HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 June 2008. Page 3507.)

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (15:56): I am not the lead speaker for the opposition, so—

Mrs Geraghty: Oh, no!

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I could keep the honourable member here until 6 o'clock, but I will not put her through that particular painful exercise. I have only 20 minutes, and I want to make it clear that, at the appropriate time, my leader will be the lead speaker to put forward alternate views in relation to this document. Over the last few days most of us have spent a considerable amount of time studying these particular documents. It is perhaps the most important matter which the parliament discusses each year, that is, the appropriation of sufficient funds for the general services of the state.

That is the responsibility of state governments. They are basically the providers of services, and to provide those services they must have revenue; and, of course, the debate is really about how we raise the revenue and how we spend it. That is what the difference is about. This particular government and all state governments in Australia have been very fortunate in the last few years because they have had their pockets lined with huge amounts of GST revenue. This year they have received in excess of $90 million (more than they anticipated), which therefore allows them to provide for services which they would not otherwise have been able to.

We are debating the Appropriation Bill and not those large documents that have all been put in front of us. Two departments, of course, spend the biggest proportion of the budget: the Department of Health, which spends over $2 billion; and the education department, which is allocated about $1.7 billion, and that is a very large percentage of the state budget. In this budget, I am very pleased to say that my constituency at Kapunda has been allocated a considerable amount of money to upgrade the old Sidney Kidman home at the high school. It has a lot of historic value and it is a very interesting place, but it is not actually that suitable for the administration of a modern high school. It is a very good school, so there was an urgent need to spend money to upgrade it.

The science laboratory has already been upgraded, and we have had an excellent upgrade of the primary school. I do not know whether the minister has had a look at it, but the concept at the primary school is an outstanding piece of architecture. If anyone is interested they should look at how you build a modern primary school, particularly for juniors. The quadrangle area ensures that, during inclement weather, the children can be out in the fresh air, which is excellent—whoever is responsible deserves full credit. I hope the concept is repeated around South Australia.

An honourable member: Which school is that?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Kapunda Primary School. In my time as a member of parliament, I have taken considerable trouble to pay attention to education in rural areas because I believe it to be one of the most important things that a local member can do. If we do not create an opportunity for the next generation of South Australians, they will not have a good future and, therefore, whether you live in an isolated part of South Australia or in the large city of Adelaide, we have to provide the best opportunities possible.

I think that in South Australia our teachers provide as good a standard of education as anywhere else in the world. I have had the privilege of being in schools in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. I have also visited schools in Queensland and I believe that they were better in South Australia. So, I am very pleased about that part of the budget.

However, there are always problems in ensuring that we maintain a very efficient and widespread school bus system so that students in isolated parts of the state can get to school, and there is also a need to support parents who want to send their children to Adelaide for senior secondary education, university or TAFE, or to do a trade because that is a very expensive undertaking. The parents of one of the people receiving work experience in the deputy leader's office have played a very important role in promoting isolated education.

Of course, we have the need to ensure that funds are expended in relation to the provision of emergency services. I note in this budget that a line deals with the provision of a new helicopter to assist with firefighting and the Eyre Peninsula where we had the Wanilla bushfire. The only comment I would make on that is that last week I had the pleasure of attending a photographic exhibition organised by Country Arts SA in which one or two items were affected by the bushfire. Nobody could look at those photos and fail to appreciate what took place and not recognise that we have to take every step possible to make sure that it does not happen again. That is the first thought that would come to anyone looking at this very large photographic exhibition. I commend all those responsible for putting it on. That ought to be the message: after looking at that exhibition, what do we have to do to ensure that it does not happen again? We can do plenty of things. We need to ensure adequate access to native vegetation, we need to provide for controlled burning and we need to ensure that the local volunteers have a say and that land managers are not restricted by all sorts of unnecessary, unwise and foolish requirements. They are very important.

In country South Australia there is nothing more important than an adequate, effective health system, and, throughout rural South Australia, country people have taken a great interest in their health services and hospitals. They have worked for generations to ensure that they have adequate resources and facilities, and they have been a source of employment. They have also provided a mantle of safety. The proposals that were released on budget day have sent a shiver throughout rural South Australia, and that can be felt if one listens to the radio and looks at the local newspapers that are circulating in rural South Australia. I must have been reading a different set of newspapers from that of the Minister for Health.

Let me quote from the Northern Argus of Wednesday 11 June, which carried an article entitled 'Grim Day for Rural Health: doctors threaten to leave rural towns', as follows:

The State Labor Government's newly launched Country Health Plan has been dubbed Black Friday for rural health services. The plan, which was slipped into the public eye just behind the State budget announcements on Wednesday, will see millions of dollars spent on modernising Whyalla Hospital, Berri, Mount Gambier and Port Lincoln, while stripping away facilities from the remaining country hospitals.

I also want to refer to comments made by Dr Steve Holmes, as follows:

The hub model is fine if you live in the city, if you have a good public transport system.

That is what a Clare doctor had to say. An article in the Flinders News on Wednesday 11 June carried the headline 'Doctors sickened by health plan'. It stated:

Local doctors are furious about moves they believe will hurt country areas and young medical graduates. Those in the medical community have expressed their anger and concern as the State Government releases its Country Health Plan in conjunction with the Budget last week...Quorn doctor Tony Lian-Lloyd, who is also the regional representative of the Rural Doctors Association, described the move as 'an absolute disaster for country health'. 'It is an absolute disaster for rural doctors working at the coalface,' he said. 'The Government has not listened to country doctors; they have deceived country people and doctors for so long. I have absolute contempt for the Minister for Health'. Dr Lian-Lloyd said many hospitals would function little better than first aid posts under the new plan.

He goes on. To carry that a little further, I hope that most people would read The Weekend Australian from Saturday. On page 15, an article entitled 'Dismantling rural services bad policy' quoted the doctor at Murray Bridge. This article gives some examples.

I do not know who drew up this particular plan or what long-term thought has been given to the ramifications of this proposal. However, if you want to upset country people and if you want to get normally placid, hardworking people upset, just try to remove what they believe to be their basic right, that is, adequate health services. Some of us choose to live in rural South Australia. I for one have no desire to live full time in Adelaide. I live 650 kilometres from Adelaide—

An honourable member: And that is to carry the ones in the city.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: That's right. I live about 60 kilometres from the closest hospital. I will give an example of what will happen where I come from if this happens, as I know it will. On two occasions in my life I have had to be taken to a hospital at very short notice. If we are told that we will now have to go to Ceduna, that will put another 110 kilometres onto that journey; or, if we have to go to Port Lincoln, that is some 250 kilometres. Yet, the district where I live has a hospital that has functioned for as long as anyone can remember. I was actually born there, and so were many other citizens. There is a doctor, a pharmacy, and a number of people are employed.

What will be the result if these hospitals go? In recent times, the previous federal government had a plan to assist in the establishment of pharmacies—there are two in my electorate: one at Booleroo Centre and one at Orroroo—and that was a great innovation. It was good for those communities, and they were very grateful. It was the first time in many years that they had had a chemist shop.

If the hospital is downgraded and if the doctor leaves, not only will you lose the services of the doctor but the pharmacy will go; there is nothing surer. Why would you want to do that? In this particular document, they refer to Kapunda and Eudunda, and the doctors there are absolutely beside themselves. Kapunda is a growing area with a hardworking community who, in recent times, as the member for Schubert knows, have spent a lot of money—not taxpayers' money—on putting in a helipad, an extra facility. It was done by the community, not the government. If you rip out some of the services, it will be stepping on those people's toes. That is why that community is getting itself mobilised.

Let us look at another example. How far is Leigh Creek from Hawker? I think it is 156 kilometres. Last Saturday week I was at Blinman, in my constituency, diligently doing my duty as the local member. The Blinman Hotel is a nice place to stay. A busload of young people came up to Blinman, and they were celebrating the marriage of one of their mates. They were having a very convivial evening and enjoying themselves. At about midnight, one of them decided to take a walk to look at the stars, and he fell down a pit. So, at 1 o'clock at the morning, he had to be carted off to hospital. Where did he go? The irony was that he actually did not hurt himself very much because he had had plenty of 'medication' but, because he was under the guidance of a bus company, they insisted that he be taken to hospital. What happened? The volunteers had to come in to pick him up and take him back to Leigh Creek.

If that service was not there, where would they have taken him? People might say, 'To Hawker,' but there was so much rain that they would not have got down the road on that particular night. If those services are downgraded, it will have an effect on employment. A few months ago, when the leader and a group of my colleagues were in Leigh Creek, we met with the management. The manager made it very clear that, if the hospital services were downgraded, it would have a detrimental effect on his ability to employ people to man that operation.

In 1993, the then Labor government decided that it was going to close the Leigh Creek Hospital, and I remember what the result was. All it did was to give me a free kick in the goal square in the forthcoming election. People just would not tolerate it. So, I appeal to the government's common sense.

When I first became a member of this place, people like Des Corcoran would not have tolerated or accepted this sort of behaviour, and those members who came from an AWU background would not have, either, because their members were out in country areas. I can just imagine what some of those people, such as Jack Wright, who had a bit of pull and could strong-arm the people in question, would have done. It was their members who were working on the roads and in other areas who needed these services, and they would not have put up with this. The plan would have been put up, and Sir Humphrey Appleby would not have been seen again.

These sorts of decisions are causing much concern. It will affect property values, and it will be detrimental to people travelling in the north. I want to briefly quote from what a doctor from Kapunda said, as follows:

The GP Plus emergency hospitals will be unable to provide the necessary resources to safely care for critically-ill patients. Many South Australian patients will be put in great danger by virtue of the increased distance they will need to travel to obtain safe emergency care.

Under the heading 'Medical staffing', he said:

It is well recognised that there is a crisis in the medical workforce in Australia, and the rural medical workforce in particular. The reasons are complex; but the most significant factor has been bureaucratic mismanagement of medical training in Australia.

The bureaucrats have had a field day with this particular document. They have not said how much money will be spent, and they have not thought through the ability to transport people to these new whiz-bang facilities. The volunteer ambulance people are under great stress, and it is difficult to get volunteers, and the volunteers will be put under more stress. It is difficult to get doctors and nurses, and they will be put under more stress. The Flying Doctor Service will be called upon to make more flights, and the retrieval service will be called upon when it is not necessary.

Therefore, I appeal to the government to think through this escapade. The people in rural South Australia do not ask for a lot, but the most important thing we can give them is a reasonable health service. Those hospitals belong to those communities and, in the early days, the people built and paid for them. They have a particular pride in them, and they will support them and work for them. When you took away the hospital boards, you took away their voice, and the only voice they have now is through their councils, who are gearing up.

I say to George Beltchev, the head of Country Health: you may get your way with this bureaucratic idea, but we are watching carefully, and we will make sure that, at the appropriate time, people in rural South Australia vent their anger if you take away their services. In this budget, you will spend $250 million on rural health, but that is only a fraction.

Time expired.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:16): I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill. I have been here now for just over 18 years, and I have never seen such a political budget as the 2008-09 documents. It really is a city-centric document, with the government feather-bedding its own electoral base. I thought that pork-barrelling was a thing of the past, but it is blatantly obvious to anyone who examines the 2008-09 budget papers that almost all the spending is concentrated on the western suburbs, which is Labor's heartland, rewarding its true believers.

Here we have a state government that reannounces that it will put money ($96.5 million in the next financial year) towards a desalination plant—funding for a plant that was so desperately needed years ago. What about funding for stormwater reuse or water recycling schemes? No major funds are allocated for those projects at all. We are now entering four years of drought, but when will the government get the message? We are in a desperate situation and, if we do not get run-off, it could get worse.

As we know, Western Australia is building its second desalination plant, but we have not even started our first. It is gross in the extreme, and you are playing with the most vital thing the state has—water. We have a state government that makes no new announcement in regard to water to help our farmers, irrigators, or others whose livelihood relies on the availability of water, as they continue to suffer from the worst drought in their history.

Perhaps the reason the Rann state Labor government has been so slow to act in relation to desalination is so that it can keep reannouncing it as policy, thus getting as much mileage out of it as possible. That is a very cynical attitude, but it appears to be how it is. This is just one example that shows where the priorities of this Rann state Labor government lie: it surely is not with the rural and regional areas.

Every day country South Australians feel as though they have been forgotten and will continue to be ignored by this government, which has been in power six years, but has invested very little into the country. When reviewing this year's budget, it is clear that rural and regional South Australians have been forgotten.

The state government announces $20 million of investment in the defence sector and outlines spending in the mining sector, but it has not allocated any funds towards assisting the growers of the Riverland whose trees are dying and withering more and more every day, which will be a loss to the South Australian economy despite the Treasurer's assurances that we are 'spending money and doing the right things in the Riverland to the best of our ability'.

It is ironic in the extreme that the member for this area (member for Chaffey) where the biggest losses are now occurring in relation to the long-term loss of citrus plantings happens to be the Minister for Water Security. I believe that she is quite responsible for some of these problems, because the water is there, and she is unable to negotiate to get the water down to save these people. I believe that these people have a legitimate beef, because I think that these long-term plantings should be the highest priority, but they are not. They have now been promised 2 per cent, which is better than nothing—but not much better.

A lot of questions need to be asked. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful that the state may lose hundreds of millions of dollars in permanent plantings, yet there has been no response from the state government. On the other hand, the River Murray levy is set to increase 4.5 per cent. What are taxpayers getting for their money anyway? How many years have we been paying this levy? It has been seven or eight years, but what do we have to show for it? The question that needs to be asked is: where is this money going?

