HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SHARED SERVICES

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:02): I move:

That this house calls upon the Economic and Finance Committee to undertake an investigation into the government's shared services reforms, including the economic and social effects upon regional and suburban communities, implementation costs, savings projections, comparative data from other Australian states that have pursued these reforms, and any other issue.

It was with a reasonable amount of fanfare that, as part of the budget presentation for 2006-07, the Treasurer talked about the implementation of shared services reforms across state government agencies and the expectation of the reduction in costs that that would bring about when implemented. We know now that has not proven to be the case. I will go into it a little later but, certainly, the Auditor-General's Report recently presented to the parliament identifies that, while some ICT savings are in place, there are serious concerns about the value of future savings across this area.

Shared services sounds wonderful. It is designed to reduce the effort where duplication occurs in things such as payroll and accounts payable and receivable in the various departments that work in regional and suburban areas. Since it became part of the structure of government and a part of its future savings projections, we have seriously begun to realise that it is not working. When it was presented, the 2006-07 budget identified that $130 million across the then forward estimates would be achieved. This was broken down to $25 million in 2007-08, $45 million in 2008-09 and $60 million from 2009-10 onwards.

Page 10 of Part A of the Auditor-General's Report talks about the fact that, while $45 million might be projected for the 2008-09 year, ICT savings of $24.7 million are locked in place. There are some other savings through Supply SA warehouses and ICT mobile carriage services, but there is a $16.6 million balance of shortfalls where targets against those savings will not be met, and projections out for future years are even worse. In the 2009-10 financial year that balance of savings shortfall is $30 million, in 2010-11 it is $28.6 million and in 2011-12 it is $27.8 million. Across the forward estimates period, according to the Auditor-General, at risk is $103 million worth of savings, which would make an important difference to Treasurer Foley's AAA credit rating.

I am not here to talk about all those issues, but I am here to make parliament aware of the effect of shared services. Like most members of this chamber, I have been contacted by people in the electorate who are concerned about the effect it is having on them. There is an enormous social effect. I will relate it, first, to regional South Australia, given that I am a regional MP. I will talk about the expectation of job losses that were 'in scope', which is a term used by minister Wright when he had responsibility for this area. He used that term in relation to the number of people who would be affected by it. Originally, it was intended that 2,500 people—but it is now about 1,800 people—would be in scope to be affected by shared services.

In regional South Australia, there were 7.9 full-time equivalents in the Barossa Valley and 56.3 on Eyre Peninsula. When I was visiting Port Lincoln earlier this year, a lot of people were concerned because it is not just the basic full-time equivalent number. One has to extrapolate it out to consider the number of people physically involved, and it is usually about double that number. So there were 56.3 full-time equivalents on Eyre Peninsula, 23 in the Far North, 22.5 on the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island, 44.5 on the Limestone Coast, 53.9 in the Murray and Mallee areas and 37.6 for Yorke Peninsula and the Mid North. I think from memory that is 256 full-time equivalents. I extrapolated out that number to determine the number of people affected by it and it came to 500 people.

These people had worked within their community. In many cases they had moved there in order to take up a job opportunity and had made a home and a life for themselves there, or if they had grown up in the community they had been lucky enough to obtain a job there. They felt disadvantaged by the fact that they were told that their job was no longer available. They were told that if they wanted to retain their position they had to be prepared to move to Adelaide, with no compensation for the costs associated with that move. I think there has been some negotiation since then, but an enormous dislocation is involved. If they did not wish to pursue an opportunity with Shared Services SA in Adelaide, there was a guarantee to retain them within the department in which they worked. But how long would that position be available? They would have to be employed in a different role, which may require training. The role had to be funded from within the department's budget, putting even more pressure on the department to deliver its services. Enormous issues are involved.

During the estimates committee, minister Wright and the Treasurer confirmed that savings would be realised. They were a little vague on some of it. Minister Wright said that only $25 million has been identified; and we have identified that from the Auditor-General's Report. The Treasurer has referred to it. He has acknowledged there are some slippages and that it will take longer to implement it. But, all of a sudden there was the shock of renting premises within the CBD area in which to house these people, and the cost of the refit of numerous floors within these buildings with no person physically working within them. There was a media scene when the Leader of the Opposition visited one of these buildings with a media crew in tow, as a result of a previous arrangement and with the expectation of being able to film it, and then, all of a sudden, they were locked out, which was a great shame.

