HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 11 September 2008. Page 110.)

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (11:29): I rise today to support the adoption of the Address in Reply. I congratulate the Governor on the work that he does for South Australia and for his time and effort to open this session of the 51st parliament.

South Australia faces major social economic and financial challenges over the next few years. The good times rolled under the former federal Liberal government, and the fundamental reform of the taxation system that delivered the GST revenue to the state gave the Rann government a free ride. It has been seven years of plain sailing in the sunshine and now, for the very first time in this government's life, there are some storm clouds on the horizon. How is the government weathering the rougher weather? Not terribly well. What signals were there in the Governor's speech about how the government will navigate its way through the challenges that the state now faces? There were few. The good times that this government has experienced have demanded fiscal management that should have set up our state for a bright future. This was the time to make hay—while the sun was shining.

Infrastructure investment, banking of surpluses and the retirement of debt should have been key aims of the Labor government and this Premier after having received billions of dollars in unexpected revenue. When the government came to office its revenue was just over $8 billion. Now, in the estimates period, it is projected to exceed $15 billion. The government is awash in a sea of cash. But, instead of managing it well, the government has squandered the money on inefficient management and through a failure to keep expenditure within budget estimates. The house will well remember the observations of the Auditor-General, referring to expenses out of control that were rescued each year by unexpected windfall revenues. What happens if those unexpected windfall revenues diminish?

An international financial crisis is causing analysts to revise their forecasts for economic growth and the consequent revenue generation. The Treasurer has been asked questions in the house about the impact of the financial meltdown on the state's finances, and he has been unable to answer those questions. He has been asked questions on ABC radio about how many millions of dollars of taxpayers' money is at risk as a consequence of that meltdown. He has given certain figures only to have to come back later to correct those figures and ramp them up. We understand that he will come into the house this afternoon and make another statement that will no doubt ramp up the figure even more.

We have a Premier and a Treasurer who do not know what is going on with the books. There is a financial meltdown going on, and you ask them what will be the impact on state finances, and they say, 'Oh, I don't know. I'll go away and check, and I'll come back to the house.' Hello! There are some serious financial tremors around the world at present which are very evident here in Australia, and the Treasurer says, 'I don't know. I'll go and ask, and I'll come back and tell you when I've got an answer.' Well, the answer keeps changing. I put it to the house that we need a Treasurer who is abreast of the Treasury portfolio. Let us see what this afternoon's announcement brings.

Add to these uncertainties in the fiscal arena the local impact of continuing drought. The mismanagement and over-allocation of water upstream in the Murray-Darling Basin is causing severe pain, and that pain will not go away. For this government, the reality is that revenue will fall short of expectations while the cost of projects, such as its Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital down in the rail yards, will rise because of increasing construction costs and because of the availability and sharp rises in the cost of debt and equity financing for such projects. This is information the Treasurer is trying to keep from the house. The fact is that a lot of his PPPs and a lot of his projects are in troubled water as a result of the financial meltdown. Some of the companies involved in these projects have experienced extraordinary drops in their share price and are themselves at risk.

The viability of such proposals is vastly different in September 2008 from that which was presented in the budget in June last year. These dreams—these PPPs and projects—that the government has are at risk. Throw into that the Premier's failure to meet savings targets through shared services, and also throw into that the waste that is apparent from 15 ministries and an abundance of spin doctors, together with a top heavy structure within government departments, and you have a recipe for a perfect storm.

For the Rann/Foley government, life is now more complicated than they could ever have imagined. But they have a solution. Guess what it is? Action now for the future! It has been seven years, but they have suddenly discovered what government is all about: action now for the future. Well, where was 'Action Man' seven years ago when he got elected? Where was 'Action Man Foley' seven years ago? Where was the cliché 'Action now for the future' in 2002?

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No, that was not the mantra then, but here we are—after seven years—facing an election where he is seeking a third term. Mr Rann has been walking up the steps to work at Parliament House for 34 years come the next election, and he wants another four—that is 38—and probably a bit more after that. Life begins at 40: why not go beyond? All of a sudden, after seven years, it is 'Action now for the future'.

I am sorry, but the people of South Australia have been expecting 'action now for the future' for seven years. Where has it been? Nowhere to be seen. These people opposite have given the Liberal opposition the perfect slogan to use again and again over the next 18 months. After seven years they want to take 'action now for the future'. The people of South Australia may have other ideas—we will see. If people want some action they will not get it from over there. People have had seven years to look at action from over there and, if they want action, there is only one party to re-elect on 20 March 2010, and we are sitting over here, not over there.

How the current government must regret letting our public sector debt rise to unnecessary levels. It is not unprecedented, because if we remember when the Premier was last in government I think it was $11.5 billion, so they are not unprecedented. Here we are; we are on that ladder of opportunity to massive debt levels. Maybe the Premier is out to break a record, a world first, to see whether he can run up debt to beyond $11.5 billion in his second coming. Let us see. How it must now regret being unable to reign in its expense cost blow-outs. How it must now regret the financial millstone around its neck called the Marjorie Nelson-Jackson Hospital, which it does not need. In fact, it cannot even pay for it. It has had to attempt to gut country health to make the dollars add up.

Today I can announce to the house that the opposition is reorganising its cabinet and its line-up. There is an election on 20 March 2010—in case members opposite have not noticed—and it is our goal to argue the case for change. There are key challenges ahead of us. Only the group on this side of the house will be able to address those challenges. The group over there has failed to address them despite the sunniest of weather, the calmest of waters and the easiest time any government, any Premier and any Treasurer of this state have seen in living memory. It has been an easy time to be in government.

At the top of the opposition's agenda, as it argues the case for change, are water, our environment and the challenges of sustainability and climate change. These are the issues. We have just heard that the government says it wants to refer powers over the River Murray to the Commonwealth. We will have a look at all that. I suspect this is the most massive media stunt—for at least a week—seen yet. I suspect that this proposal is riddled with qualifications and that, in fact, it is a sham referral. It is a sham referral to give everybody the impression that there is going to be some sort of change.

We will go through the fine print, but I can tell you that what we have seen today looks at face value like yet another media stunt. We will explain why that is when the matter comes before the house. However, I can say that there has been no referral of powers in any meaningful way in regard to the River Murray. We all know that what is needed is for every state to completely give up, without reservation, without qualification and without restriction, its powers in full over the River Murray, so that an authority can be set up to genuinely govern the Murray—not with its activities overviewed by a ministerial council comprised of state Labor government ministers; not with an authority for any state to just bail out of that referral of powers whenever it sees fit; and not with a string of qualifications that it is all subject to a Council of Australian Governments agreement. This is, at face value, a sham.

