Service SA

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. E.S. Bourke:

That this council—

1. Acknowledges the vital services provided to the community by local Service SA centres;

2. Notes that local Service SA centres provide access to a range of transactions, many of which are not able to be undertaken online or over the phone but must be completed in person;

3. Condemns the announcement that the government will close the Modbury, Mitcham and Prospect Service SA centres;

4. Acknowledges the negative effect these closures will have on local residents who will face longer commutes, longer waiting times and lower levels of service as a result;

5. Acknowledges the impact that these closures will have on other Service SA centres, which will see wait times soar as they are inundated with additional clients;

6. Acknowledges over 7,000 South Australians who have so far signed petitions to keep the centres open; and

7. Calls on the government to listen to the community and reverse this heartless decision.

(Continued from 7 November 2018.)

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:16): I would like to thank the Hon. Ms Bourke for putting this motion, which gives us the opportunity to give our firsthand experience of the tragic consequences of the closure of the Service SA centres. Prior to the last election, the Leader of the Government in the other place gave a commitment that they were not going to cut services, but they were actually going to increase them, so you can understand the shock-horror when, at the last budget, it was decided to cut three Service SA centres—Modbury, Prospect and Mitcham—among other things, I must say: three TAFE colleges and, arising out of the budget, the closure of the Strathmont pool, which I might spend a few seconds on.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: That's not correct.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I hope I get some protection from the quite brutal interjection from over there.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: That is not correct. Check the budget papers.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It will be an indirect consequence of the budget.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Your government was going to close it.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Lensink, let the member speak in silence.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The reality is, though, the Strathmont pool provides swimming lessons for 1,500 children, many of whom have disabilities. There are quite a few migrant children who are learning to swim as a result of some tragic deaths on our beaches because of their lack of knowledge and understanding of water. During questioning, we asked the Hon. Ms Lensink how all the users of that pool—which meant the children—were going to be accommodated? She misled parliament by saying that all the user groups—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, you are making an allegation of privilege. I ask you to withdraw.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Well, you just have to look at the Hansard to find the truth.

The PRESIDENT: You can say that you do not agree with what she said. You can say—it is not appropriate for you unless you are making a formal allegation of privilege.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Okay.

The PRESIDENT: I ask you to withdraw that.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I withdraw that. The minister informed this parliament that her advice was that all the user groups were being accommodated. There are currently about 400 or 500 children who now have no access to swimming lessons, many of them with disabilities, and a lot of them are new migrants who are now going to be subjected to—the only respite a lot of these children with disabilities get is going to a nice pool like the Strathmont Pool—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: It is not a nice pool.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It is a beautiful pool—and for these kids with disabilities, it keeps their treatment going—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: So it is appropriate that something that has had a major gas leak—do you take responsibility for someone being injured if that happens?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Lensink, please, you are a minister. Allow the backbencher to have his say.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Nothing has been presented to this parliament to say that that pool had to be closed. The only conclusion that we can come to is that it is an indirect budget measure. For $300,000 a year they are subjecting hundreds of kids to go without very important swimming lessons.

In regard to the Service SA centres, a month before I just happened to be at the Prospect Service SA centre registering my car. I remember sitting there, thinking to myself, 'This is taking a long time to do because it's so busy.' So you can imagine the shock I got when they announced that it was going to be closed.

There are 100,000 people who use this Service SA centre each year. I went out and stood in front of the Service SA centre to get people to sign a petition, and I was actually surprised how easy it was to get people to sign a petition. It is not always easy to get people to sign a petition, but we had people searching for us throughout the Northpark Shopping Centre looking to sign that petition because they were absolutely outraged that this government, which promised not to cut services, had suddenly cut such a vital service that they use on a regular basis.

Obviously, the intent is to get people to do their work online. I remember there were a lot of elderly people, senior citizens, who do not have computers, who have 30 or 40 more years of life, who will not do this online and you really have to wonder what the government has in mind for them because they are some of the most outraged people who came up to us and told us of their outrage at the closure.

What struck me at the Prospect centre was the number of businesses that came out to us to express their concern at 100,000 people not going to that shopping centre. When I was getting signatures on the petition I noticed that many of them would go from the Service SA centre up to the Telstra office, to Coles, to Woolworths, to the local deli, to the cafes. Take that sort of business out of the shopping centre and it will have a major impact on those businesses.

