents or speeding who will be liable—the owner or the manufacturer?

It intrigues me, when you drive in the city, as to exactly how these things will work. We have the new rules around cyclists and keeping one metre away from them. We all in this chamber spend a fair bit of time on the road coming to and from here and doing our work in and around the city and the state. I am a bit intrigued with that new initiative and the law of having to stay a metre away from a cyclist. What happens if a cyclist moves closer to you? What happens if a cyclist moves closer to a driverless car? Who gets the fine—is it the owner, the manufacturer, the premier who thought it was a good idea or the cyclist for going too close?

It is easy to get right in the speech and for cabinet to sign off on it. I am told that cabinet signed off on the Governor's speech—I suspect that is the way these things work, but there is no detail around it.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: You'll never find out.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Kyam Maher interjects that I will never find out, I suspect was what he was saying. I expect that I will find out. However, what I want to know is how these things work. Again, it is another example of cheap talk.

I read that the minister says that Google have driverless cars or the technology. Is it adaptable to Australian conditions? Given that I read somewhere—

The Hon. I.K. Hunter interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister says, 'Well, roads,' and he laughs. The way they rip money out SA Water—I read recently that we have more burst water mains in South Australia than anywhere else. Will these cars have the technology to drive around the water or will they just drive into the hole in the middle of the road? It is intriguing. It may be a little bit sexy, a little bit distracting, like some of the other things the Governor and the Premier spoke about.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: A little bit sexy?

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: A little bit distracting?

The PRESIDENT: Both ministers are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Certainly I would not be looking at them and saying anything about sexy. They are a bit distracting, but certainly sex has got nothing to do with them.

On Tuesday, the Governor also spoke about how we need a more open planning system and debates about the future growth that will occur with full transparency. Why has it taken 13 years to deal with this issue? It is interesting to note that we have an urban growth boundary that has been in place for a very long time. I think that the Hon. Di Laidlaw put it in place. Out of the blue a few years ago, outside the urban growth boundary, Buckland Park was identified by, I think, the former minister here, the Hon. Paul Holloway, and that was rezoned for housing.

It was outside the urban growth boundary with no infrastructure and no services—just one of the things they plucked out of the air. I think at that time that there were reports that the lobbyists at the time may have received a seven-figure success fee for that particular project. It is interesting to note that Premier Weatherill and the government are now going to look at lobbyists and payments they may receive.

It is just interesting that there has been a whole range of things happen over the last few years, and Mount Barker and some of the other areas have been rezoned, and that now suddenly this is all outrageous and we are going to have legislate for an urban growth boundary and we must not allow people to be lobbyists for certain periods of time; from my understanding, as again it is very vague on detail. There have been some big questions asked about the government's relationship with lobbyists over the last few years.

Of course, we have inquiries, ranging from quite high-level secret ones right through to inquiries through the media and parliament, about the transactions around the Gillman deal. That would have to be one of the craziest things I have seen. Why on earth a government would not go to tender on a large piece of land and do it in a transparent and open manner is beyond me.

I am certainly aware in that process where certain parties made some inquiries about that particular piece of land and were told, 'No, we're not ready to sell it because we are master planning it. We will let you know when we are and we've done the master plan.' Out of the blue, Adelaide Capital Partners puts in an unsolicited bid and gets the property. This is not the forum to discuss Gillman in any great detail, but it is a questionable deal that again brings into question some of the reasons around why we are just now saying that the planning system, the urban growth boundary and some of the reforms need to take place.

It is interesting that some of the major reforms are about having an independent planning commission, regional assessment boards and regional planning boards, as the Hon. Tung Ngo talked about. Members opposite probably will not remember, because they would not have taken the time to read it, but some nearly four years ago I released a discussion paper around a better planning system.

When Brian Hayes QC was talking about the draft on radio with Ian Henschke last year sometime, he explained what the new reforms were about. I was quite surprised, because often I probably do not have the highest regard for some people in the media, when Ian Henschke said, 'Hang on, Brian. What you've said is just exactly what the Liberals announced three years ago,' and he said, 'No, it's not.'

Henschke then read out some material that he had kept on file and said, 'This is where they were going to have an independent planning commission and regional boards,' and Brian Hayes said, 'Well, if that's what the opposition said they were going to do, that's what we're going to do.' So it is interesting that it is something we thought of three or four years ago. We were scoffed at at the time, and now of course it is looking like we are going to have similar reforms.