We want to make South Australians realise that in this case money is being wasted. The document I have indicates that about $9 million was spent fitting out new space at 77 Grenfell Street and it cost $4 million for the lease of rooms which will not occupied. Financial resources are being wasted. I understand that part of delay is that the first and second tranches of people moving to Shared Services created tenancy problems, but it highlights the fact that, basically, this is not working as well as we would have liked.

I understand that it was first suggested on the basis of its occurring in other states. I did some work on the issue at the time and looked at the situation in Western Australia where shared services had been introduced. It was not working there, either. The anticipated savings were not being achieved and it was costing the government a lot more money. But we decided to do it. We put staff in place to manage it. I am aware that there has been enormous concern amongst the Public Service.

The PSA has been very outspoken in order to ensure it is representing its members; and I give it credit for that. A lot of media transcripts around the place from radio and television indicate that they have tried to make South Australians aware of the fact that this model—which is supposed to save money—is seriously affecting real people. The savings are not being achieved and it needs to be reviewed. Something even more enlightening came to my attention last weekend when I was looking through The Advertiser, as is my wont. I looked through the employment section to keep up with what is occurring across the state.

Mrs Redmond: Are we out of a job?

Mr GRIFFITHS: You never know: we only have a four-year contract in this place. I looked in the government employment section, which occupies many pages. With 79,000 full-time equivalents working for the government, a lot of jobs are available. A couple that took my notice were in the services section. If Shared Services is predominantly based on accounts payable and receivable and is meant to be bringing people in from the suburban and regional areas to work in the CBD, they must be having a lot of trouble with people deciding that they will not do that, because they are advertising jobs.

Shared Services is about creating reductions in the number of people they need and about more efficient management. Why is it advertising? One of the positions is as team leader, operating in the CBD in Shared Services, in the range between $61,000 and $68,000. It says that there is more than one position, and ongoing and temporary positions are also available. It is more than just one role; they have trouble in a few spots here.

I looked at the position of manager of services within Shared Services. It is a job advertised at a salary of between $78,000 up to $85,000. Surely there must be a lot of experienced people out there in payroll in government departments who would be suitable candidates for this, but what is happening to these people? I heard of an amazing example of a lady who had worked diligently within Shared Services in payroll for a government department for many years and had come to the stage where she wanted to retire and had agreed on a timetable and did so, but, as part of the Shared Services reform and with the lack of people wanting to take up the role, the key skills she had were identified as being in demand.

She had retired and received her lump sum entitlements—be it superannuation or long-service leave and annual leave—and was brought back on a contract for one or two days a week, but she has found since returning that she is working something like seven days a fortnight. This is a person who retired, we identified problems, had to bring this person back, and we are paying her a much larger amount. It is amazing to me. There are thousands of people affected by this and we are not managing it properly. The government continues to push the line that shared services will come into play, that there will be slippages but that it will work eventually, that we will make it work, but I have serious doubts. If we look at the history of what has occurred in other states, there are real issues.

Part of my notice of motion focuses on the effect on communities. That is an important one for us to focus on. There is no doubt that economic rationality comes into a lot of decisions the Treasurer and ministers will make on where they can get the best bang for their buck. They look at how they will create efficiencies. With efficiency dividends required across all departments these days, it will be an increasingly difficult one to match up.

For every decision made in an economic sense there is also a social effect on a person and, by association, a community. We need to consider what that does. We cannot blindly go around making decisions that will affect people negatively. We need to ensure that if it is done there is a level of support that will always be there to ensure those people can move on with their lives, because probably in many cases these people are part-timers, and in many cases they are women as well as men. It is having an effect not just on the individual but upon the family and the wider circle of relatives and friends that they have.

There are key areas and it is important we identify them in the short time I have left. A petition was presented to the parliament about this, probably about 10 months ago. Some 2,500 people from across the state signed the petition expressing their concern about what was happening. The Provincial Cities Association (made up of Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Mt Gambier councils) met with minister Wright when he had ministerial responsibility for this to express real concerns on how it would affect its communities.

I am questioning from tranche No.1, to date, how many of those public sector employees within those groups that have transitioned to Shared Services (group 1A in March 2008, group 1B in July 2008, and group 2 in September 2008) have actually moved to Adelaide in their position? I would be interested to know how many people within the Public Service have declined to be involved in the transition. Of these people, how many were viewed as redeployees? Where have they now been positioned within the public sector, and how many have left the public sector workforce as a result of the shared services transition? I think this is what is occurring: people will just decide to give up because they have been taken away from the opportunity and the job they have liked.