Here we have a government that can find $100 million to upgrade AAMI Stadium, but it cannot find $60 million to build a new Barossa hospital. We have a government that can spend $162 million on extending the tramline to the Entertainment Centre, and $30 million tarting it up, when the Outer Harbor line runs parallel to Port Road anyway (even if the patrons do have to walk a few hundred metres further to the centre), but it will not trial even a passenger train on the existing railway line to the Barossa Valley.

It is a disgrace. Daily visitor numbers to the Barossa are down at the moment because of the cost of petrol and other matters. We need a train to fill the gap. We need it to keep the Barossa's prominence in not just South Australia but also in Australia and for international tourism. It needs to be there if we want to maintain our position, but the government is more interested in putting a tramline down to the Entertainment Centre and spending $30 million to tart it up. Why is it doing that? So that it can compete against private enterprise in the wedding reception market and so on.

We have a government that can find $1.5 million for a permanent screen to be installed at the Adelaide soccer stadium, and $3.3 million in the next financial year (out of a total estimate of $9.7 million by 2012) to be spent on building, refurbishment and upgrade works to the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure corporate buildings, yet it cannot find a paltry half a million dollars to upgrade the concrete ramps for the upstream ferry at Mannum to make it operational again and give those local people guaranteed access, across the river, to their essential services.

The people living on the eastern side of the river, with the hospital on the other side, are just horrified because, if that one ferry goes out (and it has done so four times) how do they get to their hospital? It is a 65-kilometre round trip. It is a disgrace. The minister has quoted $500,000 to fix it. I believe that is a figure on the upside. I believe it is a figure more like 300,000. We are only talking of a piece of concrete about 1½ metres long by about eight metres wide. That is a ridiculously small project, but we just cannot get it off the ground. It is not fair at all. So, the ferry remains closed, affecting my electorate as well as the member for Hammond's electorate on the other side of the river. Tourists are very frustrated. In fact, as we heard on ABC Radio state news this morning, this issue is starting to bite. It is high time the minister was responsible and did the right and fair thing and give these people what everyone else expects: access within their community. They are not asking for a bridge but if this goes on any longer they will be. I think we would have to be hard pressed to say that they cannot have a bridge, which will cost millions and millions of dollars more.

As I said, upgrading concrete ramps is such a small job in the scheme of things, yet it would greatly improve the conditions that residents of Mannum are currently experiencing, particularly those residing on the eastern side of the town. I just cannot understand this government's constant refusal to do anything about it. It is grossly improper. For the few dollars involved, I just cannot believe that this is the case. I have heard all the arguments against this; even Aboriginal title has been raised, and we wonder why people get cynical. It is about a piece of concrete about 1½ metres long under the ferry, yet we are talking about native title. I cannot understand why the rollers are not cut off that ramp to give it another 1½ feet or 18 inches in the old language so as to give it more life but, no, nothing at all has been done. It is too hard. There is no political interest.

The South Australian government announces rail upgrades and resleepering, and where will it start? The western suburbs. Which electorates are out there? The resleepering and electrification should start in the northern and southern suburbs in order to create a north-south transport link. The Gawler line should be done first. After all, has the Rann Labor government forgotten about its urban growth boundary being extended just outside Gawler? Surely, this is to go ahead—

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The Treasurer just said that Gawler is happening first. Not on my reading of the budget; it is the last part of the project. Stage 4 of the project is Gawler. Stage 1 should be Gawler, then we would have the same scheme as in Western Australia, which has been hugely successful. The urban growth boundary should have necessitated all this planning far in advance, not just in a pork-barrelling exercise such as this. What about the south? Surely the rail upgrade should commence and later be electrified down to the south. The government need only look at how well the north-south corridor in Western Australia is going in relation to—I have forgotten the name of the city down there.

Mr Pederick: Mandurah.

Mr VENNING: Mandurah. The past member for Mandurah was the Hon. Arthur Marshall, whom I knew very well. He took me down there. I am amazed at the development down at Mandurah. It is a credit to him and the previous WA Liberal government. It can be done. It is fantastically successful and popular. I believe that, rather than electrifying the network in the western suburbs first, the government ought to be doing that. After all, people living in the western suburbs have all the other options. They can catch a bus, train or a taxi. They can even walk from their home to the city. You cannot do that from Gawler.

I cannot understand why the train services are not tidied up. We hear that our train services are not utilised. Why are they not cleaned up and new windows put in to make them more user-friendly? What about health? We have a government that keeps everybody waiting for the Country Health Care Plan until after the budget is announced, and what is contained in it for people in regional and rural areas? Nothing—unless you live in Berri, Loxton, Whyalla or Mount Gambier. Berri, of course, is in the minister's electorate, as is Mount Gambier. Whyalla is a Labor seat so, again, three out of four—not bad.

We have hospitals where services and facilities will be increased and improved somewhat, but this comes at great expense to all other hospitals. Health facilities in all other areas will be downgraded to nothing more than bandaid centres. Forty-three hospitals will suffer a downgrade. I am not prepared to play politics with this issue for the sake of playing politics. I take the cue from the country doctors association, the AMA, my own local doctors and the local media. They have all said, 'How can we maintain services in the country when they are downgraded?' We will lose doctors and, if doctors go, what services will we have? We must try to get the hospitals back. We strive, we work hard and we put so much effort into getting doctors out there. In Crystal Book, for instance, as in the Barossa, we are very lucky to have fantastic services. We have local doctors with wonderful experience and expertise. We will lose that quick smart, because doctors will not stay there if they cannot practise the way they have been trained to. We will lose those doctors.

The government has repeatedly said that its Country Health Care Plan would see significant investment take place in regards to country health. Yet, after analysing the budget documents, it appears that the overall increase in country health spending is only $3 million compared to last year's budget. I have never before seen so much public angst about an issue. Forty-three hospitals are being targeted, and 'GP Plus' has become a very bad word out there.

What about the Mid North? We have four hub hospitals. Look at the map of South Australia and look at all the money that the government has spent on advertising. All the money used for advertising would have repaired the Mannum ferry easily—twice over. All this taxpayer-funded advertising to push these issues is just gross, terrible, bad, a waste of money. It should be illegal. It is corrupt, really. Taxpayers' money should not be spent to sell the government's argument; it should stand on its own merit.

In all my time here, I have never heard the uprising that is going on at the moment. It is not being led by us; it is being led by the people, the country hospitals and the boards that the government has sacked. They have all gone, but they are still active. I just wonder what is being said in caucus, Mr Speaker; you must have heard it. What are the backbenchers saying? I know that the previous minister for health would not have put up with this. In fact, I think the reason she is no longer there is because she stood up for country hospitals. I appreciated the day she came to Crystal Brook and opened the new aged care wing. The plaque is on the wall and I often see it. I pay tribute to her, because she would not have overseen a thing like this, and I note that she is in the chamber.

I think that it is a disgrace that this has happened. When we look at the map, we see the four hub hospitals across South Australia. If we look at where the population base is, we can see that there is nothing from Whyalla right around to Adelaide. Should there not be a hub hospital in the Mid North somewhere, whether it be Port Pirie, Clare or somewhere in between? If you are at Orroroo and you have a serious accident, where is your hub hospital? How many hours will it take to travel to the nearest hospital? Three hours, and that is if you can get into a vehicle and you have a good run. That is not fair. So, I cannot understand it. When they put in hub hospitals there ought to have been one in the Mid North at Port Pirie or Clare, or both, or the Barossa. I think it is totally wrong.

We hear all this talk about efficiency in hospitals. How can you talk about efficiency in relation to hospitals? We do not put hospitals in places where they have to be efficient: we put them where they strategically have to be. When the city people and others are out driving around the countryside things can go wrong: people have accidents and heart attacks in cars. We need to have hospitals strategically placed so that they are there for the care of all South Australians—not for just the people who live around them but for everybody.

The minister starts quoting inefficient hospitals: some of these hospitals have low bed rates purely because they are not allowed to go past a certain level. Even though some hospitals have, say, 30 beds, they are restricted to operating only 20; they are only staffed to operate only 20. Then the figures are quoted in here showing that the hospital is inefficient. We need to get a few facts right. This all needs to be declared, and we should be comparing apples with apples.

What an uprising this is causing. I will be interested to go out onto the steps of Parliament House tomorrow and share with my country colleagues their angst about this matter. I feel we all have let them down—and very much so. When we got rid of the hospital boards, we all sat back and let that happen: hospitals were all gone, with the cheque book taken away from local people. It did not take long (three months) and here we are doing this. I thought that at least they would have waited six to 12 months but, no, in three months here we are—bang! They have gone.

The state Rann Labor government has outlined a savings target from the health sector of $81 million. I have to ask: if the services and health infrastructure are going to be increased as the government claims, where will these savings come from? I was excited to hear that finally some money will be put towards a study relating to a new health facility in the Barossa. (I spoke to the minister a few moments ago and we have come to a truce over what was said during question time, and I thank him and appreciate that.)

I appreciate that it is better than nothing to have a study to see what an amalgamated health service in the Barossa can do, but there is no commitment. Again, it is a matter of trust. There are no costings on that, and no time frames were outlined, either. I guess that out in the Barossa we will have to do what we have done for 10 years now: just wait and see.

We have a state government that appears to have forgotten about road safety—and this is a pertinent issue in many country electorates. The state Rann government has slashed the police budget for road safety by $2.6 million compared to the previous financial year. The Barossa Valley Way is a major freight route in the Barossa and a major road on which tourists travel throughout the region. It has repeatedly been rated by the RAA as one of the worst roads in the state, and yet no funds are allocated towards upgrading any part of it, including the bad rail crossings.

Gomersal Road, which directly connects Tanunda to the Main North Road, a great project that I have been involved with, is in urgent need of work as well. There are potholes everywhere in it, and turning lanes are desperately needed at the intersections along this road. There have been two fatalities within the past 12 months at the same intersection, yet nothing is done to improve the safety of this major road. This road should not remain the responsibility of the Light council. Surely with the traffic that traverses it—eight times the traffic numbers predicted—it should be a major road coming under state responsibility.

The government will respond to this by saying that they have pledged $7.2 million towards a targeted program of sealing road shoulders of high priority rural roads, but do not country people deserve more than that? There have been five fatal accidents in the Barossa Valley within five months, and there is no doubt in my mind that the condition and safety of the roads within the area played a role in some of these crashes.

South Australians have a state government which, prior to the official release of the budget, made grandiose announcements on upgrading rail level crossings in a bid to improve safety, following some devastating fatalities that have occurred in the past year. However, upon closer inspection of the announcement in question, it appears that the funds allocated towards level crossings have actually been slashed by $300,000 on the previous year.

We have a state government that will spend $4.5 million on fitting out an office for Shared Services, a policy designed to save the state government $60 million. With the official fit-out, nearly $5 million of the savings are already gone and, once again, those in the country will suffer. The state Rann Labor government has abandoned country South Australians. The budget does not deliver anything worthy of returning to the debt levels that confronted this state found with the State Bank disaster; and that is where we are going. We are now approximately $1.5 billion to $2 billion down, and the figure is rising, especially with the unfunded liabilities that we seem to have.

This budget sees most of the funds being directed towards seats held by the government and issues that are less important, and our state's debt level is being increased astronomically to fund that. The Schubert electorate has received nothing, or very little, from this state Labor government for almost six years, and this budget is no exception. This is despite the area's contributing to the state's economy enormously through the wine and tourism industry.

My electorate is part of the economic powerhouse of the state and deserves more. I hope that the government will see the folly of its ways and put some money where its mouth is, because if you do not look after the Barossa the whole state will be affected. I certainly will go through the estimates process with a lot of interest. We will be asking a lot of questions of individual ministers, and I hope that they will have some good answers.

Mr O'BRIEN (Napier) (16:36): I am pleased to rise in support of the Rann Labor government's state budget for the year 2008-09. This budget provides the resources needed so that the state government can embark on one of the most ambitious and far-reaching programs of reform ever seen in South Australia. I particularly applaud the investment of $2 billion made by the Rann Labor government in the budget in order to transform South Australia's public transport network, interlinking, as it does, with the government's endorsement of a new planning strategy for Adelaide.

As chair of the steering committee of the South Australian Planning and Development Review, I especially welcome the Labor government's allocation of $7.9 million to further evolve the strategy and improve South Australia's planning and development system. South Australia will have root-and-branch reform of its planning and development system.

While the South Australian planning system has been sound, the reforms endorsed by the government will make it the most efficient and modern in the nation. This will be a planning system that will reduce the cost to families and businesses of getting approvals for the development of houses or businesses and will improve the economic competitiveness of the state. This will be a planning system that will help improve housing affordability and also equips us to better meet the challenges of climate change and improve management of our water resources. It will be a planning system that helps us to make the most of existing and new investments in infrastructure. The planning system reforms fit into a coherent vision set out by South Australia's Strategic Plan and the Rann Labor government's landmark budget brought down by the Treasurer on 5 June.

South Australia's Strategic Plan sets clear targets for economic growth for ensuring South Australia remains the least costly place to do business in Australia and continues to improve our state's competitive position internationally. At the same time, the Strategic Plan sets ambitious targets for our development as a community, for infrastructure, for population growth, for protecting biodiversity, and for tackling climate change, for energy efficiency and for housing and many other areas critical to the future of our state.

