HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

(Continued from page 3373.)

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): I call the member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (15:51): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I congratulate you on your elevation to high office. It is a big day for you: you have gone to the front bench and you are also in the chair. You can write this in your diary as one of your finest hours, but let us hope that you can become permanent in one of those positions—either in a frontbench ministry or that chair later on in your career here. I also commend the minister for agriculture. Was it your first or second estimates?

The Hon. P. Caica: The fourth, but the first as agriculture minster.

Mr VENNING: On behalf of all the farmers of the state, I congratulate you. We have empathy with you, which is more than we can say for your predecessor, with whom we did not have empathy. I am afraid that you have a lot of work to do to catch up because of a lot of the damage that was done and the uncaring things that went on.

The estimates committees are a useful means for members to examine government policies and expenditure over the next 12 months. Many of the punters out there, and perhaps some in here, believe that figures can be made to say just about anything. After the spin doctors get to them with a smart press release or two, even the most unacceptable position can appear to be justified. That is why, in my many years here, I have always felt that you should keep your eyes and ears open but remember what went on last week or even last year was half the battle.

I have watched while South Australia imports a Victorian to tell us what we are doing wrong with our water—and you would know that, sir. It is rather a joke since, from the 1960s, South Australia has been the nation's leader in water. We capped our usage 30 years before the rest. We enclosed our last open irrigation channel about a decade ago. Victoria is still trying to pinch water out of the Murray system for Melbourne, it still has open irrigation systems galore and this Premier is currently taking it to the High Court of Australia for its illegal antics over the Murray—great idea! Still, at least this commissioner has got the Premier to pull his head out of the sand.

We have had a severe drought the several years now, and Adelaide has been on water restrictions because the government has neglected to secure supply. Every time it rained, most of the rain rushed into the gulf, and it still does—what a disgrace!

There has been ongoing cause for experts—such as Professor John Argue, Professor Mike Young and Thinker in Residence the late Professor Peter Cullen, and practical men, like Colin Pitman of Salisbury council, not to mention nearly every member on this side of the house—to urge the government to invest in stormwater capture in wetlands and storage in our aquifers.

I do not know how many times and in how many ways I have heard the government say, 'It's not on. It won't work,' and that includes an almost hysterical Attorney-General claiming that we would all be poisoned or become sick if we drank even rainwater out of the tank. Apparently, the commissioner has converted to him on the way to the polls.

As of Tuesday, we are asking for something of the order of $37 million to construct seven wetlands with the aim of capturing 60 gigalitres of water, exactly the same figures as those experts I mentioned before have been touting for years, but of course they were all wrong. Here we see it: a reality. Still, we could not expect much more. After all, how many reasons were there that we could not and would not have a desalination plant when it was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition? What a different song they are singing now! In fact, they want to double the size of it, which we do not support.

I also noticed in Saturday's paper that they are advertising for a commissioner for sustainability. Apart from the fact that the only commissioners I knew were the men who earnt their living opening hotel and cab doors for guests, before this government started appointing every man and possibly their dogs as commissioners, I thought to myself, 'Well, I should give them credit: maybe they do care.' Then it was all ruined, because I got one of those brown paper bag tip-offs that the Premier could not live without when he was in opposition. Now, you can imagine that I thought I had better check the authenticity of this one.

Just so there is no doubt, I will be very clear indeed, and I will go slowly so the ministerial staffers can get this down. The document I refer to was addressed to the Director of Organisational Change and Development, and it is interesting that there is actually a full-time director for that. Its subject was 'SARDI fixed term contract arrangements'. Its author was Elizabeth Warhurst and the document was dated March 2008.

As members would know, SARDI employs many scientists who have done wonderful work to keep our rural industries competitive for decades. That is why I was appalled to see on page 5 of this report that 71 of those scientists have been employed for over 10 years on casual contracts and that in at least one case an employee has been contracted for more than 20 years. I will say it again: more than 71 of the state's best scientists have been employed continuously for more than 10 years as casual employees.

That is a disgrace. Any public servant employed continuously for a fraction of that time would have been made permanent. Indeed, almost all the administration staff in that bureaucracy are permanent employees (admin again; we have heard that before) but not, apparently, those who really drive the place. The brightest and best, those who look to resolve water issues, to improve grain production, to protect us from climate change—those, in short, whom we desperately need to ensure a better future—are demeaned and treated as transitory and expendable.

I am sure we will get our commissioner; I am equally sure we will get thousands more dollars of feel-good ads, but will we get any action? Will we have any scientists left, or will they all leave for permanent jobs in Canberra, New South Wales and Victoria? Is it not past the time the government stopped talking the talk and started walking the walk?

Returning to the budget in detail, as I said in my Appropriation response, I am very disappointed that the budget handed down by the Rann government on 4 June overlooked and ignored country South Australians. The answers I received to a couple of questions I asked during estimates hearings definitely prove that this government does not care about any region north of Gepps Cross.

I am concerned about the government's response regarding my questions about enhancing transport services to the Barossa. The Barossa region contributes very heavily to state revenue, and what does it get in return from the Rann government? Nothing. I particularly refer to question time today, when we heard about the all the new rolling stock coming to South Australia—millions of dollars worth; the greatest purchase of rolling stock ever, according to the minister. How much is coming to the Barossa? None. It is a disgrace.

The community has been calling out for public transport services to be improved for many years but, when I questioned the Minister for Transport during estimates as to whether if the Rann government cannot supply trains it would be able to supply buses that link with the scheduled Gawler to Adelaide train services so that at least a few times a day it can run linking services into the Barossa under the Metro ticket system, the minister categorically ruled it out, despite his acknowledging that it is a growth area for South Australia. In his answer, the minister said in relation to public transport:

About 75 per cent of the system is paid for by the taxpayer and about 25 per cent is paid for by the user. So, no public transport system is feasible.

If you use that principle, the state government obviously subsidises public transport—about 75 per cent—but not in country South Australia. Where is the equity in that? The minister or one of his advisers stated numerous times that extending the passenger rail line from Gawler to the Barossa is not viable, but now he admits that no public transport is viable either, particularly if you use this criterion. It is not viable at all. Why not trial a service to the Barossa? I am sure patronage would equal that of any public transport service offered in regional centres across South Australia.

During a radio interview last year the minister admitted that some regional centres have quite high levels of subsidy. He said:

In regional centres it is very much a case of very different systems that have developed piecemeal over time, but some of the major centres have quite high levels…the Port Lincoln bus service has quite a high level of subsidy for some reason…others have a lower and some don't really get very much at all in regional areas, to be quite frank.

Well, it appears that the Barossa falls into that category. At the moment, the cost of public transport offered in the Barossa is prohibitive so not many people use the services. Currently, it costs $12.80 one way for a full fare and $6.04 for a concession fare to catch the bus from Angaston to Gawler. It costs more to get to Gawler than it does to get from Gawler to Adelaide. The cost of a single trip ticket from Gawler to Adelaide during the peak service is only $4.40—which includes the rise that was announced in this year's budget.

I will continue to lobby on behalf of the Barossa community for improvements to the public transport systems offered in the region. If it cannot give us a train, at least the Rann government could provide a bus linking the main towns to the railway station in Gawler under the metro ticket system. I also include Kapunda, because the rail line is still there and still operative; I have no problem with that and I would support that, too. I have also asked questions about security of the carparks at Gawler Railway Station. If we are going to force people to use them, at least we should provide security so that when they come home their car will be there and not vandalised.

The government has been pushing ahead with urban growth boundary plans, particularly with the Gawler East development, which is estimated to have around 20,000 houses. The minister also put on the record that the Rann Labor government has no plans to extend the rail system to this new area. The answer the minister provided demonstrates that the government is surging ahead without planning appropriate infrastructure for such a large development—more policy on the run. That is a disgrace.

There is nothing better than developing infrastructure before people start building houses. It is obvious common sense—and an opportunity lost. The government has to have much more foresight than that. The whole issue about the northern growth boundary is getting on the nose very quickly, as the member for Light would know. It is not popular, and it is a travesty that we are seeing houses being built on the best land in South Australia. Why are we not forcing them to go west of the Princes Highway and leave this land to grow the food that we will need in the next 20 to 30 years? Food will be in short supply, indeed, and we should not be allowing development on our best land, particularly in the Freeling and Roseworthy area. It is bad news and it should be against the law.

It is clear, as a result of examining the budget and answers to questions in estimates, that the Rann Labor government is determined to forge ahead with its $1.7 billion rail yard hospital—before cost blow-outs—which will drain funds from all other areas of health, including Country Health. There is no mention of any funds for a new Barossa health facility in this year's budget—again—and with the government set on building a new Taj Mahal on North Terrace I do not expect it as long as this government is in power.

In the wake of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report being presented to the Rudd federal government yesterday, after 18 months of study of the nation's health system and with preliminary findings in February this year recommending that the federal government take over key aspects of Australia's health system, I think it is time to start asking the federal government for direct funding for a new Barossa hospital. If everything else fails, we will go to the federal government.

It is crystal clear that, as long as the Rann government is in power and, therefore, has the responsibility of running our state's health system, the Barossa will never get a new health facility. During the 2007 election campaign, Mr Kevin Rudd (then leader of the opposition) warned the states to fix their hospitals or risk commonwealth takeover should he be elected. He said, 'When it comes to health and hospitals, the buck will stop with me.'

Well, we got some money in last year's state budget for a business case. It started only a few months ago, which was a deliberate delay tactic so it could not be completed before this year's budget was handed down. When John Howard was prime minister he bailed out Tasmania's Mersey Hospital—and maybe it can be done again for the Barossa.

I will personally invite several federal and state MPs to visit the Barossa Hospital at Angaston. I will send invitations specifically to the federal health minister, the member for Barker (Patrick Secker), the member for Wakefield (Nick Champion), the member for Mayo (Jamie Briggs), several Labor senators and several Liberal senators to come to the Barossa to look at this hospital. I am sick of saying it: everyone knows that it is appalling and most inappropriate for one of our tourism jewels and one of the sectors of success in our state. Yet the government leaves us with a hospital that can only be described as a hovel.

The Minister for Transport acknowledged during estimates that the Barossa is a growth area. The front page of one of the local papers yesterday carried the headline 'Barossa population set to boom'. The article was based on the Barossa and Light Regional Development Board's regional profile for the region, but we cannot get the government to invest in our health system and give us new health facilities. It is a disgrace.