In terms of the amount of the savings target, are we on target? The Auditor-General confirmed in his report that, across the forward estimates, there is a gap of $103 million of projection savings that are not in place. That is an important issue for Mr Foley's AAA credit rating. Part of my motion is that, if it is supported by the parliament, the Economic and Finance Committee will look at it and make investigative comparisons against other states where they have brought in these reforms and determine whether they have worked. This is a great challenge to the Economic and Finance Committee.

We have done various levels of reports. Some are high-level and some are low-level, but this is one that is important to the parliament; so, I hope that members on the other side will support this. What is the true cost of upgrading Westpac House and Wakefield House to accommodate the Shared Services offices for the groups that have transitioned? Will group 3, which I understand are the health agencies, also be housed in one of these buildings? I know that health employees from the South-East have been quite outspoken very recently. I am sure that the member for MacKillop will make some statements on that, because he would have had constituents in his area come to him.

Remuneration packages for public sector employees whose wage was changed as a result of the transition to Shared Services are especially important in the health area, where there is an ability to salary sacrifice much larger amounts than most other public sector employees. There was a fear that, with the transition to working out of the health sphere, this option would be lost; therefore, an enormous additional cost would also become a burden to a family.

Salary sacrifice is a wonderful opportunity for people in health. It provides them with benefits that might not be otherwise available and allows them to maximise their remuneration. So, that is an important one to sort out.

Time expired.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:17): I support the motion of the member for Goyder, and I would like to raise a few issues, particularly as they relate to my electorate. The question that I ask is whether it will work. I have serious doubts about that. The feedback that I am getting from public servants and government offices across my electorate, both on the mainland and on Kangaroo Island, is that they have concerns about it, and they do not know that it will work. It seems to be a lot more Rann government spin and not a lot of substance. It seemed to be a good idea at the time, so the government trotted it out, and the reality is that it is not anywhere near as practical as it may have suggested.

The member for Goyder talked about $9 million being spent on 77 Grenfell Street without a lot happening. It is just a joke what is going on in South Australia; it is an absolute joke. It is meant to accommodate savings. Is the government, indeed, listening to the concerns of the public service or the organisations and government departments that are split around South Australia?

I would like to turn to the ludicrous situation that exists currently on Kangaroo Island, a place which has 4,500 people and 11 different organisations running it—public authorities. It has: the Kangaroo Island Council, which should be the supreme authority; the Natural Resource Management Board; The Kangaroo Island Development Board; Tourism Kangaroo Island (TKI); Agriculture Kangaroo Island (AGKI); the school; Kangaroo Island Health Services; PIRSA; the police, SA Water; and DEH, which controls a third of the island in the national parks. Out of that lot, seven CEOs are being paid; seven CEOs for a population of 4,500. It is just a ludicrous situation.

If you are fair dinkum about fixing up shared services, and if you are fair dinkum about saving money in South Australia, it is time we took this thing by the scruff of the neck and did something about it. I have spoken to a couple of government ministers about trying to sort out this mess on Kangaroo Island with this duplication of authorities, and some running over the roles of others. Shared services could achieve a great deal if it was done properly and if common sense was used in other areas of the state as well as Kangaroo Island, as I mentioned.

In the scheme of things, shared services might be a great idea. However, as the member for Goyder states in his motion, and as far as I can see, no sort of logic has been applied to or study undertaken into the economic and social effects on regional and suburban communities. It really has not been thought through how much it will cost to implement these shared services. If we go to the $9 million on 77 Grenfell Street, where are the savings projections?

The other Australian states that have pursued these reforms are now taking a different look at it. I really do not have much confidence in the ability of this Rann Labor government to achieve successful outcomes on shared services. More particularly, my concern relates to the ability of the minister handling this to make it happen. I think it leaves a lot to be desired.

Country communities rely greatly on the people who work for the state government, and they rely on them to add to their communities. Currently, they live and work in those communities, be it in sports clubs, churches or whatever, and that is vitally important.

Mr Griffiths: Especially in drought.

Mr PENGILLY: Especially in drought, as the member for Goyder says. These are critical areas that have not been properly thought through. I know that concerns have been expressed to me within SAPOL about the changes in regions and how they are being juggled around, with people going from one place to another. It is totally out of kilter, and a region that has been working has been changed, with officers now being required to go to a place they know nothing about, even though they are still located in the area from which they came. I do not want to be too explicit about that for certain reasons, but it is making life increasingly difficult for police officers, which is unfortunate in my view.