If you were serious about it, you would demand that the Prime Minister take control of the Murray, you would give up your powers and you would put faith in the federal government to govern that river completely and totally in the best interests of the nation. That is what John Howard proposed. That is why he said he wanted the powers before he would start spending the money, and that is the principal failure of this Premier, this water minister and her Labor government. It is the number one issue.

I brought these two issues together under two key ministers in opposition whose passion for the subject is unquestioned. The member for MacKillop, currently shadow minister for water security, will now add the environment to his responsibilities. The member for Hammond, having served as parliamentary secretary on the River Murray, will now come into shadow cabinet with ministerial responsibility for that river and with the additional portfolio responsibilities of sustainability and climate change, and primary industries, which have been neglected under this government.

The member for Bragg—a champion of the need to retain and improve the Glenside mental health campus and a champion of the need for improved mental health facilities in the state—will add the health portfolio to her responsibilities along with substance abuse—the scourge of modern South Australia. Families and communities will go to the member for Davenport who will take up with the government that parody of disasters that it has witnessed upon South Australia and argue the case for change. The key area of trade, industry and economic development will move to the same shadow responsible for finance in the member for Goyder.

The government tells us that, like some magic pudding, mining and defence will come along and feed the state. It is like Premier Rann's version of the loaves and fishes. There will be a mine and a couple of air warfare destroyers and they will feed the many. You will feast off this forever more. We will all be millionaires. No need to worry about agriculture or the River Murray. Forget Mitsubishi—we do not need Mitsubishi. Manufacturing, we are not going to help them. Small business, who are they? Let's not worry about the core industries that made this state great because we have the loaves and fishes. We have mining and the air warfare destroyers.

I am sorry to have to tell the house that the facts have somehow got in the way of the Premier's spin—royalties at $165 million, compared to Queensland at $3.6 billion, and just a little less in WA—and, apparently, we are going to be born-again Queenslanders. We are going to wake up in the morning and we are going to be sandgropers over in Western Australia, driving around in cruise boats all around Gulf St Vincent, bestowed in jewels. It will be the 'Dubai of the South'. Well, it is not going to be the Dubai of the South. Mining and defence are wonderful for this state, and I commend the government for continuing the good work of the former Liberal state government in attracting those industries here and developing them. It has been good work. We all look forward to the development of the Roxby Downs mine and the other mines. We, on this side of the house, have visited them recently. It is going to be sensational and so will the defence investment, but it will not be a magic pudding.

On this side of the house, shadow ministers understand that we must address three economic challenges: improving established industry, supporting emerging industry and preparing the way for horizon industry. We cannot put all our eggs in one basket. The established industries in this state are known to us all: agriculture, forestry and fishing, automotive and manufacturing and the supporting industries, building and construction, retail trade, defence, mining, tourism—and do not forget that is a $4 billion a year industry to this state alone—education and business services. These are the established industries and they have been forgotten, by and large, by this government. This government prefers magic puddings.

How can government assist the development and improvement of these established industries? I have some suggestions for the government, and this shadow cabinet will be presenting them to the people of South Australia. Try building some roads. Try improving your rail infrastructure. Try improving your ports. Have a look at your royalty regimes and make sure they are efficient. Look at structural reforms, particularly tax reform, and ask if they are creating an efficient state.

Reform your planning approval system. We look forward to the forthcoming legislation now that we are going to have action for the future. It has only taken seven years, but we are finally going to get some planning reform: let us have a look at it. Coordination and advice—use the good offices of government. Then, there are emerging industries: energy production, water harvesting, information technology, biotechnology and medical science. In a world where climate change and expanding economies have collided, a raft of industries have capitalised on the need for sustainable energy.

Fortunately, in South Australia, we have moved quickly to 20 per cent of our energy coming from renewable sources—thanks, by the way, to the Liberal Party. The Howard government funded and established that series of wind power projects that began under the Kerin Liberal government. Anyone would think that the current government had done all that. Our federal and state governments have also supported solar cell technologies, although the recent removal of the rebate for some householders was mystifying.

The next step is to take real advantage of the second generation of renewable energy technologies. Two of those technologies have caught our attention: wave energy and thermal technology. Solar thermal technology is already in use in the USA. Let us embrace these new technologies and emerging industries: these are the exciting industries of the future. Innovation, bringing into our economy the excellence that exists in our universities and promoting venture capital (a culture of entrepreneurial business and government partnerships) are the things that will make this state great.

To that end, I advise the house that the member for Unley will take on the additional shadow portfolios of employment, training and further education combined with education and, in government, we will bring those two roles together into one department. Transport infrastructure has been a key plank in our policies announced in the last 12 months, especially within the master plan for Adelaide. With even more work to be done in that area, I have added the position of shadow minister assisting transport, infrastructure and energy and allocated that responsibility to the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other house who will assist in the very good work being done by the shadow minister for transport and the shadow minister for energy security and infrastructure in the other place.

The current Premier has been coming to work in this building for 31 years. In that time, he has overseen bizarre press conferences from his strident opposition to uranium mining (remember, 'a mirage in the desert') to premiers in pyjamas—not bananas but premiers in pyjamas. He was at the cabinet table when the State Bank collapsed. He was one of the key decision makers; Marcus Clark was a great bloke! As Premier, he has overseen a period in which record revenues and high taxes have filled his government's coffers only to be wasted by a government that cannot keep expenses under control, according to even the Auditor-General.

The Premier's record shows an unimaginative, yet reckless, performance. His solitary achievement that we can see and touch is a tram that has replaced a free bus service and has become a symbol of the Rann period. If we get into government, we might even call it the 'Rann tram' just as a reminder. It started from someone else's work and ended up stranded in a position that serves no really effective purpose. The state Liberals rescued this state in the fallout of the State Bank and we stand prepared to rejuvenate that state yet again. Our top priority will be to secure this state's water supply with a diverse range of solutions to sourcing and saving water.

We are holding the government to account, but we are also out there with our own ideas. No-one can accuse this side of the house of being a policy-free zone, like this government was when it was in opposition. We have the ticker to get out there with some positive ideas of our own; ticker this government has never demonstrated while it has been in government, when it has carped, whined and whinged. We will support and expand our industry base. We will provide an education system that improves the link between innovation, industry and academia. We will show compassion in caring for the sick and those challenged by mental health difficulties.

On this side of the house we understand what government is about. It is not about members of parliament. It is not about seizing power and holding it. It is not about the joys of office. It is not about people's egos. It is not about presenting oneself as Mr Tough Guy. It is not about any of that; it is about the people we represent. It is about Mr and Mrs Bloggs in any electorate you care to name, the people who want a future for their children and their grandchildren. It is about the parents who come to see us with children who are disabled, seeking an adequate level of support for their children. It is about the little kids in the primary schools and the teenage kids in the high schools who wonder what future there will be for them. It is about the parents who worry at home about whether their kids will take up drugs or alcohol, whether they will get into violence when they come out into the streets of Adelaide. It is about the elderly, who worry about whether they can afford to stay in their home because of council rates and property valuations, and whether they can afford to manage in their retirement.