Obviously, when it comes to water—the state's most pressing need—this government has failed. The newly released Rann government's water plan fails to deliver any new initiatives, particularly with respect to stormwater harvesting results, as I said, until 2050. How long should it take? As we said during question time today, by 2050 we will all be well and truly gone—or, at least, all in our gophers.

The plan also fails to recognise a need for water security in regional South Australia. I do not understand how a country member who is also the Minister for Water Security cannot seem to find some opportunity to invest in stormwater and re-use opportunities in regional South Australia. It would definitely help farmers and irrigators at this time. We have had some good rain (and it is still raining), and the crops are looking wonderful, I report to the house. However, we need it to rain heavily for a long time to get over the past seven years of protracted drought and, more importantly, to get run-off into the river.

Mr Acting Speaker, I commend you and your private endeavours as the member for Hammond for what you have done. You are a fearless campaigner for the cause, and if every member had your dedication we would not have the problems we have in this state. So, I commend and congratulate you very much.

During estimates, I questioned the minister for agriculture about the future of PIRSA regional offices. The minister responded that he cannot give assurances that all 17 regional offices will remain open, and that worried me (and I note that the minister is in the house). These offices provide farmers, horticulturalists, vignerons and many others within the primary industries sector with important research work and advice—or I should say independent research work and advice, because it does not come with any price tag or commercial bias.

The minister said that across the 17 regional offices there are about 115,000 inquiries, of which 40,000 (about 30 per cent of the total) are received from primary producers and agribusinesses. The remainder are from other government agencies and the general community. I think that 40,000 queries in a year made to regional PIRSA offices from primary producers and agribusinesses demonstrate the importance of these offices and the services they provide to rural communities.

I also query the merit of the Rann government's decision to cut jobs from the primary industries department. It seems that it is being asked to shed some long-term jobs, it is being asked to shed the fat that it never took on. The extra public servants who have been taken on are not from within the department of agriculture.

The minister responded that there is a clear requirement that all agencies make cuts and deliver savings, but I do not think it is right. Why should the department of agriculture have to cut back when it never grew fat in the first place, especially at a time when our primary producers need its support more than ever?

In the time that I have been here I cannot recall one instance where we saw a blow-out or a lift in the department of agriculture's employment levels. Every year it has been decline, decline, decline. So, why is this department now being placed under the same scrutiny as all the others? If you compare it to, say, the department of environment and the huge growth in that department—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Did you say 'elite'?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Mr Leak.

Mr VENNING: What an appalling comment to make. I cannot understand why the department of agriculture is being put under the same scrutiny as these other departments that have grown fat over recent years. So, you are putting on the screws—I thought that comment was most un-Christian; very much so.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mr VENNING: It is not true—and I have already said that. I will get a Bible if you wish. I think it is appalling that this person stands in this place—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are a principal Liberal leak to the media.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pederick): The Attorney-General will come to order!

Mr VENNING: I was quite put off my job here. I just cannot believe that a person who purports to be a Christian can say that. I have already said to him privately that it was not—I stand up and honestly—he did quote an instance. I denied it emphatically and I do again, absolutely, on the Bible.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Tell the house what that incident is.

The ACTING SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will come to order! The member for Schubert has the call.

Mr VENNING: I think that it is a bit rough that the department of agriculture has been put through the wringer like everyone else has. Just in closing, I will put all my personal things open for the public, the whole lot; my personal life, too. You put yours there, too. Shall we start? Shall we start with our private lives? Shall we start about our partners? If you want to go this way, I'll take you on, because you are a despicable grub.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Mr Acting Speaker, I call upon the member for Schubert to withdraw and apologise for the remarks he has just made.

Mr VENNING: I will do that, sir, but you heard the slur that came across the chamber here. This is where the dodgy documents, I think, have come from—from this source. This man is a man—

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! Please return to the debate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Mr Acting Speaker, my point of order is that the member for Schubert has just accused me of fabricating the dodgy documents.

Mr Venning: Do you deny it?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I do, and I ask that he be required to withdraw.

Mr VENNING: I will do it without being asked, sir. I withdraw that.

The ACTING SPEAKER: And please return to the substance of the debate, member for Schubert.

Mr VENNING: I have been misled and very much provoked, as you can see. I am here to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: The Attorney-General will come to order! The member for Schubert has the call.

Mr VENNING: I am here to support the department of agriculture, the workers there and particularly the comments I made earlier about SARDI. I do not veer from that fact. I think it is unfair to these people, particularly the closures at Roseworthy. You and I, sir, were there the other day at the information centre—a wonderful facility—that is to be closed. The wonderful library there is to be closed. I could not believe it. It is a sad day. I will always support the department of agriculture and be there for the farmers.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (16:11): I once described estimates as a near-death experience; I do not believe that things have changed much. I was delighted to hear the Premier say this week that he was considering (and, hopefully, committed to) reforming the estimates process. It is important for the government and ministers to be put under scrutiny, but as a parliament I think we can do it in a much more efficient and effective manner than the current arrangement that we have via estimates.

The parliament itself—and I am talking in particular about our house—could engage in a big dose of reform. South Australia used to lead the world in a lot of things, including parliamentary and electoral reform, and I think it is time that we brought ourselves up to a point other parliaments have now reached, where they have much more efficient and effective processes. I wish to consider a range of issues. The first matter is local government, and I am aware of the statement that the Minister for State/Local Government Relations put out today in connection with the City of Burnside.

What I have been arguing for a long time is that we need to have a look, and the government needs to have a look, at the whole area of local government. The fact that it is called 'local government relations' and not 'local government' per se indicates that the government has taken a step back from what I think is a necessary process of reform. When I have raised this issue some people in local government have said, 'What about reforming state government?' I say, 'Hear, hear!' Let us reform that as well. Let us reform federal government. I believe it is long overdue that we look at whether or not, in the metropolitan area, we can make the councils more efficient and effective.

I do not know how many there should be, but I point out that, in the metropolitan area, we have 263 elected members in local government—that is including deputy mayors and mayors. That in itself is not necessarily a good or a bad thing, but it is certainly a lot of elected members. The number of councils in the metropolitan area of 19 has a total operating budget of $975 million—I will round it off. The City of Brisbane has an operating budget of $2.2 billion. It is interesting that, in the City of Brisbane, the basic allowances paid are less—$3.4 million (I will round it off)—than what we pay to the 263 councillors, mayors and deputy mayors in the metropolitan area of Adelaide, which runs into over $4 million per annum.

Once again, that of itself does not prove a lot, but it suggests that maybe it is time we looked at the issue of whether or not we have the optimal number of councils in the metropolitan area and whether it should be one or whether the status quo should prevail. That should be determined by an independent review. In respect of councils—and this is the related issue—they have just had an elector representation review. In the City of Onkaparinga, which, overall, I rate as a very good council in most aspects, they have 21 elected members, that is, including the mayor. I think that is far too many to have an effective decision-making body, which should be more akin to a cabinet, rather than a large representative body—21 members.

I made a submission suggesting they should have 11. The answer that came back from the government was that, if the people do not like the number of elected members in a council, then they should indicate that at the time of the local government election. How can they? They cannot. A whole range of issues need to be looked at. Many of the CEOs in councils in metropolitan Adelaide are now getting $300,000 a year or more; maybe they are worth it, maybe they are not, but it is time to look at that whole issue. The answer that has come back from the government is: we cannot look at councils and the number thereof, etc., because we are focused on the growth boundary. That is quite inappropriate and silly. Governments can look at more than one issue at the one time.

In concluding on the matter of local government, people have contacted me concerned that some of the councils have no ward structure at all. I think that, without a ward structure, you are not likely to have accountability. It is something we need to look at in terms of the Legislative Council; that is, it should have districts or zones that its members represent because, in that way, you get better accountability, in my view.

The issue of education is something that is very close to my heart. I think it is high time that DECS was subject to an extensive and thorough review, because, at the moment, I do not believe that DECS is really serving the educational interests of this state. Once again, our education system used to lead not only Australia but the world. I do not believe it does any more, and one of the key factors for that is that DECS is in need of a major overhaul and major decentralisation, including decentralising decision-making more to the school level, rather than in head office.

The other government agency which I think is in need of a significant review and overhaul is the police department. We have a very good police force overall, I believe, but I cannot recall the last time the police department was subject to an overall review: a complete and fundamental look at how it operates and whether it is operating efficiently or effectively. It is a long time since that sort of review was undertaken. Obviously, it needs to be undertaken by someone independent of the police force. Police members contact me, and have done so recently. I have said to them, 'How come you're getting a bigger budget? You have more police than ever before, but we don't seem to see them out and about.'

The answer given to me by police was that they are doing projects. I do not know whether or not that is true. That is the accusation that is made. We have seen The Advertiser report on stress levels in the police force. That was a point made to me also by a serving police officer. Also, the police seem to have this view that, despite having over 400 unmarked vehicles, very few of them are used as unmarked vehicles in policing work other than, obviously, for criminal investigation. For example, very few of them are used by traffic police.

I think it is time that the police department was thoroughly examined to see whether it can be improved in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Overall, I think we can be very proud of the police force here in terms of their integrity and honesty. There will always be a few police who do not do the right thing. As an organisation, I think it is time for a total review of the way in which the police operate.

In relation to both DECS and the police department, I just make the point that the estimates committee process does not really provide the opportunity for the sort of review that I am talking about. I have attended many estimates—many more than the member for Finniss—and the reason I did not attend this year is that I find the exercise rather pointless, until it is reformed. I have called for reform over the years and, finally, thankfully, the Premier is going to do something about it. I can serve my electorate better by being out among my electors than being in the estimates and feeling like a fossilised member of some antiquated institution.

In terms of other issues that need focus, I am delighted that minister O'Brien is taking the road safety portfolio very seriously. I am pleased that he did not go down the path of blaming trees and poles for people crashing into them. I note that some researcher at the University of Adelaide came out and blamed trees and poles. As far as I know, trees and poles do not jump out at motorists. Nevertheless, if a pole, or whatever, is an obvious danger, it is prudent that we do something about it. I travel on the old road to Murray Bridge quite a lot. I commend the government on its shoulder-sealing program; it is excellent in terms of improving safety. Also, the installation of Armco railing has been very much welcomed on that particular road, and elsewhere.

In regard to road safety overall, I would like to see the government follow the lead of New Zealand and some of the states in the US, where very strict controls have been imposed on P-platers carrying other passengers after midnight. Unless the P-plater can show that it is necessary in terms of work, they should not be able to fill their car with mates after midnight, putting themselves and others at great risk. I do not know how many more young people we have to lose tragically because we, as a community, allow them to put themselves at great risk under peer pressure, or whatever.