The thing just was not thought through enough. I seriously wonder whether there will be savings for the poor old long-suffering taxpayer in South Australia. Given the current economic circumstances the world finds itself in, we need to save every cracker we can, but I do not know that this will work.

As I indicated, I have concerns about this issue, and I have localised them to the Kangaroo Island portion of my electorate and what is going on there. If I sat down with a couple of ministers and the council on Kangaroo Island, we could thrash out a way that would save money and be of benefit to the taxpayers of South Australia and streamline where the area could go. It could well be that we could make a model that would work across the rest of the state.

I hope that members opposite support this motion today and that a number of them speak on it. I know that there are members on my side of the chamber who also wish to add to the debate. I endorse absolutely the motion moved by the member for Goyder, and that is the reason I have taken the opportunity to say these few words.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:23): I also support the motion and commend the member for Goyder for moving it. He spoke earlier about the economics—the Foley-omics, I suppose you could call them, or perhaps Foley's folly—and how we have seen blow-outs. These are not unique to South Australia, but they are certainly unique to Labor governments, as we have seen Labor governments attempt this in other states, particularly in Western Australia.

I want to talk about the impact this has as a metropolitan member of parliament and, as such, I am certainly happy to get out there and back our country colleagues. We know that one of the Labor Party's factional leaders (the member for West Torrens) has said that the Labor Party does not represent the country, and he said that in this place. We do represent the country, and we do represent the city, so I am very pleased to speak in support of my country colleague's motion about his concerns with shared services.

If we look at how this will affect metropolitan areas—particularly when you combine this with the state government's new planning review where we are seeing a proposed growth in the population of South Australia being centred on Adelaide and the metropolitan area—that has implications, of course, for urban consolidation in my electorate and in the electorates of Norwood, Hartley, Morialta and Morphett, as well as many of our other inner suburban electorates, and the electorate of Adelaide, in particular.

We saw how the new development in O'Connell Street has caused an enormous amount of grief for the residents in North Adelaide, who feel as though their character is being squeezed and affected by changes that this government is implementing in the planning review. There is a big concern out there, and rightly so, I must say, about the destruction of character suburbs in Adelaide.

As the tourism spokesperson for the opposition, I look at what other states have as icons. What things do they push for tourists to come to see, and what things do tourists talk about after they have visited those places? In Sydney, there is the Opera House and the Bridge. In Melbourne, there is great shopping, the football stadiums and the trams. What is the one memory that people take back with them from their visit to Adelaide? They say, 'You have beautiful stone homes.'

The concern that I have about the shared services agenda of the government is that we are seeing human resources pulled out of our regional areas and we are seeing a concentration of them within Adelaide. That has the effect of putting pressure on the limited land we have available in Adelaide for release and for use. I think the development plan that the government is putting forward is looking for 80 per cent growth in the population in urban infill, which is quite frightening for those of us in the inner suburbs. The point I am making here is that we are seeing all the focus around Adelaide.

The state government employees who work in our regional areas are often the partner of someone running a small business. The small business, which might be a cafe, a retail outlet, fashion, craft, or one of those shops that tourists like to visit, is not big enough (or the catchment is not big enough) for that business to support the whole family, so one of the partners in that relationship works for the government, and they work in an area that will be affected by these changes to shared services. Consequently, we will see those sorts of businesses at risk.

Then, of course, there are those in the farming community who may have sons or daughters or spouses who would still like to live in the region but perhaps have a slightly different career path. Well, those career paths have just been reduced for those in regional areas. I have just explained to you how it will affect the viability of small businesses, not to mention the spending power that these public servants would have in the regions.

We are seeing a threat to the income of those who are on the land because we are seeing that one of the partners in that relationship may no longer be employed in that region. They will have to make a serious decision about whether they stay on the land and which career is more important. Is the career with the government more important or is the lifestyle and the tradition that they have with their farming families more important for them—a very difficult decision.

It would be a tragedy for South Australia if we saw a reduction in the population of our regions. It would be a tragedy not just because of the extra pressure it will put on the city of Adelaide and its suburbs with urban consolidation and consequent traffic congestion. Do not forget that people currently based in the outer suburbs are also being moved into the city and there will be even more people on our roads, because we know our public transport system is not up to scratch to get people into town.

I think these are issues that the Labor Party in government has failed to recognise as significant because they do not have representation in the country. And they are not interested in representation in the country—we have heard that. Labor members have said in this chamber that they are a party for the city. We are a party for the city and the country.

Mr Griffiths: For all South Australians.

Mr PISONI: We are there for all South Australians, and we are representing all South Australians.

