Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 15 May 2018.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:34): I rise to welcome the Address in Reply and the Governor's speech, and in doing so I thank His Excellency the Governor for his contribution to our state and indeed congratulate him on his fine service to our state and our community. It is, of course, not lost on me that our Governor, His Excellency the Honourable Hieu Van Le, came to this country in a way that in this day and age certainly would not see him across the road in that Government House building; it would see him languishing in an offshore detention centre. That is to our shame.

But he came with his 'suitcase of dreams', and this government certainly comes with their suitcase of dreams, some of which the Greens will wholeheartedly welcome: decentralisation of decision-making; and grassroots democracy is something that we will always support. There are many things, of course, that it will not surprise those on the government benches that the Greens will not countenance.

In terms of the government's vision for this session of parliament, it will be something to be commended should the government take seriously their pledge for transparency and for such things as shield laws to protect the sources of journalists and to ensure a free press, which is indeed one of the fundamentals of our democracy.

The Greens also welcome a commitment not to use government advertising for political purposes. We will hold this new Marshall government to that pledge, just as we held the former government to their pledge. Certainly I, for one, have lodged a few complaints over the years with respect to certain advertising campaigns that seemed to me a little bit too politically coloured and charged.

I welcome the appointment of a new TAFE SA board. The Greens have long been critical of the management of TAFE in this state. We have not been critical of those fine workers within the TAFE sector, certainly not critical of our need for technical and further education and certainly not supportive of the words of the current federal minister with responsibility for this portfolio, who defined TAFE as somehow a bunch of basket weavers.

Firstly, Mr President, basket weaving is actually really hard. I do not know if you have ever done a class, but I have, and it is a very important skill! I think, however, the new minister was referring to one of the former Hawke era sledges of this sector as somehow underwater basket weaving, but perhaps he will at some stage correct the record. But of course plumbers, electricians, carpenters, digital creatives, those in the games industry and hospitality—so many things come through the technical and further education sector.

It is of vital importance to our state to ensure that we have the range of vocational options and educational options that do not just end with high school or indeed only countenance a university education. Vocational education should be treated with the respect it deserves. Unfortunately, for far too long it has been seen as the Cinderella of the education and training industry, and I look forward to there being some importance placed on this sector.

On that note, while I do welcome a new TAFE SA board, we also see that there is a role for public vocational education in this country, and the Greens strongly support the role of TAFE within that. A system of full contestability is a folly.

However, a system that ensures that we address the needs that we are to have into the future before they become either too pressing to deal with and require visas to fill, or in fact entire industries go under, is most welcome. The rejuvenation of the industry skills boards will be something that we will support. The decentralisation and the support for regional communities, particularly through TAFEs, will be something that we will support. A transparency of decision-making and ministerial accountability will be something that the Greens will support. We urge, in both this sector and the education sector, however, for the new government to consider the role of ombudsmen so that we stop seeing students ripped off, staff treated appallingly and the whole thing being seen as in the too hard basket.

We on the crossbenches in the Greens certainly think that vocational training and high-level skill creation is crucial for our state's future. We look forward, with those provisos, to working with the new government to achieve that. We are not sad to see the former CEO or, indeed, especially the chair of the previous board, lost to this state and we look forward to a far brighter future for TAFE.

In terms of the government's commitment to regions—and the Greens welcomed the briefing that we had prior to the election from the many mayors across our regions—we look forward to there being a decentralisation of some of those decision-making forums, but certainly the resourcing. We do not necessarily know whether or not the Royalties for Regions scheme as it stands is the best model, but we look forward to the government putting that on the table.

We also look forward to what the government has seen to be one of their big-ticket items: the extension of shop trading hours being debated in this place. I would have thought that would have been here by now. I would have thought that on the first day of parliament we would have actually had some form of legislation or, indeed, an outline of what this government's plan is to further deregulate shop trading hours.

