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 (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 2286.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:40): In my contribution to the Supply Bill today, I want to acknowledge the fact that we are in the grip of a severe drought and we are also suffering the effects of major allocation on our River Murray system. It is heartening, in one sense, to know that in this next year critical human needs water is available, but it is disheartening to learn that there is no guarantee of delivery of that water. When we see the battles that have gone on with water—

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: There is no guarantee, minister. The Minister for Water Security interjects, but there is absolutely no guarantee of delivery of water, and I will explain from my perspective why I say that. Battles over the supply of water from the River Murray have gone on for well over 100 years, and they just continue. We have had this problem since the late 1800s. It was 1885 when Victoria and New South Wales decided that they would split up any water allocations out of the river between themselves and forget South Australia. In the time since, South Australia has almost had to beg to make sure that we get water, not just for critical human needs but for irrigators and our environment, which is under severe threat.

We have a government that said last year, along with the federal government, that it was going ahead with great world-changing, earth-shattering legislation, to which we agreed, to change the powers so that we could go from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The government trumpets that it has this fully independent authority, which is completely untrue. There is still a ministerial council in the system that reports to the federal minister, and separate states can intervene on certain matters.

In the negotiations recently, Victoria secured $1 billion worth of water infrastructure metering upgrades in the food bowl project, while we took little out of that initial discussion. As time has gone on, I believe the Rann government has probably been polling the issue not just on the river but on what it intends to do with the river in terms of putting more obstructions into the river because, even though the Premier is the federal President of the Labor Party, he has not been able to negotiate with his Labor mates or the federal government to make sure that South Australia gets its fair share.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The minister interjects and, if the minister has not spoken to the Supply Bill, I am sure the opportunity is there this afternoon. We get these so-called groundbreaking arrangements and new plans and hear how South Australia is going to be in a lot better spot. I know I have told the story here many times but we have seen what has happened throughout the Riverland where people have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on water so that they can water their trees.

Belatedly, the government came in with the critical water allocation this season and leased in water for the permanent plantings. But we were talking about that 12 months beforehand. The government has also presided over the disappearance of water out of the lower end of the system and now we see the increasing slumping of riverbanks. In fact, I was visiting Long Island Marina, and we have on film a portion of the bank falling in when we were there talking to the owners of the marina and other stakeholders.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No, it was a little bit in the distance.

Mr Bignell: Are you sure it wasn't your fault?

Mr PEDERICK: I will leave that, but I note the comments. It is an extremely serious issue. The river is down about 1.75 metres from where it has been held since the barrages went in. Yes, there has been a lot of man-made intervention. The slumping seems to have been predominantly in deeper areas of the river where it can be up to 25 metres deep. It does have some fairly catastrophic impacts on people and infrastructure around the river. People are concerned about who is responsible for the portion of riverbank that falls in. Some people are not reporting some of these incidents, because they are not sure whether they are responsible for what has happened.

At Wood Lane at Mypolonga, thankfully they pulled the transformer off the Stobie pole, but I think there were at least three separate slumpings and, over time, at the Wood Lane pump station, different piping infrastructure fell in. Then, finally, a Stobie pole that held the power transformer went into the river. We have 60 foot (20 metre) trees that are sticking out of the top of the river. So, it is a massive issue, and I do not think that the state or federal government have taken it to heart. I think it has come to the stage where Kevin Rudd needs to step up and take emergency action.

Communities from the Riverland through to Mid Murray, around Murray Bridge, right down through around the lakes, Meningie, Langhorne Creek, Milang, Clayton and Goolwa, have suffered heavily. You only have to go into a local irrigator's house—as I did the other day—and talk about how they are battling to access water for their dairy herd. I know that water is not guaranteed on their licences, but they never thought that they would be in this position, and they do not know a way out. Yes, there are options going in, but we have seen irrigation essentially disappear from the Narrung Peninsula, and it will only come into place in Currency Creek and Langhorne Creek with a major irrigation pipe that needs a $12.5 million investment from the locals. Quite frankly, some locals just cannot afford the access. They just cannot afford access to the water.

I think it is interesting to note that the Premier reacted a few weeks ago and said that he would leave some water in for the Lower Lakes, but the Labor government is still keen to build a sinking structure at Wellington that I believe will cost around $200 million; whereas the 220 gigalitres that could offset acid sulphate soils in that region could be purchased for around $70 million. So, you only have to do the sums. There is also the preliminary work for the proposed weir that will cost at least $14 million. If the Wellington weir is constructed, it greatly worries me where that will leave our state as far as bargaining for water.

The interesting thing is that we are not guaranteed to get our dilution flows, our conveyance water. Part of the issue with keeping water fresh for the offtakes from Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge, Mannum and Swan Reach is that we will still need 350 gigalitres of dilution flow to keep that salinity down. If we cannot secure that water from states that have fought with us for over a century over who gets the water, we are in dire straits.

I know that the government has put it out there that it could cost $75 million to build a small-scale desalination plant for the Tailem Bend offtake. When it gets to the stage where we are talking about desalinating our main water source, we have to wonder what is going on. I think it just reflects the lack of commitment by the government in relation to water supplies for this state, not just for the city. The city and country towns make up 90 per cent of the state's population, and rely on that water. The fact is that a desalination plant—which was put up by Iain Evans—would have been in operation now if Labor had picked up our policy. The government has refused to get on board with stormwater catchment and recovery and tried to claim all the benefits done by Colin Pitman and the work he has done with the Salisbury council. It has left this state in dire straits.

I want to make a few comments on issues in some of my other portfolios and climate change. I note the government's purchase of what were, I guess, only demonstration windmills to be put on government buildings. What a significant waste of money they were when it was found out that they did not work. I believe that, with climate change, we do need to give the planet the benefit of the doubt, but we do not want to sell ourselves out if the rest of the world do not go with us. We will only export jobs and industries if we do not get an emissions trading system correct. There has to be far more flexibility than what the present federal Rudd government is planning.

The present plan by the Rudd government puts at risk trade exposed industries with a risk factor there of $2.5 billion. The Catholic hospital sector throughout the country, to offset its emissions, has put a cost there of about $100 million. When we get to farming, the average dairy farm might need to spend $6,000 to $10,000 to offset its emissions. I think far more work needs to be done so that people can have voluntary offsets. The Canadian scheme seems to have some merit, because it has a benchmark cap and trade system and works forward from there, but there needs to be much more flexibility.

I now turn to agriculture, food and fisheries. Coming from the land, agriculture is very dear to my heart. Its profile certainly is not high enough. We all need to eat, and we also need to promote our food as well. There is a lot more work that could be done in promoting food on a regional basis. We should also promote what I think is the very essence of Australia and certainly South Australia, and that is what our rural producers do and what they can achieve in times of extreme hardship (as it is now) in both dryland and irrigated agriculture.

Farmers in all sectors are doing it tough, but the hard years have certainly made people look at innovations. People who have come through these past five or six years will certainly be around for a long time to come. I know there will be some who will leave the industry, because sometimes it just gets too difficult.

The fisheries shadow portfolio has been very interesting, especially in noting the amount of issues involved. I am not sure whether it is a reflection on the former minister, but there are still issues bubbling along with Goolwa cockle quotas, mud cockle quotas, oyster leases and licences. I know that the new minister (minister Caica) said that he will have a good look at the oyster lease issue to see where improvements can be made. I made the observation to minister Caica that if he can fix all these issues he will not see me. That would be a good thing.

I do give bouquets where appropriate. Last week there was an issue where a boatload of fertiliser was held up and the people in minister Caica's and minister Weatherill's offices were exceptional and helped to achieve a great outcome. I certainly take my hat off to them for that cooperation, because it saved millions of dollars for a certain operation.

Finally, I want to say a few words about forestry, which has contributed many millions of dollars to this state's economy. However, we have a state government that is in the midst of an 18 month program to put together three life cycles of pine forests and sell them forward (probably to American investment groups that care only about cash) and, essentially, lock up any profits for 90 years. I just do not know how anyone could sign a contract for 90 years, and I worry about the input, especially in the Green Triangle, in the Mount Gambier area, where forestry accounts for about 30 per cent of the regional economy.

It just shows how bereft of cash this government is after being in power for some of the best financial years this state has ever seen. It has employed an inordinate number of public servants—over 14,000 extra public servants. It is not managed so many issues at all well, and there has been a terrible lack of consultation. I think the government would do well to look at how businesses operate because I do not believe that there is much experience on the other side. If you do not have the engine room of the economy working, the business community of this state will not function. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Ms CICCARELLO: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna—Minister for Health, Minister for the Southern Suburbs, Minister Assisting the Premier in the Arts) (16:59): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (16:59): The combination of using and building electric vehicles, along with the development of renewable energy, would position South Australia as a word leader in taking action on climate and pollution challenges that face our world today. South Australians working towards Adelaide's becoming an electric vehicle city by 2020 would be inspirational to people, both here in Australia and overseas, and would give the state an unprecedented stimulus that we would all enjoy.

