HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 June 2009. Page 3181.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:06): I will be brief. Overall, I believe that the budget is quite sound and sensible in very difficult financial times. I do not think that one should be too harsh in making any criticism, because of the constraints that have been imposed as a result of the global financial crisis. However, I do have some issues in relation to the budget.

In particular, there is an issue that has been raised in my electorate and I have been asked to raise it here. Even though the government seems to be able to increase its fees and charges (in some cases by more than CPI—water up by 13.8 per cent; bus fares, 5 per cent; multitrip fares up by 4.3 per cent; and CTP premiums up by 8.3 per cent), the government is unable to increase the concessions available to pensioners and others who are eligible for such concessions on utilities such as council rates, water and sewerage, energy, emergency services levy and public transport.

I indicated at the start that the financial situation is tight, and I accept that but, even when finances have not been so tight, the government has been reluctant to increase or adjust the concession on utilities to take account of the fact that charges in all those areas—council rates, water and sewerage, energy, etc.—have increased. I make that point as a result of representation at one of my community meetings this week.

There are other aspects that concern me. I notice in the budget significant cuts to the environment department. As I said, times are tough, but it always seems to be the case that the environment department cops a whack around the chops, irrespective of global financial conditions. I want to remind the government that it has made (and, over a long time, has had) a long-standing commitment to the environment, and I trust that the cuts in the budget to that department are only short term and do not reflect a lack of interest in or commitment to environmental management.

I note that there is an increase in provision for cool burns (prescribed burning) and I welcome that, but some areas within the environment department have been cut harshly, and I believe that there are many areas of government where some savings could be made that would more than offset the small amount (in relative terms) that has been taken out of the environment department.

Overall, taking into account the financial situation globally and the impact of reduced GST and so on, the budget is a fairly reasonable financial commitment by the government. However, as the financial situation improves and the Australian and South Australian economy perform at a higher level, I would expect to see the government commit more money to particular areas that have missed out once again.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:11): This is the budget that should have brought home the bacon for the government and the taxpayers of South Australia, after years of record revenues from the GST—and we are not talking about budgeted revenues; we are talking about revenues over and above what had been budgeted—and increases in state fees and charges, including land tax, in particular. Last year there was a 38 per cent increase in the government's take from land tax, and payroll tax and WorkCover levies are out of control, yet this Labor government still cannot balance the books. South Australia is officially the highest taxed state in Australia.

There was a time, of course, when South Australia was a competitive place to do business. When I take school tours through this place, I mention Tom Playford's plan to keep costs low in South Australia so that we would have a competitive edge in relation to New South Wales and Victoria in order to encourage manufacturers to set up in this state. Obviously, this government has decided that it is not important to be cost effective.

These budget papers tell us that South Australia is officially the highest taxed state in Australia, with record revenues of $14.4 billion. Remember, the Treasurer has been telling us that revenues are down, but this year's budget is bigger than last year's budget. There is more in this budget than was in last year's budget, because the government is being bailed out by Canberra in relation to education programs and infrastructure projects to make up for the programs for which the government has failed to plan and for the blowout in the public sector the government has failed to contain. We have seen a growth in the public sector of around 16,000, and of that number only about 4,000 employees have been involved in service delivery by way of police, doctors and nurses. So, we have seen an enormous increase in the growth of the public sector, and that is a cost the public has to bear year after year.

The government is now telling us that the budget will contain job cuts. So, the question we can legitimately ask is: what are those people doing now that is no longer required? What has changed in the scope of government that makes these people surplus to requirements, or were they not required in the first place? The problem is not money; money has come in very easily over the last seven years. As we have seen, Australia has become a model for the western world in relation to growth. We have just come out of a record period of growth here in Australia.

I can tell members that it is not nice doing business when there is no growth and we are in negative growth. I had a business in the early 1990s in the area of discretionary spending, that is, an item you tend to spend money on when you are feeling good and you have surplus money. Selling furniture is a fairly hard slog when people are losing their job and the country is in recession, and that has a spin-off effect on employment right across all sectors and industries, whether it be restaurants or even selling a set of new towels or a new suit. We saw what a widespread effect it had when the economy stalled or was in reverse during the recession that Keating said in the early 1990s that we had to have.