Ms Breuer: It's disgraceful.

Mr PISONI: The member for Giles says that it is disgraceful that the Labor Party is not interested in the country.

The Hon. L. Stevens: No, that's not what she said.

Mr PISONI: She said it was disgraceful. When I was criticising the Labor Party for not representing the country, she said it was disgraceful. And she is right. I agree with her. She is absolutely right. It is disgraceful. But, of course, I must say—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Giles.

Ms BREUER: Mr Speaker, the member opposite is putting words in my mouth which are absolutely untrue. I said the comments he was making about Labor not being interested in the country were disgraceful.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Giles will take her seat. There is no point of order. If the member for Giles is being misquoted, there is an opportunity for her to correct the record by way of personal explanation. The member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: I ask for another minute, sir. I have three minutes on the clock. I would like another minute, after that frivolous interjection.

The SPEAKER: I think you will be all right.

Mr PISONI: Sir, the point I am making is that this is an economic disaster and a social disaster for South Australia, and it is a disaster that will affect the metropolitan area and the country equally. So, I commend the member for Goyder for raising this matter in the house. I concur with the comments made by my colleague the member for Finniss; and I know that the member for Schubert is very passionate about this issue as well and I will be looking forward to hearing his contribution.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:32): I rise to support the motion of the member for Goyder and congratulate him on putting it forward. I think every member in this house, including the members for Chaffey and Mount Gambier, would be very hard pressed not to support it. After all, if you read the motion, we are simply asking for this issue to be sent to the Economic and Finance Committee for its investigation.

The government first proposed its shared services initiative in September 2006 in a bid to save up to $60 million per year—an all-up saving of $130 million over four years. This plan seeks to relocate 500 jobs from rural and country South Australia, or 246 full-time equivalent positions. Jobs in areas such as payroll, accounts, human resources and information technology will all be rolled into one department in Adelaide. The number of jobs to be relocated from specific regions are: 7.9 in the Barossa Valley; 37.9 on Yorke Peninsula and in the Mid North; 53.9 in the Mallee; 56.3 on Eyre Peninsula; 22.5 from Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island; and 44.5 in the Limestone Coast.

What a list of shame that is. The government should consider what is happening out there at this time. We are in a four-year drought, with the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the government is going to do this. Taking 53.9 jobs out of the Mallee is a disgrace. That region battles at the best of times and, to do that now, is totally insensitive. It is against all the principles of supporting decentralisation. South Australia is already the most centralised state in the most centralised country in the world, and the government is doing this. It smacks against all the things we say in this place. We are paying lip service to decentralisation when we are doing things such as this.

The loss of 111 full-time and part-time jobs on Eyre Peninsula is estimated to cost the region $32 million. More than 80 of the 500 regional jobs to be cut are in the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, which includes TAFE SA. This will have a severe impact on the quality of training that can be delivered in country South Australia. The government has said that regional employees will not be forced to relocate to Adelaide; however, those who choose not to relocate will become excess employees. In other words, they are off to the transit lounge—and we all know about that.

This plan will affect not just the employees but also their families and local communities. Relocating people to Adelaide will lead to financial losses for the employees, take jobs away from country areas and detract from regional and rural populations—with a flow-on effect on local businesses, schools, sporting clubs, etc. As I have said, the drought is already impacting on country areas, and they need government support, not jobs being taken away. What appalling timing to bring this in now with, as I said, a four-year drought and the worst economic crisis we have seen since the Depression.

The state Rann Labor government has been wasting millions of dollars in dead rent. It has been leasing the top nine floors of the Westpac House building in King William Street but, due to delays in the implementation of the shared services program, that office space has not been utilised. The original implementation costs were estimated by the government at $60 million; however, there has been a massive blow-out in this figure and the Treasurer has allocated another $37 million to be used for set-up costs, taking the total to $97 million. The 2006-07 budget advised of the savings that the state Rann Labor government hoped to achieve through this plan—$25 million in 2007-08, $45 million in 2008-09, and $60 million in 2009-10—but the plan has not yet delivered any savings and has wasted taxpayer dollars by renting office space that has not even been utilised.

It has also caused huge disquiet in country regions. Imagine how you would feel if your job was one of these jobs; what sort of security would you have? How would your family feel if you had a job in the Mallee and your job was being moved to Adelaide? Is it worth it? What have we achieved here? Nothing; it is a totally negative result. Constituents of mine who work in the health sector—doing tasks such as banking, receipting, contacting companies, coding, and general pay work—were told some weeks ago that the work they do will dry up and they will be moving to the city. An attempt is being made to find them alternative work, with one possibility being culling medical records in hospitals. This is extremely demeaning work for a person with some 41 years' experience, as one of the affected constituents has in their current area of expertise. One of these constituents rang colleagues in other hospitals who do the same work, and they all said that they had been told that the work they do must remain on site. It is clear that some of my constituents will be affected by this initiative, when they were led to believe they would not be affected.

