HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 23 September 2008. Page 191.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:03): I am pleased to join with my colleagues on both sides of the house to make a contribution to the motion for adoption of the Address in Reply. I, too, congratulate the Governor, His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, on the manner in which he carries out his vice regal duties in South Australia and the good work his wife, Mrs Scarce, also undertakes in her role in supporting His Excellency in that.

I will speak on a range of issues in the next few minutes, the first being the recent result of the Mayo by-election. It was only in the last sitting of the house a fortnight ago that in some bizarre manner some members of the government claimed in an odd way a victory for the Labor Party. How can a federal seat being retained by the Liberal Party be some sort of victory for the Labor Party? The result in Mayo was as anticipated. We all knew that the margin may well decrease over that previously enjoyed by a very popular, well-known federal member, Alexander Downer. The claim from across the other side of the house that it was some victory for the ALP is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

We only have to look at the reality of its situation: the Labor Party did not have the guts or fortitude to run a candidate, because it knew it was on a hiding to nothing if it had run a candidate, and the increase in the votes to the Greens and the Independent candidate from the Lower Lakes area—

Members interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I know her name, but I do not need to mention it in the house. The result was that the hard-core, rusted-on Labor vote would never go to the Liberal Party: it was split between the Greens and the Independent candidate. If you look at the 2007 general federal election results in terms of the combined ALP/Green vote, it is not a lot different from the Green/Independent split vote. For members opposite to claim that it is some sort of victory for them and a defeat for the Liberal Party is completely wrong. We knew that it would be a close contest, for a range of reasons that I do not need to canvas this morning. We knew that the contest would be close, and that is what transpired.

I congratulate Jamie Briggs, our successful candidate, on winning the seat in difficult circumstances, and there were some reasons behind that. I understand that the declaration of the poll took place yesterday. I want to extend my hearty congratulations to Jamie Briggs on retaining the seat. I know Jamie very well. I lent some assistance in relation to his campaign, and I know that he will work extremely hard to ensure that he becomes a good federal member of parliament; and I know that, when the next federal election is held some time towards the end of next year or early in 2010, he will be re-elected and consolidate his position as the federal member for the seat of Mayo. Having made those comments, I will now turn—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: —to the issue of water. We know that water—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You've gone to water!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Talking about water, Mick, why don't you dry up! It would be a great benefit to all of us if you just dried up. We know that water is the No. 1 priority here in South Australia. There has been an enormous level of debate in relation to water, and one of the major factors in the Mayo by-election was the plight of the River Murray and the Lower Lakes. In relation to that, I want to congratulate the member for Hammond on his promotion to the shadow ministry. The member for Hammond has done an outstanding amount of work in relation to the Lower Lakes and the River Murray. I know, and all the members on this side of the house know, how hard he has worked.

Members interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 137 relates to 'persistently and wilfully obstruct the business of the house', and I ask you to rule accordingly.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Members on my right will come to order! Give the member for Kavel a fair go. The member for Kavel.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: He needs protection!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do need protection from that extraordinarily bad Attorney-General on the other side of the house. Members on this side of the house know that the member for Hammond has done an extraordinary amount of work in relation to the Lower Lakes and the River Murray issue. He has got across all the aspects of it and has an extremely thorough knowledge of the issues and concerns, as well as knowing the actual amount of water that is being held in the catchments further up in the Murray-Darling system.

We know that debate is raging about all those related issues. I want to congratulate the member for Hammond on his promotion into the shadow cabinet. It is a worthy decision by the leader. In relation to the desalination issue, what an interesting turn of events we have seen over the last couple of days. It is clearly obvious that the spin doctors—that multitude of spin doctors—hired by the state Labor government went into hyper-overdrive on Saturday and Sunday as a result of the headline in Saturday's Advertiser. They have gone into hyper-overdrive so that the Premier can come out in the media on Monday with the earth-shattering announcement that—

Mr Venning: The revelation!

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The revelation—another historic announcement, a world first, and all that sort of—I was going to use an unparliamentary word! He came out with all that sort of nonsense that the desalination plant will be commissioned a year earlier than anticipated.

Goodness me! I wonder whether that announcement would have been made had that headline not appeared in Saturday's paper. I doubt whether it would have been there. I think that the government boffins, the spin doctors and all the crew behind the scenes (and we know an enormous amount of expenditure is given to that level of staffing) went into hyper overdrive over the weekend to come up with those nice images we saw on television, with the pipe sticking out of the seabed dispersing the saline water and so on. It was all very nice imagery, but I really doubt whether it would have eventuated had that headline not appeared in Saturday's paper. What a fantastic day it is to be alive today, when we have another headline in the national paper, The Australian, stating what the recent—

Mr RAU: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am being distracted from the honourable member's speech by the member for Schubert being on the phone.

Mr Venning: It's an internal phone.

Mr RAU: It is still very distracting. I feel as though I cannot concentrate properly.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member for Schubert is using an internal phone, and he is entitled to do that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: There is actually a standing order in relation to raising frivolous points of order; perhaps the member for Enfield should be aware of that standing order, too. Nevertheless, what a great day to be alive: it is springtime, there is sunshine outside and we have another good result in the opinion polls on the front page of The Australian. Obviously, that is sending shock waves through the government.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I was out doorknocking last night.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Even the Attorney-General is worried about his seat! Even he says he is out doorknocking, holding street corner meetings and the like to maintain his margin. It gets back to the fundamental issue that this government is all about spin. It is all about talk and no action. We see the latest slogan trotted out. It used to be, 'We're concentrating on law and order, education and health.' They have abandoned all that completely. The slogan now is, 'Action now for the future.'

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The deputy leader raises a very good point. I have been to a couple of functions sponsored by government departments where this slogan 'Action now for the future' has been run out on banners and so on. All the new programs that are launched at these functions are rebadged, slightly rejigged existing programs called 'Action now for the future.'

As the leader pointed out quite accurately and appropriately yesterday, we should have had 'action now for the future' seven years ago, when the government first came into office. We are playing catch-up at the moment. I can tell you from our feedback from constituents that they do not buy any of this 'action now for the future'. It is simply another failed attempt at spin and trying to con the voting public that it is doing something.

We have known from March 2002, when this government came to power, that it is all about talk and no action, and we are seeing the results of that.

Again, I want to comment on water issues specifically relating to electorates in the Adelaide Hills, in the western Mount Lofty water catchment area. We have heard continuously that, in relation to trying to waterproof Adelaide—and those catchy sort of phrases—the government is going to look to double the capacity of the Adelaide Hills reservoirs. I am at a bit of a loss as to how that will be achieved—and I have raised this in the house previously.

I have attended meetings conducted by senior departmental officers in relation to the prescription of the western Mount Lofty Ranges water catchment region that the Hills catchment is at capacity in relation to supplying metropolitan Adelaide with potable water. This is straight from the mouth of a senior departmental officer. So, how can the government come up with a policy that it is going to double the capacity of the reservoirs in the hills when, currently, the reservoirs are at capacity? We cannot get any more water, particularly with climate change upon us. The prediction is that we are going to get less rainfall. Even if the capacity is doubled and even if one does the mathematics and pushes up the walls of the dams, builds on top of the Kangaroo Creek wall and pushes up the bank of the Millbrook Reservoir, and so on, how will one catch more water if it does not rain? And how would one catch it if we are already at capacity?

Again, this highlights this government's flawed decision-making processes in developing policies to resolve the crisis we have with our fresh water needs. It highlights the flawed manner in which this government goes about its decision making.

Some other matters concerning water go to the very issue of the decision to prescribe the western Mount Lofty Ranges water resources. I have spoken about this matter in the house on a number of occasions. The decision has been made to prescribe the resource, whether or not we agree with it. However, in the government making that decision, there is a process that is undertaken to develop what it calls a water allocation plan.