In regard to road safety, I would like to see the minister look at the possibility of repeat road offenders—and I emphasise 'repeat'—being required to re-do a licence test and maybe undertake some other program, which could involve looking at the consequences of poor driving, road trauma, and so on. I heard the member for Mayo (Jamie Briggs) suggest that everyone should redo their licence after five years. I think that is unnecessary and excessive in terms of cost and imposition. However, people who repeatedly do not behave on the road should be required to redo a licence test and undergo other appropriate training.

Years ago, people had to attend police lectures if they offended on the road. Sadly, that seems to have gone by the wayside; maybe that could be looked at as well. One of the schemes that would help in terms of reducing road trauma has been successfully introduced in Europe. That scheme has various names but, in general, it comes under the heading of 'New car rebate scheme'. In Germany, a scheme has been introduced where people get a financial incentive to replace cars that are nine or more years old.

What has happened in Germany is that sales of cars have increased by 18 per cent in the four months to April 2009. Not only has it helped to reduce accidents, because people are in better cars, with airbags and so on, but it has also helped the car manufacturers and employment as well. Clearly, the state government would be under financial pressure were it to introduce such a scheme, but the commonwealth certainly could. In Germany, they offer $3,320 equivalent to replace old cars. Likewise, France has a scheme to replace cars that are 10 years old or more, and it resulted in an 8.1 per cent jump in car sales in March this year. Britain offers £2,000 towards the cost of a new car, and some of the provinces in Canada do likewise.

One of the big lifesaving features of modern cars is airbags, but, sadly, many young people cannot afford to buy a new car. South Australia has the second oldest car fleet in the nation, and I think it is time that the federal government, in particular, provided a financial incentive to help upgrade the cars on our roads. It would help the car industry, employment and, importantly, save lives and reduce road trauma.

There are some other very important issues. I notice that the Hon. Dennis Hood has introduced a measure relating to the government's significant tree legislation, which was the development bill of 2007. I was a little surprised by the member's comments reported in the newspaper today that people should be able to do basically what they like on their own property. I think that is a very risky strategy, whether it applies to trees or anything else. There is no doubt that tree reform is needed, and I am quite willing to assist that process in this chamber.

At the moment, the scheme that was meant to protect big river red gums has been distorted and is being used to protect any big tree, and the term 'significant' is no longer used in the correct way. A small tree can be environmentally significant, but it is not big, obviously, and therefore it is not protected, in most situations. That legislation needs to be rejigged, and we need to try to put legislation in place that does not impose undue burden on people who want to remove a tree that was planted inappropriately or may even be dead.

Last night, someone at a community meeting was telling me that they have a dead tree in their yard. They have to pay an application fee of $30 to the council, as well as planning permission fees, and then they have to get an arborist to say that the tree is dead. I think that is excessive, and it imposes an unfair and unnecessary burden on landowners when it is obvious that the tree—a tree that was planted by the owner, anyway, and is dead—should be removed because it is dangerous.

The government seems to be moving very slowly in a couple of areas that are of particular interest to me and my constituents. One is spent convictions—and I see the Attorney sitting in the chamber. I know he has made a commitment to try to bring in a template-based spent convictions bill. I hope he can help expedite that so that people who did something silly of a minor nature years ago can get a clean slate and a second chance at life.

Graffiti is still an issue, and I understand the Attorney and his department are trying to deal with that more effectively. I am currently working on some proposals, which I hope will assist. I notice that the government, in developing its hydroponics legislation, is doing some of the things it said were not possible with my graffiti proposal several years ago. So, I will be reminding the government that, if it is good for hydroponics, maybe the principle should also be applied to graffiti vandalism.

The other one which seems to be very elusive is cat management reform. Mitcham council took two steps forward and one step back, but we still need consistent, congruent cat management reform across the state that will help protect cats and also wildlife and reduce the nuisance that some cats may cause to people in the neighbourhood.

It annoys and distresses me that, continually, because people dump cats outside our country towns, people like me have to have those cats destroyed. At the moment, the system allows that to happen, in terms of people dumping cats and not looking after them. It is an area that needs attention, and I urge the government to really get cracking on it.

I am aware that an announcement was made this week to name and shame restaurants that are dirty. It has been a hobbyhorse of mine for a long time to try to clean up the small number of restaurants that do not do the right thing. I advocated scores on the doors, which is the English model, where you highlight positives and rate restaurants according to their cleanliness and so on, but this week's announcement by the government is still worth while.

In terms of public transport, we need improvements in my electorate. We need lighting on Happy Valley Drive; the Minister for Transport said he was looking at it, and I hope we can see some action there. I notice the rapid progress in standardising the Belair line. I have to pay tribute to the contractors, for the fantastic job they are doing there and the speed at which they are doing it. It is a great testament to what private enterprise can actually do. Finally, I pay tribute to small business in my area. Many of the proprietors work their butts off.

Time expired.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (16:32): Yesterday, I attended the SA Water estimates hearing where the minister stated, in her very first words:

This state government's number one priority is ensuring that South Australia has sufficient water supplies for future economic and population growth, and this week we outlined a comprehensive plan to guarantee South Australia's future water security to 2050 and beyond.

If water is this government's number one priority, why then has it taken seven years for this Water for Good plan to be developed, and why is the state under level 3 restrictions, the River Murray running dry and Eyre Peninsula's underground resources overdrawn? Currently, 0.8 gigalitres of water is being pumped all the way from the River Murray to Kimba on Eyre Peninsula, with a proposal for this to be increased to 2.3 gigalitres if necessary.

This water is pumped through a $48.6 million pipeline from Iron Knob, which people on Eyre Peninsula did not want. Frustratingly, this funding could have provided a desalination plant that could have almost doubled the region's current nine gigalitre requirements. A desalination plant for Eyre Peninsula was promised by this Labor government years ago. It would have taken pressure off the underground resource, provided good quality water in place of the substandard product we are currently supplied with and stimulated significant development—all this for less than the cost of pumping, accrued interest and the cost of the pipeline and taking precious water from the extremely stressed Murray River.

I quote the Mayor of Ceduna in today's West Coast Sentinel, in an article entitled, 'SA Water needs some common sense', which sums up the feelings of many people on the West Coast of South Australia, as follows:

There is an urgent need for an injection of common sense and private enterprise into the operations of SA Water before more foolish decisions are made.

A read of past press releases from SA Water about 'water security' revealed amazing details. Stage one of the Iron Knob to Kimba pipeline cost about $50 million and is presently delivering about 800 megalitres of water from the River Murray.

Contrast this with what could have been delivered by private enterprise. The environmentally benign desalination project proposed for Penong would have delivered 1,250 megalitres of water for zero capital investment on the part of SA Water. There are now other potential operations able to deliver a similar amount on the same basis.

Clearly, SA Water is an incredibly slow learner because it is now considering a further expansion to the foolish pipeline to cost 'less than $50 million' to deliver a further 900 megalitres of water from the dying River Murray. This possible action is a ridiculous blend of environmental vandalism and fundamental stupidity.

While all of the above is proceeding at a pace way below that of a badly wounded tortoise, Eyre Peninsula is enduring unnecessary water restrictions, coupled with an inability to go ahead with desperately needed development, because of the inability of SA Water to supply additional water. While this is happening, SA Water has spent millions on studies which lead nowhere.

To add insult to injury, the rationed water that we are being charged for is barely potable. As an example of this, prior to purchasing water from any other source, SA Water requires that water to have a hardness level of only between 60 and 120, yet supply us with water with a level of 298.

As I suggested in the header for this article, SA Water desperately needs an urgent dose of common sense, which should be provided by private enterprise. Our water security is too important to be left under the exclusive control of a virtual monopoly.

I therefore call on minister Karlene Maywald to intervene to bring some sanity into this process before even more money is wasted.

The Eyre region produces about 40 per cent of the state's grain in a good year and about 65 per cent of the state's seafood, with about 80 per cent of the current mining exploration, but has only about 3 per cent of the state's population. It is very unfortunate for us, therefore, that this government's funding policy is based on population, with little consideration for the wealth that we create.

To justify the fact that regions got so little funding in the recent budget for regional communities, the member for Giles stated in the Eyre Peninsula Tribune in her guest editorial today, 'In fact, probably, per head of population, we get more than metropolitan suburbs.' I ask what relevance that observation has in relation to the fact that we are desperately in need of infrastructure and opportunities that populated suburbs take for granted, for example, to bring to fruition the massive mining potential in the region.

In parliament this week I attended the launch of the new Regional Development Australia consultative body that will replace state regional development boards. This move will see the amalgamation of the Eyre Regional Development Board that covers the huge area of Eyre Peninsula with the Whyalla Development Board.

I am concerned that there is little community of interest between the two very different regions, with little benefit for the Eyre region, particularly based on the Labor government's population-based funding policy, where future funding is likely to be population based, not on the need and potential of the region. I do not believe that either board is happy with the amalgamation. Mark Cant, chief executive of the ERDB, said in today's Port Lincoln Times:

The biggest risk of having one organisation covering both Eyre Peninsula and Whyalla was the different dynamics in the two areas, with Whyalla's economy being industry based and the Eyre Peninsula's economy being agriculture, fishing and seafood based.

Mr Cant said:

While funding levels are expected to stay the same, the governments were looking at modelling for redistribution of the funding, possibly using population base as part of the formula, which would affect Eyre Peninsula.

The proposed new port and a desalination plant at Whyalla to cater for the needs of BHP's expansion at Olympic Dam are more examples of ill-conceived developments by this government.

The proposed port will be totally inadequate for the new 300,000 to 400,000 tonne ships that are fast becoming the world standard for efficient shifting of cargo, including iron ore, around the world, as they will not have any room to manoeuvre. A long-term view must be taken to upgrade the port and rail infrastructure on Eyre Peninsula to cater for the whole mining industry in the region into the future, and not just BHP.

Instead of a desalination plant at Port Lowly that will not even provide potable water for the Spencer Gulf cities or Eyre Peninsula, and will not provide for the future needs of other mining companies that are coming onstream, a major desalination plant should be placed in a more environmentally sustainable position on the west coast of Eyre Peninsula. This would cater for the needs of Eyre Peninsula, including the new mines in the north and west, and the value adding that we must do to our minerals before we export them.