There is a range of questions on people's minds, and the opposition is out there listening to them in our electorates, from one side of the state to the other. Unlike the government, we are not a city-based party; as I understand it, only one member of the government's party room represents an electorate outside the city of Adelaide. We are a party that genuinely represents all South Australians. Where else would you find a party that represents the country and the city, men and women, that champions the two great ideas of political thought in this nation—liberalism and conservatism—as effectively as we do? Where else would you find a party that represents all cultural groups within our community, all religious groups within our community, and all socio-economic groups in our community? Where else would you find a group of people who are professionals, who are small-business people, who have been doctors, nurses and lawyers, and who have been well-heeled and not so well-heeled? As I look around, I see a few who have worked hard to come from nowhere to make something of their life by taking the opportunities this great state and this great country provide. You will find that only on this side of the house. That is why this shadow cabinet and this party will be arguing the case for change in the next 18 months.

South Australians expected more from the Governor's address, which was drafted by the government. We will take South Australia into a better future, and we will do that because this state deserves better and because we can do better. That commitment we give to the people of this great state.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:54): At the outset, I acknowledge the important role performed by His Excellency the Governor and also by the Lieutenant-Governor. They are both doing a great job.

I have been critical of the process involving the prorogation of parliament, which led inevitably to the recent opening. I know that the government relies on a legal opinion which suggests that, because of the constitution, we need to have an official opening more than simply after each state election. I would ask the government to explore that issue a bit further, because I am not convinced that it is mandated by the constitution. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but what we have had is one legal opinion, and I would like to see maybe some constitutional lawyers have a look at that issue again.

There is nothing wrong with having an opening of parliament, in one sense, but I was disappointed that we did not hear anything new from the government, and I will come back to that in a moment. It is a significant cost when, in my view, it is unnecessary to have that official opening. As I understand it, the ceremonial guard is flown in from Canberra; I do not believe that is necessary. I am not against the military or having guards of honour, and I am not against bands—I love them. I love military bands, and I love police bands. My concern is: do we need to have a prorogation and an official opening more than once following a state election?

The other aspect to which I refer is the Welcome to Countryperformance, usually undertaken by Uncle Lewis O'Brien, and that is great to see, as long as it is not simply an example of tokenism by us (by that I mean the wider community) and something to make us feel a bit better because we are allowing Aboriginal people to express their commitment and their long-standing link to the land. In fact, I think that, in acknowledging the efforts of those in our community who have made a great sacrifice and have contributed in other ways, we should not overlook the role of the pioneers or the 100,000-plus men and women who gave their life so that we can enjoy what we currently have in this state and in this country.

The Governor's address on behalf of the government disappointed me. I think this government has a fantastic opportunity not only to lead this nation but to lead the world, not for the sake of being different or new but because I think we have so much to offer in this state. So, I was disappointed that the opportunity was not taken to spell out some new initiatives and new directions for this state, building, of course, on the good things would already have.

There are many issues that can be raised during the Address in Reply, and I will touch on quite a few of them as quickly as I can. I am passionate about education, and I commend the government for increasing expenditure on education. I acknowledge that teachers should be paid more but, as I understand it, it has not been budgeted for in this current budget cycle. I think that teachers probably need to be patient and, hopefully, in the next budget there can be a greater allocation to reward them for the work they do. At the same time, the system should be modified so that it can get rid of those teachers who are not performing. It is only a small percentage but, nevertheless, it is unacceptable to have any teacher in front of children who is not performing, who is not committed to teaching, and who does not have a genuine love of children and young people. Sadly, we have some of those teachers still in our system; there are not many, but we should not have any.

I do not believe that the Australian Education Union has a role to play in the selection of staff in schools; I do not think that is appropriate or that some of the union's other actions have been helpful in terms of promoting the state school system. I do not say that as someone who is anti-union. I always belonged to the AEU and its predecessor, the South Australian Institute of Teachers. In my view, anyone in the workplace who does not belong to the appropriate union is a fool, is putting themselves at risk and is living off the efforts of others.

I do not see a role for the AEU in selecting the principal or the staff of a school. I do not think that is an appropriate role for the AEU. What the AEU needs to be doing, and the rest of us pushing hard for, is a significant upgrade of many of our state schools. Most of the schools in my electorate are in fairly good condition. The government is committed (at least in principle) to an expansion in the role of the Reynella East campus, which involves a primary school, high school and a preschool centre, to make it a B-12 (birth to 12) centre.

That project has stalled, I think, because it is just too big a task for Education Works, the group within DECS charged with overseeing the development of the schools out north and elsewhere. I am pleading with the minister to appoint someone who can take charge of a project like Reynella East High School and the primary school upgrade and make sure that the infrastructure is appropriate, costed and delivered within a reasonable timeframe. Otherwise, the parents and the staff are going to lose interest in being part of what can, and should be, a very exciting program, that is, creating a B-12 school.

I am also passionate about the role of TAFE, and I believe the minister is very committed to TAFE. Over the past 15 to 20 years TAFE has had a whack around the ears by successive governments that have not fully understood what TAFE can do. If you look to Victoria, they have just upped the fees in TAFE significantly. What they are also getting is accelerated training. It sounds good in theory, but it is something that is creeping into not only areas like apprenticeships and traineeships but also the area of pilot training as well. It is a very dangerous practice to accelerate training if you do not get the requisite skills.

I was talking other day to a fully qualified chef, who did the four-year course at Regency and is now working interstate, who told me that people are going to private colleges interstate and are gaining the title of chef after doing something like a 12-month course. That is not acceptable.

The other misuse which is occurring and which was reported in The Australian recently is that people are coming to Australia on the pretext of working in hospitality or the beauty area, simply for the purpose of becoming Australian citizens. They have no commitment whatsoever to working in those areas in the long term; they are just exploiting a loophole in the arrangements for citizenship. The federal government should put a stop to that and make sure that people coming here to be citizens are coming for the right reason and not abusing a loophole in the law. That loophole should be closed off.

Overall, we have a pretty good health system in South Australia. Sure, there are some deficiencies. One area brought to my attention recently relates to the treatment of pain. I have great empathy for anyone suffering pain. Recently I was talking to someone whose son is suffering from leukaemia and needs pain relief at the end of their treatment. I am pleased to say that at the Royal Adelaide Hospital they can offer that (usually) on the same day or at least within the week. There are other people who have chronic pain and who have to wait for weeks, and maybe months, to get treatment. I would ask the minister to have a look at the issue of the adequacy of pain clinics throughout our system.