There was a real concern amongst all the industry groups within the Adelaide Hills, and I do not think I am overstating the fact. All industry groups that rely on water resources in the Adelaide Hills were concerned about the way the government was conducting itself in developing the water allocation plan. I shared those concerns, so much so that I moved a motion in the house and spoke to it, highlighting the concerns of my constituency and those of other members who represent the Adelaide Hills region—a vitally important region to this state. I moved a motion in this house, raising those issues of concern, particularly the way that the department and the departmental officers were going about determining the actual extent of the resource in the catchment.

I think I am a fair person, and I give credit where it is due. I like to think that in some small way I assisted the industry groups in the Hills in promoting their concerns and bringing that matter to the notice of the house, and I am pleased that the government officers have listened to those concerns and have extended the period for producing a draft water allocation plan. Initially, the department was proposing that the plan be produced by June (from memory, as I do not have the notes with me).

As I said, concerns were raised about that time frame, which was cramming up the groundproofing work that needed to be done to prove what the department thought were the facts on the extent and sustainability of the resource. Extensive groundproofing had to be done—monitoring bores and a whole range of on-the-ground work—to prove the theory of what the government officers believed.

I give credit to the government officers for delaying that process. They have been more consultative in their approach to these matters and it is likely, judging from the meeting I attended several weeks ago, that the draft plan will be out towards the end of this year or early next year. That is a good outcome, but it is the result of community pressure. We have seen other positive results from community pressure, none less than what we have seen with the country health plan. I congratulate the deputy leader on the way she led that campaign, following which we have seen what has eventuated to be a backflip in relation to the government's policy on country health.

Returning to the issue of water, it is pleasing that the time line in relation to the consultation and other investigatory issues has been extended for the development of that draft water allocation plan. If you look at all those issues in total, you come back to the basic principles and needs of infrastructure, and we have heard a lot about how poorly this government has acted in developing infrastructure within the state. In relation to transport infrastructure, the member for Morphett has highlighted the fact that the government is looking to buy these clunky 30 or 40 year old trams from a country in Eastern Europe which was under the USSR communist regime; they will be brought over to try to meet the needs of the ever-increasing demand on our public transport system.

I digress to say that on the radio this morning I heard that the Minister for Transport is looking to take out some seats from trains so that we can fit in more passengers. The feedback from the community, which the particular radio station sought, was extreme disapproval of that policy. I think the government still has an enormous amount of work to do in remedying the issue of public transport.

In the few minutes I have left to speak I will continue to focus on issues in my electorate of Kavel. Again, it is the quite relevant topic of development and planning assessment, and all those matters that relate to development application—planning issues and the like. We see the continued residential development within the townships of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne in my electorate. Quite a large development is being undertaken at the moment on the southern area of Mount Barker, where over 800 new homes are to be built.

Some concern has also been raised about where further expansion of residential areas may go in around Mount Barker. There has been some reporting in the local newspaper, The Courier, that wealthy developers have their sights set on some land. You need to know the lie of the land in that local area, but it is east of Bald Hills Road, running up to the base of what they call the Summit, which is the base of Mount Barker itself. It is my view that that land is sacrosanct in terms of preserving it for agricultural production.

The very aspect that people like, that people look to enjoy in moving to the Adelaide Hills, is the open space that the Hills offer. If the government and local government continue to allow increasing expansion of town boundaries, obviously houses will occupy these areas of agricultural operation. What will eventually happen if this development is allowed to proceed in an unabated manner is that the very thing that attracts people to the Adelaide Hills, which is the open space, will be destroyed. The very thing for which people come to live in the Hills and enjoy will no longer be there, obviously, if this continued residential development is allowed to occur.

It is my personal belief that the land east of Bald Hills Road should be maintained for agricultural activity. There are vineyards there, and there is also the state's (if not the nation's) largest brussels sprout farm. At certain times of the year I understand that they export in excess of 30 tonnes of brussels sprouts into the UK market per month. The growers provide shipments not only here in the national market but also in the international market. Where will those people go? They will sell their land—they will obviously get a packet for it from the developers—and they will pack up and just retire. But where does that put the state's capacity for producing food? I suggest that it certainly would have a negative effect on the state's ability to continue its very strong and proud reputation of being an extremely valuable food producing region in this country.

In the final couple of minutes that I have left, I will touch on a really quite important area of need—I do not let pass these opportunities to raise them here in the house—and that is the critical need for a second freeway interchange at Mount Barker. Obviously, with the current development being undertaken within that tri-town district of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne, there is a real need for a second interchange to be built on the freeway.

The Liberal Party has committed to building that second freeway interchange on assuming government. That is a stark policy difference. The government is prevaricating about it; it is saying, 'No, we're not going to do it yet. Maybe in the future, down the track, 10 years, 15 years, on the never-never,' like all the other projects they have in place on the never-never, but this party has made the commitment that it will be built.

Time expired.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:32): First of all, I congratulate the Governor on his opening of parliament and his address to a joint sitting. I understand that it was the first address of His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, Governor of South Australia, to a joint sitting of a parliament. I think he conducted himself well. He gave us a bold plan to follow and, of course, has set the agenda for the parliament in its remaining 18 months before the March 2010 election. In that election, the people of South Australia will decide whom they wish to govern this great state.

The Governor set out bold initiatives, bold plans to waterproof our great city and to make sure that our human critical needs in water are taken care of. When I say human critical needs, I am talking about drinking water, something we often forget. We use these terms like 'human critical need' and wonder, 'What does that really mean?' It means that, when South Australians turn on a tap, they get fresh drinking water—something we take for granted in the 21st century; something we all think is an inalienable right—and, of course, the government is planning for that. We are fast-tracking the building of the desalination plant. We are extending the capacity of our reservoirs. We are investing in our state's future.

In another bold move, the government is going to electrify rail in South Australia, something which has been long overdue and which the previous government talked about but never did. This government is acting. One of the boldest initiatives, I think, is the government's decisive action in taking away planning approval from the Adelaide City Council for all developments over $10 million. This is bold, and this means that this state is on the move again. On the move!

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I never heard of the former member for Enfield being described to me as a mate of mine. I do not think he would say that. In fact, I think that, if the member for Schubert said that outside this chamber, he would be sued for defamation by the former member for Enfield, current councillor Ralph Desmond Clarke. This bold initiative will stop developments in the city being politicised. The people of South Australia are sick and tired of seeing decisions politicised. When we need development in this state, we need to act. We are not the east coast of Australia: we are the southern states. In the southern states, we need to encourage development, and this government has acted.

Of course, the other great thing is that South Australia is on track to take part in the largest growth in the minerals boom and exploration that this state has ever seen. I think that generations from now people will look back at this time and say that this was the time when South Australia truly took its place in the country as the mining capital of Australia.

In fact, just recently, the Hon. Paul Holloway MLC, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Leader of the Government in the upper house, was inducted into the Mining Hall of Fame. That is a great honour to be given to a member of parliament or, indeed, anyone. This country used to ride on the sheep's back but now, of course, it has become a great exporter of minerals to feed the world's thirst for these commodities.

I have noticed that members opposite have a newfound bounce in their walk. There is a certain swagger around the corridors. There is a certain swagger among them as they are walking around, measuring the drapes in the Premier's office, getting out colour charts and talking about what colour they would paint the offices. The member for Waite has been talking about putting a new set of curtains in the Premier's office, changing them to a dark Liberal blue.

The arrogance of members opposite has stunned me, as they swagger down the corridors and talk about what they are going to do; which public servants are in their sights and who they will sack. I understand they have a hit list of public servants—CEOs—they are going to fire. I understand they have a hit list of schools they are going to close and police stations they will move.

I also understand that the opposition is already planning to punish those who have spoken out against them in the last eight years. We are going to return to the bad old ugly days, when the then minister of transport, Diana Laidlaw, prioritised infrastructure by electorate rather than by need. We are going to return to the bad old days when the then government planned all their spending on where they needed to win votes rather than basing it on need.