The Rann Labor government has set itself the target of becoming, by the year 2010, the best performing jurisdiction in Australia in timeliness and transparency of decisions that impact the business community, and then to maintain that rating. The recently announced planning reforms are further proof of the Rann Labor government's commitment to government reform and competitiveness. The Rann Labor government's seventh budget, with its bold program of investment in modern advanced public transportation for Adelaide, is key to making planning and development reform work. Under that program, $2 billion will be invested in the state's public transport system in the next decade to build a coast-to-coast tramline from Glenelg through the city to West Lakes, Port Adelaide and Semaphore, to electrify the major northern and southern rail lines, and to put many more buses on busy routes.

During the next four years, nearly $650 million is to be spent on the first stage of a program to modernise our rail and light rail transport infrastructure. Specifically, the government is to electrify the Noarlunga and Outer Harbor rail lines, extend the tramline to the Entertainment Centre, resleeper the Gawler line in advance of electrification, and purchase new light rail vehicles.

This robust budget invests in a fast, electrified train network for Gawler, Outer Harbor and Noarlunga commuters, and a light rail service from Glenelg to West Lakes, Port Adelaide and Semaphore. To build on this budget initiative and to further secure a prosperous and environmentally sustainable future with opportunity for all South Australians, it is vital that this state is served by a competitive and visionary planning system.

Much has already been done by the Rann Labor government in relation to streamlining our planning and development systems. We were the first government to:

introduce an industrial land strategy;

support the growth of regional communities through the development of regional planning strategies;

streamlined development policy through the Better Development Plans program;

greater independence in development assessment through ensuring the majority of members on council Development Assessment Panels are independent—we are the only state in Australia to have achieved this reform and I am aware that a number of other states (particularly New South Wales and Victoria) are looking enviously at this particular reform and wishing to emulate it themselves;

introduction of systems indicators to measure the performance of decision-making authorities, such as referral agencies, councils and the Development Assessment Commission;

introduction of automatic appeal rights for applicants on overdue applications; and

extension of the e-lodgement system for land division, resulting in 98 per cent of land division applications submitted by surveyors now being lodged electronically.

The Economic Development Board has been a strong advocate of the need for further planning reform, and I pay a tribute to the board's role in promoting needed reform. Other advisory bodies, such as the Regional Communities Consultative Committee, have also highlighted the need to improve elements of the system.

In June last year, the Minister for Urban Development and Planning established a steering committee (which I chaired), to provide advice on options for further reform that not only lock in past gains, but ensure South Australia has the most competitive planning system in the nation. With the support of international accounting firm KPMG through the engagement of lead reviewer Jennifer Westacott, the committee has proposed and provided reforms that will boost the state's competitiveness in the housing market, cut red tape and prepare the state for the enormous social, environmental and demographic changes ahead.

The committee was linked strongly to the EDB by the inclusion of board members Grant Belchamber and Michael Hickinbotham, together with former EDB member Fiona Roche. The committee also included Jamie Botten, a legal expert on planning matters, Stuart Moseley, then CEO of Adelaide City Council, and Tim Jackson, CEO of the City of Playford. The steering committee with its wealth of industry experience and knowledge has produced a quality report which, when implemented, will deliver benefits to every community in South Australia.

The government has announced that it has endorsed more than 90 per cent of the review's recommendations. These are the most comprehensive and progressive set of planning reforms to be enacted in Australia and will position South Australia as the number 1 state in this country for doing business.

These reforms will provide a major boost to South Australia's competitiveness. The review suggests that these sweeping reforms will add as much as $5 billion to gross state product within five years, and attract both people and new jobs to this state for years to come. The changes will also bring the expansive vision of South Australia's Strategic Plan to life.

By improving housing affordability and a reduction in the cost of living, it will help to ensure that South Australia reaches its target population of two million by 2050 and sustain a strong economy and better environment. Indeed, the need for planning reform is all the more urgent as it now appears that we will achieve our population target of two million people much earlier than 2050. Planning SA has informed me that we are now looking at the year 2032.

South Australia needs a planning system that can meet that challenge sooner rather than later and this requires action now for the future. KPMG estimates that these reforms will slash red tape by $75.6 million a year, cut mortgage costs for house owners by up to $5,000 and yield savings to the housing industry of $62 million a year by reducing delays.

The government's reform will streamline arrangements for assessment, both through the introduction by September 2009 of a residential development code and a broadening of the range of developments that will no longer require planning approval. However, in a somewhat different approach from that recommended by the committee—and this is one recommendation that was altered by cabinet—the government accepts that there is a need to proceed cautiously in declared heritage areas, historic conservation zones and heritage-listed places.

The government will not apply the code in such circumstances. It is also essential that we manage community safety and for that reason the code will not be applied in bushfire protection areas. During the next three months key stakeholders, in particular local government, will be consulted on the content of the code.

The planning and development review found that the system is burdened with minor and low risk matters that create unnecessary backlogs and delays that simply add to costs. For example, there are in excess of 17,000 pages of regulations that can affect planning approvals. The review estimates that by removing from the planning system minor renovations, extensions and housing that already comply with residential zoning requirements, as well reducing the number of referrals between agencies, assessment times can be reduced by up to 70 per cent. Based on this estimate, total interest savings on mortgages alone could be cut by up to $5,500.

These changes are just some of the reforms that will boost housing affordability for South Australian families. The state government accepted the committee's recommendation that the timely release of land for residential, commercial and industrial use is necessary to meet the increased expected rise in demand flowing from an expanding economy and a growing population. By providing a 25-year rolling supply of broadacre land with a 15-year zone supply at all times, the government will ensure an appropriate sequencing of land release. Other measures to improve land supply and land use include the careful expansion of Adelaide's urban growth boundary and the fast-tracking of rezoning.

Affordability is not just about the cost of land and buildings: it is also about the annual cost of running a house. Families located large distances from work and far from available schools, health and other community services face higher annual costs, particularly at a time of rising fuel prices—and I think this has been the experience in the United States with the subprime crisis. Leading economic commentators in the US are of the view that escalating petrol prices in large part prompted the subprime collapse.

One way of addressing the increasing burden on household budgets is to encourage a new type of neighbourhood development, which brings families closer to work, schools and services. That is why the government is supporting the creation of transit-oriented developments (TODs)—higher density, well-designed neighbourhoods that are situated on efficient train, tram and bus networks. If fuel prices were to rise by another 50 per cent—which is entirely plausible—South Australians living in these walkable neighbourhoods would have far lower living costs than their fellow commuters in other major cities. These neighbourhoods would help to reduce Adelaide's reliance on cars and foster greater use of the government's expanded and upgraded public transport system.

International evidence indicates that people will make greater use of public transport if they live within 400 metres of a railway station. The upgrade of the Subiaco precinct in Perth has given rise to a 60 per cent increase in patronage through that particular railway station. On the basis of national and international evidence, we know that TODs can produce significant increases in patronage of our rail system. None of this would be possible without the wholesale changes to transport announced by the Treasurer in the Rann government's 2008 budget. These changes will provide the vital underpinning for a new planning system and the creation of neighbourhood development within existing suburbs.

This type of development is not just good for affordability: it is also good news for the environment. Planning is a major climate change issue. Urban form and building design directly affect carbon emissions. Transport and building emissions comprise 25 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively, of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. If one does the sums, this means around 50 per cent of all emissions can be addressed through planning.

New communities closer to the city and linked by public transport will also provide an opportunity to cut energy and water costs for South Australians. Those savings also sharpen South Australia's competitive edge in terms of business operating costs. South Australia already leads the nation in support for renewable power sources and commitments to hard targets to cut carbon emissions. With these reforms, South Australia further confirms its leadership position. These reforms will not only create the most climate change aware planning system in Australia but also take Adelaide to world's best practice.

While leading the way in our response to the threat of climate change, South Australia will blaze a trail for others to follow. Our planning reforms are the first in Australia to take on board the issue of climate change; and, in that, we are very much in advance of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia in particular. These planning reforms create a new vision for Adelaide. This vision encompasses a rapid mass-transit city, with people living in energy and water-efficient developments along efficient tram, train and bus networks. By fostering communities within existing suburbs, Adelaide will be able to grow by an additional 250,000 people and 130,000 jobs without putting unsustainable pressure on our environment and public services?

Within those figures are an additional 125,000 dwellings within the space of two to three decades; so, the challenge confronting Adelaide is considerable. This is the budget that has committed $2 billion to expand public transport during the next decade. A lion's share of this investment will be to upgrade our rail network. To support these sweeping reforms, this government will adopt the Regional Plan for Adelaide recommended by the planning review. This regional plan will provide guidance on the best places for houses and jobs, where land and native vegetation should be conserved and what infrastructure is required to support the city's growing population and growing economy.

Neighbourhood developments within easy walking distance of our enhanced public transport network will be the focus of this new long-term vision for Adelaide. The Regional Plan for Adelaide will set clear development targets with about 60 per cent of new housing to be built initially in existing suburbs and, by and large, along rail and tram lines, rising eventually to 70 per cent, again along our major transport corridors. The urban growth boundary will continue to be expanded selectively to ensure adequate housing supply for those who seek a suburban lifestyle.

The Regional Plan for Adelaide will also set aside high value agricultural and conservation lands to ensure that they are properly protected. This vision for Adelaide aims to create a climate-change prepared city, a strong affordable supply of housing to accommodate a growing population and a broad range of housing choices to serve a changing demographic base, and to create a prosperous future for coming generations of South Australians. A world-class planning and development system needs a strong planning agency. There is a need to revitalise Planning SA so that there is a clear focus on the future needs of the state and on the bold planning agenda ahead. For that reason, the Rann Labor government has decided to create a separate department that will report directly to the Minister for Urban Development and Planning.

An expanded Planning and Development Steering Committee will provide independent advice on the roll-out of these reforms. Now begins the challenge of implementing these bold reforms. The $7.9 million allocated in this budget for reforming the planning system will assist in ensuring that these sweeping reforms will be in place by 2010, and the investment of $2 billion in revitalising the public transport network is in fact crucial to ensuring that this broad and innovative vision for Adelaide is achieved.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:56): I want to make some brief comments in relation to the 2008 budget. I note that the leader will be speaking some time after me, and he will outline in detail the opposition's response. Other shadow ministers, such as the transport and health shadow ministers, will be giving detailed responses about the announcements in the budget in relation to those portfolios. I will therefore not be touching in any great depth and detail on those issues. However, I do wish to speak about the difference between this government's philosophy and my philosophy. We have had six or seven budgets now from this government, and I think we are getting a clear picture of what this government is about and what the government is not about.

This government is not about community building. This government is about government building. I just want to touch on this issue of community building, because I think there is a philosophy with which this government does not agree but which I strongly support. The concept of community building is something that, I guess, is second nature to me in my political philosophy about the role of government, and I just want to walk through the difference. During my time in government I had the opportunity to give some examples of community building—things like the Volunteer Protection Act and changing legislation in relation to good Samaritan legislation.

Community sport grants were introduced, and the Nature Foundation's BushBank was introduced to allow community organisations to buy land and preserve it for environmental purposes. The philosophy was about supporting individuals and communities in their efforts. That was the philosophy of the former government. If one looks at what is now happening, one sees that this government does the exact opposite. This government is about killing off community groups and replacing them with government agencies, and let us look at the evidence of that. The Natural Resource Management Bill killed off the plant and soil boards, the water boards and the pest, plants and weeds boards.

All those boards went from local communities. They were replaced with the Natural Resource Management Board, dominated by public servants, a huge bureaucracy behind it and a massive levy. We have killed off a lot of country communities and the volunteer effort in relation to those exercises. We then look at the government's plan for education, which is to demolish small inner country schools. Every decision taken by the current minister for education is about getting rid of small inner country schools like Basket Range and Scott Creek, making life so difficult for them that the schools have no choice but to put up their hand and say, 'We surrender. We will amalgamate with another school'.

In their own electorates, of course, is the super school concept, which is yet to be tested in the court of public opinion as to whether or not it delivers a better education system. I, personally, remain unconvinced that a big pool of students delivers a better social outcome and a better educational outcome than small schools. This government is targeting those small schools quite deliberately because they see them as inefficient.

Then we come to health. What are they doing with health? This government has done exactly the same thing: it got rid of all the health boards—those pesky volunteers from the community who might actually know what is happening—and then, in this budget, it is attacking 43 country community hospitals. There has been no big attack on the city hospitals. Bureaucracy is booming in the metropolitan area, but in the country area where they hold few seats they are demolishing the community aspect of those country electorates. So, the hospital boards are going. Even on things like planning—and the member for Napier just gave a speech about his own planning review—the government is moving to a system of taking planning off local council (off of the local input) and giving it to a central bureaucracy all on the basis of efficiency.

Look at the building industry advisory committees—the plumbing advisory committee and the electrical advisory committee, for example—which have all been abolished, because the people in the industry may actually know what they are doing. We have gone to a central bureaucratic advisory system. The point I make is that, with the six or seven budgets that Labor has brought down, there is a slow creep of killing off community involvement in their own lives because government knows best. It is not a philosophy that I subscribe to and it is a slow creep, if you like, to kill off community.

The classic examples that I have given are illustrative of this aspect. Another example is that this government has got rid of the national parks consultative committees. For what purpose? So that they can put out a press release saying, 'We have streamlined and reduced the number of boards.' What they are really doing over a long period of time is reducing communities' control of their own lives simply because some of the big end of town are putting pressure on them to reduce the number of boards because they see them as an inconvenience.