I wonder if before the Treasurer made his decision to make this cut actually did his research on the impact it would have on those local businesses. For a party that cries out that they are the great champions of small business, I think that decision was absolutely outrageous. You also must consider that for 40 per cent of the transactions in those Service SA centres you have to attend personally. The government has not come out with any alternative on how to accommodate those people who must go to that Service SA centre to do a personal transaction.

Labor has already committed to re-establishing these service centres and that has met with a great positive response to my office. Many people have emailed me and congratulated the Labor Party on our commitment to re-establish it. On the rallies we have had, people have come up and congratulated our leader, the Hon. Peter Malinauskas from another place, saying that they will be voting for Labor at the next election because of the dishonesty of giving a commitment that there was going to be an increase in services. They were not going to cut services, but they did it in the very first budget.

Even the Mitcham Service SA centre, which is probably less than a kilometre away from where the Hon. Mr Ridgway lives, has been cut and I know that a lot of people from around that area are expressing their concern. I cannot understand how callous a government can be. Many of the people at the Prospect Service SA centre, especially the elderly—that is what astounded me—had no idea how they were going to perform and complete their transactions. They would have to go to Regency Park or into the city. Now that the bus services have been cut it is going to make it much harder for a lot of people to catch the 222 bus into the city.

An honourable member: Have you been on the 222 bus?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I have been on the 222 bus, yes. I have photos of the 222 bus.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I caught it on New Year's Eve, actually, and when I told people of these bus cuts they were absolutely outraged. That is another thing: not only have they cut the Service SA centres, the TAFE colleges and closed the Strathmont pool but they have also taken $46 million out of the transport network, which will cut thousands of bus routes and reduce many hundreds of others. At the end of the day, many South Australians rely on public transport—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: They laugh about it! It is easy to laugh about it when you drive around in chauffeured cars, but the reality is that a lot of people rely on public transport to be connected with their community. Students require it to get to their universities or place of study, the unemployed require it to hopefully seek employment and pensioners require it just to keep in touch with the everyday world.

The Liberals are out of touch. I remember when we asked Mr Ridgway about the cutting of the Overland—$300,000, a small amount of money—why would they deprive the Overland? We mentioned Bordertown: what about people in Bordertown? His answer was, 'Well, they can go and catch a plane.' Where on earth would someone from Bordertown go to catch a plane to Melbourne?

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: At the airstrip.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: At the airstrip! You have no idea. Some poor 80 year old—this is how out of touch the Liberals are. It has been great going out there and talking to people about the Service SA centre and the cuts to public transport, because it really keeps you in touch with the average person out there who relies on these services, whose day-to-day existence relies on these very services.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: I caught the bus this morning and not one person raised it with me.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I caught a bus this morning, too, and there was a bus full of people.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wortley, do not respond to the interjections. It is not a debate about your bus habits.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Any government must make public transport attractive to use. You do not cut routes and expect them to be used; you actually have to make them comfortable and safe.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I thought we were talking about Service SA, not public transport.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway, do not interject.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It is a whole range of outrage out there, and it is going to come—

The PRESIDENT: Through me, the Hon. Mr Wortley.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: It will come like a tsunami at the next election, because people have lost confidence in the first year. Normally, this anger out there is left for a government after 12 or 16 years. But after the first year, people are fed up with this Liberal government and they are despondent about the way they are being treated.

There is so much more I could say, but it is falling upon deaf ears. Mr President, thank you very much for the opportunity. I thank the Hon. Ms Bourke for giving us the opportunity to speak. You will find out the effects of your decisions made today in three years' time.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:27): I rise to wholeheartedly support the motion. South Australians, I think, have a right to expect that they can access important government services in a timely and efficient way, and in a way that suits them, in a way that meets their needs and not the government's needs. Service SA centres are there to meet the expectations of our citizens. They provide access to licence renewals, vehicle registration and a host of other services to thousands of South Australians each year.

After the Liberal government announced the closure of three Service SA centres in the 2018-19 state budget, I joined many of my colleagues in visiting Service SA centres to see firsthand what impact that would have and to speak to people who utilise these centres. When I visited the Mitcham centre, one that the Liberals have targeted to shut down, the demand for these services was obvious: the car park was full and there was a constant flow through the centre. In fact, I met a man who said that he had come down from the Prospect centre, where he was in a line that went outside the door and into the street, and he made a decision to come down to Mitcham because he thought he would get served more quickly.