We are constantly bombarded with talk about climate change and global warming and the absolute necessity to reduce carbon emissions if the planet and the life on it are to survive. Scarcely a day goes by without a comment from someone that vehicles running on fossil fuel are a major contributor to potential disaster and that electric vehicles are a most desirable alternative.

The technology exists to power cars and light vehicles by electricity, and we have a number of prototypes of electric vehicles both here in Australia and overseas. Two of these vehicles—the beautiful Tesla Roadster (belonging to the Internode broadband provider) and the much more affordable iMiEV (Mitsubishi innovative electric vehicle)—were on display at the recent Clipsal 500 race.

Adelaide could become a world leader in combatting carbon emissions by the state government and the Adelaide city and suburban councils working towards Adelaide's becoming an electric vehicle city by 2020; and I was delighted to see the Lord Mayor of Adelaide, Michael Harbison, so enthusiastic about electric cars, stating in The Advertiser that he 'will consider providing recharging stations for electric cars across the city'.

Our state could make it a priority to use and build electric vehicles of all kinds—cars, vans, bikes, trams and even trains. This would position South Australia as a world leader in the reduction of CO2 and the repair of the environment. About three tonnes of CO2 is produced for each tonne of petrol or diesel consumed. In South Australia passenger cars travel an average of 12,400 kilometres per year, with a fuel economy of 14 litres per 100 kilometres or 1,736 litres per vehicle.

There are about 800,000 passenger vehicles, resulting in the consumption of more than 1.1 million tonnes of fuels and producing about 3.3 million tonnes of CO2. Electric vehicles produce almost no CO2 emissions and the iMiEV costs less than 50¢ for a seven hour charge.

We are at or nearing peak oil, with most oil reserves in the volatile Middle East or problematic regions such as Russia and its adjoining countries or Venezuela, and the cost of fuel already is significant for most households and business budgets.

The price of our fossil fuels could easily increase from the current $1.20 approximately to $2 or $3 per litre in the future, if it is not offset by an increasing Australian dollar. We do not yet have an available alternative to fossil fuels in sufficient quantities to provide for vehicles, and planes and shipping should be given priority.

Many biofuels impact adversely on food production. It is pointless to push biofuels and create an even bigger problem in a world food shortage. Car companies around the world are developing rechargeable electric cars using mains power, and much of our mains power in South Australia is now coming from renewable wind energy. As technology improves, solar power, hot rocks and wave power will become more important. Graphite blocks can hold energy as heat to remove the fluctuations that might be experienced with wind and solar power.

One of the few bright spots of this year's Detroit motor show was the almost universal enthusiasm for hybrid and electric vehicles. Just about every car maker had a hybrid or an electric car on display. The federal government has announced that it will double its green power innovation fund to $1.3 billion over 10 years. The government has pledged that it will give car makers a dollar for every $3 that they spend on developing vehicles with a reduced environmental impact.

John Dee, founder and chairman of Planet Ark, said that if the Australian car industry handles the opportunity correctly, they will be better placed to participate in the transition to a low carbon pollution economy that has more need for fuel efficient cars.

It is only a few months since the government's decision to pump prime the greening of the Australian car sector got underway, with its $35 million investment in Toyota's new hybrid Camry sedan. The federal government's investment was matched dollar for dollar by the Victorian government to support the building of the new Camry in that state.

A report in TheCairns Post in January this year described how Armidale in New South Wales is developing its own electric car industry. A company called Energetique is building a hi-tech electric car based on a Mazda 2 five-door hatch called the evMe. This car will sell for around $70,000 in comparison with Victorian-based company Electric Blade Vehicles (BEV). BEV is building an electric version of the Hyundai Getz, called the Electron, and it sells for $39,000. The evMe has a range of 250 kilometres on one charge, with a top speed restricted to 130 km/h. A liquid-cooled hybrid synchronised motor developed in Switzerland replaces the Mazda 2's 1.5 litre engine.

The evMe takes only two hours to recharge and can be recharged overnight. Energetique's Chief Executive Officer, Phil Coop, said that the cars are expensive because they have the latest generation electric technology from Europe and Asia. However, like computers and televisions, this price will come down as the industry matures. BYD, a Chinese battery maker, has branched out into electric cars in recent years. BYD claims that its lithium ferrous phosphate battery technology can provide a range of more than 400 kilometres with as little as three hours of charging. America's famous Warren Buffett invested in this technology.

BYD says that its batteries cost roughly half as much as its rival lithium-based designs. This would be a big breakthrough as the high cost of batteries is a large component in the overall price of all electric vehicles. For a state which has so much invested in the car industry and which depends for its economic stability, employment and revenue on the car industry, South Australia is sadly lacking in innovation in electric cars. While electric car prototypes and initial vehicles now being produced are expensive, prices will drop when manufacturers can move into economies of scale.

Also, it must be remembered that the fuel bill for an 'all electric' is non-existent (or almost non-existent), and the cost of power for recharge would be nominal. Electric vehicles would also help to make the users and our state largely self-sufficient and therefore more immune from the loss of fossil fuel supplies coming from overseas and interstate. Currently, no refineries are located in South Australia. Other side benefits to making Adelaide an electric car city would be a reduction in noise pollution and a reduction in cancer-causing fumes, particularly on the health of those living close to arterial roads.

There are numerous electric cars beyond the testing phase and either in production or planning production for an innovative state to choose one that suits our circumstances and conditions and for an enterprising manufacturer to come on board. Electric cars have the advantage of being able to recharge at home. Public recharging points would be necessary to cater for high-rise tenants, travellers, and so on. Current service and parking stations could be approved for the installation of power points, and shopping centres could install plug-in power points similar to those in caravan parks.

These installations would be at the expense of the providers and would not entail a cost to the government. An alternative system of replacing flat batteries with those already fully charged has also been suggested but could be more expensive to set up. Software whiz and electric-car visionary Shai Agassi of Israel has suggested such a project, which is planned to be in place in Israel by 2011. An expansion of renewable energy production in South Australia would cover the increased power usage. More wind on the West Coast of Eyre Peninsula (one of the four best wind farm sites in the world), with a DC undersea cable linking existing and new wind energy supplies directly into Adelaide from the Port Lincoln substation, could supply the state's green power needs, including the green energy needed to power the Port Stanvac desalination plant.

I urge the government to put taxpayers' funds into real, large scale energy infrastructure instead of the current wind and solar gimmicks sitting mostly on the top of government buildings, and to support the use and construction of electric vehicles with the goal of making Adelaide an electric vehicle city of world renown by 2020.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:15): In speaking to the Supply Bill, I would like to highlight a few of the issues raised with me as I move around the electorate that are or will be addressed by the government. There are several traffic management issues in Florey, and I am glad to say that I have had a good hearing both from the minister and Mr Rod Hook. The latter has personally visited the electorate and noted the nature of the works that need to be done, particularly to Montague Road between Kelly Road and just past Deborah Grove, where the road narrows from four lanes to two. This has been a difficult roadway in peak times for some years, and despite the problems presented when dealing with two tiers of government and private owners on both sides of the road, I am confident it has been brought to the attention of those in authority so many times now that it will be made a priority in staged work plans shortly.

There are also pedestrian issues for the residents of the Masonic Village in the section of Ridgehaven soon to be returned to the Florey electorate. Many older people do not move as fast as cars, and, on the busy section of Golden Grove Road in question, I hope to soon see results. The issue of hoon driving is also of concern in this locality and I thank the Holden Hill SAPOL LSA for their attention in this area and throughout the electorate.

The great sadness is that this sort of behaviour—that is, poor decisions when driving—leads to an increase in road accidents and trauma. Many parents speak to me about raising the driving age, reducing the capacity of engines available to new young drivers and even more stringent curfew and passenger restrictions. Many young drivers are responsible, but the increasing toll means even more drastic measures may soon need to be taken. The cure for many poor decisions is maturity and experience behind the wheel and it is a problem that continues to be a great worry and, no doubt, will continue while young people consider themselves bulletproof.

While mentioning young people, I refer to a recent article provided through the very efficient Parliamentary Library research service on the demands senior secondary students face juggling study and part-time work. Work is the reason many young people cite for needing a driver's licence. One example given was a young man working graveyard shifts (themselves an additional serious health problem) for $9 an hour, then getting four hours sleep before rushing off to school. On weekends, if not working, he was too tired to see his friends and relax or even to do homework. By midyear, he was tired and depressed and, after seeing a doctor, was diagnosed with glandular fever, requiring weeks of rest. Luckily, his car loan was with his parents, but his credit card and mobile phone still needed paying.