In that time, this government has been spending like drunken sailors. It has been throwing its money around with no thought as to what it will be looking at when it wakes up sober in the morning. It certainly has a hangover now and, unfortunately, it is South Australians who will be left with the headache from the lack of action over the last seven years.

It is interesting that the government's election slogan is 'Action now for the future' when it has already been there for over seven years. This is a self-admission that there has been no action, and come 20 March next year I think South Australians will be looking over what this government has achieved and what it is promising, and I think they will be making their choice on what the government has actually done and not on what it has promised, because we have seen a number of promises broken, certainly in the short time that I have been in this parliament.

Let us not forget that the Treasurer is claiming $3.1 billion in debt. In actual fact, if you include all the government instrumentalities—SA Water, TransAdelaide, SA Housing Trust, and superannuation and WorkCover unfunded liabilities—we are looking at closer to a $20 billion problem. It all has a very similar ring to it. It is a 'back to the future' debt with state and federal Labor.

We all recall what it was like running a state under a very heavy degree of debt after the State Bank collapse. Under Treasurer Foley's description of state debt the State Bank would not have been included because it was an instrumentality of government, not the government itself, just like SA Water, TransAdelaide and the Housing Trust. So, it is important that we acknowledge that the debt goes beyond the direct government budget; we are seeing debt in other areas of government enterprises.

The most amazing element of the pea and thimble budget, and the most cynical, is the promised razor gang, whose recommendations for fat trimming, the public sector and job cuts, will not be revealed until after the 20 March election—extremely convenient. Here we have a government that has been in power for nearly eight years, and I think I heard the Treasurer, on either television or radio, saying, 'We're going to get these people in, because we don't really know how we can contain costs and how we can make cuts, and we're not going to get them in until after the election.'

Even though the Treasurer announced in the Mid-Year Budget Review that there was a global financial crisis and that changes had to be made then, we are to wait until 18 months after that before the government takes any action. I suggest that that timetable has more to do with the timetable of the election than with the government's desire to control its expenditure.

Fancy going out there saying, 'We are going to make $750 million in cuts, but we're not going to tell you what they are until after the election.' This is from a government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PISONI: —that demanded all the detail of our upgrade of the hospital proposal, right down to ceiling heights. It wanted to know what the ceiling heights were going to be. Yet, it expects the people of South Australia to accept the fact that there will be cuts in the budget, 'But we won't tell you what they are. We won't tell you whether there will be extra taxes. We won't tell you whether we are putting school fees up. We won't tell you whether we'll be putting water charges up over and above the cost of producing water. We won't tell you whether we'll be asking our state instrumentalities to deliver a bigger dividend for us,' which will, of course, mean increases in motor registration.

They will not tell us what government departments will be cut. They will not tell us whether we will be seeing cuts in police, education or health. None of that. They are not prepared to debate that in the lead-up to the election. They have admitted that they have an expenditure problem, but they are not going to tell us how they are going to fix it until after the election, because they know that they will be held accountable for that—and they do not want to be held accountable on this budget. That is why they will not reveal what they are cutting or taxes they are raising until after the election, to try to get themselves another four years. In other words—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How old will you be in 2014?

Mr PISONI: I will be younger than you, minister, in four years' time. I will always be younger than you, minister.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How old is that?

Mr PISONI: So, in other words, they do nothing for eight years other than unwisely spend windfall gains from GST and other state taxes, property taxes in particular, put nothing away for a rainy day and then promise to sort it all out if elected for a third term. It is an interesting concept, but not the sort of thing you would expect from a government that claims to be experienced. One would think that if they knew what they were doing they would be honest about the cuts they intended and would bring them forward before the election so that, instead of being the last state to come out of the financial downturn, we are the first state, and that needs action now and not for the future.