These centres are being utilised by South Australians every day of the week, and they see them as part of their essential way of getting in touch with the government and utilising the resources that are provided at these centres. It would be one thing for the government to close down centres that were being underutilised, I suppose—after all, that is the argument they use for bus services—but we know from freedom of information that in fact these three centres are some of the busiest Service SA centres in the state.

Why on earth would a government want to close down Service SA centres that are being patronised so heavily by its citizens? I spoke to many of the people, as I said, who were using these services at Mitcham. If members opposite join minister Stephan Knoll in closing down the centres, they need to have an understanding of what the impact will be on people's lives. I suggest they should go out and engage with the citizens who are using these services and ask them what they think about their proposal to close down these Service SA centres.

The Hon. E.S. Bourke: Ask the member for Adelaide what she thinks.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The member for Adelaide apparently does not agree with the decision to close down Service SA centres, and I can only imagine what the members for Newland and King out in the north-east would think about it. I was very surprised to hear some of the feedback about the member for Elder in regard to the Service SA centre. Why on earth would a government do this to itself? Why on earth would a government do it to its citizens? I cannot imagine the frustration that people will be venting on this Liberal government for the closure of these incredibly busy Service SA centres.

The Hon. Mr Wortley mentioned in his very interesting speech the impact on the elderly, the impact on people who do not use, or cannot use, internet services and mobile devices, and who need to speak to a person to help them through the process. How are they to access these services that they need when Mr Knoll says, 'There will be better ways of doing it; just wait and see. There will be better ways of doing it.'

What he actually means is that there will be remote ways of doing it, which will not suit a lot of the people who want to physically go in and talk to a human being to transact their business. It is obvious to anyone who has visited these centres how valuable they are to the community. I can only suggest that Liberal ministers and Liberal members have not done that legwork and gone off and looked for themselves at the impact this will have on our community.

I expect there will be a Liberal amendment to the motion, and the amendment, of course, will say basically this, 'Trust us, we will make things even better down the track. Let us close these Service SA centres now. Trust us, we will deliver you a better outcome.' My goodness gracious, that is putting the cart before the horse. If you want people to trust you, improve the services first. Improve the services first, go out and prove to the public that you have done that, and then persuade them that closing down Service SA centres it actually going to give them a better outcome. No-one, I dare to suggest, will believe you. I support the motion, and I will be opposing any stupid amendment to that effect.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:32): I also rise to offer my support to this very important motion. Service SA centres provide vital services to the South Australian community. Importantly, they provide services to those in South Australia who do not have access to the internet, those who find it difficult to use a telephone and those whose first language is not English.

I was disheartened when I heard that the government had decided to close the Service SA centres at Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect. The Prospect and Modbury Service SA centres are two of the busiest centres in the state. In the financial year 2016-17, more than 104,000 South Australians used the Prospect Service SA—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: That is 2,000 a week

The Hon. T.T. NGO: That is 2,000 a week—and more than 103,000 South Australians used the Modbury Service SA. The government cannot tell you that these centres are being closed due to declining use, because in the 2017-18 financial year the number of South Australians using these centres actually increased. More than 105,000 South Australians used the Prospect Service SA, and more than 104,000 South Australians used the Modbury centre.

The Mitcham Service SA is no different, with nearly an extra 5,000 people using the centre in 2017-18 compared with 2016-17. If you visit the Northpark Shopping Centre, you will see the waiting area of the Prospect Service SA very often full of people. The same can be said of the Modbury Service SA, which regularly has a line out the door.

The minister has claimed that 82 per cent of transactions that come through the door of a Service SA centre can be conducted online. However, the minister failed to mention that, of all the services that Service SA provides, approximately 40 per cent must be conducted in person. What does that mean for those without an internet connection if the minister wants 82 per cent of transactions that come through the door to be conducted online instead?