This issue, combined with the country health issue, is absolute proof that this government does not care at all about what it does to country regions. It is all about it wanting to build a new hospital, the Marj Mahal. The government needs $1.7 billion, so what does it do? It will get it out of the country; it will just cut country health. That is easy; no votes, so who cares? Minimum damage, minimum pain; no problem.

I cannot believe that in this day and age any government would attempt something like this. We have set up regional development boards to assist in the decentralisation of our state—as I said, we are seen to be the most centralised state in the most centralised country in the world—and then the government brings in something like this. I cannot understand why it has not made headlines. It is a ridiculous situation that runs totally against all the things we are supposed to espouse in this place; the principles for why we are here; the principles of a fair go for all the people living in these regions. And then this government brings in things like this. For what result? That is what really hurts. These people have been put in a position of a lot of instability, a lot of insecurity and uncertainty about their futures, but for what result? The government has not saved any money at all. It is the worst result on both sides of the equation; the advantage is not there. So, I am quite upset.

The member for Frome said this morning, during his farewell radio speech, that he is disappointed that in government we just cannot deliver for country people, and he said that we are lucky, and I certainly back him on that in saying that I am very lucky that I have some very capable, hard-working, competent country colleagues with me—and the mover of this motion is but one of them—to back us in fighting for country people. When you get issues like this dished up, what are we supposed to do? It is an appalling thing.

I will be interested to hear in a few moments from the members for Chaffey and Mount Gambier about what they are going to do. I believe that they can and should support this motion. I do not believe that it is a conflict for them as cabinet ministers because all this says is that we are referring this matter to the Economic and Finance Committee for review. I do not see it as a problem for a cabinet minister to come over: if they are true Independents, let's see what they do. I put the challenge out to them. If they are hearing this debate, there is time for them to consider this and to show the house and their constituents that they will vote for the issue rather than merely thinking of their job, with a ministerial car and all the extra trappings of office. So, I extend the challenge to them. Let's see what they are made of.

I believe this is a bit of history. This is an open and shut issue: a disgraceful situation has arisen, and it is up to every member representing country people to stand up on the matter. I know that the member for Giles would have to have some sympathy for this motion, because some of these job cuts are in her city and she is a good local member, although, because of the way Labor locks them all in, she is unable to have the freedom of expressing her own opinion.

I commend the member for Goyder for this motion and I am very pleased that he and others such as the new member for Hammond and the member for Finniss—people on this side with a lot of heart—are representing country areas. These are the new brigade; I am the old—and today is the last day that the member for Frome will sit in this place. I think that at least country people can say that they are in good hands. I hope the house will support the motion.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:42): I am not going to be very long. I am rising to speak, really, only because I have been listening carefully to the contributions of the last few speakers and want to make a couple of points about what they said. First, my mother always used to say to me that self-praise is no recommendation, and each one of the previous contributors spent some time congratulating the previous contributor and the contributor before that. I think, to be fair to the member for Goyder, he did not congratulate anybody else because he moved the motion, so he did not get to the point of saying that his other colleagues are fantastic people.

With everyone after him, however, it was this conga line of congratulation, cascading walls of praise coming down from each of the successive speakers, and that was impressive as a sort of exhibition of camaraderie; I was impressed with it from that point of view. Honestly, I think you would be better off going on one of those things where you all shoot each other with paint balls because that would be a better team-building exercise. It did not really help us very much.

The second point I want to make—and I do not make this as a point of order, Mr Speaker—is that I wonder what standing order 128 is doing in the standing orders, because it appears to have no work to do and, for those of you who do not have your book handy, standing order 128 is headed 'Irrelevance or repetition' and it states:

If a Member indulges in irrelevant or tedious repetition of substance already presented in a debate,

1. the Speaker or Chairman may call the attention of the House or the Committee to that fact, and

2. may direct the Member to cease speaking.

The member may require that the question be put ...