It is like the promises of expanded reservoirs. Remember the Mount Bold reservoir, which was in the 2006-07 budget? Where has that gone? That promise has gone: that was going to fix our water issues. The desalination plant at Spencer Gulf has gone after being promised. The Premier announced that the state government's partnership in that project was the biggest in the world, but that has gone, so maybe it is the biggest political backflip in the world—I do not know. The tramline extension to Port Adelaide: where has that gone? It is not in the budget, but it has disappeared, just like the many other promises announced in this budget; they will not be there after the election. It is designed to get the government over the line at the next election and for no other purpose.

They have form on this: promising one year and dumping it the next. We have seen it all before. This budget is a monumental bail-out of state Labor by federal Labor in terms of education program funding to improve literacy and numeracy. Fancy: after nearly eight years of Labor, when group training organisations take on apprentices they have to give them a crash course in numeracy and literacy because they have not learnt them at school. That is an enormous concern. I am pleased to see some federal money coming in there. The minister will not answer questions about the IT revolution, because she says it is a federal issue. However, it is in the budget, but when I ask questions about difficulties in delivering that she says that it is not her concern as it is a federal issue.

The budget will allow state Labor to continue to underspend on education, as we have seen in this budget. What will happen when the flow-on from Canberra dries up, when the credit card has reached its limit and there is no longer federal money? Where will education be then? The Rann Labor government and Treasurer Foley have taken an axe to education spending and have used the federal government's building education revolution to try to disguise the fact that there is less state money in the education budget this year than there has been for many years. They have broken their own rules.

The memorandum of understanding that was signed by the states stated that they would not substitute their state programs with these federal programs but continue with their capital and other programs and that the federal money was to be extra. However, we have seen $204 million cut from programs in schools and have seen slashing of capital funding by 12 per cent.

As a matter of fact, state spending on capital expenditure in this budget—if you allow for inflation—in real dollars is less than it was in the last Liberal budget. We are going backwards on state expenditure on capital, and that is why we are seeing a mass number of schools being put under pressure to close by this government. The government has been starving them of needed capital expenditure for maintenance, for school buildings and for other purposes—even the rebitumising of basketball or netball courts.

Of course, desperate parents are shown shiny new plans for schools that do not specify ceiling heights. We see parents getting excited about the prospect of sending their kids to a brand-new school. You have schools in the Spencer Gulf where 30 per cent of the girls' toilets are decommissioned because they are so badly in need of repair. The school has given up trying to deal with them. It is no wonder that the federal government has had to bail out the state government on capital expenditure.

South Australian students are unfortunately bearing the brunt of the failure of the Treasurer and the self-styled education Premier to manage the state budget. The education budget is a big chunk of the budget, I concede that, so that is where the government has gone to try to save money to hang onto its AAA credit rating. The problem with the Building the Education Revolution—the get-out-of-gaol free card from federal Labor to state Labor—is that it has comprehensively welched on education infrastructure and maintenance for the past seven years. Where has the Rann government been on maintenance in our schools over the past seven years? There is nothing revolutionary about that.

Instead of well-planned and thought-out options tailored to the specific needs of individual school communities, Labor is giving us biscuit mould designs off the back of the truck. My office is being inundated with the problems that schools are having in trying to administer that. We are seeing an enormous increase in costs. As an example, a country school approximately 12 months ago completed a school hall. That same model was offered to another school but at $1 million more than the school had paid for it just 12 months earlier. However, that problem is not happening in the independent Catholic sector, I must say; it is managing its own grants, managing to keep builders at bay, choosing its builders and using the competitive process.

The government's hand of bureaucracy is all over this Building the Education Revolution, and we are seeing poor value for money from this significant amount of borrowed money that is being spread throughout the community. Schools are either getting what they do not want, putting up with something that is half baked, or they are saying, 'No, it will not work. We simply cannot justify it.' Of course, there is a lot of concern about the push to close and amalgamate 150 schools throughout South Australia, and it is interesting that those schools are in regional South Australia. We know that Labor does not understand regional South Australia, only very safe Labor seats.