The Governor said also that the government is open to radical tax reform and, if you look at the big graphs, the pie charts and the bar graphs the Treasurer, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, had yesterday in his lock-up, if you like, for the media on their tax reform, it talks about the volatility of stamp duty which, of course, is the one that they are concerned about.

That is an admission that they have no plans for growth. Stamp duty was booming during the boom periods when the rivers of gold were coming in from the GST and we were getting mountains of diamonds, if you like, from what was coming in from stamp duty. If the government is saying, 'Well, we can't rely on stamp duty anymore,' that it is an acknowledgement that they do not expect any growth from the economy.

It is really quite surprising, so now they are looking to tax the average household about $1,200 a year, and I think that that is for the median house of about $410,000 to $420,000. The Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, when I was listening to him on radio this morning, said, 'Oh it's just a discussion paper.' With some of the comments today from members opposite and ministers opposite talking about taxation policy, they are a lot more committed to it than I think the Treasurer was saying they were committed to it this morning on radio.

With $1,200 a year for a $400,000 house, there are tens of thousands of houses with interest rates as low as they are that are much more than the $400,000. Of course, the government says they have not done the modelling on how much the other houses are, but I suspect that if there is a formula that gives you $1,200 for a $410,000 or $420,000 house, it would be very easy to apply that formula to a $600,000, $700,000, $800,000 or $900,000 house.

I know that there are a number of houses—and you often seen the articles in our Advertiser newspaper—and a number of suburbs that have tipped over the million dollar mark. So, if it is $1,200 for a $400,000 house, for an $800,000 you could easily assume it is $2,500, and for houses more than that it might be $3,000 or $4,000, so it is a significant amount of money.

You have to ask yourself: why should all South Australians have to pay for Labor's economic incompetence? This comes on top of increasing bills—gas bills by 150 per cent, water bills by 236 per cent, electricity bills up 140 per cent—and we have highest taxes in the nation and now we have to endure also the increase in the emergency services levy. Again, this government has had 13 years to repair our economy for this transition. There has been clearly no forward thinking and now each South Australian household and each South Australian man, woman and child is expected to bear the brunt of it.

As I have said before, it is simple: you cannot spend more than you earn and you need to put a little bit away in the good times. We just have not seen that. It has been almost like they have been negligent, derelict in their duty in the good times. I reiterate that Premier Weatherill has been there for every day that this government has been in power. The Leader of the Government here, the Hon. Gail Gago, has been here for some nine years. I think if you start looking through, the Hon. John Rau has been a minister for five years, the Hon. Jack Snelling at least the same, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, six years, and the Hon. Ian Hunter, I think, if I look at my little cheat sheet here, has been here for four years.

When you add it up, there is 51 years of cabinet experience in the team at the moment. All the senior ones have been there for a significant part of that 13-year period and yet they say, 'Oh, we've got a crisis. Our health system is in crisis.' We have known that for 10 years and they have been talking about it for 10 years and done nothing.

I will also just quickly touch on the nuclear debate that the Premier wants to have, the royal commission. It is interesting that it will be the first royal commission of its type. As Steven Marshall, the opposition leader said, we welcome the debate. We should have an open and frank debate about all the possible opportunities for industries in our state. However, I remind members opposite that it has been their, if you like, backward-looking policies around nuclear energy which have held us back.

Mike Rann said that Roxby Downs is nothing more than a mirage in the desert and then he spent most of his time as premier hoping like hell he could get BHP to expand it, and then overspruiked it and caused a lot of grief in our community. I remember that in the regional city of Whyalla house prices boomed and then crashed on the back of the Hon. Mike Rann and the Hon. Kevin Foley overegging the pudding, if you like, and people speculated (assuming there would be significant growth and there was not) and got their fingers burnt.

Then there is Labor's national federal policy of the three mines policy. The resources in the sector said to me that nobody was game to explore in South Australia because even though we have a large, world-class supply of uranium and you are likely to find uranium wherever you dig, if you could not actually use that uranium or sell it because of the Labor Party's three mines policy, there was not any point in exploring here. That policy, which I know has been overturned but was in place for a very long period of time, has held us back. I am sure Jay Weatherill was a big supporter of that policy up until it was overturned at their federal convention about five years ago—that is my recollection.

