HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 April 2009. Page 2265.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:00): I would like to make a contribution to this very important money bill. The first point I make is that we are all well aware of the so-called global financial crisis but, in my view, there is too much doom and gloom around. I do feel for those who have lost their job or who are in an area of economic uncertainty but, as anyone who has studied economics would know, one of the critical factors is confidence, and all this talk of doom and gloom and so on is really unhelpful in terms of the economy. We have seen an example recently in relation to Holden. Holden makes a fantastic product, and I think many of us drive Holden cars. I certainly drive one of their cars. I am extremely confident about the quality of the product and the workforce, but when people start talking doom and gloom and being negative, you get a self-fulfilling prophecy and you will get into a situation where you talk yourself down.

The reality is that most people are still working, most businesses are still functioning, and we still have the same resources we had before the so-called GFC. What we need to do as a state and in the context of the wider world is to have confidence in ourselves, and those who are fortunate to have a job and those whose business is surviving should go about their activities in the normal way and not hold back in terms of spending—not spend irresponsibly, but spend sensibly. If people express that confidence in ways that relate to the economy, then we will all be better off.

I understand why the government has been cautious, but I am pleased that it is not holding back on infrastructure spending because, as I have just indicated, the last thing we want is a lack of confidence. What we need is more infrastructure spending—what John Maynard Keynes called 'priming the pump'. We need to get the economy functioning, and one of the best ways of doing that is through infrastructure spending. The list the government outlined yesterday is quite impressive. If you are fair-minded about it, a lot of infrastructure works either have been started (with some completed) or are about to start, and that is good.

I am pleased that the government has moved away from the fear that was created during the so-called demise of the State Bank when we got into the situation where we must never have a deficit. That came as a result of a fear arising from the State Bank situation. A deficit is fine; spending is fine and borrowing is fine, provided you are doing it for the right reasons and in the right way. If you are going to implement things which are wealth creating, then it is a sensible thing to be doing. It is not a bad thing to be spending money and sometimes, as we know in business or private life, you have to borrow in order to create further wealth, property and so on. I think it is good that the government has moved away from that catchcry of no deficit, no borrowing, because it is very important that it does.

Likewise, I think the federal so-called stimulus package can work, but my suspicion is that people will hoard quite a bit of that. It would have been better, in my view, to put much of that money into infrastructure, rather than give it to people to spend at their discretion, because many of them will waste it. It is a value judgment, but that is my view. A little bit of money from everyone adds up to a lot of money to do worthwhile projects.

In terms of some specifics relating to supply, I turn to what I would like to see happen in the financial area in South Australia—and I know the Treasurer would be working away on the budget at the moment. This has been aided recently by the federal announcement, but we need to upgrade infrastructure in our state schools, and obviously in some of the private schools as well. Many of the state schools have dated facilities, buildings and so on. I think the word 'temporary' is a euphemism. Some of those 'temporaries' have been there 40, probably 50, years and should be replaced. Much upgrading needs to happen in our state schools.

In the educational training area, I would like to see many more traineeships. I have had great success in my office with trainees. I believe the scheme should be expanded dramatically into universities and government agencies on a much wider basis than has happened up until now. I have seen the trainees in my office go on to achieve great things, and the more we can do that the better. I think we and the government, where possible, need to provide more scholarships, targeted scholarships, particularly for people from some of our rural areas where you have lower participation rates at university and TAFE, and in some of the lower socioeconomic areas, too.

I would argue very strongly in relation to health. We hear a lot about hospitals. I think we would need hospitals less if we put more emphasis on preventative programs. I am still hammering away at trying to encourage the government to do in situ health checks for state government employees. We should be doing it in here, but throughout the state Public Service in situ (on the job) checks for things like blood pressure, blood sugar, skin cancer, and so on. It is easy to do. Some of our councils do it. You will actually save lives and money in the long run because you will pick up issues before they get out of hand. Likewise, I would like to see the government return to the system where school-aged children were screened for health and other issues.

It used to happen years ago, a long time ago, when I was at primary school. We had to front up and have our teeth checked, our spine development checked, and all that sort of stuff. It is a good investment. A lot of the Scandinavian countries do it. If you do it early enough you can pick up things such as inappropriate development, problems with eyesight and hearing problems; and, if you expand it, you can look at some of the psychological and psychiatric issues, particularly as they relate to secondary children. It is a very good investment, and I would like to see the state government really get stuck into that sort of preventative health.