I know the Premier, and, if he thought it was going to be a winner for South Australians, he would be putting the super school program in those marginal seats. That is how this Premier works. He is not doing that because he knows it is a costcutting exercise. The government is attacking the regions and attacking its safest seats and closing schools to cut the costs of education in South Australia. It is a failed model.

We have seen how the United States and the UK are moving back to community-based schools after the failed experiment of super schools. Of course, with the cuts in the education budget and the cuts in state contribution to education in South Australia—hidden underneath the BER spending—it is no wonder now that the government is looking at all sorts of ways it can extract money elsewhere (rather than from its own tax base) in order to fund its school system.

It is no coincidence that this week we read about the government's plan to make it easier for schools to raise the compulsory materials and services charge. Of course, the department will not make that decision, because it wants parents to make that decision. So, parents are starved of materials and discretionary spending for their schools and are left with no choice but to agree to raise fees; in other words, to shift our schools to a user-pays system where we are seeing a greater contribution for education from parents rather than from the state.

I am predicting that we will see an increase in the contributions forced on parents by this government. The government is looking at ways to make it easier for school councils to make that decision. So, instead of polling the whole school and making sure that it is agreed to by everyone, they want to short-cut that process.

Time expired.

Ms FOX (Bright) (12:30): I would like to address the house today on the forward thinking initiatives within the 2009-10 state budget. However, I would like to apologise to everyone in this house, because I may have a slight cold and I sound slightly ridiculous.

An honourable member: As long as it's not swine flu!

Ms FOX: It is not swine flu. If it is swine flu, I will come over and breathe on you.

Mrs Geraghty: No, it's the droplets.

Ms FOX: Or droplets, apparently. In the storm that has been the global financial crisis, Australians have been sheltered by the Labor Party's fiscally responsible policy aimed at creating jobs and stimulating the economy. This state budget was never going to be easy, and I commend the Treasurer for making the tough decisions that he has had to make to keep our debt at a level we can recover within two years, which has led us to maintaining our AAA credit rating (much to the sadness of those opposite) and at the same time building for the future.

It is also important to acknowledge the many policies within the budget aimed at reducing our carbon footprint. When the severe impacts of climate change were first realised, many thought that governments would struggle to reduce their carbon footprints without jeopardising the economy. However, the state government has found the right balance, and it is fantastic to see that within this budget we will be creating thousands of green jobs while at the same time strengthening our economy.

South Australia was one of the first jurisdictions in the world to pass the climate change legislation back in 2007, and we are still leading the way on the international level, implementing measures which will reduce that impact. In fact, I was honoured to represent the Premier last month at the United Nations World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, where I delivered a presentation on territorial private partnerships for climate change solutions.

I was very pleased to report to this group (and it was an international group) that the targets set within our climate change legislation—to have 20 per cent of our power needs sourced from renewable green energy sources by 2014—are well ahead of schedule. At the time of the legislation being passed only two years ago, 20 per cent seemed like an ambitious goal. In fact, I have a recollection of certain members opposite scoffing at such a thing. I shall not name them, on account of how I am a gracious person!

However, I was glad to point out to the group in Copenhagen that we as a government had worked in partnership with industries and the private sector to have this on track to be easily achieved, and I am now pleased to say that within the budget a more ambitious target of 33 per cent by 2020 has been set, with the government setting aside $20 million in this budget to further accelerate investment in the green energy sector. This again highlights South Australia as being among the world leaders when it comes to clean, renewable energy development.

When the government came to power in 2002 there was not one wind farm in South Australia and geothermal energy exploitation was virtually untouched. South Australia now hosts 56 per cent of Australia's installed wind capacity and more than 70 per cent of geothermal energy exploration activity and, as a state, it is really important that we build on this to secure a renewable power supply for the future.