So far, we simply have a promise in this Governor's speech that it will somehow create more jobs as well as provide consumers with greater choice. Well, unless there is a magic pudding, I fail to see how this will create more jobs, where the duopoly—the Coles and the Woollies and the big players—will be given the advantage over the local chicken shop and those small businesses will be put out of business. That is not creating jobs: that is simply pandering to the big end of town. The Greens will not support that. We will stand up for small businesses and will stand up for true choice.

The Greens will support some of the reforms of the education and children's services act. The transition of primary school into high school at year 7 is something that we welcome. We also very much welcome the reinvigoration of language studies in our South Australian schools. We also welcome the difference in the bill that we are yet to receive in this place, which will not seek to restrict the parent voice and the governing council voice. We would have moved to amend those from the previous government's legislation and we will support this government.

We will also urge this government again to ensure that we have true transparency and accountability in the sector, again through an ombudsman. The Greens have long called for an education ombudsman. We have seen time and time again those within this sector, be they the students, the parents or the staff themselves, identify flaws in the system but have nowhere to take those flaws to until they become scandals. That is not an appropriate way to deal with systems. We know that no system is perfect. We know that there will always be issues. Those issues should have a remedy and a redress before they become irreparable.

In terms of the government's proposal to introduce legislation that will provide legal safeguards for adults who are vulnerable to abuse or neglect, we note that that has come not only in the wake of Oakden but in the wake of the work of the previous member, the Hon. Kelly Vincent, with her long efforts in that, and certainly from the Greens benches we will be supporting mandatory reporting of elder abuse. We think it is high time that we took seriously the issue of elder abuse in this state and we will support the government in its bid to elevate that.

We will also be pushing to ensure that this state does whatever it can to increase the standards in our aged-care facilities. That means that, even if we do not see ratios agreed to at a federal level, in South Australia the Greens will put forward a bill to require those aged-care facilities to publish on their website, in their prospectus, their staff ratios: that is the least that we can do to ensure transparency and accountability to those families, loved ones and residents of those facilities. It is a simple measure but it could have a very big impact.

We will also support the abolition of the limitation of actions for claims arising from institutional child sexual abuse and look forward in the coming weeks to debating the state disability inclusion plan—yet again, another disappointment that that bill lapsed on those final days of the last parliament.

It is with great pleasure that I welcome and commend the announcement of the appointment of a commissioner who will have carriage of the safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal children and young people. We welcome the great outcomes this could bring that we have seen just across the border in Victoria. It is one of those Victorian things that we do not mind pinching and do not mind emulating. A Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People has had a great impact on the outcomes for those young people in that state, and we welcome the introduction of a commissioner here.

I commend at this point the work of ALRM in particular in progressing this debate, and the goodwill shown by all political parties in the recent state election in coming to the table to support such a commissioner. I think it will be a position that will not be simply symbolic but will have real practical outcomes for those children to have fulfilling and excellent experiences and lives, and that is what we should want for all children in this state. It is to our shame that Aboriginal children do not have those outcomes, compared with non-Aboriginal children at this point in time.

It is often the First Peoples and the last peoples who are the least equal in our state. I have noted that, had His Excellency our Governor come in this day and age he would not be over in Government House. The First Peoples of this nation have long suffered with inequality and conditions, stigma and discrimination that is simply unacceptable.

One thing that is simply unacceptable in the government's commitment is the idea that they will enshrine Australia Day celebrations within legislation in this state, somehow compelling local councils to comply with this law. I look forward to that piece of legislation coming before us. It was certainly confused messaging during the election that somehow local councils would be compelled to observe Australia Day.

In the wake of a change-the-date debate that is growing in force and includes former members of the federal Liberal government in its supporting ranks, to shut down a debate is the exact opposite of welcoming transparency and is the exact opposite of ensuring grassroots democracy. It is a totalitarian approach. I also look forward to seeing how constitutional it is and note that there is a Constitution Day in the calendar, and perhaps we might start observing that and all be educated about just how we came to have Australia Day on 26 January each year. That should be an interesting debate.