I am very passionate about preventative health, and I know that the minister is—I had a chat to him this morning about it. We need to get a handle on encouraging people to focus on preventative health. It is not simply about better diet and exercise—it is those things and being aware of some of the risks. We know now, for example, that, in many cases, obesity is closely linked to the onset of various cancers. A lot of men are still not aware of the risk of prostate cancer. If someone in their family has had prostate cancer they should be getting checked from the age of 40.

Some men get prostate cancer even earlier, as, unfortunately, do some women in relation to breast cancer. A lot of women are still not being checked for breast cancer through the screening programs that are available—likewise for ovarian cancer and the use of pap smear technology. We still have a lot of people smoking. I cannot understand why people smoke. Some colleagues in this building smoke, and I say to them, 'Look, give up the smoking. It is a horrible way to die. If you get emphysema you drown in your own fluid.' It is a terrible thing. My young brother works at St Vincent Hospital and deals with people who have had their tongue or part of their tongue cut out. It is an awful thing, yet we still have people engaging in practices such as smoking.

I implore the state government and the minister to put extra effort into preventative health. If we do not we will overload our health system in the next few years to a point where what we are paying now will be literally peanuts compared to what we have to pay because we have collectively failed to do enough in regard to preventative health.

In respect of water, I note the minister's introduction this morning of some bills to deal with aspects of the River Murray. This is a huge issue in the electorate. The people in voter land are very angry about the issue of water. I would say that it is the biggest issue. In politics, as many of us know, perception is a critical aspect. We know that the government is committed to doing things—never as quickly as many of us would like.

However, in relation to the Murray, we still have a situation where Premier Brumby will not allow more than 4 per cent of water from any of his irrigation areas to be sold to other users in the Murray-Darling system. He has agreed to look at raising the cap to 6 per cent at the end of next year. It is outrageous that, under this 4 per cent cap provision, Victorians are not allowed to sell water to other irrigators or for the water to be used for environmental purposes. The Premier and the Prime Minister need to get a hold of John Brumby and seek to change that 4 per cent (and possibly 6 per cent) cap so that we can have genuine trading of water in the system.

Things are starting to happen with respect to the use of stormwater—again, more slowly than I would like. In relation to the use of treated grey water, we are going to have the Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands pipe scheme, and I think that is great. I have made the minister aware of the fact that we need to have a study done to provide some baseline data so that we can look at the long-term and short-term impacts of pumping a lot of water into the Parklands. We do not know a lot about the uptake by trees of water. We need to do that research so that, down the track, we can compare what capacity trees have for taking up water. We know a lot about watering lawns and other turf, but we do not know much about the uptake of water by trees.

I mention the issue of public transport. I have a copy of Hansard here in which I raised the issue of a light rail system back in 1990. I disagree very strongly with people who are critical of the tram extension along North Terrace. That is a fantastic thing. I think it is one of the best things the Rann government has done. Long after we are out of this place the trams will still be rolling down North Terrace, and, hopefully, even further a field. It is a paradox that you have a government—headed by one of the most effective communicators, as well as a lot of people in the government who are highly-trained professionals—that has not been able to communicate to the public what it has done in relation to the trams.

The answer I get back from one minister is that, if we say we are going to put the network around to various suburbs, people will ask when it is going to happen, and so on. I think that the public is very happy to know where a network is going and does not expect it to be done overnight. However, at least if there is a total plan of the light rail network—whether it involves Norwood, Burnside, Mitcham, Happy Valley or, hopefully, Aberfoyle Park down my way—the public would love to know that there is indeed such a plan. The government will not be criticised for having a plan. It was criticised for what appeared to be replacing a free bus service along King William Street with a free tram. That is an essential part of the spine—the network—of a tram extension program, but the government has not communicated that to the public.

I was on the train travelling to Noarlunga the other day. I usually catch the Belair train, but I had one of those moments when I got on the wrong train, but it turned out to be useful because I had the opportunity to look at some of the stations along the Noarlunga line and I was shocked at the state of them. There is nothing very inviting about many of them. Few of the stations have toilet facilities, and that is a vandalism issue. These stations are so uninviting; they have bitumen-covered platform areas, and often you cannot read the timetable. Having caught the wrong train I wanted to know what time the next one was coming the other way, but I could not read the timetable because it was vandalised and covered in graffiti.

The government needs to spend a lot of money on upgrading and updating the railway stations to make them more attractive. I know that it has done some of these things, but I also point out that the lighting is inadequate. Women, in particular, are fearful of travelling at night because, when they get off the train, they are literally in the dark. I make an impassioned plea to the government to really put some effort into upgrading our rail stations. If we are to have light rail it has to be integrated with that plan. Let us see some action in terms of making our stations look a lot more attractive.

I refer also to bus shelters. I write to the minister a lot (which is probably why he has aged since he has been in here), and he tells me the government will look at this issue. Some years ago the state government pulled out of providing bus shelters, but currently all the local government money for bus shelters is going into providing disability status for these shelters and it has nothing to do with getting to the bus shelter or the bus stop. All the money is going into making the bus stop itself disability friendly, but people with a disability cannot access the bus shelters because the standards do not apply to the footpath for them to gain that access. So, we have all the money from local government allocated for bus shelters going into the disability standard for the shelter, but no consideration of how anyone with a disability gets to the bus stop.

If you are going to the workplace and you are getting drenched in winter and cooked in summer, you will not stand out there and be frozen or frizzled, so that issue needs to be addressed. It is not rocket science but means providing decent shelters and seats where people can wait for a bus in comfort. I have a lot of issues involving buses in my area and I have made a plea to the government, asking it to please consult local members and the community before the gurus in the department or the bus company tell us what buses we will have and when they will run, leading to a flood of complaints because they have not listened to or consulted with the people concerned.

Tourist transport is not the biggest issue, but one of my current ideas is to bring back steam trains in the Adelaide Hills. I wrote to the Minister for Tourism and the Minister for Transport, and the bureaucracy said it was too difficult—blah, blah, blah! We can't do it on the broad gauge, too difficult—blah, blah blah! So, I wrote to the head of Great Southern Rail, Tony Braxton-Smith, who said that we could use the standard gauge track and would have to get permission from the Australian Rail Track Corporation—and I am still waiting to hear back from them.

