HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

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

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:15): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was talking about the committees I was involved in. I think I was talking about the minerals area at the time the house adjourned for lunch. I was talking about the PACE program and the sleight of hand, the smoke and mirrors movement of some of the other functions and the funding thereof, which is normally carried out within the agency under the heading of PACE to try to enhance that program, a program, which, as I always point out, really is a rebadged and renamed TEISA (Targeted Exploration Initiative South Australia) which was initiated by the former Liberal government.

Also during the estimates committee on minerals with the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, I raised issues regarding a deep sea port in South Australia. The government seems to have taken its eye right off the ball with regard to a deep sea port, but if you ask anyone in the industry in South Australia, 'What do we need to promote the mining sector in South Australia,' the answer that always comes back is, 'A deep sea port, a deep sea port, with a bulk loading facility to support the industry.'

We have the absurdity of exporting iron ore, which is a bulk but low value commodity, out of South Australia through the port of Port Adelaide, after its coming from the Far North of the state, and/or through Port Pirie. Neither of those facilities are suitable for the export of that sort of product, and we wonder why we do not have a mining boom in South Australia. If you talk to serious commentators, rather than the Premier, we do not have a mining boom in South Australia. We are heading that way, we will get a mining boom, but until we get a deep sea port and a decent deep sea port, we will be stifling that particular industry.

I also want to talk about the estimates committee with regard to water and the Minister for Water. One of the matters I raised and highlighted in the committee was the new cost recovery measure of $44.6 million over the out years of the budget, which will see that amount of money gouged from irrigators and/or SA Water, according to the budget papers. I tried to get some detail on that from the minister. The minister was unable to provide details on how that is going to work and who is going to be responsible for paying that money. However, he did say, 'Oh, but don't worry about it, it doesn't start to 1 July next year,' and then he went on to say, 'and we will have a chat with those people, as well.'

I am sure the irrigators who have been through years and years of drought and who are now looking at the prospect of losing a third of their water allocation because they have been let down by this government—and this minister is going to gouge up to $44.5 million out of them—will be delighted that it is going to be all right because he is going to sit down and have a chat with them. I raised the issue again of why irrigators in South Australia can only get a maximum 67 per cent of their allocation this year. The minister's explanation is that the agreement—and people, when they get to understand this, will not wonder why the former member for Chaffey was unceremoniously turfed out of her electorate at the recent election—is that carryover water would come off the state's allocation in the subsequent years.

She made a lot about winning the right for South Australian irrigators to carryover water into the following season. This encouraged irrigators who were operating in the market to buy water to carry forward, but, all of a sudden, when they go into the next year, yes, they can carry that water forward, but if it rains and we get a normal allocation of 1,850 gigalitres coming across the border, that carryover water is taken off. I still cannot understand the rationale behind this. That water was available in storage on 30 June. It was physically there. It was water that they could have extracted out of the river on 29 June. On 1 July, for all intents and purposes, it has disappeared.

If it did not rain it was still going to be there and they could have used it, but because it rained it has disappeared. As a consequence, those who have large amounts of carryover water are able to bring that water across and have the equivalent of 100 per cent of their allocation, but those who did not have large quantities of carryover water find themselves in the situation where they have a maximum of 67 per cent allocation this year. It is an absurdity. As I say, no wonder the previous member for Chaffey got turfed out if she was making those sorts of deals.

With regard to SA Water, we know it has been used as a cash cow by this government for many years. I note in the Auditor-General's Report the debt-to-asset ratio has hit what Treasury signed off some years ago as being the maximum level at 24 per cent. So, those members of the government who applauded the Treasurer's budget should remember that a lot of the indebtedness is hidden in the non-financial corporations sector: SA Water, ForestrySA and those areas. It is hidden from the books, but SA Water's debt continues to go up by hundreds and hundreds of millions a year to enable the Treasurer to fudge the books.

The last matter I want to raise is with regard to Keith hospital in my electorate, which is having a significant cut to its funding from this government. Minister Hill, yesterday on public radio, declared that he believed there was no way that the hospital would close as a result of him reducing funding. One of the board members of the Keith hospital was on public radio this morning and it was quite clear—and I have actually seen the figures—that, as of the end of June this year, without funding from the state, the Keith hospital will close and there will be no accident and emergency service for about 120 or 160 kilometres of the Dukes Highway and 70 or 80 kilometres of the Riddoch Highway. It is something which cannot be sustained.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:22): I am pleased to make a contribution to this part of the budget estimates process and make some observations in relation to some of the issues that have come to light as a consequence of the estimates committees and also to highlight some matters that I think are important, particularly in relation to the areas of portfolio responsibility that I have on behalf of the state Liberal Party in this place.

The first committee I attended was that of the Office for State/Local Government Relations. One of the issues that came to the fore in the course of questioning through that committee was the lack of attention and the inept manner that the Minister for State/Local Government Relations has applied to the issue of the investigation into the Burnside council. I am aware that I have to take some care in the comments I make, and I was cautious in the committee. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, you were the chair of that committee. We were careful, because we do know matters in relation to that are before the court.

However, my main line of questioning was concerned with the announcement by the minister over 12 months ago that there would be an investigation into the Burnside council and the process—the 14 or so months—leading up to the time that the matter went to court. I am not going to make any comment in here or publicly about the issue while it is in the court, but I do want to comment about the process leading up to the court action, because I think it was deficient.

I think the process that the minister had responsibility for is deficient, and I say that for the following reasons. We will go back one step. I am paraphrasing because I do not have the direct quote, but the minister basically said that, if she became aware of any allegations that the police needed to investigate, then she would act on them immediately. That was at the very beginning. I think that was one of her initial statements, if not the initial statement that she made, when the investigation first commenced.

I asked the minister whether Mr MacPherson, during the course of the investigation, highlighted with her any areas that he thought may well need to be referred to the police. I also asked the minister whether she had held regular meetings with Mr MacPherson. Her response was no, that she had not held any meetings with Mr MacPherson, which I thought was extremely odd, at the very least.

The Director of the Office of State Local Government Relations was, supposedly, the contact point with Mr MacPherson, so I guess you could say that he was the conduit of information from Mr MacPherson through to the minister. It was an important issue—it has cost the taxpayers nearly $1.1 million, if my memory serves me correctly—so I find it extremely odd that the minister herself was not liaising with the investigator. She gave some reasons for that, but I find it hard to reason.

So, Mr MacPherson was not telling the minister, via the director, that there were any allegations of activity that needed to be referred to the police. However, what is more astounding, what is more stunning, what is, I guess, a real example of how the minister has mismanaged this whole process, is that the minister, via the director, did not request Mr MacPherson to report any allegations or any suggestions of matters that needed to be referred to the police. The minister, in one of her opening statements, said, 'If I become aware of any issues that need to be referred to the police, I will do that.' I am paraphrasing, but those are basically the words that she used.

However, she was so negligent in the manner in which she has dealt with this investigation that she did not, via the director or whatever means of communication the minister wanted to use, ask Mr MacPherson to tell her if he came across any matters that needed to be referred to the police. If that is not a dereliction of duty, I do not know what is. So, I just want to highlight that.

That is part of the process of the investigation leading up to the matter going to court. Obviously, I am not going to make any comment in relation to that, but this is one glaring example of how the minister has mismanaged this whole matter relating to the investigation into the Burnside council. Goodness knows how long it is going to take to be resolved. We have to wait for the court process to be finalised and then, who knows, a report may come out, or the court might say, 'No, you are not going to release that report,' but the minister does have to table a report, so it might be a sanitised version—who knows. It is still out there in no man's land, it is still out there in the ether, and that is the only entity, I guess, that does know when the report is going to be finalised.

The next matter I want to talk about is emergency services. We had a good committee in relation to emergency services. We asked lots of good questions, and I was pleased that we were able to negotiate with the member and his staff that they did not ask any Dorothy Dix questions. There was no opening statement, so we could get straight into the questions.

Can I say at the outset that the minister said with some pride that we are not going to make any cuts to the CFS budget. Well, whoopee doo! The budget is in poor shape because of the dismal management of the state's finances by the Treasurer and other people. If the budget was in better shape, then we would be able to increase funding to the CFS. We know that there are real unmet needs within the CFS agency; however, I will talk more about that a little bit later.

What I do want to highlight is the significant staff cuts within the SAFECOM agency itself. We have been of the opinion that that particular agency was growing, becoming somewhat bloated, if you like, and we thought that there may well need to be a review of where the resources would best be suited in terms of moving some of them from Safecom into the other Emergency Services agencies, in particular the CFS and/or the SES. The MFS pretty well looks after itself, with all the industrial relations activities that they are involved in.

SAFECOM are going to take some big hits, and so is the MFS. The MFS is going to lose some quite senior positions from its top levels. I know that the United Fire Fighters Union are extremely concerned with those proposals. Having said that, there are some real deficiencies, I think, that have been highlighted in relation to the way the government and the minister have been dealing with the CFS in particular. We highlighted those throughout the process of the estimates committee. I note that the minister made a statement today and issued a press release; but, really, one could say that it is a reannouncement of previous announcements in terms of recommendations to the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, and also the funding that the government has attributed to Emergency Services.

I have a copy of the press release that supposedly lists the money that the government has put towards different initiatives. On a quick check, I cannot necessarily see where that money is reflected in the budget. There is a budget line on page 5.116 under the Safecom section, where a statement of comprehensive income shows a figure of $5.999 million. It looks like new money—it is under the heading of Grants and Subsidies. When you look at some of the comments in relation to it, I read it as mainly relating to the carry over of commonwealth programs, including the Natural Disaster Resilience Program, the Natural Disaster Mitigation Program and the Bushfire Mitigation Program. I think we need further clarification from the government whether this is actual new government money, whether it is money that is carried forward from previous years' budgets or indeed whether it is commonwealth money. The release says something along the lines that the Rann government has provided $47 million in additional funding.

That might be the grossed-up figure, but I would like to know from which years, whether it is carryover, whether it is commonwealth money or where the money is coming from, because we know how well this government can spin. They are masters at spin, and we hear a lot about what they are planning to do. The deputy leader has highlighted this: we hear about their inputs, but we hear very little about what has actually been achieved.

Another real area of concern that I want to highlight is the real and concerning delay in the establishment of the bushfire management areas and bushfire management committees. This was highlighted through the estimates committees process. Initially the minister said that these areas and committees would be established within 10 to 12 weeks after the bill was assented to. That bill was assented to 12 months ago, and we still do not have full membership of those bushfire management areas. The minister said that nine committees are to be established; four of the committees have been established, but there are still five committees that do not have their full complement of membership.

I hope, for the wellbeing of the state, that it will not be the case, but it looks like we are going to be stuck between the old structure and the new structure as we enter this current bushfire season. We are going to have four of the areas and committees fully established, but we are going to have five that are in this sort of halfway house, if you like. That is less than satisfactory when we are going into probably one of the worst bushfire seasons that the state is to experience in the last couple of decades.

The next area I want to highlight is in connection with the minister's statement today and his press release concerning the supposed $47 million of additional funding. I asked the same question in estimates, and it was in relation to one of the key points in 'Targets and Highlights' for the 2010-11 year. The very first dot point states: 'adopt or adapt where appropriate, Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission findings to South Australia and identify relevant remedial actions'.

The minister's statement today, in my interpretation, goes to that very issue. The minister today said that there is $47 million of additional funding to boost our bushfire preparedness since Black Saturday but, when I asked that question in estimates, he must have had a memory loss—a bit like the Treasurer—because he referred it to the chief officer, Mr Ferguson, and after a long explanation he got to the nitty-gritty. This was only the day before yesterday, so they must have had a bit of a cobbling together of the facts—I don't know. It is really up to the minister to come in and explain. The Hansard states:

Through the task force, agencies have also identified whether or not additional funding is required for implementing a particular recommendation. In most cases agencies have indicated that recommendations that have not yet been implemented can be accommodated within the individual budgets of those agencies. Where that has not been the case, it has been referred to the chief executive or the minister concerned.

Now, that leaves a bit of a question mark because what are the decisions from those matters being referred to the chief executive or the minister concerned? That was the answer to, I think, that question the day before yesterday, and then the minister comes out with a press release and a ministerial statement. Perhaps they have recovered from their amnesia.

I want to talk quickly about some road safety matters focusing on the issue of the tragedy that occurred on the freeway the day before yesterday. I raised this issue during estimates, and the Minister for Road Safety said:

The member for Kavel is making an allegation that there have been a number of accidents involving heavy vehicles. I would like to know if this is just an assertion or whether there was some substratum of fact of that allegation.

He must have been listening to the member for Croydon. For the minister's benefit, I can provide him with the detail. Obviously, the day before yesterday, there was a runaway truck that killed one person. Then, in September, a truck crashed through the gate in the morning. On 16 February, unfortunately there was another tragedy when a lady was killed when a semi-trailer ran into her car. Back in April last year, a truck caught fire in the tunnels and again, another truck caught fire just above the tunnels. A semi-trailer ran through the tollgate, hit the traffic lights and the walls across the road and then again, a truck crashed into several cars at the bottom of the freeway. There are some facts for you, minister. That is certainly not an assertion; there have been a number of very serious accidents in the last couple of years.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:42): I enjoyed the opportunity to take part in my first budget estimates process as a new member in this house and it was certainly a very instructive experience. For me, as a new member, as some of the other new members have commented, we learnt a lot during this process. One thing that I learned was that the Labor Party cannot be trusted.

The Labor Party went to the election promising that it would be an education government—it is not an education government, it cannot be trusted. The Labor Party went to the election promising that the government would spend $450 million on the Adelaide Oval and 'not a penny more' and we are now up for at least $535 million on that project—the Labor Party cannot be trusted.

In the last week, we have seen a great deal of union discontent with the Labor Party. It went to the election promising that public servants would not lose their terms and conditions and it is now going back on that pledge—it cannot be trusted.

The AWU and the PSA's discontent at the moment has been reflected by a number of people within the Labor Party as I understand it. In fact, one public servant was unkind enough to the Labor Party the other day to say that the left of the Labor Party does not even support this budget.

We know that the AWU is actively spruiking now for the Minister for Education to take over. Unfortunately, the bad news for them is that the left within cabinet—the Minister for Education, the Minister for Water, all of those hard-line warriors of the union movement—all support this budget. They all voted for it in the cabinet. We have been told on a number of occasions that this budget has the unanimous support of the cabinet.

I note that the Minister for Education, while he presents himself as this lily white agent of change within the government, accused the government in August when he said:

We have got into the habit of trying to avoid public criticism by truncating the public policy process. Sometimes we get away with that and sometimes we don't. They call it the announce-and-defend rather than the debate-and-decide model and we have to be in the latter.

The Minister for Education suggests that the government should be in the debate and decide the model rather than the announce and defend model, yet he is as culpable as anyone else in the government for propagating this announce and defence sort of policy. He certainly cannot be trusted with the government of South Australia.

We know that the Minister for Education says that he does not like the announce and defend. He wants communities to debate issues, and government to come in and make decisions later. Yet, in his very own portfolio, part of his budget savings measures is to take 68 school communities and give them no opportunity to debate the policy of whether or not they should amalgamate: or, if they do debate it, their decision will not be taken into account.

I asked him in the budget estimates, for example, about the Stradbroke primary school, which is within my electorate, and what the process would be with this amalgamation savings target. The minister's response, while he said first that he did not want to pre-empt discussions with the local community, was, 'We will, in the first instance, be seeking to reach agreement with those schools.' That is all well and good: that is part of the debate before the decision. But then he went on to say, 'We are committed to the savings task.' He promotes the concept that there will be discussion within communities but he has already told those communities what the answer will be.

How can those school communities go into good faith negotiations and discussions with the government, this government that says they will be amalgamated, when they already know what the answer will be? The Minister for Education went on to say, 'The budget is clear in that it anticipates that the savings measures are sought to be achieved by the commencement of the 2013 school year.' So much for his claims of being a consultative minister—an option for the Labor Party that would present them with a clean-cut fresh appearance going into the 2014 election. His hands are as sullied and tarnished by the tar in this budget as are the Treasurer's and the Premier's.

The Minister for Education went to the election as part of a government that made no mention of the green school grants that it was going to cut. He was part of the government that made no mention of the school security grants that are going to be cut. I know many schools in my electorate have benefited from that security grant over recent years. The Campbelltown Primary School has had vandalism incidents at its site cut dramatically since the putting up of the fence that was built as a result of this grant. However, schools in the future that have problems with vandalism on school grounds after hours will no longer have the benefit that Campbelltown primary had.

This government went to the election saying nothing about the $11 million worth of cuts it was going to make to small schools, and saying nothing about the fact that it was going to cut the adult re-entry program in the Department of Education-run schools. The Marden school, that currently has well in excess of 1,000 students, many of whom entered this school after they turned 21 years so they could get further training and education in order to get a SACE certificate, will no longer have the opportunity to do so. That is a result of this budget decision, fully supported by the Minister for Education, who is certainly no white knight.

Further in the Minister for Education's portfolio, we see in the budget this year that additional above-entitlement supports allocated to schools with multiple and dual campuses will be reviewed and reduced. The minister has tried to defend this decision on a number of occasions by saying that those schools are operating in a way that they can have efficiencies so that they will not need above-entitlement support. I will use Norwood Morialta school as an example of a multiple and dual campus school because it is the biggest school and is also half within my electorate. It has a middle school with years 8 to 10 in Rostrevor and a senior school with years 11 and 12 in Magill. They are 3½ kilometres apart. Each of those sites clearly needs a library. The middle school needs a library and the high school needs a library, otherwise the students will have a 7 kilometre round trip in order to borrow a book for their class work.

The fact of the matter is that multiple and dual campus schools have added costs and complexities that cannot just be explained away by the minister as efficiencies that can be pulled out of nowhere. I asked him in the budget estimates proceedings, 'Will the minister describe the efficiency measures he thinks the schools can take in order save the $600,000, which is the above-entitlement support that is necessary to keep these above-entitlement staff positions?' He went to some length to say that I had misquoted the correct figure—he said I was off by a figure of $30,000—so we will put that to one side for the moment. The essence of his response was this:

What we were going to do—and we are doing this—is work with the school to identify the way in which the school works across the two campuses, because there are ways in which the school works across the two campuses that can create costs for the school, and there are ways of working across the two campuses in terms of the way that staff are allocated that can reduce costs. We want to find ways in which we can work with the school to minimise those costs.

What a mealy-mouthed and pathetic explanation of his budget decision from a man who claims to believe in the 'consult and then decide' model of operating a government. We have this budget decision that is going to rip $600,000 a year out of the budget of the Norwood Morialta High School, and now the government is going to the school and talk about where, maybe, efficiencies can be made.

If this minister were remotely serious when he says that we should be in the 'debate and decide' model, they should have gone to the school first. They should have been discussing this with the school first, yet we can see in Budget Paper 6 the line item that says that this school is going to lose the money, along with the other multiple campus schools in South Australia. It is a disgrace. He cannot be trusted. He is part of a government that cannot be trusted.

The lesson we learnt out of estimates is that the Australian Labor Party cannot be trusted. But there is one more thing about the Minister for Education's performance during the estimates proceedings that really caught my eye. From a man who claims to be the Premier-in-waiting, according to that SA Weekend article, we had a performance: he was the only minister to my knowledge—he was certainly the only minister out of the seven estimates proceedings that I saw—who took Dorothy Dixers from the government. He made a significant opening statement.

We had four hours to look at the estimates for the education portfolio. I believe that—and the chairman may correct me—he would have spent at least three quarters of the time allocated answering lengthy Dorothy Dix questions from government members. The fact is that, when the minister knew that the question was coming and had a three-page explanation that he was then able to read into the Hansard, the fact that we had four hours to discuss the estimates is a nonsense. We were given the same number of questions as the government, but the minister took very little time to answer our questions. He took many of them on notice. He fobbed many of them off, but he took lengthy, lengthy responses to the government questions.

In the estimates proceedings, I give many government ministers credit, and I notice the Attorney-General in the chamber who ran very thorough and smooth estimates. He answered all our questions honestly. He was a gentleman. The Minister for Education, I think, lacks the ticker to be the leader of this state. The fact is that, out of the Attorney-General, the Treasurer—even the Minister for Families and Communities, who I thought was overly combative in her approach to the estimates process, the Minister for Education was the only minister who felt the need to protect himself from scrutiny by making lengthy, interminable, boring answers to Dorothy Dix questions that, if members were interested in those issues, could easily have been put in a letter.

Estimates should be an opportunity for the opposition to grill the government about what it puts in its budget and to hold the government accountable. This government, to its credit at least tried to focus questions for the opposition in this estimates process, yet the Minister for Education did not have the guts to do that, and for that he stands condemned. The government went to the election announcing cuts of $750 million recommended by the Sustainable Budget Commission. We saw $2.5 billion worth of cuts and, as the shadow treasurer said earlier today, it is the things that the government did not talk about during the election campaign that leaves it standing condemned as not being up-front with the South Australian public.

This government never went to the election promising that it would jack up the car parking fees at our public hospitals. It never said before the election that it was going to jack up the rents on Housing Trust units for pensioners. Not only did it not say that it was going to cut 3,750 public servants, it actually promised the exact opposite. It did not go to the election saying that it would jack up the cost of driver's licences, metro bus tickets and mining royalties. It did not admit that it was going to end the solar hot water rebates. It did not say that it would cut the first home buyers grant for existing dwellings.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau]


Mr GARDNER: The government went to the election saying nothing about the increases that it was going to impose on stamp duty. The government went to the election without any mention of the fact that it was going to be cutting 10 per cent from the budget for the Police Complaints Authority, which I had the opportunity to ask the Attorney-General about in the estimates process.

The fact is that the Labor Party cannot be trusted. Throughout the entire election campaign (which was so significantly about the believability of either party's costings), the government said the Royal Adelaide Hospital would cost $1.7 billion, but we now know that the government signed off in November to a $1.8 billion cost. We have spoken about the Adelaide Oval which started out as a $300 million state government commitment, then it went to $450 and now it is $515; and originally with any federal funds to be offset against our $450, but now, potentially, it is in addition to our $515.

This is a government that started out by saying that Adelaide had no need for a desalination plant, then saying that it was their idea that we have a desalination plan and, while we are at it, why don't we build one that is twice the size we need, which will result in our water prices being double what they were five years ago. This is a government that cannot be trusted. It is not even just on the big ticket items.

In my electorate, the Labor Party was claiming credit for the Montacute CFS station—'a new site leased and building begins this year'. They claimed credit for securing a new land lease and station for the Montacute CFS, yet in estimates the other day, Mr Euan Ferguson said that the project will probably be spread over two financial years. He said, '...there is work that needs to be done before the project can progress and planning approvals are obtained'. The minister admitted that the project had been delayed. The fact is that, during the election campaign, the government said that building had already commenced. It is a government that cannot be trusted.

Also in relation the emergency services portfolio, I refer to an article in this week's East Torrens Messenger:

Before the March state poll sitting Morialta member Lindsay Simmons promised a Labor government would act on a new fire siren [for the people of Athelstone]. 'It gives people the option to take control over their lives, whether it be to turn on the sprinkler system, whether to evacuate children, old people and pets,' Ms Simmons said at the time.

Before the election, the Labor Party wanted to claim credit for this idea. After the election, they have done nothing in six months.

The responses we have got from the Labor Party and the Minister for Emergency Services to every letter from me are: 'We are doing a statewide audit of CFS stations'; 'We will think about it'; 'It probably might happen'; 'It is probably not going to happen before this year's fire danger season.' An article in the Messenger this week states:

A spokeswomen for Emergency Services Minister Michael Wright said it was up to the CFS and Campbelltown Council to find a site for the siren—not the government. She also said a new siren required a development application and there is no government money set aside to pay for it.

I asked about this in estimates, the very day that Messenger article came out. The story from the minister had changed again. When I asked him about it, minister Wright said:

My advice is that the cost is not the issue but the trouble is finding a location the neighbours are happy with…We think the Campbelltown City Council has a role to play here, working with the local area to find a suitable site and convince neighbours of its suitability.

It was pointed out to the minister that the Campbelltown City Council wrote to him in May suggesting that this siren be installed at Wadmore Park. They had suggested a site.

The minister then went onto a new explanation, saying, 'It's not my decision and it's not the government's decision.' Yet, in March, the Labor Party wanted to take this to the election as something they could hold up and say, 'Vote Labor: we can be trusted to deliver this siren at Athelstone.' What we now know is the Labor Party cannot be trusted to deliver on anything. In the last couple of days we saw in The Advertiser:

Labor backbenchers also confirm it is getting harder to sell the message in the suburbs. There is a view people generally are not listening to Mr Rann or that when they do, they don't believe anything he says. 'I just don't get it, I actually don't,' one backbencher said. 'I can't figure out why they (Mr Rann, Mr Foley, Patrick Conlon) can't see what the public thinks of them.'

I cannot work it out either. It is an embarrassment.

We have a troika at the top—the Premier, the Treasurer and the Minister for Transport—who cannot see what the public thinks of them; that is, no-one believes a word they say. They have been tried; they have been given another opportunity and another opportunity, yet in project area after area, in funding promise after promise and in commitment after commitment, they have been found wanting. They cannot be trusted and their alternative is a cabinet who unanimously endorsed their knowledge and who unanimously endorsed those broken promises.

There is very little that the Labor Party has going for it in its future, and when they look at generational change, if they are looking for a clean skin, God help me. The only one that I can see over there with the gumption to be opposing the Treasurer is the member for Croydon. He may be a generational change in the wrong direction, but at least it would be something that would present a different face to the troika at the top who do not listen to the community and who, according to their own back bench, cannot see what the public thinks of them.

You have the white knight from the AWU, the minister for education, who, probably in more spending areas than any other minister, has gone against his own promise to debate and consult rather than decide and then defend. It is a disgrace. This government cannot be trusted and I look forward to hearing other speakers on the same matter.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:00): I shall be brief. I do commend the member for Morialta, and I think his 18 or so minutes expresses the frustration that he felt in the seven sessions of the five days of estimates that he actually took part in. For my sins, I was actually involved in all five days, across 13 different portfolio areas and 15 hours, and I asked questions for 13 of those, so I suppose I had the chance to express my level of frustration a bit more than some other members.

I enjoy estimates questions opportunities. I think it provides a good chance for us to drill down to specific issues. There is a chance for some level of informal chat to occur. It is interesting that some members do not choose to do that; they choose to have quite lengthy opening statements and then a lot of questions from their own side. Some are very comfortable in just being asked questions, so I commend those members who do that.

There are a couple of areas I want to focus on today. The first is the health area and community private hospitals. We had a good opportunity to ask questions of minister Hill in that regard. It disappoints me immensely that this decision, taking effect from July of 2011, will withdraw $1.174 million from the Glenelg, Keith, Ardrossan and Moonta community private hospitals. Being lucky enough to represent the Ardrossan and Moonta hospitals, this decision disappoints me terribly, and I know the communities in the central Yorke Peninsula and northern Yorke Peninsula are very concerned about the impact it will have on health provision in those areas.

I want to put a few basic facts before the chamber. In the Moonta scenario, up to eight beds per day can be made available for public use at that private hospital. The government pays, as per a negotiation, $120.05 for every day of bed occupancy. To me, that seems the cheapest public bed hospital you will ever find in your life. It is a mad situation. It jeopardises the future of the Moonta hospital. Twenty staff, potentially, face retrenchment from probably March or April next year, because the hospital has to ensure that it has the funds to pay out the expected costs of any retrenchment payment to any of their staff members.

In the Ardrossan scenario, they have had an agreement in place for 4½ years for a contribution originally at $10,000 per month, which has had some level of indexation, bringing it up to about $140,000 per year now for accident and emergency funding. The loss of that will make an important difference to their ability to fund their clinical care beds, and indeed place the Ardrossan hospital, which has an extensive area for high and low-care aged services, also in doubt. These are two communities that are vibrant and strong. They have great futures. There is development occurring in that area. The populations will continue to grow.

To me, it seems a ridiculous decision to withdraw a relatively small amount of money from the health budget, being some $4.5 billion in total, and taking $1.174 million away from these four community private hospitals. That is why the member for Light's contribution today really did disappoint me. I have had points of order taken on me before for the use of the word 'gobbledegook'. I would have said that about the member for Light but, given that some people have expressed a frustration with that, I will say it was all balderdash then, because what the member for Light demonstrated to me today was that he does not truly understand communities. He wanted to take political opportunism out of it, and I thought more of the member for Light than that. Anyway, we will move forward.

I had great concerns also in the small business and regional development areas when it affects Regional Development Australia and their reduced funding from 2013, and indeed reduced funding for the Business Enterprise Centres from July of 2011. These are government-supported arms of economic development at the lower level that do truly make a difference. They have existed for some years. They have a wide network of clients. They provide support in so many different ways that make a difference to the success of small business, and the challenges of the GFC have presented themselves to metropolitan and regional areas alike. Small business is the lifeblood of South Australia, but it appears to me that really the Labor government has been prepared in this budget to sacrifice any support for small business.

That is extremely disappointing, because if we want our economy to grow we need to ensure that small business is supported so that little problems do not become big problems. Quite often it only takes a relatively small amount of effort from an RDA or a BEC; those groups know how to help small businesses grow their businesses, but the withdrawal of funds and the threat that that poses—by basically both ministers saying that it is necessary for those groups to go out and find alternative sources of funding which can only come from one source and that is from the businesses that they support which, indeed, puts more pressure upon the businesses that need their support—disappoints me immensely.

I commend the member for Waite on his questioning in respect to Playford Capital, which is venture capital at the lower level of the scale with a greater level of risk associated with it, but the economic benefit to the state is magnified many times through that. So, withdrawing funds from Playford Capital and, indeed, withdrawing funds from Innovate SA, which is based out of Mawson Lakes, again, puts more pressure upon small business.

All members here would know that there are 135,000 small businesses in South Australia, and 96 per cent of our businesses are classified as small to medium enterprises. If government support cannot exist to ensure that small business is there to grow the economy in South Australia, it places the future of our great state at risk. So, there has to be a reversal of this situation; there has to be an inward-looking Labor government that recognises that it has made errors and does something about it to move our state forward, because if it does not then it is putting everything at great risk.

Finally, I want to close on the Department of Planning and Local Government estimates session: it is very important. When it comes to the future growth of our state, with population projections, we need to make sure that we get that right. I was rather amazed, and I know that the member for Light has questioned this before, that concerns have been expressed about Liberal members seemingly wanting to spend more money all the time. I raise the point that the DPLG holds an important role in the future in getting the planning right, and the member for Light acknowledges that too.

I was disappointed to note that there has been a 10 per cent reduction in the salaries costs of DPLG. These are the people who need to be there; they need to make sure that they are supporting local government and business when it comes to development plan amendments, and they need to make sure that they get the planning right for the 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. If there is one area of government that needs support within the bureaucracy it seems to me that the DPLG is it. So, that is frustrating to me.

In reply, the minister talked about better use of resources, condensing things, making sure that outcomes are focusing on areas of strategic needs, but that means that other things are missing out. Communities across South Australia have expressed a lot of concern about the continual delay in the consideration of development plan amendments, so we need to make sure that we get that right. I welcomed the estimates sessions. I am sure that other members want to contribute. Thank you.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17:07): I will speak briefly about the portfolios for which I am responsible, starting with the Motor Sport Board, for which I am the opposition spokesperson. I note with concern that the Treasurer would not rule out increased ticket prices and that the event has encountered some difficulties as far as the Auditor-General is concerned, particularly regarding contracts and contract management. I hope that the concerns raised during estimates are taken seriously by the Treasurer, who manages the event, and that he sorts out the internal issues within the Motor Sport Board so that the Auditor-General is satisfied.

I also note that $3 million was wasted on the flawed Victoria Park proposal put forward by the Treasurer. I remind the house that the opposition agreed and was prepared to pass legislation to enable the permanent grandstand for both motor sport and racing to be built but that the Treasurer went to water, along with the Premier and the whole of the Labor cabinet, and did not proceed with the idea that they had championed. Why? They wanted to appease the then member for Adelaide, who was a member of the Labor Party.

The opposition fully supports the Clipsal; it is a great event. To give the government credit, it has continued the good work of the former government and taken it from strength to strength, and I commend the Treasurer for being prepared to take questions from the opposition without Dorothy Dixers. I think it a sign of a good minister when they are prepared to do that and give the opposition a go and not waste the parliament's time with Dorothies.

While he is here, could I extend the same compliment to the Minister for Science and Technology, who was also prepared to take questions from the opposition without Dorothy Dixers which, again, shows the sign of a confident minister across his brief, not wasting the time of the parliament. Although, I must say that from some of his answers I was not quite sure that he was across his brief, but I will come to that in a minute.

Let me move on to the Department of Trade and Economic Development. I was very saddened during estimates that the minister and the government intended to send 78 public servants packing before Christmas, some with as little as two weeks' notice; they were those on contracts. That had not been revealed in the budget papers. It was shocking news and very disappointing.

I was also very disappointed to hear of the savage cuts to the Department of Trade and Economic Development from the very areas where we need them most—in export development and industry attraction to South Australia and business migration. While marketing, promotions and those sorts of activities have had fewer staff cuts, the areas where we most need them have been slashed to the bone.

We are spending $300,000 on things like manufacturing thinkers in residence, while cutting funding to organisations such as the Council for International Trade and Commerce (CITCSA), Innovate SA, BioInnovation SA, Playford Capital, and a few other very important entities for small business, not to mention business enterprise centres. What South Australia needs from the Department of Trade and Economic Development, minister, is action, not thinkers.

I was also disappointed to have revealed the sham of the Treasurer's promise of 12 July 2008 that he would attract 50,000 Filipino workers to South Australia in some sort of a grand migration scheme. Well, of course, it was revealed that no MOU has been signed or is ever likely to be signed, and the whole thing was just a media stunt to get a front page on The Advertiser. I think The Advertiser and others in the media should be quite angry and upset about that media spin to which there was no substance whatsoever.

I want to move on to the area of defence, because it was here that some of the most stunning revelations from estimates were uncovered. In particular, the Treasurer, as Minister for Defence Industries, let it slip—I think it was an absolute slip-up—that, of the $8 billion to be spent on the air warfare destroyer program only $2.5 billion was to be spent in Australia. The rest is being sent off in cheques to overseas companies.

I do not think he is on top of the good boy list with the federal Minister for Defence and the federal minister for defence industries, who have Senate estimates next week, and he will now face questioning on the level of Australian content within that program. That slip-up was made with senior defence staff present. I am sure it is accurate, and it makes a sham of the Premier's claim that $8 billion had been attracted to South Australia by that defence project—utter nonsense. It turns out that our slice of the action is something like $1.4 billion over 10 years, as little as $140 million a year—a fraction of what South Australians were led to believe during the election campaign.

Of course, we have also virtually had the prospect of the fourth air warfare destroyer written from the books. The Premier has confirmed that will not be happening. They were some of the most stunning revelations, I think, out of estimates, because they are very important projects for the state.

Finally, to move to the area of science and technology. I am delighted that the government allotted 2¼ hours to it. It was time well spent, and the minister was very lucky to get a ten minute early mark. Although, as I said, I do commend the minister for taking all of the opposition's questions and answering them as best he could.

However, I would say that there are some disappointments form that estimates sequence, most particularly that the government chose that period to announce the axing of Playford Capital. It could have announced it during the budget, but it chose not to; it announced it in the depths of the last day in the late afternoon of estimates. I think that is disappointing. A lot of businesses will be upset.

I do not agree with the minister that Playford Capital has been a venture capital entity; I think it has been a seed funding entity, more than anything. I do not think it is a venture capital enterprise. If one talks to the venture capital industry, venture capital is a different animal. It is usually looking for investments in the $5 million to $10 million range. It is looking for companies that are already a viable proposition. It looks to take them to the next stage. It is quite different from initial seed start-up funding. There are various stages in the development process for a start-up from genesis to IPO. There are various types of—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: You're splitting hairs, Martin.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: No; I am not splitting hairs. I commend to the minister, who is interjecting, that he undertake a bit of research on how the venture capital industry works. This is not a venture capital proposition in my view, and I am happy to debate him on it in any forum. The axing of Playford Capital is a real disappointment. Information regarding Bio Innovation SA with the implications for the Thebarton Biosciences Precinct and the Centre for Plant Functional Genomics is equally a very important bit of news coming from estimates.

This is a very important part of the government's investment in science and technology. It is linked to industry growth and it is an area that should not be neglected. Sadly, it has been and when you take the package of all the things I have mentioned during this brief contribution together, the signal it sends to small businesses and SMEs and to the state economy and its stakeholders generally is that Labor is walking away. They are not walking away in other state governments. They are still there helping their businesses. So, it is a bad budget for business in this state. With those remarks, I conclude, and I look forward to the remainder of the sitting year.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (17:16): These estimates were never going to produce any positive answers from the Rann Labor government following their horror budget but at least it got the Treasurer to finally admit that they have no-one to blame for their financial situation but themselves. Despite repeatedly blaming the global financial crisis for our state's financial position, the Treasurer finally admitted, when put under pressure last week during estimates, that the Rann government's level of expenditure was 'shocking'.

'There is no question that the blowout in expenses is our problem,' Foley told Estimates Committee A last Thursday. As the Treasurer has now openly admitted that the state's ballooning debt and interest payments of nearly $2 million per day is a result of its expenditure, why are 3,740 Public Service workers going to lose their jobs? Why do small schools have to have their grant funding cut which in many cases will lead to their closure? Why do wineries have to put up with the cellar door rebates cap being lowered which will put huge disincentives to our key tourism drawcards? The damage will be a lot more than I thought. Why does PIRSA have to manage a $20 million cut when there is already such a lean budget to fund research and development?

I was amazed to hear in the budget speech that the government will cut the funding to the advisory board, but I will talk about that a bit later. I could go on and on, but my point is this: by their own admission, it is the Rann Labor government's mess, so surely they should be the ones to feel the pain and fix it. What about reducing the number of ministers in the cabinet? It would have been obvious and it would have been easy. Why does the Premier's media unit and spin team not have to reduce its numbers? What about enforcing the cap on the Treasurer's mobile phone bill? These ideas will all save money, and yet the Rann Labor government has decided that South Australians should have to wear the pain of their years of financial mismanagement.

PIRSA will have cuts of $20 million per year every year for the next four years out of its $133 million budget. That is $80 million in total and 179 jobs to be axed, as the member for Hammond has said earlier, in addition to the 106 jobs that were lost in PIRSA in Rural Solutions prior to the election. Yet the minister said in estimates yesterday:

I conclude my opening statement by reiterating that the government recognises the contribution that our primary industries make to the state's economy and wellbeing and that PIRSA's role in supporting this sector remains vital.

One wonders! The minister also said in his opening statement:

...it is planned that PIRSA services will be consolidated into the major centres aligned with the new state government regions. This would include Port Lincoln, Clare, Lenswood, Loxton and Mount Gambier as hubs for service delivery.

What does that mean for the fantastic research centre at Nuriootpa? What about the department office at Jamestown with a long history; what happens to that? Forty of the jobs set to be lost will be from rural areas which will have a significant impact on country areas. The minister says that these cuts were arrived at by examining the work carried out by of Rural Solutions. As announced in the budget, Rural Solutions will now be operating in full cost recovery mode and farmers will have to pay full price for any advice they receive. That is appalling. Those who have the money can get the advice; a bad, wrong message. The minister also said yesterday:

SARDI will exit some areas of R&D and reduce some state investment across a range of research programs.

That is an absolute, direct wrong decision. In the time when we ought to be increasing our R&D expenses, we are cutting; all one way, all pulling out.

Another big hit to agriculture has been the announcement in the budget that government support for the Advisory Board of Agriculture will cease. This board is the governing body of the Agriculture Bureau and provides policy and recommendations on agriculture management to the state government and direct advice to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Where will the government now get its advice? I sat on this board myself for eight years. I went to a function of the board last night where it presented its awards, and I cannot believe that this has happened.

This group of people has always been fiercely apolitical; never in all my time have I heard them criticise the government of the day. Now they are not able to defend themselves or defend their existence, and I find that rather appalling. I note looking in Hansard that we asked the question of the minister twice. I am very concerned when you see how lacking we are in rural leadership right across country South Australia; they are not there. I am a product—good or bad—of rural youth, which no longer exists. Why does it not exist? This government just took those resources away from it.

When it was set up, it had five full-time paid government advisers. One by one, Labor governments took them away and, of course, they withered on the vine. We have now seen the Farmers Federation at an extremely low ebb. I know this is an industry and not government organisation, but we should not allow a major political body of farmers to get to this point where it has just a handful of members. It is appalling, and there has been nothing said from the government. I am very concerned about this. I have never seen our farmer organisations any weaker than they are at the moment, and nothing is being said about it. It is appalling, and it is high time there was some intervention here, because we do need to have strong farmer lobby groups.

We had the United Farmers and Stockowners, which was very strong. It had a membership of 3,000 to 4,000 back in its heyday. Today, I do not know, because it is all very secretive; I am not allowed to go to the annual general meeting, because I am no longer a member. In the old days, MPs were invited to the annual general meeting. We went there and often took a bit of abuse from the chair or whatever, but now it is a closed shop. You are not allowed to go. I am also very annoyed that most of these positions are not elected: they are selected. That is wrong, and how can this be? It goes on; it is very sad indeed that we have come to this.

I am very concerned now, after seeing rural youth gone, SAFF in this position, and now we are seeing the Agriculture Bureau being targeted. Ag bureaus are a very strong movement. I have five in the Barossa with over 1,500 members across South Australia, and you are just about to cut the management body, just pull it away. What do you want? You do not want leaders in agriculture. Who are your future farmers; where are they coming from? Where are your leaders? Our younger generation will not stand up; they do not join these organisations. There is no incentive at all to do that; none. I am pretty upset that the government does not recognise a need here.

You need leadership in all organisations, particularly those that produce your food, and you are going to cut the bureau down now, and for what? For about 1½ salaries. It is a disgrace, and I cannot believe how small minded it is. Do you know why? Because it is a soft target. These people are not going to speak up; they are not going to bite back. Well, so much for loyalty. I am appalled. Surely, with the announcement yesterday that Australia's food production industry is worth around $3.5 billion, up 7 per cent, reaching a new record high, the Rann Labor government would want to have advice on how the agriculture sector can be supported so that our farmers can share in the good times after years of protracted drought.

These cuts are a strong sign that they do not value the contribution that the primary industry sector makes to the state. Now I would like to discuss very briefly the cellar door rebate before I sit down. I tried to get some answers from the minister for agriculture yesterday; however none was forthcoming and he said it was not part of his portfolio responsibility. I would have thought that he would have had some input into this decision with its flow-on effects to the wine grape industry, which is part of his portfolio responsibility.

The Rann Labor government has decided to reduce the cap of the cellar door subsidy offered to cellar doors from $521,000 per producer to $50,000 per producer. This will heavily impact not only on wineries but also the wine regions as a whole, especially those boutique style wineries that rely on cellar door sales. I have mentioned to members privately who these companies are. I will not put it on the record because I do not think it is fair or proper, but this is going to hit a lot deeper than I thought. I thought $521,000 would only hit the big fellows. That is wrong. All members would know that there are several boutique wineries that only sell at cellar door or by mail order. They will be hit extremely strongly by this—in fact, to the tune of half a million dollars, some of them.

This morning I got the figure from the SA Wine Industry Association and, per year, it will cost $1.7 million straight out of their pockets. Where is that coming from in times like this? The Hon. Kevin Foley said, 'The measure will assist to better target small producers and will save $7 million over three years.' The figure I was given this morning says $1.7 million, so he is not far away with that figure over three years. I question why they would do this. This is the wrong message and the wrong time, and I cannot understand why.

We all know the grape industry is battling. Why impose an impost like this? Who are the penny-pinching sods who decided they would pull this money away from the people out there? What have we got in the Barossa, the Coonawarra, the Riverland, the Clare Valley, the Adelaide Hills, McLaren Vale and Langhorne Creek if we do not have successful cellar door sales? What tourism is there without them? There is none. So, I say to the minister and the government: please reconsider this and put something back because, without it, it is going to hurt. I also remind the house that some of these people support Labor—one, in particular—and you ought to have a bloody good look at it.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:27): With regard to the estimates process, I will say a few words. In fairness to my colleagues who would like to say something this evening, I will not take long.

There is a lot of debate about the estimates process and whether or not it is useful. Having eagerly sat through my first session of estimates—and I mean that quite genuinely; as a brand new member of parliament I take every opportunity to participate in everything I can and make the very most of it—the conclusion I have come to is that it actually comes down to the quality and attitude of the minister as to whether or not it is useful. I have seen a whole range of ministers work within these committees. We have hard-working, diligent shadow ministers doing their very best, and other backbench MPs supporting them.

I have seen some of the government ministers being very forthright and open, doing their very best to answer questions, not using the Dorothy Dixers and not wasting a lot of time with long, useless opening statements, and I commend those ministers who have done that. I have seen ministers who do their very best to answer questions. You can tell the difference between someone who actually has a handle on his or her portfolio versus someone who does not. I saw one minister not answer a question without referring to an adviser, which I thought was disgraceful. However, there were some ministers who certainly did take on the challenge and who had some faith in themselves to represent their portfolios, and I congratulate them for that.

With regard to outcomes of the estimates, I think we have to accept the fact that, whether or not the process is perfect, we need to make the most of it. We need to ask penetrating questions and get as much information out of this as we possibly can. Certainly, there was a lot of information that came out of the estimates process.

There were issues to do with the fact that the highly touted MOU to bring Filipino workers to South Australia has not progressed. Members should keep in mind the reason for trying to do that is to leave locally skilled workers to do the jobs that we need done. As our requirement for labour increases, people are not all heading off to the mines leaving rural and regional areas, and suburban metro areas as well. Absolutely nothing has happened there.

We found out that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not spoken to the federal minister for approximately two months. We found out that many DTED staff, who were expected to go in this financial year, will actually lose their jobs before the end of the financial year. We found out that the jobs of park rangers are at risk. We found out that a minute fraction of the money that was expected to come into this state through the air warfare destroyer program will never come into South Australia.

We found out even more than we knew before about the fact that water prices are due to skyrocket. We found out that this government needs and depends upon traffic infringement revenue for this budget—that if it does not earn the amount of money that it is looking for in traffic infringement fines the budget will be in difficulty. We found out that a lot of issues that were known to this government before the last election have been kept secret from the South Australian public until now.

I have to say that the estimates process has provided us with some information that we did not have before. With regard to the budget overall, and this is just broad ranging, I had two opportunities—20 minutes and 10 minutes—to talk about the budget. I do not plan to rehash all of that, but, certainly, I will highlight a few of the things that are particularly disappointing to me from a regional South Australian perspective.

I want to highlight the lack of funding to the RDAs; the removal of the fuel subsidy; the small schools grant (as every member here knows, it is not the biggest amount of money but to me one of the most disappointing parts of this budget); the cellar door rebate; the PIRSA cuts ($80 million and 180 people to go out of PIRSA); lack of funding for country and outback roads; and Shared Services, which I have spoken about here many times—just a great shame.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The minister is not able to tell us, thank you, member for Hammond. The minister is still not able to tell us where the 180 jobs will go from out of PIRSA. Will they come out of Jamestown? I was at Jamestown on Sunday, and people there are terrified about the loss of their jobs. Not only can the minister not tell us how many of those Jamestown jobs will go but also he cannot tell us when he will decide, which is terribly disappointing.

Forests: forward selling three rotations of our forests. Basically, it looks like that money is going to pay for the Adelaide Oval upgrade. It had to come from somewhere. So, forward selling—generations of forestry and work of future income just smitten, absolutely gone. One of the things that surprises me enormously is that, for the first time ever, there is no regional budget paper. That sends a big message right there.

One of the other things about this budget that we now know more than we knew before the estimates process is the lack of consultation. Not only has there been a lack of consultation with the people of South Australia, but I am confident that there has been a lack of consultation from within the Labor Party, from within the government. I am sure that a lot of Labor members of parliament are very disappointed with the impact that this budget will have on their electorates, as I am with the impact on the electorate of Stuart.

I would just like to highlight two really stark things to me in this budget. They are in different parts of the state and completely different issues, but they highlight the problem with this government: first, the small schools grant (which I have spoken about extensively previously and which will affect eight schools in the electorate of Stuart) to go. It is only $30,000 per school, but to those schools it makes an enormous difference. To those towns, to the hard-working students, principals, families and governing councils it makes an enormous difference.

Secondly, the Parks recreational centre. The member for Light —and I am glad that he is here to listen to this—said that we would falsely claim the Parks issue as our own. Honestly, that is crazy. the Parks issue is not just an Enfield issue and it is not just an Adelaide issue. When I lived in Adelaide I lived in Croydon. I used to go to the Parks recreational centre a few times a week for years.

Mr Pengilly: You didn't vote for the member for Croydon, did you?

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much, member for Finniss, I did not support the member for Croydon at the election booth. No, I certainly did not. That is a fantastic place. I am not claiming it as my own. We are not claiming it as our own. However, it is an example of what is going on within this government when the government can plan to slash something like that without consulting with the people. I am sure—and I am not putting words in anyone's mouth—that there was minimal consultation from within the local government members of parliament who would be dreadfully affected by this. It certainly came out afterwards how astounded they were at that.

I look at one extreme: a small amount of money primarily in country schools—I know it affects city schools as well—a small schools grant, and a large amount of money, $5 million I think it is, for the Parks in a metro setting. That highlights to me that the government is not looking after communities. The government is not consulting with communities. The government is not doing the very best it can for people on the ground, and I am terribly disappointed about that.

I will pick up on a couple of comments the member for Light made before. I congratulate him for the fact that he did stand up and speak. I have to give him credit for that. I think you were the only government member who stood up to speak. I do not want to miss anyone out, but you were the only one I heard. I will tell you what, you made three big mistakes. First, giving us a hard time about the Parks Community Centre; secondly, asking how we would have done things differently. There are a lot of ways, but one very simple thing would have been to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital on site where it is right now. Saving approximately $1 billion over the life of the project would have made a huge, huge difference. The third thing you said and where you made a dreadful mistake was in talking about our trust in our leader, the member for Heysen—huge, huge error. There is not one person on this side who does not trust her to stand up for South Australia.

I will give a very good example of why. When she was in here on the very first day of estimates questioning the Premier of this state, he tried to give her a hard time because she made a mistake. The Premier said to our leader, 'Look, you are getting all angry. Don't get angry with your staff because they've mixed things up.' She instantly, without any hesitation, said, 'Premier, that was my mistake, I mixed up that question. It was my mistake and I fixed it.' That is why we trust our leader.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You made three very bad mistakes when you stood up to speak. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the estimates.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:37): I am full of nervous tension here. Perhaps the most wondrous thing about estimates is that this year, for the first time in four years, all the new members had to sit through it and I did not. I thought that was wonderful. However, in saying that, I want to pick up on a couple of things. The member for Kavel spoke a few minutes ago. I think he raised a pertinent issue in relation to the Burnside council. I am not going to go into the ifs, buts and maybes, but the very fact that he raised it is indicative of the Minister for State/Local Government Relations; that is the problem.

That is what estimates exposes. It exposes the competent ministers who can handle themselves in the committee and it exposes the weakness of ministers who are just not up to it and do not cut the mustard, quite frankly. Just on Burnside, it is quite untrue that, as has been suggested, the minister could not have done something about it. The minister could have stepped in and put in an administrator months and months ago and saved a lot of time and money.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: Moving on from that, what I also found interesting was what happened out the front today and what was tossed around the chamber this afternoon. The very fact that the government took the decisions it did absolutely flummoxed their constituents, their union friends and many of those who work under union banners. I have been involved with unions in another life. I do not agree with everything they do, but I do not disagree with everything they do either. I guess that is just the way it is.

I can remember being forced to join the AWU when I was about 18 in the shearing sheds, and that did not impress me at all. When they came around four years later to tell me that I had not paid dues for the last three years I basically told them where to go, and they tried to bully me into paying. That did not impress me. Things may or may not have changed; I do not know. Then 10 years later I was told I was still in the AWU even though I had not paid. That is when I really told them where to go.

It is all very well for the unions to get out there today and to be in the media lately lambasting the government, but the reality of it is, if there was an election tomorrow, federal or state, they would all turn around and support the Labor government for all they are worth. So, they have not got a lot of credibility as far as I am concerned. They lack the courage of their convictions, in my view, because at the end of the day they will always back the Labor Party.

The Labor Party tends to have a bit of fun with us over what has happened in the past and a few changes here and there, but there is no question that at the moment the South Australian Labor Party is in turmoil. You do not have to look very far across the chamber—past the front row even—to see what is going on over there. We have the member for West Torrens who is a 'could be and would be' if he could be, and we have the Minister for Education who desperately craves the top job.

As our leader correctly said, the right have the numbers and the left have the talent. I thought that was a very opportune observation, quite frankly. What really made it interesting this morning was when the Minister for Education came in and sat by the Treasurer and the Treasurer had nowhere to go. He had to sit there. He could not move. He could not get out of it. He wanted to disappear into the couch. It is just a pity that the media were not here to do something about it and see it, but I am sure they have heard.

I do not want to go on. I understand there are others who want to speak and we need to finish this by 6 o'clock, but I sincerely think that, with estimates, we need either to get very serious about it and make it an opportunity for the opposition of the day—and I say 'the opposition of the day'—to get into it and get proper answers or do something different with it. I understand my friend the member for Newland wants to speak, so I will conclude my remarks.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (17:42): That was quicker than I expected, I must say. I rise today to reveal serious claims about illegal activities on the Burnside council. My attention has been drawn to an incident that occurred on 16 February 2010. This incident does not yet appear to have been investigated appropriately. During the course of the Burnside council meeting on 16 February, the council went into a confidential session. There is nothing unusual in that; it is a regular occurrence in council meetings around the state. As members would know, the Local Government Act provides for this in order that councils can deal with confidential and sensitive information.

If an elected member of the council is the subject of a confidential discussion then they must declare an interest and remove themselves from the chamber. On the occasion of 16 February, councillor Rob Gilbert was the subject of the confidential discussion. The subject at hand was his harassment of a female staff member, which is a breach of the code of conduct in force at Burnside council. In what I believe may be a breach of the federal Listening Devices Act, councillor Gilbert left a recording device, which was in fact recording the meeting, on his desk. When another councillor pointed this out to the meeting, the acting CEO removed the device from the chamber. This may also be a breach of the Local Government Act.

I have two statutory declarations attesting to these events and am somewhat shocked at the behaviour of the member of council, who has enough experience to know he was breaking the law. It is open to conclusion that councillor Gilbert has deliberately broken the law. As members know, statutory declarations are very important documents and penalties apply to persons who use them to make false allegations. These declarations are not made lightly and they are made in the full knowledge of requirements for truthfulness and accuracy. There is a clear need for justice to be done in this case and the matter to be fully investigated.

Madam Speaker, I am referring these matters to both the Federal Police and the Anti-Corruption Branch of South Australia Police. Councillor Gilbert is a former used car dealer, with a reputation that makes the Dodgy Brothers look angelic, and he is now running for mayor of Burnside. In my opinion, the allegations of Rob Gilbert's flouting of the law and potential criminal behaviour make him unfit to hold further public office. His association with another dubious member of the Burnside council, Jim Jacobs, is further proof of his unsuitability for the office of mayor. I warn voters in the Burnside council to be very careful about whom they vote for when voting for mayor.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:45): Having experienced my first state budget, I am left wondering just where this great state of South Australia is headed under the current Labor government. Over the course of estimates, it has shown me the depth of certain ministers and it is questionable as to exactly what depth the current Labor government has. I commend some of the ministers in answering the questions and having the advice at hand, but it has certainly shown me that there are ministers and advisers who are not worthy of the job.

Through estimates, the mismanagement of this government, throughout the budget, has been highlighted. I look at the renewable energy targets that are clouded by the Premier continuously telling us how great this government has been at promoting the renewable energy targets, and then hearing the Minister for Energy saying that solar power is like throwing money away, and I would suggest that this is a long-term prospect, not just a four-year proposition.

The state government's approach to keeping our rural roads safe is questionable. This government continues to raise revenue through increased fines and charges, but education is a distant prospect, especially in dealing with the young. Country and defensive driving education programs are vital. Crushing cars is not the answer: education and a controlled environment is. We must change the mindset and focus of our young in a bipartisan approach, and the focus of our young is to be proactive and not reactive. The primary industries sector has had a huge hit and this government has cut the heart out of the regions' future.

South Australia has always been a proud leader in research and development, and this government is now hell-bent on taking a back seat with regard to leading the way with the agriculture and horticulture sector, and now biosecurity is being questioned. This government is prepared to risk decades of hard work by our food producers that have created new markets that are safe, green and clean, and now the perception by our importing customers is: 'Let's reassess those markets because they have decided to risk that biosecurity.' As I mentioned in my budget reply, the member for Mawson, the member for Schubert, and all members for the wine regions, must be horrified at the reduced cellar door support that the wine industry has previously enjoyed. This effect is on all wineries, not just the big end of town.

Water security has also been misrepresented: building the $1.8 million desalination plant, plus a $400 million connector pipe, of which the price has now not been confirmed, and not only that, it has not taken the pressure off the River Murray. Shame! Taxpayers continue to pay more for less. We see the Premier's knee-jerk reaction on Adelaide water restrictions, while food producing irrigators take another hit with only 67 per cent allocations, and now the South Australian food producers are being told that they will take, possibly, another 37 per cent reduction in regard to their water allocation.

What is this government doing to defend the state's irrigators' exemplary behaviour? As an irrigator, again, I ask: what is the Premier and his government doing for this state's food producing irrigators' future? As a new member of this parliament, I am aghast at the mistruths within this budget. What I hear and believe is that you cannot trust the Rann government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:49): I would like to take this opportunity, as a new member, following the member for Chaffey, to make some observations about my first experience of the estimates procedure. I will be brief because much has already been said about the revelations to come out of the estimates committees and, of course, the day is drawing to a close as well. I noted with interest the remarks of the Treasurer on the first day of estimates about the whole process. The Treasurer very graciously opted to not take Dorothy Dixers from government members. In relation to his thoughts on the estimates committee, he said, and I quote from Hansard:

...previous practice will demonstrate that I prefer not to make statements; I prefer to answer questions. I find statements both gratuitous and boring...

I find it interesting that earlier in that same day the Premier did exactly the opposite: he made gratuitous and boring opening statements for each and every agency for which he is the responsible minister. I think my leader described his opening remarks as 'rubbish', and I wholeheartedly agree with that. We see that the Treasurer and his Premier are very much at odds on the way estimates should operate. I think this says a lot about the deep divisions within the Labor Party that are becoming increasingly public in nature.

For the record, I am in unison with the Treasurer on the conduct of the ministers during the estimates process. I think the estimates committees would greatly benefit from dispensing with gratuitous and boring opening statements and Dorothy Dixers from government members. I also note with interest some remarks from the member for Enfield from last year's reports of estimates on 2 July 2009. When the member for Enfield was a backbencher, he spoke in this place of his resolute disdain for the whole estimates process. He said:

It is tedious, repetitive, unhelpful and enormously wasting of time, time of the parliament, time of the ministers, time of the public servants.

I do not know whether the member for Enfield still holds those views now that he is a minister, but I do note that he is at odds with his Premier and has decided to dispense with Dorothy Dixers. In fact, it seems that almost everybody who I speak with is dissatisfied in some way with the current estimates procedure.

So the point I am trying to make as a new member of this place is that perhaps reforming the estimates procedure is something worth considering. I think new members have a fresh set of eyes in many ways when it comes to the procedures of parliament. I would like to put on the record my personal view that the estimates process needs to be looked at. Whether a Senate Estimates-style process is pursued by this parliament is for others to decide, but I believe it would be a step in the direction to a more open and transparent executive.

Having said all that, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues for the enormous amount of work that they have put in, and I also acknowledge the efforts of the public servants, who have no doubt spent many hours preparing for estimates. It is a significant effort, and I congratulate them for that. I will briefly turn to the estimates committees of which I was a member. My colleagues on the side of the house have already made much of ministers' answers, or lack thereof. Much like question time in this place, the same occurred during estimates.

Ministers were very adept at giving non answers, for want of a better term. The point was made by my leader earlier today: why bring in all these public servants if you are going to take the question on notice and therefore not utilise the public servants to give an answer? It just does not make sense. At one point, the Minister for Industrial Relations had about 36 advisers, and we still could not get an answer. It really became a bit farcical.

I understand that ministers can provide answers to questions on notice arising from estimates by Friday 19 November this year, but what guarantee can the government give that this will actually occur? When you consider the hundreds of questions on notice ministers refuse to answer year after year, it will be no great surprise if we do not receive any satisfactory responses from estimates questions. It has been a worthwhile learning experience for me during my first estimates committees. I would like to reiterate that I think the procedure needs some reform, but I do believe that on balance it does give the opposition the opportunity to expose the government's financial mismanagement and to hold it to account.

The full impact of this budget is yet to be realised. I think we will also take some time to digest some of the more shocking revelations to come out of estimates. Considering what has been witnessed on the steps of parliament house over the last couple of days, with protests by unions (incidentally, there are more planned, I understand, for tomorrow and next week), it is clear that the South Australian public sector workforce has given up on Labor when it comes to looking after the rights of workers.

What is abundantly clear, however, is that this is a Labor budget, and it has done a number of things. It has eroded the benefits of public sector workers, it has burdened the taxpayers with enormous debt, it has forgotten those who need government support the most, and it has cemented South Australia's place as the highest taxed state in the nation. For that, members opposite stand condemned, and we need to ask ourselves once again: how on earth did we get to this point?

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:54): In the brief time I have left, I wish to make a few remarks about the lack of spending on agriculture in this state. I just want to repeat from the Hansard the closing comments of the opening statement of the so-called expert minister in his own right, minister O'Brien:

I conclude my opening statement by reiterating that the government recognises the contribution that our primary industries make to the state's economy and wellbeing and that PIRSA's role in supporting this sector remains vital.

Yet, this Labor government has just delivered a budget that tears the heart out of regional South Australia, tears the heart out of primary industries funding and seeks full cost recovery across all sectors whether it be farming, fishing or aquaculture. Now we see biosecurity measures where there will be people who have horses whether for pleasure or other matters, or people who run a few alpacas—

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I haven't got time to respond to interjections.

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Light! It is time to go home.

Mr PEDERICK: I think we had better go for another hour. People who have small numbers of animals, whether they are just sheep for lawnmowers, will be hit for extra fees, property identification code fees, biosecurity fees. The government says it has consulted but it has not consulted publicly; it has only consulted with a few people, the representatives of different bodies.

We have also seen where another 180 jobs will go from primary industries, including 40 from the regions. With the multiplier effect, that will be at least 200 jobs in regional areas. Service is being scaled back for primary industries where we see the Keith office closure, and I had to eke it out of the minister during estimates when it had already come quietly to me that the Keith office was closing. What future for Jamestown, Nuriootpa and other offices?

I also look at the advisory board and it is interesting to note that the minister has not turned up to the last two agriculture advisory board awards nights. One was last night and the member for Schubert commented on it. I do not think there is a future for this board. I think the government will roll up its new frameless and nameless, whatever they are going to replace the food council with, and the minister does not even know what that will be because it is frameless and nameless and he basically admitted that during estimates.

I also acknowledge that the forward sales of forestry in my mind will be a straight swap for the Adelaide Oval botch-up, which it is, because that is where the money will go. It will just go straight into that and decimate 30 per cent of the regional economy that is reliant on forestry in the lower South-East.

Just in closing I note a couple of other things. The small schools are getting an impost of $12 million taken off them. That will really hurt us in the regions and the fuel rebate cut of $50 million will devastate us in the regions.

My very final comment relates to the Parks decision by this government. It was an absolutely shameless decision. They were forced to do a backflip with a triple pike. I would just like to say that my lovely wife is a product of the Parks. She did not finish her matriculation at Woodville; she went to the Parks and did a TAFE course and that helped her to become the environmental scientist she now is. These people just do not talk the people; they do not talk to anyone and they think they can get away with it in their own electorates and they have just found out that they cannot.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I move:

That the remainder of the bill be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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