As one of 1.4 million youths aged between 15 and 19, he is among the 66.5 per cent of that group who work part time. He is also one of 1.1 million who combine full-time study with work. The article from About the House (March 2009 edition) by Geoffrey Maslen goes on to say that two in every five students who work part time suffer some sort of work injury and a disturbing 20 per cent require intensive medical treatment. While a New South Wales example, things are similarly worrying nationally, and Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has asked the House of Representatives Education and Training Committee to inquire into and report on the way young people combine school and work, hoping to examine and identify possible flexible approaches to completing year 12, with a healthy balance between these work/life demands which are faced by those lucky enough to have jobs in these tough times.

Sleep or lack of sleep is becoming a major health issue and it is good to see work being done in this area all over the country. I look forward to learning of the outcomes these lifestyle choices lead to in another issue often raised—that of daylight saving and the extension of it this year. There were some very interesting letters to the editor in The Advertiser of 3 April this year: one from Roger Shinkfield and another from S.C. Webster. I hope the points they raised about the true time in South Australia (which is governed by our geographic position) are considered in the broader debate before decisions are made. As I said earlier, sleep deprivation is a big issue. It is not about curtains fading, rather in this day and age, and with IT available to us, commerce should not grind to a halt. The health of the community is as important as the health of the economy.

Having spoken about students earlier, I would like to focus on the very welcome spending about to take place in schools all over the country. In Florey, we are well prepared and focused, and every school community is looking forward to improving their surroundings, following large projects already completed in the past four years and including the use of School Pride money that contributed greatly to the amenity of surroundings. Education is highly valued by all schools in my electorate and it has been a great joy over my time as a local MP to see so many students complete their education and take their place in the workforce as wonderful young adults and now, in some cases, even parents themselves.

One particular school I would like to mention is The Heights School, a reception to year 13 campus that is the home of the Heights Observatory. This is the school my own children attended, and I have had a lot to do with the school over the past 22 years.

In this Year of Astronomy, the Heights School observatory has become a focus, and it is great to see the facility attracting interest and visitors. It is a fine example of what a school community can achieve. We funded and built the observatory by selling many things, including lamingtons, and it is vital we pay as much attention to the sciences as sport in our curriculum.

As to sport, many opportunities are offered, including calisthenics, netball, Australian Rules, soccer, gridiron and the two rugby codes, which are available to help keep children and adults fit in my electorate. Government grants are a welcome addition to club budgets, and I commend all clubs and their committees for the efforts they make on behalf of their members.

I also want to mention the Tea Tree Gully University of the Third Age, which continues to provide an extensive range of activities for its ever-growing, lifelong learning student body. Keeping active is important for everyone and, with one of the largest mall walking groups in the state utilising Tea Tree Plaza and offering great social interactions as well, things are very busy for seniors in our area, who now also enjoy the extended free public transport granted recently by the state government, which has been received enthusiastically by everyone I have spoken to.

Keeping busy with work and recreational activities can be a crime aversion and reduction strategy as well. The old saying 'an idle mind is the Devil's tool' is all too true, and I look forward to working with the new Minister for Correctional Services to harness the potential and capacity we can encourage and support in an effort to reduce crime and, therefore, custodial sentences.

Many exciting projects are underway in South Australia, with many due to begin. The government is delivering results and working hard to deliver in many more areas. In closing, I acknowledge the efforts of South Australians in reducing their use of water. From changing showerheads to water-wise garden plantings, we can learn a lot more about waterproofing our homes and, in doing so, contribute to reducing and ensuring critical human needs and returning life to the Murray.

We can and must do everything we can. Unfortunately, waiting for a return to better weather patterns is not an option. Critical times are ahead and we, in the city, must do our part to share the burden that those in the country know only too well. Wetlands in the Florey area were the setting for a recent federal government announcement attended by ministers Maywald and Wong.

Following the example of the City of Salisbury, councils all over the state are learning about, and doing a lot in regard to, stormwater capture, recycling and reuse, and I look forward to hosting a forum in the near future to inform householders about what extra they can do.

Earlier today, I attended an investiture ceremony at Government House at which two local residents from Florey received awards in the Public Service Medal. They were Mrs Julie Noreen Cann, who received her medal for outstanding public service in the area of water licensing reform, and Dr David Anthony Cunliffe, who received his for outstanding public service to the community of South Australia by ensuring the quality and safety of drinking water.

We thank both of these outstanding public servants for their contributions and their continuing dedication and commitment. The water issue is vital to the state's future and, as I said, we will be having the water forum shortly, and I know that everyone in Florey will be doing their best to make sure that South Australia continues to do its part in maintaining a healthy supply of water for the city of Adelaide.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:18): In continuing my remarks, I indicate my concern that the uncompetitive nature of stamp duty and land tax, in South Australia particularly, makes it more difficult for the 70-odd per cent of the population who would otherwise have access to the private markets to purchase or rent.

I highlight that the government's decision here in South Australia to sell off some 800 Housing Trust houses a year is hardly matched by what I call a token response in providing affordable social housing with 25 or 50 house or dwelling blocks. They are welcome, of course, and they add to the refreshment, but they do not in any way address the massive increase in the number of people who currently need (and will continue to need) these services due to the economic situation that we will inevitably have to deal with over the next two years.

The federal government initiatives will temporarily get us through but leave us with a huge bill to pay. Let me highlight a combination of decisions in both health and housing and how badly the government gets these wrong. We learn from a recent announcement about the Highbury development of houses in the foothills that some 800 dwellings are proposed. Obviously, young people and newly partnered people are those likely to take up this accommodation, and we hope they do. What is the possible justification for the government then making a decision to close down obstetric and paediatric services at the Modbury Hospital? It just does not make any sense at all not to have these services when the neighbouring hospital is about to have hundreds of couples and partnerships come in to the area as new residents. The decisions the government makes are just mindblowingly numbing, I have to say.

As to the question of water, I thank South Australians for doing what they can individually during this difficult time. The truth is that, as the tough economic environment develops, people will still need water. We can talk about how scandalous the government is in failing to deal with the infrastructure spending necessary to deal with this—its belated infrastructure, for example, in desalination plants. It is completely up in the air about what it is going to do with weirs and regulators and the Mount Bold reservoir, and any other of the 30-odd different options that it says it is still looking at. We are still without water, and we face a very difficult period.

What is just absolutely personally offensive to me and to the many South Australians to whom I have talked about this is the government's decision to consent to SA Water refitting its brand new headquarters in Victoria Square—a $45 million exercise to refit cabling, carpeting and furniture—when crops are failing around the state, orchards are perishing, water cartage costs to feed stock and keep them alive have skyrocketed, gardens have shrivelled and dreams have all but evaporated. It is just a complete no-brainer to appreciate just how important water is to this state, yet the government is prepared to waste in that manner.

Finally, shared services is a government initiative that one thinks it would have abandoned by now, its having been exposed, even by the Public Service Association, as something which is quite negative, not a cost saving exercise, and which will ultimately be very expensive. However, the government seems to have no comprehension of the significance of this.

About 700 employees are to be ripped out of the country in health alone and brought to Adelaide. The proposal has been delayed by a negotiated agreement with the PSA, but the position is this. The government has a failed country health plan out there and, typically, having been embarrassed enough to withdraw it, it is proceeding with a sneaky, underhand, backdoor way of destroying our towns and regional communities by ripping out employees at the next level. I think that the government is completely ignorant of the fact that that will have a negative impact on the local towns and communities.

The new procurement policy is again another classic example of where the government or at least the Treasurer thinks he is going to save a lot of money, but with no understanding of the regional impact. It is hardly surprising. Few sitting around the cabinet table have any real understanding of the needs of the regional community. As usual, cabinet has not had before it the regional impact statements, and that is quite unacceptable. This is a guideline that previous governments used and one which we are using. I do not want to make excuses for the government, but it has rules which it is supposed to impose. Those ministers—the Minister for Health, or any other minister—who want to impose a new regime in a regional community are supposed to have a regional impact statement.

We have heard the excuse made before by the Minister for Water Security. She said, 'We don't need to do that until we make the final decision. We can throw out these ideas and then we'll do it later.' How can a cabinet possibly make a decision on behalf of South Australian country people if they do not have that regional impact statement before it now? It is absolutely unacceptable.

Then, of course, we have the debt situation. I am worried because, as they often say of Labor policy, Labor members of parliament and candidates seem to have debt in their DNA. It is really something that they always fall back on—spend all the money, use all the surplus and sell off all the assets that can possibly be found to sell. In this case, the Treasurer wants to sell a few that he does not even own.