What are the ramifications of all this? The ramifications are illustrated in the budget. If you take away the volunteer effort, if you take away the community's effort in running their own lives, and replace it with government-run advice, what you get is a bigger bureaucracy and a higher tax burden on the taxpayer. Where is the evidence of that? The evidence of that is shown in the budget papers—and it depends on whom you believe, because the Commissioner for Public Employment has one figure, the Treasurer has another and the annual reports have another again—but somewhere between 9,000 and 15,000 extra public servants above budget have been employed by this government at a huge cost to the taxpayer.

The cost to the taxpayer of 10,000 extra public servants over and above budget is somewhere around $500 million to $600 million a year. We have $500 million or $600 million a year extra cost each and every year. What could you do with $600 million a year over four years? That is $2.4 billion. The desalination plant is $1.2 billion. If they had kept their Public Service within the budgeted figures, they would not have had to borrow money to do the desalination plant. It could have been paid for out of budget and they would have still had $1.2 billion left over. This government has not kept an eye on the growth—the uncontrolled growth as our leader calls it—in the Public Service. As a result, there is an extra cost to the taxpayer.

The extra cost to the taxpayer is not only an annual cost, it is now going to be a cost of significantly increased debt and the cost of the financing arrangements of the public-private partnerships (PPPs) for various projects such as the prisons, the super schools and the police station. If you take away the community input to their own lives and replace it with an increased bureaucracy, there is a long-term cost to the community and that is a higher debt level, increased costing, possibly through the financial arrangements of PPPs, and, therefore, you need a higher taxing arrangement.

The commonwealth comparisons between states show which state is working its tax base the hardest. The highest taxing state is South Australia. It all adds up to this philosophy about how well we are managing the budget. The reality is that this government is not managing the budget well, partly because of ministerial incompetence, but partly because of an underlying philosophy that government knows best.

Let's look at the latest example. I think the most cruel example is the attack on country health. My electorate is essentially an urban electorate. It is right next to Flinders Medical Centre and we have the Blackwood hospital—a community-based hospital. But I am going to speak on country health because my constituents travel to the country. I am a former state and national president of Apex and I have travelled by car all over this state and this country, and I have relied on country health, not only for my own treatment but also for treatment that saved my son's life after an allergic reaction to a bee sting.

At the end of the day, governments are about supplying services and the baseline service is health. Anyone living in urban or rural South Australia deserves a decent level of health service. The government is running around saying that these hospitals are unviable. Well, guess what, there is not a public hospital in Australia that makes money, because they are a service.

The government is saying: country South Australia can have a second class service. As my country members explained it to me, it is not a country health strategy, it is a country health slaughter. This is an issue for urban South Australia. When you go on your hikes in the Flinders Ranges or your holidays to Mount Gambier, or for your weekenders on Yorke Peninsula or your trips to Eyre Peninsula, you expect a decent level of health service. We should be supporting the country in the supply of a decent health service. This government is all about centralising everything into Adelaide. I am sure that it is by pure coincidence that the two country Independent members are both getting hospital upgrades in their electorates. The reality is that the rest of the state is not being dealt a country health strategy; it is being dealt a country health slaughter.

What does this all mean ultimately? It means that under this government households are hurting. This government listens to the big end of town. There are payroll tax cuts and other business cuts, but name me one cut for households. Under this government, water prices were to go up 32 per cent over five years—and that was before the government announced the desal plant. Now, water prices are going to double, and that will have a huge impact on ordinary South Australians.

Federally, the Labor government will introduce emissions trading. The best estimate is that electricity prices will go up somewhere between 27 and 35 per cent, and that will affect every South Australian. The River Murray levy, the emergency services levy and a whole range of ordinary, everyday household costs are going up. There is not one example of one expense to ordinary South Australians—to the average householder—that has gone down. There is no doubt that this government will feel the pain from ordinary South Australians because of the cost structure it is placing on ordinary, everyday households, particularly the households of pensioners and those who are on fixed incomes.

By way of illustrating some of the wrong priorities of this government, fit thoroughbred horses get $11 million in capital works and an $8 million a year tax relief but, if you are disabled, you get nothing extra in this budget. The disability groups are slamming this budget. They have been overlooked again by this government. If you are footy park, you get $100 million but, if you are the Entertainment Centre, you get $163 million by way of a tram upgrade and a $50 million upgrade as well. The total country health budget is around $250 million a year. The government is slaughtering health at the same time it is doing up the Entertainment Centre. Some people will question that priority, and so they should. I understand there is only about $2 million extra in new capital works for schools this year.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How are the polls going?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The polls are going well in Davenport. Thank you for asking, Attorney-General. I am grateful that, of that $2 million in education funding, about $500,000 is going to Eden Hills Primary School, in my electorate, for a much-needed upgrade to some of the buildings.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Fifty-two per cent of the polls supported their transport policy. That is the problem with this government: it is poll driven.

Mrs Geraghty: Your poll.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: But you are quoting it, saying 'Go to the polls.' I want to talk not about the budget but about the philosophy. The philosophy of this government has delivered ultimately the budget problems it now has: increased household expenditure, a blow-out in the Public Service, a high tax rate.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Torrens talks about a AAA credit rating. Which party lost the AAA credit rating? The Labor Party. The party that got it back was the Liberal Party.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Go and ask any rating agency, and it will tell you that the Labor Party did not have to do a thing. My grandmother could have delivered a AAA credit rating in March 2002, and she had been dead six years. All the work had been done, and all the government had to do was to wait for the credit agencies to get to their auditing month to tick it off. Everyone knows that.

The reality is that this budget has been seven years in the making. It says something about the government: it is all about government building—it is not about community building—and the state is the poorer for it.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (17:15): It is a pleasure to follow the member for Davenport, with whom I could not agree more profoundly. I absolutely endorse his comments about this government being about government building and not community building. I endorse also his comments about the way the bureaucratisation of our government has resulted in the need to spend this enormous amount of money on bureaucrats. Let me tell those people on the other side who interjected during the member for Davenport's comments about the disability sector the disability sector still talks to me because I am still very involved with them.

They are profoundly disappointed once again, not only about this budget but also about this government's ongoing interest in putting everything into a central bureaucracy. We got rid of the Julia Farr Centre, the Independent Living Centre, the Intellectual Disability Services Council, and a number of other organisations, and put them all into a central bureaucracy. What does the bureaucracy do? It turns around and asks the previous organisation (which the minister always decried as being just a parents group) to provide it with the expertise it lacks in order to supply the services it says it will provide. However, I will not continue to comment on those issues.

I will make some general comments about this budget before I move onto my specific portfolio areas. I will also touch briefly on issues relating to the people in my electorate of Heysen and this budget, although it is clear that not a lot can be said to give them comfort in relation to water, health, education, transport or benefits for either young people, as first homeowners, or the elderly.

First, I will comment on some general issues outside my portfolio areas, the first of which is what I perceive to be the most crucial issue for this state—water. To me, this government's response demonstrates that it is about spin, not substance; announcements, not action; and headlines, not headway. It has achieved nothing in six years. This is its seventh budget and it has obtained not one extra bit of water for us in this state. Indeed, in this budget it has done backflips on its two previous announcements.

It is now trying to back away from the Mount Bold reservoir, saying, 'We didn't really announce anything about Mount Bold. It was always part of an overall look at the Mount Lofty Ranges.' That is arrant nonsense. It announced Mount Bold. Indeed, at the time I must confess I thought that it was not a bad idea and that we could increase the size of the reservoir and catch a bit more water. However, it became apparent that Mount Bold would not catch any more water but would be increased in size in order to pump more water out of the Murray.

The government does not comprehend that the very thing we need to do in this state is wean ourselves off the Murray. We should have a plan to stop any reliance whatsoever of metropolitan Adelaide on the Murray. We know that the amount of water that falls on Adelaide in an average year is roughly equivalent to the amount it happens to use in an average year. It should get half smart about catching that water, putting it into aquifers, storing it and reusing it and about sewer mining and all sorts of things we could do to better a situation.

However, the government has sat idly by, becoming unbelievably rich in terms of windfalls from property taxes and GST over the time it has been in office, and done nothing about the issue of water. It has utterly failed to do anything about our water supply, and I am talking about not just metropolitan Adelaide but also about the whole of this state—our farmers, our irrigators and our communities and the towns that will be devastated by this government's not just inattention but now positive action aimed at making them disintegrate.

Let us look at health. The government is at last coming clean about its real intentions, that is, to decimate country health services by closing or downgrading 43 hospitals throughout our regions. Make no mistake: this is a social justice issue. The member for Davenport mentioned the fact that this is not about proving that something is economically viable. The reality is that virtually none of the services provided by government is economically viable: building roads is not economically viable and providing public transport has never anywhere been economically viable.

The reality is that people who live in our regions right across the state have a right to expect at least some equity in the way their health services are provided. Instead, this government is taking away the services and, on a number of occasions, putting in what it is calls GP Plus—except there is no GP, so it is actually GP Plus minus a GP, which strikes me as a little odd. It is trying to put spin on it, saying that there will be an improvement in services, but the reality is that there will be a downgrade.

Like the member for Davenport, I do not live in an area classified as part of the regions. However, I know that the Mount Barker Hospital, for instance, which had a very viable board, with an excellent chairman and excellent committed people who have served for many years, is now to become a satellite of the RAH, just as other hospitals will become satellites of the Lyell McEwin and the Flinders Medical Centre. For example, Noarlunga Hospital will become a satellite of Flinders.

I accept that, in a state this size, we cannot have more than one burns unit, for example, as it is a highly specialised area. I can tell you from my personal experience that it is more than possible to run a viable hospital that has a very small number of beds. I have been on the board of Stirling District Hospital for over 25 years. It is a community-based hospital, and it runs successfully in a community close to Adelaide with only 35 beds and only roughly 50 per cent occupancy, and sometimes less than that. However, we run a successful hospital. We do not expect to do major heart surgery at Stirling, but we provide orthopaedic surgery to hip replacement, plastic surgery, ENT surgery and a huge range of surgical and non-surgical but acute care services. It is a viable hospital. Why is it viable? Because the community support it.

The reality of what this government is doing is that it will decimate communities by taking away the volunteer element of the boards, which have served these communities for years and which really know what the communities and their needs are about, and replace it with bureaucrats. Of course, Tony Sherbon has been brought into this bureaucracy from interstate specifically to be a knife man for the government. I have no doubt that he will do an excellent job of crucifying health throughout this state, and then he will be paid out, he will leave the state, and he will not be answerable to anyone. He will have done the job that this government engaged him to do.

It is not just the hospitals, of course. When it comes to education, I did not notice a lot of members from the Labor side out there supporting teachers in the strike action today.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney yells at me across the chamber, but I do not intend to acknowledge what he says. I do ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you ask the Attorney to stop interjecting so that I can get on with my comments, since I only have 12 of my 20 minutes left.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: I would like to comment on what this government is doing to education. The member for Davenport said that he was yet to be convinced about the value of super schools. Let me put on the record quite clearly that I have no doubt that they will be a catastrophe. They are a social disaster being planned and instigated by this government at the cost of the little schools. I have a lot of little schools in my electorate. I had Basket Range. I do not actually quite have that any more, but it only had 31 students. It is a wonderful school and, like most of those small schools, in my view, they are super schools, because they give the benefit of great pastoral care, great pastoral involvement—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —and involvement of the children with the communities. They are valued by the parents, the teachers and the pupils who attend them, and by the community at large. What happens to any community when you remove the doctors, the hospitals and the schools? The communities die. That is what happens.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: Madam Deputy Speaker, could you please intervene and stop the Attorney from interjecting. It is very hard to talk over him and to concentrate on what I want to say. I beg that you protect me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have asked the Attorney to come to order. Please continue your remarks.

Mrs REDMOND: Outside today, the principal of a primary school got up to speak, and he indicated, quite rightly, that primary schools with fewer than 200 pupils and high schools with fewer than 800 pupils were likely to be at risk under this government. It has been pointed out by other speakers that what the government is aiming to do is achieve the death by a thousand cuts. That is its plan. It wants to bureaucratise and centralise everything. It does not give a toss about communities. It talks about having some sort of population increase in this state, but what it is actually doing is exactly the opposite of what is going to lead to a population increase.

We need our regions. We are still actually an agricultural-based economy in this state. For all the Premier's nattering about our resources boom, it is not yet a resources boom. It is a resource investigation boom. We are certainly exploring, but we do not yet have a resources boom. Maybe one day that will happen, but I can tell you this: if we do not want people out in those far reaches working in those areas to be fly-in, fly-out employees who live in another state, we are going to have to provide services. Closing all these little hospitals will just be a nail in the coffin for all of those things happening.

I want to quickly move on to my comments on my portfolio, since I am running out of time. It appears to me that little is going to be achieved—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —in the portfolio of Attorney-General and Justice. I notice once again in the estimates timetable that all sorts of time is given to things other than the Attorney-General and Justice portfolio. The Attorney-General obviously does not want to be questioned at any length on that portfolio. Only 45 minutes is allocated to the Attorney-General's portfolio during estimates. I think that is disgraceful, and he should hang his head in shame.

The Hon. R.G. Kerin interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: It would not matter if I had five minutes; it would cover more than the Attorney-General knows. The Attorney-General and Justice portfolio, I believe, will not achieve very much. The Attorney made a great big announcement last week about how we are going to build these two new courts at Sturt Street and that that will reduce the criminal case backlog. The reality of it is that the Capital Investment Statement shows that, of the total expenditure of $3.206 million, only $361,000 is going to be spent in the next budget year. In fact, of a total of more than $15 million, only $837,000 will be spent in 2008-09. So, the reality is that those courts are not going to be operational. The Attorney has probably forgotten that it is not all that long ago since the Chief Justice provided a report for the year ended 31 December 2007. In that report, he makes mention of a number of things that the new courts in Sturt Street do nothing to address. He states as follows:

The outdated Supreme Court infrastructure provides facilities of an unsatisfactory standard in which staff, the legal profession and the judges must work.