The BHP environmental impact study is now out for comment by 7 August. I will be making a submission on the desalination proposal in particular, and I urge others who are concerned to do likewise. I was disgusted to read an ABC transcript last year when the Minister for Water Security, in my view, implied that the plant was a done deal. She said:

What the environmental impact statement will do will be identify risks and then you need to put in place the technology and the management to ensure that those risks are managed...so you can ensure that you don't damage the environment with what you're doing...that's what the environmental impact assessment is doing...the impact assessment is actually identifying where there could be problems to ensure that we can put in place the management and the technology.

Then, in answer to David Bevan's interjection, 'But there's no guarantee the desal plant will go ahead,' the minister went on:

The desal plant will go ahead. I believe the desal plant will go ahead. The environmental impact assessment is well and truly under way...the pilot plant is operating up there.

In conclusion, this Labor government cannot keep on making promises that it does not keep or puts so far in the future that nothing is resolved.

As a state, we have had unprecedented income in recent years, together with considerable help from the federal government, that has been squandered and we have little to show for it—certainly, no income-earning assets that will provide future jobs and income for our people. This government must abandon its population-based funding model and recognise that funding must be injected into regional infrastructure projects that leverage real, long-term jobs and growth instead of trams that go nowhere, underpasses that do not work efficiently, opening bridges and gimmicks. The port, rail, road and water assets in regional areas are just not adequate to provide for the expansion of regional industries that this state desperately needs to provide jobs and real export income into the future.

In the time I have left, I wish to put on record the conclusion in the 2008 scientific paper entitled 'Hindcasts of the fate of desalination brine in large inverse estuaries: Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent, South Australia' by Mr Jochen Kampf, Craig Brokensha and Toby Bolton. It states:

A carefully calibrated three-dimensional hydro-dynamic model...was applied to hindcast the planned discharges of desalination brine in South Australian inverse estuaries, Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent.

The far-field study revealed that, owing to slow flushing (>1 year), the upper reaches of the gulfs are the most unsuitable locations for brine discharge. Studies indicate that brine discharge in Upper Spencer Gulf leads to long-term accumulation of discharge water at steady concentrations of 0.3 per cent in the far field (within 20km from the discharge site). Although this concentration seems relatively low, long-term exposure and potential accumulation of pollutants in bed sediment is of ecological concern.

Near-field studies revealed that dilution of discharge of water can substantially weaken in the absence of tidal mixing during dodge tides (which are extremely weak neap tides in these gulfs). In Upper Spencer Gulf, the concentration of discharge water might increase during dodge tides to values >12 per cent with associated salinity changes of >5psu. These calm periods of two to three days in duration occur roughly every two weeks and are particularly critical in terms of marine impacts. Interestingly, a decrease in dilution during dodge tides was not predicted for the planned brine discharge of Adelaide in Gulf St Vincent. Here, peak concentrations remained relatively steady during the spring-neap tidal cycle at values of 8 per cent and salinity increases of 3psu. This suggests that some discharge locations are more sensitive to dodge tides than others, an interesting feature that remains for thorough exploration in the future.

In agreement with many previous studies...the conclusion of this study is that the choice of location is crucial to minimize marine impacts of seawater desalination. Owing to a sheltered nature and associated slow flushing and given that the marine ecosystems in adjacent marine regions are already under stress...discharge of desalination brine into South Australian gulfs might have severe and irreversible negative impacts on the marine and benthic environments.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (16:45): It was interesting listening to the member for Fisher earlier; I had to agree with him when he said that the estimates process should be reformed, and I will spend a very short time discussing that. Unlike the member for Fisher, I did attend a number of the estimates committee sessions and was involved in asking questions of ministers, and on a number of occasions I sat there and listened to answers to Dorothy Dixers.

I think the member for Fisher would agree with me that that is one of the problems with the estimates committees: we are forced to sit there and endure ministers reading answers to Dorothy Dix questions that they have actually written to allow them to repeat what has been said ad nauseam by themselves, their media people and, from time to time, their agencies. Most of it is persiflage and totally unnecessary; quite frankly, it is damn hard to put up with. But estimates could perform a very important function.

Unfortunately, the time limitations are another one of the significant problems. Last week I was responsible for asking questions on behalf of the opposition in the energy portfolio area. Two hours were allotted to that portfolio, the same as last year—and I was asking questions of that portfolio last year, and I think I may have been asking questions on that portfolio even the year before that. Two hours may well have been a reasonable time to question a minister responsible for energy in the days when the government of South Australia owned ETSA, when it owned the electricity generators, the electricity distribution and the electricity retailers. A lot of policy decisions were taken by government and a lot of money was expended, and two hours to ask questions of the minister responsible for that may well have been reasonable.

Twice this year my colleague the shadow minister for transport requested that the minister (because it is the same minister) reduce the time allowed for energy questions and move some of that to transport, and the minister responsible for infrastructure did the same. Surprisingly, the minister declined both requests. Why would that be? It is because the minister knows that his responsibilities under the energy portfolio are very limited, and are becoming less and less relevant as most of the powers have been handed over to the ministerial council, a combination of commonwealth and state ministers. The minister here can then dodge any questions simply by saying that it was a decision of the ministerial council that has been ratified by all parliaments around the nation. It is a nonsense.

On the other hand, in some of the estimates I had a vast list of questions to go through that I had written down, because I wanted to ask the responsible minister about various aspects of the budget. In the area of emergency services, for example, I had written out 70 questions, I think, but I had the opportunity to ask probably 20 of them. I thought all of them were important questions that would have explained the budget and given not just the opposition but also the community of South Australia an insight into the budgetary process and the impacts the budget has on the delivery of services.

There is a vast amount of room to update and modernise the estimates process. All I can say about the charade we go through is that if the minister and the government were comfortable about the way they were managing, and if the Treasurer was comfortable with his budget, there would be no argument about having to filibuster and fill in the short amount of time allowed to cover most agencies to prevent the opposition from asking very many questions. There would be no need for ministers to prevaricate in their answers and go all over the place except to the nub of the question and reveal any real details.

However, that is the situation and the process we have, because ministers, particularly the Treasurer, do not want to be scrutinised. As a parliament, it is an issue we should consider seriously. Unlike the member for Fisher, I do not expect the Premier, notwithstanding his comments, to make any changes. I recall that the Premier prior to the 2002 election talked extensively about government accountability. In my opinion, this has been the most secretive government in the history of South Australia.

This government does not allow the release of innocent documents under freedom of information. I do not know how many requests I have submitted that have been flatly turned down. From the Minister for Water Security I generally get an acknowledgment—sometimes not even that—and that is the last I hear of it. This government simple flouts the freedom of information laws; and I will talk more about that over the ensuing months because some governments handle it completely differently from the way in which we handle it.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I think the report has been released.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: He did not have the balance of power, unfortunately. He would have enjoyed it. Again, the secrecy of this government is reflected in the way in which it manages the estimates process.

I now turn to a number of issues that were raised in the estimates committees when I was responsible for asking questions. First, under the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, I asked the minister about marine parks. The minister talked about that today and selectively quoted from a press release I put out and the estimates committee Hansard. The argument I was making was that the minister established the outer boundaries for 19 marine parks—he has not actually named them—across the state waters from the Western Australia border to the Victoria border.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The member for Goyder points out that none is anywhere near the most degraded coastal waters in South Australia off metropolitan Adelaide. It is the only place where our coastal waters are under serious threat—and have been for many years—and where extensive damage is not being attended to at this stage.

The minister, under the act, established the outer boundaries on 29 January. There was a public furore, a public outcry of resentment against what the minister said, because something like 45 per cent of the state's coastal waters were to be locked up in marine parks. No-one prior to that—not the mainstream conservation groups, the Conservation Council or the Wilderness Society—even in their wildest dreams thought that the marine parks would extend to cover that area. Notwithstanding that, the minister declared them, which resulted in a public furore. He said that he would set up some working groups to look at it and advise on the outer boundaries.

One has to understand the legislation that the parliament passed. The legislation provides that within six months of declaring the outer boundaries—and that will expire at the end of July—if the minister wishes to amend the outer boundaries he can do it simply by the stroke of a pen. If the outer boundaries are to be amended after that time, it needs to be a motion of both houses of parliament.

We all know that is quite difficult and that it is an instrument used to stop future governments from changing things. The minister knows full well that is the situation. What did he do? He set up some working groups to advise him on the outer boundaries. He said, 'I want them to report by the end of May.'

Everybody expected that this would be good, because now they would have a say, having had no say, and would hear what was going on by the end of May and, if the minister did not listen, they could crank up the public campaign again. What has the minister done? First, he said, 'No, I'm going to extend that a bit; they're not quite finished,' and he extended it out to the middle of June. Now he says, 'We still haven't finished, but they'll report to me soon.' When I asked the minister in estimates, 'Are you going release those reports; is the community going to get them?', he said, 'Yes, of course I am going to do that,' and I thought, 'You beauty!' Then he said, 'After I've had a look at them.'

The reality is that this minister has no intention of releasing any of those reports until after the end of July and, when the public outcry starts again, the minister will say, 'Sorry, boys and girls; I can't do anything about it. You have to appeal to the parliament, because it is only the parliament that can change those outer boundaries.' The charge I level against the minister is that he never acted in good faith. When he established those working groups he did so in bad faith. He knew what he was doing. He knew that it was a ploy to make sure the community of South Australia could be silenced for the rest of that six month period to get him past the end of July so that the pressure was taken off him. The minister would no longer have the power to change the outer boundaries by the stroke of a pen.

The minister has used this device and gone to people all across South Australia. He has had well-intentioned, hardworking South Australians out there in good faith attending meetings, sitting down in discussion groups, being briefed by the department and making argument back and forth. They have been working in good faith but, unfortunately, the minister has not been. The minister has been exposed as acting from day one in bad faith.

All he was doing was silencing a political problem and, come the end of July, I guarantee what this minister will say to anybody who objects to the outer boundaries of the marine parks. He will say, 'I can't do anything about it; you'll have to appeal to the parliament,' knowing full well they will then be stymied. That was the charge I laid against the minister in the press release I put out last Thursday or Friday and I stand by it, because the minister acted in bad faith. The same minister is responsible for the EPA. I asked him questions about the old Mobil oil refinery.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, would it not be contrary to standing orders and the practice of the house for a member to say that another member acted in bad faith? While I am on my feet, I am wondering whether the member could seek leave to continue his remarks, to give you time to contemplate the point of order.