To my delight, the boss of Great Southern said, 'Look, you could use the Keswick terminal in the Parklands for steam trains on the standard gauge. You could run them to Tailem Bend. There's a turning plate there and you could turn the steam trains around and come back to Adelaide.' Instead of bureaucrats in the system who always say something cannot be done, why not try to bring back steam trains to the Adelaide Hills? It is a fantastic part of the world. People could stop off at Belair, have a scone and a cup of tea, head off to Tailem Bend and come back the same day. It would be incredibly popular.

In respect of buses, I have raised publicly the issue of having push-bike hooks on buses. When I was on 891 (ABC Radio), someone rang in and said that it could not be done because the engine is at the back and there is a big glass window in front. Currently they do it in Canberra, Seattle and many other places. In fact, if you take your bike on the bus in Canberra and put it on a hook, you actually travel at a lower rate; so there is an incentive.

With respect to law and order—which is always a popular issue, and I suspect the opposition will give it a good workout in the lead-up to the next election—I ask the government to look at establishing police youth clubs. New South Wales has many of these, and the old clubs previously engaged in boxing (to see whether you can damage someone's brain in a short period of time) have since moved on and are now involved in many fantastic programs for young men and women. It is a good way to break down the barriers between police and young people as well as helping young people to get fit. Whenever I have raised this the police say, 'We're not funded for youth clubs, and other departments don't want to help the police.' I think it may be an issue on which Monsignor Cappo and the Premier could talk to the Treasurer to see whether we could raise some money. It is not necessary to provide dozens of them such as they have in New South Wales, but how about a couple in the north, a couple in the south and one in the west? That would allow the police to interact with young people in a positive way and help get the young people fit.

Likewise I was pleased to read the remarks of one of the recently appointed Supreme Court justices who commented on the importance of sport as a way of involving young people in the community, and I agree with him 100 per cent. I raised this issue in the juvenile justice committee. I believe that the courts and the community family conferences should make greater use of—sentencing is not the right word—requiring young people, in particular, to participate in a sporting club and sporting activity. I know that Monsignor Cappo in his program is trying to do that and has also involved Port Power but, if you can involve young people in playing a sport, they are halfway there in regard to learning a little structure, discipline and having a worthwhile activity to involve their time.

In respect of graffiti, I am disappointed that the government has not really come to terms with it. It is not an easy area to deal with, but I think the government can do a lot better. I am going to have a crack at redrafting my three bills. I have introduced three bills, but the government did not want any of them—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What about the spray can bill that we made law?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Yes, the government has done something, along with the wheel clamping, but—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You don't mention those.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: They are only minor in the scheme of things.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: No; the Attorney defends a modest program. It is a very modest program by the state government. The clamping of wheels—and I acknowledged this on the radio—is not of great benefit if you are dealing with young people who do not have a car. Many of these people are not young and many of them are really just gangs out there to stick it up the rest of the community at great cost. We can do a lot more, and the government can do more; it has a lot more resources than I have. I have talked to police interstate and other people and I tell you that this is a big issue out there in the community. The public is sick to death of the vandalism that goes on and the graffiti vandalism as well which is part of that general area. I acknowledge the government has done some things on graffiti, but nowhere near enough. It has to take up the challenge. I am trying to do what I can with my limited resources to assist this process and I will keep doing so. I am looking at having some legislation drafted.

In terms of planning, the latest residential plan, I think unfortunately—and I made this point to the government at the time—did not involve community groups, councils or the public: it was basically guided by developers. Nevertheless, it is out for comment now. Some of the issues needing to be addressed via that policy include dealing with stormwater, including retention on properties and urban consolidation. I do not think we have a choice, we have to consolidate. The question is: how do we do it? How do we do it in a way which is environmentally sound and which involves greenery so that we do not end up with paved areas and little tiny dwellings?

There are things such as permeable pavers now. There are trees and shrubs that we can plant. If people do not have room to plant trees and shrubs, then they should be required to contribute to the planting of them in appropriate public parks, streets and so on, because, as I said earlier, urban consolidation is here and we have to come up with the best way of dealing with water run-off—preferably using it on site—and also ensuring that we have adequate greenery and open space.

Just on that point, Adelaide is one of the cities of the world which has very little open space. The following figures are from Professor Chris Daniels who is Professor of Environmental Ecology at the University of South Australia. Adelaide has 5.5 per cent of total green space, and if you add in the hills face zone, you get 14.5 per cent, and if you add in the remnant vegetation, 2.8 per cent, compared with London, 30 per cent green space; Berlin, 45 per cent; Moscow, 50 per cent; Toronto, 21 per cent; Brisbane, 11.5 per cent; and 47.5 per cent of Beijing is green space. When people say that Adelaide is a parkland city, that is a bit misleading. We have parklands, which, unfortunately, have been used as an excuse for not providing additional open space as the city has expanded. This latest review of residential standards is important and it is critical that the government gets that right. I am pleased that it is putting that policy out for response by the wider community, including councils, many of which are annoyed that they were not consulted initially.

It is a federal matter primarily, but people have raised the issue of pensioners. To live on $200 plus per week would be a challenge. What we should have had years ago is a national retirement scheme; that is, from the day you start work you contribute (as they do in Europe) so that, when you retire, you have a decent living income. I am told that, in some situations, pensioners are even resorting to eating pet food. Someone who lives in Murray Bridge told me this. When questioned at the checkout why someone had so much pet food and whether they had a lot of pets, they said no, they eat it. I have checked at the supermarket and some pet food is dearer than human food, but not all of it. The sardines are probably cheaper because they are prepared in a less hygienic way. We should, as a wealthy country, be able to look after the people who helped build this country and made it what it is. We should not have people living in poverty in their retirement or pension years.

I could raise many additional issues. We are fortunate to live in this great state, but we should be committed to making it a better place to live. I hope that the government shows more initiative in trying to bring about progressive and necessary reforms.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:25): I enjoy seeing and participating in the formal opening of parliament, with its pomp and ceremony, because it does reinforce in the minds of South Australians, particularly members of parliament, that we are in a very privileged position by having a democracy that works in the way it does and by having members of parliament who do their best to improve the lives of citizens. Part of that process is having a Governor who reads out the government's program. The judiciary, which is an important part of the process of running this state, also comes along. It is an interesting procedure. Unfortunately, on this particular occasion when the Governor was reading the government's speech it did not give many surprises. In fact, it was a bit same old, same old.

Having said that, I congratulate His Excellency Kevin Scarce on the fine job he is doing as Governor of this state. He comes from a fine military background and I have watched him grow in the job. Far be it from me in any way to be constructively critical of a governor, but he is doing an excellent job. Like me, he is a northern suburbs boy. Kevin went to Elizabeth High School. He attended Elizabeth West Primary School. I went to Elizabeth South Primary School, Salisbury Primary School and Salisbury High School. We have a lot of empathy for the people of the northern suburbs; and I will say more about that later in my speech.