The next level is to go out and run up debt. Whilst there have been various schools of thought about whether debt might be a useful tool for the purposes of funding capital infrastructure and the like, this government, like all other Labor governments, uses it as an instrument for the massive deficit in its budgets—let alone for the provision for other ongoing services—rather than appreciating its own mismanagement.

Let me just give you one real example of what happens at the moment. This situation was brought to my attention specifically: a nurse in a major metropolitan hospital came to me and said, 'Look, I have put in a request to be able to work four days a week. My husband's employment has changed. We have commitments with children so I have asked to be able to work four days a week instead of five.' That was rejected on the basis that it was not convenient to the hospital management and so she had to resign. She is now employed by an agency and that same hospital has taken her back for four days a week—a major metropolitan hospital—at nearly double the cost to the hospital. It is just absurd.

There are plenty of ways that the government can redirect its attention to priority projects: understand that it will only run up even more significant damage to the state if it does not do things properly; and find a Treasurer who understands that it is his potential revenue loss that he should be confining his concern to and that he has a major problem on the other side of the ledger.

The other matters I wish to raise (as a matter of supply) are priorities for my own electorate. Every year I raise the Britannia roundabout, and I do again, because not only is this a dangerous intersection it is not even a roundabout, it is an 'eggabout'. I have previously commended a former minister for transport who had funded this and put it in her budget, only to find that the current minister for transport and infrastructure cancelled it, and it is still unresolved. Yet, we have an opportunity, with the redevelopment of Victoria Park, to do this and do it properly—and I urge the government to deal with it.

Waterfall Gully Road was significantly damaged as a result of floods several years ago. There have been deaths and serious accidents, particularly of cyclists on that road. These people are not from my electorate; these people who died or were injured did not even live in my electorate. However, this area is a state icon for visitors and tens of thousands of people visit every year. We welcome them but we do not want them to be injured or killed. I again remind the minister of the importance of sorting that out. After all, it was the floodwaters from the national parks that damned up the bottom of Waterfall Gully and caused the massive one in 1,000 year level floods several years ago. It is time that the government addressed this issue and stopped having such a dangerous situation.

Thirdly, I raise the question of the Glenside Hospital. Again, I urge the government to reverse its decision to proceed with the sell-off of 42 per cent of the hospital. Yesterday I was absolutely astounded to hear the Premier suggest that he is proceeding with his movie hub and he has delayed the hospital for two years. I ask for a commitment from this government that he will not sign any contracts until we have the freedom of information documents (ordered by the ombudsman to be released to us), subject to any appeal that the government might engineer or proceed with and that, until this issue has been fully investigated and we have these documents (so that South Australia can really scrutinise what is happening), he will not sign any contracts. I call upon the government for that.

Time expired.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:28): I rise to my feet today to join this grievance debate and to raise a couple of issues. One in particular is an issue that I don't think I have ever spoken on before in this place. Somebody once said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I make that comment because some weeks ago the Premier of this state made a statement that he was going to go to the High Court over an agreement that he signed only six or seven months ago with the other states.

It is my grave suspicion that the Premier never had any intention of going to the High Court to fight this matter but wanted to stir up the emotions of South Australians knowing full well that South Australians would rally to support any battle against our cousins across the borders, particularly in Victoria. The Premier knows full well that there is a very strong rivalry between South Australia and Victoria, generally forged on the football field.

However, the Premier, because of his want always to have the media running a story featuring him, decided that he would appeal to that basic human response of parochialism and make an announcement. When you read the fine print of that announcement, it is interesting that he did not say that he was mounting a High Court challenge: he announced that some people in crown law would look at the feasibility of doing so.

I suspect that that will be the last we ever hear of that matter because the reality is that the Premier issued a press release on 3 July last year, after the COAG meeting, where, in his words, the historic agreement was signed, in which he used terms such as 'a fantastic result' for South Australia. He went on not only to say that the agreement was signed but also to state in his press release that part of the agreement was that the 4 per cent cap in Victoria would be put out to 6 per cent by the end of 2009 and removed altogether by the end of 2014. That was part of the agreement signed by this Premier on 3 July last year.

If there is to be a serious challenge in the High Court, the question arises as to whether the South Australian government negotiated in good faith the agreement at COAG last year, following the signing of the MOU on 29 March here in Adelaide. Did the government of South Australia negotiate the MOU and the intergovernment agreement in good faith? That is a serious question: was it negotiated in good faith?

If the government signed off and said that it had a fantastic result but now turns around and says, 'We only did that to get the Victorians to put the legislation through their parliament, and it was always our intention then to go to the High Court to try to undermine the agreement we had signed,' all of a sudden it is saying to the rest of the governments across this nation that we do not negotiate in good faith. I am not too sure that that is a very good position for this state to find itself in—to have a reputation that we do not negotiate with other states in good faith.

There are only two alternatives in this discussion: one is that we negotiated in good faith and there was no intention of mounting a High Court challenge, and the other is that we did not negotiate in good faith and always intended to make a High Court challenge. I think that the Premier has to come out and be clear on that. I now turn my attention to the other matter which, as I suggested in my opening, I do not think I have ever addressed before in the parliament—that is, the current paranoia in regard to bikies.

Let me state very clearly that I am no apologist for bikies. I do not like them, and I do not like what they do, apart from the fact that they ride motorbikes. I have been an avid motorbike rider for most of my life, and I thoroughly enjoy riding motorbikes. The fact is that I think all of us in this place believe that the bikies, as depicted by what are known as 'outlaw motorcycle gangs', are indeed involved in organised crime. I think that is the case.

The point I want to make, however, is that if all governments across Australia remove every bikie from the streets, lock them up, deport them or whatever, there is no doubt in my mind that, within a very short space of time, another group of people will step in and take over their territory. Another group of people would very quickly take over the crime industry that has been run by these bikies.

However, we are attacking the symptom when we attack bikies as we do: we are not attacking the problem. Obviously, the most significant problems are illicit drug abuse and the illicit drug trade. There are a number of other problems, such as racketeering and prostitution, I am sure these organised crime syndicates operate in other areas, as well. Let us identify what is causing them to do what they do. It is the huge economic gain they make from their crimes that causes these people to behave in the way they do. Let us not fool ourselves: the industry in which the bikie gangs are involved is incredibly lucrative. It is also incredibly disruptive to our society, particularly in relation to the illicit drug trade.

I am sick and tired of hearing our Premier, and now premiers in other states, talking about the symptom. We can treat the symptom for the rest of eternity and we will never stop it. We have to actually identify the disease and treat the disease. In case some clown like the Attorney-General wants to misquote me or quote me out of context I will repeat that I am not supportive of outlaw motorcycle gangs or their activities in any way, but I do think that we are being just plain stupid if we think that by attacking the symptom we will make any headway.

We have to identify the disease and attack the disease. If that means that we actually have to put some of our police resources into fighting real crime, rather than using our police as tax collectors on our roads, I fully support it. The fact that we have police officers who are glorified tax collectors is a pity in my opinion. We have a rising serious crime rate in this state, and I think one of causes of that is that our police are being deployed in the wrong manner.

Certainly, with regard to organised crime, whatever resources we can put into fighting it, I would applaud, but I do not applaud simply going out there and saying that the problem is bikies. It is not bikies. The problem is the people who indulge in organised crime, whether they be bikies or anyone else. I repeat that we could get rid of every bikie, every Hells Angel and every Fink—the whole lot of them—and we would not solve the problem. I guarantee that some other group—they might name themselves or badge themselves or even ride motor bikes—would step into the territory and continue to sell drugs, be involved in prostitution and may be even in racketeering and some of the other activities of the bikies. Their territory is lucrative and therein lies the problem. I conclude my remarks.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:38): I bring some very serious matters to the attention of the house, all of which revolve around the workers compensation and rehabilitation scheme in South Australia, which is known as WorkCover. WorkCover has a chequered history in this state. I remind the house that when this Labor government came to power in 2002 the unfunded liability of WorkCover was a significant amount of $62 million.

However, last week we found out that the unfunded liability is now $1.3 billion—$1,300 million—not the $62 million we had in 2002. The Clayton Walsh report said that WorkCover in the early 2000s was in a relatively healthy state. Under the mismanagement of this government it has gone down the tube rapidly.

What has the government done? It changed the legislation, it changed the board, it changed the CEO and it changed the minister—and it still has this awful mess, and it is getting worse. Of course, as we see a lot nowadays, these organisations are trying to blame everything on the GFC, the global financial crisis. Sure, there have been times when returns on investment have been far less than expected, which have then impinged on the unfunded liability, but there have been swings and roundabouts; and, certainly, for the last number of years, there has been a very healthy stock market, a very healthy investment market, and the returns to WorkCover have been very good, indeed.