The SPEAKER: I do not think saying that someone acting in bad faith implies improper motives. I have always understood improper motives to mean something criminal, some sort of allegation of criminality or corruption, essentially, so I think I will allow it.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. M.J. Atkinson]


Mr WILLIAMS: I am delighted with your ruling, Mr Speaker, and it shows consistency with your ruling a week or two back. It is the modus operandi of the Attorney to interrupt members when he feels that they are making a good argument; he does it all the time. I am delighted that the Attorney used that device at this time because it reinforces my argument and convinces me that I am on the right track. I thank the Attorney.

I wish to raise two other matters, and I will have to be reasonably quick. I asked the same minister, who is responsible for the EPA, about what actions the EPA had taken and what were his responsibilities with regard to the old oil refinery site. And, lo and behold, the minister said, 'The Treasurer is handling all that. I make no decisions.' He did say, 'The EPA might have a role, but I make no decisions.' So, the minister for the environment will be making no decisions about the clean-up at the Mobil oil refinery. I do not know whether government members know that, but the opposition now knows it, and I think it is absolutely outrageous that the minister for the environment has no role in policy decisions with respect to the clean-up at the Mobil oil refinery.

It was the Treasurer who said that the clean-up will only be to industrial standard, not to residential standard. That was the Treasurer's decision. I would have thought that the recommendation taken to cabinet should have been taken by the minister for the environment, not the Treasurer. Similarly, with respect to the rail yard site, I understand from his answers in the estimates committee that the role of the minister for the environment was very limited.

I was also in the estimates committee with the planning minister (and he has just walked into the gallery), and I was very interested to learn from him that no advice was sought from Planning SA about other uses for that site or about its suitability for a hospital versus some other use. No cost-benefit analysis or use-benefit analysis was done on that site. Apparently, the political decision was made that 'we will build a hospital and we will build it there', and then Planning SA looked at it and tried to fit it into its planning parameters. Again, it was backwards planning.

The most important thing that was revealed in the estimates committee was when I asked the Minister for Correctional Services questions about a new prison complex. Obviously, we talked about the fact that the government had walked away from its decision to build a new prison complex, a project that has been in the budget for several years now. I think it was first announced in 2006-07 that it was going to be then over $500 million. I believe it was added to in subsequent years and it was up around a $700 million PPP.

I say to the people of South Australia that the only reason the prison complex has been pulled out of the budget is that when the Treasurer was in the United States talking to Standard & Poor's and Moody's he asked, 'How can I keep my AAA rating? What do I have to do? Is it possible?' and they said to him, 'You've got to pull the prisons project, because you can't afford it. If you go out and roll up that much more debt you've lost the AAA.' Within three days of his getting home, the prisons project has gone—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And what would you have done?

Mr WILLIAMS: —I have not finished—and we are still heading into deficit. We are heading down the road to greater deficit. Can this Treasurer honestly stand up and say that the state cannot afford to build a $600 million or $700 million prison project, whether it be PPP or debt funded—'We cannot afford to build that; we'll lose our AAA credit rating'—and expect the community to believe that, in two years' time when we are further into debt, we can build a $2 billion hospital? That is what we have to ask ourselves.

The Treasurer has been sprung. He cannot afford to rack up another $700 million debt to build a prison complex because he would lose the AAA credit rating and he would lose the election. What would the Treasurer have us believe in two years' time, when the state's debt level has increased dramatically? We know we are going further into the red: the Attorney is quite silent, because he and I both know that we are going into the red. In two years' time, when the hospital project would be getting off the ground and the debt would start to come onto the balance sheet, we will be in a worse position than we are in today and the hospital project will be about three times the cost of the prisons project.

The reality is that it is not going to happen. However, this government will continue to run to the next election saying, 'We are going to build a new hospital,' knowing full well that it has no intention of honouring that promise, just like the promises that it has been making ever since it has been in office. I probably do not have time to go through them all, but there is a raft of promises that this government has made since it first ran for office in 2002 and in the subsequent budgets. All you have to do is pick up The Advertiser on the day of the budget or the day after and look at the headline, and there is a raft of promises which have been made year in and year out, all of which have been broken.

Time expired.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:05): Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. It has been an interesting several hours over the last day or so listening to people's opinions on estimates. I probably concur with most members in this house, most eloquently put this morning by the member for Enfield, that we would be better off if estimates shifted to that other place and if members of the Legislative Council had the joy of dealing with all this stuff.

I find it a soul-destroying exercise for five days, quite frankly. I am sure that numerous colleagues on either side of the house would agree with me. I would far prefer to be out in the electorate doing more useful work than having to spend four or five days in Parliament House going in and out of Bs and As to various estimates committees and seemingly achieving very little, apart from catching up on some reading that I needed to do.

It requires the Public Service to do huge amounts of work and to check over what they have already done and to make sure that they can justify it, or more to the point, that the ministers can justify it. There are countless numbers of public servants involved. Someone should do a bit of homework on it and work out just how many were required to be in Estimates Committee A and B over the five days of estimates, most of them sitting in the galleries just in case they are needed.

With the exception of those who were sitting by the ministers in the front of estimates, most of them were not needed. I am not casting any doubt on their abilities, but I am saying that most of them would be far better off doing some more useful work than sitting in Parliament House listening to a gaggle of politicians and ministers of the government have a crack at one another and try to get some answers. Little if anything was gained from the five days of estimates. I know the chamber staff looked severely bored for the five days, and I am sure that they had better things to do as well.

My view is that the way the estimates are run in Canberra in the federal sphere is a much more useful exercise. The Senate does it and members have the opportunity to seriously question senior public servants. In the estimates that we have in the South Australian parliament, the fact remains that, unless the minister of a particular committee wishes to ask a senior public servant to answer a question, they sit there most of the time offering suggestions and passing over pieces of paper.

The Senate estimates in Canberra seem to be a much more useful exercise; they seem to get much more out of it. I am concerned that the process here is stymied. I heard a little of what the member for Reynell said this morning, and I will read the Hansard later, but the reality is that, despite the carrying on that we have in this place from time to time, you actually have to have a bit of banter and a bit of exchange to liven things up and get something going.

If you sterilise it or paralyse it, as is done by some chairs—and I hope I am not speaking out of turn here, sir—the problem is that you really get nothing out of it. There is not the opportunity for members to have a free and open discussion. It is desperately difficult for the opposition to get answers out of ministers during estimates committees. Whether it happens that we are the opposition at the time or members on the other side in turn become the opposition, I believe what goes on in estimates committees is just a cynical exercise in stupidity a lot of the time. You get boring, mundane answers without getting any sense to it. The member for Enfield, in his delightfully eloquent and amusing way, raised some very serious matters this morning during his contribution to the debate on the estimates committees.

I do hope that the government will go away and think about this, because I can assure members that the opposition will. It must be improved. I think that the way this thing takes place at the moment is just a foolish exercise. There was little that came out of the committees in which I was involved that provided any sort of level of scrutiny at all, in my view. There were something like 23 or 24 different sessions, or whatever it was; there were a number of sessions. I was not privy to all of them. I did 10 or a dozen, and I know that, given the fact that the government had to have four members in the committees at all times, there were some faces on the other side of the chamber that we saw pretty regularly as well.

I think that it can be improved. I hope that you take the message on board and I hope the government takes the message on board. I am disappointed because I would have liked to raise a number of issues to do with my electorate, but the estimates committees process makes it difficult to raise issues relating to your local electorate. I did raise the issue of the Seal Bay entrance fees with the minister for the environment and I got a bureaucratic answer, as did so many other members.

These are important issues. The issue that I raised about a 100 per cent increase in entrance fees into certain national parks on Kangaroo Island is a critical matter for the tourism industry and the economy of Kangaroo Island; and, in my view, it was not treated as it should have been. We should be able to work through this and have justification from the public servants—in this case the Department for Environment and Heritage—as to how they justify this, instead of this blurb which comes out and which is read into Hansard and which does not do anyone any good at all.

It is an enormous issue. It is an issue that, again, today was on the front page of the local Kangaroo Island paper, The Islander. The industry is dreadfully upset, and these bean counters who make decisions on entrance fees and whatnot based on pure bean counting do not understand that they will cost jobs, they will cost income and they are foolish in the extreme. I would say that, if the department had recommended increases of even 10 or 15 per cent, that may well have been acceptable. They would have grumbled about it (everyone grumbles about increases) but it could have been worked through.

To have a 100 per cent increase thrust upon the tourism industry on Kangaroo Island through centrally-based bureaucrats in the city and to justify it by saying, 'We have done planning, we have done strategic reviews and this, that and everything else' is certainly not good enough. It is arrant nonsense. I predict that the tourist numbers to Seal Bay, particularly, will drop incredibly and, in turn, that will cost jobs. Operators have already said that they are getting requests from overseas companies to drop it off their tourism agenda.

It is cutting off your nose to spite your face. I will be following through on this even further. I know that the industry sector, supported by the editorial in The Islander this week, is quite prepared to keep battling away at this. It is highly disappointing and a fool of an idea. They are decisions made by extremely foolish people who have no thought for isolated communities and the impacts they may have on the economy.

On that issue alone I had the opportunity to question the environment minister. I know that he was lobbied about it on a recent trip to Kangaroo Island. I would have liked the opportunity to throw it up at the tourism minister, but that did not eventuate. The reality is that Tania O'Neil, who is the Marketing Manager for tourism in Kangaroo Island and who is an employee of the South Australian Tourism Commission, came out in a strong and decisive manner and put forward the views of the tourism industry on the island, only to have the CEO (Mr Andrew McEvoy) basically castigate her in public on radio and put her down.

I find this to be absolutely incredibly stupid. It is a smack in the face for a public servant, who is employed by the government and speaking with an inside knowledge of what goes on, to be put down by a senior officer from her own department—no doubt, by instruction from above. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

A host of other issues arise in the state budget that are of major concern for the people in my electorate. Once again, we have had no money allocated to the Victor Harbor to Adelaide road that I can find anywhere. There has been no money allocated towards trying to fund some form of public transport for people who live on the Fleurieu Peninsula and the South Coast.

I heard the minister this afternoon talking about free public transport for pensioners and the wonderful electric trains we are going to get, as well as this, that and everything else. The reality is that, once you get outside the metropolitan area, there just is no public transport at all. There is nothing, although there might be small public transport capacity, funded by councils in the main in some of the larger towns. I do not have any details with me, but they struggle to maintain those services.