After 13 years of Labor we have another Governor's speech. Great bloke and great person that Hieu Van Le is, at the end of the day unless it is backed up with a real commitment from members opposite to deliver, we are really facing the same old sad story of spiralling debt and our economy going backwards.

As members opposite would know, we have various shadow ministers and I will touch on a couple of the areas that I am directly involved in. On Tuesday, the Governor rightfully mentioned that our traditional industries are declining. Once upon a time, we were the whitegoods capital of the nation and we had a profitable shipbuilding industry. Those industries are now in the past and we are currently observing the same fate with our manufacturing industry.

In a few years' time, of course, sadly there will not be any Australian car manufacturers. It is interesting to note that we did put a lot of support and effort in as a nation, and various governments of various political persuasions put a lot of support into car manufacturing in Australia, particularly in South Australia. However, it is interesting to see the number of non-Australian made cars out in the streets over the last two, three or four years. There has been a move away from the vehicles that have been made in Australia. It is interesting to see that we have invested as a nation, we have supported Holden, Toyota and Ford but, at the end of the day, the community or consumers have not supported it.

I noticed on Twitter around the time of the election that—I will say I am not 100 per cent certain of the accuracy of this, but I will mention it—Treasurer Hon. Tom Koutsantonis's second car may have been a Honda. We are still making Holdens, Fords and Toyotas, but I think his family made a decision to by a Honda. I know all of us in here who have access to vehicles have Holdens, because they are the ones we have access to. I would be interested to know about the vehicles we all buy outside those we have access to here. Are they Holdens, Fords or Toyotas, or are they some other vehicle from some other part of the world? Now, I am not just pointing the finger at the Labor Party; I think all of us are—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Because you can't afford to.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No; I think it is a sign that we have had a range of vehicles that the consumers have not wanted to purchase from Australia. What I also find staggering, though, is that the primary industries and agriculture sectors—which have existed since our settlement; we know this was a rural experiment in South Australia—and have the potential to exist for as long as rain falls from the sky, have been given almost no forward thinking by the minister or the government.

If you look at our traditional manufacturing industries, one common theme is that we have always focused on the manufacturer rather than the design aspect of those industries. The problem is that we no longer have the capacity to compete with developing nations on labour costs, so we will continue to put all forms of manufacturing at risk unless we look to other areas where we can capitalise on the value of those industries. I believe, to a certain extent, the only thing keeping the agriculture and primary industry sectors competitive is our natural advantage. However, I think it is dangerous to rely on that advantage, as other nations seek out and succeed in finding innovative ways to cultivate food products.

You only have to look at New Zealand's explosion in agricultural exports after they signed a free trade agreement with China some six years ago. I will touch on the free trade agreements in a little while in my contribution, but I think we have to be careful that we do not just sit back, rest on our laurels and say, 'We've got a good food and agriculture sector.' We must continually back it up. I think R&D is the key to the future viability of these sectors, and I am really disappointed to see that there was no mention of an increase of support for R&D for our agriculture sectors in the Governor's speech.

In fact, I am not quite sure where the premium food and wine from our clean and green environment initiative still fits. It certainly was not prominent in the Governor's speech, yet it is still the biggest business in town. The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) has had its funding cut five times in the past seven years. One of the largest single funding cuts came shortly after the Premier announced that premium food and wine from our clean environment was one of his seven strategic priorities. On one hand, they talk the talk, but they do not walk the walk.

I ask: how is South Australia supposed to continue to deliver a premium product to a rapidly evolving global economy when we are not looking to the latest methods and technologies? How should South Australia's cereal farmers go about delivering a premium product when the government cuts annual funding to the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, which is investigating new ways to tackle salinity and drought issues, by $1.5 million?

It is rather interesting that the funding for building that particular facility was signed off by cabinet in the last months of the Kerin government, and minister Hamilton-Smith—it was the first time he was a minister—was the one who promoted it and had carriage of it through cabinet. It is located in his electorate of Waite, and yet he has been silent. The silence on the lack of funding to that facility is almost deafening.