When I was in Copenhagen I met a very forward thinking South Australian businessman, Barrie Harrop, who is in charge of a group called Windesal. He is getting wind turbines with diesel generators capable of producing power and linking them to standard desalination plants, and I think that is a very interesting project. This has already happened in other countries and it is proven technology, and it is wonderful to see that at a global forum a South Australian businessman was at the very top of innovation. I was very proud to be there.

Another major component of the budget that as the member for Bright I am very pleased about is the investment being made into our public transport system, in particular the fast-tracking of the electrification of Noarlunga railway line. Many people in my electorate rely on trains to commute to and from the city on a daily basis. I myself use the train system. By electrifying this system the public will have access to faster and more reliable transport.

Now, in order to actually make this happen, you have to do a thing called resleepering. I do not know whether the member for Finniss remembers being in this place and mocking me because I stood up and made a budget appropriation speech about sleepers. He said 'Oh, that poor member for Bright, all she can do is come in here and talk about railway sleepers!' Thanks to those railway sleepers we suddenly find ourselves able to do the electrification. It is absolutely astonishing.

This electrification is yet another way in which we are working towards reducing our carbon footprint. Switching from the current diesel system to the electric system will drastically reduce carbon emissions. It also goes without saying that, by increasing the capacity and reliability of our public transport system, members of the public will be encouraged to leave their cars at home and, instead, commute to and from the city using trains, buses and trams—and this is in line with the ambition set within our State Strategic Plan. We have a plan. While others may have passing visions, we have a plan.

Since being elected to parliament I have spoken with many members of the public who have voiced their concerns over their safety and wellbeing while taking public transport. Many have informed me that the safety issues about trains, in particular, have led them to opt for other means of transport. I welcome our government's move to increase security on all trains that depart the city from 6pm every day. This is yet another measure that will indirectly help us reach our Strategic Plan target.

It goes without saying that one of the major issues affecting every electorate in this state is that of water. In the 32 street corner meetings I have had recently a lot of emphasis has been placed on water. I would say it is the No. 1 issue that people in my electorate are talking about. As a result, I welcome very much the investment being made by both the state and federal governments to fast-track and secure this long-term water source.

However, it is important that we as a state look at diversifying our water supply—which is why I am very pleased to see the government continuing its ongoing commitment to stormwater harvesting. Stormwater harvesting is very important as it does create extra water that can be used on parks and gardens, as well as in industry. This creates less of a reliance on the desal plant to produce water for such needs.

I recently attended a function at the Somerton Park Bowling Club where I listened to a very interesting presentation by Colin Pitman. I do not agree with everything that Colin says, but he certainly does have some useful input to make. Recycling of stormwater helps to not only secure our water supply but also, by increasing and retaining the number of wetlands across metropolitan Adelaide, it allows many varieties of plants, water bugs, reptiles, birds, fish, frogs and mammals to live and breed in their natural environment.

As I am sure members are aware, I am quite passionate about the environment. Brighton is predominantly a beachside electorate, so I will conclude by touching on an ongoing project for the state government. I am happy to say that through the Living Beaches project construction is about to begin—if it has not begun already—on a sand transfer pipeline. Many residents in my electorate have voiced their discontent at the current system of transporting the sand via trucks, as it leads to a large amount of sand being lost in transportation.

I can also say that, if you live where I do in Brighton, it makes the roads quite dangerous. They are small roads and the trucks are quite big. By installing a pipeline to channel this sand from Semaphore along the coast to Marino, there will be a greater retention of sand which will lead to a more invigorated coastline. This project had a great deal of community consultation, which ensured that those who frequently use our beaches were able to have their say.

Members interjecting:

Ms FOX: I am sorry, did someone say that the member for Finniss was being rude?

The Hon. S.W. Key: Yes, as usual.

Ms FOX: There is no news there. I am confident that, when construction on the pipeline is completed in 2011, the pipeline will please environmentalists, residents and beachgoers alike. It is not very often that governments can find a way to balance the economy, environmental concerns and community-based issues. However, this budget is proof that it can, in fact, be done. It is through actions such as investing in green energy and water, as well as encouraging greater use of public transport, while at the same time sustaining our current natural environment, that we can indeed work towards a cleaner, greener state for future generations to enjoy.