I am not going to formally raise that but, if anyone from the other side thinks they can rise to a higher level than the member for Goyder, good luck to them, but I think he really did hit the summit of the mountain there. If all the others are just going to repeat what he said and congratulate him and everyone else who has repeated what he has said, I do not know that that will actually advance things all that much.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr RAU: The member for Hammond makes a very good point. It might be that we can all save a great deal of time, and, believe it or not, even deal with more business, because this Notice Paper is pretty clogged up, if we all paid at least some passing consideration to standing order 128. Presumably it is there for a reason.

The last point that I want to make very briefly is this: when listening to the member for Schubert lamenting the loss of 31.9 people here and 7.8 people there, and so on, I was not sure whether I could hear Max Bruch's violin concerto, the tragic sort of sound of that going. It was a very tragic classical piece; I think it was Max Bruch's violin concerto going in the background. I could see how deeply moved the member for Schubert was about these impending job losses, and so on. He was carrying me with him actually, and I was starting to get into that sense of sadness until I remembered—and the member for Norwood confirmed this for me—the policy that the member for Schubert and his colleagues took to the last state election. This policy, which was very clearly articulated by the Hon. Rob Lucas in another place, was that upon being elected to government in 2006, their first act would be to dismiss 20,000—that is two, zero and then three more zeros, and it has a comma in it as well—public servants. The idea that people whose initial contribution here is to cry crocodile tears about—

Mr GRIFFITHS: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member for Enfield is quoting a figure which is not correct. Unless he actually knows what the figure is—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The member for Goyder will have an opportunity to engage in that debate in his reply.

Mr RAU: I think it is slightly comical and slightly tragic that people can be very moved—and I am not saying that it is not significant that a person's position in a particular locality is terminated and they have to move elsewhere; of course it is significant for that person and their family. However, for a person whose party was quite prepared to sack thousands of public servants to be moved to the point where Max Bruch's violin concerto starts ringing through the chamber about 32.4 people being moved I think is a little bit rich.

If all we are going to get from further contributions is the same again, I think we should move on, because there are other very important matters on the Notice Paper, including the Natural Resources Committee, and others, and members have important things to say. So, let us move on.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:48): I will be very brief, because our Notice Paper is suffering from severe constipation. I want to address one aspect of this—and I commend the member for Goyder for moving this motion. It should be the role of committees in this place to look at issues like this, and not just this issue. It is quite appropriate and important that an issue like this be referred to the Economic and Finance Committee, and I am going to support it, because that is what the committee structure is meant to do. So, I will support the motion.

Ms BREUER (Giles) (11:49): I rise to comment on this, because I find some of the comments from the other side are absolutely ridiculous. Members opposite say that Labor does not care about the country, which is total nonsense. I know that I have the full support of my colleagues in my role. I call myself the only country member—in fact, I will correct that, because I am not the only country member now: the member for Light has a considerable amount of country in his electorate. Although, when I compare where he goes to where I go, it is a little bit like a suburb of Adelaide. However, he is also a country member.

We also have two members of our ministry who are country members, so we do have representation from the country, and I certainly make my point loud and strong whenever I can. I also know that the rest of my colleagues share my concerns about the country and support me totally on this. The Labor Party is aware of what is going on in the country and it receives constant feedback. We have a Country Labor Association (which is meeting this weekend) and issues from country areas are constantly fed back to members of parliament and to the party. So, it is absolute nonsense to say that it is out of touch and does not care about the country.

Two weeks ago the Premier visited my electorate in Whyalla and spent a day and a night there. We talked to many different groups and organisations. He was able to hear at firsthand what is happening in the Whyalla area and in my part of the state. We have a very good team of candidates coming up for the next state election. They are local people who live in the area and certainly know what is happening in their electorate.

I constantly hear that country people are not being cared for. They quote the Marj hospital and the tramlines that are being built in the city, etc. They say that all this money is being spent in the city on city people and that nothing is happening for country people. Of course, anything that happens in the city does benefit country people who spend a lot of time in the city. Many country people come to Adelaide to shop, for medical or family reasons, to get away, etc. So, country people benefit from anything that is happening here in Adelaide.

Certainly, when the Marj hospital is built country people will benefit from it. Four major hospitals are being developed in country areas which will benefit country people and save them having to come to Adelaide. However, there will be times when they will need to come down here for medical treatment in order to get the best treatment possible, and so people from country areas will constantly be accessing that hospital.

People talk about the River Murray levy, for example, and other issues relating to the River Murray and about them not affecting people in the country. Well, they do. As I said, we spend time in the city and we spend time in the Riverland area. Anything to do with water in this state has an ongoing effect. Anything done in Adelaide that will save water from the Murray will benefit many country regions. It is a nonsense to try to tie things up and say that people in the country are not getting any benefit.