We have had community passenger services funded through the health area, but they are all struggling. My own electorate has the Premier Busline, which operates as a regular service between the Fleurieu Peninsula, the South Coast and Adelaide. It is a private service that does a good job, but there is no public transport if you want to go between Currency Creek and Encounter Bay or Goolwa and Victor Harbor—it does not exist.

Let me quote the example of the Southern Fleurieu Cancer Support Group which has problems getting people backwards and forwards to Adelaide. It currently has a vehicle that was very kindly donated to them by the Honda Foundation. It is a fantastic innovation brought about by the hard work of a number of people, chiefly Mr Neal Wilkinson, as I understand it, but that is going to drop out. This means that cancer patients in the south and the Fleurieu will be unable to come to Adelaide for treatment unless we can find some kind of replacement vehicle for the one previously supplied by the Honda Foundation.

A host of problems have been overlooked, and I fear greatly for regional and country people. They are ignored and treated with disdain and contempt by this government, and this budget does little or nothing to accommodate them. It has been explained here today just how much debt we are starting to see placed on the record in South Australia and where the Rann Labor government is taking us with debt. The way it is going we will have State Bank mark 2 in no time; however, that pales into insignificance, given the direction of the federal Rudd Labor government.

I was at a function on Sunday at which Joe Hockey was addressing the audience. He told us that, since Mr Rudd became Prime Minister, the Rudd Labor government has spent money at the rate of $10 million per hour. It is frightening, absolutely frightening where this is leading. If you put that into some sort of context with the world situation, in my view, we in Australia are living in a fool's paradise at the moment. With unemployment in the United States running at 10 per cent, unemployment in Spain running at 18 per cent, and unemployment in Ireland now running at 20 per cent, we have a fair bit coming to us.

One of the questions put to Mr Hockey concerned the state of debt in eastern Europe and where that will lead. The answer to that was most interesting, because the billions of dollars worth of debt in eastern Europe since the Iron Curtain came down have chiefly been funded by western European banks. Now, if they happen to default, it will get substantially worse over there. The risk of civil unrest is great in those countries, and who knows where that will lead? I am not a prophet of doom, but this is the reality. I do not think we in Australia are coming to grips with where we are. We are living in this fool's paradise at the moment.

All this money which has been borrowed has to be paid back. Mr Rudd and his merry men and women may well think that they can escape some of the repayment of this debt through inflation. That might be their modus operandi, I do not know, but my three children—Tim, Sarah and Patrick—Sarah's husband, Ryan, and the rest them will be paying this back all their working lives. I do not know how the devil they will cope with it. How will they get ahead?

The only way this country can become wealthy is to create wealth through individuals. Small business is still the engine room of the economy in Australia. It has been for a long time and it remains the engine room of the economy. They are getting crucified. In the last couple of days, we have seen what has happened with the unions demanding to have a heap of power back and starting to persecute small business again. It is a nonsense. It will lead us into a downhill spiral at a great rate of knots, in my view. I shudder to think where it will end up.

It will not make a lot of difference to me, and I suggest the member for Stuart probably concurs with my thoughts, but the member for Goyder will be around for much longer than the pair of us. They will be paying it back, and heaven forbid where it will end up, because we in Australia are only early down the track at the moment. We have a substantial distance to go and, in my view, the Rann Labor government has got its eyes right off where it is going. It does not understand. The Premier was there for the collapse of the State Bank. He sat back while former premier Bannon and his crew sent us broke, and Premier Rann is back there again doing the same thing, making all the promises in the world.

I think it was yesterday that we had this grandiose water plan. We are planned out of existence. We have more plans sitting around than we will ever see come to fruition. I have grave misgivings about this state, the state's economy and where it will end up. I am deeply disturbed about the future of younger South Australians and Australians who will have to deal with this issue of paying back this mess over the next few decades.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (17:24): I rise to support the noting of the Estimates Committees A and B reports. The estimates process is a bit like drawing a difficult tooth—long and tedious—and sometimes we do not achieve a great deal for sitting on these benches for a great length of time. However, I suppose it is part of the democratic process and the parliament has to have the ability to question the executive annually to make sure it is focused on the real issues affecting the people of this state.

I think the greatest thing this parliament can do to ensure that it acts in the interests of all South Australians is to wind back unnecessary bureaucracy, because the greatest threat to democracy is bureaucracy. It is well meaning but, unfortunately in many cases, it is misguided and insensitive.

I think the government will be fortunate this financial year because we have every prospect of having a pretty good agricultural year, which will generate a great deal of revenue and opportunity for people to invest and create employment. We know that other sectors of the economy are going to be under considerable stress, with the downturn in the mining industry, for instance, and the shedding of jobs, unfortunately, will continue.

I believe that, before this is over, people will not have the benefit of low interest rates; I believe that you will see interest rates go up, because I do not think there is any alternative. If governments continue to borrow at the rate they are borrowing, someone has to pay; and, if a limited amount of capital is available and governments want it, they will have to go out and pay for it. I think we will all pay a price for that.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, the economic situation is such that there is no alternative, unfortunately. I do not like to see interest rates go up, I can tell you. Nevertheless, that is what will happen.

I want to speak briefly about one or two important issues. This budget spends a lot of money in relation to providing an education for the next generation of South Australians, and we all support that. My request to this government is: make sure that those people who live in the outlying and isolated parts of the state are given an opportunity so that their children can access some of these fine institutions we have.

Great stress and strain are put on families in trying to give their children a good secondary and tertiary education. The ability just to access the internet for education is something which is straining the resources of many families, and it is not acceptable in the year 2009 that children living on stations out from Yunta, for example, cannot have access to the internet for the educational purposes they desire. That is not acceptable, in my judgment.

When we see how we have spent money on all sorts of other activities, I do not think there is anything more basic than making sure that sections of the community are given a fair cut of the cake. We have little schools like the school at Yunta, which has great computers, but those who live 50, 80 or 100 kilometres out have to access it through the internet, and the online costs for the School of the Air are substantial. So, it is a very important issue.

The next important issue is the harvesting of water here in Adelaide, and we have had a ministerial statement today, which I have read—excellent! When I came into this place in 1970, we had just connected the Polda Basin up to the Todd system, and I had my photo taken alongside it. It is a good photo; in fact, although if you look at it now, you might not recognise me. Nevertheless, today we have virtually wrecked that basin.

I hope that the good rain we have this year will recharge that aquifer, but there is a clear lesson to be learnt: we have to manage these assets very carefully. My real concern is that we are pumping water closer to Port Lincoln, but what is going to happen if we deplete that resource? So, around South Australia we have to make sure that the investments we make for alternative water supplies are carefully considered but that it is done quickly.

My constituents on the outskirts of Hawker and those residents in places like Marree have water of terrible quality, yet these people have to pay the River Murray surcharge. If you live at Marree, Oodnadatta or Orroroo, you have to pay the River Murray surcharge. I think it is nonsense. It is unfair, because those people do not get a great deal from the government. They do not ask for a lot; they get a lot less. I think those issues need to be looked at and addressed very carefully. The ability of these people to get their products to ports at a fair and reasonable charge, and on decent roads, is terribly important.

As we sit here late this afternoon in order to pass this year's budget, there are ongoing discussions about what is going to happen to the ports in South Australia and the effects of ABB being taken over by a Canadian company. I think this parliament has a responsibility to step in and say that those ports are fundamental to the continued economic development of this state. They should be set aside and, if necessary, the government should legislate. I am not one for government control, but I believe that it would be the most unwise course of action for us to allow one of the major competitors in the grain industry to take over our ports system, which has been developed over a long time. I am sure that it will not be to the long-term advantage of the grain industry or the people of South Australia.

I was one of the people who caused a bit of a hassle at the time the ports were privatised. I well recall getting a telephone call from the then premier in London, who was far from pleased with me. It was not the first time that he had not been pleased with me; I do not know why, I thought I was a reasonable character. I told him that I would not support the sale unless funds were set aside to develop Outer Harbor and a decent export port. I still believe that it was right, and the money that was set aside went there. There were a few hassles, and this government has sorted some of them out, but they need to be sorted out once and for all.

They are just a few of the issues. There will be many other issues that the people of this state are going to face. The most important thing that we can have in this state and this nation is governments which are sensitive to the needs of the people. They are not there purely to govern in the interests of the insensitive and unsympathetic bureaucracy so that they can build little empires of their own. Situations like what they want to do around the coastal reserves—take away people's land without proper consideration for their long-term needs—are deplorable. It is really amazing to think that that can happen in a democracy.

The challenges that this state will face will not be solved by taking easy solutions but by putting in place sensible policies which will have a long-term benefit for the people of this state. I have seen many budgets pass through this place. I have seen times when the economy has been booming and I have seen times when the economy has been in very difficult circumstances. I want to see the next generation of South Australians have the same opportunities that some of us have had in the good times. The last seven years have been good for South Australia. I want to see that continue so that we can see infrastructure continue to be built around the state and see young people getting opportunities and training so that they can have jobs for the future and are able to own their own house.

As I complete my stint in this parliament—which has been over an extensive period of time—I want to say to the people who follow me: please remember a number of important factors. This parliament (this house and the other place) should never give away its rights, privileges and powers to the bureaucracy. That is not in the interests of the people of South Australia. It is the role of members of parliament—particularly backbenchers and their committees—to question, challenge and stand up to the executive. That is their role. Their role is not to nod, hoping that they will get the next plum job. You are elected to this place to stick up for people and look after them. I have never worried about that in my time. I know that some of my colleagues have thought, from time to time, that I have been fairly difficult to manage—I don't know why!—and I make no apology for that.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, all I have tried to do is to stick up for those people who have sent me here and to stick up for what I believe in. If that has sometimes offended people or has got in their way and annoyed them, so be it. I have been very fortunate that my constituents have continued to send me here on 12 successive occasions. I have enjoyed it, and if I had my time over again I would do it all again. At this time, I do not intend to keep running up the taxpayers' dollars by continuing to talk, because it is expensive to keep this place running. I support the measure, and I want to see South Australia progress and go ahead, and it can happen only if the government creates opportunities and encourages people, gets out of their way and does not overtax them. I support the measure.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:36): I commend the member for Stuart for his contribution, which was obviously heartfelt. Although it will not be the last contribution he makes in this place, I appreciate the fact that he has seen more budgets handed down than most people would dream of. His corporate knowledge is immense; there is no doubt about that.