I see opposite that the ones yelling the most are the beneficiaries of the latest Liberal Party reshuffle. I congratulate the member for Hammond. I notice he has a new shirt on because the other one was covered in blood yesterday. The member's blood was all over him, covering him from head to toe. He walked in covered in blood and with a huge smile on his face. What is the crime of the member for Finniss? He voted to oust the former leader of the opposition and voted for the new leader. I am not sure how the member for Hammond voted but—

Mr Pederick: It was in the paper; I voted for the new leader.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: He voted for the new leader—there you go! So it was a contest of two loyalists and he sacked the one who was loyal to Vickie and kept the one who was loyal to him. I have noticed also that there was a lot of speculation about Labor's reshuffle—about how it was a missed opportunity and how the Leader of the Opposition was crying about discontent in Labor ranks about no promotions. There is no discontent on this side about those things. However, I noticed yesterday, with his reshuffle, that there was only one change: he sacked a loyalist and appointed a new loyalist—that is it! And they have the gall to attack us.

The member for Schubert, the Opposition Whip, is a loyal soldier and one who has never been more proud. He is a proud servant of the Liberal Party; so much so that he has dipped into his own pocket to help the Liberal Party in times of need. I know he would be embarrassed to hear me to say so, but it is all on the up and up; he has declared it all. I am not accusing him of any malpractice. He is someone who has been there for them in their time of need.

He has run successful businesses—businesses that have not gone bankrupt. He has always been there and looked after his family and looked after the Liberal Party. In fact, his family have been proud servants of the Liberal Party, but what reward does he get? He is a proud advocate of the Barossa. There has never been a prouder advocate of Australia's premier wine region. The member for Schubert often brings in interstate and international visitors. The first thing he does is put on a display of what South Australia has to offer. At whose expense? His own.

He is a great advocate for his community and a great advocate for the Liberal Party—but what reward does he get? He gets rumours about deselection, he gets rumours about his retirement. They know they cannot beat him in his electorate; they have to get him to do it voluntarily. Thankfully the member for Schubert has a very strong ally in his lovely wife, a woman who would make Janette Howard look like a shrinking violet. I am glad and proud that the member for Schubert will be here in the next parliament. I hope he gets the rare fortune of being able to choose the timing of his own exit, rather than what happens to most of us and rather than what the member for Finniss had done to him by the member for Hammond yesterday.

In my old football days my mother would always complain that she could not get the blood out of my football guernsey because it soaked in too much, and I understand that to get blood out of a shirt what the member for Hammond should do is just throw that shirt away. Get a new one. The member for Finniss is not hurting though, because he knows that treachery and treason never do prosper. He knows that, and he knows that his time will come again.

I am glad to see that the old divisions in the Liberal Party have not washed away completely, that the old rifts are still there—the wets and the dries. It is still there festering away. When these polls come out that they have all jumped on—when the new swaggers walk in, measuring drapes in the Premier's office and behaving arrogantly about what they are going to do, who they are going to sack, and what funding they are going to cut—you will notice ambitious backbenchers who are not yet in the shadow ministry realising that they had better get there pretty quickly, they had better get there pretty fast, because, if they are not there at the election and the Liberal Party manages to pull off a win, they will miss out completely. So, I think we will see a lot of infighting to come.

I heard the member for Kavel waxing lyrical about the Liberal Party's great win in Mayo and what a condemnation of Labor that was. I would like to inform the house that Labor has never won that seat; it has never held that seat. It has been a safe Liberal Party seat; so safe, that it was the seat of Australia's longest-serving foreign minister, a conservative, and it has been the seat of a former federal leader of the opposition. Traditionally these seats are not occupied by opposition parties.

The Liberal Party had a preselection process that was so dodgy, so unfair and biased, that one of the candidates who participated in the process had to resign his long-standing membership of the Liberal Party and contest that election as a Family First candidate—and I am talking about Bob Day. Bob Day ran as a Liberal candidate in the seat of Makin at the last federal election, where he was defeated by Labor's very good candidate, Tony Zappia, the then mayor of the City of Salisbury. By any evaluation Bob Day has been a loyal member of the Liberal Party, but he said—openly and publicly—that the system was absolutely rorted. This is a man who has funded Liberal campaigns in the past, and funded them with his own money; not with public funding, not with going to dinners, but by writing big cheques to the Liberal Party. He quit that party in disgust.

I think the Liberal Party's result in Mayo is an indictment of how it is performing in the Adelaide Hills. The Liberal Party was outpolled at a number of booths by the Australian Greens—a party that it thinks is a minority party, a marginal party, a party that should not be taken seriously. Yet the Greens outpolled the Liberal Party amongst its core voters.

During the federal by-election campaign, you basically had to put a photo of Jamie Briggs on a milk carton to find him. The guy went missing; you never saw him anywhere; reporting to you live from a bunker somewhere in Mayo; not out there in the public at all. When Jamie Briggs was humiliated on election night by just scraping over the line and just winning, they claimed it a victory and attacked us for not running in a seat we have never held.

The Liberal Party in South Australia has serious problems; serious structural problems. It has an ex-leader on its front bench and its current leader at war with each other. The Liberal Party has the Hon. Rob Lucas sitting on the back bench in the upper house. No-one has told him the war is over; no-one has told him to stop fighting. He is running a rearguard action. He is not giving up; he is not retiring. He is running a guerrilla war from the back bench, and anyone who thinks he is not should speak to Martin Hamilton-Smith, because I have it on good advice that Martin Hamilton-Smith rings people and says, 'I can't control the Hon. Rob Lucas; he is a maverick. I can't control him; he doesn't listen to me.' You cannot run a government when you are so divided.

Given that Liberal Party members are measuring the drapes in the Premier's office and behaving arrogantly, as if they have already won the election, I just remind them that there is one thing South Australians demand from their governments, and that is good economic management. You know the old saying, 'It's the economy, stupid.' Never has anything truer been said about politics today. This election will come down to one issue: who is more capable of managing the state's finances. This election will be about that issue, and the issue of finances turns into how we spend that on infrastructure to cope with the mining boom and, secondly, how we deliver services to at an ageing community and encourage investment and growth. Those are the core issues.

What will stand out in stark contrast at the next election are three opposing ideas. First, you must run surplus budgets; you cannot and must not fall into deficit spending. The current Leader of the Opposition is raking up election promise after election promise that, quite frankly, will bankrupt the state. He has a transport plan which he has costed but has not given us a policy on, and then he tells us that he will give us the policy details after he wins the election. So, he has come up with a figure of how much it is going to spend—he will not tell us what he is going to spend it on—and then says he will give us those costings if he is elected premier. How can you trust a man with that sort of costing?

Secondly, South Australians know that services are important, especially in terms of one's health. We have a contrast like never before in any other election: a brand-new $1.5 billion stadium offered by the Liberal Party or a brand-new $1.7 billion hospital offered by the government. The opposition says that, if it wins the election, it will scrap immediately the building of the new hospital and then rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital, reducing its capacity by 30 per cent, extending the rebuild time by about six or seven years, reducing our capacity to deal with people who are ill. That is the stark choice: a stadium versus a hospital.

I have noticed a change in the Leader of the Opposition recently. He has gone missing. Angry Marty is gone; red-faced Marty is gone; the Martin Hamilton-Smith who was banging the door with his fists at the train station—that guy has disappeared. All of a sudden, Martin Hamilton-Smith is nowhere to be seen. He does not do the attacks any more, because he does not have the temperament to be premier of South Australia. You cannot be premier with a temper like that. Temperament and the way in which you handle tough decisions are important. You cannot go around putting people in a headlock and expect to govern for all South Australians. The make-up of the person is important when they become premier of South Australia—an even, decisive and well reasoned hand, not temper, not red-faced, not impulsive, and not making decisions on the run. You have to add up your costings and make sure you can afford them, not promise everything to everyone and deliver nothing to anyone.