The SPEAKER: The member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:40): Thank you, sir. I am feeling very put down. The savage attack with a lettuce leaf has knocked me around, and I am subdued. I am a delicate sort of a fellow, sir, and that vitriolic attack on me has upset me. However, I will proceed as best I can. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about the Appropriation Bill 2009. I do not share many of the sentiments of those opposite who have spoken about it. I am waiting with interest for the Attorney-General to get up and make his 20-minute contribution.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I will make it during your contribution.

Mr PENGILLY: Good on you! We will share it, as long as you agree with me, Attorney. Actually, I would be most surprised if you did not share it with me: you usually do. It is interesting to look at this budget and think where we could be instead of where we are not, and I would like to point out a couple of things in regard to my electorate and also a couple of areas that I have responsibility for.

This is where the Attorney-General may be able to help me, because the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has been appointed, yet nowhere in the budget can I find any line of expenditure by the state for veterans' affairs. I hope he can correct me, because we have been through it chapter and verse and we have 30 minutes allocated in estimates committees and I cannot find any budget line. So I would be very pleased if he can help me with that.

It is likewise with the member for Kaurna, the Minister for the Southern Suburbs. There are a couple of lines, but I have discovered there is only an $8,000 increase in the small budget line; and there are no programs and that money goes to wages. So I am concerned that we are only paying lip service to these things.

I will say in regard to veterans' affairs (and I am sure the Attorney will agree with me) that, very largely, we take a bipartisan approach and we work in the best interests of veterans in South Australia. I hope that continues, whoever is in government, and I think it is important.

In relation to where the state is going, it is a bit of a sad story, and probably nowhere is it sadder than in the regional areas of South Australia. The regions have been neglected sadly in this budget process. I look at my electorate of Finniss and the only expenditure I can find is $20 million-odd for the Clayton regulator, which has already been announced and gone through the public works process and, indeed, the contractors are on site now. That is an extremely good project which I want to happen, and it cannot happen soon enough.

The tragedy is that, while we are doing that, the rest of the lakes and the lower Murray River are slowly dying. Indeed, there seems to be little or nothing happening about that while we wait for a decision on the weir, which the government seems terrified about making—and which I have always adamantly opposed and still continue to adamantly oppose. The only other item of expenditure that I can find for my electorate is $10 million over three years for increasing the quantity of storage attached to the Middle River dam on Kangaroo Island, which I have been calling for since I have been in this place, and I am glad that will proceed.

It may be that in the departmental budgets there is some money to be expended, and we will wait with bated breath for that. In due course we will probably see some announcements on passing lanes or upgrades to some roads—small jobs, but nothing major.

I do point to the Victor Harbor-Adelaide road. There is absolutely nothing in the South Australian state budget for the Victor Harbor-Adelaide road. We have had some money spent on passing lanes between Mount Compass and the Goolwa turn-off, which have just been completed and which certainly have improved that section of the road, but, more to the point, the long-term planning does not seem to be there. There is no purchase of land, and by far and away the worst piece of that road at the moment, in my view, is the Cut Hill section. Cut Hill, which is the long hill as you go down towards the flats of Victor Harbor, is by far and away the worst piece of that road. That urgently needs something doing to it. We do need to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I very much doubt it. We as a state very much need to do some work on that road or some long-term planning on that road as a matter of urgency. It is just ridiculous that the tens of thousands of vehicles a week that use that road have to put up with these substandard conditions. At the moment, consultation is also occurring regarding the turn-off from the Main South Road onto the Victor Harbor Road. I wait with interest to see what comes out of that. I am not convinced that the plans that are floating around are the ideal outcome for that road either.