In terms of the shield laws, as I have said, I look forward to supporting those. I also look forward to seeing that freedom of information and, indeed, the commitment to losing the spin doctors within government abided by. I hope that one of the conventions of this place is honoured for a change, that what is said in opposition is held to in government. With those few words, I commend the motion.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:50): I rise to speak in reply to His Excellency's speech to the opening of this session of the South Australian parliament. I thank the Governor for his opening address and for providing detail to the parliament of his new government's agenda. I, too, join the Governor in passing on my condolences on the passing of six former members since the opening of the Second Session of the Fifty-Third Parliament. Mr President, I acknowledge your promotion to the chair of this place and I know that you will conduct yourself in the role in an impartial and professional manner.

I also would like to quickly acknowledge the recent election of various members to this place. On my side of the chamber I already know the positive impact the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. Emily Bourke and the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos will have on this place. I have also come to know the Hon. Connie Bonaros through her previous employment in the parliament. I am sure both she and her colleague the Hon. Frank Pangallo will serve the people of this great state to the best of their abilities. At the last election we also lost two outstanding contributors to this place, the Hon. Rob Brokenshire and the Hon. Kelly Vincent. I had the pleasure of getting to know the two of them over the last four years, and I wish them every success in their future endeavours.

The Governor outlined some of the key priorities that the new Marshall Liberal government wish to advance over the next four years. I would like to take this opportunity to speak to some of them. Ultimately, the message I got from the Governor's speech is that this government views economic growth as its overarching priority, which will assist in reaching its various targets and aspirations for South Australia. From our side of the chamber, I think you will find furious agreement on this particular sentiment.

The government has reflected, through the Governor's speech, that economic growth will assist in implementing its mandate to create more jobs, lower costs for households and businesses, and deliver better government services. I do not think there would be a single member of this chamber who would dispute these three priorities. Of course, how you get there is where our differences lie, particularly in terms of how our state budget is managed. In any case, I think you will find that, on our side of the chamber, there is a level of acceptance of the fact that, with an incoming Liberal government, there will be a change of economic policy in this state.

It has been highlighted by the Governor that this government believes economic policies must be set in a manner that support growth in the private sector because our state's history shows that is what works best for South Australia. The Labor Party wholeheartedly agrees with this. However, one can assume that, through many of this Liberal government's iterations since taking power, the only way they believe they can achieve this goal is by cutting taxes and almost never through direct government intervention in the economy. Now in opposition, Labor must accept that this government holds this philosophy and therefore it is incumbent on us to give them the opportunity to implement their ideas.

It is quite clear that our leader, Mr Peter Malinauskas, is prepared to be constructive. He has already indicated that our party will be supporting the government's proposed cuts to payroll tax. In saying this, I warn the new government that tax cuts are not the only way to stimulate growth and, if not implemented properly, can do more harm than good when considering the state's financial position. My concern is that the new government says it sees no role for government intervention in the economy. The government says it is very deliberately refocusing support for industry away from short-term stimulus and heavy reliance on individual company grants and subsidies.

It was the previous Weatherill government's intervention, along with the hard work of the Defence Teaming Centre and local industry, that has ensured the submarines will be built in South Australia. It was also the Weatherill government's collaboration with the defence and space industries in South Australia that has ensured that our state is in the best position to have the majority of work on the frigates based here, as well as being best placed to become the home of Australia's national space agency.

There is already bipartisan support for the establishment of a national space agency in South Australia, but it was the Weatherill government that created the South Australian Space Industry Centre (SASIC) to drive space industry innovation research and entrepreneurial developments. I have no doubt that this work, as well as the signing of the memorandum of understanding with the ACT, has left our state better prepared to advocate for the national space agency to be based here. In fact, in an article just yesterday in The Advertiser, it has been reported that the number of space technology organisations in South Australia has doubled to 60 in the last couple of years.