Just in the last few months things have turned around and, certainly, it does not look like changing for the better in the short term, but you cannot blame all the ills on the global financial crisis. If you look at the most recent report comparing WorkCover schemes across Australia, you will see that the commonwealth scheme—and 2006 is the latest we can get—was 110 per cent funded; Victoria, 134 per cent funded; New South Wales, 107 per cent funded; the Western Australian scheme, 109 per cent funded; Queensland, 183 per cent funded; Tasmania, 168 per cent funded; and South Australia in 2006 was 64 per cent funded.

But what did we hear the other day? It is 51.7 per cent funded with a $1.3 billion unfunded liability. You work that back and the total liability for WorkCover is $2.7 billion. Sure, there is money there to cover those liabilities, but it is a disgraceful position for this state to be in. I remind the house that legislation was passed which cut workers' entitlements and changed a number of obligations on workers and employers, and what are we seeing? The situation has just got worse.

The issue I particularly want to look at today relates to one of the changes introduced to WorkCover, namely, provisional liability. When the legislation was passed, it was decided that the South Australian WorkCover scheme would adopt provisional liability provisions very similar to those in New South Wales. This was to assist in the early payment of WorkCover claims so that the injured worker, the sick worker, would then be able to have some money to get about their rehabilitation and get back to work.

What has happened is that, under this scheme, there is no real claim. If you look at the claim form, as it is described, which has been published under the new legislation, you will see that it is headed 'claim form', but there is no place to notify of a claim. You tick the relevant box, which states:

I want to give notice of an injury only...no request for weekly payments or medical and other expense at this time.

The other box you can tick states:

I want to give notice of an injury and request provisional weekly payments and/or medical expenses.

Under a little asterisk here, it states:

This request will start provisional payments within seven days in most cases. A formal claim for compensation under section 52 can be made by contacting the claims agent or self-insured employer.

This is the 'Clayton's' claim form. What is happening now, I am reliably informed by a number of people who are working in the investigation side of WorkCover, is that people are now catching on to this. They are starting to lodge these forms for provisional payments and they are starting to get their provisional payments. These provisional payments are in place for up to 13 weeks, and what do you see? These people are getting better before the end of the 13 weeks. They are having what one investigator described to me as 'WorkCover holidays'.

It is a disgraceful position for this scheme to be in. It is a disgraceful thing for those sorts of people to be doing—rorting the system like that—but the problem is that because you have not lodged a claim this cannot be investigated. Nothing under the act allows the claim to be investigated. The whole provisional liability issue is an absolute mess. I will refer to some of the issues that have been put forward by one of the larger self-insurer groups, the questions they have been asking and what they think needs to be done.

For instance, how are workers supposed to even understand what their obligations are when they are lodging the Clayton's claim (the provisional liability)? They do not understand the regulations and the legislation. In the absence of an oral election by the worker to make a claim, how can a claim be determined; how can that claim be dismissed? Can a worker on provisional payments be referred to a medical panel? I do not believe so. Can an employer terminate a worker on provisional payments without reference to sections 58B and 58C? I do not know. I do not think the government knows the answer to this at the moment. I do not think the government knows what its liability is with provisional liability under the new WorkCover legislation.

If a compensating authority is paying provisional weekly payments, does the WorkCover tribunal have the jurisdiction to deal with a section 97 expedited decision application from the worker or the employer? I do not know. I need to get that answered. Can a section 110 authority be issued where only provisional payments are being made? I do not know. I do not think the government knows. Is negligent third party recovery available under section 54 where no admission of liability exists? I do not know, because a claim has not been lodged—we have provisional liability. Can a rehabilitation and return-to-work plan developed under section 28A be binding where only provisional payments are being made? I do not know. The government does not know either.

Can the content of a rehabilitation return-to-work plan under section 28A be reviewed under section 28B where only provisional payments are being made? I do not know. The government does not know. Is a determination of average weekly earnings appealable where only provisional payments are being made? I do not know. The government does not know. This is an absolute mess. The government will have to open up the legislation again to amend some sections of the act—and I will not tell them what to do; I will leave that up to them. We have our own ideas about what needs to be done on this side. Certainly, people to whom I have been talking have given me some information and advice on what should be done to try to fix this situation where we have the Clayton's claims. We had the Clayton Report and now we have the Clayton's claims with provisional liability.

When you ask the government what is its exposure, what is its cost for provisional liability, it does not know. There is question after question about provisional liability, and this government has not come out and said, 'There is an issue here; we need to sort it out.' It may be working on it behind the scenes, I do not know. I have asked questions in this place, and so far the sounds of silence are deafening. I have been given another 17 questions by another group of employers. They do not want to be named at this particular time, but they are seriously concerned about the provisional liability provisions in this WorkCover legislation.

WorkCover in South Australia was in good shape in the early 2000s. We made some changes in the mid-1990s. I have the YouTube video of the Premier out the front of Parliament House haranguing the then Liberal government for what it was doing to workers' rights, but what did we hear him say today in parliament? He was defending the changes made to WorkCover. He was defending these changes that have made such a mess. They have their legislation, their minister, their board and their CEO. What they really have is an absolute mess. WorkCover needs to be sorted out today, because I do not want South Australian workers to suffer any more.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:48): As part of my 10 minute contribution to the Supply Bill, I want to focus on roads. There are many people in this chamber who I know would receive continual deputations from community groups concerned about the condition of the roads within their area. To really demonstrate the pressure that the Goyder electorate—Yorke Peninsula and the Adelaide Plains—is under you only need to consider what the road network will be like this weekend as we approach Easter. It is an amazing sight to see the stream of traffic that heads to that wonderful get-away place. Not only do they have challenges going there, but it is on their return home that the real crisis unfolds.

Some amazing photos have been captured by the local newspaper which, from an elevated position, show kilometres and kilometres of cars stuck in a gridlock on country roads trying to get home on the Monday of a long weekend. I know that Transport SA staff try to manage the key intersections on the northern side of Port Wakefield as much as possible, but I do understand that, from the way the intersections are designed, when there is an amazing amount of traffic in peak times, they do not allow for the efficient movement of vehicles to occur. This is one of the key issues that I identified in my campaign prior to being elected in 2006, and it was the first question that I raised in this place with the Minister for Transport about what the intentions of the government were.

A story was related to me—and I have not lived through this myself, because normally we stay at home over Easter and we do not do a lot of travelling—about some people who were coming from the bottom of the peninsula, heading past Ardrossan, going to the Federation Park intersection and intending to turn onto the main Copper Coast Highway to go through to Port Wakefield and on to Adelaide. They were banked up some seven kilometres back from the intersection, slowly moving forward as the zipper movement of traffic allowed them to jump in, and these cars had to turn around and go back to Ardrossan to fuel up and then come back and get in the line again, because they were running out of petrol. There has to be a more efficient way for vehicles to get through on that route so that people do not have to do those sorts of things.

The councils within my area take a proactive stance in trying to understand and appreciate the need for road improvements within the resources available to them for the networks that they control. They do all they can. You are never going to please everybody; I understand that. I also understand that state governments have a similar dilemma, but some road networks within Yorke Peninsula and the Adelaide Plains that are state government controlled roads need more investment.

Dr McFetridge: Rodeo Highway.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Rodeo Highway. I know that the Liberal government committed to funding from Port Wakefield through to Kulpara, and that road has been completed under the watch of the Labor government. However, now the roads servicing Kulpara through to the Copper Coast communities of Kadina, Wallaroo and Moonta need to be improved. Paskeville especially, which is home to the Yorke Peninsula field days every second year in September, has an amazing amount of traffic passing through.

Instances have been reported to me where vehicles coming towards each other—and these are heavily laden trucks—are going across the road, which is bouncy and uneven, and they are shimmying across the road. Instead of passing clearly with space in between, the trailers in some cases are kissing against each other. The risk of a serious accident there and lives being lost is immense.

I know of similar instances involving vehicles that are towing boats. Yorke Peninsula offers great fishing opportunities, and a lot of people bring over their boats for recreational fishing. They are driving on these roads, bouncing up and down, and it is not only causing problems with their boats but they even run the risk of their boat jumping off a trailer. If that were to occur—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Or for the motor to come off, as the member for Morphett says. All these things need to be improved. The challenges are immense, but there needs to be a coordinated approach by the government through some form of transport plan that makes the dollars available, not just for Yorke Peninsula, the Goyder electorate and the Adelaide Plains, but also for all of the state to receive the investment in road infrastructure it needs.

I turn briefly now to water. Questions were raised in the house today about the ability of South Australia to provide itself with its critical human needs over the next 12 months. The minister has provided information that, through negotiations that are occurring to provide water from New South Wales tributaries, the water that we currently have in storage will be there to transport, but there really is fear out there in the community. People are sick of the restrictions. They understand the drought; they know that some controls need to be in place, but they are very fearful and concerned that the water that we need to ensure the growth of opportunities in the state is not going to be there.