Sometimes I wonder why we in South Australia do not jump over the bridge and take the big decisions. They were putting clover leaves, for example, in Los Angeles 50 years ago to assist with traffic, but it seems that we cannot do anything like that in South Australia. You only have to look at the debacle at the moment at the intersection of South Road and Anzac Highway. The underpass is now open, although the traffic is still something of a nightmare. We completed that and now we are going to make a mess across Glengyle Terrace and South Road while building an overpass. We cannot seem to get things happening very well—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What would you do?

Mr PENGILLY: It is not a matter of what I would do, Attorney. You are in government and this is the plan that you have come up with. Through my time on the Public Works Committee, I have inspected the site and I have made my comments in the appropriate place. However, it seems to me that it is continuing to impact fairly heavily on the traffic flows and, in the last couple of days, we have had highly restrictive flows on South Road. The fact is that, in my view, these things could only be done better.

Over and above all that, regional South Australia has been neglected. Nowhere near enough money is going into regional South Australia. It seems to me that, if you put the underpass at Anzac Highway, the Bakewell Bridge and the trams up North Terrace into some sort of perspective, it does not do a lot for the rest of South Australia, quite frankly. And also, we still have this issue—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: That's all right, let him go. We still have this bottleneck from the north to the south. We are inhibiting manufacturing industry in the south by not having a reasonable traffic corridor to get production out of the south, up to the north and through to the Eastern States. We are bogged down, and it is simply not good enough.

It is also becoming glaringly apparent that the health system in regional South Australia is not moving forward as it should be. Indeed, the changes to the structures and the direction by the current Rann Labor government have not been at all helpful. The abolition of boards has resulted in bureaucracy running the health system and reigning supreme from Hindmarsh Square. That is not helpful. Local decisions have been taken away. The health advisory councils, although full of well-meaning people, I am sure, do not have any real power and they have seemingly little effect, and I think that is disappointing.

I have representatives on the two HAC committees in my area. I make the point that the members on those committees who represent me and who have been nominated by me are somewhat frustrated with where health is going. Likewise, the staff in these outfits are also concerned, and they do not seem to be able to make any decisions without resorting to Hindmarsh Square again. I think that is a crying shame, given the input of regional and country communities in health over so many decades, if not 100 years, around South Australia.

South Australia provides a great engine room. If we look at existing industries in regional South Australia—whether it be the farming sector and the multitude of industries that come out of that; the fishing industry, which is vital to South Australia; or the mining industry, which has underpinned this government for a few years now, until the current world financial situation—we wonder where we are going. To my mind, it is a tragedy that we have allowed the state to get in the mess that it is in.

Just looking at where we were a few years ago and where we are now, South Australia's contribution to the national economy in 2002, when the Rann Labor government came in, was just under 7 per cent. We are now down to about 6½ per cent. The indicators are all bad for us. We are the highest taxed state in the nation.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the impact of the most unfair land tax regime on South Australians. It is having an extremely heavy impact down in my electorate, and I am sure it is in others as well. I have a high proportion of independently funded, self-funded, retirees in my electorate who, quite frankly, are at their wits end over how to make ends meet. I think it is a disgrace that the good people of South Australia (and I include migrants and all sorts of people) who have invested in building one or two extra properties, in addition to their own, to look after themselves in their retirement now find themselves in the position where the land tax they are required to pay is more than the rent they receive from their properties.

I think it is an injustice. It is wrong. It is totally wrong that people who have worked hard to try to set themselves up are now required, in some cases, to go to Centrelink to get some sort of pension to help them get through. They have set themselves up and they now find themselves at the mercy of the government of the day through Centrelink. I think it is an absolutely ridiculous situation. No-one argues that we do not have to have taxes—that is nonsensical—but the land tax formula is wrong; it is not right, and it is impacting heavily on many senior citizens in South Australia who deserve better at their time of life.

Another issue is that what is going on internationally impacts on the farming community, and it is pretty obvious that it is having a dramatic impact on the dairy industry on the Fleurieu at the moment. There was the debacle a few months ago concerning Warrnambool Cheese and Butter, when the price drop forced farmers to get out of dairying pretty much straightaway. Lo and behold, a couple of weeks later, the price was lifted again, but it still does not match the cost of production.