SASIC's director, Mr Nicola Sasanelli, said that this had created a vibrant ecosystem. He also said that 80 per cent of the investment was private and only 20 per cent by governments. The point is that this private investment is only following on from the planning of then premier Weatherill and the then Labor government to ensure that industry was well aware that we would fight for its interest. Following on from this, my question to the current government is: what good would a tax cut be to component suppliers in the space technology industry if there was no work for them to generate an income in the first place?

That work is only guaranteed by a strong state government that acts in the state's interests, not one that believes market forces should almost always be left to their own devices. I hope Premier Marshall shows the strength that Labor showed in government to ensure that the national space agency is located in South Australia.

A noticeable aspect of last week's federal budget has been the more favourable terms of trade that the nation is experiencing, with mining rebounding after its recent slump and the value and volume of our exports picking up substantially. Whilst in regional terms this has meant that exports have picked up more rapidly in the mining states, it will still mean extra money flowing into our state coffers. It was reported that there is up to $500 million in extra GST in the next financial year alone.

I am happy that the incoming Treasurer has insisted upon the maintenance of horizontal fiscal equalisation (HFE) when calculating grants made to states through the Commonwealth Grants Commission. It has also been noted that HFE is now ensuring that Western Australia gets a greater share of the national pie of GST in recognition of the downturn in its economy in the last few years. It is now receiving an extra $1 billion this coming financial year.

The nature of the way GST payments to the states works is that there is always some lag time in how they are adjusted. For example, at the height of their boom, WA was still getting its historically higher levels of GST payments. In fact, up until 2006, WA was still a net recipient of GST. We only heard them complaining when their payments were lowered which happened to coincide with their Liberal government's economic mismanagement and saw them enter into a recession.

Ironically, the greater share now being granted to WA is now coinciding with a boost in its economy and its commodity exports once more. HFE is not perfect but it serves a purpose to ensure fairness across the country. I say this because particularly post Olympic Dam it is likely that South Australia will never experience the rivers of gold that WA and Queensland obtained by exploiting their natural resources.

The one caveat is whether this government has the fortitude to explore the possibilities of greater involvement in the nuclear industry, something not offered by the now Premier in a bipartisan way when Labor was in government. Likewise, unless the incoming government plans on allowing for an extremely rapid expansion of our local population, the likelihood is that we will not have the same level of service industries here that Sydney and Melbourne have.

I welcome yesterday's news that the Commonwealth government is putting a policy in place to force new migrants to stay in regional areas longer. This will benefit South Australian regions in the long term and is something that the previous state Labor government had long been advocating for. How we best exploit the comparative advantages we have as a state, compared to the rest of the nation and the world, means more than cutting taxes; it means working with industry and helping them address the many challenges that they have domestically and internationally. We have always been an export-driven state and the success or otherwise of our exports is driven by a greater suite of factors than simply how much payroll tax our companies are paying.

I welcome the new government's initiative to open up various trade offices in Asia. I am a big supporter of this policy as it provides practical on-the-ground assistance for our exporters. I hope the government will consider opening more offices across the region, particularly in Vietnam where there is strong growth.

It is important that this government stands up for South Australia and takes every opportunity it gets. I can assure them that leaving everything to the market will not help them in their target of reaching the national growth rate in the long run. It is this target that the government has set itself that we, as an opposition, will now hold this government to account on.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:04): I rise to make a few comments in relation to the Address in Reply. Firstly, I thank and congratulate the Governor for the wonderful work that he does as the Governor of our state. I may have said this in past contributions but I remember the opportunity I was given in opposition when Martin Hamilton-Smith was opposition leader. He was also the shadow minister for multicultural affairs and he asked me to be the shadow assistant minister for multicultural affairs. The very first function I went to was the very first function—

The Hon. J.E. Hanson interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Justin Hanson laughs. It was actually a Serbian church service, so you might want to control your laughter. At my very first function, the Hon. Hieu Van Le came as Lieutenant-Governor to his very first function as Lieutenant-Governor, so we joined each other at a Serbian church service. I have watched his contribution and service to our community over that 10-year period (or longer) and I am filled with admiration for the work that he and his lovely wife, Lan, do in serving our community in the role as Governor and Governor's wife. We are very proud of what they do, and it is always a pleasure to see the Governor.