Being in government is hard work. Saying no is hard. Saying yes is easy, I point out to the member for Schubert. Saying yes is easy. I love to say yes to people, but unfortunately I cannot say yes all the time. Saying no is tough. Leadership is tough. The current opposition has no capacity to say no to its interest groups, no capacity to say no to doctors and teachers, no capacity to say no to police officers, and no capacity to say no to public servants. It will just spend and spend and spend and bankrupt this state, and it will say and do anything to win an election.

What does it mean when you have an opposition that is prepared to say and do anything in order to win—prepared to tear down institutions and, as we saw yesterday, bring into question Australian banks and their liquidity and financial rigours? What does it tell you when we are facing the largest financial crisis the world has seen since 1929? What does that tell you about the ability and temperament of the Leader of the Opposition to govern this great state? It tells you that he is not up to the job. But his swagger is back.

Mr Rau interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, or even worse—

Mr Rau: Warren Harding.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Warren Harding. You cannot have a leader of the opposition who is prepared to tear down and scaremonger and frighten the horses to win an election. Leading and winning is about fighting for ideas that are bigger than yourself, not about tearing down straw men. What the Leader of the Opposition does is build up a straw man. Yesterday in question time he brought into question HomeStart and the government's ability to fund young home owners who are finding it harder and harder to buy a house because of the 10 interest rate rises that the opposition gave us. At the same time, the leader questioned us about housing affordability. So, he builds up this straw man and then he tries to tear it down.

Then the opposition brought up another straw man: infrastructure. They said, 'We have to bid for the Commonwealth Games.' They have no intention of bidding for it. They came out after the Olympics—in the warm glow with Australia doing so well at the Olympics, when we saw our brave athletes perform so well for their country—and they called for a Commonwealth Games bid, without thinking about how much it would cost or where we would build the infrastructure.

The Liberal Party of Victoria published a report that it commissioned on what it cost to put on the Commonwealth Games in that state, and it made a loss—a net loss. If there is one state in this country that has the infrastructure to put on massive sporting events, it is Victoria, and it still made a loss in the billions. So, the Liberal Party of Victoria said the Commonwealth Games was not worth the money, but the Liberal Party here says, yes, it is worth it. It builds up expectations and then it walks away from it. It is the same with the stadium—

Mr Rau: Build it and they will come.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That is its motto: build it and they will come. Build a stadium, spend $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money instead of investing that money in services and infrastructure to help us go about our day-to-day business to make the economy work. It wants a stadium. Where are the costings? It will release them later. Where is the financial plan? It will release it later. The truth is that there is no financial plan and there are no costings; it has plucked them out of thin air. That is how this opposition works. It plucks things out of thin air and then runs away from them.

At the next election South Australians will be faced with a stark choice: good financial management/bad financial management—a very simple question. At a time when people are worried about inflation and worried about their mortgage repayments, we have a Leader of the Opposition who is spending like a drunken sailor. Members opposite who know better, who run businesses, who know that you cannot spend more than you earn and cannot borrow money to pay wages, who know that the fundamentals of a state budget are the same as the budgets we run in our households, will understand what I am saying. The reason why members opposite do not rein in the colonel is that they are prepared to do and say anything to win the next election, including saying things that simply are not true.

The opposition is without any ability on its frontbench to govern this state. As I said earlier, it is all about temperament and character. The Leader of the Opposition lacks temperament. We all know that he has a temper and how aggressive he gets. We all know that he plays the man instead of the ball and that he will attack—he will not attack the idea; he will attack the messenger. We all know that he cannot come up with alternatives on his own. The desalination plant was not his idea: it was the former leader of the opposition's. The stadium was not his idea: it was The Advertiser's.

This is a person who is not fit to govern this great state, and his temperament will come out. When things get tough and he is in a tight spot we will see the real Leader of the Opposition emerge: the red-faced, Marty; the angry Marty; the Marty who makes impulsive decisions; the Marty who cannot be controlled; the Marty who will not take advice or listen to his backbench—

Mr Rau: The Marty who barks like a dog.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The Marty who barks like a dog in the chamber during question time. The most important thing about this place, without any doubt, is question time. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition red-faced, screaming and barking like a dog. I have to say that, in my 10 years in this place (which I like saying now—in my decade in this parliament), I have never seen such behaviour.

An honourable member: It's like Funniest Home Videos.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: It's worse than Funniest Home Videos. Temperament is important—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: And language is important, too; I accept that—but it is temperament and behaving in a manner that befits the role to which one aspires. The role of premier of South Australia, whoever is in that position, is the most important one in this state's political system. It is a position that we all look up to. We look to the premier for leadership, cool decisiveness and a steady hand; not red-faced anger, bouts of temper that would scare anyone or bullying. It is not good enough. The premier needs to be better than this, and the Leader of the Opposition is lacking.

Members opposite know exactly what I am talking about but they dare not speak up, because in the Liberal Party they could be sacked at a minute's notice without caucus having a word to say about it. They know how it works. If members do not believe me, they should ask Michael Pengilly. Why was he really sacked: what was the real reason? Was he raising questions about economic mismanagement within the Liberal Party? Was he raising questions about how much money they had raised? Was he raising questions about their election promise and spending—how much they have spent?

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: Leadership aspirations.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Or is it leadership aspirations? Who knows what it is? But I can tell you, red-faced Marty came out and said, 'Enough of that.'

An honourable member: 'He's too good; I don't want him near me.'

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: 'He's too good; I don't want him near me. I want to be surrounded by clones, people who say yes; the bullies—bullies like me. I don't want any free thinkers.' Just ask the member for Schubert about free thinkers and how far they get in the Liberal Party. As I said earlier, treason and treachery do not prosper, and members opposite will get to know that very well very soon.

In closing, I repeat that temperament is the key to leadership. John Howard, one of the great post war leaders—I think the most significant conservative leader since Menzies—showed a very cool temperament in a crisis. Our current Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, never loses his temper. People like Mark Latham, Malcolm Turnbull and Martin Hamilton-Smith, who fly off the handle and do not have the temperament for the job, come unstuck. Every day the current Leader of the Opposition holds that position he reminds me more and more of Mark Latham. I know that members opposite—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I cannot vote for Mark Latham: I am in the state parliament, you fool. When leaders tell you to put your seat belts on because it will be a wild ride, you know trouble is coming. Members of the Liberal Party have racing harnesses on because they are so concerned about the roller-coaster ride on which their current leader has them. The anger, the outbursts, the temper: South Australians will come to know the Leader of the Opposition as the angry Marty. They will come to know—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Schubert mentions his SAS military background. I do not care about his background. He served this country well—congratulations, no-one disparages that—but I am saying to you that, leading a platoon of men and leading a state is very different. You cannot put people in headlocks, you cannot scream at them, you cannot get red-faced and you cannot lose your temper in negotiations. You cannot put the green stuff on the face, the khaki on, walk into COAG and put them in headlocks with a knife to their throats. South Australians deserve leadership, not bad temper. I know that people might say that this is a long bow, but you do not want Rambo leading the state.

Mr Venning: What have we got?

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Cold, cool, reasoned leadership, humble leadership, listening leadership, not arrogant oppositions.

Time expired.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:02): I, too, would like to make a contribution to the Address in Reply and the Governor's speech, the opening of the parliament. I would also like to remark on how pleased I am to be serving under Governor Kevin Scarce. I have met him and his wife on numerous occasions at functions around Adelaide. I must say that, as an elected member of parliament, it makes me feel very proud that a man of his calibre has accepted the job. The military background that he has, the discipline he has learnt, the understanding of his leadership role and his compassion for people is something that shines every time you hear him speak. I should also mention how proud I am for Hieu Van Le to be the Lieutenant-Governor of South Australia. Again he and his wife Lan do an excellent job representing the Governor and this state.