The speech presented by His Excellency outlined a number of issues, items of interest and projects, which have been highlighted by the government. I will go through them in my time today. The number one issue is water security. Many years ago the Labor government came up with a 20-year plan for waterproofing Adelaide. I am not sure exactly what it was called, but a number of issues were raised then. Nothing seems to have happened. I remember that one of the first functions I attended as a member of parliament—I gatecrashed it actually—was a seminar at the Grand Hotel at Glenelg just after I was elected in 2002. It was the Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCLD) seminar.

They were talking about water security in South Australia and water security generally in Australia. I vividly recall a presentation by a fellow associated with management of the Murray-Darling Basin. I do not remember his exact title, but he was talking in 2002 about the dire plight of the River Murray. In fact, he described the River Murray as 'not a river but a series of long lakes that were being very poorly managed'. The River Murray is not a new issue but, unfortunately, it has been poorly managed by governments generally in Australia and, with the influence of a terrible drought, we are seeing this river system suffering badly.

The issue of water in South Australia is something of which I have been very aware. In my beachside electorate of Morphett, Sturt Creek, Brownhill Creek and Patawalonga Creek empty into the Patawalonga Basin—which was once the second most polluted river system in Australia. It has been cleaned up and it is now a great place to play and walk around. But every year millions of litres of stormwater still pour down the creeks, the concrete channel (which is now Sturt Creek) and Brownhill Creek and through the Patawalonga system out to sea.

I have been raising this issue in this place for a number of years. In fact, my first press release was over four years ago on 26 April 2004. I put out a press release headed '18,000 Olympic swimming pools down the drain at Glenelg'. The press release stated:

With all the issues facing the River Murray it is a huge disappointment to see this treated wastewater going to waste.

The press release included a chart which showed the amount of annual flow that was being reused. The annual sewage flow going into the treatment plant at Glenelg was over 18,000, nearly 19,000, megalitres but only 10 per cent was being reused in 1988-89. That decreased to about 7 per cent in 2002-03. It was a terrible waste of water. B-grade water was going out to sea, and we know about the damage it causes—hopefully, not irreparable damage, but one does worry about the millions of litres of treated water going out to sea.

On 15 September 2006 (a little over two years ago), I received some more updated figures on the outflow to the sea, and it was a disgrace to see very little improvement. In fact, the wastewater reuse options, in percentage terms, had decreased: in 2005-06 we were using only 6 per cent of the water from the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant. It was an absolute disgrace to see that happening.

To further confuse the issue, in 2004 SA Water, in its wisdom, introduced a policy of cost recovery for water supplied from the wastewater treatment plant at Glenelg. A number of organisations were using that wastewater. They included the golf clubs and Adelaide Shores, the baseball club through Adelaide Shores, I think—and, certainly, the City of Holdfast Bay was using some of it—but it was still only about 7 per cent of that wastewater.

In an effort to improve the use of wastewater, SA Water then put the B-grade water through some further treatment and sterilised it. It did not change the nutrient or mineral levels, but it killed off some of the pathogens, so that primary contact with humans would not be such an issue. It treated the water to become A-class water but, in the process, it increased the price of the B-grade water from 2.5¢ a kilolitre to 25¢ cents a kilolitre, and for A-class water up to 41¢ a kilolitre. That was a 1,600 per cent increase in the price of water. To me, that is not an incentive to buy water.

Also, this pricing policy was not spread out over all the potential users: it was just concentrated on the few which were targeted and which had been using the water. No wonder the golf clubs then went off to the federal government, and they received some quite sizeable grants to start storing and reusing stormwater through aquifer storage and recovery. The wetlands at the Glenelg golf course are looking really good now; they are being developed and the aquifer storage and recovery are starting to work well.

However, it is disappointing that we see profit before pollution in this case. The wastewater that is going out of Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant is not being used anywhere near to the extent that it should be used. We are now starting to rely on desalination plants and other sources of water when we should be reusing and recycling of all forms of water—not only stormwater but also water from the wastewater treatment plants.

The pipeline to the Parklands that is being built by the state government (with some money from the federal government) is certainly a step forward. However, I would have liked to see (and I am certain that at some stage either the Charles Sturt council or West Torrens council had these plans) the water not being piped straight to the CBD but a pipe laid from the Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant along the bed of the Torrens River (so you would not see it) up to the headwaters. So, that wastewater would then come back down the Torrens and be able to be pumped out by community groups, sporting clubs, councils or industry; and whatever was not pumped out would then continue down through the wetlands to Breakout Creek, with far less water going out to sea. There would also be the advantage of the continual flows going down the Torrens that perhaps would have reduced or eliminated the algal blooms we frequently see.

I understand that the City of Onkaparinga is conducting a pilot study with Flinders University on exactly the same process in the Onkaparinga River: putting the treated wastewater from the Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant up the bed of the Onkaparinga River and allowing it to come back down. This is A-grade treated water. It is quite safe for primary contact, and diluting it with the natural flows and increasing the natural flows is something that I think certainly needs to be looked at. I congratulate the City of Onkaparinga on that initiative.

When one sees the reuse of wastewater going from 11 per cent in the late 1990s to only 7 per cent a few years ago, one will realise that something is wrong. Not only would I like to see the wastewater from Glenelg coming to the Parklands in the CBD (which I think it is a good initiative, and it is a good thing that the government is building that pipeline), but I would also like to see opportunities for users on the way—the councils and sporting clubs—to take some of the water from that pipeline so that more could be used, with less going out into the gulf. I will not be happy until we are using 100 per cent of the treated water from Glenelg. There is a huge opportunity for us there, and I think everyone in this place would support the reuse of that treated wastewater.

On the subject of wasting water, stormwater is another big issue for us, and I mentioned the Patawalonga and its pollution. That has been changed. I recently visited Singapore and Holland to catch up with two partners working with Flinders University in a stormwater project. Flinders University is using a special sol-gel technology to purify stormwater. It is working with the National University of Singapore, the Public Utilities Board of Singapore and also Deltares in Delft, Holland, to develop ways of redeveloping stormwater channels and purifying stormwater so we can turn these concrete canyons that now carry polluted water to our coastlines into pristine, natural creek-like environments with the ability to not only carry the water that is required but also filter the water in the process. I congratulate Flinders University on the fine work it is doing.

I should also say that the South Australian government entered into a memorandum of understanding involving just over $1 million with Flinders University, an Australian company (United Water International), the National University of Singapore, the Public Utilities Board of Singapore and the Dutch water experts known as Singapore-Delft Water Alliance in Holland to ensure that this project goes ahead in Singapore. We should reap the benefits here, because the people at Flinders University are working exceptionally hard on this project for the good of not only South Australians but also the whole world—and that is not being overly enthusiastic about the project.