If you are assessing primary school children, for example (and obviously you do it in a discreet, private way), you can pick up issues such as emerging obesity, and things like that, and deal with them early before they get out of hand; otherwise, we will have an epidemic of diabetes and other issues confronting us. I think that the government has some good measures with respect to water conservation, but it needs to go further. In a recent survey of my electorate one thing that people wanted to see was more encouragement and incentive for reuse of water—not only stormwater but grey water—and more incentives for people to use water on site domestically.

New South Wales requires commercial developments to use their stormwater on site, and we should be doing the same here. In terms of transport, we are an ideal city for cycleways, and so are a lot of our country areas ideal for cycleways and walkways—joint use. I have mentioned before that the Adelaide City Council has a very high standard in those that it constructs through the Parklands. We need them throughout the metropolitan area. The extension of the Noarlunga rail line needs to happen. I have argued for a circle line bus service in the hills to integrate and link in all the transport options, shopping centres, and so on—and I am still working on that.

Locally in my electorate, Happy Valley Drive still does not have any overhead lighting, so it is very dark and quite threatening for people who have a car breakdown or some other issue on Happy Valley Drive. I know that the Minister for Transport said some time back that he was going to put it on the agenda for action, and, certainly, I would welcome that happening sooner rather than later.

I turn now to law and order issues. New South Wales, I think, has set a good example whereby, rather than increase the financial penalty for road breaches, it has gone for an increase in demerit points. I think that is more equitable because it does not penalise poor people more than rich people, and I think that is a better approach.

Another issue of interest is bushfire prevention. I suspect that, sadly, now that we have come into cooler times—but, unfortunately, no significant rain—people will forget about the bushfires and the bushfire risk. Well, I won't. I have just written to the minister for the environment about an advertisement that has been in newspapers about clearing native vegetation. I do not have any problem with the advertisement per se, except that I think it is incomplete and needs to go a lot further because it does not talk about non-native vegetation.

I see people through the Adelaide Hills planting, for example, cypress pines right near their house. They are not native, but, I tell you what, they burn well. If you look at the report of the Canberra bushfires you can read that, if you get an ember landing in the cypress pine, they will take your house out very quickly. That advertisement to me seemed a little like a knee-jerk reaction with someone probably trying to blame the Native Vegetation Council for all the ills, but what the government needs is a more comprehensive strategy, because those advertisements do not mention cool burns, which is something that I have been supportive of for a long time.

The important thing is not to be allowing or having people build in areas which have an extreme fire risk. On the one hand the government has an advertisement saying, 'Clear this, clear that', but at the same time it allows people to build in areas which, I would guarantee, are death traps not only for the residents but also for the CFS volunteers. That is an issue I have just taken up with the minister for the environment; and, if those advertisements are part of a broader, wider strategy, I am less concerned, but I think that, at the moment, by omission, they suggest or imply that other things do not need to be addressed. I hope that is not a deliberate policy thing, but, clearly, it needs to be funded so that people get onto these issues of cool burns (because you have a limited time to do it) sooner rather than later.

In terms of education, I mentioned upgrading infrastructure in schools. I think that the government needs to allow more local decision making at the school level for the governing council, the principal and the staff. We should make them genuinely community-based schools where the local people have a say. In my view, parents, teachers and the principal invariably will do what is in the best interests of the children at that school.

I am not sure why we must have centralised control in Flinders Street covering all aspects of state school life. I think it is over the top. It is unnecessary, outdated and, I think, ineffective. Things like putting up a fence—why do you need someone in Flinders Street to decide that the contract will go to a New South Wales company, which is what invariably has happened. It seems bizarre to me. I think that the principal and governing council of schools should have more say in selecting staff, and they should be able to initiate the removal of inappropriate and ineffective staff.

In terms of environmental protection, we know that the government has introduced the abolition of certain types of plastic bags. I am not convinced that that was based on sound scientific research, but, anyway, I think it is a positive step;. However, in environmental terms, I am not sure that it was convincingly demonstrated that it was needed. Something that does concern me (and I have written to the minister about this) is that a lot of shopping centres are not undertaking any genuine recycling. The shopping centre in which my office is situated has a big compactor and everything goes in it—lawn clippings, food scraps and cardboard—and then it goes out to Dublin to landfill.