We heard the Governor read a speech, which, obviously, was prepared by the Premier's office. The Governor always has to act on the government's advice. We heard nothing new in that speech—more of the same. The Treasurer may consider that the Commonwealth Games is a B-grade event, but judged on the results of this government over the past seven years, one must see that the Treasurer and the Premier's side is very much a B-grade team from both the match fit and getting drubbed by interstate competition.

Let me expand on that. Under the Rann Labor government, South Australia is falling behind in its share of the national economy. The ABS figures show that employment growth lags, business investment is going backwards instead of forwards, whereas in every other state and territory it is moving forward. We are falling behind by a whopping 4.5 per cent in the June 2007 to June 2008 quarters, and more people, particularly our youth, leave the state than are attracted to South Australia.

They are disturbing figures. Why would they not leave? We have the highest youth unemployment in the country. We know that $19 million a year is spent on spin doctors; that is, over 250 spin doctors directing public servants on how to address their spin. We have media consultants working for the public sector and we have media consultants on the public payroll (paid for by taxpayers) working for ministers simply to direct the spin so that, when they receive a media inquiry or when they do some maintenance on the trains, for example, we see a big media event about an expenditure of $700,000 on some new windows.

Any other state government—or organisation, for that matter—would see it as normal maintenance. And isn't that a story in itself, that money spent on maintenance under this government is to become a media event! It happens so rarely that it is worthy of a drum roll and a press release.

Of course, the spin doctors have removed from the Strategic Plan the youth unemployment target, which says 'equal or better Australia's average within five years'. That has disappeared; it is not there any more. It was there in 2004 but it is not there now. They have obviously given up on that. Also, they have rewritten the migration target, pushing out predicted net inflows until after the next election. So we do not know what that is and we cannot judge them for that at the next election because it will not appear until after then.

State Labor does not need to burn books to correct or change history. They reprint them, and the story line is devised by their $19 million worth of spin doctors. I think it was Churchill who said, 'History will be kind to me because I will write it', and we are seeing that with the Rann Labor government. The Rann Labor government spent $19 million writing the daily history—the 24-hour Hollowmen media cycle of the Labor government.

In partnership, of course, with the Rudd federal government (which Premier Rann worked so hard to elect), Labor has delivered South Australia a seven-year high in industrial unrest and a place at the top of Australia's strike league table. That is 9,800 working days lost in South Australia in the three months to June, yet many South Australians were deceived into voting for Kevin07 and they realised they made a mistake in Kevin08. Along with Fuel Watch and Grocery Watch, apparently, soon we will be seeing principal watch, and there is no doubt that Kevin, Wayne, Julia and the new Labor team like to watch. The team Premier Rann spruiked about during the federal election campaign are watching a lot of things, but their intense observation is producing little in the way of positive results for Australia's working families.

We have seen unemployment rise, and pensioners have to wait for yet another review. It is an extraordinary situation in Canberra at the moment where the opposition in November last year was promising to do what the existing government was doing and, when they were elected, they did not want to make any decisions, so they had a summit. Then they came up with a whole lot of so-called budget savings which are, in fact, increases in the tax on luxury cars, alcopops and Medicare levies. None of this was mentioned before the election, of course. Then they accuse the opposition and the minor parties of getting in the way of democracy.

These are the very same people who, when John Howard won the 1998 election on the GST issue, said that the government did not have a mandate for the GST so they tried to block it in the Senate. There was no mandate for these tax measures, yet, for some reason, Mr Swan and his team in Canberra claim that the opposition is interfering in the democratic process. There was certainly no mandate. However, I digress.

So the Rann government has shown itself to be totally inept in negotiating with the public sector over work agreements. The Premier should be considering setting up a strike watch, because I think that is what we need in South Australia. When parents want to know whether they can send their kids to school that day, they can go to the website and see whether or not the schools are open. Or, if they want to know whether the after-school sport is continuing that week, they can go to the website and click on 'strike' or 'no strike' and they will be able to find out which schools are operating on that day. I recommend that course; as a matter of fact, I might bring it as a suggestion into the parliament. Perhaps we can hook it onto the end of the government's supermarket watch, and that will at least make it easier for parents to decide how to manage their child care and work situation. I would certainly recommend a strike watch in South Australia.

The reason for the federal government's supermarket watch or price watch is that we have seen an increase in supermarket prices over the past 12 months or so. Well, in South Australia we have seen an enormous increase in industrial strikes and industrial action, so I think we need a strike watch.

No doubt, the government will choose to watch rather than act as firefighters, tram drivers and ambulance drivers line up to join disgruntled teachers in what Peter Vaughan from Business SA has referred to as 'a conga line of public sector workers preparing new claims'. What is extraordinary about the current situation is that the government is offering teachers an increase of 9.75 per cent—less than inflation. I am not sure what skills one needs for tram driving, but I know that it is not a three-year or four-year education at university. The government offered them 12.5 per cent, but they rejected that and said, 'That's not enough, we want more than 12.5 per cent,' so the government has agreed to more.

But teachers are leaving, and some 40 per cent of those who are coming into the system with a TER score of only 65 per cent are leaving within 10 years. We have a real problem in our education system which the government is not addressing. Recently, a close ally of the Rann government, SA Unions secretary Janet Giles, said that this government's approach to public sector negotiations is ineffective and damaging to our industrial relations record. Well, we are breaking new records. A new record for the Rann government is a winter of discontent with industrial disputes.

In the teachers' dispute, the Rann government's appalling industrial management and its failure to listen—it took close to seven months before a minister would meet them—has caused disruption to families and children's education, not to mention the economy. Many parents had to stay home during those industrial strikes when schools were not opened. They had to stay home. It is hard to arrange child care at late notice. In some instances it is hard to get into child care in the first instance, but casual use of child care is difficult because people book in for months, sometimes years, in advance.

We have seen a total disinterest from the out-of-touch education minister who seems to hope that the whole disagreeable business will just go away—like the minister does. I think she has travelled overseas on 16 occasions since 2006. It was reported on the ABC this morning that she is doing so well with her overseas trips that she did not use her personal travel allowance. It is interesting how that was mentioned.

Such is this state government's contempt for teachers that, instead of negotiating a reasonable pay rise, under the cover of the Olympic Games it increased teacher registration fees by 50 per cent, pulling in another $3.2 million a year out of the pockets of teachers. When this government came to power, a teacher's registration fee was $69. It is now $270. In addition, for new teachers the $20 fee for a police clearance has increased to $28. The education budget is out of control and the government is grabbing any possible pocket that might be open in which to stick its fingers to pull out a couple of coins in order to try to top up the budget and deliver its promise to Kevin Foley to find cuts in the portfolio.

Under premier Rann, education in this state has been neglected and South Australian students, parents and teachers are paying the price. Education spending is static. In 2002 it accounted for 25.2 per cent of the budget and in 2009 it will be around 25 per cent of the budget. Estimates reveal that spending cuts of more than $25 million are being demanded under the new efficiencies and, on top of that, $153 million in cuts over five years were ordered in the 2006-07 budget.

Parents are voting with their feet and taking their children out of the public system. In 2002, we saw a loss of nearly 8,000 students from state schools, while private schools have increased their enrolments by nearly 9,000. Do not tell Al Gore or David Suzuki or Robert Kennedy—and yes, that is right, Mike Rann; he gets all the big names—but extending the Solar Schools Program to at least 250 schools in 10 years has also fallen off the Strategic Plan. The Premier might need to get back some of the $140,000 that he paid to Mr Kennedy for one speaking engagement here in Adelaide, of course, so he could attach his brand to the Kennedy legacy. We all know that Mike Rann likes the big names; he knows all the big names and he drops them whenever he can, so he paid $140,000 for Mr Kennedy to give a speech here in Adelaide to pump up his so-called green credentials. The money certainly could have been better spent in our state schools.

