HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Adjourned debate on motion to note grievances (resumed on motion).

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:30): The 10 minute grievances that we have after the Supply Bill are a unique opportunity to talk about some of the issues which relate back to the Supply Bill but which are perhaps more pertinent to one's own electorate and other specific portfolio issues.

In particular I want to talk about my own electorate issues that have suffered under the eight years of hard labour in this place. This government has had truckloads of money pour in through Treasury doors, but in seats like Morphett—and I should say, in some cases, in some safe Labor seats, but particularly in the seat of Morphett—there have been a lot of issues that need attention, but attention from this government is conspicuous by its absence.

The electorate of Morphett is a very small electorate geographically. It goes from the beach back to Park Terrace at the back of the racecourse, down to Oaklands Road with a bit of Warradale and up around the tramline and a bit of Glenelg North across by the airport. It is not big; it is only 11.4 square kilometres, from recollection, if you do not include all the open space of the racecourse. However, there are nearly 24,000 people there and they are paying taxes to this state amounting to many millions of dollars.

These taxes are really pertinent to my electors and many businesses down there. I often boast to constituents and friends who come to visit us. Yesterday, in fact, our American friends, Dr John and Mrs Cathleen Carr from Oregon, were visiting us after a few years, so we took them down to Jetty Road, Glenelg. I said, 'I've got 106 restaurants and cafes within walking distance of my office.' That is a wonderful boast but the problem is that those businesses are paying huge taxes. The owners of those premises, in many cases, rent the businesses and pass on the business costs—and one of the big business costs is land tax. One of my near neighbours where I live at the bay was telling me that they own a business down there and they are paying over $1,000 a week in land tax. The property is worth a lot of money but you cannot eat the property. They are having to pay massive land tax all the time.

Every time I go to the toilet in our place and push the button I think it is about $8 a flush, when you work out the sewerage and water charges that are levied on the capital value of houses down there. Sure, I live on the beachfront and it is a very nice house. The capital value has gone up and it is fantastic, but you cannot eat that—you have to live.

I am lucky in that I can afford to pay it. I am in a fortunate position but there are many of my constituents who cannot afford to pay the rates, taxes and levies that are put upon them because they have properties which now have gone up in value many times. The significant increase in those property values is recognised by some organisations and there are schemes where you can pay off your costs and charges but, in most cases, you have to pay upfront or, when the bill arrives in the post, you have a few days to pay.

Something that this government needs to look at is: what do you do when you have wealth taxes, for want of a better description? These properties have gone right up and the businesses are paying massive taxes on the value of the properties and the residents are paying massive taxes on water, sewerage and the emergency services levy. They have gone up because the property values have gone up. The percentage has not changed very much but the property values have gone up. They do not begrudge paying a fair share. Nobody in South Australia should begrudge paying their fair share, but they should not have to pay rates and taxes to the values they are at the moment.

At Glenelg at this time of the year in particular you see huge volumes of stormwater come roaring out of the culverts and empty out onto the beach. It is a tragedy that more money has not been put into stormwater detention and retention and more wetlands over the last eight years. Just along the Glenelg Beach at Holdfast Shores and the main tourist area mountains of dead and rotting seagrass have come up because thousands of square metres of seagrass are being affected by the stormwater run-off that just pours out from everything, including the Barcoo outlet, which came out of the Patawalonga beforehand.

It is not only coming out of the Barcoo outlet but also all the stormwater outlets along the coast. The government really needs to start doing something about that, because the damage that is being done to the marine life down there—the flora and fauna, I would expect—is something that we should not take for granted. It will not repair itself forever. It is pretty resilient, but it will not keep repairing itself forever. So, we ask the government to do something about that.

Of course, my little pet project—and it is going to be expensive—is to rehabilitate Sturt Creek back to a long linear park and to look at what Flinders University is doing in Singapore with rehabilitating their concrete channels back to these linear parks. It is not cheap, but we should look at something like that with environmental and social dividend, not just a triple bottom line. I look forward to having discussions with the government about that.

In terms of the transport issues at the Bay, the Glenelg tramline is famous. It has been there for many years now. We had the old red rattlers that used to go back and forth. They were produced in South Australia; they were built in Edwardstown. We do not see them very much now. The Holdfast Bay council, to its credit, has had them running as tourist trams on weekends, but even that is starting to fade out now. I would love to see those trams come back. You can maintain them as tourist trams and not just run the fantastic plastic trams that we have at the moment, those very expensive Bombardier and Alstom trams.

Just as a bit of an aside, if members have a look at the trams going to and from Glenelg, the signage reads: 'Entertainment Centre via the city'. Via the city; I would love to know where else they can go. If there is another track somewhere else, well, tell me about it. I know that there were plans to go to Semaphore, and they have gone, but I think every tram that ever travelled in this state for many years has gone via the city.

The cost of maintaining that tramline is going up, but it is proving to be of benefit to my constituents, and I encourage the government to think a bit more strategically about what it is doing. Just the other day, workmen at the Brighton Road tram stop were pulling up the dimpled pavers that allow blind people to recognise where the doors of the trams are. But, because they have two different types of trams now—and that is not including the old red rattlers on the weekend—they have different shapes and different sizes. One has three sets of doors and one has five sets of doors; so, you cannot have the dimpled pavers.

What does it cost to redo all the tram stops from the city to Glenelg to take away that now misguiding information for people with vision impairment and blind passengers? We want to encourage people to use public transport, but if we are going to do it let's do it for the long term; let's do it properly. It really is something that this government did for political purposes, to buy those trams on both occasions, and we are paying the price for them now.

The King Street Bridge is a real issue in my electorate. It has to be rebuilt by the local government. This state government is putting three parts of stuff-all into rebuilding that bridge. The federal government, to its credit, is putting some money in, but even that is being rationed out over a number of years. The ratepayers at Glenelg cannot afford the millions of dollars to rebuild the bridge.

The taxpayers of South Australia built that bridge. It was handed to the local government, and it should not have been, but now it is costing millions to repair it. It is part of the strategic and emergency access plan for transport to the houses on the western side of the Patawalonga, yet the government will do nothing about it. Metropolitan buses use it as part of the public transport system, yet the state government will not put in a cent to help my constituents with the burden of having to pay for that new bridge.

The state government really needs to look at what they are doing down there, and see that there are not only the local residents down there but also many people from other areas of South Australia. There are also hundreds of thousands, if not millions—I think it is about 2.4 million visitors a year in Glenelg now—who want to use that infrastructure. It is not just for my constituents, it is not just for the South Australians. It is for the whole world that we should be improving the facilities down there.

I will just finish by digressing from my electorate to the job of a member of parliament which is quite onerous and arduous at times. It is also extremely enjoyable for the vast majority of the time. I would like to congratulate the member for Schubert for 20 years of outstanding service in this place. I would like to congratulate his wife, Kay, for having put up with him, not only for the wonderful bloke he is but also because, as most political partners will tell you, it is a pretty tough gig at times being the partner of politician.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:41): I thank the member for Morphett for his compliment, and I congratulate him on his good representation, and thanks for being a friend, which in this place is most important.

Recently, it was revealed that the average South Australian will be around $200 a year worse off following the latest round of tax and charge increases announced by the Treasurer. The average family will have to deal with an average increase in the water price of $84 per year, an increase of 21 per cent, a compulsory third party insurance increase of $32 per year. Catching the public transport to work will increase by $52 per year, a six-cylinder car registration will increase by $7 per year, and learner permits will increase by 14 per cent. Sewerage charges will increase by 4 per cent, which is $12 per year. All these charges total $187 per year.

The household charges are increasing above the rate of inflation and putting pressure on family budgets. They are nothing more than a part of the contribution to paying for Kevin Foley's blow-out on things like the Adelaide Oval and the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The Treasurer has said about the increases:

The pressures we are facing are ever-increasing so the financial requirements of this government to continually balance the budget are extreme.

The Treasurer must think we were all born yesterday. It will not be lost on the public that the South Australian taxpayer contribution to the Adelaide Oval has blown out from $300 million to $535 million, a blow-out that the Treasurer, who by his own admission is 'not the sharpest tool in the shed', conveniently forgot that he knew about.

He not only misled the parliament in this instance, and we have had that in the last few days, but he misled the people of South Australia, at the worst possible time, in the week before a state election. Really that is, I think, a pretty serious crime for a politician to do and for a government to be involved with. I think it is appalling and I do not think we have seen or heard the end of this one yet. I am fairly sure we haven't, because, with everything else, it is a pretty poor record.

The new RAH costs have also blown out over the original $1.7 billion. It is taxpayers once again who will foot the bill. The Rann Labor government has lost control of both the Adelaide Oval project and the Royal Adelaide Hospital project. The only way that we can recover the money is through increased taxes and charges. He said that today in the house when he was talking about his razor gang. You either put the razor gang through or you increase taxes and charges. Well, they are anyway, and he tried to make excuses for that. It was a pretty feeble effort.

The average South Australian is paying for the Premier and the Treasurer's mistakes. They did not mention anything about cuts to government's public relations outfit, the so-called spin team, and the millions that costs the taxpayer. That has not been mentioned. I bet that does not suffer the same razor.

I shudder to think of the tax and charges increases that will be included in this year's budget—when it is finally handed down in September of this year. What a disgrace this is. We are the only state in the country whose state government has not released its budget. Tasmania went to the polls on the same day that we did and yet their government managed to release their budget this week. Why are we different?

What a mess! The Rann Labor government has been in for eight years and still they need more time. Is it because they need to find $750 million in savings by cutting services and staff to balance out the budget after eight years of excessive expenditure and wastage? I think so.

We have to have a very good look at this credit rating. How do you get to maintain the credit rating we have with the problems this government has? It does bring the credit rating agencies themselves into question. I wonder—and I have looked at this over the years—what the terms of reference are for those people doing the credit rating, because I would think with the way things are generally with businesses—and we heard today about Elders having to lay off people—things are pretty tough out there, very tough, and yet this government keeps on spending. It thinks it can spend its way into oblivion. It is going to go into oblivion, but it should have been in March this year, not in 2014.

I am able to predict where cuts will be made—to areas like PIRSA (primary industries) and country health, areas that are already struggling to manage on minimal funding. These are areas of low political sensitivity for this city-centric government. They will stick primary industries, the old department of agriculture, out even further, to a point that it will hardly exist. Over the eight years, we have seen the Rann Labor government spending money in the city and incurring huge blowouts in costs and massive amounts in wastage, while country communities continue to manage with little or no government expenditure or investment.

Many rural and regional communities—my electorate—are forced to have to deal with fewer, inadequate or below par services. The Treasurer today talked about Shared Services—what a disgrace that is. It was an exercise of government which he thinks is going to save money. The government is already spending a huge amount of money on office space in Adelaide that is empty. How embarrassing is that? The jobs are being lost to the country already. It's a disgrace!

Look at the Barossa community. They have waited so patiently for a new hospital and are now waiting and waiting for the Rann government to release the business case. I spoke to the minister in this house yesterday briefly about that, and I will keep doing that. We all know the business case will recommend a new facility to be built in the Barossa, which is why I think there is such a delay in releasing it. My prediction is that it will not be released until after the budget is handed down; in other words, too late, wait for next year.

I did write to the Minister for Health some time ago, seeking an update on the business case and advice regarding a possible time frame for its release. The response the minister provided was a disgrace. The letter said that SA Health provided $70,000 for the compilation of a business case and that the steering group, comprising representatives from the local GP division, the council, the Health Advisory Council and the education sector is overseeing the planning and development, which both the Barossa community and I are well aware of. The rest of the response said:

Final draft business case for the proposed new Barossa Hospital will be considered by the Department of Health within the context of South Australia's Health Care Plan. As part of the Rann government's election commitments, $400,000 will be invested to provide emergency power generators at Angaston, Kapunda and Berri.

Thank you very much for the generators—we can keep the lights on—but we need a new hospital.

Whoever drafted that response for the minister must think that I and the Barossa community have no idea what is going on here. We know a business case has been commissioned and we want to know when it will be released. As the Barossa is not going to get any answers, let alone a new health facility, from the Rann Labor government, I will be going to make representations to the federal government. Federal government intervention and takeover from the state government worked in bringing the Mercy Hospital in Tasmania up to standard a few years ago. I cannot see why it would not work here in the same way.

Before I do this, I would like to give minister Hill the opportunity to finally go public with everything, including the Barossa Hospital plan. I want to work with him, because I do not believe in big brother Canberra controlling things we do here. I do believe in the state and federal system we have, but if everything else fails I will have no choice. There is so much waste, and I did say to the Treasurer today when he was making his final speech to the Supply Bill, 'If you could cut the waste you will save a lot of money.' They seem to be throwing money everywhere, including into government advertising, and a lot of the money that has been wasted would certainly build the Barossa Hospital, plus some.

I will continue to lobby for a new health facility in the Barossa. I congratulate the opposition, particularly my leader, Isobel Redmond, for coming to the Barossa. We promised that if the opposition was elected to government we would build a new Barossa hospital, and that lifted my vote, I reckon, by 10 per cent and is one of the reasons why I had a record vote.

Politics aside, I throw the invitation out to all members to go and have a look at the Angaston hospital. This is the Barossa's key hospital. The member for Bragg has been there. It is a disgrace; you cannot believe it. Nothing has been spent there, because it is not worth spending anything there. It is past its use-by date. So, I will continue to lobby for the new facility that the region deserves, and if that means making representations to the federal government then that is what I will do.

I will keep speaking to everybody, including minister Hill. I hope that he is able to give me a few comments in a couple of days' time. The Rann Labor government has treated the Barossa community with contempt for too long, and now to continue withholding the business case like this, without any indication of when it may be made public is just wrong.

Time expired.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:51): As the member for Adelaide, I rise today to speak on the Supply Bill and address this house about the importance of our central shopping precinct, the Rundle Mall. As the member for Adelaide, I am passionate about supporting our Rundle Mall to return to its former glory and importance as our premier retail precinct. This was an issue that I touched upon in my maiden speech.

For members in this house who are not aware of the history of Rundle Mall, the mall was originally a bustling street thoroughfare of horse trams, trolleys, cars and foot traffic. In its early days, Rundle Street boasted 11 hotels, cabinet-makers, saddlers and coach builders. Shoppers were jostling along the pavements from shop window to the gutter. Over the years, the retail mix changed and the mall became home to our flagship department stores of David Jones, John Martin, Myer and Harris Scarfe. Archival footage of the time shows a golden era of bustling enterprise.

In 1976, the western end of Rundle Street between Pulteney Street and King William Street was turned into a mall. This was Australia's first pedestrian street mall. At present, Rundle Mall experiences a collective turnover of $800 million a year; 85 per cent of tourists who visit our city or our state walk down Rundle Mall; 45 per cent of cruise ship passengers travel from the docks by coach or taxi to see our mall. However, the needs of our Rundle Mall have been neglected by our state government instead of being nurtured and supported.

Rundle Mall is home to over 700 retail stores, 200 service providers and 15 unique arcades and shopping centres. Over 5,000 people rely on Rundle Mall for employment. In 1980, Rundle Mall was home to 30 per cent of the state's retail spending. Since this time, this number has steadily declined. By 1990, this figure had declined to 20 per cent and at present is less than 5 per cent.

Whilst you could come to the conclusion that there are a variety of reasons for this decline, such as the rise of suburban shopping outlets such as Westfield Marion, access or expense issues, including parking, or the mall's tired aesthetics, I believe the cause for the decline cannot be pinpointed to one concern. It is due to the years of neglect by the state government that have seen the mall become less important in the day-to-day lives of the majority of South Australians.

There has been no major state government reinvestment back into the mall since it was established as a mall in 1976. During the 1990s, the mall was refurbished in 1994 and 1995 under the Brown Liberal government. Despite still reeling from the disastrous financial position the new Liberal government inherited, due to the collapse of the State Bank which occurred under the watch of the Bannon Labor government, the Brown Liberal government had the foresight to commit to improving Rundle Mall.

Works at the time included subsurface engineering infrastructure, which entailed plumbing and drainage and the installation of a canopy, and the mall was repaved. However, 1994 is 16 years ago, and Rundle Mall needs the attention and support of our current government. No matter what the reasons for the present decline in retail spending prominence, it is essential that collaborative efforts are made between retailers and local and state governments to ensure that the mall is addressed and does not become an irrelevant part of our great city.

The mall experiences 23 million visitors per year; however, less than 50 per cent of our city workers frequent the mall. We need to bring this space back to life. I believe that our mall needs the support of the state government to be designated as a tourist precinct. The fact that our mall is visited by 85 per cent of tourists, which is a greater number than those who visit our tourist precinct of Glenelg (which is currently at 3 million), and it is not yet able to be designated as a tourist precinct without the will of the government, is nonsensical.

I support Rundle Mall becoming a designated tourist precinct under the Shop Trading Hours Act. As one of our key tourist destinations our state would benefit from having Rundle Mall open on a number of the 11 public holidays that occur during the year. In so many ways our Rundle Mall is already a tourist precinct and it should now be formally recognised as such under the Shop Trading Hours Act. The mall should be supported and addressed in the state budget and not ignored for another budget or term of government.

I urge this government in the strongest of terms to show some leadership on this issue. Do not continue to be tied by the apron and purse strings of the unions: allow the desire of the people of this state, the retailers, tourists and visitors to proceed. Please support Rundle Mall by providing the zone the freedom to become a designated tourist precinct so that it may flourish again as a retail heart of our state.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:56): Thank you Mr Acting Speaker. Congratulations, member for Finniss, on your ascension to the chair. I also join others in congratulating the member for Schubert on 20 fine, excellent and contributing years in this place. The member for Schubert and I knew each other when I was in a previous life and have certainly been involved in some agricultural pursuits together, and I would like to think that under his guidance I will be in good hands in this place, so congratulations to him.

The leader made the point clearly today that Labor does not manage the economy well. Time and again, whether here in South Australia, interstate or at a federal level—indeed around the world—Labor are economic vandals. They demonstrate time and again their inability to manage the economy. Invariably the Liberal Party will have to come in again and clean up the mess.

The state budget currently is around $15 billion, and the state's debt is approaching $6.8 billion. For those of us prepared to do some simple mathematics, the state debt is roughly 50 per cent of the state's total budget, and members in this place with any sort of business background at all realise that this is no way to manage a business, let alone the state's finances. Those sort of figures give us real concern going forward.

During the state election campaign issues that I covered at a local level were water, infrastructure, health and education—issues that were important to me, my electorate and the regions generally. It is the government's responsibility through SA Water to honour its 2002 commitment to establish a desalinisation plant on the Eyre Peninsula. That commitment was made in 2002 and eight years on still nothing has happened. Water security remains one of the key issues on the Eyre Peninsula and indeed in the rest of rural and regional South Australia. It is not that difficult, I do not think, to find a solution to this. The government simply needs to do what it has said it is going to do, namely, to establish a desalination plant on the West Coast, provide water security for our current population and industries and also potential future growth.

Our Treasurer spoke in this place today about making hard choices, particularly around the funding of projects. Surely the extravagance and waste we have seen by this government for the last eight years must come to an end. We cut the waste and we balance the budget: it is quite simple. I refer back to those of us who have been involved in business. When things are tight you make cuts. In this state we cut the waste, the extravagance, and we balance the budget.

Investment into infrastructure has been sadly lacking. Surely investment in infrastructure that actually encourages and facilitates growth in the real economy, the economy that generates exports and wealth for the state, is where return on investment will achieve. I mentioned earlier the Port of Thevenard on the West Coast—a dynamic port, currently the second busiest port in the state—crying out for some investment for a deepening of the channel and the expansion of the port facility. That is just one example of where investment is sadly needed.

Mr Venning: Hear, hear!

Mr TRELOAR: Thank you, member for Schubert. I do not suggest for a moment that we need to outlay more in total expenditure. What I am suggesting very strongly is that we need to keep our eye on the ball, be aware of the real drivers of our economy and understand the economic realities. What this means is a careful and dutiful redirection of funds from those projects that do not generate further income, and we have seen plenty of those recently, particularly in the City of Adelaide.

So, what I suggest is a redirection of these funds, as I said, from those projects that do not generate further income. Where government spending has been going of late is merely to placate the masses. They used to say in the times of ancient Rome that bread and circuses were the stuff of life, and it seems to me that this government has taken on that attitude and that approach.

Ms Sanderson: Look at Adelaide Oval.

Mr TRELOAR: Look at Adelaide Oval; yes, it's a circus. One of the platforms that the Liberal Party took to the last election campaign was to quarantine and direct 25 per cent of mining royalties, which are derived from the regions, back to the regions. I still believe that this is a wonderfully simple manner in which to ensure adequate funding back into the regions. Might I add that it had great support from those in the regions. It was a wonderful policy and it is still party policy to support that. I believe that it is only when funds are quarantined for this express purpose that our state's regions will be properly recognised and rewarded for their collective contributions to the South Australian economy.

The 25 per cent investment of mining royalties back into the regions can be enhanced thoroughly through funding partnerships with local governments and federal government and, as is increasingly the case, with private enterprise. Of course, if we are prepared to invest in the rural and regional economy, we will be in a much better position to provide those essential services that are ultimately the responsibility of our state government—and I am talking about health and education. It is the provision of these essential services into our regional, rural and remote areas that are of the utmost importance to South Australians.

I recognised the challenge of providing these services. It has been talked about time and time again here today on both sides, but if we are to maintain the regions as a productive sector of this state's economy, then we must be prepared to provide the services. Nothing upsets country people more than not having the equivalent services available to them as their city counterparts.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:03): Yesterday, the second stake was plunged into the heart of the Glenside Hospital with the government's announcement that it had signed a contract with the Chapley Group of companies—or a nominated company of the Chapley Retail Group—to purchase the premier portion of the Glenside Hospital adjacent to Fullarton Road.

The government has announced that it has executed a contract consistent with a price within the valuation range that was obtained, which will recover for the government $10.6 million net for that property. On my calculations, it is just over $11 million. In any event, it is a lot of money, but it is a drop in the bucket of what is spent on health in this state, to which the government claims to have a commitment. In fact, today we heard the announcement from the Minister for Health of his commitment to country health. Yet we heard the announcement the day before, under the umbrella of the scandal going on in respect of the Treasurer, that the contract has been signed.

We have now been waiting for three years for information in respect of the government's proposal. We have questions like 'What are you selling? When are going to sell? How many trees will go in any redevelopment?' etc. There have been issues relating to the mental health of patients in South Australia, particularly as the Glenside Hospital site provides the only acute mental health facility in this state designated for country people. Yet there is an announcement today of some trinkets of money that will be spent in country areas' health services; we spend billions every year on health, and what has been announced today is just another insult.

Yesterday's announcement follows the preceding budget announcements when, members will recall, the Premier said that he would, through his department, acquire 2.5 hectares in the middle of the Glenside Hospital to become the home of a film hub, in particular, housing the relocated South Australian Film Corporation. Of course, and typical of form in that regard, when we had the GFC we heard the government's announcement that it was under such financial pressure that it would have to delay the hospital rebuild but that it would progress the film hub redevelopment. That again indicates the priorities of this government.

I want to deal with the issue of the sale of a large portion of this property to the Chapley Retail Group. It is well known to members that the opposition has been keen to identify a number of aspects in relation to this development. Back in 2007 an announcement was made that a preference arrangement would be given to the Chapley group of companies on the basis of co-location and the development of supermarket facilities, allegedly consistent with recommendations made by Monsignor Cappo in his mental health report 'Stepping Up'. I might mention that that report has a number of pages relating to Glenside Hospital, but it does not mention one word about selling off anything and having a supermarket development.

Nevertheless, Monsignor Cappo says that a number of things have to happen. First, the government has to be able to present to us a design and proposal that is consistent with what we published in our 2007 document, to facilitate the expansion but also obviously to connect the site, and various other motherhood statements about a development that would help the mental health people. With the announcement yesterday that the contract is signed, have we ever seen this development? Have we ever seen the design specifications? Have we had one word from the minister yesterday about what this facility will comprise?

We were told that it would need to be approved before the contract was signed, apart from the financial component. Have we seen the valuations; have they been tabled? Do we have answers to the questions we have asked, such as whether there has been approval, or will the former minister and former member for Adelaide tell us whether she will approve a bottle shop going into the site? Where are all the answers to the questions we have asked for the last three years about the development of this site? The minister comes in yesterday to stab into the heart of this hospital, with the sale, without any answers to those questions. We are still completely in the dark.

The government has always indicated what it will do, but to actually answer the questions and come in here and give us that information—no; we are not allowed to know that. We still do not know which trees will be bulldozed; we still do not know which buildings will go to facilitate this. From inspecting the site myself I do know that there is a dirty great big trench through the middle of the oval, which has already been destroyed for the purposes of the children of the district as well as other schools and neighbours using it as an open space. Do we get told? No; we are not allowed to be told anything. What we are told is that they have signed a contract.

What I think is absolutely obscene is that we are still in the District Court on an application regarding the government, which is refusing to comply with a direction of the Ombudsman to give us documents relating to correspondence between the Chapley Retail Group and the government. We have asked for that material under FOI and the government have refused to give some items. The Ombudsman has directed that they do, and the government has appealed. All that has happened up to last year. In November, we had the hearing in the District Court and we are still awaiting a judgment from His Honour.

However, the government do not want to wait for a decision on that. No, no! They do not want to show us anything, but they are going to proceed anyway. They have signed up the contract and told you—under the cover of the scandal brewing over the Treasurer yesterday, the Minister for Health comes in here and drops down this contract.

We need to know whether the government will now show us these documents. Will they comply with the FOI direction? There is no need to keep it a secret now as they have signed the contract. Finally, will they give us the design concept that they say was necessary to approve before they would give the Chapleys the first option to purchase this valuable piece of property.

We need to know all of that and we are entitled to know it. However, all we are getting from the government is the usual silence and the expectation that we are not even entitled to know. The people of South Australia are paying for this and are having to put up with the government carving up a public asset, on which public money is to be expended.

It is completely unacceptable and for the absolute pinnacle of unbelievable conduct from this government, what we heard—the Minister for Health might want to be clear about this—during the Public Works Committee hearings, chaired by the former member for Norwood, was that the government had not even secured a lease over land that they needed on the proposal that they put to the Public Works Committee. They had not even secured a lease back from the Chapley Retail Group for the part of the development of the hospital which is going to traverse the land that has been transferred to the Chapleys.

I raised this at the Public Works Committee, as did the member for Unley, who sits on that committee. For all the criticism that the opposition had in government, for building and proceeding with the building of the Hindmarsh Soccer Stadium on property that was still owned by the local government and was not in the government—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Charles Sturt Council.

Ms CHAPMAN: It was owned by the council. We had all the flak in the world from the opposition, as they were, of the day for progressing our project, spending millions of dollars, on land that is not even owned by them—I think the former member for Bragg was involved in that issue. Yet here we are with clear notice that the plans we have got there, that are approved by Public Works—they have never gone back to Public Works to change them—are going to traverse the necessary drug and alcohol facilities that are going on and the Chapley land.

Where is the lease? There was no announcement yesterday or indication from the Minister for Health about whether he has bungled this completely and not done the lease. The departmental officers of the time said that they would deal with the contract. Why haven't we heard about this yesterday? We want some answers, minister, and we want them now.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (17:14): I am happy to speak in this Supply Bill grievance debate. I would just like to mention a story that relates to a meeting of my sub-branch that I attended on Monday night.

Mr Griffiths: Of the Labor Party.

Mr PICCOLO: Yes, of the Labor Party! I was referring to what happened at the last parliamentary session and I pointed out what I thought the Liberals were doing in parliament—I was trying to keep it civil and well behaved, etc.—and they said, 'Well, that's what the opposition does.' I said that that was partly right but that the opposition also wants to establish themselves as an alternative government. The problem with this opposition is that they think only about opposition. They oppose, without actually creating or providing an alternative program. Interestingly, during the last election, in my electorate there was a lot of generalisation but it was a policy free zone, short of one policy. Then they wonder why they did not win the seat.

They made all these sort of generalisations, which they applied right across the state, but they ignored the electorate itself. They made no policy commitments to the electorate, apart from saying, 'We will look into; we will investigate; we will listen to what people have to say.' They made no commitment because they had no commitment to this electorate, and I think that is part of the reason why I was re-elected. I was able to establish the government's commitment to the electorate and also my personal commitment to the electorate.

I will give members some examples of those commitments, which are the bases of the Supply Bill, because the current Supply Bill will now fund these initiatives. For example, electrification of the railway line, in conjunction with the federal government. This government is part of the $2 billion investment in public transport. We are spending quite a bit of that money in my electorate, particularly with the rail upgrade, which will see an electrified line come into Gawler. It will provide a cleaner, faster, more reliable service. Basically, we will probably have one of the best, if not the best, public transport systems in the country as a result of that initiative.

Others initiatives include the upgrade of the Gawler and Munno Para railway stations, introducing the $1 ride service to Angle Vale and the John McVeity Centre, which will start shortly. They are all the things in which this government has invested in this region. In July 2011, we will introduce buses to built up parts of Gawler and Hewitt for the first time in this region, which reflects a huge investment by this government in public infrastructure in this community. Then there have been a whole range of road improvements around the town, which I have been able to lobby for and which the government has accepted.

On top of that, the Northern Expressway, which is a project with the federal government, will revolutionise road transport for that region. That is something that is supported by industry in that region, whether it is the farmers to the Mid North or the wine industry to the north-east, etc. They see this as an integral part of reducing their transport costs and getting things to the port. That is obviously going to spur on investment in that area, and it has. We now have investors from interstate who are prepared to invest in the industrial land in that region because of the Northern Expressway—and that has been published. So, the government has actually invested in this area and, in turn, the private sector is investing, which, again, is leading to more jobs and growth in the area. So, they are some of the things around public transport.

If we look at education, that is another good news story. Roseworthy Primary School has been redeveloped, costing over $4 million. We are investing over $1 billion over the next 10 years in the Playford Alive project. We are rebuilding that community from the ground up. As part of rebuilding that community, we have two new schools: the Mark Oliphant College, birth to year 12 school; and the John Hartley School, birth to year 7 school. They are brand new schools, with the latest technology for kids in that area. Those schools are an investment for the future. We also have more than a $14 million investment in the merger of Gawler School, Evanston Primary School and Evanston Preschool to make this school probably the pre-eminent public school in the region.

These are all things the government has used the Supply Bill dollars to fund to support those communities in that electorate. It is a huge investment—they are not only our young people but our future workers, teachers, lawyers, etc. in this community. So, it is an investment for the future of this state.

In addition, we have the children's centres. There are three children's centres, which are collocated with the three schools I have just mentioned. An additional children's centre will be created at the Elsie Ey Kindergarten. This is about two things. It is about supporting parents to ensure that they have the skills and resources to support their children to make sure that their kids achieve the best they can in their life. Not only are we supporting the parents but also the early intervention programs, through these children's centres, to make sure that kids who, for whatever reason, have some disability or some learning difficulty get early intervention and support to make sure they achieve the best they can.

In addition, we have the home visiting program, which was introduced, I think, by the former minister for health Lea Stevens. This program provides that, on going home, every child gets a home visit to ensure that we can intervene as a community at an early stage if a family needs support, which is a wonderful program. All these early intervention programs are supported by the Supply Bill—supported by this government—to make sure that young people in our community have a good and meaningful life.

In addition, the government, together with the federal government and the university, has also invested in the Roseworthy Campus of the University of Adelaide, which is in my electorate. It is an important investment in the VET program there, which has generated a lot more investment in the college and attracted some world-class researchers and academics. This is probably one of the best VET schools in the country. It is no accident to have hundreds more applications than positions available for that VET school. It is an investment by this government and the federal government not only in that community but in this nation in terms of providing the sort of skills they need.

We then come to health. This government has invested enormous amounts of money in redeveloping the Lyell McEwen centre, the GP Plus centres and, in my own town, ongoing support for the Gawler Health Service. These are public investments to support this community. If you had listened to the opposition over the last few days you would think the whole state was a ghetto. You would think that nothing was happening in this state. I realise that the opposition has to oppose as well, but the opposition also has to provide an alternative government. I have not seen that; I do not think that any of us have seen that alternative government, that alternative vision, besides the carping that we have heard from the other side.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Fifty-one point six per cent of the population did see it.

Mr PICCOLO: Yes, and 55.3 in my electorate. I even beat that. In addition to that—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! We've heard enough of whose is the biggest.

Mr PICCOLO: In addition to that—

Mr Griffiths interjecting:

Mr PICCOLO: I think we might do that in private, member for Goyder. In addition, we have issues of community safety announced today about the number of police and where this government has invested in the redevelopment of the Gawler River CFS. I could go on and on and list all the wonderful things that this government is doing in partnership with the federal government to support my electorate and the people in the northern communities. It is not only in my electorate but also in the regions generally. The point I am trying to make is that this government has a proud record of supporting the community in health, education and jobs. They are things that Labor governments are quite proud of, and I am proud to be a member of this government.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:23): I am grateful to have another 10 minutes to talk about the Supply Bill. The reality is that we have heard a lot of people from our side talk about the great sadness that it gives all of us that nearly 30 per cent of the financial year will be finished when the budget is handed down by the Treasurer. I am not going to dwell on that other than to say that it is very frustrating. The flip side of that, of course, is the reality that the government does need money to keep operating and to do its work, so we will support the Supply Bill.

As you know, we on this side of the house have some different priorities. With regard to health, I do not underestimate the size of the challenge of the minister's work or the government's work in regard to health in this state. My job is to stand up for the people of Stuart and more broadly for regional South Australia. I am disappointed that I do not see the focus on regional health nearly as strongly as it should be, but it is a big challenge; there is no doubt. With the ageing population and the growing health bill, I recognise that it would be a difficulty for any government. I am disappointed that the people of Stuart and regional South Australia do not get as much support as I think they should, but it is a big job, as I said.

If I heard the Treasurer correctly when he was speaking earlier today, he said that the current government has doubled spending on health from where it was when the government came in eight years ago. It is very—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: On health across the state is what I was referring to; what the Treasurer said. The inflation rate on health is approximately 10 per cent; I think the Treasurer said between 9 per cent and 11 per cent. Inflation of between 9 per cent and 11 per cent over eight years in itself would account for approximately a doubling in health spending. I have no doubt that the numbers are accurate. He would not have said them if they were not, but that is probably a nominal doubling in the dollars. However, by his own admission, in real terms it is essentially the same amount of money to do the same job; so I do not think there is any room to be claiming too much credit.

There are lots of priorities—and obviously there is education and roads, and some very specialised things where we miss out in the country with regard to special needs education and mental health. It is, of course, very frustrating that people from the country continually have to come down to the city to access a lot of these services.

The difficulty is not just for the specific families who incur the cost and disruption to themselves but also more broadly to the community. If you happen to have a child with particular circumstances and needing particular help, and you are travelling back and forth to Adelaide all the time, then naturally you will be tempted to leave the rural community and come down to the city. That is hard enough for that family and for that family's friends and relatives, but it is a great drain on the regional community as well, because every single family in a regional town counts, and every single family that moves on decreases the critical mass that supports the businesses and the schools, and then, by a sort of a sly stealth of hand, supports the requirements for the services. So then there is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the school can shrink or be closed, that the hospital can shrink or be closed. It is a cruel situation that people in the regions find themselves in.

I would like to spend a fair bit of time focusing on the state government's dealing with the federal government's mining super profits tax. Certainly I have a great deal of concern on any tax that identifies success. I do not mind the fact that, in relation to royalties or some form of repayment for the physical assets that belong to the crown which are being removed and which go forever from our country, there may need to be some adjustment there. I am happy to consider that.

I am very uncomfortable with the concept of a super profits tax, given that we have a percentage-based tax system already. It really does take a lot of incentive away from people to be successful. I understand that that is a federal government initiative. What I would like to talk about is the state government's handling of that, and I would like to commend our Speaker, who, as the member for Giles, went to see the federal government and advocate particularly on behalf of her electorate. I thought that was a responsible, brave, courageous move, and I cannot see why the Treasurer and the Premier cannot do exactly the same thing.

I cannot see why we do not hear on the radio, see on the television or read in the newspaper that the Premier is leading a delegation to Canberra to talk to the federal government about the dreadful impact that this mining tax will have on the state of South Australia. So I credit our Speaker, as the member for Giles, for doing that. Why cannot the Premier lead and represent the whole state in exactly the same way that she has done?

Most economic and commercial realities come down to common sense. There are some very basic common sense facts that are the substance of most commercial issues. I am sure it was very tempting for the federal government to implement that tax because they looked primarily at Western Australia and at Queensland, where mines are already up and running. They are already successful and they are already going very well, and they cannot slow down. If they are in full swing and they get slugged with a tax, they cannot shut down or slow down production or make too many adjustments. Once a mine is running, it takes months or years for them to make adjustments.

But this is a very cruel thing for South Australia, where the majority of our mines are still to come. We hear the Premier talk all the time about new mines on the way. The reality is, as our deputy leader said last night, that all but one of the mines that have come on stream lately were explored and the resources found long before this government came to power. The real fact is that all governments support mining. It does not matter whether you are Liberal or Labor, all governments support mining (as they should) because it is one of the best industrial and export opportunities that our state has. So, governments, whether Liberal or Labor, would always support mining.

However, for South Australia, where we are looking at new finds coming on stream, this tax is potentially devastating. It does not matter whether you are a family just getting by and you are contemplating trying to buy an investment property, suddenly, if the return from that investment property is to be slashed by 40 per cent, hang on, that decision is on hold. That decision is on hold for quite a few reasons: maybe you cannot afford it now; maybe it is not an attractive option anymore; or, guess what, maybe the bank will not lend you the money anymore.

The reality is that large mining companies, even mining companies as large as BHP, are in the exact same situation. One of the greatest impediments for the potential expansion of Roxby Downs is the fact that they may not be able to finance it now. BHP may decide that it is still attractive, it would still like to go ahead, but the banks, the international finance options that they have, might just vanish. They might say, 'We were happy to lend you the money before on the plan and the scope of works and everything that was in line before, but we are not happy to lend you the money now. We will not give you that finance.' That reality is exactly the same for the family who is trying to buy an investment property to expand what they do and create some wealth for their kids and grandkids. The principle is exactly the same for a large international mining company.

I think it was our deputy leader who said that exports are the very best form of revenue that we can get, because it is other people's money that is coming in. Circulating money and transactions are fantastic, and selling within a state or within a country certainly stimulates the economy, and it is a critical part of our economy, but you cannot beat exports when you are trying to grow your economy. So, why would anybody put our exports—and I mean ours as in South Australian exports—at risk? That is the best opportunity we have.

If mining does not continue to grow in South Australia, we are in big trouble. I do not think there is anybody in this house who would disagree with that. We are in big trouble if mining does not continue to grow. So, I challenge the Premier, the Treasurer and everybody in government to get up, get moving and publicly say, 'We are going to Canberra. We are taking a delegation to Prime Minister Rudd. We are going to fight against this tax with the federal government.'

I give great credit to the member for Newland. He was certainly not saying anything against the government, but several weeks ago he was talking very rationally regarding his views on this mining tax. The government has to go to Canberra (as the member for Giles did on behalf of her electorate) on behalf of this state and say, 'This is not good. This is no good for this state.'

I hope that some work is going on in the background. We are told that some work is going on in the background, but there has only been one person on the government side who has said, 'I'm not working in the background; I'm working in the foreground. I am going to fight, on behalf of the people that I represent, against this for the good of my electorate,' and I challenge the Premier to stand up and say that he is going to go to Canberra to fight for the people whom he represents on the same issue.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill.

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