It makes it hard for me to come into this place—and I have previously had a notice of motion before the house—to push for every effort being made to augment the water supply to the communities that I serve, of which some 16 do not have a reticulated water supply. Every drop of water that goes into those communities has to come from the same source—the River Murray. So, we have to try to get the balance right.

The Minister for Water Security—and I am grateful for this—has instigated the commencement of a Yorke Peninsula long-term plan committee on which I am able to sit as an observer. I attended the first meeting. Yes; they are a nice collection of people who between them have a very good understanding of the issue, but the great frustration for me is that, at the moment, all they can talk about is the good things and their vision. I ask: where are the dollars going to come from to translate those visions into reality?

It is a balancing act. My frustration is also that, about two months ago, a report came into my electorate office about a broken pipe on the western side of Maitland that ran in a north-south direction. This pipe has previously been repaired. Apparently, it bursts quite regularly. It has been repaired in shorter sections but not the full length of it. Millions of litres of water were wasted before action was taken to turn off the water. The property owners who are on this line have stock, so it makes it very difficult for them to ensure that they have water available for their stock needs. That is where government priorities have to ensure that dollars are being allocated to the maintenance of the SA Water infrastructure network.

I have previously written to the Minister for Water Security about the rusting above-ground pipes and stated that, when the SA Water depots were in place in a lot of country towns, when there was some spare time, these maintenance crews would go out and paint them to prevent rusting. We are now finding that that work is not being done, and it is just really a case of management by crisis: when a break occurs, the repair work is undertaken, but it does not fix the long-term problem.

In the few minutes remaining, I want to talk about hospitals and the need for the Country Health Care Plan. The announcement in June last year of the Country Health Care Plan alarmed all of regional South Australia. It was really heartening for me to see the attitude of every person concerned. Public meetings were held around the state. Three were convened in my electorate: I had 700 people at Yorketown, 500 at Balaklava and 400 at Maitland, all of whom were concerned about the provision of health services in their community. Now the challenge before the country health advisory councils that have been appointed for each of the health areas is to actually develop a country health plan to service their needs.

I recognise the fact that the minister has allowed for each member of parliament to appoint a delegate direct to that HAC, and I am pleased that I have the delegates appointed to mine. I have told them, 'Your requirement is to actually develop a vision for the range of services required for hospitals and for keeping people out of hospital in that area. It is not your job to determine the financial restrictions that might be in place upon you and how that might prevent you from providing all the services you need. That is the role of others, and that is what the parliament is for—for others to determine that the dollars necessary for all these services are available.'

The role of these volunteers—who in many cases have been doing it for a number of years—and also those new people who have come on to take up this challenge to develop a plan for their communities really is a hard one. Over the next 12 months or so, these people will be starting from scratch. They will have support from the country health network, and I understand that, but they have to try to consult with the community to determine the range of services they need and then implement a plan that has to go through the bureaucracy of country health and get support. Then we will have to fight the battles in here to ensure that the dollars are available. So, it is a great challenge for those people, too.

My closing remarks relate to shared services. Again, this is an issue that has been out in the public arena for probably nearly two years now. Within regional South Australia, some 500 people are affected by it, equating to a bit over 200 full-time equivalent positions. Suburban South Australians who work within human resources, payroll and accounts payable and receivable sections within government departments are also being affected by it. The total number of people involved is slightly over 2,000.

These people's livelihoods are being moved, to all intents and purposes, and they are being told that they now have to work out of the CBD. The workplaces and the relationships they had in those areas have been lost to them, and it is having a serious effect. The effect upon these people on an individual basis is magnified even more when we look at the fact that implementation costs for shared services are far more than was envisaged. The Auditor-General, in his last report, notes that there is a hole—and that is my word, a black hole—of $103 million in savings that has been projected which he cannot yet quantify.

Time expired.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill]


Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:58): Many of the issues of concern to me have already been covered by other members. I will also make a few comments, in particular on the health issue. As the member for Goyder said, what is happening in rural and regional health is a most critical issue for rural people. I have many constituents who raise issues with me regularly on that matter. More pertinent are the issues relating to the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the government's lack of effort in maintaining that hospital in an appropriate manner while it supposedly builds a new railway hospital.

The other issue is that of Glenside, and what is going on there. The fact that regional country people are going to be discriminated against in the mental health area is a great worry to us. The member for Goyder talked about the HACs. Let me tell you that I have grave misgivings about where this is going. I have a representative on the South Coast District Hospital HAC committee and I am looking for one on the Kangaroo Island Health Service HAC committee but I am having trouble finding someone because, quite frankly, they say to me, 'We really have no control over what is going on like we did on the old board and the bureaucrats are running it. Why go on it'? The health aspects are extremely important, and I talked about them yesterday.

I would also like to raise the issue and talk about the natural resource management boards around the state. I am regularly getting comments that there is a lot of outcomes from these boards. Indeed, I think I have spoken in this house before on the lack of outcomes from the boards in my area. The money that is going to these boards and the outcomes are disproportionate. The number of outcomes we are getting, particularly on Kangaroo Island, are almost zero. I know that the Natural Resources Committee of parliament is very interested in the activities of the Kangaroo Island board and, indeed, it has proposed to do some questioning and visit there to look into exactly what is going on over there.

We have just gone through the draft natural resource management plan over there (which has been an interesting exercise to say the least) and I am given to understand that, fortunately, the board has withdrawn the water policy on Kangaroo Island and that a committee of some people who know what they are talking about is going to look into it and come back at a later stage with a suggested water policy so we can go out again. These boards are sucking up a vast amount of resources. They have created a bureaucracy of their own, doing report after report with, I suggest, very few outcomes.

It does not matter whether I talk to the member for Flinders, the member for Stuart, the member for MacKillop or the member for Hammond, I get the same answer: they are all concerned about the activities of the natural resource management boards. The boards are doing piles of reports and consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars but not much is coming out of them. I think that is something this parliament is going to have to have a look at. I know that the member for Enfield (Mr Rau), who is the presiding member of the parliament's Natural Resource Committee, will turn his attention to it, along with his colleagues. They will use their undisputed knowledge of what goes on in this area and will have a good look at things, and that is a jolly good thing as far as I am concerned.

I want to make a few comments about shared services: shared services are fine. The way I see it shared services means that we all share in paying for them and then they are returned to the city and the metropolitan area. That is how shared services works. It is an unmitigated disaster for rural South Australia. It is not working and it will not work. It has to be thought through and we have to go back to basics on that issue.

I would also like to talk about the issue of water. I received a briefing this morning, along with the member for Hammond, about the state of the River Murray and our water supplies, the Lower Lakes and a host of other issues. I spent an hour there which was most beneficial. However, we do have some issues in my own electorate. The Myponga reservoir services the South Coast: Yankalilla, Normanville, Victor Harbor, Port Elliot, Middleton, Goolwa, and a few other areas in between.

I am quite alarmed at what is happening with the levels of the Myponga dam. This morning at the meeting (which was all open so I am not telling anything out of school) I asked the minister what was going on with the Myponga reservoir. She indicated that they were transferring serious amounts of water from there down to Happy Valley to bolster the metropolitan system.

I am concerned that if they go too far we will have a lack of water resources for my electorate. I think we need to have a serious look at this if we are talking about 100,000 people on the Fleurieu and the South Coast by 2050. They are not going to be supplied by Myponga Dam if it is going to continue to be drawn on. So, this is an issue for me to keep my finger on, and I know that areas such as Cape Jervis, Rapid Bay and Second Valley, for example, all need a reticulated water system quite urgently as they grow. Of course, that sits in tandem with effluent waste disposal and various schemes that can be put into place. You do not necessarily have to have a reticulated water supply, but it is a great help.

In regard to Kangaroo Island, in the same vein, I know that SA Water is looking at supply to the main towns and extending it. I wish that they would come up with a program to put in place more water provision near the Middle River dam. My view is that a turkey's nest dam to double the size of the Middle River storage would be ideal. We do not even have to consider desalination or anything else, because there is ample water on the western end of the island; we only need to capture it and use it. I will be pursuing that over the rest of this term and into the next term, assuming I am re-elected, which I sincerely hope I am.

Finally, I turn to the issue of roads, which the member for Goyder spoke about at length. The issue of roads in my electorate is very serious. There are large numbers of roads both on the mainland and also on Kangaroo Island that are in terminal decay. The road from Yankalilla through to Victor Harbor has had some work done on it, but it is getting increasing numbers of vehicles on it and, quite frankly, in the foreseeable future it will not be able to handle all the traffic going through there. Also, the road between Goolwa and Mount Compass needs serious work done on it. Once again, that road has large amounts of traffic on it and it is beyond the Alexandrina, Yankalilla and Victor Harbor councils to provide the funding to do all the roadworks that are required.