If we based the amount of money in the state budget that goes out to country regions on the number of electors we would be very poor. I think my electorate is a classic example of that. My electorate covers over 500,000 square kilometres; it is the biggest electorate in the state. If I drive from one side of my electorate to the other it takes me two days; if the member for Norwood hops on her pushbike and rides from one side of her electorate to the other it takes 10 minutes—but there are exactly the same number of people in both electorates.

If we based the amount of money on the number of people out there, country regions are doing extremely well. A classic example is the Olympic Dam Task Force. Millions of dollars are being spent on that, but it will benefit most of my region. It is not just Olympic Dam that is benefiting; all the communities out there are benefiting from the mining boom.

I am not happy with what is being said opposite. Of course the Labor Party and this government care about what is happening in the country, and we have major concerns about it. I can personally state that I was very concerned about shared services and had discussions with the minister, but it has had a minimal impact on my electorate. I have had very few complaints about what has happened. I am certainly not getting a flood of people coming to my door complaining about the issue of shared services.

It is a bit like the country health program, which was absolutely hijacked when it was introduced. I thought it was an excellent plan. I thought it was a great way to resolve some of the issues that are happening in country regions but—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms BREUER: —it was hijacked by the opposition. Misconceptions about it were put around the state to frighten the life out of country people, and they are trying to do the same with this. I think the way that they carry on is outrageous.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:54): I wish to make a few brief comments in support of the member for Goyder and his excellent motion on shared services. It shows the government's total disregard for regional areas. The member for Giles commented on the country health plan and how good it was. It was so good that it did not turn 180°, it turned 360° after communities rose up in outrage. They are also outraged about what is going on here, where people are being told, 'If you want a job, you will have to move to the city.' Well, that is pretty bad luck if your husband or wife and family or your partner live in Penola and you are expected to transfer out of an accounts payable position and head to Adelaide. It just does not work. People in this place must realise that the state does extend beyond Glen Osmond and Gepps Cross.

Mr Pengilly: And Darlington.

Mr PEDERICK: And Darlington. The Regional Impact Statement, dated September 2007, states that under the reform 500 regional jobs will be lost, which translates to approximately 246 full-time positions. As to the effect on regional communities, the government claimed that it had been unable to quantify the impact of the cuts in its Regional Impact Assessment Statement. However, a study by the Murray and Mallee Local Government Association and the Murraylands Regional Development Board has found that the total cost of axing 111 jobs in that region alone will be $32.6 million. So, across South Australia, that is over 500 jobs, which equates to $150 million in drought stricken communities. I rest my case and support the motion.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:57): I exercise my right as a member of this house to speak on this motion, and I am sure all members celebrate my right to speak on this motion. The member for Enfield does; the member for Newland does; all members do.

l heard the member for Unley, in his usual way of expressing the truth in his 'Liberal' way, say that I do not care what happens in the country, and I have seen the Leader of the Opposition quote me out of context. I will give the house a quick history lesson, which I am sure they often enjoy. The history lesson is this: during a debate on the single desk, I said that it is not the job of city MPs to sit in judgment on country people and the way in which they take on their affairs; indeed, it is up to their representatives from the country. I saw the member for Schubert nodding in agreement during that speech. It was conservative members who led the charge for the abolition of the single desk.

In my speech, I said that it was shame on them, because they are the ones who represent country areas. They are the ones who have seen the impact of deregulation; they are the ones who have seen the impact on men on the land and their families; and they are the ones who should be representing the interests of country people. But, of course, in the Liberal Party way of attacking the individual rather than the policy—as we have seen in spades from the member for Kavel and now the member for Unley, because that is all he does; he plays the man not the ball—we have seen them again take words out of context and try to publish them. I have been made aware of this, and I will be taking some advice on these matters.

I find it a bit rich when country members from the Liberal Party come into this place and lecture us on regional representation and the plight of rural workers. The truth is that Liberal Party members say one thing in the city for their conservative constituents and another thing in the country. You cannot say one thing in the city and another thing in the country; you cannot be an agrarian socialist in the country and then come to the city and be an economic rationalist. You cannot play to Burnside and to the Yorke Peninsula; you have to be consistent. I understand that members opposite have a problem with consistency in the same way they have a problem with the truth, because it is incompatible for them. They are not quite sure how to stand up at a Country Women's Association cake bake and speak about the importance of the market, but they find it very easy to come here and speak about the importance of the market at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. Mission accomplished!

Debate adjourned.

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