To you, sir, congratulations on your elevation to high office. I recall when you gave your first speech in this parliament you were called the honourable and gallant Andrew McLachlan by the former president, and it is nice to see that the honourable and gallant Andrew McLachlan is now President of this Legislative Council. The Governor outlined the economic road map that this government has for transforming South Australia's economy and righting some of the wrongs that have been done, so I do not wish to go over that—and it is 5pm on a Wednesday.

I want to take the opportunity, firstly, to say farewell to two members who stood for re-election but are no longer here in the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and the Hon. Kelly Vincent. The Hon. Robert Brokenshire, as members would know, was part of the Liberal Party many years ago and then joined this place as one of the members of Family First. His contribution was quite significant while he was here, and he certainly agitated for regional South Australia and farmers. I was the shadow minister for agriculture during a lot of that time, and you had to be up early to beat him to a news grab on the radio.

I saw the Hon. Kelly Vincent here yesterday, as did a number of members. I agree about the contribution she made. I will always remember her maiden speech where she said that, given her predicament in life, she did a lot of reading and writing and her favourite book as a child growing up was a thesaurus. I think she had a command of the English language, certainly better than mine, and probably better than most people's in this place. I think she made a significant contribution for somebody so young at the age of 21; certainly, at 21, I would not have been able to make a contribution such as the Hon. Kelly Vincent made. I think she was a strong advocate for her constituency and a strong advocate for the disability sector. I think the community in South Australia is better because of it.

I also congratulate all the new members, especially those on our side of the chamber, on our side of politics. I will quickly touch on the House of Assembly. It is a wonderful privilege to be elected to government, and there are 11 new members of the Liberal Party in the House of Assembly. Not only have we been elected to government, but we have renewed the team as well which I think stands us in good stead for having a real depth of talent.

We have a depth of talent, so I would like to acknowledge and congratulate the member for Narungga, Fraser Ellis; the member for Colton, Matt Cowdrey; the member for Morphett, Stephen Patterson; the member for Elder, Carolyn Habib; the member for Finniss, David Basham; the member for Davenport, Steve Murray; the member for Heysen, Josh Teague; the member for Kavel, Dan Cregan; the member for King, Paula Luethen; the member for Newland, Richard Harvey; and the member for MacKillop—my home stomping ground—Nick McBride. I congratulate them all. They all worked very hard, focused on the campaign, and they all had success. Perhaps some found it a little easier than others, but nonetheless at the end of the day, we supported each other as a team, and I am delighted to see those people elected.

I also acknowledge the election of the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Connie Bonaros, and on the other side of the chamber, the Hon. Emily Bourke, the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and the Hon. Clare Scriven. I finish with the Hon. Clare Scriven because one of her closing comments of her maiden speech is the reason I thought I would stand up and make some comments today. She said she looked at the House of Assembly and saw all of these men in blue suits and so few women on the Liberal side of parliament.

I probably spoke about this topic a number of times in the last parliament, but those comments struck a chord with me. It was her faction and her party that were behind the You Can't Trust Habib campaign that attacked Ms Carolyn Habib in the 2014 election which, I think, was a disgrace. The Labor Party often says of the Liberal Party that we do not have enough women in parliament, yet we get a quality young woman and they decide to turn one of the nastiest, most vile and racist attacks on her as a candidate.