Many of the principals and governing councils that I speak with are finding that education funding does not work at all for their school community. Approval for their school facility upgrades remains in a permanent holding pattern, while the state government channels any money left from the overly bureaucratic system to our super schools; however, super schools' PPPs are certainly working well for Labor fundraising. Perhaps Premier Rann and Treasurer Foley could donate back to struggling schools some of the $2,000 to $3,000 per head lunches that they are conducting, and that is being collected out of hopeful business people who are hoping to get a piece of this government action. Labor's priority is 500 more education department fat cats at a cost of $50 million; money that could be spent on teachers and better classrooms.

In 2002, DECS employed 123 people earning over $100,000 per annum. Teachers do not earn that, of course—unless you are the principal of a fairly large school—but then in 2007, the Auditor-General's Report told us that there are 605 people out of the classroom—these are people who are not in the classroom—earning over $100,000 a year. That is where the money for essential infrastructure and teachers is going in South Australia: more fat cats, more bureaucrats, and higher wages for those who do not work in our classrooms. Many of the teachers whom I visit are doing wonderful things with their contracting budgets. Talented, enthusiastic and resourceful principals and school communities are making a little go a very long way. Last week a principal showed me the appalling state of furniture for students in his school, yet out of his school's $4 million budget, only $3,700 was allowed for furniture replacement.

Creative accounting and school fundraising can only go so far in filling the funding gaps left by the state Labor government. Some school governing councils are effectively seeking corporate sponsorship to pay for infrastructure. All schools are missing the previous federal Liberal government's Investing in our Schools grants. Investing in our Schools grants—used by schools to fund projects of their choosing under the previous Howard government—had made up for the Rann government's under-funding.

Of course, primary schools were included, which had been completely removed from any federal funding under the government's so-called digital revolution (its computer program). We have seen that applying only for year 9 to 12 students, but under the Investing in our Schools program, not only was every school able to apply—government or independent school—but they could actually choose how they needed to spend that money, how they wanted to spend that money and how they could spend that money to the best effect for their school communities. So, school communities are frustrated with this state government and the expanding number of departmental fat cats who put more obstacles than incentives in their way.

Under this government an average of 9 per cent of our state school students are absent every day. That is 15,000 students who do not go to school. Despite the government's promises to combat this problem, the numbers have not been reduced. While section 7(6) of the Education Act makes clear the responsibility of parents in regard to school attendance and allows for a fine of up to $200, there is no record of any recent prosecutions. Again, we see a situation where the government is making rules, but it is not abiding by its own rules; it is not using those rules for the benefit of children. Any parent would understand how important it is that their child goes to school. Unfortunately, particularly in some of the safe Labor seats in the northern suburbs, some parents do not understand how important it is. What is the government's answer? They have a mechanism in place to deal with it, but they choose to ignore it.

When I attended the northern summit back in early September, as I was leaving the summit in the middle of the day in the car park there were half a dozen school-aged children who should have been at school. It was quite a sight for me to see these kids, who should have been at school, roaming the car park of the Elizabeth shopping centre, and I wonder how well the government is dealing with truancy, which has a long-term community cost for the state, not to mention the failure to provide opportunity for those children.

With a record like this, it is no wonder Prime Minister Rudd has come out now and endorsed the plans put forward first by Brendan Nelson in 2004 to give school principals more autonomy, to see how our schools are performing against each other and a whole lot of other reforms that would hold schools or the department accountable. Jane Lomax-Smith, as minister at the time, said that those reforms would not work and that it was political interference, but now we hear the acting minister, Jay Weatherill, agrees with Kevin Rudd and says they are good actions. Obviously he agrees that under Jane Lomax-Smith education in South Australia is a mess and needs federal intervention.

One has to wonder how serious are the federal government and the state government in making these reforms. We have seen no changes to the enterprise bargaining agreement being discussed at the moment, because these plans Kevin Rudd wants to put in place will come into effect in January or February next year, but the EBA goes for three years and much of what Kevin Rudd was saying are reforms needed at the industrial level. How will that work? We have not heard and do not know. I am sure the teachers union would have a lot to say about teachers and principals being sacked for under-performance. We agree with it, but it is a huge industrial challenge, and the Labor Party is a union-based party and will not have any problem implementing that, particularly as the orders have come from Kevin Rudd.

Recent reports have highlighted that one reason for truancy is that students are avoiding going to school because of the fear of bullying. School violence and bullying have become more prevalent in our schools, as have bashings, stabbings and sexual assaults. The minister's answer is that we live in a more violent society but, hang on, Mike Rann is saying that South Australia is a safer place to live under his guidance. However, Jane Lomax-Smith is saying we live in a more violent society and that there is more violent crime. She is right: there is more violent crime in South Australia under Mike Rann—the statistics do not lie.

FOI requests have found that, despite assurances to the contrary via the minister, no written or email record of any communication between the minister's office, the department and SAPOL existed in relation to recent high profile incidents of violence in our schools. Not only students but also teachers are now the victims of school violence, with parents becoming increasingly concerned.

Clearly the policies of the Rann Labor government are not working to prevent bullying and violent behaviour, and the lack of interdepartmental cooperation on mandatory reporting is allowing victims of neglect, assault and even rape to fall through the cracks. There has been publicity about providing teachers who are on yard duty with a mobile phone, a tool, of course, which none of them would have. I would have thought that just about anybody who is a wage and salary earner in South Australia would have a mobile phone. What does it say about the morale in the Department of Education and Children's Services if the only way a teacher can advise the police or make a phone call to report violence in schools is if they use a DECS phone? They will not use their own phone.

They are so annoyed and disappointed with the system that they will not spend 50¢ of their own money making a call to report violence that would save a child from injury. I find it very strange. It is almost a knee-jerk reaction for the minister to suggest that giving teachers mobile phones would give them the ability to report violence in schools. It is an outrageous claim. Of course, the digital revolution is ill-conceived and under-funded; and it has revealed the true extent of the state government's disregard for IT, taking into account the fact that the now Prime Minister waved laptops around at election time and promised to put one in the hands of every high school student—the tool of the future.

Just remember that, before the election, that promise was quite vague. As a matter of fact, a number of kids with whom my daughter goes to high school said they wanted their parents to vote for Kevin Rudd so that they could have a computer for home. I think that was a deliberate attempt by Kevin Rudd to mislead, and he has misled because now, when he is forced to deliver, we are seeing that it is not a computer for every school child—it relates only to students in years 9 and 12 and, hang on, it is every second student. Now students must share a computer. It is not a computer for every child; it is a computer for every second child.

Recently, as I was admiring the interactive white boards at a state high school, I inquired of the principal how they had been funded. 'By increased fees,' he said. Apparently increased fees, fundraising and federally-sourced funds are now the only avenue for IT improvements in our state's schools. Despite the stated aim of reducing the ratio of students to computers in recipient schools, the first round has confirmed that these computers are being used to replace old ones, not reduce the ratio.

We were told that we were getting more computers, but, instead, the digital revolution of the federal government is saving the state government money. The state government now does not have to replace its existing computers because it is using this money to replace existing computers—computers that should have been replaced a couple of years ago. Of course, Jane Lomax-Smith and Mike Rann (the education Premier) are walking away from their responsibility with respect to IT in our schools. It is nearly a year after the federal election and there is still no agreement about how additional costs for electricity, rewiring, software, upgrades and teacher training will be met.

What was interesting is that when this was discovered in June by the then Iemma government in New South Wales—the Labor government over there—that it would need nearly half a billion dollars to implement the computer program in their schools, minister Jane Lomax-Smith was asked whether she had a view about what it would cost in South Australia after what had happened in New South Wales, and she said, 'I do not know what happens in New South Wales. I was watching Dr Who.' Well, that is nice, isn't it? Of course, it is no wonder that the minister was not interested and did not know what was going on.