The Governor's speech highlights some of the good things that are being done in South Australia, but things could be done better. The solar power station at Coober Pedy that is being promoted by the state and federal governments is a good move. Renewable solar energy is something we should be looking at. However, the one that I am really concerned about is the solar power station (the sun farm) at Umuwa in the APY lands, which has been in place for a number of years. I think it was in 1995 or 1996 when it was first promoted and built at a cost of about $16 million. There were some issues—there was a lightning strike which put it out of action for a while—but there are continual breakdowns. Even as recently as three weeks ago, the Umuwa sun farm, which has a potential output of 300 megawatts, was only putting out 200 megawatts. It is a disappointment that we are not maximising the output from our renewable energy sources, and I look forward to watching the facility at Coober Pedy being developed.

The residential energy efficiency scheme is mentioned in the Governor's speech and, certainly, we are encouraging all people to build houses which are energy efficient and to use appliances which are energy efficient. However, the problem I have with this residential energy efficiency scheme concerns hot water services. A number of plumbers have come to see me about the inflexibility in the regulations for installing new and replacement hot water services. According to the Housing Industry Association, the cost impact on regulatory change highlights the mandated use of gas hot water units.

The committee that examined this has assigned a cost of $450 for the additional labour and material components for these hot water services. That may be a short-term pain for a long-term gain—I hope so—but the problem is that the cost is $450 in the case of a new house being built but, in the case of the replacement of a hot water service, it can be many thousands of dollars because the availability of gas to the site can be a real problem. So I ask the government to look at that and talk to the plumbers about some of these issues so the plumbers will not get the response I have been told they are getting from SA Water, that is, 'You are a plumber, you work it out.' That is just not good enough.

In relation to the sun farm and energy efficiency, I need to raise the issue of renewable power in South Australia. We are very proud of our input of renewable power into the energy system, particularly wind power, but I am aware of a fair bit of green washing that is going on, with claims that you are more carbon neutral and greener than others. I would love to see an audit of the amount of green power that is being produced and sold Australia wide; perhaps one has been done and, if it has, I hope whoever hears or reads what I have said will bring it to my attention.

I know that all retailers (and governments, in some cases) are selling green power, but I would like to know whether the supply is keeping up with not so much the demand (as the demand is there) but the amount of green power that is being sold. It would be an interesting equation. I hope that all the green power that is being produced is sold so that the price can come down. I hope that is the case and that green washing is not going on.

I turn now not to the greenhouse effect but to the greenhouse. On page 7 of his speech, the Governor states that 'Adelaide will become home to a new "super greenhouse"—the Plant Accelerator'. This is a very exciting project for South Australia. I was at the Waite Institute, where I was briefed on the plant accelerator centre, which is part of the National Plant Phenomics Facility. It is a terrific facility for South Australia, and I congratulate the state government on the $10 million it has contributed, together with $15 million coming from the former federal Howard government, which had the foresight to put money into the plant accelerator and the National Plant Phenomics Facility.

This facility gets away from the fear factor and perceptions of genetic modification. What we are looking at here is not the genotype but the phenotype, which is what the plant actually looks like. The Plant Accelerator Centre deals with 160,000 plants a year and makes comparisons of things like the way they grow and their leaf area. The centre can compare many factors so that the very best plants can be selected for propagation and, hopefully, overcome issues such as salinity and drought tolerance. It is a terrific centre, and I encourage members of this place to visit both the phenomics centre and the plant accelerator at the Waite Institute; they are really worth seeing.

Before talking about transport, my portfolio and area of real interest, I point out that the Governor's speech mentions the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital. On this side of the house, we do not believe that that is a good thing to be building at this stage, as we think there are better ways of improving health outcomes for South Australia. My concern is the cost of the rehabilitation and relocation of the Adelaide rail yards. I FOI'd some documents about the contamination levels there, and there is a whole index of poisons and toxins. It is a veritable toxic waste dump which, unfortunately, is the legacy of many such industrial sites. It will cost millions of dollars to rehabilitate the rail yards: I think the government has estimated $162 million, but it may be closer now to $200 million, but watch this space. It will be a difficult and complex issue to address, without the added problems of determining where the rail cars will be relocated for refuelling, maintenance and improvement of the public transport system.

Linked with transport are the GP Plus centres mentioned in the Governor's speech. These will open in 2010 at Elizabeth and Marion. The centre at Marion will be a good thing, but the problem is that Marion has one of the largest, if not the largest, shopping centres in Australia. In addition, the state aquatic centre will soon be built there. It is a very busy precinct.

The changes that have been made to the Oaklands Railway Station are better than what we had, but certainly nothing like what we should have had down there. Grade separation and a redesign of the whole precinct for the integration of buses, private vehicles and trains is something that the next government will have to grasp, even if this government does not. It is a problem that we will all have to face. I would like to see what can be seen in Holland, Singapore and the US—a bipartisan approach to transport so that long-term plans can be developed, because the problem will not go away. Certainly, the Oaklands Interchange is a problem that will only be exacerbated by yet more pressure on that precinct through our GP Plus centre, though a good thing in itself.

Regarding public transport, on page 8 of the Governor's speech he states that the program to rebuild South Australia's public transport system will see the extension of tramlines from City West to Port Adelaide and to Semaphore. As everyone in this place knows, I am a tram fan from way back. I would love to see a network in South Australia, but what I do not want to see is an extension of the tram to the Entertainment Centre as the first priority.

An integrated approach to a light rail network is needed. We could have a far better network than this government is proposing. We are going to end up with seven different types of rolling stock. We are going to end up with new electric trains, converted and refurbished diesel to electric trains, new hybrid train trams, we are going to have additional light rail vehicles and we are going to have a new ticketing system. I will talk about the ticketing system in a minute, but I now want to talk about the trams we are getting.

I hope that the minister comes in here this afternoon and says that the information that I have been given—the information on rail websites—is all wrong, namely, that we are getting 20 year old communist era clunkers to help relieve the congestion in South Australia. This is just not good enough. I hope it is wrong, and I hope that the minister comes in here and tells me that this is wrong and that he has better trams. I know that the minister is looking for some readily available trams for commuters to ride on. The talk in the department of transport is of readily available trams, and the acronym being used is RATs. So, South Australians are going to become rat-catchers. I just hope that that is not the case. South Australians deserve better from this government and from this minister.