That does not even take into account the fact that, inevitably, when there is staff, judges and the legal profession, there are almost always witnesses, plaintiffs, defendants, and those from the community actually involved in the legal process. He goes on to say:

In fact, staff are accommodated in cramped conditions. Public amenities are well below contemporary standards in every respect. Buildings do not meet disability access standards, and the court is able to provide adequate disability access to only one of its court rooms.

No doubt, if the government were a private enterprise, it would have been required to adjust things to get over those problems. In fact, last year, office space had to be vacated for a substantial part of the year after it was declared unsafe under occupational health, safety and welfare standards. So, the government does not really address that in any great detail by simply saying, 'Well, we are going to be providing some funding to refurbish a couple of courts down in Sturt Street.' My suggestion is that it will do little or nothing, particularly in the next 12 months, about the backlog of criminal cases. It also does not really address the issue of the DPP, but I will wait to see in the estimates how much the so-called initiative in relation to the DPP does affect the case load.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney-General will allow the member to continue in silence. The Attorney will be silent and the member will continue.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Yes; if only I could keep going but the Attorney successfully—

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: That is right. As I said, I will wait until estimates to see what it is going to do in terms of the actual case loads and how much, because whilst it may be true to say—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —that the number of staff in the DPP's office has more than doubled since Labor came to office, that is several years ago now and for all we know their workload has trebled, or even quadrupled, in that time, so that doubling the staff is hardly an adequate response.

The budget speech also refers to the outlaw motorcycle gang taskforce, which is under the police department rather than the Attorney-General's Department, but I note that the extra expenditure on the outlaw motorcycle gang taskforce does not even kick in during the next year, it just does not happen. Similarly, there is a thoroughly inadequate response to the issue—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney can join the debate properly.

Mrs REDMOND: —of pathology services and DNA testing. I can see that the Attorney gets too excited with me talking about things related to the Attorney-General, so to close my comments this evening I will move on to my portfolio of ageing. It is quite clear to me that this government has no regard for the situation of those on fixed incomes and those who may be self-funded retirees. So, whether they are pensioners on fixed income pensions or self-funded retirees who have to make ends meet on limited amounts of money, this government takes little notice.

We know that this state has an ageing population and, indeed, it is ageing more rapidly than that of the other states, but what did Kevin Foley say about pensioners when he was interviewed on Radio 891 the day after the budget? I will read from what he had to say. David Bevan said:

But the government has chosen to target a particular group this time around, a lot of people would say quite rightly so, with first home buyers, and previous governments have targeted pensioners in state budgets, with assistance with utilities. This time around, nothing special for them?

Kevin Foley's response was:

Well, no, you're right. I mean, we have chosen first home buyers for special attention and indeed only, I think, now three budgets ago we provided pensioners with a significant contribution, a $100 contribution towards their utility bills in that year when we could afford it.

Bevan said, 'I think that's been spent.' Kevin Foley responded, 'Oh yeah, of course.' Bevan then said, 'Three years ago: things are a lot tougher now.' Kevin Foley's response was, 'Sure, I don't doubt that for one moment.' They are very telling comments. For a start, $100 three years ago: just how far does he think that is going to go to meeting the extra expenses of people on fixed incomes? How are those people, who are well below the average income rate, going to be able to stretch that $100? It is a nonsense.

Furthermore, as to his response that first home owners got the benefit: the reality of the first home owners grant is that the stamp duty rates in this state are such that it is worth nothing to the first home owner. It takes money out of Kevin Foley's right-hand pocket and puts it into his left-hand pocket and is of no benefit whatsoever to the first home owner. As I said in my opening remarks, this budget contains nothing for either the old or the young, and certainly not for the people in the middle.

Time expired.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (17:34): I rise to congratulate the Treasurer on his seventh surplus budget, a budget that he has crafted—along with the Premier and Minister for Transport—to further build on the fine reputation of economic management that the Rann government has built up since coming to power in 2002.

Having put a lot of money into health and education in recent budgets, this budget is solidly built on a transport revolution, a $2 billion transport spend that will see the electrifying of the trains throughout the metropolitan area, including down to the Noarlunga railway station, which is in the electorate of Mawson. Many people catch the trains from surrounding suburbs such as Noarlunga Downs, Hackham, Hackham West, Huntfield Heights and even as far across as Woodcroft, so that is something that has been very much welcomed by people in the south.

Last year money was injected into fixing the sleepers on that line, and that was the first money that had been spent on the line since it was constructed in the early seventies. So, after decades and decades of neglect, the Rann government is turning its attention to fixing the transport system, which has been in a fairly poor state over recent years because of a lack of investment in infrastructure and rolling stock—train windows that you cannot see out of, trains that are delayed because of rickety sleepers and rail lines that are not as straight as they should be. So, I congratulate all the ministers involved in that. It has been very much welcomed, as is the increase in the bus fleet, which is very important particularly to areas such as Woodcroft which fall outside the spokes of the wheel of our urban train network, that is, those areas that are catered for by buses. The extra 80 buses will mean more services for places like Woodcroft, which is very much welcomed.

The $4,000 first home bonus grant will help many young South Australians, particularly those down in the southern suburbs, get into their first home, and it has been gratefully received by people in the local area. We also see $142 million for more children in state care and $15 million for early intervention and home visiting services, as well as $4.6 million to attract and retain carers, who are a very important part of our society. The Rann government is taking care of our carers.

Again, health has received huge bonuses and the continual upgrades at places such as the Flinders Medical Centre and Noarlunga Hospital in the south are very much appreciated, as is the $26 million addition to the ambulance budget. Earlier this year we opened the McLaren Vale Ambulance Station, something for which the area had been calling for many years. I know that when we got into government in 2002, the ambulance service had been run down to such a degree that people were working ridiculously large amounts of overtime.

What we had to do was hire more ambulance officers, train them and also buy more ambulances and more equipment, so that we could get the ambulance service back on track before we did any extension to the ambulance service. Since that time we have opened up more ambulance stations in areas across the state including, as I said, McLaren Vale. This budget is all about adding to the personnel in the ambulance service as well.

In the justice system we have had $35 million to increase the capacity in our prisons, as well as $5.2 million to help police deal with outlaw motorcycle gangs and $8.4 million for increased DNA testing and pathology services. While the money goes in, it is also good to see the statistics that come out the other side, and that is less crime in the south; that is something that is touched on by people at Neighbourhood Watch meetings that I attend in the electorate. People have noticed a great reduction in crime since 2002, when the Rann government came into power with a strong law and order policy and we put those extra police on the beat, and it is making a real difference. I commend the Premier, the Treasurer and the police minister for sticking to their guns year after year and injecting more and more money into those areas.

In the area of education, again, we see a lot of money being put into capital investment in our schools, and Willunga High School is one of the great beneficiaries in the state. It is a school in a very shoddy condition. It has been run down for a number of years and there are some temporary buildings that would have celebrated their 50th anniversary when the school celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2010. Thankfully, we will get rid of those temporary buildings because that is what they were—temporary buildings. They are still there; they have white ants and holes in them, and this is probably one of the worst schools in the state but, with $7.7 million to be spent on it during the next 18 months to two years, the school will undergo a makeover. That development is something about which, at the governing council meeting at Willunga High School last night, the teachers, the principal and the parents of the school were very excited. The fight has taken a few years, but they were very glad to see that money in the budget.

It is great as a local member to see the difference that this money makes to communities. We have recently opened the new Willunga Primary School, which had more than $5 million spent on it, so we have first-class facilities in the south. McLaren Flat is also undergoing a multimillion dollar overhaul, so we are seeing some first-rate public schools being built or refurbished in the electorate of Mawson. They are the schools that our students deserve, and I think the more we can attract people to our public school service the better.

In terms of roads, we have $7 million in the budget for an overhaul of the Victor Harbor/South Road intersection. You do not have to live in the electorate of Mawson to have been affected by this one. Anyone who has been to Victor Harbor and had to drive back, particularly on a Sunday afternoon or at the end of a long weekend, will know that it has been a bottleneck that has caused a great deal of distress over the years because you sit there in a long line and wait.

The people who live in McLaren Vale, Willunga, McLaren Flat and Blewitt Springs put up with that wait every morning, Monday to Friday, as they make their way into town, but thankfully something is being done. At the moment, that intersection, as you head north and turn right off the Victor Harbor Road onto South Road, has a stop sign there. It will be replaced with three lanes of traffic, which will then turn into three lanes. The South Road intersection will be extended by a lane and we will have traffic lights there, with the traffic lights at the next intersection also to be updated, to cope not just with the traffic that we have now but with the growing population that we are experiencing in the south.

Returning to the train line extension, or the electrification, we are also extending the train and tram network, which people in the south might say, 'That money's being spent in the western suburbs; what's in it for us?' It is a little like the Bakewell Bridge project recently completed. People could say that about the Bakewell Bridge. Indeed, the old Bakewell Bridge was teetering on its last legs and could have been struck by a truck or a heavy vehicle at any stage and come down on a train and, a la the Granville train disaster, could have killed many people from the south who travel into work each day on the Noarlunga line.

The benefit that we will see with the investment in rail and tram services into the western suburbs is the urban infill that will occur in places such as Brompton (on the existing Clipsal site when that is converted into housing land), the Cheltenham racecourse site when that becomes housing land, and also Port Adelaide, where a major multibillion dollar redevelopment is under way. We are going to see growth and urban infill in those areas, and the big reward for us in the south is that it will slow down the urban sprawl, because what we have down there is more developments going ahead and it has been hard in the past for successive governments and local government to keep up with the growing demands placed on the existing infrastructure. I think the real benefit with that will be that we can provide high density housing in the western suburbs and complete that urban infill, and the flow-on effects will be felt down in the south.

The member for Davenport said that this government is friends with the big end of town and that all we care about is the big end of town. I think the member for Davenport is a little confused. I think what he probably means to say is that the big end of town is often applauding the Rann government for the work that it is doing and for its vision and the way that it is setting down the plan for the future and the way that it has dealt with the economic growth in this state in recent years.

The big end of town is not the only area that will benefit from payroll tax. If the member for Davenport got out and spoke to business people in small and medium sized businesses, he would realise that payroll tax has been crippling their businesses year after year. The business people I have been speaking to were very impressed to see, in the Treasurer's budget, the tax-free threshold increasing from $504,000 to $552,000.

The payroll tax rate will be cut from 5 per cent to 4.95 per cent (which is the second lowest rate in the country) and will result in $136 million in tax savings for business. It is the small to medium size businesses that will benefit the most from this move. As a result of talking to business people in the electorate of Mawson, I know it is something that is very welcome. This budget delivers for the people of Mawson and all South Australians. This government is taking action now for the future.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson]


The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (17:46): Overall, I think the budget is quite good. There are a couple of ways in which one can look at a budget. I have studied a lot of economics in my time—in fact, I majored in my honours degree in economics. In simple terms, one can look at a budget in relation to what is in it or what is not in it. I will talk about both those aspects. The commitment to public transport, in particular the light rail extension, is fantastic. It is something about which I have spoken in this house for many years. I asked my staff to extract remarks from Hansard in days gone by. On 13 February 1990, I said:

I trust that this is not empty rhetoric because the electorate of Fisher, particularly the south-eastern section of Happy Valley, needs something equivalent to the O-Bahn or a light rail system to complement the decent road system that it also needs.

In September 1990, during an estimates committee hearing, the Hon. Frank Blevins was asked a question as follows:

Has consideration been given to providing a light rail transport option to the southern suburbs including, for example, integration with the existing Glenelg tramline?

The Hon. Frank Blevins asked the Director-General of Transport to respond—and he then responded to the question. During debate on the Supply Bill in February 1992, I said:

I mentioned publicly quite recently the need to electrify the metropolitan rail network with the assistance of funding from the federal government. At the moment South Australia is the only mainland state that does not have a program to electrify its metropolitan rail lines.

So 16 years later it is proposed to further extend what has happened recently with the Glenelg service. It is a fantastic announcement. Obviously, I would like to see rail extended to Aldinga (which is not in my electorate) because it would be a good thing to do. I hope the state government will commit to that extension in future budgets, and one would hope the federal government would see fit to provide some of its extensive surplus for that purpose, as well. As I have said on many occasions, every section of the rail network does not have to be done at once—there is no need to do that—but over time the network could be electrified and standardised.

Some people have criticised the fact that electrification is not proposed for the Belair line. The reason for that is simple. The tunnels make life more complicated but, also, in terms of cost effectiveness (and to be fair about it), one would have to say that it is hard to justify that expense. One would hope that future technology may make it possible.

However, the Belair line, in addition to commuter services, could be used on weekends with the introduction of some historic trains running to Belair. It is difficult to run trains through to Bridgewater because of the current rail infrastructure, but I think we should get back to encouraging people to catch a historic train to Belair and then going for a walk and picnic in Belair National Park—which used to happen many years ago.

The reality of the light rail network extension is that housing will follow. If we build good, fast public transport systems, housing will follow. People will move to live near a rail facility. I guess part of the government's plan is to establish and encourage higher density living near these rail corridors—which I think is very important. We will have to get used to higher density living in Adelaide but, at the same time, we need to ensure that we provide genuine open space where people living in higher density living can relax and spend time with their kids kicking a football, throwing a netball, and so on. The public transport expansion proposal is a great part of the budget.