She told me several times in estimates that they were replacement computers. I was also told that we have sufficient licences in our schools, but now we find that DECS is withholding $250 per computer for licensing; and, on top of that, we are seeing a $40 transaction fee. So, the government is keeping a commission from the federal government of 4 per cent. There is no transaction fee for any other purchase a school makes. No transaction fee is charged by DECS to the school. This wad of federal government money has come in and the minister has seen a way of adjusting her budget and being able to deliver some savings to Kevin Foley. She said, 'Look, let's keep 4 per cent of that. Let's keep that and we'll call it a transaction fee.'

Instead of $1,000 per every second student, now we are getting $960 because the government wants its cut. I was misled at estimates, or the minister and DECS do not have any idea what is going on, or the minister and DECS are well-meaning but very inefficient, or it is a combination of all three. My suspicion is that the state government sees the digital revolution as an opportunity to make a quick buck.

The minister is using the digital revolution funds to underwrite the Rann government's investment in state schools and satisfy Treasurer Foley's demands for efficiency savings. The level of cynicism and confusion surrounding Rudd's digital revolution and its management at a state level is truly astounding, yet there is no interest whatsoever from the minister. In the glowing report card for its first 100 days in office the Rudd government gave itself, there is more spin, self-congratulation, tacky wording and figure fiddling than even that in the Premier's Strategic Plan.

As I have a minute to go, I must also explain to the house that even in my electorate water is the No. 1 issue. When I was doorknocking at the weekend and asking about people's concerns, there is no doubt that water was the No. 1 issue. I am certainly pleased to be part of a Liberal Party that understands that and is putting forward some very strong arguments and policies for that problem to be dealt with effectively.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (12:32): I speak today in a formal response to the address to the members of parliament by His Excellency the Governor Kevin Scarce, a man for whom I have a lot of respect. Today, I will cover a range of issues that have been brought to me by people in my electorate of Mitchell, and I will conclude by outlining some of my key concerns, where I believe major reforms need to take place in South Australia.

First, I will deal with some of the key issues that come up time and again as I go around the streets knocking on doors and talking to people. In relation to health care, I acknowledge that minister John Hill has made a sincere effort to improve the health system, but I have to say that the expected benefits of the Generational Health Review do not seem to have transpired.

I say that because I have been contacted on numerous occasions by people who have been booked in for elective surgery and who have had that surgery cancelled. In some cases, this has happened on two or three occasions in respect of the same surgery. The anxiety and frustration this causes really cannot be described.

When we talk about elective surgery, it is important to consider what that might be. In one case that was brought to me, it was a matter of knee surgery. The person could not walk (certainly not more than a few steps), and they had a very painful condition that required surgery. So, although it was 'elective' in the official terminology, it certainly did not feel elective for the person who had a painful knee and who hobbled around at home trying to make do with painkillers and so on. To wait for months and months for surgery to fix the problem can be extremely frustrating.

Another case involved a tumour that was potentially malignant in terms of the spread of cancer. It was also considered elective, and surgery was postponed on one occasion, leaving the entire family extremely anxious about the outcome. The medical advice was that the problem would not worsen after waiting for a matter of a few weeks or perhaps a couple of months for the surgery to take place. However, of course, one cannot help thinking, when some sort of alien growth is in one's body, that one wants it removed as soon as possible. One cannot help thinking that there is a serious threat to life unless it is removed, yet this comes under the umbrella of 'elective' surgery.

As I have said, I know there have been improvements in the administration of hospitals, and so on, but the reality is that the demand for our health services has increased more rapidly than the hospital services that can be provided. I believe that there is a lot of fat to be cut within the hospital system. I still think that there is probably too much ineffective administration when it comes to our public hospital system. I mean no disrespect to the chiefs who look after these various services—which include Flinders Medical Centre, Noarlunga Health Services and the Repat—but I hear from medical personnel (doctors and nurses) of problems with shifts and with the administration of surgery rooms, which lead to some of these delays.

I turn to the topic of education. In terms of an overview, I think that the single biggest threat to our public education services in South Australia is the determined efforts by Treasury to cut costs in this sector. Admittedly, education, like the health budget, is about a quarter of our state budget, so one can understand Treasury officials wanting to reduce such a significant expenditure within our state economy. However, it is what people want, and it is essential not only to our children today but to our future society and economy.

This is where I think there have been some extremely shortsighted decisions taken by this Labor government in relation to cutting aquatic and music programs, forcing schools to take on WorkCover liabilities and taking the money in terms of interest from school savings accounts. All of these things are clearly driven by Treasury's desire to rein back education expenditure. We have managed to forestall some of these measures through action by teachers and by the community. We have protested and, in some cases, we have won. With some of these successes, though, one wonders how long it will be before the long axe of Treasury comes back to chop again.

I also raise the issue of planning in terms of our teacher workforce. There is no doubt that there is a severe shortage of teachers in specific areas, particularly in relation to maths and science, and in terms of high school teachers generally. It is not obvious that solutions are being planned by government in relation to the current shortage, which will become critical within the next 10 years. I understand that the average age of teachers in South Australia is somewhere in the 50s. In other words, we have a cohort of teachers who will be retiring in the next 10 to 15 years, if not sooner. It is all very well to have graduates taking their place, but this will mean a very significant transformation of the teaching workforce.

I think that we need to pay our teachers more but, of course, the current pay dispute with teachers is not just about the money: it is about conditions, support and training for teachers, and we need all of these things to improve the delivery of teaching to our children whom, at the end of the day, this is all about.

I understand that there are probably more primary school teachers graduating than there are spaces available. So, again, because the government has not been able to plan effectively for teacher numbers, we do not have it right. We have people qualifying as primary school teachers who—after all the investment involved in training—are moving to other fields; yet, in high schools, there are many cases where there are vacancies crying out for teachers to move into. So, the long-term planning of the teacher workforce needs to be addressed urgently by the government.

On the topic of education I also express my concern for the Future SACE—that is, the curriculum and content planned for high school students which they must complete before graduating or, in the old language, matriculating. I believe the Future SACE waters down what is required of our students academically. Other forms of content such as planning their career path are mandatory in the Future SACE and, while one cannot dispute the value of spending time considering career options, researching university courses, trade options and job possibilities, whether this should come in at the expense of academic pursuits is debatable.

All of this takes place in the context where universities, since the Dawkins reforms of the 1980s, have become institutions, it seems, primarily with the goal of surviving financially so that there is enormous pressure to take on all comers for courses and to lower the points required to get into some of the professions and a variety of courses. The importance of fee-paying students from overseas has become first and foremost, it seems, in the management of universities and this is at the expense of the academic excellence which we have previously enjoyed in our universities. So, I express concern about that. I know that it is only in a very limited way able to be influenced by the state government but, nonetheless, it is a concern for the next generation.

I turn to environmental issues and I want to raise a couple of points here. In my electorate we have Glenthorne Farm, an historic site which was originally the home of Major O'Halloran, one of the first members of the House of Assembly in 1857. He lived there in a manor called Lizard Lodge, remnants of which remain on the site. It has a long history but, to come to the point, the CSIRO disposed of the land as surplus to its requirements some seven or eight years ago, from memory, and the Liberal government of the time under John Olsen agreed to a deed whereby the state government paid the CSIRO (that is, the commonwealth) $7 million and the University of Adelaide took on the land as trustee for pursuing agricultural, horticultural and viticultural purposes and so on.

It was stipulated in the deed that there should be no urban development on the land which everyone in the community understands to mean no housing. The University of Adelaide is now putting forward a proposal which is vast in its vision and encompasses recovery of species right across the Mount Lofty Ranges as well as in the vicinity of Glenthorne itself around O'Halloran Hill. The university, up to this point at least, insists that it must have an income stream based on funds of about $100 million in order for this initiative to proceed. After all, the state government has a poor record in relation to measures to prevent species loss in South Australia, so it is admirable that the university is taking measures to address this problem. It is one of those issues which is not a problem today. It is not that we go out driving through the Hills and notice that there are fewer birds. We do not notice it today or tomorrow but, when our children have the experience of going through the Adelaide Hills taking their children around, they are going to notice fewer species, less birdlife and so on. We need to act now to reverse that trend.