One has only to look at my electorate or the member for Hammond's electorate, where some of the dairy-based industries around the river and lakes have gone, never to return. The issue of water is just so critical in this state. We live in the driest state in the driest continent in the world, and this outfit sitting across the chamber has done absolutely nothing in nearly eight years to increase or secure more water.

We now have the desalination plant which will come online sometime in 2011. As I recall, it was actually a Liberal initiative that was pooh-poohed by the Premier and others and then, all of a sudden, 10 or 12 months later, it was a wonderful idea. Then we had the federal government bailout to double the size of the desal plant. So, in due course about 25 per cent of Adelaide's water will come out of the desalination plant.

Meanwhile, what have we done with stormwater? We have a small unit just off Anzac Highway near the Patawalonga drain, and I see the tens of millions of litres of water that flow down that drain when there is a good rain up in the Hills, and I shake my head in disbelief. While poor old South Australian householders go on water restrictions and watch their garden die each summer, and watch everything else fall apart, this water is running out to sea. Even this morning it was running about 15 to 20 centimetres deep, and it has not rained since the weekend. It is all disappearing.

These things impact on the public of South Australia, and they impact quite deeply. There are a multitude of things that have not happened under the Rann Labor government, and the Treasurer came into this place a couple of weeks ago and put down his budget, promising this, that and everything else—with the $3 billion-odd bailout from the federal government which will help them across the line. It is indicative of a government that has no idea of where it is going.

The fact is that, under the former Howard coalition government in Canberra, those years when the economy was bustling along, this government just wasted opportunities. When the Premier came into government there was an announcement that there would be a cap on Public Service numbers, but we now have 17,000 or 18,000 more than we had when this government came into office, and those employees have to be paid every fortnight (or whatever it is). It is a travesty of justice that these poor old public servants are now put under pressure and have to live in fear about their futures, many wondering whether they will even have a future. They have tenure but I suspect, from the way the government is going, that that tenure is looking a bit shaky. One only has to hear some of the utterances coming out of the Public Service Association and some of the union organisations; they know of those public servants' concern.

The Treasurer is terribly worried about his AAA rating. Well, he has kept that, but at what sort of cost, at what sort of detriment to the population of South Australia? Rather than a self-fulfilling ego trip, it has not really accomplished much at all. As I recall, he said that it would save the state $60 million a year in interest (I think that is the figure, but I will stand corrected if it is wrong), but the fact is that it is an ego trip. This mob could not run a chook raffle, and they have proved it time and time again.

The former Liberal government had the state debt down to just over $2 billion but we are now up to over $6 billion again. We are heading to State Bank mark 2, courtesy of Premier Rann, who was there when the State Bank fell over. He is back there now and—whoops-a-daisy—we are $6 billion in debt. I am just waiting to see what will happen with the Premier. It looks as if he has probably upset the Italians so Rome is off the agenda, so he will not be the ambassador to Italy; I do not think they will send him there now.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Well, he just might get the high commissioner's job in the UK and go back to see his cousins in London, or he might be really lucky and get the ambassador's job in the United States—or even New Zealand; he could do that!

You wonder when this Premier will do a runner. Yesterday, when our leader was making his budget reply speech and mentioned that there were some issues relating to Mr Ashbourne, and also mentioned Mr Koutsantonis, with about 60 traffic convictions, being made a minister, the Premier was out of his seat and was gone. He could not be seen for dust as he went out the door.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I rise on a point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Finniss will take his seat. The member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: There are two issues. First, it is disorderly to speak about people who are not here and, secondly, it is completely untrue—and the member for Finniss knows it.

The SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Mr PENGILLY: I am sorry; I recognise that he is not there. A wet lettuce leaf again! It is disappointing to see what this budget has not done, and it is disappointing to see the squandering of the last 7½ years or so in South Australia during the term of this Rann Labor government.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson.


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


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