One aspect which relates to transport and which was not adequately dealt with in the budget is the provision of off-road cycleways. The reason for a budget is that one cannot do everything at once. If one had all the resources one wanted, one would not need to budget. I know the Attorney-General is a keen cyclist, and it is disappointing that more effort has not been put into constructing off-road cycleways in Adelaide.

Adelaide is the perfect city for off-road cycling and we should be encouraging people to cycle. At present, the program—which is euphemistically called Share the Road—does not encourage people to ride bikes on the existing road network. Certainly for young people it is far too dangerous.

I would like to see in future budgets a bigger commitment to providing off-road cycleways in the metropolitan area. It could not be done all at once, but it could be a long-term strategy. Many people from the inner suburbs could commute quite easily into the city if off-road cycleway provision was made for them.

In the budget I was pleased to see that the Treasurer has finally shaken off the voodoo about borrowing. A lot of people got hung up about the State Bank and what happened to it. The problem with the State Bank was the result of the two major parties creating a bank, which the cowboys could run, and taking it out of the hands of the government. The blame for what happened in the State Bank crisis was the fault of both the major parties in that they enthusiastically created a corporate charter that allowed Marcus Clark and his cowboys to do what they wished with the money in the bank, and we know the consequences of that. However, the downside has been that, as a result, treasurers—both Liberal and Labor—have had this scare implanted in them of not borrowing because they fear that there could be some sort of electoral backlash or concern that we might fall off the edge of the solar system.

The reality is that borrowing is good if it is done for the right purposes, so I am pleased to see that the government is borrowing for wealth creation. To use a simplistic example, if one puts money into constructive and creative investment one will get a benefit in the long term—the same as with education. But if you put your money into everyday consumables, at the end of any period of time you will have little to show for it. I think that this budget represented quite a significant shift in the attitude as reflected by the Treasurer, and I commend him for it because he has shaken off the voodoo of being frightened to borrow for the sake of investing in infrastructure. You will only improve the wealth-generating capacity of the state if you borrow to put money into wealth-generating infrastructure—not into goat farms in South Africa, but into infrastructure that will benefit community.

I have said that we could spend all the budget on health and we still would have people saying, 'It's not enough.' Realistically, we need to move to a situation where people take more responsibility for their health, and that requires people to participate in preventative health programs. I have argued to the health minister that we need to be doing more with respect to preventative health activities, and members would have heard him say today that this week some preventative screening is taking place in Parliament House.

We should be doing that on a widespread basis—not screening in a silly way where there is no likely benefit, but checking things such as blood pressure, blood sugar and so on because, as the minister highlighted today (with information from the Florey Foundation), many people do not even know they have hypertension or high blood pressure; they do not know they have other health issues which are readily and easily detectable. I would like to see more emphasis in future budgets on preventative health measures to keep people out of hospital. The Japanese set the standard in this regard; it is one of the healthiest populations in the world.

Just digressing for a minute, the other day I saw in a chemist shop the bowel cancer testing kit, and I thought that I might avail myself of that kit. For the massive cost of $27, less the discount because I belong to that chemist group, I was able to get peace of mind through that testing kit. As I say, for the huge cost of less than $27 I was able to have a test done that reassured me that there was no likelihood of bowel cancer. We need to be doing more of that sort of screening for people in at-risk groups, and likewise for breast cancer. We still have in this state a significant percentage of women who do not avail themselves of screening for breast cancer. Currently, I think about 70 per cent do, so 30 per cent of women in the at-risk group do not avail themselves of that screening process. We still have a long way to go.

Many men think they are macho men who do not need to look after their health. To his credit, we saw Sam Newman go public on prostate cancer. Here was someone who was seen as a tough guy but who found that he had prostate cancer—and the message is not just in relation to cancers, some of which are not easy to detect, such as ovarian cancer. We need to have more emphasis on preventative health and regular check-ups, and in that way we can reduce the incredible burden of health repair, if you like, through our hospital and other systems. That will be assisted, too, if we can encourage people to try to build in fitness as part of that.

The budget made some provision in terms of dealing with the crisis that we face in relation to water, and, in particular, not having a guaranteed water supply in Adelaide and other parts of the state. I would like to see more emphasis on dealing with and using our stormwater capture reuse. There is provision in the budget for some of that, but, I guess, all of us would like it all to be done by yesterday. It is something on which the government needs to keep focused, that is, making better use of stormwater and treated grey water.

I mentioned at the start of my contribution public transport, and I commended the government for the light rail provision extension. However, one area really concerns me. The minister has indicated that he is buying some new buses—I think 90 from memory.

My concern is more about how the provision of services is determined and, in my experience, that involves a lack of consultation with commuters, local members and other important stakeholders. I find that—and I do not know whether other members have the same experience—we get a decree from the transport board saying that certain bus services will be cut, increased, or whatever, and they often have no relationship to what the people in the area want or have asked for.

I have written again recently to the Minister for Transport saying that it would be good if his department and its public transport sector actually consulted with the people who use these buses, and then we would not have all the heartache that we have had because they have cancelled some services and then have had to bring them back, and so on. That could all be avoided if there was genuine consultation before the decision was made. It is not consultation if residents are told after the event that bus services have been changed, irrespective of their wish.

In regard to roads, I recently drove 1,400 kilometres in the space of a week while having a look at parts of the River Murray system, and I would have to say that the road system in South Australia is pretty good. Some areas warrant attention but, overall, considering our population size and the geographical dispersal of where people live, I think our road system is very good. We hear people say that the Victor Harbor Road is terrible. There is nothing wrong with the road to Victor Harbor: there is a problem with the people who use it. If used according to the proper speed and so on, I do not find much of a problem with any of our roads.

In regard to law and order, I have been arguing for a long time for the government to introduce environmental work camps for youth at risk. I did not see any provision for that in the budget. The government is spending about $11 million on the so-called Gang of 49, and that amounts to more than $200,000 per individual. One would have to ask whether that expenditure is really necessary and whether there are better ways of going about dealing with those Aboriginal young people who have become marginalised—young people who know nothing about their own culture and who have no real connection with the wider community. I think that, if we involved Aboriginal people in running certain programs, a lot could be achieved for a lot less than $11 million or $200,000 per young person. Anyway, I guess time will tell whether that approach is going to work, but just throwing money at an issue is not going to resolve it. I think we come back to key points of accountability and responsibility that young people (Aboriginal or otherwise) need to understand and abide by.

Overall, my view of the budget is that some areas should have been addressed. I would have liked to see more money go into protecting biodiversity. There is money for marine parks—that is fine—and there is a lot of money going into global warming, and I do not have a problem with that focus. However, people need to remember that if you do not protect the biodiversity below then you eventually put that biodiversity at risk, and in South Australia our record is appalling in relation to protecting our indigenous plants and animals. I am not saying that people are obsessed with global warming but you need to have a balanced view and also protect the biodiversity whilst you are working towards the long-term aim of reducing global warming and the consequences of that. But I think the government to some extent seems to be obsessed with global warming. There should be a focus on it—I do not have a problem with that—but the focus is probably somewhat over the top, in terms of maintaining a balance between all aspects of the environment.

In summary, I think that as a budget it is quite good. I would like to see teachers receive greater remuneration in the future, but their quest for smaller class sizes helps to negate that. Research does not suggest that reducing class sizes below a certain point brings about much benefit to students. I think that future budgets need to prepare for paying teachers a decent professional salary rather the inadequate salary level that most of them receive at the moment.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Frome) (18:05): In my budget reply I will concentrate mainly on country health, but I first wish to make a few general comments. On the day that the budget was brought down we saw a fair old song and dance and joking around by the Treasurer. I think that showed a lack of seriousness about this budget, and I would quite seriously question the processes that were gone through over the longer period of time and a lot of the decisions that were made. The minister could not answer any questions today about the Entertainment Centre tram, and I think that what we are seeing under this government is some non-disciplined decisions about what will be good news stories out of the budget rather than disciplined news over a period of time to make the decisions in a planned and logical way.

One of the other things that concerns me is that we are seeing voodoo economics right across Australia at the moment. The federal scene set the scene for South Australia. The federal government was under pressure to bring down a surplus. However, it did not really have the discipline to do that, because it announced a $20 billion surplus and straight away it put that $20 billion into an infrastructure fund and, instead of saying 'We will spend the interest,' it said, 'We will spend the $20 billion.' As far as I am concerned, $20 billion spent on infrastructure is as good as on balance sheets. So, federally, we have seen no restraint. I would call its budget not a surplus budget but a balanced budget, and that will fuel inflation more and more.

Here we have the ridiculous situation where we had the Treasurer stand up and say, 'In the next four years we will deliver four strong surpluses but add to debt by $1.9 billion.' It just does not make sense. That is voodoo economics. It is mixing up the ways of measuring things, and I would not be surprised, if his management gets much worse, to see the Treasurer employ a new tactic and say that the surplus is the revenue, because at the moment a lot of what the government is spending is not included in what is called the surplus—or, in its case, what should be a deficit.

Other issues have been raised. The member for Davenport raised the issue of the size of the Public Service, and the member for Fisher said that borrowing for infrastructure is good, with a return. We should not have to borrow for infrastructure at the moment. The windfalls this government has had should be plenty to fund the infrastructure that we have.

However, we have seen this incredible unchecked growth within the Public Service. Year after year ministers have come into this house to be questioned with respect to the Auditor-General's Report, and when asked, 'How is it that your department has budgeted for 15 extra public servants and you have 300?' we just see a blank look. They do not know what is going on within their departments and, overall, the bureaucracy in this town is having an absolute ball. The number of public servants in back office positions is just amazing. It is just not providing the services that people need.

For the last few years I have been quite concerned about the difference between the rhetoric and the delivery of this government with respect to water. In the last three or four years, in particular, because of the increases that we have seen in water prices and the drag of money out of SA Water, I think the government's water policies are absolutely revenue driven. It is milking SA Water and using the good nature of the people of South Australia to do so. The River Murray levy when it was introduced was a classic case of introducing a levy. The government has said that that levy goes for good purposes. That levy goes towards payments made by Treasury previously and the government has not stuck to what the Treasurer told this house when it introduced that levy.

The trams are an absolute waste of money. The tram situation is an absolute joke. Trying to get from east to west through Adelaide nowadays is absolutely hopeless and, in getting from north to south, the trams have almost taken King William Street out of the equation. The trams have blocked Morphett Street and have caused enormous trouble. But extending the tramline to the Entertainment Centre will be an absolute farce. We heard the minister today, and he has no idea. He basically said that we will sort it out later.

I can remember when the government announced the extension of the tramline down to City West. The next day, the minister could not answer two questions put to him, which makes you wonder whether it was the media unit that made the policy decision. One question put to the minister was: 'Do we lose a lane each way down King William Street?', to which the minister replied, 'I don't know.' The other question was: 'Will the trams be powered by overhead wires or through electric rails?', to which the minister replied, 'I don't know.' How the hell can cabinet make decisions which involve that amount of money and which have that sort of impact on the traffic flow without any of these studies being done? It makes no sense.

In 1994, I was a member of the Public Works Committee when it looked at the widening of the Port Road Bridge over the Torrens River, which was an absolute bottleneck. Anyone who knows that area would know that that bridge is an absolute funnel for all the traffic coming from that direction. In 1994, it was found that, for the economic good of the whole state, we had to open that up and widen the bridge. Now we are, in effect, going to run trams over that damn bridge and we will go back to pre-1994 traffic flows and there will probably be 60 to 70 per cent more traffic. It will be an absolute disaster. I am sure the member for Adelaide will be really happy when probably the only way of fixing it will be to increase Barton Terrace to two or three lanes. The member for Croydon might be happy about that, but I am sure the residents of North Adelaide and the member for Adelaide will not be. If the government is going to put trams across Torrens Road onto Port Road it will cause absolute chaos with traffic flows out of that area. It is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard.

Before I get on to health, I want to turn to the resources boom. Day after day, we hear about the resources boom. I was the minister for mines and energy for a lot of the early days when we started doing the flyovers to provide the data to all the companies that are now investing in this state. This government has not funded the mines and energy department anywhere near the level it received back in those days or as well as it should be funded.

We keep hearing about the resources boom. I can tell members that the resources boom will not be worth anywhere near as much to this state as we hear it will unless this government gets serious about infrastructure and services. So much of the figures referred to by the government relate to Roxby Downs. If you go to Roxby Downs and talk to the people there and have a good look at the town, you will find that the school is stretched to the absolute limit. Families from interstate who go to Roxby Downs and see that will not stay in Roxby Downs. The health service in Roxby Downs is stretched to the limit, and there are not enough police there. In the past, Roxby Downs was considered to be a family town but, if those services are not there for families, it will become one of your typical rougher mining towns, but the government is not willing to invest in that town to make sure that what should happen with the mining boom will actually happen.

In relation to the rest of the state, again, we hear all this rhetoric about the mining boom. Yes, there are opportunities out there, but without ports, water, electricity, roads and airstrips it ain't going to happen. The government is absolutely kidding itself about where the benefit will be to the state. It is only overseas countries that have the money to put into infrastructure. What we will see is a small revenue stream and no great benefit to the state. We are a minnow compared with Queensland and Western Australia and we will remain a minnow compared with Western Australia. I think we have overcooked the talk about the resources boom.