I want to reflect on my own involvement in the estimates process, which involved all five days; some days were busier than others. I have been involved with the estimates process for the three years I have been a member of parliament—and it is not because I am looking for punishment; it is actually out of a desire to learn.

I know it is easy to criticise the process, and there is no doubt that it could be improved. However, as minister Holloway said, when hosting lunch for those people who had been before him, it ensures that, from a staffing, ministerial or opposition point of view, you have the greatest possible access to information about the budget, which involves some $14.4 billion, during the estimates committees.

We as an opposition are able to ask questions about areas in which we have a particular interest and to hear what the government has to say about areas it wants to promote. It allows South Australians the opportunity to be far more informed about a collection of pages devoted to the expenditure and receiving of dollars, all of which makes a difference to South Australian taxpayers because it comes out of their pockets.

My first contribution was with the Premier on Thursday of last week, and it was in relation to the Economic Development Board. On that day, we certainly referred to the global financial crisis that is hitting our nation, and indeed the world, and the fact that unemployment in South Australia was projected possibly to increase to as much as 9.6 per cent. None of us wants to see that occur. We want to make sure that South Australians are in jobs, because that will create a strong future. We encourage governments around nation to pursue every possible policy that ensures that people are in employment.

At that time, the Premier confirmed that South Australia's population target of two million has been revised to 2027, which in itself represents a great opportunity because more people living in this state will create more transactions for small businesses and private enterprise. The government receives its income from transactions, so that means the economy will grow. It probably also means that several hundred thousand homes will have to be built to accommodate these people, and that represents a great opportunity.

My next session was with minister Weatherill and it related to the public sector. I think it is fair to say that the opposition has a level of concern about the continuing increase in public sector numbers, although not from the good people who take on the job opportunities provided. The concern is more for the lack of real control exercised by the minister when it comes to ensuring that restrictions put in place as part of their budgets are being met. Caps have been put in place for all departments. As I understand it from a direct question I asked the Treasurer, the predominant problem exists in health, with cap numbers not being enforced. Health itself is a particular area where there needs to be an ability to react to instances. However, that is for the government to pursue. Certainly, we on this side of the house want to control expenditure.

It is interesting that the budget identified that an additional 1,485 people were employed above the budget allocation in the 2008-09 financial year, and 1,308 are within the public sector definition. When I later asked a question of the minister and Treasurer about whether they could identify how many of those were in the core areas of nurses, teachers, doctors and police, they were unable to fix that for us.

Targeted voluntary separation packages are also discussed. Within the public sector, 1,200 people have to be identified by the end of September this year and 200 additional people for each of the following financial years. There is a provision, we are advised, at an average cost of some $72,000, as confirmed by the Treasurer, per targeted voluntary separation package, so some $90 million is provided in the budget for that to be achieved. It will be a great challenge for all departments to identify that.

It was interesting that, in talking about the public sector, the minister provided some information on the fact that, of some slightly in excess of 90,000 people, relating back to about 79,000 full-time equivalents within the public sector, there is a staff turnover rate of between 10,000 and 12,000 a year. I was genuinely surprised about that.

It represents a challenge to ensure not only that the public sector becomes a career of choice but also that there is there is an ability to recruit those good people within the public sector and, indeed, to manage the large cohort of older members of the Public Service who will retire over the next five years as part of the baby boomer generation.

It was quite a lengthy session with the Treasurer in a few areas on Thursday afternoon. I am rather intrigued by the Sustainable Budget Commission, an announcement from the Treasurer as part of the budget, which has the challenge before it of saving some $750 million over three years. Intriguingly, the terms of reference for the Sustainable Budget Commission will not be confirmed until after the 20 March 2010 election.

Interestingly, the Treasurer also advocates wage restraint within the public sector. If it achieves and keeps to the 2.5 per cent target he has set—so, it is a great challenge for minister Caica, the Minister for Industrial Relations, and all departments in their negotiations with the public sector workforce to try to keep that figure—it will mean $290 million of the $750 million. It will be a great challenge for the government.

Importantly, my concern has always been based on the fact that announcements of savings have been made by the government over the last four years. There was the Smith review, there was an efficiency dividend requirement by the Treasurer of 0.25 per cent of each department for each year, dollar savings were introduced as part of last year's budget amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, and now we have, on top of that, further savings.

However, when you ask the Treasurer about the level of reporting on those savings requirements, you do not read it: it is not in the Auditor-General's Report and it does not feature in the budget. It really disappoints me that these commitments are given—and they form a very important basis of the credit rating provided by Standard & Poor's upon the state's finances and, therefore, our ability to borrow at what cost—but there is no reporting against them. It is rather intriguing, and there is seriously room for improvement.

Shared Services was also discussed. All would reflect upon an the fact that the intention was there for a $60 million saving per year to be achieved probably in about next financial year. In his report last year, the Auditor-General identified, over the forward estimate period, a gap of $103 million, where there was uncertainty attached to those savings.

We talked about the effect upon regional areas, where 253 people, who are full-time equivalents, had originally been within scope of the first tranche identified from regional South Australia to move across the shared services. The number was reduced to some 59 people, only six of whom had actually moved. The second tranche from shared services in the regions has not been identified, but it is obvious that a much lower figure is being projected.

The PPP for the hospital was also discussed. It is interesting to hear the Treasurer talk about the grant, which the state government will have to make to the successful consortia—and he was not sure whether it was $700 million or $1 billion—of a figure that will go at the back end of the building project to therefore act as the government's contribution towards the PPP project. It will reduce the lease fee; I do recognise that, but it will be, therefore, a lease fee and a debt that has been repaid at the same time. It will be interesting to see how the dollars stack up on that.

Royalty revenues for the mining industry are under some attack; they are reducing. The GFC has created less demand for the product and, certainly, overseas countries are less inclined to pay higher amounts for our exports; therefore, that is dropping. The Treasurer confirmed that an increase in royalties does not automatically relate to a full 100 per cent value increase for the state. It goes into the big pot the federal government looks at in determining its grant allocations to the states, and it will have, through horizontal fiscal equalisation, a reduction in other grants. So, it might be that, of an increase in royalty revenue, we get 20 per cent of that. That is an issue for us to be concerned about.

I asked a series of questions of the Treasurer about land tax. I was rather disappointed that, in a briefing provided to the opposition some 18 months ago on anti-avoidance measures in land tax, we were told that it was going to bring in additional revenue of $5 million. In reality, it has actually achieved $19 million. It is also very disappointing, on behalf of all South Australians who pay this terrible thing, to see that there had been a 50 per cent increase in the 2008-09 financial year alone. Private property land tax liability payments had actually increased from $220 million to $330 million, and, indeed, in 2009-10 they are factored in to increase by another $30 million-odd, or a 10 per cent increase. Within the Department of Trade and Economic Development (it is interesting: the Treasurer provided me with a new term I had not heard) are 'stretch targets'.

Ms Chapman: That's right. The ones we never reach.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes; true. As the member for Bragg confirms, they are the ones that are never reached; you just push the date out to ensure that it still appears in the Strategic Plan and you are working towards it, as all the words say, but will it ever happen? Exports are one of these. Indeed, information provided today confirms that South Australia's level of exports in the 12 months to May of this year has decreased by over 4 per cent, whereas the national figure in that same time, on average, has seen a 32 per cent increase. South Australians need to be concerned about this. It is a great worry to me.

Defence SA was discussed. The opposition does support that. South Australia has worked very hard over the last 10 or 15 years to build a reputation for the defence state. The investment in Techport, through scoping issues and a greater level of infrastructure development, has cost more than originally envisaged, but it will place South Australia well when it comes to the white paper on defence that the federal government has released. The intention in future years to actually invest in defence will benefit our great state enormously.

On the Office of the Northern Suburbs, I had the opportunity to ask questions on behalf of the Hon. John Dawkins. It is a small budget line but an important area of the state with, I think, the 7th Battalion, RAR moving there in about 18 months' time. So, there are great opportunities for the north. Also, business opportunities are happening there. I know that only a small office has been established. It was interesting that a lot of money has been spent in the three month period that the office opened, and let us hope that—because questions about that rather confused me—the opportunities in the north are accessed, because they need to be.

I also had the opportunity, on behalf of the Hon. John Dawkins, to ask questions about the Office of Regional Development relating to the business enterprise centres and regional development boards, which are amalgamating. As of yesterday, the process was put in place. Eight new regional development association areas are going to be established: one in the metropolitan area and seven in the regions. My focus is on ensuring that the good people who have worked within the area consultative committees, the regional development boards and the BECs have a continuity of service, because they have great contacts within regional and metropolitan Adelaide, and it is important that their skills be retained to ensure that we have the connections they have to make business opportunities happen.

I also express some concern about some of the information provided. I commend the shadow minister for agriculture on his questioning on the area of PIRSA officers in regional areas. It is a great worry to me—having one in my electorate at Kadina—that the people there are very concerned about their future. They provide a wonderful service. There are 10 consultants, as I understand it, who work out of there. There are other, bigger offices across the regions, but these people have been told that they face the threat of face-to-face office opportunity being lost and everything being done by internet or telephone. These regional PIRSA officers provide a great service to a wider collective area, and they deserve every opportunity to continue that. I would urge the minister to reverse the position on that and ensure that these offices remain open. With those few words, I thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:49): The estimates process was as illuminating as ever this year. It was a stark contrast to me, having listened to the Treasurer on 4 June announcing record expenditure in this year's budget proposed by the government, which was to be restrained in expenditure, including the cancellation of projects because of the economic financial position internationally and announcing that there needed to be some restraint and then, under the penetrating examination by the member for Goyder this week, to see the Treasurer stand here in the estimates committee, at a time when he is asking every other department to cut staff, exercise some fiscal responsibility and manage finances, and admit, right here in the estimates, that he is about to move his whole department to new premises. He will spend almost $5 million to re-fit it and—wait for it—explains it by saying that it would cost about that to redo their current offices, so it is reasonable.

That is fine, but in the next breath he said that the rent will be $1.6 million a year plus another $100,000 a year for the Roxby Downs unit (which has ongoing responsibility), and that to stay in the current premises would cost about $1.2 million per year. So he is prepared to blow half a million a year just on offices for his department at a time when he is asking the rest of the state to tighten its belt. What a disgrace! This is the sort of thing that happens in estimates, when we are able to examine what is really happening behind the scenes.