It is believed that 17.5 per cent of South Australian households do not have internet access at home and 15 per cent of South Australians do not use the internet at all. In the rush towards technological efficiencies, these people cannot be left behind. South Australia is an inclusive community. We cannot afford to leave these people behind. Service SA provides South Australians with services. Is it too much to ask for the people who utilise the Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect Service SA centres to be provided with a face-to-face service? A face-to-face service means that questions can be asked and, most importantly, questions can be answered. In the minister's rush to push individuals online, has he turned his mind to who will answer people's questions if they are forced out of Service SA centres and into cyberspace?

In recent weeks, I have been privileged to spend a significant amount of time in the electorate of Enfield, where I live, speaking with many local residents about the by-election, which was held on Saturday. Time and again, the question was asked of me, 'Why are they shutting down Prospect Service SA? Where am I supposed to go now?' The electorate of Enfield is a wonderful part of Adelaide. There are elderly residents who have lived there their entire lives. I know an elderly resident who has lived there for 80 years; he lives across the road from me. Some do not know how to use a computer let alone the internet.

There are residents from every wave of immigration to Australia who speak English as a second language. Importantly, there are young people who are excited about visiting their closest Service SA centre to obtain their learner's permit. This is such an important issue—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Excuse me, the Hon. Mr Ngo. Can the Hon. Mr Wortley and the minister not engage in a conversation across the chamber? It is completely disrespectful to the Hon. Mr Ngo. If you want to have a conversation, go outside. The Hon. Mr Ngo, please continue.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Thank you for your protection—again. This is such an important issue that many of the candidates who ran in the Enfield by-election opposed the closure of Prospect Service SA. If this government closes down the Prospect Service SA, where will these residents go to apply for drivers' licences and proof-of-age cards, renew their car rego and pay their bills? If this government is going to close down two of the busiest Service SA centres, what do they expect to occur in other offices?

Closing these Service SA centres will only result in longer waiting times in Adelaide, Elizabeth, Marion, Tranmere, Port Adelaide and Regency Park. It must be asked why the members for Adelaide, Elder, King, Newland, Unley and Waite in the other place have not stood up for their communities and demanded these centres remain open. I understand that to date more than 15,000 South Australians have signed a petition to keep these centres open.

This government must listen to the communities who have been vocal in their opposition to this decision. I call on the government to reverse its choice to close down these three Service SA centres. I commend this motion to the council.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:39): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this motion, in support of the vital services provided to the community by local Service SA centres, specifically those slated for cuts under the recent Marshall government budget, being Modbury, Mitcham and Prospect. I do so noting that the government has tabled, just today, a proposed amendment to this motion. The original motion has seven parts and the new government amendment would seek to replace that with two parts.

I note that the first point is a repetition of the Labor original motion, and I do not understand why the government felt the need to replicate the words 'Acknowledges the vital services provided to the community by Service SA and' when they were already there in the Labor motion. What I would point to is that then the Liberal amendment will seek to remove the part of the motion noting 'that local Service SA centres provide access to a range of transactions, many of which are not able to be undertaken online or over the phone but must be completed in person', and so I ask the government to explain if this is not the case, and then why the government would not want the third point:

Condemns the announcement that the government will close the Modbury, Mitcham and Prospect Service SA centres;

I understand that that might be uncomfortable for the government and they probably oppose a condemnation of their actions but certainly the Greens will be supporting point 3 of this motion. The government then seeks to remove point 4:

Acknowledges the negative effect these closures will have on local residents who will face longer commutes, longer waiting times and lower levels of service as a result;

Again, I note that minister Knoll has been on record saying that people will have to travel further and they will be inconvenienced, so I ask whether or not that is not in fact a statement of fact that the government has already acknowledged? Point 5 will be deleted if the government amendments to the original motion are successful, and that states:

Acknowledges the impact that these closures will have on other Service SA centres, which will see wait times soar as they are inundated with additional clients;

Given the government itself has said that clients will go to the other Service SA centres I am bemused by the lack of acknowledgement that there will be an impact of the closures on the other Service SA centres. Point 6 states:

Acknowledges over 7,000 South Australians who have so far signed petitions to keep the centres open; and

I note that that is simply acknowledging a statement of fact and I certainly pre-empt that I understand the Hon. Connie Bonaros will be lifting that number to recognise a far increased number of petitions that have now been signed since this original motion was moved, and certainly query whether the government intends to not acknowledge any such petitions just as a matter of spite and sheer bloody-mindedness. It is quite extraordinary to try to attempt to erase statements of fact rather than argue the political points here.