As an ex-minister, I know there are some huge opportunities there and that it will be a good industry in the future, but we have ignored the food industry and other industries. This concentrating just on defence and mining will not serve this state in the long term because we will be ignoring a lot of our other opportunities. As the minister who opened the only uranium mine operating in South Australia in about the last 30 years, I am pleased in one way that the government has embraced uranium. However, the government, while in opposition, did everything possible to make sure that the uranium mine did not get up, and it is quite interesting now to see the government embracing it.

I turn to the country health plan. For anyone living outside Adelaide, that is the big news out of this budget. It is the big worry out of this budget. Country people are absolutely furious at the moment. We have a Minister for Health sending very mixed messages. He has been done over. The bureaucrats in the back office have had a huge win with the country health plan. These are shiny-arsed blokes sitting in offices down here who have no understanding about country community and the delivery of country services.

We have heard about the four general hospitals: it has nothing to do with the four general hospitals. The four general hospitals keep the member for Mount Gambier, the member for Chaffey and the member for Giles happy, and the government has to put a service at Port Lincoln because it is too expensive to get people to Adelaide. About 75 to 80 per cent of country people in South Australia will have to come to Adelaide for those services. If anyone looks at a map, Mount Gambier is surrounded on two sides by water and on one side by Victoria: it sits in the very corner of the state. Berri; yes, it can service the Riverland. Port Lincoln can service about 25,000 people. Whyalla is a big city but there is nothing else around it.

People living anywhere south of Port Augusta—Port Pirie, Yorke Peninsula, the Mid North, the Lower North, the Murraylands, the Fleurieu or the Upper South-East—will all be expected to come to Adelaide. The whole agenda is about the bureaucrats trying to centralise all our health care into the four big hospitals in Adelaide. That is simply what it is about. We have heard some rubbish from the Minister for Health, particularly on Stateline the other night. On the ABC program Stateline on Friday night, the minister stated:

But I dispute that argument because upgrading hospitals at Whyalla, Berri, Mount Gambier and Port Lincoln and others in moderate-sized communities, will mean that the population centres of country South Australia will have more services available closer to where people live, so 85 per cent of country South Australians will have more services within 60 minutes.

His 85 per cent is out by an enormous factor. It is not 85 per cent: it is more like 25 to 30 per cent.

We have been sold a pup. The government has swallowed a pup. Basically, it means that about 75, 80 per cent of rural South Australians, if they want anything other than simple health care, will need to come to the city. We have heard about the second tier hospitals. They have no idea what is going on. They are been told very little. My understanding is that most of them will not be upgraded, they will be downgraded. Apart from Ceduna, there is no money for any of those hospitals.

I think this comment applies to them all, but I will refer to Clare as an example. It states that Clare country community hospital will enhance services in line with community need—bureaucratic speak. Services may include obstetrics, surgery, acute medical in-patient beds, 24-hour emergency response and community health care type things. They do that now. Suddenly, instead of 'they will', it is 'they may'. This is about the upgrade of four hospitals, although we will see what they do at Ceduna—it might be five hospitals. All the others are expected to wind back, which will leave only about 130,000 with access to the general hospitals, and that is only if you have a vehicle because there is no public transport out there.

For country people it is an absolute disaster. I would ask members opposite to look at a map, because, fair dinkum, if they look at the distribution of people in regional South Australia and then look at where these four hospitals are situated, apart from satisfying three individuals, they do absolutely nothing for regional South Australia. The rest of us will be expected to come to Adelaide. There is not one person living in my electorate who would not have to come to Adelaide. There would be no-one in the member for Goyder's electorate and there is probably no-one in the member for Stuart's electorate who would not have to come to Adelaide. We would all have to come to Adelaide.

These four general hospitals are absolutely useless to us. Is a person from Stansbury supposed to go to Whyalla? I suppose a person from Clare would be expected to travel to Berri. Is a person living in the member for Hammond's electorate supposed to go to Berri or Mount Gambier? How in the hell do they get there? Adelaide is closer to all these places. The government has been sold an absolute pup. It is about downgrading the services. If you look at where 80 per cent of the people in South Australian live, they will end up coming to Adelaide for nearly all their medical services.

The way it was done was a disgrace: they snuck it out at five o'clock on budget day. The Country Health Board was going to be briefed. Some members were on their way to be briefed at nine o'clock that morning, but they got a phone call saying that the Treasurer did not want anyone briefed until the afternoon. The government thought, 'Let's make sure that we get a good statement out of the Farmers Federation, and all these other groups that have an interest in the country, out of the budget lock-up before we tell them anything about the fact that we are closing their hospitals.' It was an absolute disgrace.

Dr Richard Mackinnon (who, I admit, is a good friend of mine) has been in Crystal Brook for 20 years. He has been President of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, President of the Rural Doctors Association of South Australia, and he is on the Country Health Board. There has been zero consultation and, on top of that, he receives the insult that the government wants to call these places 'GP Centres' and trade off the goodwill engendered by those GPs over a long time.

However, it gets worse. The thing that really annoys me is what the government is doing to Richard Mackinnon and three or four other doctors across the state. It has told Crystal Brook Hospital and Richard Mackinnon that, while Richard Mackinnon stays in Crystal Brook, they can keep their birthing services but, when he goes, they will close. Over the past 20 years, Richard Mackinnon has given that community and rural health right across Australia enormous service. He is now faced with the situation that, if he wants to move on in five years, take early retirement or whatever, it will not be the state government that closes Crystal Brook Hospital; it will be laid at the feet of Richard Mackinnon.

If he wants to retire (although I would not be surprised if he is not burnt out before then) or whatever, the way it works is that it will be Richard Mackinnon who closes the hospital in his own community. That is not fair—in fact, it is bloody unfair. I know that Richard is very annoyed, and several other doctors have been put in the same position. It is just not fair that these guys, who for years have been doing the hard yakka and who have represented rural people on national bodies, all of a sudden will be asked to take the blame for the whole damn thing. It is just not right.

Another problem, and one that the government cannot ignore, is what we have seen over the past 10 or 15 years in particular, namely, people moving out of smaller towns to retire in towns where these 43 or 44 downgraded hospitals will be. In Crystal Brook alone, three big projects have drawn people from smaller towns that do not have hospitals, such as Gladstone, Gulnare and Redhill. They have shifted from smaller towns into Crystal Brook; for example, people from Bute, Mundoora and Wokurna have shifted into Port Broughton. The reason they have bought those homes in their retirement is that there is a working hospital in the area. They have made their investment and shifted in, but now this government will pull the rug out from under their feet and take away the services they need.

This also comes at a time when petrol prices are so damn high. There will be an enormous cost, whether it be for ambulances or whatever, to shift people from where these 40-odd hospitals are now to bigger hospitals. It will be a huge cost and a huge use of fuel and resources. It just makes no sense for this to happen, and I think it is an issue that has not been taken into account. The bureaucrats of Adelaide who just run the hospitals are obviously not responsible for patient transfers because they have not factored into the same equation the enormous cost that will now arise.

In my area, four hospitals will be as good as closed, and one will rest on the good graces of Richard Mackinnon, bless his soul. Laura, Port Broughton, Crystal Brook, Snowtown and Riverton are all on the list for a hatchet job. Port Pirie and Clare face an uncertain future, as the Country Health Care Plan states that they may have certain services, but there is no damn guarantee. People do not understand the anger and grief. The member for Stuart quoted a few things out of the paper earlier. The anger is huge. The Clare Argus editorial started off in a pretty apt way. It states:

It's funny how local government is required to ask its communities their opinions on anything from the naming of new roads to the use of community land. Funny because the next couple of tiers of government obviously believe it's okay to ride roughshod over everyone and everything, making decisions for us—because, presumably, we are incapable of providing useful input.

Regional residents have been worrying for months about the content of the state...government's Country Health Plan. The details have been kept under wraps until last week when they popped up after the new budget was announced...With 43 out of 66 regional hospitals statewide to lose or have their acute services seriously downgraded, it's not a pretty thought.

It is not a pretty thought, and I ask government members to put pressure on the Minister for Health, rather than just listen to the bureaucrats.

Time expired.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (18:26): I rise also to make my contribution to the budget reply speech. I am just stunned and appalled at the lack of money put aside for any reasonable water infrastructure in this state. We have seen the attention that this government, including Premier Rann and his so-called Water Security Minister, Karlene Maywald, give to this state in the commitment they have given for water supply. It is absolutely terrible.

The Riverland is in a situation where people bought water last year. They spent $100 million, I believe, and now they have no money left to buy water to keep alive their permanent plantings. They were sold a pup along the way, that water allowances would not increase from 16 per cent. Within a few days it went to 22 per cent, and within 10 days it went to 32 per cent. Many people made poor investment decisions not through their fault but because of bad advice from the government and government sources.

We then get down to the Lower Lakes region which, since November 2006, when the announcement of a proposed weir was made, has just been neglected. The vines at Langhorne Creek will go to pack. The dairy industry has been totally cut to bits. Out of about 37 dairies on the Narrung Peninsula and surrounding areas—the Poltalloch Peninsula—three are left operating. One operator has stuck it out, spending $3,000 a week on water cartage to keep going.

I sat next to one of the operators the other day, and she still had a smile on her face. She said, 'Milk's gone up to a bit over 50¢, and we're going to stick with it.' They are a very stoic lot down there, because they are not getting very much assistance at all. All that the people there have asked for is a fair go. Above Lock 1 they cannot afford to buy water, and below Lock 1 in many places they cannot access any water, whether or not they have an allocation.

Speaking of allocation, it is an absolute joke for the minister to get around before the last couple of days saying that we might be on zero allocation. It is just not workable. The minister should know that, and she does know that. She knows that you cannot have zero allocation because of the stock and domestic pumps that are shared with the same pump that pumps the irrigated water. You could not have the water police going around on 1 July saying, 'Why is that pump going?', when it is feeding stock and domestic supply.

The Langhorne Creek group has been working very hard on its water supply options to get water to their vines. They have had a little bit of assistance from the government—$250,000—but $125,000 of that will have to be paid back. I acknowledge the work of people from DWLBC in assisting the community. It is just too expensive to put up this pipeline project. It works out to $7,000 a megalitre, and it is just not viable. I have talked to people involved in the bigger companies, such as Fosters, etc., and they have said, 'The vines will survive; we'll get them through. We'll have to take our luck.'

You get down to the Narrung Peninsula communities and around Poltalloch, and the government is just leaving them right out to dry. There should be a pipeline of at least 400mm capacity built from Tailem Bend to start with. That will only get enough water to sustain life as it is right now, after 33 dairies have closed down. These are all taxpaying operations, but the government is obviously happy not to collect that tax. It is obviously happy to let communities wither away.

I firmly believe that, with the government's total lack of attention to these communities, it is hoping that the federal government will pick up these projects: the $60 million Langhorne Creek project and the $40 million Narrung Peninsula project by the federal government. For the community's sake, I hope the government is lobbying the federal government very hard. I know that it will not match Penny Wong's criteria for money from the $12.9 billion plan, because she said it has to have less reliance on the Murray. We shall see whether Labor has just hung them out to dry. Kevin Rudd is not concerned, even though he went to the federal election saying that he would have equity and access to water for all Australians.

The only thing in this budget that has anything to do with water is the $96.5 million towards the desalination plant at Port Stanvac. I am a bit like some other members in thinking that, by the time this thing gets built, it will have rained. Premier Rann's aversion to building any water supply measures if it rains will mean that it just will not happen. An amount of $13 million has been allocated to provide fixtures and fittings for SA Water's new head office, the total project costing $46.1 million. Talk to the local Lower Lakes communities about that. They are very impressed—I think not.

I just wonder what the state government thinks of letting people just run out of water. At least the Liberal Party is thinking about plans for storm water reuse, more use of waste water, etc.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I note the interjection from the member for Newland. I know that the government's plan for any storm water reuse goes out to 2025. The member for Newland had better hope that he still has water to drink by then. He might need to get it from the warehouse full of bottled water the government has for its emergency plan when Adelaide does run out and it has to hand it out. At least the Liberal Party is thinking about the state and about what we need to get on.

I now come to country health. It is as though the Labor Party does not look at a map of South Australia. They looked simply at a map of Adelaide, I believe, when they drew up this budget. They got to Gepps Cross and they got to Glen Osmond and that was the end of it. They have just cut the absolute guts out of the country. They have just destroyed any hope of any reasonable amount of development in the bush and regional areas.

As mentioned earlier by other members, including the member for Frome, we have four general hospitals. One is at Port Lincoln because it has to be there, as mentioned by the member for Frome. One is at Mount Gambier. What is that going to do, service half of Victoria? One is at Berri, also to appease another so-called Conservative turned into Labor minister. Then we have one at Whyalla to suit the member for Giles. I do not know whether they have even looked at how many miles there are between Berri and Whyalla. As the member for Frome so eloquently put, most people will still be going to Adelaide.

I have just a few comments on hospitals in my region. We have the Pinnaroo Hospital right on the border and we have Lameroo, Karoonda, Tailem Bend and Strathalbyn. Guess what? They are all destined for band-aid centres. I marched on this place 20 years ago to help save Tailem Bend Hospital. Laura and Blyth hospitals were already on the chopping block as well at that time. Thankfully, we have kept Tailem Bend going. My father has to access Tailem Bend quite often with bad ulcers on his legs, and he has lengthy stays there. That is just gone. He will have to go a little bit further up the road to Murray Bridge, which will be one of the community hospitals—but will there be a bed? I will go into more detail about bed availability in a minute because, with all the acute beds in all the country hospitals throughout the state, someone will want the services somewhere else. Instead of the government going around saying, 'We want to get the 550 country people that are in Adelaide seeing doctors or in hospitals at any one time,' they will actually get more. More people will come into the city hospitals.