It was not just the Liberal Party that was outraged. Ed Husic, a senior member of the Labor Party in Canberra, made public statements at how outraged he was. The media was outraged—I think Sarah Martin, who writes for The Australian was outraged, as was Matthew Abraham, who was on ABC Radio at the time. They were all outraged that this particular action would be taken by a party in an election against a young woman who had put herself up to represent her community, and their only action is to attack her because of either her name, her ethnicity or the colour of her skin. It was a disgraceful attack.

So while the Hon. Clare Scriven will say that we do not have enough women, until her party acknowledge publicly that it was wrong and they apologise for it, I will hold her and her party responsible for one of the nastiest attacks I have seen in modern politics. It is interesting that afterwards, the then premier Weatherill tried to distance himself from it, and I think it was the treasurer at the time, the Hon. Tom Koutsantonis, that came out and defended it. I was interested to see how the Labor Party tried to defend their actions at the time, saying it was not racist, yet we all knew it was and we all knew what they were trying to do, to play that race card in an election.

I was very disappointed that the then member for Elder, Annabel Digance, made no effort whatsoever to offer any apologies, either privately or publicly. In fact, she claimed she knew nothing about it, and she was upset, I am told, that I made a couple of speeches in the last parliament about it. She said she did not know about it, but she should have come out publicly and said who was behind it. It would have made it much easier for her to have somewhat of a clearer conscience, but she did not ever do that.

Now, it is interesting that, as when you are faced with execution or are in your final hours, I had the sort of fortune to come and spend a little bit of time with a former minister on election day. I related this story that I was so offended, and I thought it was one of the low points in the now 16 years of parliament (it was 12 back then) that this outrageous attack would be levelled against a quality young female candidate by the party that says we do not have enough women. Yet, they are prepared to do that; something I do not think any other political party in this state would ever stoop so low as to do, but the Labor Party was prepared to.

This former minister wanted to confess before they were 'assassinated' or before the final curtain fell on the Labor Party. They claimed to know who was behind it and they told me a few things about the actions that were taken, all inwardly by the Labor Party, not externally. They tell me—I do not know whether this is true, but they tell me that a Mr Tim Picton was the architect of this particular bit of material. I do not know, but that is the name that they offered to me.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Point of order: the minister is obviously going to use this speech to slander, and all sorts, people who are not even in the parliament. I think the President should warn him that there is a certain dignity and respect that this house should show for other people, and under parliamentary privilege. He would not have the guts to go out on the front steps and say it so why should he use parliamentary privilege on an Address in Reply speech just to mud rake against people? I have never heard of all this, and to stand there and name names of people that you are putting the blame on is outrageous, absolutely outrageous.

The PRESIDENT: I note your concern, but the member is entitled to use his privilege. If he uses it unwisely, then the person affected can use the motion we moved on the first day of parliament.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your guidance, Mr President. What I am told is that premier Weatherill was outraged—but of course he did not show that externally; he was saying it was not racist—so much so that he refused to sit in meetings with the person whom I mentioned formerly. He also made sure that a committee was formed to vet these things so that it did not happen again. It was a committee of lower house candidates; I am not quite sure who, but I was told there was a committee formed to vet this sort of thing.

What that shows to me is that they actually knew it was wrong but they did not have the courage to come out and say, 'We are sorry. We overstepped the mark.' That is all it would have taken. We know that in the heat of battle sometimes silly things are done, but this Labor Party has never ever had the courage to say, 'Actually, that was wrong. We went too far and we apologise.'

Until we get that from the Labor Party, I will hold them responsible for the fact that they do not value the contribution of women in parliament, because of the attack that they levelled against Carolyn Habib. People like the Hon. Clare Scriven have no grounds whatsoever to attack us or any other political party for the make-up of our political teams in relation to gender until there is a proper apology from the Labor Party about the campaign entitled, 'Can you trust Habib?' It was disgraceful, it should never have happened and they should apologise to the member, the person involved, Carolyn Habib, the parliament and the people of South Australia.

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

At 17:16 the council adjourned until Thursday 17 May 2018 at 14:15.