Here we have the local residents doing the right thing, and shopping centres can carry on with an antiquated approach which will guarantee the production of more methane from landfill. I think the government needs to come down really hard on shopping centres and say, 'You do the right thing and recycle cardboard, and so on. Don't send it off the easy way to landfill.' I know that the government has put up the fees for landfill, and so it should, but it needs a more interventionist approach at the front end.

There are a couple of other issues. In terms of reforms to superannuation, I have been lobbying the Treasurer here as well as the federal government. We know that women in particular have been discriminated against in regard to superannuation over many years. Some of that has been corrected. The government has introduced some incentives for people to top up their super, but I am still arguing that people who want to work full time should be able to access part only of their super as a cash withdrawal—not all of it. If they reach the age of, say, 60, they should be allowed to cash in part of their super, rather than have to wait until they completely retire.

That would fit in very well with an incentive that does not require people to retire early, which is the case at the moment in some of the state's superannuation schemes. At the moment, teachers basically are being given an incentive to retire early at the age of 58 or 60 when they have many years of useful service left in them. I would urge the Treasurer to have a look at revamping the state's super arrangements, so that people are not unnecessarily encouraged to leave the workforce when they do not want to, especially when they have something to offer.

Finally, in terms of financial matters, I think it is time that the whole vehicle registration scheme was reviewed, and I have written to the Treasurer about that, and likewise the Motor Accident Commission. Currently, if you are involved in an accident and it can be shown that you contributed to it you have to pay a maximum of, I think, $300. That is ridiculously low. They are some of the issues that I would like to see the state government address. I support this bill and look forward to its speedy passage.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:17): As with other members of the house, I would also like to contribute to the debate on the Supply Bill. I must admit that I am in favour of it, but I would just like to say a few words. As a member for Fisher indicated, he drives a Holden, and with a name like mine—Brock—I need to drive a Holden also, support the local car industry and keep the tradition going on.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Mr BROCK: Thank you to the member for Fisher; hopefully, I will not be speeding. As the member for Fisher and other members said, we have had some excellent times in the last few years. At the moment, we are having some very uncertain times with the economic situation across the world. One of the things that we do not want to be doing is portraying a negative attitude and showing a negative response to the state of South Australia and to the world.

I am getting a message here—slow down. I will slow down. One of the things that I have noticed since coming to parliament eight or nine weeks ago has been the amount of learning needed, and I am still learning, members.

First up, I must compliment the Premier, who has put on hold the supply of four-cylinder cars until further notice, when Holden provides its own four-cylinder cars here. As a state, we should be supporting, as much as we can, local industries, providing, of course, they are competitive.

In parliament yesterday, the Premier listed some major projects achieved in this state in the last couple of years. He went on about the tram project, the Port River, the Bakewell Bridge, the Port Wakefield bypass, and the upgrade of the road, etc. I added them up to about $1.6 billion. As the member for Fisher indicated previously, as state politicians and as custodians of the state's funds we need to act in a responsible manner, but we need to ensure that we provide infrastructure that is going to benefit the future.

Whilst government projects have progressed, and others are in the pipeline, particularly the desalination plant and other projects, I remind government members that South Australia does not finish in Adelaide. We also need to contribute to regional parts of South Australia. The population may live mainly in Adelaide, but regional parts of South Australia also contribute very strongly, and we need to make certain we look after people out there.

With regard to education, in conjunction with the commonwealth government's stimulus package, I would like to see the government continue to progress that, particularly in terms of regional South Australia's education buildings and air conditioning. Air conditioning seems to be an issue across all of the educational facilities in regional South Australia. I would like to see more money spent on air conditioners to make it easier for students to concentrate. At the same time, in regional South Australia we have to travel fairly long distances to go to school. I ask the government to ensure the improvement of the condition of ageing school buses with air conditioning and the provision of seat belts.

With regard to health, we take on board the Country Health Care Plan, which is still out for discussion. I certainly commend the government for trying to improve facilities and services. As other members have indicated, whilst we may have buildings there, we need to ensure that we retain an increase the amount of services available to regional South Australia, in particular, because it is very hard out there at the moment. To have to travel 600, 700 or 800 kilometres to services in Adelaide is very onerous on the people in regional South Australia.