I certainly support the original point 7 calling on the government 'to listen to the community and reverse this heartless decision', rather than the government's preferred point number 2 which states:

Notes that the state government is conducting a full business review to identify a sustainable Service SA model that will give the community access to better services through more channels.

I find this last point put forward today by the government of an announcement made last year in its budget quite extraordinary. Surely, you would review how to best deliver services before cutting the services rather than after cutting the services.

I am not necessarily a gambling person but I have been told that there is a tip: if you review something first then you do not find out by sheer error that it was the wrong decision. It is best to review the thing first before you cut it rather than cut it and then review it afterwards, one would pontificate. I also express some disappointment that the language in this debate has used the term 'fall on deaf ears' because this is not a government where these words have fallen on deaf ears because to fall on deaf ears indicates, by the language of the person who uses it, that a deaf person has the choice to not listen.

Before your time, Mr President, I have previously raised such points of order in this place about ableist language being used in this place. I note that previously we had found such language unparliamentary and to the detriment in our representational roles here of all South Australians. With those few words I commend the motion in its original form.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:44): I rise on behalf of SA-Best to support the Hon. Emily Bourke's motion calling on the government to reverse its budget decision to close three Service SA centres in the busy precincts of Modbury, Mitcham and Prospect, two of those centres, as we know, Prospect and Modbury, being among the busiest in the state. In so doing I commend the honourable member for the motion, and I also commend the member for Florey in another place who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue.

This crazy decision is akin to banks closing branches—all about increasing the bottom line and no thought to the best interests of customers. It is estimated, as has been said, that the closure of three Service SA centres could foist more than 750,000 transactions onto the already struggling other centres, which means longer queues and an increased burden on staff at the other eight sites across metro Adelaide. The government has made a pretty big assumption that the transactions will mostly morph online instead, which is unrealistic for poorer or older South Australians.

That figure has not been pulled out of thin air. It was obtained under freedom of information laws by Labor from the transport department itself. The figures that have been obtained show that during the 2017-18 financial year 277,266 transactions were made at the Prospect centre, 254,616 at Modbury and 231,913 at Mitcham. The average wait times, as has been referred to by other honourable members, at those centres across the same period was 12 minutes and 27 seconds at Mitcham, nine minutes and 34 seconds at Prospect and seven minutes and 56 seconds at Modbury.

Does the government in all seriousness think that 277,266 transactions conducted at the Service SA centre at Prospect by over 105,000 customers and the 254,616 transactions at Modbury will just miraculously move online? Customers will more than likely go to the Service SA centre at Regency Park, which is already the state's busiest Service SA centre, handling 480,602 transactions last financial year with an average wait time of nine minutes and 34 seconds. I ask honourable members to imagine what that time will be when the Prospect and Modbury branches close.

The figures also show that the number of customer transactions and average waiting times increased over 2016-17 to 2017-18 at most Service SA centres, including the three earmarked for closure. They are not diminishing; that is fact. The state government is in denial if they think that the closures will not lead to longer queues, stressed staff and poor service delivery. Transport minister Stephan Knoll has said that:

Over 80 per cent of all transactions can be conducted online so we need to educate the public because a lot of people standing in those queues don’t have to be there. They can conduct many transactions from the comfort of their living rooms.

I am sure the minister has the means, as do all of us, to own a number of devices which would allow him to do that, but what do you do if you do not know how to use a computer or if you do not own a computer and do not have the funds to buy one? What do you do if you are elderly or if you need help understanding information that has been provided? What do you do if English is not your first language? And what do you do in terms of services that simply are not provided online?

The decision has incensed the majority of South Australians and rightly so. They are being dudded by the Marshall Liberal government. I attended the rally held on the steps of Parliament House, and I gave my commitment, as did many other honourable members of this place and the other place who attended, to oppose this measure and to continue to call on the government to reverse this ridiculous decision. I did so not because the union or any particular member asked me to—they did not—but because those people who will be directly impacted by the closures asked me to.

I did so because, like them, I could see how disempowering this move will be for those who can least afford it. I did so because, unlike you or me, many of these people will not have the luxury of hopping into their car and driving to the nearest Service SA centre to conduct their transactions. Instead, they will be forced to use public transport, if it is available, to travel further and therefore over longer periods of time, sometimes for up to an hour longer, and therefore well out of their way to access essential services.