Is the government aware that Eyre Peninsula, which produces almost half of South Australia's wheat, has a research centre (the Centre of Excellence in Low Rainfall Farming for Southern Australia) and that the centre is fighting for its survival? It has recently lost more staff. It just does not make sense. We have asked questions time and time again to the Leader of the Government opposite, who was for a period of time the minister for agriculture, in relation to our commitment to research and the national framework, but then we see the sale of R&D assets like Flaxley and Lenswood, which I think is about to go. My understanding of that national framework was that we were meant to put that money back into research. We have a dryland research centre at Minnipa and now people are being sacked and staff are leaving because there simply is not enough money to keep them there.

Yes, South Australia has a natural advantage in food production, but it also has some major challenges, not the least of which are soil salinity and low rainfall. The Governor rightly stated that demand for South Australia's premium food and wine will increase. The world has an insatiable appetite which will only grow. This government has become obsessed, though, with defining premium food and wine.

You and I know, Mr President—we have both been involved in agriculture at various times in our lives—that all South Australian food and wine is premium in the world market and that the demand for it will continue to grow. The government says it will do more to maximise the benefit of this demand. Yes, an engagement strategy with international markets is important, but it will be useless if we fail to invest in innovations for the future of farming.

Make no mistake that other primary industries across the globe are actively investing in ways to overcome salinity, drought and other challenges. Since he became the Minister for Climate Change, minister Hunter has often said that we are not taking it seriously. Well, if they were taking it seriously, they would be putting a lot more money back into R&D to tackle things like salinity, drought, heat stress—all the things that will, according to minister Hunter, impact on our agricultural sector. We saw nothing in the Governor's speech about that.

I also believe we have a minister who is sidetracked with his boutique food and wine products but ignoring those who produce the real commodities. Last year, I was at an industry forum where the minister spoke and talked about delivering premium, clean and green product to overseas markets. One producer stood up and said that his chief concern was simply about getting a bulk commodity to market. He was implying, and I believe correctly, that the minister's fixation on fashionable food and wine products is distracting him from the major industry challenges. I think he is really quite out of touch on this particular issue.

Another thing the minister has bungled is his politicisation of the GM debate. He has engaged in scaremongering tactics which do nothing more than set the industry back. What South Australia needs is a focus on the quantifiable benefits of remaining GM free. As members opposite would know, we publicly supported a moratorium, but we want to be able to measure what those benefits are. We need to be in the position to make an informed decision about the best way forward for farmers, the environment and our wider society. In the meantime, the GM moratorium remains. It needs to be counterbalanced with more investment in conventional farming methods.

This government, if they are not prepared to measure and wish to keep that in place, actually have to make sure that we use every other bit of possible research and development and technology to keep our farmers at the forefront of the game, rather than having the industry locked out of that technology, which is a government decision. As I said, we want to measure the benefits, but you have to make sure you look at every other possible opportunity.

I notice that yesterday minister Bignell was talking about the $400,000 in grants for manufacturing food, of up to $40,000 and for small tourism opportunities. It was $400,000 that he announced. Interestingly, that is $100,000 less than was announced at the budget nine months ago, so we have seen a 20 per cent cut from that program. I remind people, too, and members opposite, that just recently we saw Pernod Ricard, a big multinational company, get $1 million for their St Hugo cellar door experience. That is $1 million to a company that last year made in excess of €1 billion profit. They make more profit than our deficit, yet we are giving them $1 million of taxpayers' money.

I am really interested to look at the guidelines for this new grant program to make sure that it is targeted at South Australian businesses—South Australian businesses that need a bit of a hand to grow, or have an idea where a grant of $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 will actually mean that they can invest. They get that money from the government and it makes the financials for their project stack up, rather than a massive international company that could simply write the cheque out themselves.

I applaud the Governor for wanting to be involved in the South-East Asia strategy. Obviously, we are all aware that he and his family come from Vietnam. We are all aware of his connection with that part of the world, and I do applaud it, but we have to make sure that it is not just a whirlwind tour, if you like, and that we back that up with some really strong support from government.

I look at some of the projects, even one that was announced when the Hon. Gail Gago was minister, their investment in the Fujian clean food centres, which, to my knowledge, have never been built or, to my knowledge, are not operating, yet there was a lot of fanfare, there were MOUs signed, there was a whole range of government activity put in and around that. At the end of the day, we have seen nothing for it. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.