With regard to water, previously we have had an opportunity in the north of our state with mining activities up there. With the current economic situation at the moment, that may be on pause, but they will come back in. As I indicated in my maiden speech a few weeks ago, one of the issues that we need to confront is water security, ensuring that water is available not only for Adelaide but also for increased mineral opportunities in the north of our state. That is the only thing that will hold us back: the uncertainty of a continuous supply of water.

It was mentioned yesterday that SA Water has service charges and things like that, and that goes up with the capital value of your premises. The cents in the dollar on that value has not changed, on my observation, so, the higher the valuation of your residence or business, the more money SA Water contributes to the state coffers. I would ask that the increase goes back into infrastructure by way of renewing water pipes and upgrading systems across all of South Australia. We hear all the time of burst water mains and the loss of our precious water, and we seem not to really want to face that issue. We ask people to ration their water in their houses and gardens, but quite often we see fairly large water mains burst and the great loss of water.

With regard to the South Australia Police and police protection throughout our state, I take on board the amount of money that we can put into their activities. However, I just want to talk about regional South Australia, picking up the electorate of Frome. I understand that in the LSA in Port Pirie, and that area there, operational police numbers have not changed in the last 10 years. The fact is that there has been greater activity within that region—extra people coming into the Upper Spencer Gulf area and also the townships of Peterborough, Jamestown, Clare, Port Broughton and the surrounding areas.

I do not understand why, despite an increase in population, increased activities and increased traffic on the highway going through those areas, there is not an increase in our operational numbers. I would certainly ask that the government look at operational numbers and ensure that the requisite number of operational police are on the roads, not behind desks or acting as transport escorts for buildings and activities going to the north of the state.

There will be extra activity with the new wind farms in the north of South Australia and, therefore, more police escorts will be required. Again, I ask that the government look at that matter and ensure that the operational police are out there policing the safety of our people, not revenue raising and not actually escorting wind turbines to regional South Australia.

I think that what the state government needs to do is ensure that we try to help what we already have operating here in South Australia. I certainly encourage the government of the day to ensure that it gives first preference to local industries within the state. I know that we have free trade between the states, but one of the things we need to also do is ensure that the state is viable. We must go forward in a reasonable, effective and responsible manner.

We talk about affordable housing, and it is always being mentioned that the economic situation is getting harder and harder. People are struggling out there. The banks are not passing on the full interest rate cuts, and people are losing their jobs. Affordable housing in regional South Australia is getting harder to obtain. I am hearing that lots of houses out there are vacant. They are ready to be subdivided—the title fixed up and they are ready to be sold. The original concept of that was to sell to homeowners/occupiers, but I know that in Port Pirie quite a few Housing SA homes have been sold. We do not know whether the purchasers are going to live in those homes, because a lot of entrepreneurial people come in and purchase them.

I ask that the government look at upgrading those homes that are vacant at the moment and, in actual fact, purchase or build more homes in regional South Australia to make it better for people on low incomes who are struggling. At the end of the day, if you have a nice home, you feel better and you feel confident. We have to also make certain that we look after our children so that they are able to have a good future.

We also need to ensure that we have a fair and equitable distribution of provisions for all South Australians. I certainly encourage members, when the budget comes down, to look very favourably to regional South Australia to ensure that the services out there are on par with what we have in metropolitan Adelaide, because we are one state, and that is the way we should remain. I commend the bill.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:28): In my opening remarks on this bill, I want to say that I totally agree with the final comments made by the member for Frome—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Just say it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney will refrain from interjecting.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will not offend me if you throw him out of the chamber. Somebody needs to do it at some stage. The member for Frome implored the government to recognise the importance of regional South Australia, and that is something that this side of the chamber has been trying to do with this government for the last seven years. It is very obvious that the government has little, if any, interest outside of metropolitan Adelaide, and it has let down rural and regional South Australia very badly during its current term. I may even come back to that very topic later on in my contribution. I want to talk a little bit about some of the portfolio areas for which I am responsible on behalf of the opposition.

I will start with water because here we have a government that is seven years into its term and, for the majority of those years, it has been recognised that the country has been in drought and that the main water supplies for South Australia have been under stress. It is a government that has done very little, if anything at all, to build new capacity or new water supply for South Australia.