This is a term that appears to be lost on the government: essential services. They are services none of us can do without, services that each and every one of us rely on in order to carry out our daily functions and, of course, the appropriate provision of such essential services. The member for Florey in the other place has tabled to date two petitions signed by more than 6,877 members of the community. She has collected, as I understand it, over 10,000 signatures from concerned members of the community, predominantly from her own community.

There are other petitions online by the PSA and the opposition which have also been signed by thousands of people who oppose these closures. As I understand it, the opposition has collected at least 10,000 additional signatures. Those impacted by these changes have clearly spoken, and it is high time the government stood up and took note of their opposition to the closures and do something about it.

With those words, and on behalf of SA-Best, I am pleased to support this motion. In so doing, I note for the record that we will not be supporting the government's proposed amendments. What I will do, as alluded to by the Hon. Tammy Franks, is move to make the motion more reflective of the actual number of signatures that have been collected to date. As such, I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out '7,000' and insert '25,000'.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:51): I thank the chamber for their indulgence. Even though I was not originally on the list, I rise very briefly to support wholeheartedly the Hon. Emily Bourke's motion about Service SA. I want to make the point that there are local members who I do not think are fulfilling their responsibilities particularly well in relation to Service SA.

An honourable member: Which ones?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In particular, the member for Adelaide, whose constituents are going to be extraordinarily disadvantaged by the closure of the Prospect Service SA centre. They will have to travel a lot further. People who do not usually have access to the internet will be expected to fork out for computer and internet access if they cannot travel a lot further. But also, the member for King, whose constituents will be very angry at the fact that she has not done anything in relation to making sure her residents can access the services they need. The Modbury Service SA centre has tens of thousands of customers each year.

I can assure members opposite that this is not something we will be campaigning on for the next few weeks or the next few months. We will be campaigning on this right up until the next election. If people like the member for King and the member for Adelaide think that their constituents are going to be happy that they have done almost nothing to stand up for vital community services, I think they will be judged accordingly.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: And the member for Newland.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: And the member for Newland with the Modbury Service SA centre. We will make sure that the constituents of those members who are not fighting for their electorates and not fighting for their constituents are very aware of their inaction and what they have not done.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (17:53): I rise on behalf of the government to respond to the Hon. Ms Bourke's motion. As we have circulated, I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out paragraphs 1 to 7 and insert new paragraphs as follows:

1. Acknowledges the vital services provided to the community by Service SA; and

2. Notes the state government is conducting a full business review to identify a sustainable Service SA model that will give the community access to better services through more channels.

As announced in the budget, tough measures have to be taken to deliver better value for South Australian taxpayers. The announced closure of the Mitcham, Modbury and Prospect Service SA centres is just one example of these, and it has not been taken lightly. These three centres were selected because there are alternative locations nearby and because they were not providing the additional—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Allow the minister to speak in silence.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you, Mr President. They are a bit animated, the people opposite.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Allow the minister to speak in silence.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They were not providing the additional network support services, such as call centre operations. This is something I want members opposite to listen to: the dates of the closures of these centres is still being worked through as part of a broader service review. However, these centres—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: And what have the local members done about it so far?

The PRESIDENT: Leader of the Opposition, please! The minister heard you in silence; show him the same courtesy.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —will not close until an alternative service delivery model is in place. I will repeat that, because all the conversation this afternoon has been that they are closed. They are not closed, and these centres will not close until an alternative service delivery model is in place. There is scaremongering going on on the other side of the chamber to say they are closed.

I know the Hon. Mr Hunter used to say he could not read an iPad; he did not understand. It is almost as though they are not prepared to look at any particular new service model that will probably provide a better, more efficient service to the people of South Australia.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Tell that to people with vision impairment, David.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You are not even prepared to entertain it. I will repeat that again: however, these centres will not close until an alternative service delivery model is in place. The pending closures will have communication and education strategies in place for customers to support and encourage more efficient transactions and to better promote nearby locations. It is evident that Service SA cannot continue with the current business model.