Certainly, building our own trams is something that is not beyond us here in South Australia. We can build air warfare destroyers, but we cannot build trams. I was in Portland, Oregon, a few weeks ago talking about the Trimet system. I went to the Oregon Iron Works, which is building seven trams on licence from Skoda—and they are very good trams. The Americans can build them there, putting in American components, but we cannot build trams here. Those trams are being built for about $US4 million which, on the current conversion rate, is probably about $A4.5 million, yet we go and buy trams for $6 million each. We should be building our own trams here. We can build heavy rail at Port Augusta, at EDI up there, yet we are not building our own trams here.

I suggest that the Premier not only ride the trams and streetcars in Portland, but actually go to the Oregon Iron Works to see what they are doing there. He has been to Portland; he should go again and look at what is happening at the Oregon Iron Works. It is an opportunity that is being missed.

The Governor's speech points out that a record level of investment is being made in roads. We are getting some changes to the way intersections work. We have a new underpass where the Bakewell Bridge was and we are getting an underpass at Anzac Highway. It will certainly make driving in and out of Adelaide a bit easier for me. But the big problem is that, in a letter from the government to the residents of the Port Road, Grange Road and South Road area, we are now informed that no major construction work will take place on South Road for at least three years.

The excuse is that they are going to spend the next three years doing a plan on the north-south corridor. I thought that had been going on for a number of years now, and that the infrastructure plan that this government had put up was all part of that whole north-south corridor redevelopment. But, no, there is an excuse to do nothing now. Action for the future is something that this government is not fulfilling when it comes to roads.

I would love to see some more money spent on state government roads. Certainly, some of the roads in my electorate, which are state government responsible roads, should be renamed Rodeo Drive or Rodeo Road, because it is like riding a bucking bronco as your car goes over the bumps, lumps and dips on those roads. It is really an atrocious thing. I noticed that some parts of Tapleys Hill Road in the Labor electorate are being done up, but when it comes down to Morphett, Brighton Road is really missing out. Oaklands Road is also another road that is missing out badly.

The public transport system in South Australia needs to be looked at in an integrated fashion, as I have said before in this place. We read on page 10 of the Governor's speech about the 25-year rolling supply of broadacre land for the government's purpose of extending residential developments and expanding the urban growth boundaries, yet we see very little in the way of meeting the need to urgently extend the public transport corridors. There is some talk from this government of going down to Seaford and buying some land, but there are no time lines. I went out and caught the 7:45 train in from Gawler the other morning. It is a slow coach; it is not the express. I went out and saw the problems they are having out there first hand, yet, what do we get? We get the government expanding the urban growth boundary north.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And resleepering the Gawler line and making it electrified.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The government will resleeper and electrify that line, but in 2016—in eight years' time. It cannot be done overnight—I know that—but why would you leave one of the main pressure areas until almost last? When it comes to building expressways and highways, an issue has come up which will affect even the householders of this state. I am told by civil contractors that the main contractor for the northern expressway (Fulton Hogan) is a very good company. It must be a very good company because it is paying up to 25 per cent above award wages. That is a good thing for the workers if they can get it, but the problem it has created is that other civil contractors cannot keep their employees because they are paying award wages and trying to look after their employees.

If they have to match the wages being paid by Fulton Hogan, they will pass on those costs to the end user, which will be the developers and the householders when they buy their block of land. So, housing affordability will decrease because of the action of this government in using an international New Zealand-based company. I do not know the full economics of that, but the government has an interesting problem. I just hope that the government can sort it out before South Australians end up paying for the rush in getting some of these projects done and dusted before the next election.

Page 12 of the Governor's speech mentions the Royal Institution of Australia, the first satellite operation of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. I visited the Royal Institution in London when I was there a few weeks ago. We had the official opening. I crossed to Santos at about 1 o'clock in the morning here for the opening of the Royal Institution in London. I thought that since I was going there I would have a quick look at it. Unfortunately, it was still a building site. A couple of rooms were finished. When the Queen opened the building at the live cross it was obviously all finished and very nice. I went to the lecture theatre where the main presentations have been given for many years. The disappointment was that it is only partly finished. But I congratulate all those associated with the Royal Institution in South Australia. A very good university friend of mine, John Yovich, who was the executive dean of the vet school, is now head of the Royal Institution of Australia, and I know that he will steer it along the right course.

Page 14 of the Governor's speech mentions 10 new trade schools, and this is something that I need to raise. A few weeks ago I was in Port Augusta, where I used to teach at the high school—technical studies, woodwork and metalwork. I met a lot of good Aboriginal families, and that is where I got my passion for Aboriginal affairs. I went to the tech study centre there, and it is an absolute disgrace. But that is not due to a lack of teachers' enthusiasm; it is due to the lack of funding and determination by this government to foster technical education in our schools. If you are going to make them work within the schools, 10 new trade schools are great, but you must walk before you can run. We need to provide good education. There is a lot more that can be said about the Governor's speech, and a lot more needs to be said.

Time expired.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:56): First, I would like to thank His Excellency the Governor, Rear Admiral Scarce, for his address upon the opening of the third session of the 51st parliament. I also congratulate him on his appointment, and wish both him and Mrs Scarce all the best for their term in office. I look forward to welcoming them to the Barossa Valley. I am not sure whether they enjoy the local product, but I hope to find out soon.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: They do.

Mr VENNING: The Attorney says they do. I look forward to their visiting the Barossa very shortly.

The media has widely reported the Governor's opening speech, delivered three weeks ago, showing that this state Rann Labor government's main priorities for South Australia are water, public transport and health. I struggle to see how these areas are the government's priorities when, in the midst of the water crisis (which it described as the most severe drought in recorded history, and we would agree with that) we are still without a desalination plant, no new reservoirs or any enlarged existing ones, and we are not managing the rain that falls from the sky with stormwater retention. It would be interesting to see how long the government would take to act in an area that was not a priority.

I was at the Entertainment Centre a few weeks ago and, not being able to park nearby, I parked on the other side and walked across a little bridge. To hear the water rushing underneath that bridge and racing down there and out to the sea as waste just beggars belief. It is such a waste: the water is running out to the sea while Adelaide is on severe water restrictions. I just cannot comprehend why that is the case. It is not a big deal to dam it up, hold it and pump it back.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You were comfortable enough with it for eight years, when you were in government.

Mr VENNING: I note the Attorney's interjection, and I want it recorded. We are now four years into a severe drought. You have been in government for six years. I can excuse you for a couple of years, but not four. This should have been dealt with two years ago. The state Rann Labor government said that it first raised concerns about the imminent danger facing the Murray-Darling system in 2002. If that is true, what action has it taken to try to avert the imminent danger facing South Australia?

I note in the gallery the Kapunda High School, which I used to have the honour of representing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert is out of order to note the presence of people in the gallery. However, the member for Schubert may like to seek leave to continue his remarks.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will note the presence in the gallery.

Mr VENNING: I recognise Kapunda High School, and I do seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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