The problem that I have with the university proposal is this insistence on a massive amount of funding for it to proceed at all. Inevitably, the university's proposal involves housing being placed on Glenthorne Farm. Personally, I would prefer no housing there at all. I would prefer it to be kept as open space, and I sincerely believe that most residents in the area feel strongly that they want that land retained as open space. It is a wonderful feeling to drive down South Road over O'Halloran Hill and come across the pine forest on the left and Glenthorne Farm on the right. You do feel that you are leaving the city behind you to some extent. This is the experience of many people in Sheidow Park, Trott Park, Old Reynella and Reynella as they drive home for work. So, I would not want to see Glenthorne Farm covered with houses.

Admittedly, the university proposal is more modest than that. It might involve 200 houses or so, but even that will radically change the character of the place. It is something that I will seek to negotiate to avoid. Of course, the university cannot act on its own in this regard, and the deed itself by which it is bound cannot be changed unless the state government agrees to it. So, I am looking for an assurance from Premier Rann that there will not be housing on Glenthorne while Labor is in government.

In relation to environmental matters, I also refer to a letter which I received from the City of Marion. The substantive letter is one which the City of Marion, or the Marion council, as we call it, sent to the Local Government Association of South Australia. It is about the NRM levy. I think it makes some extremely good points. I am concerned that the NRM board process of restructuring has not led to good outcomes over the last few years. It seems that it has taken years for restructuring to take place and for new plans to be developed, when there have been lost opportunities to do work on the ground to improve environmental outcomes.

In my electorate, I am particularly mindful of the Field River, which is gradually falling into an environmentally damaged 21st century wasteland. Sadly, there is still some pre-colonial vegetation there which is gradually going to rack and ruin. It is something which I believe should be a high priority for my local NRM board. I have made representations to the board about that specifically. I return to the points made by the City of Marion. Its letter of 21 July 2008 states:

For 2008/2009, the NRM levy has increased in the City of Marion by 16 per cent. Following an extensive community consultation process, the City of Marion determined that the community's tolerance of increases to rates was around 5 per cent. Given the councils collect the levy on behalf of the NRM board, an increase of this magnitude ultimately reflects poorly on councils, who by default are tasked with the already unpopular task of collecting it.

Further on, it states:

...the expenditure of the NRM levy now no longer based within the local community.

Meanwhile, a list of changes has been presented in this letter, and they refer to poorer environmental outcomes in my electorate. They include:

Discontinued funding for the Marion and Mitcham and Environmental Education Project and project officer;

Vacancy of the Southern Catchment Care Coordinator position since November 2007, leaving no clear direction on the supervision coordination of NRM volunteers within the City of Marion;

The urban areas of the Central NRM Group have been disbanded providing a more limited opportunity for connection to the NRM communities;

The investment strategy of the NRM plan indicates that funding for on-ground works previously available in urban areas appears to have been diverted to rural areas through the Sustainable Landscapes Program;

Contacts in the NRM board for technical environmental support are harder to find and regular communication has reduced in some areas;

It is acknowledged that the Sustainability Street pilot project in Morphettville area is a new partnership project with the City of Marion.

I draw some conclusions from that. I feel some sympathy for the Marion council and indeed for all councils that are the subject of cost-shifting from state government to local government. This is perhaps a classic example of where the council is left to be, in a sense, the tax collector, and yet they have very little to say about the outcomes that are derived from the use of that money.

There should not be taxation without representation: that is a long established principle. In this context, it means that if Marion council is expected to collect an NRM levy with a 16 per cent increase in the last financial year, there should be significant local input about how the NRM money is spent. I think that there is a lack of transparency about it. I think that there is a lack of effectiveness in how that money is spent, and I think the issue needs to be addressed. Perhaps the City of Marion is right and the state government needs to take responsibility for collecting those levies in a different way to the current measures whereby the levy is effectively attached to the rates.

I move on to speak about a particular hobbyhorse of mine and that is the Oaklands station. This over-budget and underperforming asset should have been, in fact, the subject of a major infrastructure investment. I refer to the intersection of Diagonal Road and Morphett Road where the Noarlunga train line also crosses over. It is called the Oaklands crossing by everyone in the area. The government chose to build a new railway station some short distance away from the previous railway station and closer to the actual road intersection. The traffic flow in that area certainly has not improved; if anything, I believe it has worsened. There is a wait of five minutes or more sitting in the car stationary during peak hours trying to get through that intersection in whichever direction you are going in the relevant rush hour.

The station that they have actually built is deficient in a number of respects even though many millions have been spent on constructing it. There is still no ticket office. The last time I looked, there were no rubbish bins. The last time I looked, there was no security camera. As far as I could tell, there is still no electronic speaker to announce whether there are delays or otherwise. I question whether the toilets are open all the time. Very significantly, I had a number of complaints from elderly train passengers because there is almost no protection from the wind whatsoever on this platform. Strangely enough, the metal construction which frames the railway station has a series of large holes in it so that the icy wind can whip through during the winter.

I turn to the issue of crime prevention because, of course, everyone is concerned about their personal security and concerned about crime rates. As other members have pointed out, there have been some dubious claims made in relation to crime statistics in recent times. It is true that, in some respects, crime rates have gone down, but for other offences, including offences to the person, crime rates have gone up.

It was notable that the Premier yesterday was crowing about the significant contributions to victims of crime made by this government. I thought some of the claims being made were a bit rich. As one wit pointed out during yesterday's debate, perhaps the greatest contribution of this government to victims of crime is creating more of them. The Premier made an interesting claim yesterday, when he said:

The government has refused to release notorious killers whose release has been recommended, sometimes repeatedly, by the Parole Board.

In other words, where the Parole Board has satisfied itself, based on evidence, that there is little likelihood of reoffending, there is little likelihood of there being a further victim, the government sees fit to overrule that and keep the person inside. If that is what they want to do, in opposition to the best medical evidence and the evaluation of community representatives who are on the Parole Board, as well as professionals, then why do they not take the same approach to all notorious killers? Why give the Parole Board all the work to do in interviewing prisoners, collecting psychiatric reports, collecting reports from prison officers about the behaviour of prisoners and their rehabilitation, only to rip all that paperwork up and make an arbitrary decision because it is going to get a good headline the next day? If you are going to do that for some murderers who come up for parole, why not simply do it with all of them? Perhaps there would not be such a media effect if it was done on every occasion. Interestingly, the Premier also claimed yesterday:

This government will continue to increase penalties for cowardly crimes by violent offenders, child sex offenders and serious repeat offenders.

That sounds good, perhaps, but the reality is that we do not really have truth in sentencing in this state. If somebody is put into gaol for a term of less than five years, even if it is a violent crime and the victim has suffered terribly (like Mr Cheesman, in my electorate, who was the victim of a home invasion) the prison authorities can choose to release—in fact, they must release—a person at the end of the nonparole period no matter whether or not the person has improved their behaviour and, in fact, they can release the person much earlier on home detention. What is a sentence of a couple of years can rapidly become a sentence of merely five months. That is an issue that needs to be addressed, because victims are not happy with the lack of transparency and truthfulness in sentencing in this state.

I will conclude now but next year I will certainly go into more detail about some of the areas where I believe we need to undertake major reforms in South Australia. They include water reforms, certainly, both in terms of domestic pricing and our relations with the commonwealth in relation to water upstream. Secondly, I refer to pokies—and, although I am not as colourful as my friend, Nick Xenophon, I still believe much needs to be done to reduce the harm of poker machines in this state. Thirdly, I will be saying a lot more about democratic reforms and about how we need to introduce democracy not only in this parliament, not only in terms of our constitution, but also in relation to every government department and the way they make decisions about the communities they are meant to be working for.

Motion carried.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]



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