I turn my attention to the island roads. They are in freefall in their general state of usefulness. I took the member for Goyder on a trip over the weekend while he was on the island, and we travelled some of the dirt roads. The North Coast Road, in particular, is absolutely hideous. It is totally, absolutely and completely beyond the Kangaroo Island council to do anything about the roads. There are 1,300 kilometres of roads, of which 1,100 kilometres are dirt and only 200 kilometres are sealed (and only a proportion of that is council road). Of that 200 kilometres, some is run by the department of transport. However, the rest of the roads, the 1,100 kilometres of roads that the council owns, are totally beyond it with a small ratepayer population of 4,500.

If the government wants to push tourism and industry on the island, it has to find money and do something about funding this situation. You cannot keep sucking it out of the locals. They are battling to do two or three kilometres a year of bitumen. My children, their children and their children's children will all be dead before we get much bitumen on Kangaroo Island. It is a disgrace.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (18:08): I take this opportunity to speak about some issues that concern my constituents in the seat of Unley, and there are several big issues. Of course, Unley is suffering like the rest of the state because of the issue of water. It is no secret that there are some very grand gardens in my electorate of Unley. They have been tended for many years, and they have large grounds and exotic trees. It is a real struggle for many of my constituents to continue with them, and we are seeing a number of trees dying, including street trees, which is a real shame because we have some beautiful street trees as part of our urban heritage in Unley, and it is very important that we preserve that.

One thing we do not have a lot of in Unley is open space, so you can imagine how concerned people are about the sale of 42 per cent of the land at the Glenside site, and it has been a very sad and sorry tale for my constituents in and around that site. The government's justification for the land sell-off was to fund a hospital extension or a new mental health facility on the site. However, I note with some interest that, when the government announced that it would build a new emergency ward at the Flinders Medical Centre, selling off part of the land there was not required to fund the extension.

However, for some reason we can fund the upgrade of Glenside Hospital only by selling 42 per cent of the open land. To add insult to injury, as this process has developed, because of the global financial crisis (GFC) the Treasurer announced that there would be a delay of about two years in building the new hospital, but it has not meant a delay in selling off the land nor has it meant a delay in moving the film corporation into that facility.

We have seen the brakes put on a $100 million hospital but an acceleration of a $45 million expenditure on a film hub for Glenside, which is moving out of the Tapleys Hill facility at Hendon, where its home has been for many years, and into Glenside post haste. I must say that it is getting prime real estate and the most beautiful buildings. The minister issued a press release yesterday boasting that work on the new hospital had begun. However, what it did not say was that it was not actually the new hospital that it was starting work on: it was the removal of patients and amenities from the old block of historic buildings, which will be the new home for the film corporation. That is where the work has begun.

So, we are seeing the existing areas that used as a hospital now being squeezed out, and people are being moved out and into other parts of the hospital. It is interesting that the Public Works Committee received a submission about a $5.5 million upgrade of the existing tired old facilities that are due to be knocked down, once the new facilities are built, for temporary housing of mental health patients, doctors and nurses, while the film hub gets the prime bit of real estate on that site. What was intended originally to be only a two year use of that temporary work will now be closer to 5 years.

We have seen the urgency to spend $45 million on the film hub but, because of the GFC, a delay of the new facility, which is much needed for mental health patients. However, at the same time, we are seeing the sale of the land and a government-sponsored development plan for housing and retail and office space in that facility.

There will be no delays there, of course, because that is obviously income for the government. It is very disappointing for those of us who are concerned about the lack of open space in the electorate of Unley. It is interesting that the seat of Unley is, in fact, geographically the smallest of all the House of Assembly districts and not because it has the least number of people living there. It has the same number of people living in it (within 10 per cent) as the number living in any other electorate in the state, but it has very little open space and quite high density housing in comparison to other electorates.

Even the seat of Morphett, which has a lot of high density housing that is offset by having more open space, is geographically a larger seat than the seat of Unley. Now we have imposed on us a loss of more public open space and, at the same time, we are also losing private open space with subdivisions, or houses being knocked down and subdivided. I know that on the government side there are strong supporters of urban consolidation, and that that is a concern for Steve Marshall, our candidate in Norwood.

The member for Norwood has, in this very chamber, defended the government's urban consolidation program, and that is a great concern for people living in Norwood, particularly those in beautiful historic homes in the character areas of Norwood. I share the concerns of Steve Marshall, the Liberal candidate in the seat of Norwood, about the threat to heritage in that area and the current member's lack of interest in preserving that heritage.

It is a matter of concern, of course, for many of the Greeks and Italians living in that area who I describe as the pioneers of our multicultural society here in South Australia and who saw bricks and mortar as an investment for their families and for their superannuation. When they came to Australia, they were overcome by the opportunities that many of us who grew up in South Australia missed. Sometimes you need to have a look at the state from the outside to realise the opportunities that are here for us. Many of us who have grown up with those opportunities tend to let them slide by at times, but our new immigrants did not. Back in the '50s, of course, we had a great influx of immigrants from Italy and Greece, in particular, and many of them saw real estate as their way of securing their future. Of course, many of them now are paying a high price through extremely high increases in land tax.

What is funny about this whole scenario is that one Greek couple who came to see me had a young working family in their rental property for 10 or 15 years. They were paying below market rent, but they were looking after the house and painting it when it needed painting. They were treating it as their own. The couple were very happy to have good tenants there. They were not a wealthy couple, with only one of them working, and their way to deal with their situation was to put the rent up, which forced the tenant to go and get rent relief.

It was an extraordinary situation whereby the government's land tax imposition caused the rent to go up, and then the government had to fork out rent relief for the family in question so that they could stay in that house. I think that shows how unworkable the government's current land tax regime is and how it has just got out of hand as the government has got fat, let out its belt and enjoyed the good years when they were here without taking any appropriate action to make adjustments to the way we collect taxes in that time.

Time expired.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (18:19): I would like to raise a number of issues specific to my electorate, in particular the issue of development and the proposal the government is currently discussing for further expansion of the town boundaries of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne. I note with interest that the Minister for Urban Development and Planning was asked a Dorothy Dixer question about the specific issue of further residential development in the township of Mount Barker. I was interviewed by a journalist from the local newspaper in the Hills, and the minister quoted from the article in The Courier. The minister quoted me correctly, and I do not refute the quote that he put on the record. In his response to the question that was asked, he accused the Liberal Party of running up the white flag on development. He said:

There we have it. The Liberal Party has run up the white flag on development.

As is a common habit of this government, the minister selectively quoted from the article. I am quoted in the article as saying:

I am part of the Liberal Party that does support growth and development, but that has to be carried out in the right locations in the right areas. We don't believe the Hills district is such an area for such a significant increase in housing.

There has not been any definite proposal from the government, apart from identifying that region in the Hills to be part of its greater plan for Adelaide, but I am advised that it is proposed to double the size of Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne. As the local member I do not support that proposal. I do not support that part of the Hills district—any part of the Hills district that I represent; other members can speak for themselves but I think the member for Heysen certainly would support me—being filled up with houses and morphed into a suburb of Adelaide.

The Adelaide Hills is a unique region within this country. There is no other region close to a capital city in this country that is similar to the Adelaide Hills district. As long as I am the member I will fight for the enhancement of the identity of that district; and I do not support the proposal to double the size of those towns. In the interview I did with the local journalist, there is another part to that sentence. I said:

Our position is that we don't allow any further rezoning of residential land or any new land to be opened up for residential purposes until services are provided to meet the current demand within the community.

The district is under extreme pressure as a result of the lack of services being provided by this government. The Minister for Urban Development and Planning in the other place also said:

This government is also working closely with local government on a draft plan for Mount Barker and will make any proposals available for public consultation later this year. One of the central reasons for identifying growth areas and planning for growth during the next 30 years is to allow the government to plan well in advance for infrastructure investment, transport needs, schools and public works.

A member then interjects and the minister continues:

You do not put infrastructure there until you actually start building. It is actually a greenfields site.

Well, the minister wants to get in his car and drive up there and have a look at the area. Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne are not greenfields sites. He said that we need to plan in advance for infrastructure investment, transport needs, schools and public works. The minister needs to look at how poorly the government is currently performing in providing those exact things to those communities.

The district, as I said, is struggling to function given the significant lack of services this government is providing. Sure, we have had a park and ride facility built for public transport, but pretty well from day one that was at capacity, and it took years of lobbying and pressure for the government even to commit to that piece of infrastructure. We have campaigned and lobbied significantly for, probably, 10 years for a second freeway interchange to be built, but the Minister for Transport says, 'No, it's not on our priority list; too bad.' How can the Minister for Urban Development and Planning, the minister who has that specific responsibility, say that the government is planning for future infrastructure needs when it is not meeting the infrastructure needs right now, today?