The rail yard hospital is the biggest infrastructure project proposed in this state, at $1.7 billion—not that we really know because we do not have $1.7 billion in the budget, we have 'n/a'. I do not know if that means the government has no idea. We are told it means that it is not sure what it will be any more, and that because of the financial arrangements—whether it is PPP or its own build—that could change. We have a site contamination report prepared by Coffey International but we are not allowed to see it. The minister could not even advise us what has so far been paid to Coffey International as an interim report, and he has taken it on notice. Anything tricky or difficult on this issue and the government takes it on notice. That is the way it has dealt with it.

We now have the absurd situation where it is quite clear, from this year's budget, that we will have a tram built along North Terrace out to the Entertainment Centre. We will have a medical research centre built on the rail yard site, then they will clean up the site and build a hospital. About 450,000 tonnes of dirt have to be taken back out of this property to be cleaned, sanitised, and then brought back in. I hate to think what this poor little tram track will look like by the time this government has 'mince-meated' through that over the next few years.

Then we have these stolen/lost/misplaced USB files, an electronic device containing the rail yard RAH design and information. We do not know exactly what was on it, because there were mixed reports in both the media and the parliament about that. Again, we have no information regarding whether or not it has been referred to the Auditor-General, or who knew what and when. Even the minister was not able to tell us. All the heavies sitting around him during estimates knew about this issue nine days before it was disclosed to him; of course, it was then another six days before he disclosed it to the parliament. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge in relation to that issue.

The Glenside Hospital redevelopment is very important, and the opposition commended the government for announcing the initiative two years ago. I have condemned the Treasurer, and I say it again: it is a disgrace. The government can go ahead and build other things, including movie hubs, yet it adjourns this redevelopment for two years. Then there is the astounding revelation from the Minister for Housing that the government will build affordable housing on the Glenside Hospital site at a cost of—wait for it—$213,000. I do not know how the minister thinks she can do that, offer property for sale at that price in that area, unless it is the size of a tent on wheels, a caravan, or a room above a garage. That is the size of the dwelling it will have to be for that price.

The only other option is for the government to kick in the money for it, which clearly it has not budgeted for, or expect every other purchaser of property in any housing development on that site to subsidise it. It is a gross transfer, cost shifting, from public housing for the people of South Australia across to the people who want to buy homes—and that is young people in this state who will be looking to secure a home at the site when it is developed. The government is delusional in that respect. The idea might be highly aspirational and sound good, but the reality is that for that price we will end up with an affordable housing dwelling at the Glenside Hospital site the size of a bathroom.

We also had, of course, the stunning revelation by the Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse that the sale of the three sites to fund the consolidation of Drug and Alcohol Services at the Glenside Hospital had not happened and was not going to happen in the forthcoming year. Perhaps they are going to be sold at the end of the budget; but, for the record, the documents from the department reveal in the announcement by the former minister (Hon. Gail Gago ) at the time of the 2006 budget that those properties at Norwood, Joslin and North Adelaide would be sold and that the anticipated revenue from their sale (several years ago) would have been $8.67 million. I hope the minister is able to correct that information in this parliament because, clearly, it has been announced that those properties will be sold, and we need to have some expectation of the value that will be recovered. If they are to be sold outside of forward estimates, I think the government should disclose that.

Finally, I say that the highlight of the week for me was appearing in the estimates committees with the Hon. Gail Gago, who represents women in South Australia. She is the representative for women and advises the cabinet and represents women on issues of importance in this state. Well, I say this: we had a field day. It is a small budget, but it is important. The government has retained a Premier's Council for Women. I was critical of the Premier previously for taking well over a year to appoint one when he came into government, but he did eventually, and there are important, experienced and qualified people on it.

I am appalled that, for the last seven years I have asked mostly the same questions of the government every year to identify what it has been doing, what targets have been reached, and how that is being progressed, and yet I still do not have last year's answers about the number of cases of drink spiking (in light of the new legislation) or in respect of the number of women on boards as a percentage of each department.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. K.A. Maywald]


Ms CHAPMAN: Having asked those questions but received no answers, I came back this year and said, 'Well, minister, what subjects have been referred to the Premier's Women's Council during the preceding year?' No idea. 'Well, minister, what is the report card on the number of women on boards and chairs of boards in South Australia, by department?' Again, no idea. 'What is the report card on the number of women in executive positions in government departments as per different ministerial officers?' No idea. Finally, I asked, 'When were you last briefed on these matters?' No idea. 'Can you remember when you were last briefed? Even if you cannot remember when it was, what was the advice you were given?' No idea.

It is laughable that we have a minister responsible for the women of South Australia but that on the most basic things, including the two targets that have been set in the State Strategic Plan as to women's representation on boards and committees and in executive positions in departments, this minister has no idea. It is unacceptable.

The best thing the minister can do after this appalling presentation during estimates committees is to resign. I ask that this issue be taken up by the Premier so that women can have proper representation in this state and we can go on to achieve what are admirable and important targets that are being completely ignored by this minister, who does not have a clue what is going on. She did not have the decency, when she had all the experts sitting around her, to make sure that they call for that information so that we have that here for the people of South Australia. It is an absolute disgrace.

As usual the estimates have been eventful. Of course, in due course we will pass the Appropriation Bill. The hypocrisy of the Treasurer asking the state to pull in its belt and then lavishly spending on his own office administration points out the inconsistent, inadequate and inappropriate priorities of this government.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (18:00): I am replying to the examination of the budget through what we call the estimates committees. I will pick out one particular line and expand my remarks upon that. The Minister for Water Security and the River Murray in her opening statement said:

Through the more than 90 actions outlined in the Water for Good we will ensure that there is enough water available to the state to fully capture emerging economic opportunities, while reducing our reliance on the River Murray and other rain dependent water sources.

Because water is probably the number one issue for South Australia—and that is recognised when I talk to people in my community—I have chosen to focus on just that one topic. I am interested in the Water for Good statement or report that has come out from the government. I recall the waterproofing South Australia document—an excellent report with many worthy recommendations. I believe that was released in 2005. It became out of date in a mere two years because it was based on projections which were out of touch with the changes that had already taken place in south-eastern Australia's weather patterns.

Water for Good is claiming to have overcome these failures and aims to take us through to 2050—an even more ambitious target. However, it is based on the same short-sighted thinking as the waterproofing South Australia report. It uses IPCC projections from the fourth assessment of 2007, which are already looking seriously out of date in the face of climate science that is declaring an unsafe, rapidly heating, increasingly unstable atmosphere.

What if the 15 to 30 per cent reduction in rainfall turns out to be larger? We will have a scenario where only the Port Stanvac desalination plant is a reliable source of potable water, and the government will not have put in place the sustainable alternatives that are really drought proof.

The thrust of the Water for Good report is to maintain high rates of population and economic growth for the state. The chief beneficiaries of the water plans being put in place will be big business, high consumption users (both individuals and organisations) and the water companies. What if the boom times of the past 10 years, which have seen massive expansion of the mining industry and consequent growth in population, do not revive? We do not know what the economic future holds, but gearing for expansion in water consumption may be a highly undesirable assumption to build into our planning.

The impact on our environment is highly questionable. The linchpin reliance on the desalination option calls into question the future of the marine ecosystem of the Gulf St Vincent. The threat of a series of desalination plants dotted around the coastline of South Australia, as envisaged by Business SA, to allow unlimited expansion of settlement and industry betrays a myopic view. The fact is that increasingly we will be living in a semi-arid climate and we will need to adjust.

Once again, we need to focus on sustainability as the number one goal to pursue. By that, I mean long-term viability, not just unlimited growth in economic opportunities and population. We need to think about how we will have any sort of substantial population viable in South Australia in the long term. The government recently coupled this plan for the future with a proposal to drop water restrictions for households, and that is a wrong message. How can we ask households and industry to restrain their water use in the name of sustainability when at the same time there is an election sweetener that water restrictions will be reduced in just two or three years?

We remain in the dark about so much of the management and contract arrangements for the Port Stanvac desalination plant. I am told that it will be a baseload supply, meaning that it runs 24/7. This will be expensive water—I think everyone recognises that—and it will place huge demands on southern Adelaide's electricity supply.

Apart from the gulf, the most critical question in relation to the desalination plant is how much electricity it will consume, and then we need to consider just what that means for the electricity consumers of southern Adelaide, namely, the people who live there and the business that operate there.

The big winner in terms of the Water for Good plan is probably the biodiversity, that is, the living plants and creatures in the vicinity of Mount Bold reservoir. It seems that the government will be able to postpone indefinitely the option of doubling the capacity of Mount Bold, which would have caused a big stir in environmental circles and been highly controversial.

The expenditure of over $1.8 billion on the desalination plant at Port Stanvac effectively has squeezed out the budget for a lot of the stormwater and wastewater measures we should be taking. The selling point of the desalination plant is that half Adelaide's water needs will be covered, but there remain questions about the impact on the Gulf St Vincent and on our electricity supply once the demand for the desalination plant is satisfied.

There is in South Australia an independent Commissioner for Water Security but, with all due respect to the incumbent, I have only ever heard her speak up for the government and government plans, and sometimes we need to look at even more independent sources of advice. Certainly I have respect for a couple of the scientists at Flinders University who have commented on the possible impact of the desalination plant on the gulf.

Now is probably not the time to go into great detail about the threat to the gulf, but suffice to say that, notwithstanding the environmental studies commissioned on behalf of the government, it remains highly debatable whether the ecology of the gulf will be able to survive in its current form with the output from the desalination plant.

My final comment is that it has been disappointing to see a lack of commitment in this budget in relation to stormwater. The Water Proofing Adelaide plan really was far thinking in setting out so many potential sites around Adelaide where stormwater could be harvested in very substantial quantities. I have set out those sites in previous remarks in parliament, yet in this budget there is really such a very small commitment to turning those plans into reality.

I realise that for stormwater harvesting we need rain, and there is no doubt that, if there is no rain, we are left with the supply from a desalination plant. However, in the context where our supply from the River Murray perhaps cannot be guaranteed in a few years' time, especially if this drought keeps up, we need to put in place a variety of measures that includes extensive stormwater facilities along the Adelaide Plains as well as the desalination plant.

In summary, I am not as optimistic as the minister that the Water for Good plan will, in fact, take us through to 2050 and I hope that in the next couple of years we will see some rethinking. I am sure that there will need to be some adaptation, because the science is going to tell us more and more about the dangers of drying out as we go on.

Motion carried.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (18:11): I move:

That the remainder of the bill be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 18:15 the house adjourned until Tuesday 14 July 2009 at 11:00.


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