We have had a plethora of announcements; we have had ministers—and there have been a number of them—out there making excuses and saying how difficult it was. The current minister was on ABC Radio in Adelaide this morning and, when asked about stormwater harvesting, she said, 'You've got to recognise that you can't do these things overnight. It will take 10 years.' I say that is baloney. In fact, the important thing that the current minister for water resources has to understand is that, if you want to use stormwater (and I have been suggesting, for over 12 months, that we should be, as have a lot of other experts in the field), of course it will take 10 years to bring it into supply if you do not get started.

You also have to ensure that senior government ministers do not try to incite the community against the use of harvested stormwater, as the Attorney-General did a few weeks ago. The Attorney-General was on air saying that if you re-use stormwater it will make people sick. The only sick person in that debate, I contend, would be the Attorney-General. For the Attorney-General's information, I point out that the CSIRO has spent four years studying the quality of the water that the Salisbury council is extracting from its acquifer recharge and re-use bores, and has concluded that the water quality is at least as good if not better than that supplied through the SA Water pipes to Adelaide residents. The Attorney-General is just plain wrong on that one. I cannot believe the government allowed him to go out and make a fool of himself and, more importantly, put people offside for what will become one of the major sources of Adelaide's water into the future.

I say to the government, 'Get on with it.' We need to make Adelaide relatively independent of the River Murray. Why? We have a Premier who has been talking about climate change for 20 years but has done nothing about it and has allowed communities right across South Australia to be totally reliant on the River Murray. I cannot understand that; it does not add up. The logic of what the Premier has been saying about climate change and remaining reliant on the River Murray does not meld. We have to reduce our reliance on the River Murray. I think that has been accepted by just about everybody in South Australia, apart from senior ministers in this government.

How can we do that? It took the government at least 12 months to understand that you can desalinate seawater and provide high quality water to communities. There is a cost involved, but we do not have many choices. It took the government 12 months to understand that, after bagging the concept, and it has taken another 16 months to get going. It has taken 16 months from the day it finally conceded that we need a desal plant here in Adelaide to do anything about it and to say, 'Yes, we're going to build it. Let's start building it and get on with it.'

When I was in Spain last year, talking to some of the major desal plant constructors in the world, they told me that they could build a desalination plant for Adelaide in 18 months, including time to order the parts and equipment. We are still 2½ years away from having a fully operational desal plant here in Adelaide. It will be 4½ years since the opposition identified that it was necessary. The New South Wales government said that it could build one from go to whoa in 26 months.

If the government had conceded, rather than denied, the common sense of the opposition's call for a desal plant in January 2007, we would have desalinated water flowing to households in South Australia as I speak. Instead, we heard the news yesterday from the Murray-Darling Authority that we have but 12 months' supply of critical human needs water in the system. We are in the lap of the gods for our water supply to about 90 per cent of South Australia's population beyond 12 months, and that is not a place where any government should leave its community.

Another big issue is stormwater harvesting. We have already seen significant rainfall events and, every time we see one, it is very obvious that all the water runs down to the sea and into Gulf St Vincent. That is bad enough, but we also know that it is creating environmental damage as it does so. However, there is a win-win situation here, and I have been arguing it for 12 months: harvest the stormwater and use it to supplement Adelaide's water supply.

Twelve months ago, I issued a policy position, namely, that I believed we could harvest 89 gigalitres of water, which is getting towards half of Adelaide's water needs. Colin Pitman from Salisbury council believes that we can harvest over 100 gigalitres of water, which is over half of Adelaide's water needs, and he probably knows a lot more about it than I do. The other side of the win-win situation is that we could significantly reduce the environmental damage occurring in Gulf St Vincent as a result of stormwater flows off metropolitan Adelaide. Why the government does not pick that up I do not know; I cannot understand it.

This very morning, on 891 ABC Radio, the minister said that it was a long-term project. She tried to make out that she was all for it, but she just said that the local councils were working on it—and they are. The reality, and its significance to the Supply Bill, is that Colin Pitman believes that in Salisbury he can harvest 20 gigalitres of stormwater and sell it. That is about 10 per cent of Adelaide's water use and about 10 per cent of the water SA Water currently sells.