Minister Knoll in another place has tasked the department with undertaking a review of all Service SA operations and determining a sustainable future operating model. This will focus on improved customer service. The members opposite think it will be a poorer customer service. The whole focus of the review is improved customer service, and a new value proposition—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Mr President, as you rightly pointed out, I heard them in silence. I think they should have some respect for the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: Allow the minister to speak in silence.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The focus will be on improved customer service and a new value proposition of how services are delivered and how they will be delivered as effectively as possible for all customers and all taxpayers.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: Weasel words. You have taken a cut in your budget.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hunter, you have had your go. Allow the minister to have his go.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you, Mr President. The review will provide recommendations on how to best manage resources and staff across the network and develop a business model that provides the best outcomes for customers. The intention to drive more transactions online has significant benefits: it reduces costs for business, it reduces the cost of having to attend a centre for customers and it allows services to be more effectively and efficiently delivered to those customers who do need to attend a Service SA customer service centre.

Service SA continues to expand the range of transactions available online, particularly through the online mySA GOV portal. This will greatly improve access across the state to some of our customers' most commonly requested transactions. The emphasis is currently being given to further improving accessibility and simplifying information for customers. Recent attention in the media has focused on transactions that can only be undertaken at a Service SA customer service centre. There are some transactions where this is certainly the case, owing to system constraints or regularly requirements, such as with respect to identity verification.

That said, the department continually reviews the regulatory requirements and has a number of proposals within the current simplified bill that will further assist in the reduction of red tape for Service SA customers and reduce the need for more customers to personally attend a customer service centre, saving them time and money, and for many much more. We also recognise that not everyone has access to online services. Service SA is working with alternative local service delivery partners across the state to further improve the physical services available to all South Australians. With those few words, I encourage members to support the government amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: in his speech the minister just portrayed that he heard the opposition in silence during the debate, which is clearly patently false. He had to even be cautioned by yourself, so I ask him to withdraw those words from his speech.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I was responding to a conversation with the Hon. Mr Wortley, who had no interest in the speaker who was speaking but, if it pleases the member, I will withdraw those comments.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you for the courtesy. The Hon. Ms Bourke, will you please sum up the debate.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE (17:59): I thank the members who made contributions today, particularly—

An honourable member: All of them.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: All of them. I thank the Hon. Russell Wortley; the Hon. Ian Hunter; the Hon. Tammy Franks; the Hon. Connie Bonaros, particularly for making your suggested amendment; the Hon. Tung Ngo; the Hon. David Ridgway; and the Hon. Kyam Maher—how could I forget?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: How could I forget the leader? A particular thank you to the Hon. Kyam Maher. I want to touch quickly on the amendments made by the government because, unlike the government, we have been out talking to members in front of Service SA centres, and also at the local train station, where I am sure you have seen us on many mornings as you walk into parliament. As the Hon. Russell Wortley pointed out, and rightly so, it has been very easy to get people from the community to sign a petition because they are angry, and they are rightly angry. They should be angry at people like the member sitting in our gallery today, the member for King, because—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bourke, you cannot refer to people in the gallery.

The Hon. E.S. BOURKE: Sorry; apologies, member for King—who has long experience in the services provided by Service SA, being a manager of two of the busiest Service SA centres that are scheduled to be closed by this government, one of them with 104,000 and the other with almost 105,000. Between the three service centres you are looking to close, almost 300,000 people visit those service centres every year. It is no surprise that 15,000 people have signed our petition to keep those Service SA doors open so that they can go and get a community service face to face.

I am disappointed in your amendments. Yes, I agree with your first amendment that they do provide a very vital service to our community, but you are putting up smoke and mirrors about what you are actually trying to achieve. As the Hon. David Ridgway stated, you are wanting to push more people online. How can the most vulnerable people in our community access a Service SA centre if you close three Service SA centres where 300,000 people visit every year? That is not making it more accessible. I commend the motion to the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: I will be putting a series of questions. Honourable members, the first question I will put is that paragraphs 1 to 5 stand as part of the motion, so if you are in agreement with the motion you will vote in the affirmative. If you disagree with the motion, you will vote in the negative. I put the question that paragraphs 1 to 5 stand as part of the motion.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: I now put a second question that the amendment moved by the Hon C. Bonaros to paragraph 6 be agreed to.

Amendment carried.

The PRESIDENT: I put the third question that the motion moved by the Hon. E.S. Bourke and as amended by the Hon. C. Bonaros be agreed to.

Motion as amended carried.