The minister needs to get in his car, have a drive around and talk to the community and to the council properly; and I understand that a meeting has been arranged with him and the local council to discuss these issues. However, when he talks about working closely with local government, it is my understanding that the local council is only aware of this discussion around doubling the size of those towns—nothing else. From my understanding, the government has not provided any further information. It is still out there, engaging the services of some consultants, scoping the possibilities for further expansion.

I want to put on the record in this place that my position as the local member, which is supported by the shadow minister for planning and urban development, is based on service provision. We do not support the expansion of the town boundaries until this government—and, obviously, a future Liberal government—provides those services to meet the community demands. I have undertaken a community consultation process myself, and approximately 9,000 survey/ consultation forms have been sent out to the communities in those three towns—to every residence and every business. I can tell members that I have had an overwhelming response.

Ms Portolesi: How many?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: To date, the number is 1,500, and the timeline for the residents to get them back is the end of the month. We get quite a number continuing to come through the post every day. It has been three weeks and we have had 1,500 responses to 9,000 forms sent out. I can tell members—

The Hon. J.D. Lomax-Smith interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The Minister for Education can be flippant about this, but it would not hurt her to come up and have a bit of a chat with some of the people working in the local primary schools and the local high school in Mount Barker to understand first-hand the issues in terms of providing educational services in those towns. We have had to fight—

The Hon. J.D. Lomax-Smith interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: If the Minister for Education wants to enter the debate, that is good, because we have had to fight tooth and nail to get the school crossing at Nairne Primary School addressed—and in a pretty half-hearted manner, I might say—by the previous minister for education, but that is another issue. I have raised that issue in the house on many occasions.

What must take place in that district is that the provision of services must occur before consideration is made on expanding the town boundaries. Once that takes place, then, sure, we will have a look at it and we will reassess the situation. I have also said that, certainly, I do not support one new house and one new piece of land.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (18:29): Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for January show that all states except Tasmania recorded an increase in unemployment, with South Australia up 0.2 per cent since September, meaning that South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in Australia at 5.6 per cent. With the 10 minutes I now have, I want to talk specifically about unemployment in South Australia. Labour force statistics illustrate an even gloomier picture, showing that South Australia's unemployment rate has risen from 5.8 to 7.2 per cent. Unemployment in South Australia has hit a five year high, with more than 46,000 people out of work, and it could increase by a staggering 25,000 more in the short term.

Another disturbing aspect of the figures is that South Australia's youth unemployment rate is 25.1 per cent compared to the national average of 23.3 per cent. That is one in four of our young school leavers who cannot find a job under the state Rann Labor government. A study compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics called 'A Picture of a Nation' raised concerns about our state's high level of youth unemployment, specifically noting the high rates of unemployment in Port Pirie (which is near where I come from) of 16.6 per cent and Whyalla, 16.5 per cent. It is a failure of this government to do the hard yards and job proof the state during the good times for when the inevitable downturn happens—because we all know that these thing are very cyclic.

Over the past couple of months, many job losses have been announced. The Premier announced in February that 1,600 Public Service jobs will go, with more than 60 positions to be axed from within the Premier's department. I note that none of them was out of the spin team. BHP Billiton is cutting jobs around the world, including 200 in South Australia from the team working on the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine. Since November last year, the state has lost 2,400 jobs in the mining industry, despite the Premier's promising at the last election that Olympic Dam would deliver 23,000 new mining jobs—and he continues to assert that we are in the midst of a mining boom. So much for the mirage in the desert and the Labor Party's support for Roxby Downs—it is all a bit hypocritical, isn't it?

Since September, 5,300 manufacturing jobs have been lost. I find it very interesting that the minister for employment can say, 'It is worth noting that we have had 17 months of what has been unprecedented growth.' When the mining and manufacturing sectors have lost so many jobs in the past four months, I just cannot understand how the minister can possibly call it 'unprecedented growth'. All this with the Rudd federal government with its new—what do they call it? WorkChoices, what is the new name? Fair Choice, something like that. It has a new name, anyway. I think it is a crazy time—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Choose Work Fairly.

Mr VENNING: Choose Work Fairly; okay. It is a crazy time to be introducing a thing like this when you should be trying to encourage people to employ people, yet you turn around and make it harder to sack people. To me it is totally the wrong message to send to business when we want them to employ people. You do not know when you employ someone whether you have a good or bad employee until such time as you see what happens. You will not employ people if you do not have the right to be choosy. I think that it is very unfair, and I have always thought so.

As an employer, over the years, you get some brilliant people working for you—very loyal, very supportive. You spend a lot of money training them up in your trade and, suddenly, they give you two weeks' notice and they are gone, and you have lost all that investment in that person. You have no choice. However, the worker has a choice. If you try to get rid of them, they can really make it difficult for you. I think it is very bad timing for the Rudd government to be doing this right now because it is sending the wrong message.

Another interesting point to note is that the construction workers union says that it expects up to 250 South Australian workers will soon lose their jobs because of financial difficulties at several building firms. Yet, on 19 March, in an interview with the ABC, the employment minister said that the lost jobs in the mining and manufacturing industries will be offset by the growth in construction. It seems that the minister is not aware of the construction industry's concerns.

The recent announcement that Pacific Brands (the manufacturer of Bonds and others) is moving its operations to Asia resulted in 1,850 job losses—not specifically from South Australia, but it is certain that the flow-on effects will impact upon us. Again this is no surprise when companies can operate overseas so cheaply. Here they have all these imposts with all the taxes about which I spoke this afternoon in a previous speech, particularly payroll tax and land tax. Those two aspects alone are enough to send companies overseas. They go for survival; they do not do it for convenience but so that they can survive.

I have a friend who manufactures light fittings. In fact, he is the only manufacturer of light fittings in South Australia; all the rest are now made overseas. He is the only manufacturer left, but once upon a time we would have had a dozen. It costs him a lot of money to operate here but he chooses to do that. However, I do know that he now imports some components—he has to remain viable and competitive.

We know that Holden will experience job losses. We have heard all about this last week and we know the rationalisation there. Holden boss Mark Reuss has said that he wishes Holden could carry the entire workforce through the rough economic period, and we note the way they have done it by splitting shifts and weeks, and employees taking a half pay cut in the off weeks. It is very tough, but he said that these decisions were necessary for the industry to overcome difficult times and be successful into the future. It will have a flow-on effect to car component companies, and we know there are similar rationalisations going on there.

This is affecting a lot of people. We know that people are hurting and are worried that they will be next. I know of several large wineries in the Barossa, as well as other companies associated with the wine industry, who have laid off nearly all their casual staff. The South Australian-based timber company Auspine has confirmed that it is reviewing its operations after failing to secure log supplies for its Tasmanian mills, and has said that it cannot rule out cuts to its South Australian workforce.

David Jones announced its worst decline in 20 years in January and is shedding jobs across the nation, with nine being lost in South Australia. PMP Limited, a printing and media services company, is closing its Salisbury operations with the loss of 44 jobs. Ottaway System Integration and Ausmech, both engineering companies, have between them laid off 40 workers. Restaurants and retailers will be further hit as the economic slowdown continues, and I think it is reasonable to assume that more jobs will be lost in those areas. I am told that service industries—including legal, accounting, marketing and design—are also laying people off.

We have had seven years of boom economic times but they have been wasted by this government and we are now paying the price. The grim reaper has arrived. I know it is easy to be negative, but we have to be realistic as well. South Australian jobless numbers are the worst since October 2002, just months after Premier Rann took office. We are losing jobs in so many industries, yet the state Rann Labor government remains silent about what steps it will take to slow down the loss of jobs.

As I said last night, country people are really feeling it—particularly the grape growers. I rang some grape growers at midnight last night because I knew they were out working; they were on the job and I could hear the machines working and the men talking. They are picking grapes for which they received $700 or $800 a tonne last year, but this year they will be able to sell only about one quarter of them for roughly $250 a tonne or thereabouts. The rest are going on the ground. That beggars belief; this is quality product going on the ground. It would be the same for the member for Mawson, who has excellent grapes in his area—second only, of course, to the Barossa Valley.

The big problem is overproduction, and what are we doing about that? They are out there right now still planting vines. It beggars belief. These managed investment funds should have been shut off years ago. Let the people who make the decisions come and see this; let them come and have a look. This afternoon I invited the minister to come up to have a look and he has agreed to come, without the politics, to see what is happening, to see the unemployment. I wish it was a better story but that is the realistic side of it, sad as it is.

Motion carried.

Bill taken through its remaining stages.

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