HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

REGIONAL SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:59): I move:

That this house condemns the state government for its lack of commitment to regional South Australia, especially with regard to water supply, health services, agriculture services and essential infrastructure.

The first item that I will talk about with respect to a lack of investment in this state is regional water infrastructure. We still have communities (and I have spoken of this in the house previously) waiting on potable pipelines to be delivered at Point Sturt and Hindmarsh Island. I note that there are still people on Hindmarsh Island concerned about being connected to those pipelines, and I am sure that the member for Finniss and I will work on getting people connected where we can and lobby the government and make sure that people also communicate directly with SA Water.

That is what had to happen on the Narrung Peninsula and in the Meningie area, which were hooked up to potable supplies when Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina became unviable sources for irrigation and potable water supplies because of the drought and the lack of commitment by this government to ensure adequate water for this state. There were certainly people in the communities in those areas who worked hard and who worked with SA Water to make sure that everyone was connected. It was a major piece of work and it took a long time to put in place.

I note that another community that put in a lot of effort was in the creeks pipeline area, Langhorne Creek and Currency Creek, and the company that got together and worked with the government to get an irrigation pipeline there. It took much lobbying and work to install this irrigation pipeline, and if there was fresh water available in the lakes these communities would not have had to go down that path and spend $10 million of their own money.

I also note the struggle the people have had, especially below Lock 1, in getting action on infrastructure. I note that federal government money for relocating pumps off backwaters still has not flowed through, so there are quite a few irrigators (or people who used to be irrigators) who cannot access water at all. It just stuns me, especially in light of the latest pipelines that are finally being installed after years of lobbying in the Point Sturt and Hindmarsh Island areas, that it takes so long. I am sure that if people in Adelaide were denied access to water for only a couple of weeks it would cause quite a furore in the city. It just goes to show that this government does not take the regions seriously.

I also want to speak today about this government's lack of commitment to health in the regions. We saw a lack of consultation with the disastrous Country Health Care Plan that this government rolled out. It just decided it would have three levels of hospitals: a top level, a medium level and a third tier. Our problem on this side of the house was that most, if not all, of the third tier was just going to disappear. I was concerned that the only functioning hospital I would have left in my electorate would be at Murray Bridge and people would have to be transferred either to Mount Barker or Adelaide.

That would be ridiculous, and members of those communities were up in arms, and rightly so. There were meetings attended by 500, 600 and 700 people around the state, ranging from the West Coast through to Yorke Peninsula and down to the South-East. That is the second most important item that people are concerned about in this state after water supply. People are concerned about the availability of health services—and rightly so.

What this government does not realise is that people from the city travel through the country and demand the right to services as well, not only people like me and a lot of members on this side of this place who live in country areas. We on this side of the house firmly believe that we need a health service for country South Australia, and that is why we are putting up a proposal to spend only $700 million on a complete rebuild of the Royal Adelaide Hospital instead of a $1.7 billion program at the rail yards site, in addition to what the government needs to do at that site, which is possibly up to $200 million or more in remediation of contamination. The savings that we will institute when we are elected in March next year can be put into other metropolitan health services and also regional services throughout this state.

Another issue that is dear to my heart is agriculture, and I want to refer to the recent cuts to PIRSA staff. We have seen 90 staff take targeted voluntary separation packages in this government's ongoing roller ball of—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Were you opposed to that?

Mr PEDERICK: —absolutely—looking for cuts to fund its big budget enterprises. We have a government that says, 'We are going to look after agriculture and do the right thing.' In fact, I want to refer to the South Australian Labor Party platform 2009. These are direct statements from the Labor website where the following comments are made:

We will maintain and extend South Australia's competitive advantages in primary production through support for world-class research and development.

We will assist the development of primary industry sector plans with the aim of ensuring that South Australia's key primary industries are the most competitive and productive in Australia.

We will continue to promote the use of sustainable agricultural practices and further develop a range of programs to mitigate the effects of environmental degradation and long-term climate change.

We will work with primary industries and farmers to identify and implement carbon capture and trading opportunities within an evolving national emissions trading scheme.

It goes on and on about how, allegedly, the Labor Party will support rural communities to become more sustainable. For the life of me, I cannot see how, with the massive cuts they are making into research in this state, this will be achieved.

We have seen the Loxton Research Centre reduced to a bare skeleton of its former self. Great work in horticulture in the Riverland is operated out of the Loxton Research Centre. Two laboratories have closed, and it is virtually just a shop door. The Roseworthy Information Centre closed in September. Streaky Bay's Primary Industries office will shut its doors by December.

We are told that well-known South Australian research and development centres, such as Minnipa, Struan and Turretfield are not considered under threat. However, Nuriootpa and Lenswood are considered to be going under the knife, and also offices in Kadina, Jamestown and Keith. The department spokesman said no decisions had been made about any office.

Here we have a government saying in their own forum that they are going to be the champions for regional South Australia and for agriculture in this state, yet they are just cutting a swathe through services, taking massive cuts out of agriculture services in this state, and they have the gall to make out they are committed to rural services.

The University of Adelaide says that it needs to sell its properties in the Mid and Upper North to fund research. I am very disappointed by that move. I am concerned that this will stop philanthropy in this state in terms of people bequeathing land to the university. I just think it is terrible that they are so short of funds that they have to resort to this and there has not been the support to keep these properties, especially in light of some of the work they do there. Antivenom research is conducted at Martindale. I am assured that will go on, but it would have been a far better outcome for South Australia if these properties had been retained by the university.

Regional infrastructure is concerning. Labor's commitments to regional development, in its forum in 2009, include:

Labor will ensure that the provision of new or upgraded infrastructure is responsive to the needs of areas experiencing economic, industrial or population growth.

Under its regional roads and transport plan, it states:

Labor is committed to well planned and well maintained roads in regional South Australia as a prerequisite for building stronger regional development, improving road safety, social inclusion and regional economic growth.

Well, I would invite all the Labor members to come for a ride with me through my electorate to see what some of the roads are like, especially at Pinnaroo, where there are roads that need a total rebuild, out at Wynarka and through other areas of the state.

This is a government that makes out that it is committed to the regions. When they sprang the prison program onto my electorate three years ago the biggest issue was whether we could get appropriate services to Murray Bridge. It seemed a battle to get the government to agree to appropriate road infrastructure and other upgrades so that it would not become a burden on the community. We were also concerned about the social issues that may have developed with a central prison in a regional town, and also health services associated with that.

There are also other issues in the regions concerning education funding. We have the rollout of the Julia Gillard memorial halls. Schools right across the state have not had the option to upgrade halls to full size. They have been told, 'Well, you can have an $850,000 gym, but it is only three quarters the size.' Well, I reckon that's a pretty flash gym. I know that schools in my electorate are trying to negotiate their way through so that they can build a better facility and add a bit of community money, but the government is making it extremely difficult.

There are issues in this state with funding that this government pulls from the branched broomrape eradication program. This is a parasite that latches on to legumes, canola plants, horticultural plants, etc., and could destroy the whole horticulture industry in this state. Yet, we see millions of dollars cut from that program over time. So I do not think this government is taking regional South Australia seriously at all.

I need to quickly talk about how this government treats people in the regions in regard to marine parks, with a lack of consultation with the fishing industry, both recreational and commercial, and the anger that people in the fishing sector have in knowing that they have not been listened to and that it is another government program just to bulldoze their program through with lack of consultation. When they have a problem they finally go to the community.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (12:14): I speak against this motion, because I can tell the house that the government does support our region, and I will outline how. However, one thing I would like to mention relates to the member for Hammond's comment about his commitment to agriculture. I do not doubt his commitment, but the commitment of some of his colleagues to agriculture would have to be under some doubt, given their recent opportunity to support an inquiry into an area that is important to farmers. To the embarrassment of the member for Hammond, all three of those members voted against it. We were told it is a trivial inquiry, but it is interesting to note how many submissions were received, and how many were actually received from the electorates of members opposite. We were also told that it was not an issue, that they were not aware of any. Clearly, that indicates just how out of touch the opposition is.

Talking to the opposition these days is like going to a restaurant; it is a question of whether it is the soup of the day or the fish of the day. It is the opposition of the day; you are not actually sure who is the opposition on the day, because the views of its members vary so much. So, to say that the opposition actually supports something is a bit far-fetched, because it depends on what day and who you talk to.

Putting that aside, the Rann government recognises that regional South Australia makes a significant contribution to the state's export performance—I have said that publicly on a number of occasions; parts of my electorate, in particular, make a contribution to that—and to gross state product through agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fishing, aquaculture, wine production, food processing, tourism, manufacturing, and mining and minerals production and processing. The minister in this house is a strong advocate for those industries, promotes them and goes into bat for them, in contrast to the opposition, which continually talks down regional South Australia and what is being done in those areas. Rural areas of the state also provide South Australians with fresh, healthy, clean and green food products, great places to stay and visit, and are increasingly becoming the source of green energy, positioning the state for a much more prosperous and sustainable future.

When Labor came to government in 2002 confidence in the state was at an all time low. Under the leadership of the Rann Labor government since 2002, rural and regional South Australia has been steered from a trajectory of decline to one of prosperity and growth. South Australia's strong performance in the wake of the global financial crisis has highlighted the strength and importance of a diverse economy as well as the resilience of regional South Australia, which this government supports.

The Rann government's steadfast commitment to developing the defence, mining, wine, food and tourism industries has assisted the economy to outperform the nation in terms of growth, state final demand, and employment. These achievements are all the more remarkable given that this has happened when much of regional South Australia has been in the grip of a prolonged drought.

This has not happened by chance; rather, it has been the result of the Rann government's strong economic leadership and the implementation of targeted actions aimed at fostering sustainable economic growth and diversification, addressing workforce issues, and assisting economic and social infrastructure development. At the same time Labor has continued to support primary producers and communities that have been faced with the worst drought on record and record low inflows into the River Murray.

Meanwhile, as I have mentioned, the Liberals have consistently talked down our regions. As we have heard today, not only have they talked down our regions, they have also consistently talked down our farmers, and that is evidenced by their behaviour on some of the committees, such as the Economic and Finance Committee.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Not all.

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: They certainly did. Their view on the committee was that the farming issue was a trivial matter for us to get involved in, not worthy of being looked into by our committee. So, by extension, the farming issue must be a trivial matter as well. That is how the Liberals—

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: By all means, correct the record. Then they went on with something about taxation reform. The opposition was going to reform the taxation system in a matter of two weeks! That is how the opposition in this place behaves; it says one thing in the media and in its communities and then acts to the contrary in this place. Its record is clear for all to see.

Mr Williams: I put my vote on the record.

Mr PICCOLO: By all means put your vote on the record; I am quite happy for you to do that. Meanwhile, as I said, the Liberals have consistently talked down our regions. Their only vision for our regions is one of battling local industry, struggling and falling populations, high unemployment, and generally being in a mood of despair. By contrast, this government recognises how important they are.

We can rightly ask ourselves: how has this picture painted by the Liberals helped regional South Australia? How does it sell the regions to Australia and the world? The Liberal opposition does not; it talks it down to achieve its own petty political aims.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Is that the best you can do? The people of Finniss deserve better than that.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: That's right.

Mr Venning: The people of Freeling will hear about this.

Mr PICCOLO: I am sure they will. The people of Freeling are much more comfortable with me than you, Ivan; don't worry about that.

Mr Venning: I am going there.

Mr PICCOLO: By all means go there; it will be the first time you have been. The reality is that the people—

Mr Pederick: You had better apologise for misleading the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I rise on a point of order. The member for Hammond has repeatedly accused the member for Light of misleading the house. It is completely unparliamentary and I ask that he withdraw and apologise.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was distracted and did not hear. If the member for Hammond has done that he should be aware that such a motion can be moved only by substance. If he made comments that were unparliamentary I invite him to withdraw and apologise. Member for Hammond? There is no response. The member for Light will continue.

Mr PICCOLO: It is fine, Madam Deputy Speaker. The reality is that the people in our regions are tough and resilient, determined to overcome their challenges, and Labor will continue to work with them and be there to provide support. Our regions do face major challenges, there is no denying that, from things such as climate change, record low inflows.

In terms of climate change, let us not even go there with the Liberals. It does not happen. They are all deniers—or some of them deny it and some of them say it is true, some are not sure. As I said, we have multiple oppositions.

Mr Pengilly: Prove it. Get some paperwork in this house to prove it, Tony.

Mr PICCOLO: So, you are a denier. That is good. At least you are on record saying you are a denier. That is fine.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: Be proud of the fact you are a denier.

The CHAIR: Order! This debate has been typified by too many interjections and too many responses to interjections. Can I ask the member for Light to focus on his remarks and other members to hear him in silence.

Mr Williams: You're waffling.

Mr PICCOLO: Waffling?

The CHAIR: The member for Light.

Members interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I'm a waste of space?

The CHAIR: The member for Light.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: When I have the floor, I will continue.

The CHAIR: The member for Light has the floor. Others will remain silent.

Mr PICCOLO: Labor has faith in our regional communities and is committed to building on the great strides we have already taken together in the last eight years. In particular, tremendous opportunities exist in the areas of sustainable development of the food, wine and mineral resource industries as well as exploiting the emerging opportunities for creating green jobs associated with renewable energy technologies and assisting the regions to adapt to the changing climate—except in Finniss where it will not happen. Some of our core achievements—and, unfortunately, I do not have time to go through them all—

Mr Williams: Yes, you have plenty of time. Get on with it.

The CHAIR: Order, the member for MacKillop! The member for Light will continue.

Mr PICCOLO: The unemployment rate in regional South Australia has fallen from 6.6 per cent under the Liberals to 3.9 per cent under Labor, with the creation of over 38,000 jobs in just seven years. The regional population has increased by 1.3 per cent. Since the 2002-03 budget, we have spent $658 million on regional roads. Since 2006, we have resurfaced around 2,953 lane kilometres of rural roads. In the 2009-10 budget, an additional $23 million over the next four years was allocated for the Rural Road Safety Program.

The 2009-10 budget investment in regional South Australia is focused on supporting jobs and continuing with record infrastructure investment—I emphasise that: record infrastructure investment—in education, housing, health, sustainability and rural road safety.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:25): The member for Hammond felt so strongly about this matter that he went to the middle of the front bench to talk about it—that is how much he wanted to express his point about the Labor Party and the Labor government. These are important issues that have been raised by the member for Hammond. For the member for Light to get up and come out with the bovine excrement that he did—I shook my head in disbelief.

The member for Light can stand there and quote all the figures he likes but you need to get out in the countryside, in the arena—and it does not matter whether we are talking about regional, rural or metropolitan matters—you need to get out there and talk to people. Let me tell you that the people we talk to and the people I talk to leave me in no doubt about the lack of support from the Rann Labor government for what is going on in rural South Australia.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: If the Attorney-General wants to make a contribution, he can do so after I have finished. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the people in my electorate are loudly and clearly telling me what is not being done. Even as late as last night at a community function I attended in Victor Harbor on palliative care services, I was getting it loud and clear from the community from all aged sectors from professional people in health and doctors in the region, about what is not happening and what should be happening, and that is only one facet of it.

That was picked up by the member for Hammond and I do not want to go over what he has said. He put in front of me a paper that he wished to have added to the debate to do with the Flaxley Agricultural Centre. He is concerned that the centre itself may get shafted or have its services reduced. So, what is happening in rural and regional South Australia is that they are producing the wealth and getting ripped off by stealth.

You only have to go out and see what is happening with the lack of ability to have a direct say into the running of the health services and health units, as the Rann Labor government has removed boards in order to put in place a centralised bureaucracy in Adelaide. That has removed the policy direction from local boards and put in place health advisory councils and, in many cases, they are run by very good people but they have absolutely no say over where health can go. It just does not happen. It is all locked up in Hindmarsh Square in the glass tower. It is all centrally controlled. Those units and hospitals around South Australia, which in many cases have been built by the community, have lost all their control. Let me also say that a lot of the dedicated Department of Health people running those hospitals and health services around the state are shaking their heads in disbelief over the lack of control they have.

If you want another example, we will go to the department of education where now the principals of schools are having everything removed from them. That is all being centralised. They cannot make the decisions they used to over their own facilities and over the welfare of their own students and staff in their own schools. They are two cases and, if you want another one, we will go to the law and order issue quite readily as it relates to police. What is happening with the police services? The control and management of a lot of these local police stations is being moved away, regions are being shifted, control is being put in other places and police officers and sergeants in charge and suchlike do not have the control over their police patch they used to have; they have had their resources removed.

Yet another example—and I have said it in here before—is one police patrol operating over the Fleurieu Peninsula on many nights of the week. There is one police patrol from Strathalbyn down through to Cape Jervis and across to Yankalilla. I have talked about that before. These police officers are dedicated, but what happened just recently is unacceptable. A police patrol was called to an incident in Middleton where a perpetrator was a grinding a young policewoman's face into the mud. The other policeman tried to haul her off. There was another incident at Port Elliot and there was nothing they could do about it because there were no other police patrols out and about. These are some issues of great concern.

The member for Hammond talked about marine parks. I do know a bit about marine parks, because the Encounter Marine Park was the first one in South Australia—the first prototype—and it is in my electorate. They have made a complete and utter stuff-up of it. Once again, we have shiny backsided bureaucrats running around telling local people what the best thing is for their area, and it is not working. It has not worked. A couple of people involved in the marine parks issue have worked hard and have tried to communicate and consult with the community, and I acknowledge those people. But, by and large, there are these airy-fairy lunatics sitting at the top of bureaucracies who want to take control of people's destinies.

Today, we had the member for Light doing the dirty work of the government in here, quoting facts and figures. It is all very well for them to do that, but the cutting edge is out there in rural South Australia. That is where the cutting edge is. That is where issues are being taken to task. That is where health, education and the impact on fisheries are all issues. Water is an enormous issue. Water permeates the community like nothing I have ever seen before. It does not stop at the River Murray; it goes much wider than that.

We have tried to get dialysis services down on the South Coast for a couple of years. True, it is happening. What is also happening is absolute frustration by the people in health down there, because it is just being held up, delayed and stuffed up by central bureaucrats who will not push things along.

Yesterday, we had an appalling example of where $118 million was supposedly going into the Glenside mental health facility, and they came in here with an 8½ or nine page document. If you think that we are a bit cynical and a bit sceptical, you can bet your bottom dollar we are. I fully and totally support the points made by the member for Hammond, and I will support the motion.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:33): I am delighted, as always, to be here on a Thursday morning. In fact, Mr Speaker, you caught me in the middle of doing some research with the honourable member for Mawson. We were actually looking in The Advertiser to see whether there was, in fact, a full moon today, because that would help explain part of what has been going on. It is often said that the full moon has an effect on things.

It has been interesting listening to this debate. We have heard about problems with water supply, problems with agricultural services and problems with infrastructure. These are the real big ticket items, apparently.

I turn to the problem with the water supply. I realise that the member for Hammond has a deep and genuine commitment to this issue, but I must repeat something that others in this place and I have said many times: if it doesn't rain, there isn't water. It is quite simple. Unless there's rain, there isn't water. The good news for the member for Hammond is that one day it will rain and, when it does, the water will come, and he can take that message back, like Moses, to his people. One day it will rain and the water will come.

If he is talking about the Eyre Peninsula where there are issues about water, he might care to consider how many years of mismanagement of the aquifers in the Eyre Peninsula area have contributed to the present difficulties that people in that part of the state have with the water supply. And he might want to ask himself who was responsible for that mismanagement of those aquifers over many years. He might want to inquire why over-allocations in those rural areas have caused trouble for the people he seeks to speak on behalf of in this chamber in this debate.

The water supply issue is almost laughable. It will rain one day and, when it does, it will get better. This government has spent a lot of money on supplying additional water to Adelaide through the desalination plant; and, to the extent that that displaces requirements on the River Murray, that will increase the amount of water available through the pipeline. In addition to that, look at the work this government has done in relation to the reuse of water at the treatment works at Glenelg.

Has anyone seen those purple pipes going anywhere? What do you think they are carrying? This is not only about water, it is about infrastructure. Guess what? We have infrastructure happening, too. What do you call a desal plant? What do you call the purple pipes? If they are not infrastructure, I'll go he. Agriculture services is another great topic. I would be really happy if all the members of the opposition from the rural parts of the state were as consistent as the member for Stuart.

The member for Stuart makes no apology for being an unreconstructed Jack McEwen-type individual, and I salute him for it. No. 1, he is consistent; No. 2, he is honest; No. 3, he is reliable in his opinions; and, No. 4, consistent with that point of view, he also has doubts about a whole range of free market mechanisms that members on the opposition side do not have the stomach to deal with. He is the only one over there who had the stomach to deal with the issue about getting rid of the single desk for the Barley Board. The rest of you were hopelessly compromised—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Venning: The honourable member deliberately misleads the house.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Venning: He deliberately misleads—

The SPEAKER: I beg your pardon! The member for Enfield will take his seat.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Did you have a point of order, member for Schubert?

Mr VENNING: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, and I know I can do this by substantive motion, but the honourable member deliberately misleads the house.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Schubert will withdraw that remark.

Mr VENNING: I did not make an offensive remark, sir.

The SPEAKER: You said that the member for Enfield had misled the house.

Mr VENNING: I withdraw that remark. I did not intend—he may now wish to correct his statement.

The SPEAKER: Order! The Member for Enfield.

Mr RAU: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we have is the old Jack McEwen view of socialise your losses and capitalise your profits, which is okay and perfectly consistent coming from the member for Stuart, and I respect it. But you have the free marketeer/freebooting crowd over the other side there who think: dismantle all the agricultural schemes that are there to protect farmers; do all these things; bring the free market in; let the spivs and the grain traders take over the whole show—let them in and just wait for the farmers to be reduced to penury by these spivs.

The same people who want to do that still want to be able to socialise their losses. Well, guess what? You cannot have it both ways. You are either an agrarian socialist or a free marketeer. Pick which one you are in. Pick which side you are on. Of course, infrastructure is the constant complaint. We are about to hear, I believe, from the member for MacKillop, who will be able to tell members as part of his contribution that the Bald Hill Drain was unable to be constructed during the time of the former government being in office because there were too many internal disputes within the Liberal Party and because people in the South-East were very aggro about it on both sides. I am not saying who was right and who was wrong, and I am not asking for the member for MacKillop to flesh himself out and say where he stood on it. However, I can tell members this: it was a very thorny problem. It was a Gordian knot which they refused to cut or were incapable of cutting. The government has cut it and that drain is being dug. That is infrastructure. That is this government doing something for agriculture in the South-East.

The question about mining has conveniently been left out—the question about all the jobs that have come from the development in regional South Australia, from the mining industry, and the fact that PIRSA is recognised around the country as being an agency without peer in terms of its cooperation with the mining industry and its one-stop shop achievements for people trying to get developments on.

Of course, when all this industry and agricultural activity goes on, what are they going to do with the product? Are they going to let it sit on their farm? No! They have to move it somewhere. They move it by rail or road and they have to get it out through a port. How much money has this government spent on the redevelopment of Port Adelaide? How much money has gone into having our ports upgraded to the point where they can take those Panamax-class ships? There is no credit for that. What about the rail and roadworks going on outside Adelaide to the north, of which the new South Road redevelopment is just another $1 billion contribution from the state and federal governments? What about that? How do you expect to get your grain out if you do not have a road and you do not have a port? Think about it.

The opposition comes in here complaining about a lack of infrastructure investment! What about the power stations? The member for Finniss has more power stations per head of population in his electorate than anyone in the universe, yet there is not a word about all the wind power that is going on there. I suspect that he and others generate a bit of it themselves. The fact is there is a lot of tangible examples of investments. The member for Goyder has them in his electorate as well. They are all over the place. These investments have all occurred under the policies that the present government has been able to generate.

In regard to the SEA Gas pipeline, I ask members to cast their minds back. What about when that terrible accident happened at Moomba a little while ago? Just think what would have happened if this government had not invested in that particular piece of infrastructure. Also, just to put a bit of icing on the cake—and I am terribly sorry that one member is not here to hear this—look at what this government has done to sort out the Native Vegetation Council—the crowning glory. When this government came in, there was a terrible problem for people on the land about getting clearances and being able to do practical things on their properties. Now, we have extensive reforms, firebreaks here, firebreaks there and plants being removed in a sensible way. For goodness sake, we even fixed up the significant tree legislation so that it does not include exotics—and they voted against it.

So, please, if you are going to come in here and tell a story, tell a story that you can tell. Or, if you have to resort to something out of Grimm's Fairy Tales, at least attribute it and give credit where it is due. All the things that I have mentioned are not fantasies; they are reality. As I said, the member for MacKillop knows very well what I am talking about in relation to the Bald Hill Drain. It was a difficult problem that was solved by this government—and solved, I suspect (but I will not talk for him), to his satisfaction. Criticism where it is due is fair enough, but criticism of a blanket kind that ignores any of the realities is not helpful.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:44): I rise to support this motion. I have heard speeches of the member for Enfield previously, but on this occasion his speech was full of inaccuracies. To say that one member of this house supports a single desk I take as a personal affront. I led the charge, personally, in both houses. It is not very often the member for Enfield gets it wrong, but he certainly did in this instance. Please check the history and facts. I thought it was the most disappointing speech I have heard him make in this place.

I rise to support this motion. About half the speeches I make in this place are usually on subjects highlighting the shortfall in services and opportunities for regional South Australians. I make special note of the lack of commitment to country health services and a water supply. The government policy of shared services has been a disaster for country South Australians. It is a conscious and deliberate effort to take jobs out of regional South Australia, in some cases abolishing positions and bringing them to the city, and in some cases the office space is not being used at a cost of millions of dollars.

The member for Hammond as the shadow minister mentioned what is happening to research stations in country regions, particularly at Loxton. It is a disgrace that the local member—a minister who sits in cabinet—has allowed Loxton to be under threat. I think it is disgraceful that the government is considering downscaling the Nuriootpa research centre station.

Most importantly, I want to speak briefly about country health, particularly country hospitals. We have seen this government get rid of regional health management by abolishing local hospital boards—which we will reinstate as soon as we are elected into government next March. I attend meetings of HACs and I am upset that all we seem to get is bureaucracy. They are bureaucratic toothless tigers smothered by government bureaucrats. They are most ineffective.

I want to speak about the Barossa hospital. Prior to the election, a new hospital for the Barossa will be a key issue for the Schubert electorate. People in the Barossa have an expectation that a quality hospital facility will be built in the region very soon.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: On a greenfields site!

Mr VENNING: I do not care whether it is on a greenfields site. The people of the Barossa deserve better. The Barossa plays a key part in the state's economy, providing a big proportion of state taxes. What do they get in return? As members heard from the member for Finniss, country people pay more than their fair share of taxes and they want something in return—a fair go.

The business case for a new facility has been completed and is currently with the minister. I hope it will be released soon. I commend the minister. I do not wish him any ill will at all. In fact, he is one of the ministers I appreciate. I hope to hear something from him today that will give my electors some hope that this hospital may happen. I believe the report makes a compelling case for a new health facility development.

In mid-October I toured the hospitals at Angaston and Tanunda with the shadow minister, the member for Morphett. My visit reinforced my view that there is a rock solid case for a new facility to be constructed in the Barossa—one new facility rather than two. I am amazed—and I have said this time and again—at how the staff deliver such a high standard of service and care in old run-down facilities.

Funding was pledged for the business case in the last year's state budget yet the working group to undertake the investigation was not formed until November last year. The Barossa community is now having to endure further delay before it learns the result of the investigation as the report will not be publicly available until the minister has signed off on it—and I hope that is shortly.

The business case should be made public so that the community can see what the proposed hospital entails, how much money is needed from the government to make it a reality and what services it will provide. We have heard dialysis mentioned today in this house; and I have a personal matter in relation to that which I will not raise here today.

The former Liberal government promised to build a new facility in 2002 but the plans were scrapped when the Rann government came to power. We know that the minister is sitting on the business case, and I call—nicely and politely—for its release to the public as soon as possible. The Barossa Valley community has been patient and it deserves a new hospital.

Other facilities in the area which are crying out for attention include rail crossings to ensure people's safety, and the heavy vehicle freight corridor needs extra money to finish it off. It is a big ticket item—too much for the Barossa Council and Light Regional Council to maintain. Gomersal Road, which is the busiest new road in the state, is full of potholes and Light Regional Council cannot afford to upgrade it. Surely the government can come on deck to help us with that road.

Finally, I want to discuss my favourite subject—rail services. The government continues to ignore a passenger rail service to the Barossa and does not even allow Mr John Geber to run the train he now owns outright. The government will not even trial a wine or passenger commuter service. At least it should provide a bus service—on which metro tickets can be used—that coincides with the rail service from Gawler.

The member for Light represents country people as well, and I was disgusted with what he said today. I note that the member for Mawson is here: he will understand. I think we are producing the wealth and, as the member for Finniss said, we have been ripped off by stealth. I support the motion.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (12:49): We see these sorts of motions all the time from members opposite. Usually they are a waste of time and, again, we have taken up a lot of time on this matter.

Mr Venning: I'll talk to your father-in-law about this.

Mr KENYON: You don't even know him. I would like to come back to the point made by the member for Light, who talked about his potential inquiry into farm machinery with the Economic and Finance Committee. I would like to talk about it because it really goes to the very nub of the problem with the Liberal Party today.

The problem with the Liberal Party today is that its members are more interested in having a hissy fit than they are in doing something for their constituents. When the opportunity came to do something practical and useful for their constituents in country areas—looking into the pricing of farm machinery—they squibbed it. The reason why they squibbed it was not because they disagreed with it; it was because 'one of our inquiries got knocked off'.

Apart from the fact that it is just not logical—it does not make sense not to represent your constituents on one matter just because you could not get two matters up—it just shows that they are more concerned with politics, hissy fits and whingeing and whining than they are with doing something practical. You have to commend them, because more and more as time goes on it is being left to the Labor Party to represent country constituents. It is being left to the Labor Party to represent the real interests of country and regional people.

We are not making some debating point here, because earlier this year in the seat of Frome we saw an Independent, a non-Liberal, elected. The only reason why that could have happened is because the electors of Frome were so dissatisfied with the representation they had received from the Liberal Party. So, instead of choosing and endorsing the Liberal Party, instead of saying, 'Yes, the Liberal Party is fighting for our issues, it is fighting for what we believe in,' they vote for an Independent, a term and three-quarters into a Labor government. They are still not embracing the Liberal Party; they are out there saying, 'The best representative that we can find for regional interests is, in fact, an Independent, not the Liberal Party.'

It is members like the member for Giles, the member for Mawson and the member for Light who are here in parliament day in, day out, representing their regional and rural communities. Every time members of the Liberal Party have the opportunity to do the same they squib it. They then have the temerity to come in here (as did the member for MacKillop yesterday) and accuse us of conning the state. Somehow we have tricked the state. We have not tricked the state. Members opposite should stop trying to convince themselves that we are conning the state and start representing their constituents. They should try to establish a policy. They cannot even get together and get a policy. Why do they not try to establish some sort of common philosophy, which allows them to represent their constituents and to which they can refer?

The member for Schubert talked about council roads and said that the state government should help the council to look after its own problems. If the member for Schubert is so worried about his local council, why does he not resign from this place? That would help to rejuvenate the Liberal Party and he could run for council. Maybe he can better represent the council. At every opportunity the Liberal Party has abandoned long-held philosophies, it has walked away from them.

Mr Venning: How did Tom Chapman end up with you?

Mr KENYON: Tom Chapman is very happy with me. He is not happy with—I will not say his name. They should take every opportunity to just bring about some pricing justice. I should not have to tell members opposite this; it should be apparent. One of the great costs of farming is machinery. Machinery that sits in a shed for 10 or 11 months of the year is dragged out for a harvest or a sowing, or whatever it is. When the member for Light comes in here and seeks to inquire as to ways to make it cheaper and to look into the costs associated with this capital equipment, what happens? The Liberal Party squibs it. The Liberal Party says,' Oh, you didn't vote for us, so we are not going to vote for you,' dudding their constituents twice, not just once, when they did not get some inquiry that they wanted up—probably some dubious inquiry. Twice—when they had the chance to do something practical, useful, that would have a direct impact on the cost for their constituents, they rejected the opportunity.

Then they wonder why they struggle to win booths in Frome, why it is such hard work to even make up ground in Mount Gambier, of all places. Why is it so difficult for them to win back Mount Gambier? Why is it so hard even in one of the worst droughts and even with one of the most topical issues of water? Why is it so hard for them to be making up ground in Chaffey? It is quite simple: it is because rural and regional people have no confidence in the Liberal Party. They know that there are other people who would do a better job for them than the Liberal Party. They know they are better off with an Independent. Even two Independents, who are prepared to go into cabinet with a Labor government, are still better representatives than the Liberal Party.

They had the chance to reject them. They had the chance to say, 'We disapproved that you went into cabinet with the Labor Government.' They had the chance to say, 'As a result of your going into cabinet with the Labor government, we're worse off,' but did they say that? No. They re-elected both of them, thumpingly, if that is in fact an adverb.

At every opportunity—I keep coming back to this train of thought—and every time there has been an electoral test of the Liberal Party and whether they actually represent their constituency, whether they are the best representatives of rural and regional South Australia, the answer—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr KENYON: I thank the member for West Torrens for pointing that out, because he is exactly right. The reason the member for MacKillop is in this place is because he argued that the Liberal Party was not the best representative; in fact, at that time it was not even the best government for the state. The member for MacKillop was arguing that the Liberal Party should not be in government, in effect. And here is, having rejoined the party, trying to make some sort of point that we are conning the state. If you cannot recognise reality, how are you going to change your actions? How are you going to come up with a decent campaign that is going to see you guys in government?

You cannot even look objectively at the electoral situation, your economic situation and the state of your party, so how are you ever going to regain government? Not that I care, I have to say, I like pondering this motion. It is good for me. Keep going! If we are ever going to see some sort of recovery, you have to stop bringing in Mickey Mouse motions like this, condemning the government, whingeing, whining and squealing for nothing, because it is not working. Have a look at the ballot box, it is not working.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:58): Never has the importance of the motion that the member for Hammond brought to the house been demonstrated more than by the fact that the member for Newland could not say one thing about what the government that he is a member of has done for regional South Australia. We just heard nothing but a diatribe of abuse of members on this side of the house and the Liberal Party because he could not support anything they have done.

I am not going to have an opportunity to rebut all the things that have been said, but evidence that came to the Economic and Finance Committee on that inquiry, which the member for Light talked about, from the Office of Consumer and Business Affairs (OCBA) was, 'It is not within our jurisdiction' under the government's current legislation. That is the point I made to the committee when my colleagues and I voted against that inquiry.

The member for Enfield makes very important points. I ask members to go back and read his speech. Those who have any understanding of history will know that every one of the points he raised was funded by us or projects that were started before the change of government in 1992. It is things like the SEA Gas pipeline, things about investments in wind farms, things about the deepening of the port of Port Adelaide. If he wants to talk about ports get him to explain what is happening up at Port Bonython with the bulk handling facility for the mining industry; get him to talk about some of those things that should be happening in South Australia instead of the things that only happen because of the previous Liberal government. He said that the government cannot make it rain, but it can capture the rain when it does fall. I conclude my remarks there.

Debate adjourned.

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