I think that the Treasurer should be taking a keen interest in this because, if Colin Pitman is selling 10 per cent of the water that SA Water sells currently, what does that do to SA Water's bottom line? Recently, I was at Onkaparinga council, where I was told that the council believed it could harvest 15 gigalitres of water in its city area. Incidentally, the total water use in the City of Onkaparinga area is 15 gigalitres. The council believes that it can be totally independent from SA Water for its water supply for the whole of its area. In just those two councils—Salisbury and Onkaparinga—all of a sudden we can see 35 per cent of SA Water's clients being supplied water by another party.

The Treasurer should take a very keen interest in this; he should talk to the Premier about it, and the Premier should say to the minister, 'What the hell are you doing?' This will have a serious impact on the profitability of SA Water, and anybody who has been watching the budget process in South Australia in recent years knows that SA Water is vital to the budget of this Labor government.

From the day this government came to power in early 2002, and from last year's budget to the end of estimates in last year's budget, SA Water was providing some $2 billion to the government. That is fairly serious money, and it is a lot more than it costs to build a desalination plant. However, it has all gone into the Consolidated Account, and it has been spent, but none of it has been spent on stormwater harvesting, aquifer storage and re-use, and a huge risk is hanging over that income stream.

I implore the Premier to take his water minister aside and give her the facts on what she is doing not only to clients of SA Water and the water consumers of South Australia but also, potentially, to the budget, because it is in a big enough mess without that happening.

I want to move to infrastructure—another of my shadow portfolio areas—and make a few comments. I want to take up an answer by the Premier to a Dorothy Dixer question yesterday. He ran through a list of the infrastructure projects which, he claimed, had been completed by his government. I have extracted those projects that have been funded directly by the commonwealth, including transport routes such as the Port River Expressway, Port Wakefield Road, Sturt Highway and NExy—all of which were funded by the John Howard Liberal government out of Canberra. The trades schools operating in South Australia were funded by the Howard government.

The $60 million Glenelg wastewater treatment pipeline which is bringing treated wastewater back to the city was completely funded by the former Howard government. It would be a very good project if the state government put in a few more dollars and increased the size of the pipe so that a lot more water could be put into it. The Glenelg Waste Water Treatment Plant will still be dumping most of its treated waste into the sea because the pipe has not been made big enough.

When I go through the list of projects that the government claims—and can probably fairly claim—have been funded from state resources, it is interesting to note that a significant number of them were funded by the former Liberal government. The Premier listed a number of hospital projects and he talked about the Lyell McEwin Hospital. He said:

Almost completed the $135 million stages A and B redevelopments of the Lyell McEwin Hospital, and started work on the $201 million stage C, effectively doubling the number of beds at the Lyell McEwin.

I invite members to go to the Public Works Committee website and look at the final report into the Lyell McEwin Health Service redevelopment dated October 2000. It was a project to increase the number of beds at Lyell McEwin from 167 to 280 and increase what are known as same day beds from 16 to 50. The effective doubling of the beds at Lyell McEwin Hospital from 167 to 147 was funded by the previous Liberal government. It is now being claimed by this state government and this Premier as his work.

He claimed other things, such as the upgrade of Murray Bridge hospital. I refer members to a press release of the Hon. Dean Brown, a former minister for health, dated 31 May 2001, where he announced funding for the upgrade of Murray Bridge hospital. I refer members to a press release of 20 December 2001 of former health minister, Dean Brown, which states:

Since 1993 this government has spent more than $700 million on rebuilding hospitals and providing major medical equipment. A further $200 million has been approved by cabinet for the Queen Elizabeth, Royal Adelaide and Lyell McEwin hospital redevelopments.

That is a cool $900 million. The Premier said yesterday—and continues to say in the public arena—that he is spending five times as much as the previous government on infrastructure. Well, in the hospital area he is yet to spend as much as the previous Liberal government. If you put an inflater onto the numbers, you will find that he has spent considerably less. This Premier and this government are very good at announcements.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, there are more coming up. They are very good at announcements but they are not good at getting things done. In relation to desalination, I can remember the Premier, in answer to a question I asked in September 2006 from memory, said, 'We're in fact building two desalination plants in South Australia.' He was never building two desalination plants. He did have a plan to become a joint venturer with BHP Billiton in relation to its proposal to build a major desalination plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf. My understanding is that the government has totally walked away from that project.

When it came to power there was a plan on the books to build a desalination plant on Lower Eyre Peninsula and the government scuttled that. The money was funded—$25 million. It was on the books; it was in the budget; it was in the forward estimates. Unlike the proposed rail yards hospital, it was in the forward estimates. It stayed in the budget for a couple of years and then was taken out. That would have been a fine project, but the government walked away from it.

I come back to general infrastructure. The Premier is making this huge claim about the amount of infrastructure that he is proposing for South Australia. The reality is that the vast majority of what has been built in South Australia has been built in spite of this government. It has been built because the federal government (like the state government has had for the last seven years) has incredible revenues and has been quite generous. It has chosen to prop up failing state governments across the nation and is pumping tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into infrastructure. I could go on to speak at length about what I see as the mismanagement by the federal government of its expenses. I think we will live to rue the day that Wayne Swan was the Treasurer of this country, but that debate will be had in the future.

Coming back to infrastructure spending in South Australia, this government, from its own revenue sources which have grown exponentially in recent years, has spent very little on infrastructure. The thing that the Premier did not tell the house yesterday in his longwinded speech claiming credit for what others have done—both the federal government and the former Liberal government in South Australia—is the value of assets that this government has disposed of or intends to dispose of. Goodness me, it is even trying to sell things that it does not own.

We should factor in the value of all those schools that will be closed down—prime real estate. I hear on the radio this morning that a substantial part of Fort Largs will be sold. Prime real estate on the foreshore of Le Fevre Peninsula will be sold. Glenside Hospital—every piece of land that the government can flog off it is flogging off. I would like to see the Premier bring to this house a list of what he has sold and what he is intending to sell and put a value on that, and then, when he takes that value off even his claims of the asset increase through infrastructure development in this state, I think he will be very embarrassed. I think he will be very embarrassed because there is some prime real estate being sold by this government.

The last time we had a Labor government in South Australia in the glorious 1980s we had a similar thing. The former Labor government sold every piece of land that it could get its hands on and that is why we are struggling now to build highways and roadways through Adelaide. The land that had been collected over 20 and 30 years was flogged off by the Bannon Labor government. We are seeing every piece of real estate and every asset that the government can flog off being flogged off—even those buildings in the city that are full of government employees. It is a disgrace. It shows that the current government's budget is out of control. It is a pity that we will see a continuation of poor management of the finances of this state for almost another 12 months.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (12:48): At about this time of the year, the government needs to bring legislation into the parliament to extend the funding beyond 30 June. That is to authorise expenditure while the budget is being finalised through the committees of the parliament and the final passage of the budget through the different houses of parliament. It is an opportune time to talk about areas where the government has got it right or wrong in relation to expenditure and where they are spending their money.

I thought about the most important issues to address on this occasion, and I kept coming back to water because there is a lot more the government could be doing. Incidentally, I looked back at a speech I gave about a year ago and, again, I concentrated on water. It comes up again and again when doorknocking. People are concerned about the issue, quite rightly.

One of the means by which we could approach this better is to effect more changes to water pricing. I firmly believe that we need to have a pricing system that relates much more to how the individual household or business consumes water rather than having a relatively flat rate for the consumption of water.

If I had my way, I would also reduce or eliminate the supply charge. I realise that the Productivity Commission nationally has recommended maintenance of a supply charge, but I still believe that, given the water crisis in South Australia, it would be better for us to have something much more aligned to a user-pays system in relation to water. It can be argued that the supply charge is there for capital purposes, but one can also consider that, for South Australia's existing residential households, the capacity has well and truly already been established; and so that supply charge, in a sense, is there to bolster SA Water's numbers from which the government receives a dividend.

I think the better way to do it is to price water so that people know that, whether they use water inside or outside their house, they will be paying a lot more if they use water extravagantly, and conversely they could actually save a lot of money by reducing their water consumption considerably. The problem with the current approach of water restrictions is that they apply only to the gardens. Although water use on residential gardens is a substantial part of our total water use, the water we use inside—in the laundry, in the bathroom, toilet and the kitchen—is very substantial.

There is very little incentive to cut down our water use inside the house. That is why, as a rule of thumb, I would suggest that those who use twice as much as the average household should pay about twice as much and those who use about half as much as the average household should pay about half as much. Of course, into any such system one would need to build in a system of rebates or discounts for concession holders, whether they be pensioners, unemployed people, etc., and also for dependents. For example, a family with a number of students, whether they be primary school age or university students, would need to have a discounted bill to represent that fact. I am not so concerned about share households, because if several adults are sharing expenses in a house they can pay the full tote odds and simply divide up the bill between them.

So I think that a change to water pricing is essential. I do acknowledge that, in the past 12 months, the government has seen fit to modify the water pricing tiers somewhat, but I think that could go a lot further. Indeed, when we talk about water pricing, we need to consider the culture of SA Water itself. There is something in the charter of SA Water about using water efficiently, but it needs to be much clearer that SA Water should be in the business of conserving water, not just retailing it.

This also needs to be driven from the government—top down—to make sure that every one within SA Water is working on conserving water, not just on reducing demand but also establishing wetlands, for example, and other speakers have expressed this point. I still believe that the Water Proofing Adelaide report, which came out a few years ago, is an excellent blueprint for us proceed with. Very little has been done to implement that report. I will read out a list of potential wetland sites and some of the estimates that have been provided in relation to how much water could be retained and reused. Even if this water is re-used only for outdoor purposes, it is an astonishing proportion of Adelaide's total current use. In fact, it adds up to about a third of the current total.

The list of sites includes: Gawler River, 15 gigalitres; the City of Salisbury and Playford, 18 gigalitres, Barker Inlet Wetlands, 6.5 gigalitres; Cheltenham Racecourse site, 1.5 gigalitres; Port Road, one gigalitre; the River Torrens, over 15 gigalitres; the South Parklands, 0.5 gigalitre; Keswick/Brownhill/Sturt creek catchment, over 11 gigalitres; the Brighton system, nearly 1.5 gigalitres; the Field River, nearly four gigalitres; Christie Creek, or river, over one gigalitre; Onkaparinga and Aldinga creeks, nearly 11 gigalitres; and the Willunga Basin, two gigalitres.

In respect of that list, there are a couple of sites with which I am quite familiar. The Field River is primarily in the Mitchell electorate. There is tremendous scope there. I am pleased to say that over a number of years I have been suggesting that would be a site for better water retention. I have personally approached the NRM board, which covers the area, and I am pleased to say, whether it is through my submissions or other considerations, I do not know, the NRM board has seen fit to pursue some work in relation to the Field River.

There is another site just to the north of my electorate behind the driver training centre on Oaklands Road or, to look at it another way, behind the Warradale Army Barracks. The Marion council has a substantial reserve there. It is a great site for wetlands, incorporating part of the Sturt Creek, which runs through there. For years, these plans have been on the board, as far as I know, perhaps for about a decade. One of the sticking points is that, for wetlands to be effective there, they would need to incorporate part of the Oaklands Driver Training Centre. For that to be incorporated, the department of transport, that is to say, a state government agency, is asking for a $2 million contribution from the council. The council cannot afford to pay that. It is a sticking point which represents a lack of integrity on the part of the government when it says that it wants to promote stormwater retention. I cannot see why that site cannot proceed with greater alacrity.

There are other things that the government could be doing better. In relation to rebates, I think there is scope for increased rebates, but also applying the rebates in a smarter way; for example, I think there should be rebates for stand-alone rainwater tanks. I do not think they should necessarily need to be plumbed into the system of the house. If rainwater tanks are using water to water the garden, particularly vegetables in the backyard, etc., that household will not be drawing on mains water as much; so, we are achieving the same objective.

If these various measures were brought into effect, then we would perhaps be able to see a relaxing of current water restrictions. I note the restriction system in Perth is called a two days per week water restriction system. That means that they can water two days a week, like we can, but they can use sprinklers and wash cars on the lawn, which we cannot necessarily do. I think that the public would appreciate that, through extra expenditure in some ways and a change to water pricing, they would be able to enjoy real tangible benefits in terms of being able to better look after their own property.

In conclusion, I think that, although the government has taken action in some respects to address the water problem, indeed, drastic steps in terms of the desalination plant expenditure and the proposal to cut off the River Murray at Wellington, there is a lot more that we could be doing on the Adelaide Plains. The result could be a relaxing of water restrictions, and I know that that is what the community wants.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


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