I have some notes here on the figures provided in the so-called Country Health Care Plan for South Australia. The figures for the Mallee/Coorong region show that the proposed community hospital at Murray Bridge has 42.3 acute beds. I bet that was a bit of a science when they spent $11 million and got one bed fewer. Mind you, it is a lot nicer place to work in for the health professionals at Murray Bridge. All seven hospitals in the region—and I include the two other hospitals that service my community, at Mannum just over the river from Hammond, and Meningie just over my border as well—Murray Bridge and the other six that will become bandaid hospitals with no acute beds—currently have a combined average daily bed occupancy of 48.9. That is 6.6 more than Murray Bridge or 16 per cent above capacity.

Compounding that is the fact that the current average stay of patients at Murray Bridge is 2.8 days and the average for the other six hospitals is 3.25. Instantly, there is reduced capacity with increased demand. Some Southern Mallee patients will go to Berri. The Riverland chart shows that Berri hospital's current capacity at 44 acute beds will be increased to 65 under the plan. All five hospitals in the Riverland region combined have an average daily occupancy of 67.8: that is 2.8 beds short before you start.

The average stay at Berri is currently two days while the average for the others, which will have no acute beds, is 3.75 days, almost double. So while the choice of Berri rather than Murray Bridge will ease the load on Murray Bridge, no allowance has been made in the Berri figures for any patient traffic from the Mallee. And that is if they can get there: these are some of the people who will be 90 minutes away. The health minister proudly states that 96 per cent will be within 90 minutes of a hospital. What a terrible figure, and how many people would have died in the past who are allergic to bee stings and maybe will not make it in the future.

It might be wise for the government to try to recruit some circus performers for the new country general and country community hospitals where juggling will be a crucial skill. The government's promotion for this plan is: 'We've joined the dots.' I would have to agree with them on that: it is the dottiest plan that I have ever seen. The plan is for undercapacity, inadequacy and imminent obsolescence that allows for no regional growth whatsoever. It might be argued that, with policies such as the shared services initiative, the winding back or cessation of public transport in country areas and a total lack of real support for river and lakes communities (there is nothing for them in this budget as mentioned earlier) perhaps this government does not expect any rural growth.

It will remove the last remaining incentive for doctors to want to practise medicine in country towns where we struggle to attract them now. If the government is having trouble getting and keeping GPs, it is about to get a whole lot worse. That is not opposition propaganda: that is the message from country doctors themselves. The resultant exodus of country doctors will ultimately lead to the closure of many, if not all, of these hospitals as they become what the government now calls 'unsustainable'. Then the government will hide its poor judgment and mismanagement behind the claim that the country hospitals closed because they could not maintain the staff, and it will be the community's fault and not the government's.

Ultimately, there will be nowhere for local patients at all, not even a local GP, and young people keen to go into nursing will have to set their sights on leaving home permanently. As hospitals are one of the major employers in most of these communities, it will have a knock-on effect on the total viability of these communities. As the thin fabric of country health begins to tear apart and the system collapses, the government's bold statements about reduced travelling times for country people to get to hospital for assistance will begin to dissolve as journeys get longer and more frequent. You can bet the government will not make a contribution to the transport costs. At the very end of the document is what looks very much like an afterthought:

Opportunities to expand primary health care services at various country locations will be explored.

I am not sure whether this fits under the heading of 'tease' or 'appease' but either way it sounds like the sort of vague and hollow statement for which this government is now famous: distract them with an illusion while you are taking something else away from them.

Talk of better health outcomes for country people is misleading. Some will certainly benefit from the improvement to the range of services available in a few country centres. The rest of the country will, in time, be worse off. So, the gains of some country communities will be at the expense of many.

While I am speaking about health and the problems with transport, I point out that it has been hit on the head in the last 10 days with what this government is threatening to do, and looks like it will do, down in my electorate through the Southern Mallee and Coorong region, not to give appropriate funding to the local transport services. These transport services include: a run that begins at Murrayville in Victoria and comes up the Mallee Highway to Pinnaroo and through to Murray Bridge and then Adelaide; then there are other runs that come up the Dukes Highway from Tintinara, Coonalpyn, etc., and then up Princes Highway (Highway 1) from Meningie.

Many people who live out in these communities do not have a licence. They like to live out where they live, whether it be Lameroo, Coonalpyn, Tintinara or Karoonda, but they still need to access services. Now they are not going to have any bus service because the company that has the current contract cannot afford to operate under the protocols that the government is forcing it into. It does not want to go under and look like it will breach contracts because it does not have the appropriate government support.

I have been trying to organise a meeting with minister Conlon since early last week. I notice the other minister across the way laughs, but I think it is crucial that we have a meeting, because June 30 is the deadline. The minister laughs, but I am sure that if public transport services in his area were being cut he would be pushing for a meeting fairly quickly.

The passenger transport department seems to love running services in the bush as a real jigsaw: it is mixed up with area rights, who can and cannot go where, who gets subsidies and who does not, and if you do not run a service because it is not profitable you can be fined. Whether they be students attending school or people going to health services or whatever else, they need a service down there in the Coorong and Southern Mallee. One letter that I have received from the Tailem Bend Community Centre states:

I write this letter on behalf of all staff, volunteers and clients at the Tailem Bend Community Centre. The community centre was yesterday made aware of the impending discontinuation of all [local] bus services. This was devastating news as so many community members are reliant on the services to continue their day to day lives. As a low socio-economic area and with the high price of fuel today many community members rely on [this service] to access basic services; it can be the only method of transport for a substantial number of residents, especially the elderly.

With the abandonment of these transport services, residents will be forced to find alternative transport to access basic life requirements such as medical appointments, unemployment schemes, adult education, motor registration, banking and financial services, Centrelink and crisis care, as well as socialisation opportunities offered by local community organisations and the local hospitals day care scheme.

Another letter, which I received today from someone down at the Coonalpyn Hub, states:

In Coonalpyn we have 23 single families of elderly folks with special needs, pensions or of low income living one side of the railway line...

These people rely entirely on the local medical bus to travel to appointments. This medical bus will go if the company is forced out of business with no contract after 30 June. These people do not drive and other services do not fit in with the scheme of things. This is a government that is prepared to belt country communities every which way it can, when they are at their lowest: there is no water and there is no funding. It is as if it put up a fence and said, 'We don't need to know those people.' It is an absolute disgrace and one day it will wake up that it cannot disregard the bush. As we saw today, there was a strike of schoolteachers across this state, about 5,000 or 6,000, and health people will be protesting tomorrow. However, what makes me angry is that the Labor unions will still fund the government opposite, which does not deserve to govern. I commend my remarks.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (18:46): I, too, rise to reply to the budget. It is easy to see that this budget is a desperate attempt to solve problems and plug gaps driven by a previous lack of action in vital areas such as water (and water security in particular) and infrastructure. Speaking of infrastructure, we are still trying to find funding for the Mount Bold Reservoir, which was a major plank of the government's budget last year.

One of the things that this budget has tried to do is to respond to suggested plans, policies and directions from the Liberal opposition, in particular, Martin Hamilton-Smith and his master plan for Adelaide. Before Martin Hamilton-Smith released his master plan for Adelaide there was no plan for Adelaide. That is quite clear. You only have to look at the tramline as an example of that. When it was first announced, the tramline was going to go to North Adelaide, then the railway station, then it was extended to the Morphett Street bridge. Then the government announced 'The Marj' and said it was setting it there because the tram was there. However, it forgot to tell us that the tram finished 500 metres from the front door of where 'The Marj' was going to be. Obviously, that was not part of the plan, either. That was, again, policy on the run—which is what this whole budget has been.

This is a budget that has been cobbled together. We heard from the Minister for Transport today, but he failed to answer a question from the member for Morphett about the studies and the planning process after the announcement of the tramline being extended further out to the Entertainment Centre. The only solution that this budget presents is an answer to the mystery of where the tram is headed. Obviously, it is going to end up at the Treasurer's electorate office, but he will not be able to catch it from home because it does not come from Parkside—however, he will, of course, be able to catch it from Parliament House.

This cobbled-together budget is out of tune with the state's economic cycle and long-term needs. It is not a master plan but a poorly directed quick fix with dangerous overtones of future debt and interest payments which South Australian families have suffered before under Labor mismanagement. Anybody under the age of 40 will have difficulty remembering what it was like when this state suffered from an $11.5 billion debt left by the previous long-term Labor government. It was the Liberal party, in 1993, which had to make some very tough decisions which enabled South Australia to get its AAA credit rating back.

The Deputy Premier's own words a few weeks back, when speaking to his budget, were, 'We've borrowed to the hilt.' It is a bit like the selfish child who does not really want to have the last tart on the tray but eats it anyway, just to stop somebody else from having it. He has borrowed as much money as he possibly could, without looking to be irresponsible, and said to Martin Hamilton-Smith, 'I've committed; I've spent the money. You can't now, so your plan is not going to work.' We will see what happens with the plan that we will be delivering over the next 20-odd months.

This budget underlines the missed opportunities presented by record state-based taxes; from stamp duty, payroll tax and land tax, as well as GST revenue. Regarding the GST concept, of course, Foley and Rann, the Premier and the Deputy Premier and the Treasurer, and all of those opposite told us, back in the 1990s when the GST was proposed, that it was such a terrible idea and would be bad for South Australia. Yet GST sees the Rann government collecting $4.7 billion more in revenue than in the last year of the Liberal government. It will be collecting a total of $43.2 million from 2001 projected out to 2012.

We have seen examples of mismanagement; we have seen enormous amounts of revenue coming in and the government simply undoing its belt and getting fatter on the unexpected revenue. Depending on who you believe, we have seen anywhere between 9,000 and 17,000 and extra public servants, but the government budgeted for only 12,000 of those. I would suggest that is quite a substantial miscalculation in anybody's eyes, but the fact is that we have conflicting figures about how many extra public servants we have.

We must ensure we control our expenditure. We have seen the WorkCover unfunded liability shoot up to $1 billion in six short years. When we left it in 2002, it had a very manageable liability of about $57 million. We were doing that under the current rules. We were not doing that with legislative changes that cut entitlements to workers in the WorkCover system. That was because it was managed effectively and, of course, we have a situation where WorkCover was managed for six years and is still being managed by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Michael Wright. He put his board in place, he put his changes to the management of claims in place, and he put his contract in for the management of legal work in place. This has his stamp all over it, and I say to this chamber that it is his $1 billion that is sitting there in unfunded liability.

Of course, not resolving important issues in our public schools and public hospital system, so that surgeons resign en masse and teachers strike, throws the state's workforce and economy into turmoil. I think one of the things that have been overlooked in this whole instance is that childcare is not available for those parents who send their children to school every day. If you are not a regular user of a childcare facility, you are not going to get in. We even saw Labor members of parliament bringing their children into the house today because they had nowhere for them to go, but that is just a small example of what happened.

My children were at home today. My wife was at home with them, because both the public primary school that my son attends and the public high school that my daughter attends were closed for business today. So, that was another day out of my children's education and that of so many other South Australian children.

These disputes—the management of public assets, the management of WorkCover and negotiations with the unions—have all been engineered with the signature of minister Wright. I think that we need to be very wary of any project that the government gives minister Wright to manage and administer. We will see dramatic cuts through legislation, strikes or mass resignations. Somehow, negotiating skills are lacking a little bit there. I know that Prime Minister Rudd has suggested that Belinda Neal go out and get anger management, so maybe minister Wright needs to go out and develop some skills in negotiating, because he is certainly not doing a very good job at the moment.

Of course, minister Conlon has also been doing his bit to assist the Treasurer and minister Wright to blow the budget. We have seen examples of budget blow-outs with the Anzac Highway underpass from $65 million to $80 million and with the Northern Expressway from $300 million now up to $564 million. I think there was also an extra $16 million somewhere in the budget there today.

Of course, when it comes to education the message from this government to South Australian families and the education community is that it has solved all the education problems in South Australia; we do not have any problems with education in South Australia, and it does not require any additional funding or anything more than 3 per cent of the budget speech (that was the proportion dedicated to education). Now we are moving onto trams because they are visual; they are touchy-feely things and we can get results by having something visual up there that the Premier can perhaps put his name to.

Of course, no consideration has been given in the budget to Kevin Rudd's brutal cutting of capital funding from the federal government. There is a $31 billion infrastructure black hole, and we saw the Rudd government remove $22 million from our public school sector and $11 million from our non-government schools for infrastructure projects with the removal of the 'Investing in our schools' initiative. I have seen some great projects come through that, and the beauty of the scheme was that schools were given the freedom to manage that money themselves. We saw everything from shade buildings going up to solar-powered hot water systems going in, even computers for primary schools—which, of course, no other primary school will get through federal funding because of the government's shift.

There is nothing in this budget to address the problem of attracting and retaining quality teachers. We all know that we are losing about 40 per cent of our teachers within three years, yet there is nothing in this budget to address that. Teachers are getting older, with the average age of teachers continuing to increase, and we heard earlier in the year that school principals are suffering. They are not feeling valued, and consequently assistant principals and senior teachers are reluctant to take on the school principal role because they do not believe they are getting the support they need to run those schools.

We have seen no commitment to better education outcomes in this budget. Despite the minister's claims that South Australia is the lead jurisdiction in early childhood learning, only two of the 10 children's centres promised in last year's budget have opened, and we have seen a cost blow-out of $10 million in the project itself. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT