HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-04-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the member for Chaffey is keen.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:59): I am chafing at the bit, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have to take that back; that is a dreadful pun!

Mr WHETSTONE: I am a little unsure where I finished up, but perhaps I will start off at the top of my page. What I was looking at is just what is in store for South Australia's water security future. At the moment, we are looking at the water security of Adelaide, in particular, backed up by a $2.4 billion desal plant. That involves 100 gigalitres of water that is going to underpin Adelaide's water security. To have that $2.4 billion plant operational and functional here in Adelaide and for the betterment of South Australia, we have the north-south interconnector, which has been a bit of a debacle. There has been a lack of transparency right across the city of Adelaide, given that it is part of the 100-gigalitre plant.

With that plant, we look at the $2.6 billion running costs over the 20-year period. I think that it is outrageous that we can have that desal plant sitting there, whether it is idle or working, at a cost of $2.6 billion to the South Australian taxpayer. With that 100-gigalitre desal plant comes some federal funding of $228 million, but at what cost is that plant coming to the South Australian taxpayer, and at what cost is it coming to the water users of South Australia? Whose water will the government give to offset the $228 million? That is the question that this government has not yet answered. That is the question that every water user in South Australia, particularly on the River Murray, is waiting to hear.

The $228 million will incur a water give-up and that water give-up will obviously come out of South Australia's Murray River allocation. What irrigators are very concerned about is whether it will come off their allocation or off SA Water's allocation. That is the million dollar question. Again, the South Australian government will lose $212 million in GST revenue to offset that $228 million.

Where it leads to is increased water bills. We are looking at a 32 per cent increase in water charges. Every South Australian's water bill will continue to increase, and this is what I would like to know: will the plant run to spec for that warranty period to be upheld? Will that plant run at 75 per cent capacity for two years so that that plant will receive warranty? That is the big question. It will cost taxpayers a significant amount of money, in the order of $130 million per year, while we pump water from the desal plant into reservoirs and into the connector pipe.

What sort of losses are we going to see? As I said previously in my grievance about stormwater, why won't the government look at storing some of that desal water—that very, very expensive desal water—in some aquifer? We have aquifer under Adelaide. We have the expertise, and yet we do not have the will. Again, there are maintenance costs on running the pipeline and the pumps that will pump the water from the desal plant into the reservoirs, circulating it around the interconnecting line. It is coming at a huge cost to South Australian taxpayers; that interconnector pipe is going to cost $403 million.

While we have got reserves in our reservoirs and we have got reserves in our Murray, we have got a 100-gigalitre desal plant sitting there, creating debt and interest payments with an increased burden on the South Australian taxpayer. Why aren't we looking at cheaper alternative water solutions? Again, this government just continues to ignore good Liberal Party policy with aquifer storage, and in particular, storing that very, very expensive desal water.

What I would like to know, with this government, is who was in charge of negotiations? When they agreed on the 100-gigalitre plant, who was negotiating with the warranty and saying, 'Will it ever rain again?' I am sure that the government thought, 'It is never going to rain again so we are going to put in that extra 50 gigalitres. The taxpayers will pick up the bill.' But there was not any sort of a contingency on how they could actually supply water any more cheaply. As I said earlier, 180 gigalitres of water reportedly runs out to sea every year: outrageous!

Reportedly, SA Water pays huge consultant fees. They pay more and more to their bureaucrats and, at the same time, we do not see any delivery improvements, we do not see storage improvements and where are the dam capacity improvements? That is one of the big issues that South Australia—in particular, Adelaide—are ignoring.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: 'Is'; it is the singular.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, member for Croydon. There are always alternatives to be put on the table. Again, that money could have been better spent on the smaller 50-gigalitre desal plant and, with the offset of the extra 50 gigalitres, that money could have been spent on aquifer storage as a much cheaper form of storing water, obtaining water, recycling stormwater and recycling greywater. It is done all around the world and, as I say, we have the expertise here in this state to do that and yet we continue to run with on-the-run decisions to increase the desal plant to 100 gigalitres, to be a huge burden on South Australian taxpayers. We need to see more initiatives with this precious resource, more efficiencies and wiser use of water, and also wiser use of taxpayers' money when it comes to our water security.

I move on to some of the services in regional South Australia and, in particular, we are looking at the condition of our rural roads. After having our record over 10 million tonne grain harvest, look at what damage has been done to country and rural roads. In particular, a lot of the extra use of those roads was because carriers were given uncertainty through a monopoly in the market. A lot of these trucks are using the roads two and threefold to get the grain to a silo. They do not just go to the silo closest to their farm, they are shopping that grain around, and that has taken a toll on our roads.

What we are seeing is increasing pressure on unsealed roads and increasing pressure on the shoulders of roads. In particular, with the grain harvest, we see a very trying vintage this year, and all that increased pressure on our roads has taken its toll. To date, we are seeing less and less funding put toward those roads by our state government. We continually see increased support from federal government, but the state government is relying on that federal government money.

I would like to talk a little bit about country health and, as it was advised at question time today, we are watching the South Australia government build the new RAH at the rail yard site at a revised cost, reportedly, of $2.73 billion. We need good hospitals and we need good people to man those hospitals, but at the same time we are watching country hospitals and services continue to decline, with our staff, our specialised services and the infrastructure deteriorating.

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: I hear members interjecting on the other side. I just wonder how long since they have paid a visit to a country hospital and had to use country hospitals in time of need, not just visiting to see what is going on, just to go there—

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes; but did you visit that hospital for need or did you visit it is as a passing tourist? That is the question. We need doctors and nurses to man these health stations. At the moment, we see doctors and nurses in the regions working long hours. They are given no incentive to stay there. They are addressing increased pressures and they are on call almost 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That is the way doctors work in the regions because the doctors have to because they need to be there to uphold the health system. What we are looking at on the other side is: why would a doctor want to work in a country hospital when they are looking at an antiquated hospital and facility when they could live in Adelaide and practise in a new hospital? There is no balance.

What we are seeing is a $2.73 billion hospital in Adelaide, and every hospital in Adelaide is overcrowded. We are not looking at any more beds; we are just looking at shiny rooms, shiny floors and recliner chairs. On the other side, we go to country hospitals and we have empty rooms and empty beds. The government needs to be looking at how it can actually move city patients to country hospitals to utilise those services. That would offset the pressure on the budget.

Also, to revamp the existing RAH could have been a much cheaper and simpler exercise. Those savings on upgrading the existing RAH could have been put to great use in all other hospitals, not just in the regions, not just in the country but every other hospital in South Australia could have benefited. But, no, this government had to have a shiny trademark hospital down at the rail yards there, with no extra beds, with more recliner chairs but of no benefit to every South Australian. Again I say that we are looking for a structured balance.

Looking at police, at the moment, we see metropolitan police from Adelaide coming up into the regions on a revenue-raising exercise. They do not come up there for any other reason. The police come up to the regions and they have a blitz on the roads and, next minute, they are pulling over constituents with paint coming off the bonnets and pulling over constituents with dirty numberplates. Why are those resources not put to better use fighting crime, instead of revenue raising? It is absolutely outrageous.

Again, we look at the government focusing on revenue raising and not crime. We are looking at centralising services and, to me, it is just an outrageous, shortsighted exercise. Again we look at revenue raising by means of fines, but we do not look at giving good service.

Time expired.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:12): As we do every year, it is necessary for a Supply Bill to be passed to ensure that the government departments and agencies will receive funding to cover their budgets for the start of the 2011-12 financial year until the budget is passed through the parliament, but I just want to digress a little.

The revelation today during question time is shocking news indeed. The single biggest budget project right now is the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and to hear that the cost has now blown out from $1.7 billion to $2.73 billion is a state disgrace. I do not think it has sunk in yet what a grave day this is and what the repercussion of that is for the state and for us here in this place as politicians. The government has lost total control of this major project.

Add to this the $535 million cost of the Adelaide Oval upgrade and who knows what that final cost will be, realising that the sporting codes are supposed to find that gap, but I bet they do not. That adds up to a total of almost $4 billion. Add this to all the other rising state debts that we have and the huge interest bill we are paying—almost $2 million a day—what will our state debt be in March 2014?

We know what happened in 1993 with the State Bank, and I think the situation is going to be worse. What chances do we have that the state government will provide a new Barossa hospital at $50 million to $70 million? I did appreciate the member for Mawson who, in his role as parliamentary secretary of health, visited last week. I heard what he had to say a few moments ago, and I commend him for his words and also for coming up and being very open and transparent about what was happening and what he was looking at. I do appreciate it. I also throw out an invitation to all ministers. I note, too, that the Deputy Premier was up there last week. I really did appreciate his visit to address a large gathering on planning, and he made some fairly controversial comments. I say good on him because I would agree, I think, with almost all of them.

He chucked out the challenge to me sitting in the gallery. We had a private discussion in front of 80 people, and I just said, 'Well, okay, you put out the challenge and I will make sure that, when the time comes, we will address this, because what you are saying might be controversial and radical but, in the end, we probably do not have any choice. We have got to make a stance. We have got to do that.'

As a person who has been here for 20 years, I am prepared to bite the bullet and do it for my constituency, even if it means having to agree with a Labor minister, but I will do that if it brings the right result. I commend both members for going up there, and I think that both days were very, very fruitful; and I note today that they got very good coverage in the local media. I kept out of it, you will notice, and that was a deliberate tack.

Anyway, I look forward to the results that will bring. I am just concerned about what will happen by March 2014. What will the people of South Australia do at the next state election? The debt will be bigger than the State Bank debt which led to the routing of Labor in 1993. I was here in 1993. It was my first general election, having come into this place as a result of a by-election in 1990.

In 1993 it was my first election, and I observed the total routing of a government. It left them with 10 seats. If you look over there, members of the government, if there are 10 seats, will yours be one of them?

Ms Bedford: Will yours be one of them?

Mr VENNING: No, I will be there. Mine is not at any risk at all. I just say to you: there is time for members to do certain things. There is no-one to blame but yourself because you are the government. We are the management of South Australia. If you allow this sort of thing to continue on, individually you will pay the price at the election, and there is nothing surer than that.

When you get a swing like that, very few people survive. I just have regrets, because in 1993 the then Liberal government could have formed its own opposition. I actually sat on this side of the house in government. I had a team of 11 people here with me and we could have been the opposition—could have. I put the idea up.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Piccolo): I heard that you were, Ivan.

Mr VENNING: Well, I was sitting on the crossbench on this side of the house, and I had some very notable figures with me, including an ex lord mayor. We were going to do wondrous things. Seriously, it is not great and it is not smart to win elections by that majority, as the new Premier of New South Wales will find out. It is not good for the state for any party to dominate like that, but that is what I fear will happen. I think that is very much a possibility.

I say to people that I am just sad because there are some good members opposite, but I just cannot understand the slogan or the notion that is continually pushed around that Labor cannot manage finances, even with us being the highest-taxed state in Australia. A lot of you would not like that tag (I wouldn't), but what are you doing about it? Let's prove that you are a modern government. I know that the Premier has changed his tack completely on mining, particularly on Roxby Downs. What we are seeing there now is magnificent, and you would never believe that he was actually opposed to that venture in this place. He called it a mirage in the desert. Now it is a positive reflection. He has certainly come a long way.

Ever since the Labor government returned to power in March 2010 there has been increasing evidence that South Australians are far from happy with their performance, and this includes their usual supporter base, the trade union movement. We have all seen numerous demonstrations and rallies here at Parliament House—people fiercely protesting against the decisions imposed by the Rann government, including last night, of course, at the Burnside town hall.

In the past 30 years I do not recall any government arousing such negative sentiments amongst the people. I do not believe that Labor really should have won the state election in 2010. We are now assured, as I said, of a real routing, à la New South Wales, at the election in 2014.

People are sick and tired of the waste of Rann Labor and their blatant disregard for South Australians—the taxpayers who are funding this financial mismanagement machine. I am sure that many who have joined in the rallies in support of various causes have probably never done so before in their lives—and many who were there last night said that on the radio this morning. Their anger at this government is palpable. People have had enough.

Earlier this year, for the second year in a row, South Australians have been ranked as having the highest taxes in the nation. Tax revenue has increased 75 per cent since the government came to office in 2002. The Institute of Public Affairs State Business Tax Calculator calculates the level of state and territory governments' taxes on business. Its most recent report released on 10 January shows that South Australian taxpayers pay more than double the state and territory average on land tax.

I think that land tax is an insidious thing. I know it affects many of us—it does me, personally, and I have already spoken to various people about that. I am lucky that I live where I live, but I could be staying across the road much more cheaply than living in my own house if I did not have to pay land tax, and it is choking the rental market severely. Land tax revenue has quadrupled under the Rann Labor government, and we are all feeling the pain.

What is it doing to the rental market? I wonder if that has been calculated. I note the ex-treasurer is sitting with us today. People will not invest in rental houses with this impost, and only he would know that. He has done well to maintain the state's credit rating and I wonder how long it can be held, particularly under a new treasurer.

South Australia's poor ranking shows how out of touch and arrogant the Rann Labor government has become. They released a slash and burn budget in September last year, cutting small funding commitments such as $300,000 to the Keith Hospital (which will ensure its closure) in an effort to find savings, and now it has become evident that we are still the highest taxed state or territory in the nation. The new treasurer has warned this year's budget will be just as bad. How on earth could it possibly get any worse?

South Australians are seeing funding cuts to the hospitals, and a proposal to sell off our timber industry which has generated $46 million this year for state revenue. There have been cuts to our tourism budget. Pension increases have been absorbed by cancelling public housing rent assistance for pensioners. There have been extensive public sector redundancies. The list goes on and on. But, at the same time, we see taxes and charges increase. No doubt they will increase again in this year's budget. We are told to expect a shock budget from both the federal and state governments, so heaven help us.

One area of cuts that I feel very strongly about is the cuts being made to agriculture, and it has been very well portrayed to the house by my colleague the member for Hammond (the shadow minister). It was bad enough for 179 PIRSA jobs to be axed and funding slashed for research and development activities in last year's budget, but now we learn that funding will be cut to the Advisory Board of Agriculture, a body that has had a record of providing governments of all persuasions with good, unbiased advice on agriculture matters for the past 123 years. I served on that board for 10 years and I served several Labor ministers, including Frank Blevins and Lynn Arnold, and I thought it was very worthwhile.

Also, today we hear the Premier in this house standing up and proudly telling us how well we have done in the export market and how we rank as the best in Australia on our exports. What is that in relation to? It is mainly the grain market—we have had a great year on the farm for our grain growers, and that is great because it is good for the region, but what about returning some of the finances back to the state so we can have better roads, better hospitals and better schools? We want something back. The notion of country people is that if you live north of Gepps Cross, south of Darlington or beyond the tollgate you get ignored, and that is pretty true.

We have had all these cuts, yet the total estimated revenue of 2010-11 increased by $52 million in the three months since the delayed budget was handed down in September. However, spending also increased to $156 million during this time so we ended up down by $104 million. In October the then treasurer said during estimates committee hearings:

There is no question the blowout in expenses is our problem. There is no question that expenditure overruns are the biggest threat to public finances.

He is dead right, and 10 points go to him for having the courage to say so, but it is a pity he is not there to address that. No doubt he will watch with a fair bit of interest in the months ahead.

Labor continues to underestimate revenue collection each year, and from 2002-03 to 2009-10 they collected a massive $5 billion more than they expected. The question is: where has all this revenue gone? Let us look at some of the recent examples of the expenses of the Rann Labor government that everyday South Australians are paying for. There is a $792 million commitment to 12 ministerial offices for its fit-outs and lease agreements for the future. Every time this figure is written I ask my researcher, 'Is that figure correct? Is $792 million correct?' She assures me that it is and, on checking, it is—$792 million.

There is a new $1.7 billion hospital that has now increased to $2.73 billion. The cost to the government is at least $1,000 million more than projected. We know that the original figure is already out of date. The Labor government knew at the last election that it was already $100 million behind, but they failed to admit that to the people prior to the 2010 election. Given the record of the government, I would expect that figure to blow out even further. Well, it has. What hope does the Barossa Valley have of ever getting a badly needed new hospital under this government when so much money is being wasted on a new facility in the rail yards? The RAH could have been upgraded for a lot less where it is. It is economic mismanagement at its worst and it will drain the resources out of the health budget for years to come.

As I said, there are blowouts in the Adelaide Oval project, before it is even voted on by the members—$450 million was initially promised, not a penny more. Now we are seeing that increased to $535 million, and what guarantee do we have that it will not continue further? The desal plant is $1.83 billion and counting. One can only guess how much this will blowout. At the same time, we will all be slugged an extra 32 per cent per kilolitre for our water. The desal plant is twice as big as it needed to be. Labor went from a no desal policy to a double-size policy—poor management, bad decision.

There are 1,500 brand-new plasma TVs for our prisoners, at a cost of nearly $1 million. There is $490,000 for remodelling the Minister for Transport's office. There is nearly $250,000 remodelling the Premier's CEO's office in the last two years. There are ministerial office costs of $35 million per year. There are 212 spin doctors and other staff. Under the Rann Labor government the number of spin doctors and other ministerial staff has increased by about 100 staff in just eight years. The Premier's department has also grown by almost 500 since 2005, increasing from 630 full-time positions to 1,158. I cannot believe the state of South Australia could even consider having that many people in the department, and a lot of them spin doctors.

The Rann Labor government recently gave up the rent-free property the government utilised in Walkerville, which was used by the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, in favour of renting a property in the CBD at a cost of $137,000 per week, signing a 12-year lease. What is the logic in that and who made that decision? I would really like to know who made that decision. It would not be any member in here. Somebody out there made that decision and I would like to know whether they were given a direction to do that. It is crazy business. That amounts to $86 million extra that the government will pay in rent over the life of the lease. On top of that, the minister is now seeking cabinet approval for a $13 million refit of those premises—another lazy $13 million. That would go a long way to getting the Barossa hospital started.

The much-hailed Shared Services initiative, heralded to save the government millions by centralising payroll, has failed miserably. It has now cost over $100 million, compared to an initial budget of $60 million—a totally inept decision. That is not to mention the cost of South Australia's activities in Puglia.

A recent report by the Centre for Independent Studies found that South Australia has the worst financial ranking of any state in Australia because of high taxes and poor controls on government spending. No wonder, when you look at some of the examples that I have just discussed, the report shows the government is spending $9,329 per head of population to provide services. That is $668 per annum more than any other state. Expenditure on government expenses is even worse. South Australia is well above the average of all the other states, averaging $8,861.

The government continues to cut support from PIRSA and the department of agriculture. Particularly after what the Premier said today—I was very proud to hear of the export performance of the state. It was very good.

Ms Chapman: Except fish.

Mr VENNING: Except fish. It was a very good performance. Consider how well the grain farmers did last year with the problems that we had. A lot of the problems started in this place by upsetting grain marketing and the problem we had with our now Canadian-owned operator, which is presently the subject of three inquiries—in spite of all that, the farmers did well. They had a good crop, managed the weather very well, and we returned that in spades to the state's economy. What recognition do we get for that from the government? How about some money for some of these roads? Some of the major roads in the Mid North are still dirt roads; it is shocking. The Gomersal Road has just been resealed, which it needed. For two years it was just a mass of potholes.

Many cuts are badly hurting the agriculture sector, particularly, as I said, the Advisory Board of Agriculture. I think it was pretty mean spirited of this government to attack it. Never in my time have I heard the Advisory Board of Agriculture attack the government—never. It was one of those no-noes. I said in a press release this week that I think it is time it did. It should be fighting for its survival. As Frank Blevins would tell you, he got very good advice from his board, as did Lynn Arnold, and the man who is sitting here would remember that because he was an adviser at the time.

I look back at those times with a fair bit of favourable memory. Many board members get a very minute sitting fee and a travelling fee. Most of them would be well out of pocket by sitting on the board. They are taken not from political bodies but from agricultural bureaus across the state, and they are not political. I reckon that decision is a shocker, and I wonder whether it is too late to reverse it. I did raise this matter with the minister, and I am sure he has been given pretty poor advice.

Finally, with all this negative discussion in my speech today—I do not like being negative; I am a naturally positive bloke, which most people would know—I put it to the government that it is not too late to reverse some of these things—it isn't. If some of you people who are in marginal seats want to survive, I think it is time you started throwing your weight around in caucus and reversed some of these decisions.

The opposition is not always wrong. On the decisions of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, we are not always wrong. On the decisions of the Adelaide Oval, we are not always wrong. With the oval, I would leave it exactly like it is, maybe build the bridge, but I certainly would not spend that sort of money.

Time expired.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:33): It is a privilege to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Adelaide about the Supply Bill, which I support, but I ask that the government give due consideration to some of the most important and pressing issues facing the Adelaide electorate. First, I turn my attention to the educational needs of the Adelaide electorate.

Adelaide High School is the only public secondary school in the Adelaide electorate and has had significant pressure for many years from parents wanting to enrol their children; so much so that at some stages up to 500 students have been on a waiting list and now even sibling rights for special entry students have been removed to curb demand. To my knowledge it is also the only public school gazetted not to have to accept students who live in its zone.

Under the government's 30-year development plan, the city's population would increase by 11,000 people. This will only exacerbate the problem, not to mention the TOD at the old Clipsal site that will also put pressure on numbers at Adelaide High School. Currently, there are six public primary schools and only one public secondary school in the Adelaide electorate. That is not satisfactory.

On Tuesday 16 March 2010, only days before the election, in a last-minute effort to save the seat of Adelaide the government announced an expansion of Adelaide High School student numbers by 2013. It stated:

By expanding the schools, we can relax the zones—so students from Prospect or Walkerville, for instance, will be able to attend Adelaide High School.

I call on the government to look to the future, not the short term. The 250 extra places for Adelaide High School will not even bring it into line with the state asset management plan benchmarks that were given to DECS in June 2001 which indicated at the time that the building area, identified as 10,471 square metres, equated to a shortfall of space for approximately 226 students. Based on current figures, this would now be a shortfall of 329 students. How will the government's proposed extra 250 places solve this problem? This is a piecemeal, half-hearted attempt to address the issue.

It was also in the same press release that it was stated that the expansion would not encroach on the Parklands. However, as a member of the Adelaide High School governing council, of the five proposals that have been put forward to us for the expansion, four of these encroach onto the Parklands and the fifth option requires the knocking down of a heritage building. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that there will be any approval to expand the existing site.

Noting that Adelaide High School is already over capacity by 329 students and numbers are increasing yearly, by adding Prospect and Walkerville the demand could increase by up to a further 650 students. Thus, by 2013, Adelaide High School will require another 800 places. There is an urgent need for another public high school in our inner north. Every child is entitled to have a local education. The proposed super school at Gepps Cross is not what the people of Adelaide want, and the people of the Adelaide electorate let the previous member for Adelaide know their displeasure with this idea at the last state election.

After calling every primary school in my electorate, only 12 of the 212 grade seven students who graduated last year chose to go to the Roma Mitchell super school, their designated 'in zone' school. Instead, last year's grade 7s across my electorate are so starved for a suitable public high school with room that they are scattered across 16 public high schools. This is quite amazing as there are only 40 high schools in the entire Adelaide metropolitan area. This separates them from their friends and community and means that parents are less likely to be involved with the school due to distance and time available.

Anecdotal evidence from talking to schools and constituents shows that families will do whatever it takes to get their child into a decent school, even driving from Prospect to Glenunga every day or temporarily moving into an area to gain enrolment. This is an unsatisfactory solution, or non-solution, and needs urgent attention and correction. This is not about Liberal or Labor or which party holds the seat of Adelaide, this is about the needs of our children, our future and the clear and defined unquestionable need for a second high school in the inner north city area.

Another concern I have is the lack of commitment to stormwater harvesting. I call on the government to act and commit to the innovation of stormwater harvesting by supporting the Eastern Region Alliance, being a cooperative of seven suburban councils: the city councils of Burnside, Campbelltown, Norwood, Payneham and St Peters and the city councils of Prospect, Tea Tree Gully, Unley and Walkerville.

The Eastern Region Alliance seeks to create a scheme for the capture, storage and distribution of urban stormwater within the eastern metropolitan region of Adelaide to enable a secondary source of water and to reduce the councils' reliance on mains water. They have already spent $65,000 of their own money for a study, and they have now received a federal grant to undertake a feasibility study which will be ready by December of this year. The Eastern Region Alliance is seeking funding of $6 million (just 18 per cent of the total projected cost of $33 million) to make stormwater capture a reality.

Another area of concern is Rundle Mall, the premier retail centre in the heart of Adelaide, home to over 700 retail speciality stores, 200 service providers and 15 unique arcades and shopping centres. This precinct employs around 5,000 people and is visited daily by thousands of the 110,000 city workers and 50,000 students who earn or learn in the city, as well as thousands of tourists each year. I believe it needs the assistance of the state government to return this important tourist attraction to its former glory.

I ask this government: why would a new business choose to start operation in South Australia? What incentive does this government offer for businesses to grow and prosper? How many businesses are we losing to other states due to our unfair, uncompetitive and punitive state tax regime?

Adelaide Oval: I cannot comprehend why the Adelaide Oval development is at the entire risk and cost to the South Australian taxpayer and how we are now expected to have only one oval in the state, after 40 years of having two ovals, when we are expecting an increase in population. It appears that this oval may satisfy the needs of cricket and football, but what about the hundreds of other sports that desperately need funding and clubs that encourage grassroots sports throughout the state?

I give the example of the North Adelaide Basketball Club, which has 53 teams operating out of Hillcrest and which, for around six months, due to water damage was operating using one court. I am happy to note that they got their second court back only two weeks ago. I contacted Basketball SA and asked whether they had requested a four-court stadium at the Gepps Cross Super School, thinking this would be a perfect location for a sporting hub with The Pines hockey stadium and the velodrome nearby. They had made this request and, even though the school is built on the State Sports Park land, only two courts were built and they are not accessible to the public.

Indoor basketball courts can be used by a multitude of sports, including netball, volleyball, badminton, table tennis, indoor soccer, gymnastics and karate. I also note that the majority of the school halls built with the BER money were built at 75 per cent size and therefore are not suitable for competition, which is a crazy waste of money. I believe we need a balanced approach to all sports in this state, not just to the two most profitable sports with the highest-paid players.

Members opposite may be interested to know that 301,600 South Australians, or 30 per cent of the adult population, are involved in organised sports. Approximately 90 per cent are never paid a cent for playing, coaching or administering their chosen sport, and 80,000 South Australians actually participate in sport or active recreational pursuits at least once per week. Football is at the very bottom of the top 10 activities for South Australians and cricket does not even make it on the list. More South Australians swim than play cricket and football combined. For South Australian children, more girls play netball than boys play AFL, and more boys play soccer than AFL.

The State Strategic Plan mentions increasing participation in sports, yet it allocates around $1.7 million per annum for all sporting facilities, with a fifty-fifty matching of funds, but will give away $535 million to spectator sports with no matching of funding required—$535 million for a place that might hold one game per week and would seat 50,000 South Australians, if we are lucky, which is an increase of only 12,000. For that money, we could house the 1,200 people with severe disabilities who are desperate for supported accommodation, or build a new high school that is desperately needed.

Where are this government's priorities? Front-line social welfare services are under siege, with some no longer operational. For example, financial counselling services for Families SA clients have been axed, putting pressure on NGOs. Byron Place, which provides essential services for the homeless, has lost its funding to provide case management, and the Women's Library in North Adelaide has been closed to the public. I believe these mean-spirited cuts to services or, in some instances, the death of services, is all in an effort to pool together money for the Adelaide Oval taxpayer bequest to two wealthy organisations. It is a shameful sorry state of affairs.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (16:43): I am very concerned about the state finances as we consider this Supply Bill. I am particularly concerned about the short term but also about the long term. I want to focus initially on the issue of the hospital.

We have had the startling revelation today, as a result of questions from the leader and the shadow treasurer, that the hospital project could cost us up to $2.7 billion or more simply for the capital build, let alone the operating contract. If that is correct, then the cost to the state taxpayers over the 29-year life of the project is likely to be many, many billions of dollars more.

This is like a car hire purchase agreement. You buy it at a set cost, and by the time you have paid, on an annualised basis, the financing of that build, over the life of the project you have paid many, many billions more than the original build cost. You buy a car for $50,000, you might finish up paying $150,000 over the life; it is a similar sum.

I believe that the parliament and the public need to see the details of this financial arrangement before the contract is signed. What we have heard is that the government intends to sign up to this complicated financial arrangement on our behalf and only then, after the deal is done, reveal the details to which we are committed. The point was made in parliament earlier today that we, and our grandchildren, will be paying for this up to 35 years from now. This thing is due to open some time around 2016; 29 years after that we will still be paying for it. How will we fund that annualised payment out of the health budget, with pressures continuing to grow, and ensure that we can adequately remunerate doctors and nurses where the cost-drivers for health are now, and will continue to be, in the years going forward?

Unlike a toll road—or even a desalination plant, dare I say—there is not a product that comes from this hospital for which there is an income. You are not able to charge and therefore recuperate the costs of the annualised financing payments. You are running a hospital, and I fear that this hospital is going to be a rod for this state's back for many years to come.

As we have heard, the current Premier, the former treasurer and the current health minister will not be here over this period to pay the bills. If I was them I would be quite concerned, because in 2002 this government set out to reform itself and to defeat the legacy it had carried for the preceding eight years; a legacy in which it bankrupted this state as a result of dodgy financial transactions orchestrated by the State Bank, that left this state with a debt in excess of $11 billion, a significant proportion of which was due to the State Bank collapse.

They claimed that they were setting out to rebadge themselves as responsible financial managers. The reason I would be concerned, if I was any one of the aforementioned members, is that there is a risk that, as this thing turns into the biggest lemon we have ever seen in financial terms—I have no doubt that it will be a nice hospital but the financial cost of it may be something we regret for years to come—that they will be saddled with the legacy of having left us a financial time bomb.

It may not seem on the scale of the State Bank, but I can assure you it is a very significant amount of money that we will have to pay. I draw members' attention to the arrangements entered into on a much smaller scale in Mount Gambier, to build the hospital down there. Just add up what you will be paying each year to pay for the capital build, and then for the operating costs of this hospital, and you start—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: You have to service capital to cover it anyway, it is no different.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am advised by bankers that they are laughing themselves all the way to the bank over some of these public-private partnerships that have been entered into by state governments around the country. Some of them, in New South Wales and Queensland—New South Wales, in particular—have been an absolute farrago. It is a very simple equation, because what these consortia do is go and borrow money on international debt markets at set rates which are, at present, very, very low, and then lock in, through the contracts process, an independent rate of return on that borrowing which is well in excess of their borrowing costs.

It is very simple. You go out there and borrow $2.7 billion at 1 per cent or 2 per cent, and they are the sorts of rates that money is available at, at the moment, and you lock in an average rate of return on that borrowing of something like 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12 per cent from the taxpayers for each of the next 29 years. It is a great way to make money. These consortia deal with the risks that might be associated with the capital build at the outset.

We are going to be denied access to all of this information as this secret contract is entered into and then given to us as a fait accompli. As a member of the Public Works Committee, I have called for the government to provide these details to the Public Works Committee, and I would like to see that done before financial close.

I find the government's argument, firstly, that there is a commercial-in-confidence or financial imperative in not disclosing, very questionable indeed. You have a preferred contractor, you have entered into a deal. The deal is supposedly agreed to. You just need to sign on the dotted line. I see no reason why that cannot be subjected to some public scrutiny before you sign.

As importantly, I find the current Treasurer's position that he has secret crown law advice that says he does not have to send it to public works highly doubtful. As the Premier himself once claimed, when he was leader of the opposition, all crown law are are the government's lawyers. It is only a legal opinion. I know why he does not want to table it. He does not want to table it because I am sure it is based on a loophole that defies the letter of the act rather than the intent of the act.

The right and proper thing to do would be to send this to the Public Works Committee for scrutiny before the deal is signed because it is not too late. It is not too late for the government to turn away from this high-risk project and go back to a far more affordable model which is to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital where it is now.

You went to the election saying this would only cost $1.7 billion; it is clearly going to cost more in terms of the capital cost than that, up to $1 billion more, and if you really spelled out the facts to the people of South Australia, they would know that it might be anything up to $11 billion or $12 billion if you added up the cash payments that will be made over the 29-year life of the project, and that is just for the capital build, let alone the operating cost.

For a much more affordable price for the taxpayer, you could give us a world-class hospital where it is. It is not too late. Scrap the project; stop it. Admit you were wrong. Do not put a rod in our back; rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Yes, we will have fun with it for six months. Of course it will have been a backflip, but you will not give us a 29-year legacy of unaffordable lease payments on a hospital that arguably goes beyond what is needed.

We could have had a very good world-class hospital based around what we have. It is a potential State Bank-type farrago that sadly, as far as the Premier, the former treasurer and the current health minister are concerned, for them may ultimately become their legacy, because it will be stripped bare if there is a change of government on March 2014, let me tell you, and the full facts and details of the contract will be exposed. It will be hung around their necks for the rest of their professional careers as their legacy to this state.

I would be very concerned about that hospital, and I would go as far personally as to say, in my opinion, it is such an important matter that this house should consider putting this Supply Bill on hold until the facts are resolved. If ever there is an issue that should result in a major fight between the opposition and the government, this is it. Questions were asked about the State Bank farrago when the information first started to come in, and they were dismissed by the Labor government of the day. It turned out that all of the concerns were right. There are serious concerns about this project.

I want to move on to some other issues, and this in particular is to do with the absolute cynicism of decisions made by this government in the two years leading up to the last budget, particularly the 18 months leading up to the budget. I refer to what I badged as the 'dirty dozen' projects. They are a dirty dozen of projects and I just want to remind the house what this government did.

In the 18 months leading up to this state election and in the two years leading up to the state budget, during most of that period, they knew a horror budget was coming. In fact, they had formed a Sustainable Budget Commission back in June 2009 to address the very issue of slashing the budget to the bone, saying that we needed three quarters of a billion dollars' worth of cuts and then ultimately looking for 1½ billion dollars' worth.

They knew we were in tough times. They knew there would be cuts coming, but what did they do? They approved 12 very expensive projects to relocate departments into plush and grand new offices, all of which could have either been cut back in scope, put on hold altogether or certainly had economies extracted from them. Let me run through those projects for you, because I want it on the record. First, the Environment Protection Authority/environment and heritage relocation, a refit-out cost of $5.4 million, signed up to an annual rent of about $1.7 million, $419 per metre square over 15 years, which is $36 million worth of rent.

The University City Program: refit University College London, $4.1 million fit-out cost. The trade and economic development department moved at a fit-out cost of over $5 million into plush new digs in the Conservatory Centre, $1.6 million other 10 years, plus GST of 4 per cent, $35 million worth of rentals out of Terrace Towers—plush offices already.

When we were in government every minister wanted to be there they were so good. Two other ministers have stayed there but they were not good enough for the Department of Trade and Economic Development. They moved. Then fit-out works involving the Department for Families and Communities, the LMC and the SA Industrial Relations Commission, again, to the Riverside building, $12.2 million worth of fit-out costs, and we have signed a lease of $6.5 million over 12.5 years, with GST of 3.5 per cent—$105 million worth of lease payments. Some of the rates per square metre we are paying here, particularly for the DTED and DTEI moves, are amongst the highest in the city and well above the mean average.

Under the Premier's department, the SA Film Corporation's relocation to Glenside campus, $42.9 million worth of capital works. The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure has relocated to 77 Grenfell Street, $13 million worth of capital works, and it has signed at a rate of $447 per square metre and a lease over 12 years at $7.16 million, with GST of 3.5 per cent compounding—$115 million worth of rent.

The Old Parliament House refurbishment, which has not come to the Public Works Committee, involves a large amount of money. Correctional Services, $5.3 million worth of fit-out costs, exorbitant rent of $15.8 million over 10 years. The Public Trustee relocated from Franklin Street to Victoria Square, $6.3 million worth of fit-out costs, $20 million worth of rent over 10 years. The Attorney-General's Department, a refit of $5 million. Again, $61 million worth of rent to be paid over 10 years.

The police department relocation, $38 million worth of fit-out costs, $9.5 million over 15 years. That is $203 million, including $3,840 per car park at an annual rental for 84 car parks, plus an annual increase of 3.5 per cent. There are some very happy developers in town. SafeWork SA, $7.7 million for the World Park relocation at Richmond Road, signing up for $1.8 million of rent over 10 years ($23.8 million). All this adds up to just short of $800 million, signed up and agreed to by this cabinet (and mostly put through Public Works) in the 18 months to two years leading up to the election and this horror budget. It was a spending spree, an absolute spending spree.

I can imagine the conversations in cabinet. They would have gone along the lines of, 'Gentlemen, ladies, if you want your expensive departmental office moved, get it in before the election, because we are planning to cut $750 million to $1.5 billion out of about the budget. We're going to cut public servants, cut their conditions, close country hospitals and small schools. We're going to cut services to the disabled and to other areas of need. But it's alright, you can spend $800 million on flash office rebuilds,' some of which are an absolute disgrace.

Any one of those projects could have been trimmed back, deferred or put off knowing that tough times and tough decisions were coming, but where did this government put its priorities? In flash ministerial offices and in building new Taj Mahals for its ever-growing government. I find the story of the 'dirty dozen' to just sum up this government to a T.

What a cynical exercise, to be out there during an election saying you were looking for three quarters of a billion dollars worth of cuts from the hides of South Australians who most need it while, at the very same time, you are signing up for plush refits and leases that could have been deferred or cancelled for roughly the same amount of money—in fact, even more. It is an absolute disgrace.

I will not stop reminding South Australians of where this government put its priorities. Forget country hospitals, small schools, the disabled, public servants and their conditions and jobs—just build yourself new Taj Mahals. It is a government in decline, spending money on itself instead of on the people who need it most.

I want to point to a couple of issues linked to my portfolios where cuts have been lamentable. One is the axing of Playford Capital where other options such as a trade sale could have kept it alive. The report into that has been kept secret: the minister will not release it. I draw the house's attention to warning bells rung by Access Economics in their late 2010 report where they point to some of the economic difficulties this state is facing, in particular, the fact that we have put all our eggs in the baskets of defence and mining while other parts of the economy have been in decline.

There have been the savage sacking of people within the Department of Trade and Economic Development, the farragoes of Puglia, and the expensive extravagance of our overseas offices while the successful attraction of businesses to this state is the very thing that we need. So, at the very time we need to be attracting businesses here, we have taken the axe to the very department that was delivering such good results and delivering those jobs.

There have been cuts to Bio Innovation SA. The very way forward is through innovation, science, creativity and academic excellence and linking that to industry. Instead, what do we do? These are the very areas that we cut.

The current government enjoyed, for the first seven years of its life, the most buoyant economic times this country and state have probably ever seen. I completely refute the notion that this government have been good economic managers and that the former treasurer was a good Treasurer. What a load of bunkum! It is very easy to look good when every year your revenues are exploding. The cash was falling across the counter at him.

At the first sign of adversity (the global financial crisis and tightening of revenues) when there was a need to trim back, they had to cut back the largesse they had engaged in during the seven buoyant years. They had let out their belt and fattened themselves up as the cash came at them. They had to tighten their belt with the first tough budget we have seen. What has happened? They have fallen to pieces. They have completely fallen to pieces.

The union movement and the left of the Labor Party are arguing among themselves. And why? For the very first time they have faced a tough budget. Compare that to the sort of budgets the state liberals had to face after the State Bank mess they left us. It is a very serious Supply Bill. It comes to the parliament in very difficult times. This government has served us poorly and I express my concern to the house.

Time expired.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:03): It is my pleasure to speak today on the Supply Bill and it is very important, I believe, for members to speak to the Supply Bill and take the opportunity to address the current state of play with regard to the state's finances.

Last year's debate on the Supply Bill was one of the first opportunities I had had to make a contribution in this place. In that debate, during the discussion, I highlighted some of my funding priorities for the people of Flinders (my electorate) and regional South Australia generally. Unfortunately, sadly, almost 12 months on, it appears that nothing has been achieved on that front.

The frustrating lack of progress seems to have been caused by a paralysis in the Labor Party. They have stopped governing, they are racked with division, and they have forgotten that it is their job to fight for the future of South Australia. It appears to me that they have instead been fighting amongst themselves over the spoils of office, and South Australians have had enough. At the second reading stage of the Supply Bill last year I spoke of the dismay—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: —more coughing; it seems it is that hour of the day—that people in regional communities were feeling in regard to the state's finances and the subsequent mismanagement by Labor over a long period of time. If there is one thing I would like to achieve in this place, it is to get due recognition for the country areas of this state of the contribution they make to the state's economy. We will keep talking about that.

People from all walks of life have been despairing that a state budget in the tens of billions of dollars was burdened by a state debt forecast to blow out to a staggering $7.5 billion. You do not need to be an economist or a business owner—although it does help—to work out that when your debt burden is approaching almost 50 per cent of your operating budget, that is a cause for great concern. Certainly, it is not a position that is economically viable in the long term.

Unfortunately, this sort of financial recklessness is what people have come to expect from Labor governments throughout Australia—it is so predictable. A failure to exercise budgetary restraint throughout their time in office has caused their current financial predicament. A failure to responsibly administer the state's expenditure over nine years ultimately has led to last year's horror budget, and the impending budget will further hurt regional South Australia.

In my Supply Bill contribution in 2010 I spoke of the abject failure to adequately invest in infrastructure, particularly in rural and regional South Australia. I spoke of the port at Thevenard, which is the second busiest port in the state. It exports grain, salt, gypsum, mineral sands—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I have caught a few fish from there.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TRELOAR: I am pleased you have, and I hope that you are able to continue to do that, honourable member. The Thevenard port is crying out for investment to raise it to a standard where it can adequately carry out what it is required to. I spoke of road infrastructure and the backlog that has occurred under Labor governments: the Wirrulla to Kingoonya road and the Tod Highway, particularly that stretch from Karkoo to Kyancutta, which carries an extraordinary amount of grain. It is actually frightening to look at the state of disrepair that that road is in.

In 2002, the current Labor government—or the then Labor government that is still in power—promised that a desal plant would be built on Eyre Peninsula to satisfy our water security issues. Here we are, nine years on, and there is no sign at this stage of any desal plant being put in place. We have bought ourselves a couple of years with two wet winters and we have had some significant recharge, but the long-term water security issues remain.

Almost 12 months on, nothing has been done to address this lack of investment in infrastructure across country South Australia. I have spoken in some detail in the past and will speak again about country health services and the critical importance of country hospitals, which have borne the brunt of last year's slash-and-burn budget, and the warped spending priorities of the Rann Labor government.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: What about the Ceduna Hospital?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TRELOAR: The state faces more uncertainty within the next budget. The communities of Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan have been vocal in their opposition to cuts to community hospitals. Indeed, communities across my electorate are resolute in their desire and need for better hospital facilities and health services. I will make special mention now of the hospitals at Ceduna and Port Lincoln and congratulate the government on their expenditure and efforts to those two hospitals. However, I remind the minister present of the hospitals that lie in between those two regional hospitals and provide invaluable and very important services to the smaller communities that lie across Eyre Peninsula.

In regard to Adelaide, the rail yards hospital faces the real risk of budget blowouts, and that will place strain on the health budget and, therefore, the ability of the government to improve our still ailing country health system. There are staffing issues; staffing issues remain. It is always a challenge to attract doctors to the country, to attract allied health professionals and, just as importantly, all those nursing staff, who, in my opinion, are overworked, underpaid and perform such a vital role. We need to be able to attract and hold these skilled people into country areas.

There is much conjecture over services that will not be available at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, at the rail yard site, especially in light of recent news reports regarding the lack of gynaecological services and outpatient services. The reason for that is the government attempting to mitigate the budget blowout. How much will the RAH cost? It was $1.8 billion. It has been revealed today that it has blown out by $1,000 million to a total cost of $2.73 billion. The government needs to come clean on this.

One very valuable government scheme that is available to country patients is the patient assisted transport scheme—and it is invaluable—to allow country patients to travel to Adelaide, to the city, to receive specialist care here in the city where it is available. It is much appreciated, it is very valuable, and, unfortunately, once again it is underfunded.

Last year, in reference to the Supply Bill and the subsequent budget, I referred to the importance of education in regional areas. A fundamental role of state governments is to fund health and education. They are the two most important things. Unfortunately—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Don't tax you, don't tax me—

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Croydon, behave yourself!

Mr TRELOAR: Unfortunately, one of the funding cuts we have seen is that to small schools. Small schools are the fabric of a small country community, and the definition of a small school is those with under 100 students. I have a number of small schools in my electorate—all are facing funding cuts.

All these funding priorities that I have mentioned remain in the minds of the people of Flinders, but we are witnessing a Labor Party in paralysis. The deep divisions are plain to see, and South Australians are sick of it. The government is wracked with division and those divisions are compounded—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, but we all love one another.

Mr TRELOAR: I can feel the love here; I can feel the love in the house, member for Croydon; you're expressing your love.

Ms Chapman: Just between themselves, though.

Mr TRELOAR: Just between themselves, yes. Unfortunately, and quite seriously, this government is wracked with division, and those divisions are compounded by the dire state of the state's finances. It is a budget out of control. State debt is costing us $2 million a day in interest—$2 million a day. Total state debt and liabilities will approach $20 billion. This is not economically viable for a government to operate its budget.

It would seem that the union movement is at war with the government as well. Savage cuts to the Public Service and the government's attack on workers' entitlements have seen the unions turn on Labor in an unprecedented and quite extraordinary state of affairs.

The government has been backed into a corner as a consequence of their financial mismanagement over nine long years. They are now making these cuts and attacks on public sector workers because of their failure to properly manage the budget. Can I remind this house that it is a budget that has seen record GST windfalls and increased taxes. We are the highest taxed state in the nation. We keep hearing that, we understand that, and yet they cannot control their expenditure; they cannot balance the budget.

It will again be left to the Liberal Party to come in and fix this mess. I noted today that the state governments in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales have all been running budget surpluses in 2011. What's the theme here? They are all now Liberal state governments. It is no coincidence that those states are running surpluses and cleaning up the messes left by previous Labor administrations. As I pointed out, there is a theme here, and it would appear in this state that that theme is set to continue.

I have touched on regulation and red tape in this place before, and I think it is important to raise these issues in the context of supply. Small to medium businesses have suffered the consequences of red tape and regulatory confusion and the impact on small business directly affects the state's finances. A more efficient business sector is clearly better for the budget bottom line, as they become more profitable and the state's export income increases. The Rann Labor government has presided over a declining trend in our exports and in our share of the national economy.

I have also spoken of government services being provided in situations where they have not been requested and where they have not been required. It would seem that this government has it the wrong way around. Essential services such as health, education and policing have been left to diminish, whilst a monolith bureaucracy seeks to establish a model of cost recovery for services that ordinary people do not want or require, particularly those residents of the country. So, what happens? It allows a government and its associated bureaucracy to become self-fulfilling.

I will turn briefly to the issue of marine parks, because it is a hugely important issue on the Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast. Three million dollars over two years has been slashed from the operating budget of the marine parks program. What impact will that have on the management of marine parks? The government is all over the place when it comes to its marine parks proposal.

Among the thousand or so people at the Burnside Town Hall last night for the public meeting were countless people making the point that the marine parks proposal is actually about money. The government will not admit that, but it is laden with debt and is, once again, looking at this cost recovery model. Whether it be permits to fish or expiation notices for its absurd no-take zones, the government will look to increase its coffers to paper over the huge cracks emerging not only in its budget but also its financial credibility and legitimacy as a government.

Mr Whetstone: And the caucus room.

Mr TRELOAR: And the caucus room. Finally, to agriculture. That is the industry that I come from. I was quite dismayed to see that the Advisory Board of Agriculture is due to be disbanded after 30 June, which will be a sad day. This is the one direct link that the states' producers have to the minister for agriculture, and it looks as though it is going the way of all of those other services that have been disbanded.

I have come to the conclusion that the people of South Australia can no longer rely on this state government for anything much at all. This government has not prioritised its spending, in fact it has had some really warped priorities. Thinkers in Residence come to mind. We have a thinker in residence in our local district. He comes out with things that are quite profound, very insightful and we do not pay him anything at all. He makes a wonderful contribution.

The Puglia affair comes to mind; spending gratuitous amounts of money on government advertising. They are making it up as they go along, lurching from one crisis to the next. There might be a new Treasurer but the ingrained Labor way of financial mismanagement and economic vandalism continues.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (17:19): I would like to add to the record the great achievements of the Rann Labor government regarding the Supply Bill. As we have sat patiently here today we have heard the opposition decry this government. I would like to place on the record a different perspective.

The difficult decisions made by the government in the 2010-11 budget allow it to meet growing demands in important areas, with extra expenditure provided in areas of need, including the Department of Health, the Department for Families and Communities, the Department of Education and Children's Services, the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure and the justice portfolio. Our spending on health is likely to reach $4.5 billion in the 2010-11 year. In the 2010-11 budget, the government announced the following initiatives:

$111 million for strategies to achieve a four-hour turnaround for emergency departments for 95 per cent of our patients;

$88.6 million to provide an extra 260,000 elective surgical procedures across metropolitan and country hospitals;

$64.4 million to upgrade the Women and Children's Hospital for more specialist cots, extra theatres, new single-patient rooms, and a further $7.3 million for staff and operating costs;

$46 million for the Modbury Hospital to remodel the emergency department and provide a 36-bed rehabilitation inpatient unit, which is badly needed. This is on top of the $12 million already committed to redevelop that hospital; and

$38.6 million over two years as part of the $125 million redevelopment of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, to provide a new three-storey building for a new emergency department, a new outpatients area and nine new operating theatres, all badly needed and all warranted decisions this government had to make.

The government also provided the Department for Families and Communities with an extra $307 million over four years, including:

$137.7 million for increased resources for children under the guardianship of the minister. As we know, the demand in this area is growing;

$70.9 million for Disability SA to help South Australians needing accommodation support, community support, community access and respite through the state;

$13.8 million for disability equipment;

$4.2 million for children with autism;

$3.1 million for home visiting for seniors; and

$2.9 million in rebates for personal alert systems for seniors, to keep them safe.

The government has also provided $156 million for new initiatives over the next four years to the Department of Education and Children's Services. Beyond this, there is an extra $265 million over four years, which has been provided from the South Australian Education (Government Preschools and Schools) Arbitrated Enterprise Bargaining Award 2010. This will provide more than 700 extra staff and support staff and also reduce the administrative burden on our school leaders in managing information technologies in our schools. Many of the teachers in my area have actually praised this initiative and are very grateful to the government for providing these resources to allow them to do this and behave in an innovative way with their resources in their schools.

Further, the government's historically high levels of investment in infrastructure continued in the 2010-11 budget. We are investing $10.7 billion in infrastructure over the next four years. The major projects include:

$1.4 billion invested over four years to upgrade the major metropolitan rail lines, including the electrification of the Gawler, Noarlunga and Outer Harbor lines and the extension of the Noarlunga rail line to Seaford;

$842.8 million for the South Road superway—the state's biggest individual road project. The drilling and initial roadworks for that are already underway and it looks like being an important initiative and addition to the roads in the northern area that I regularly access;

$445.5 million to the duplication of the Southern Expressway from Darlington to Old Noarlunga and an interchange at Darlington, which the people of the south have been calling for for many years. This government has listened and will deliver the project to them;

$29.9 million to refurbish the Port Bonython jetty, which is important for our state's economic future;

$21.2 million for road and rail improvements to service the Greater Edinburgh Parks, for the increased battalion usage and the increasing enterprises like the Coles warehouse and many businesses that inhabit that precinct;

$12.4 million to expand the rural road safety and blackspot programs, which is again, a warranted and worthy decision;

$12 million to the Greenways and Cycle Paths project, as we have an increasing percentage of people who are recreating and riding to work; and

$5.2 million to the upgrade and replacement of bus shelters in this state.

Again, if you are a local member of parliament, as I am, people ring you about these things and this government is delivering.

The government has also invested in the justice system with $186.1 million in new initiatives over the next four years to make our communities safer, with extra police and programs to tackle street crime and domestic violence. When you live and work in the northern suburbs, domestic violence is something that you hear about every day. I am proud that our government is making initiatives in this area to improve the services for men and women who are suffering from such a plight. Initiatives include:

$106.3 million over four years to recruit an extra 300 police and equip SAPOL with the latest crime-fighting equipment. In 2010-11, the operating budget for SAPOL alone is $693 million;

$15.5 million over four years to target street crime, including the establishment of the Southern Community Justice Court system—the state's first community court. Again, this is very badly needed. I have heard people in the southern electorates talk about how this is going to improve their lives and their communities;

$7.8 million for measures to change domestic violence legislation, to support the management of intervention orders and to establish assessment and intervention programs; and

$5.4 million over four years to continue the upgrade of new technology, infrastructure and equipment for the state's volunteer-based emergency services system.

All our volunteers deserve support. This is a particularly worthy initiative. This government has not forgotten small business or low income households. The government has provided payroll tax relief and a major boost to concessions that took effect on 1 July last year. It will deliver payroll tax relief of around $80 million over four years for employers of apprentices or trainees.

There is also an increase to and extension of concessions for up to 235,000 South Australians—that is right, 235,000 South Australians—including seniors and low income earners, for their water, sewerage, emergency services levies and energy bills. Further, this government has provided $20.6 million over four years for sports grants and $1.2 million over four years to increase multicultural grants so that cultural richness in our state is recognised, supported and further advanced. All these things are worthy achievements and all of them are under the Rann Labor government and we are proud, on this side, to be part of that government, unlike the people on the other side.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:26): After the riveting final part of that speech, I feel a need to respond to the Supply Bill 2011. I note that, with the Supply Bill, we are seeking the carriage of funding of $3.332 billion. Perhaps it could be $2.332 billion, or something in that vicinity, if we did not have this exorbitant blowout in the new Adelaide Oval costs that were revealed today.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: The Adelaide hospital, I should say. Thank you, member for Chaffey—the Adelaide hospital blowout.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Not the oval—

Mr PEDERICK: I would not be surprised, now that the member for Croydon has reminded me of the Adelaide Oval blowouts, where this government indicated that the Adelaide Oval would receive funding from the state government of $450 million and not a cent more. Now it has gone to $535 million and we still do not know what it is going to cost for the Labor government's flawed plan to desecrate Adelaide Oval.

If it happens, it will be one of the worst building and planning decisions seen in this state. I firmly believe that if the Adelaide Oval is butchered, when the first brick is laid it will be a stadium that will be 30 years out of date as you start the project. The roof will not be able to close, so that cuts out events that could be held at a stadium with a covered roof from about 300 days. It is quite obvious that our proposal of a covered stadium in the Parklands is the far better policy. The Labor Party had to rush out with a policy. They had to run people over here from the AFL, get everyone out on the Adelaide Oval and make a great show of strength for their proposal.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

An honourable member: They're history.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member will be heard in silence. Behave yourselves.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your protection. They are a rude bunch on that side.

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely. This is just one of the many flawed decisions of this government. I want to go over some of the issues to do with my portfolios of agriculture, food, fisheries and forests. We have seen 179 jobs being cut from PIRSA. They talk about targeted voluntary separation packages, but I think what you need to do is take out the word 'voluntary'. They are targeted separation packages, that is for sure.

Certainly, there is a friend of mine who has worked for PIRSA for many years who got the chop several weeks ago. He would have been quite happy to stay in the service for many years. His service to the rural industries, to Rural Solutions, has been exemplary over many years and all of a sudden he is put in a position where his great wealth of knowledge is not wanted. I find that disgraceful, apart from the other 178 jobs that have been cut in this tranche and over a hundred previous to that.

In these cuts to primary industries, we see $80 million cut out over four years—$20 million a year cut out of primary industries. Yet, we have the Premier come into this place today espousing how well the state's economy is going, talking about the impact that agriculture has had on the economy. Next thing, we will have the Premier saying that he made it rain, because that is exactly what happened this year. It rained on the parched grain fields of this state.

The farmers, who have been suffering for so many years with years of drought and low commodity prices, all of a sudden got a break. It was not exactly a clean break. As the member who proposed the grain-handling industry committee, I am well aware of the issues to do with grain-handling during harvest. I do not believe farmers were able to capitalise on the amount of money that they should have made for that money to be injected into regional economies and also to have the money that they could use to spend in the city whether visiting for work or as a tourist.

We cannot have the Premier just making out that he is something close to God and has created this great wealth in the rural sector. It came because it rained. We see this government just stepping away from primary industries. We see Rural Solutions SA, which is the extension part of primary industries, going to full cost recovery—$12 million cut over four years. The state government has indicated that it will withdraw support for so-called lower value activities and Rural Solutions will begin to charge full-cost recovery prices for the services it provides.

As activities of Rural Solutions SA are downsized, there will be a consequential loss of external revenue to the Department of Primary Industries and Resources for services provided. The new operating model will result in workforce adjustments—sackings—and require the significant decrease in support costs.

Then we look at the South Australian Research and Development Institute and the cutbacks there of $8 million over four years, where SARDI will have to increase cost recovery and reduce costs, resulting in a reduction in research and development activity and service delivery across the broader spectrum of primary industries research.

This is the sad bit: the savings will be achieved through the cessation of some research and development activities and workforce changes. The issue here is that we know that the Adelaide university is looking at merging with SARDI or picking it up and, let us hope, if this does go ahead, that they do not just pick up the bones of what once was SARDI.

SARDI has several properties that it owns around the place. One, for instance, is the property at West Beach. Will that property still be held as part of the research program in this state? It is interesting to note that, on my understanding, other universities or private investors were not given the opportunity to have a look at SARDI and look at whether they could incorporate it into their programs.

The whole sad thing is, as I indicated earlier, that the Premier comes in here today espousing how good the economy is in the state, and a lot of that is on the farmers' good work, yet research and jobs are just being cut to the bone. Where will South Australian research and development expertise and innovation and benefit go? Will it end up being contracted to interstate and overseas companies? Will the profit focus compromise the integrity of the research and reputation of SARDI? All these costs are coming on top of the taxes farmers already pay to support the Labor government's policies on super schools, super hospitals, super highways and super entertainment facilities.

We look at the impact that this government has placed on commercial fishing and aquaculture with more cost recovery ($1.3 million over three years) by raising the current fees charged to the commercial fishing industry to fully recover the costs of providing commercial fishing regulatory and support programs; and $1.9 million over three years by raising the fees and charges to the aquaculture industry to cover the full cost of regulatory and support programs.

It looks like the government believes that fishermen make too much money. I note that, at one stage, the minister for fisheries put out a press release in which he indicated that they did make too much money and that their profitability was too high. Well, you would have thought that someone who has had a bit of work in business, as minister O'Brien has (which is highly unusual for someone on that side of the house), should know better. These rises to the cost of fishing will necessarily be passed onto the markets, and this will cost export and local markets, and it could also threaten existing export markets and inhibit export growth.

We look at the biosecurity issue with the PIC fees, the property identification fees and biosecurity fees indicated in the recent budget. These two measures increased revenue by $9 million over four years. The budget also indicates that the government will save $1.5 million through operational efficiencies. Well, this was not even a smart policy.

First, we have property identification codes, which is a fee of $76 every two years. For a lot of industries this has been covered by industry levies, but suddenly we have this other levy. Then, on top of that, the government is going to tack on a biosecurity fee, which could be in the range of $165 to $250 per annum.

I would have thought that, if you are going to put an impost on people, it would have been far easier to do it in one hit, but this government just loves putting itself into pain. It has gone through the pain of introducing the PIC fees, then it wants to hit the landholders again—and it is not just commercial landholders, it is people who may have only one or two animals. There is also the fact that the government is looking at more savings of $1.3 million through biosecurity aquatic pest management efficiencies in aquatic pest outbreak response and surveillance activities.

I think that one of the most interesting cutbacks—and I think it is a terrible cut back in terms of the effect on state agriculture—is seed support to the Advisory Board of Agriculture. This is the government supplying less than $200,000 a year for the Advisory Board of Agriculture, which has operated for decades in this state. We have a minister, sadly, who indicated early last year when he became the minister for primary industries, that he was the best option for primary industries in the country. The sad thing is that he believes that he does not need grassroots advice from the Advisory Board of Agriculture, which had representatives from right across this state involved on the ground floor of agriculture.

I would have thought that was a vital body to keep in touch with, but, no, the minister is cutting its funding and setting up what I call a second tier body, which will involve people like Elders, Viterra, and, if you are lucky, at the end of the committee of however many it is (whether it is seven or nine or eight), a couple of farmers. We are going to lose a lot of that grassroots knowledge.

We have seen the government also cut $7 million from wine industry support through the cellar door subsidy, so the annual cap on cellar door subsidies will be reduced to $50,000 per producer from 1 July this year. A further $2.3 million saving over four years will be made through a reduction in grants and programs relating to the agriculture, food and wine sectors. Assistance to food industry organisations and associations will be reduced.

We also see that in the last budget the government introduced a payroll tax rebate for exporters but that will be gone by 2013, a saving of $10 million for the government. What effect will that have on exporters of this state? Then we have another one that hits regional South Australians right in the hip pocket: $50 million over four years will be cut from the regional petroleum subsidy. That is 3¢ a litre, but it all adds up. There are many people in the country who travel up to 100,000 kilometres a year, and they have to because of their jobs, health care and business needs. This will increase production and freight costs, which will all be passed on to consumers.

The big one, I think, in this state that is already having an effect on the morale of the good citizens of the South-East, especially around Mount Gambier and in the member for MacKillop's seat, is the proposed forward sale of forests. It is such a short-sighted policy. It is just ridiculous. I was talking about the Adelaide Oval upgrade earlier in my contribution and I firmly believe that the forward sale of forests is what this government is relying on to come up with that $535 million, and it is outrageous. This sector returned $43 million to Treasury in the last financial year and the government wants to get rid of it—up to three rotations, up to 111 years of forestry. It will just be gone. We are told that they will put in safeguards and protect jobs. What a load of hogwash!

It is not every day of the week that I stand next to a unionist and we actually agree on something; and we agree fervently that this is a terrible decision not only for the South-East but also for this state, because this will directly export hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs out of the South-East. It will have a direct impact on 3,000 jobs. Morale is already very low in the real estate sector and right across all sectors down there—whether you are running a corner store or a small business, or whether you are selling used cars or new cars.

The problem we have is that the government does not understand that, if a Chinese investor or an American superannuation firm comes in and buys these forward rotations of forest, they have no connection to the South-East and all they will be worried about is the bottom line. I know for a fact that you can get containers into Malaysia (and it probably would not be a much different cost into China) for $450. Members can imagine how many containers are coming over here from China but they probably get sent back empty because there is so much more gear that we are importing. They could be loaded with logs and shipped off.

Mr Pisoni: Ballast.

Mr PEDERICK: Ballast.

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Exactly. So what will happen to the mills in the South-East? What will happen to our timber industry, which supplies around 75 per cent of the building timber in this state and much of the timber around the south-eastern part of Australia? What surety is there for the construction industry in this state? There is none. It is a mad decision. When you do the sums over the 111 years, it will rob potentially a billion dollars from the state's coffers and from the income especially of the South-East. It is just ridiculous.

I also want to talk quickly about issues such as marine parks. A lot of us went to a meeting last night at Burnside, which was well attended. There are estimates that up to 1,500 attended. There were a lot of people outside the hall and people hanging in through the windows trying to hear what was happening. These are other people who have been overlooked by a government that wants to fence off up to 10 per cent of the state's waters from fishing. That equates to up to 25 per cent of these so-called marine parks.

What the minister for environment fails to understand—and I know the minister for fisheries is trying to educate him, as he was today, on the status of the fisheries—is that fisheries are actually managed under the Fisheries Management Act 2007. The Fisheries Management Act 2007 also manages aquatic organisms—that is your kelps, etc., that grow on the sea floor. So, what the heck is happening with the environment department? They are trying to take over the management of fisheries. What next? Are they going to start charging management fees to fisheries, as well as the fees that Primary Industries charge? It is an outrageous proposition.

The government needs to listen to this, because the recreational fishers and the commercial fishers are as one against this proposal. It is a crazy proposal and I believe it is one of the things that will bring this government down in less than three years' time. There are many other things I want to say, but I will have to make that contribution later on. There is so much more I need to say about funding for agricultural programs like the broomrape funding, country health, the money that has been spent on the desalination plant—so many wasted dollars—but I will make that contribution later.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Premier with South Australia's Strategic Plan) (17:47): This bill, to reiterate the earlier comments of the Treasurer, is to enable the provision of government service delivery until the budget has passed through the parliamentary stages and the Appropriation Bill 2011 receives assent. In the absence of special arrangements in the form of the supply acts, there would be no parliamentary authority for expenditure between the commencement of the new financial year and the date on which assent is given to the main appropriation bill.

In closing debate on this bill, I would like to place on record the great achievements of this government in fiscal management. Careful management of this state's operating position has put the state in a position to embark upon a record investment in critical infrastructure that will provide benefits to South Australians for many years to come. The last state budget provided more than $10 billion of infrastructure spending over the next four years. This government has also delivered tax cuts in recent years to help both businesses and individuals and to secure future growth.

In total, it is estimated that, once all measures have been brought in, the government will have reduced taxes on a cumulative basis by around $4.6 billion by 2013-14. This is not a trivial sum and will help boost private enterprise, which is still feeling the effects of global recession. This government also understands the real need to invest in services for South Australians today on top of the provision of infrastructure for tomorrow.

The last state budget provided extra investment over the next four years in areas that affect the lives of South Australians every day. There is $883.5 million more investment in health, $156 million more investment in education and $525.4 million more investment in transport—big numbers. Also, over the next four years this government has provided an extra $137.7 million in alternative care funding for vulnerable children. That is on top of an extra $25.2 million in 2009-10. There is an extra $70.9 million for Disability SA, on top of an extra $13.8 million specifically for disability equipment, and an extra $4.2 million for children with autism.

This government also increased energy, water, sewerage and fixed property emergency services levy concessions for pensioners. We also extended the energy and emergency services levy concession to low income earners. Prudent management of operating spending has enabled these investments to be delivered while keeping borrowings at a manageable level.

Prudent financial management is not something that just happens; it requires hard work and tough decisions. This government has shown that it has the appetite for the hard work needed and is more than capable of taking tough decisions. As a result, South Australia has retained its AAA credit rating against the backdrop of global recession, a global recession which saw other advanced economies suffer.

The government took the difficult decision to cut back on jobs in the Public Service—more than 3,700 full-time equivalent employees over four years. This government does not hide from cutting back on administration and the Public Service and cutting back on executives. What the opposition will not tell you, though, is that the government has also invested in new public sector jobs, partially offsetting these cuts with nearly 2,000 new full-time equivalent employees who will fully carry out the promises that government took to the last election.

The government's fiscal record speaks for itself: a AAA credit rating. The government's record in delivering services speaks for itself: more and better hospitals, more doctors, more nurses, more police and more teachers. The government's infrastructure record speaks for itself as well: more than $10 billion in spending over the next four years.

Before finishing, as Minister for Road Safety I feel it is my duty to provide counsel to the honourable member for Davenport. I am prepared for my department to provide some reference material for him to bring to the attention of his son in what I am sure are regular and wide-ranging lectures about the dangers of speeding that can impact on far more than just the hip pocket. I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate.

Bill read a second time.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister Assisting the Premier with South Australia's Strategic Plan) (17:52): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (17:52): As the member for Hammond just mentioned a few moments ago, there is so much to say and so little time. Let me start off by going back over the desal plant. We have in South Australia a government that was dragged kicking and screaming to eventually come to the understanding that we needed a desal plant to have a climate independent water supply to guarantee critical water for metropolitan Adelaide.

Everybody is aware that the delay in coming to that decision cost the South Australian taxpayer dearly when we entered a contract to build what turned out to be a very expensive desal plant. That was bad enough, but then the government foolishly took the decision to double the size of that desal plant and to build a desal plant with a capacity of 100 gigalitres a year, when it was patently obvious to anybody who looked at Adelaide's water demand that, even over the next 20 or 30 years, a 50-gigalitre desal plant (or thereabouts) would adequately protect us for critical water needs.

The government was sucked in because the federal government offered $228 million, which is only a fraction of the additional cost. The opposition then exposed the fact that that $228 million grant was actually offset by a reduction in our GST revenues of something like $212 million, and I think $214 million was the actual figure. There was a net benefit of about $12 million. The government contracted to build a 100-gigalitre desal plant at a cost of a bit over $1.8 billion.

The government did not tell the people of South Australia that the original proposal at $1.4 billion also included the interconnect, the pipe to connect the northern and southern parts of the Adelaide distribution network. That interconnection only becomes necessary when the capacity of the desal plant is greater than 50 gigalitre is a year. At a capacity of 50 gigalitres a year, all the water produced at the desal plant could be used in the southern part of the distribution system, and the balancing could be done by pumping from the River Murray to only the northern reservoirs rather than to Mount Bold, which currently, on average, has about 24 gigalitres year pumped to it. So, with a 50-gigalitre desalination plant, we would not need to build the interconnecting system between the northern and southern parts of the system.

We have had this decision to double the size, but on the back of that it is also then necessary to build the interconnector of the two parts of the water distribution network. Unfortunately, that comes at a cost to the South Australian taxpayers of another $400-plus million. I am putting the proposition to the house that maybe the government should seek to cut its losses. It has already made a giant mistake in contracting to double the size of the desal plant. Maybe we should cut our losses and decide not to build that $400 million north-south pipeline. It is not needed, unless we were in critical need of the 100 gigalitres a year from the desal plant.

The reality is that we will build, at a cost of $400 million, that pipeline. We will then run the desal plant at at least 75 per cent of its capacity to prove up the desal plant over a two-year period, at great running cost, but the water will actually be wasted. The reality is that, we will use the water produced from the desal plant but our reservoirs, particularly in the northern part of the system: Millbrook, Kangaroo Creek and the Para reservoirs, will be just sitting there unused. We will have waters overspilling those, running down the rivers into the ocean. Maybe we would be better off to forget about building the north-south interconnector, continue to use the water from those reservoirs and save ourselves $400 million.

I think that is something that the government should seriously look at. I say that because we are in a financial mess. We have, as has been revealed today, a billion dollar blowout in the Royal Adelaide Hospital and we have not even, at this stage, seen the figure for the year to year operating expenses of that hospital, but we do know that it is going to be significantly higher than the operating expenses of the existing hospital. We also know that we are committed to at least $535 million for an upgrade of the Adelaide Oval.

The budget is already in great difficulty, and yet we have these costs coming on board over the next few years. The one that really worries me is the new build for the Royal Adelaide Hospital because it will not come on as a cost to the budget until 2016.

I am starting to wonder whether this government is setting itself up for opposition; whether it has taken a fair bet that it will lose the next election, and that insuring against the future it wants to cripple the state and ensure that there is no money available for an incoming government post the next election. The government has seen this happen before.

It happened in 1993 when the State Bank disaster, the SGIC disaster and the mismanagement of the finances of the state crippled the state. There was a change of government and the incoming Liberal government had to rebuild the state, and that government did a magnificent job in the eight years that it was in government. But note that the ministers of this government, on a daily basis, go out there and say, 'This is what we are doing' and compare it with what the previous Liberal government did, knowing full well that the previous Liberal government was hamstrung by a state which had been bankrupted.

The question I pose to the house is: is this government seeking to repeat history? Is it setting the state up for a period of Labor in opposition, crippling the state's finances and leaving a state burdened from financial mismanagement such that an incoming Liberal government will not be able to perform? That is the question I put today. That is what I suspect is happening to the finances of this state, and it is an absolute outrage.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30]


Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (19:30): The Supply Bill is one of those interesting pieces of legislation that comes into this place and gives the government sufficient funds to continue on until the end of the financial year, and what an end of the financial year it is going to be this year. Today, we heard about the $1 billion blowout in the cost of the hospital. I look forward to seeing how the government is going to explain that away, because I know that they did not tell the truth during the election campaign. Even on the day before the election was called, John Hill was talking to Leon Byner on FIVEaa and said it was $1.7 billion, when he knew, in November last year, that it was $1.8 billion.

They could not tell the truth then, they are not telling the truth now and what is going to happen? South Australians are going to pay. They are going to pay and pay and pay. Our children are going to pay, our grandchildren are going to pay and I am really worried that our great-grandchildren are going to continue to pay for the follies of this government.

Having said that, I now have great trepidation and fear for my electorate of Morphett, which I love dearly. I am very privileged to be the member for Morphett. I have been for over nine years now and I look forward to serving my constituents for many more years to come. My electorate down there is a safe Liberal seat, held for 32 years now by the Liberal Party. It is a pleasure to be the member down there and continue on the great work of the former member, the Hon. John Oswald. I am afraid that there will not be any money left in the till to spend in my electorate of Morphett on really essential programs.

We saw how the last budget attacked the Glenelg Community Hospital—a fantastic community hospital. My son was born there; it is no longer doing obstetrics and gynaecology. We have seen that hospital provide one of the best programs, one of the most economical and beneficial programs provided by a community hospital to assist the public hospital system; that is, Recovery at the Bay. It was saving the health system hundreds, if not thousands and thousands, of dollars a day, by having patients from the Repatriation General Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre come down to the Bay.

If they were not quite ready to go home, they were coming down there at a cost of about $120 a day. So, there were about $1,000 per patient per day savings on an acute bed in one of our major hospitals. That was saving the government a lot of money. There were up to 10 patients in there at any one time in the Glenelg Community Hospital. What do we see? The government cut that program from down there.

Fortunately, the Glenelg Community Hospital is not like Moonta, Ardrossan, Keith and Blackwood, where they are relying on the funding from the public sector to enable them to keep their cash flow going and do the great job they are doing for their communities. The Glenelg Community Hospital is bursting at the seams with day surgery down there. Specialists are coming in and working for their private patients down there and they are doing a fantastic job.

They did not need that program. It was a little bit of cream on the cake. It was not something they were concerned about, but it just shows the ideological stupidity of decisions being made where you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. They were paying $120 a day for those patients, now they are going to put intermediate care beds in some of our larger public hospitals at a cost of hundreds and hundreds of dollars a day. It is a crazy situation.

We are seeing nonsensical, illogical, completely non-economical solutions—well, they are apparently called solutions—to imaginary problems in other community hospitals where the government keeps insisting they are funding these private hospitals. They are only private inasmuch as they are not owned by the government, but they are community hospitals and they have been doing a great job.

But go past Glenelg Community Hospital, in my electorate of Morphett—let's drive from Parliament House down there and go through the 17 sets of traffic lights on North Terrace through the trams. I love my trams, but those 17 sets of traffic lights down on North Terrace cause some issues. They are reasonably well coordinated, most of the time. Sometimes you can get stuck and it will take you 20 minutes to get from West Terrace down to Parliament House, but they can coordinate those traffic lights. Yet, at the Africaine Road and Tapleys Hill Road intersection at Glenelg North, according to this government, they cannot put in traffic lights and have them coordinated.

The first letters to me said that it would cost $300,000; now they are saying it is going to cost $500,000-plus to put in one set of traffic lights at the intersection of Africaine Road and Tapleys Hill Road. I just remind the house that 7,500 cars a day, 400 buses a week and hundreds and hundreds of cyclists were crossing the King Street Bridge until recently when it was closed for repairs. Much of that traffic was going down Africaine Road to try to get onto Tapleys Hill Road, and about 45,000 cars a day use Tapleys Hill Road.

The S-bend of Africaine Road and the S-bend of Tapleys Hill Road, by the end of the airport runway, is a very dangerous intersection. It needs a long-term solution for a long-term problem. We are not looking just at a short-term solution for a long-term problem with the banning of right-hand turns by the government.

The King Street Bridge closure has exacerbated an already dangerous intersection. We have seen one young man seriously injured there. He is still in hospital. The total cost of the ambos, the fireys and all the others turning up is about $900,000. That is twice what it would cost to put traffic lights in, but what do we see from this government? Lazy solutions, short-term solutions for long-term problems, banning right-hand turns at that intersection.

The City of Holdfast Bay first wrote to the minister in 2005 about traffic lights, so the minister cannot say he did not know or was not warned about it. I wrote to him about it in December last year. We have had nothing but a recalcitrant approach from this government. It is ignoring my constituents in Morphett, and I know they will continue to elect Liberal representatives for many years to come because they know what a Liberal government could do for them, and they are being ignored by the Labor government.

To get to Glenelg you have to go down Anzac Highway. It is a goat track to Glenelg; Anzac Highway is an atrocious road now. It is one of the major thoroughfares in this city, yet it is rutted and potholed. They have done patches and pavement repairs which cause traffic to weave all over the place on those three lanes going down to Glenelg. Damage is being done to cars, not immediate damage from going down massive potholes but continual damage because of the state of that road. For a major thoroughfare, the condition of that road is atrocious.

What will we see? We will see continued patching up. It should be a thoroughfare of pride for South Australia. The nice bits are the overpass and a couple of other bits that have been patched up. That is fine, but the majority of it is an absolute goat track. In fact, if you want to see the parochialism of this government, just go to what used to be my boundary at Somerton Park. It changed after the redistribution. You can see where the electorate of Bright finishes and the electorate of Morphett starts because that is where the new road pavement finishes. South of that boundary it is new and paved; north of it is the old potholed Brighton Road. That is how parochial this government is.

Oaklands Road is just as bad; it is an atrocious road. They should rename it Rodeo Drive. It is like riding a bucking bronco going down that road. There are potholes, ruts and corrugations. It is an atrocious road to go down. Between Africaine Road, Oaklands Road, Morphett Road and Anzac Highway there are some serious issues that my constituents want fixed and want fixed now.

The other big issue down there is Oaklands crossing. What did the government do at Oaklands crossing? It completely stuffed it. We have the new aquatic centre, which is almost ready to be opened, one of the biggest shopping centres in the southern hemisphere, the Noarlunga train line and the intersection of Morphett Road and Diagonal Road. The railway station was moved closer to the crossing so that stuffs up any chance of grade separation later on, which would have been the ideal solution for that problem. Once again, short-term solutions for long-term problems: move the railway station, make it look a bit nicer—it looks quite nice—but wrong spot, wrong solution.

They put in a temporary bus bay and then a pedestrian crossing. It stuffed up the whole intersection. Do you want to see any of this? Go onto my website, go to my YouTube clips and you will see Africaine Road and Oaklands crossing. You will see what a dog's breakfast and how dangerous they are. It is something this government should be ashamed of. I am ashamed that this government is ignoring the taxpayers of Morphett and allowing this to continue. I have had no indication whatsoever from this government that there are going to be any changes or improvements.

Back in central Glenelg, there is the lack of funding for a state event which is New Year's Eve. We get a miserable $25,000 and 70,000 South Australians turn up on New Year's Eve, but the ratepayers of Glenelg are supposed to handle that. Apart from that funding, we do not get any funding for widening the walkway of the lock gates, so a mum with a pram has to wait for somebody with a bike to come the other way and, if the lock gates do not work, it is a whole shemozzle, and at the moment that creates extra problems with the King Street bridge out.

We have not seen the H-class trams for a long time. Where are the H-class trams, Minister for Transport? What have you done with those iconic trams? Are they still rotting in some old car park down at Lonsdale? I haven't seen them out there. They are iconic trains; they can run these historic trams all over the world, but not in South Australia, apparently.

This government has no foresight; they have no vision for their future. They certainly are not looking after the electors of my electorate of Morphett. It is a safe Liberal seat. I will be making sure I keep it that way, and this government is doing a lot to help me because they are doing nothing to help themselves.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (19:40): I focused on two areas in my speech on supply yesterday, saying that really the dreadful financial management that we are all aware of has sent this government down two paths: one is the path of creating red tape and one is the path of being forced into choosing priorities that really damage the country areas. I have 10 minutes tonight, and I would like to just mention in a bit more detail my thoughts on that first vein.

Essentially, the poor management has led to the government having insufficient funds to do the jobs that it wants to do. It is a great shame if that is the case. When you get in that situation, you really have no choice but to decrease services if you do not want to increase taxes, and we all know that we are the most highly taxed state in the nation already.

Cutting services but trying to seem to be still responsible is the problem that the government has faced. What happens is that it goes down the road of 'user pays'. It still wants to regulate, it still wants to set the rules, it still wants to tell people and councils and everybody who will listen exactly what they need to do, how they need to operate and what their rules and regulations will be, but it pushes all the costs associated with that onto the users.

I mentioned yesterday two areas that really cut across each other and highlight a good example of the difficulties that we have. One is the River Murray levy that everybody in the state pays, even those people who do not actually get any water at all from the Murray, and one is the biosecurity levy that is proposed which, while everybody in the state will benefit from healthy biosecurity, only the primary producers in the state would pay, which is really at odds with itself.

What happens now is that this moves down the path of creating enormous red tape because when the body creating the rules and the regulations is not actually incurring the costs directly, there is less interest in the efficiency, and it is creating red tape everywhere. The government still wants to set the rules but make the users pay, so they do not really care how much the users pay.

We are already incredibly highly taxed. If you look at the things that continue to grow, that continue to bite into everyday South Australians, there is the River Murray levy, the biosecurity levy that is proposed, land tax continually going up, stamp duty, vehicle registration, boat registration, truck registration.

I think it would be remiss of me not to mention what is going on with truck registration for the heavy transport industry at the moment. What the government has done to transport operators who want to register a B-double in this state means that we have state-based operators who seriously consider registering their trucks interstate because it is so expensive for them, and some actually do, if they have the legal opportunity.

They can have interstate runs and, if they can possibly avoid paying the truck registration fees that they are hit with here in South Australia, they will, but then, of course, that means they get interstate-based drivers, they get interstate-based customers and their business shifts interstate. While they might still essentially be South Australian companies, when they choose to pay the lower interstate costs, a lot of the benefits that those companies create end up interstate as well, so we miss out.

It goes on: driver's licence, boat licence, firearms licence, hunting permits, payroll tax, emergency services levy, WorkCover. Look at WorkCover. The WorkCover levy has got so far out of control, both in regard to financial control and administrative control for this government, that it decided to take one of the all-time cop-outs and actually remove the bonus penalty scheme, which has previously been one of the foundations of the WorkCover scheme in the way in which it is set up and the way in which it operates so that businesses with a good track record, businesses which do their very best to support their workers, to provide a healthy, safe, productive and useful workplace for their people could have a lower WorkCover rate—and if people had accidents (whether they were because the employers were not doing the right thing, or perhaps through bad luck, but, one way or the other), if you had a workplace that had accidents you paid more and if you had a safe workplace you paid less.

I am astounded that members from the other side of the chamber who support workers and who are union members and union organisers (very often) allowed that to happen. The bonus penalty scheme was one of the best things to protect workers, to encourage people to have safe workplaces, and this government removed it because it was just all too hard to administer. I find that surprising and unacceptable.

Looking back at that list of things, we remember back to 2000 when the GST came in. The GST was brought in by the Howard Liberal government. The understanding was very clear across all the states that the GST would come in and that GST collected from states would be returned to states by the federal government; and, in fact, South Australia so far has actually benefited and got more than its share back from the federal government.

It looks like this government may be able to stuff that up as well, and it looks like we are going to lose the small additional benefit that we have recently had, but we will wait and see how good new Treasurer Snelling is on that issue. But in return for that extra GST money, the states were going to reduce or remove an enormous number of the state-based taxes. It was not going to happen overnight, it was not going to happen instantly: it was going to happen slowly and steadily over time as the states and as the agencies could actually manage it.

But then, of course, two years later, in 2002 we went from a Liberal to a Labor state government and, lo and behold, stuck in the mud, it became suddenly impossible. So, what should have happened—which was a strong reduction in state-based taxes—did not ever, ever eventuate. It could have but it didn't.

It would be remiss of me not to mention once again the Remote Areas Electricity Scheme. This is, as people have heard me say quite a few times in this place, just a shambles and a disgrace. The fact that the government is trying to spruik itself that it still gives a small subsidy, a $5.5 million subsidy, to outback areas, to 13 good communities throughout the outback, is shameful, when in reality what it is doing is that it is slugging homes, slugging families, slugging businesses and slugging visitors with increased electricity costs, in some situations significantly more than double their current situation.

That will hurt businesses more than anyone else, businesses in remote areas, which, if they cannot operate, if they cannot employ people, then the homes, the families and the people who live in these small remote towns will not have jobs. Not only will they get hit with their own electricity bill but they will get hit with lack of employment, reduced hours and, potentially, unemployment in remote areas.

I look at the impact that this has had on councils—this red tape, this cost shifting and this wanting to be the one who sets the rules but not the one who actually pays the price. Look at the impact that that has had on regional councils throughout the state. Look at what happens with rubbish dumps all over the state. Quite understandably, the standard of rubbish dumps needs to go up. We need to get better, all of us, as people in our homes and in our businesses, with regard to councils. We need to get better with the way in which we manage our rubbish.

But what the state government says is, 'Well, look, this is what you need to do now. This is what you need to do next year. This is what you need to do the year after that.' The rules are getting tighter and tighter; and, 'Yes, we know that that will be much more expensive for you, but, oh, that'll be your problem. You sort that out. We just give you the rules, and we know that the rules mean that you will incur far more costs, but you worry about how you're going to pay for it. Oh, and if you can't figure it out yourself, what we suggest you do is just pass that on to your local people in your councils. You'll sort it out somehow.'

Essentially, the further away you can get from the state government bearing the costs, the better as far as the state government is concerned, but it still wants to set the rules. What this is going to do, and I do not make any joke of this, is to completely undervalue state government. If over time this state government wants to have the responsibility for setting the rules but pass the costs on to other people, whether they say, 'Oh, that's a federal government issue', or, 'That's a local government issue,' or, 'That's an industry issue,' or, 'That's a small outback community areas issue. You guys all have to pay for it,' eventually we will not need a state government. Eventually we will not need a state government if we keep heading down that path. State governments are in place to provide services to people, homes, business, industries, communities and organisations that cannot do it directly for themselves. One of the main reasons to have a government is to provide these services.

If this government wants to set the rules but send all the costs and hard parts elsewhere, why do we have a state government? It will not be hard to set the rules and figure out what really needs to be done. If we continue down this path, the state government will do itself out of a job because of its own financial mismanagement.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (19:51): I rise to add a further contribution to the Supply Bill 2011. I want to talk about some particular cuts and arrangements in my electorate for branch broom rape funding, which is currently under review under the national review scheme. I am very concerned about where we are heading in the future with this funding. It is a very tough parasite to control—it is basically a parasitic plant that attaches to plants.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, my predecessor supposedly fixed it. Some properties in the Murraylands next year are coming out of quarantine after their so-called 12 years of being controlled under the broom rape program, but I am very concerned because there will still have to be a program involving the paddocks that come out of the 12-year cycle because they will still need monitoring. There needs to be careful thought, both at a state and federal level, about what funding is allocated to this program in whatever form it takes leading into the future. Our horticulture crops could be at risk and there could be a risk to affected farmers not being able to deliver produce, either to markets or the local silo. I certainly do not want that to happen. But I reiterate that we must keep up the fight and be vigilant.

I want to make some comments about the money that this government is spending on the desalination plant. Our plant is costing very close to $2 billion, and it is a lot of money. A group of Liberals, including me, went to Perth and saw their first plant of either 45 or 50 gigalitres, and that plant cost $300 million to build. On top of that, there was $87 million worth of pipes to connect it to the system around Perth, so I believe that was pretty cheap water in the desalination field. I think we went over there in late 2006 or early 2007.

We have a plant in Adelaide that is double the size of what it should be at 100 gigalitres. It will cover around 60 to 70 per cent of Adelaide's water supply in a complete drought, in a complete disaster when we have no ability to pump water from the River Murray. It is interesting to note that, in the last four years, we still had the ability to pump from the Murray after the engineers suddenly realised they could lower the pumps, but I kept getting told early in the drought that they couldn't. So we have $1.8 billion worth of desalination plant and over $400 million worth of pipeline. It is absolutely ridiculous when you think of what happened in Perth.

Mr Whetstone: It is outrageous.

Mr PEDERICK: It is outrageous, thank you to the member for Chaffey. It is totally outrageous. The cost of the pipe network to connect the desalination plant with the northern suburbs is more than the cost of the original plant in Perth with the associated pipe infrastructure.

Another issue in country areas close to Adelaide is the cuts in housing subsidies for public servants within 100 kilometres, which certainly affects my electorate. It has already had an effect on the school my children go to, Coomandook Area School. A teacher was trying to find a house in Tailem Bend, but one was not available. I do not know who was looking at the map, but I would think Tailem Bend is a few kilometres outside the 100 kilometre ring from Adelaide. I guess for whoever was swinging the compass around and decided they wanted to grab a bit more it was a pretty easy decision. It has already caused issues locally with people.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Michael. There was one teacher who wanted to reside at Coonalpyn. Sadly, the local store is shut at Coonalpyn, so this person said there was no incentive for them to stay there, and then they could not get the Public Service subsidy to live in Tailem Bend. I know for a fact it is already affecting the recruitment of police in my area. We have a great area, and it is a real issue that we cannot attract people to the area to do their jobs, whether they be police or teachers, and they are vital services that we need in the bush.

I will talk about the locust funding for the plague this year. We had $12.8 million allocated for the control of locusts by the government. It was well short of the Victorian government's program, which I think was about $43 million, and $10.4 million of the state funding was spent. I wanted to see farmers get a full subsidy for the chemical, and the ones who had to use their boom sprays generally were quite happy to do that. However, no, the government came out with a program where they might be able to claim a subsidy of about 20 per cent, and that program ended at the end of December.

Has the government not realised that the locusts have been on the wing? We have had the second, third and probably the fourth generation this season. I wonder whether there is anything in the budget for a control program this year because I believe they will be on the wing again when we need to hit them in the spring. At the moment, we have all the rodents and insects—spider invasions, millipedes, mice, rats, locusts and crickets—it is all happening. I wonder whether funding is being set aside for another locust control program this year because I certainly think it needs to be.

Something that has been very dear to my heart all my life is the River Murray. I am very, very disappointed by the attitude of this government in removing the bunds at Narrung, Currency Creek and Clayton. Finally, after we asked many questions in this house, the Minister for Water Security, Paul Caica, suddenly realised he needed to write to the federal government to access more funding. He had obviously spent part of the funding that had been allocated when they built the bund at the Narrung narrows, and he was $300,000 short to remove it. It was about a $2.6 million program to remove that bund.

I must say there was a lot of community agitation, and I note that the deputy leader, the member for MacKillop, and the Hon. David Ridgway (and I would have been involved had I not been away on leave) went down and started the job for the government during January, digging the bund out. By taking six months, minimum, longer than they should have in making the decision to remove that bund, they have removed the right of those people around Lake Albert to access water fresh enough for their irrigation properties and their stock.

We also see the issue of the bunds at Clayton and Currency Creek silting up, and they need to be removed as well. I understand that will come at a cost of about $5 million; but they need to get on with it. These bunds went in in a hurry to assist with issues looming with acidification in the Lakes, and on this side of the house we reluctantly agreed that they should go in. But why is there this delay that takes so long to get these mounds of dirt out? It is because the other side of this house, the government side, the Labor side, do not care because it is not affecting their electorates.

It is an absolute disgrace that this has gone on, when we have gone past peak flow in the River Murray, so that the people of Lakes communities and at the mouth out past Goolwa could have had the right that they should have and seen the full flow of the river. It is an absolute shame.

In closing, it is good to see—and I do not know whether it is common sense or whether a sudden realisation set into the Minister for Agriculture today, who did a backflip on the night shift on the quarantine stations in this state. It is well received in the community, and it just shows the idiocy of making a decision that affects the whole state and not just the primary producers.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (20:01): I would like to start off this grieve in particular looking at this government's reliance on the two main economic drivers in this state—mining and agriculture. Within 2010 particularly, the budget absolutely cut the guts out of PIRSA and SARDI and, almost, the long term future of agriculture research and development. Research and development in agriculture particularly is about the next generation's future, it is about the next generation after that's future, it is about what is about to happen today, what is about to happen in 50 years' time.

Again, we look at the marine parks issue. I am absolutely disgusted at this government's approach, the communication they have given the people who it affects. They have based the marine parks issue on bad advice. It is not about sustainability of our waters at all; it is about revenue raising.

The government promised $20 million to restructure the Riverland through the Riverland Futures Task Force. It was a program that delivered $5 million over four years. In 12 months, less than $700,000 has been spent through this program. My question is: has the government committed that $20 million to the region, or is it just window-dressing as pre-election promise?

Today the government delayed the Berri regional hospital upgrade, not allowing it through the Public Works Committee motion. I watched the minister walk in here today and be asked the question: could the time be extended by five minutes? He would not extend that time by five minutes, just to allow a motion to go through, on a public infrastructure project that was the government's initiative. It was very, very disappointing.

As I speak today, $60,000 a day is being forked out by this government to watch no work being done on the Chowilla regulator. The Chowilla regulator is a government initiative to support an environmental project, supported by the federal government, to keep the long-term benefit of an environmental asset that this state owns, which is the Chowilla flood plain. We do have other environmental assets through the Banrock wetlands and also, of course, the Lower Lakes, through Lake Alexandrina, Lake Albert and, of course, the Coorong. Who in the department negotiated this situation? Who negotiated that, while there was no work being done through a high river, we would have to fork out $60,000 a day to watch nothing happen? It beggars belief.

The desal debacle is absolutely mismanagement at its pinnacle. The overall cost is going to blow out to over $2.4 billion—$2.4 billion of taxpayers' money. The Liberal Party's policy was to look at a 50-gigalitre plant and look at diversifying our water supply. We looked at stormwater harvesting. We looked at greywater re-use. This government has committed $2.4 billion of taxpayers' money to put a 100-gigalitre plant in, which is not yet operational. We continually see delay. We continually see mismanagement of this plant. For example, the north-south interconnector, a $403 million project. It is an absolute waste of money.

In consultation with several members on this side, we look at that desal plant being up and operational and we wonder: why would they spend $403 million today when they are not needing it? Why wouldn't they pump the desal water into an underground aquifer at much less cost to every taxpayer in South Australia? We look at the cost to every South Australian taxpayer to keep that desal plant running—$130 million per year. It really does beggar belief.

I have done a grieve on stormwater and I have done a grieve on the desal plant today, so I will not continue with that, but I will look at country health. Today, we hear that the new RAH cost has blown out by over $1 billion; that is, $1,000 million, without a brick laid. Not one brick has been laid and we have already seen a $1 billion blowout. It absolutely beggars belief.

With country health, particularly in the seat of Chaffey, we have had an attempted takeover by stealth of our community hospital land and assets by Country Health SA. We have major waiting times for local doctors. Some local constituents are waiting for up to six weeks to see a doctor. It is outrageous to think that people in the country have to wait six weeks to see a doctor.

We have increased costs for emergency patients at the regional hospital. We have doctors who are being transported up to the regional hospital over the weekends at outrageous cost for people to visit a doctor. We see way too many locals having to travel to Adelaide for medical reasons to see specialised services that have been promised to the regional hospital. It is a huge encumbrance to those rural constituents of mine who have to travel, find accommodation and deal with the stress of being sick, or deal with their loved ones who are sick. It is an extended cost to country people, again.

We have a major health crisis in the Riverland with poor seasonal conditions for grape growers. We have major mental health concerns, with the agriculture sector dealing with drought, floods and a lack of support in what they do with their business. We have funding for rural counsellors and volunteers drying up. While we see an increasing need for counsellors to give support to the regional farmers and businesses, the government is pulling that funding. It is absolutely outrageous.

As of only last week, we have seen that public libraries funding has been reduced by over $1 million from 2013. That creates a big black hole for local council budgets to pick up, and that is forcing costs onto the Riverland ratepayers.

If we look at country roads, one particular road that is drawn to my attention is the Loxton to Karoonda road. That road is almost impassable in a heavy vehicle (a truck). To add to that, that road has been supporting a sand mine. Again, that is one of the two economic drivers in South Australia and yet the state government has refused to step up to the plate and draw on federal funding and support to upgrade that road.

If we look at small school grants, I think, as I reflect, that the member for Flinders today said that he has many small schools in his electorate, as do I. Through the 2010 budget cuts, we see almost forced amalgamations of schools. It is almost amalgamation by stealth, and I think it is absolutely outrageous.

In closing, I have a question to every member and every person in this chamber: would a business of today prosper or even survive with Rann Labor government thinking? I think not.

Mr Griffiths: Only 6 per cent of businesses in South Australia support Rann policies.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, who is actually speaking here? I thought it was the member for Chaffey, then the member for Finniss, then it was the member for Goyder. I don't know.

Mr WHETSTONE: It is a duet.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is more than a duet. This is some sort of threesome. It is not natural.

Mr WHETSTONE: Well, I think you were having a twosome up there, engrossed in a conversation with the member for Norwood.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am too. We were just talking about you.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (20:11): I am afraid that today we witnessed yet another financial debacle orchestrated by the Labor Party in South Australia. There were shades of the early nineties again. I shook my head in disbelief when I heard that here we have another state Labor government $1 billion out of control on this project alone. I was, like everybody else in this place, I would suggest, absolutely stunned by the announcement.

You just wonder where it will end up. You would have to say that this Rann Labor government in South Australia could not even organise a chook raffle. They would stuff that up. Quite frankly, you have had a change of treasurer; who wears the blame on this I do not know, but who picks up the bill? That will be the poor old South Australian taxpayer. It is an absolute disgrace, and I was very pleased that it received widespread coverage in the media tonight.

It is yet another nail in the coffin of this Labor government in South Australia. We will belt a few more nails into it over the next three years too, trust me. Just $1 billion alone, and that was not our cooking up figures, that came from a document that was produced in this house. You well know that and you ought to sit there in shame, quite frankly.

We have also had $8 million spent over four years on the marine parks program that is still not happening. Money means absolutely nothing to this government. It means absolutely nothing. They do not care where it comes from, as long as the poor old taxpayer still puts their hand in their pocket. Be in absolutely no doubt, I have no hesitation in suggesting that, despite the minister's denial today, marine parks and sanctuary zones will become a focus of revenue for this government if they ever come into place. Hopefully, just hopefully, there is enough common sense on the other side to squash it once and for all. As our leader said last night, on coming into government, it will be canned.

There are a host of things that are wrong, and another one is the removal of these regulators at Narrung and Clayton, and some people spoke to me yesterday about the Clayton regulator. My very clear understanding is that the feds have come up with the money for that—and they should both have been removed, but they have not been removed—and it has been squirreled away or spent on some other useless project, I would suggest, yet these things need to take place.

It worries the daylights out of me, and it worries the daylights out of those on this side of the house, that this state is going to be back where it was when the Liberals came into government in 1993. We are going to have to clean up an almighty mess yet again. The Labor Party in this state cannot manage money. The Labor Party in New South Wales made an appalling mess of everything; they are gone. In Victoria they are gone, and in Western Australia they are gone.

Australians generally and South Australians I know are absolutely fed up with spin. They are totally fed up with spin. They want good stable steady government, instead of the nonsense they are getting thrust upon them at the moment. I can remember asking John Schumann once, 'Why did you leave what you were doing in Canberra with Senator Meg Lees?' He said, 'I got out when the children took over.' I reckon that is what is happening here.

Quite clearly, I do not think those who are coming in are up to it. I think they are failing in their task. Heaven knows what sort of a budget we are going to get out of our new Treasurer. I think what has occurred today is an outrage. I commend our side of the house for getting this issue up, putting it on the table and exposing it for what it is worth. I do not think there is any doubt that tomorrow the print media are going to have a field day on it. We had Greg Kelton calling for the head of the police minister in the paper this morning. I suggest he will be calling for the heads of a few more by the end of next week. This cannot go on. It is a nonsense, and any of you who are in marginal seats must be shaking with—

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: —rage and fear, I would suggest. It is three years, and a lot can happen in three years. But I'll tell you what, a billion dollars' worth of debt is going to be an appalling thing for people to have lodged in the backs of their minds. I do not intend to go on tonight, I know we have other speakers. I have made my point and I rest my case.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (20:16): I want to continue my remarks from this afternoon when I spoke in the grievance debates about issues concerning the rezoning of land in and around Mount Barker; in particular, the role that the Greens and their supporters are attempting to play in the district.

It is my belief that the Greens' supporters are attempting to promote themselves as the campaigners in relation to opposing the rezoning, and they are endeavouring to diminish the Liberal Party's attempts, and its opposition to, the rezoning. I know I got pulled up on a point of order this afternoon, and we worked through that so that is fair enough; however, the point I want to make is that this particular issue of rezoning land was the number one issue in that part of the electorate leading up to and including the election last year.

The results of the ballots at the Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne polling booths are a clear indication that the Liberal Party had convinced the majority of the community that it was strongly opposed to the rezoning of that land, against the claims by the Greens and their supporters were that the Liberals had not convinced the majority of the community.

The votes were at such a level that the state Liberals won the combined vote of the two Mount Barker booths on the primary vote. They won the Littlehampton booth on the primary vote and the Liberal Party was shy, by about 20 or so votes, of winning the Nairne polling booth on the primary vote. If that is not an indication that the majority of the community understood the Liberals' position in relation to the matter of rezoning land, I don't know what is. The claims by the Greens and their supporters, I believe, are incorrect.

As I said this afternoon, the Greens preferenced ALP candidates ahead of Liberal candidates in every key marginal seat, and as a consequence of that they assisted the re-election of the Labor government, which then rammed through the DPA. The Greens have to understand their role in this matter.

You may ask the question: 'How do you know it is the Greens and their supporters who are perpetuating this myth?' As it happens, at least two people have written letters to the local paper; one was the wife or partner of the Greens candidate who ran against me at the election last year. The other person was the Greens' candidate for the Mayo electorate at the federal election last year. If that is not a clear indication of the Greens supporters and their involvement in this issue, trying to perpetuate a myth, then I would like to know what is.

Having said that, I want to bring my remarks around to some of the issues that I think are important concerning the portfolio areas that I have a responsibility for on behalf of the Liberal opposition, particularly in relation to road safety. We all understand that road safety is a very important issue that the state faces on a daily basis and I will say that, looking at the statistics as at 4 April, there are some encouraging trends.

Thankfully, the number of fatalities for the year to date compared to this time last year are down. As at 4 April, fatalities were at 42 in 2010 and this year, in 2011, they are at 28. I think that is a very pleasing improvement in the reduction of fatalities on our roads. However, another measure that I know the government looks to in relation to crash statistics is serious injuries. We do not hear a lot about serious injuries in the press. We certainly obviously hear about fatalities and the tragedy that results when somebody is killed on our roads.

My family has experienced that with two of my cousins being killed in road crashes over the years, so I have an understanding of the grief and anxiety and all the emotions that come with those situations. However, when we look at the serious injury statistics, we are at a higher level this year in 2011 compared to the year-to-date figures for last year. It is only marginal, but we are still fractionally higher. It has not gone down.

The total serious injuries for the year to date for 2010 is 277, compared to 279 for 2011, so there is an increase of two there. However, what is more disturbing, when we look at the serious injuries sustained for P-plate drivers, is that the year-to-date figure last year in 2010 was 24, compared to 30 this year. Again, I think it is an issue that the government needs to continue to look at in terms of safety for our P-plate drivers.

I know that legislation was passed last year in relation to our inexperienced drivers, looking to improve the laws that increase safety around those drivers. However, they are the statistics and, while the fatalities are down, the serious injuries have not decreased, and for P-plate drivers the injuries have increased for the year to date.

I have some serious concerns about the way the government has dealt with the whole issue of road safety, because we have actually had five ministers for road safety in about the last five years. There has been no continuity of an incumbent in that role over the last five years, so the minister has hardly got their feet under the desk to then be able to implement any serious policy direction in relation to the pursuit of road safety.

Another aspect of road safety is running an effective advertising campaign. The government has been running the same advertisement for almost two years and members may be aware of it. That is where you see this glass of beer hovering in the air following somebody walking around, or a glass of wine hovering in the air following another person walking around. I received feedback from people about that advertisement, because I asked people, 'What do you think about that road safety advertisement?' They did not understand it, and I did not understand it for the first few times until I actually watched it and understood what the message was. The whole issue about advertising is that if it does not grab the attention of the viewer within the first five seconds, well, you have lost your message.

The government has to be serious about an effective advertising campaign in relation to road safety. One person told me that they actually thought that it was an advertisement for beer; it was actually an advertisement to go out and purchase a certain brand of beer—no connection to road safety. In reality, it is a total waste of taxpayers' money because the Motor Accident Commission sponsors, I understand, a fair proportion of the advertising in relation to road safety. They are a few issues I want to have raised, and I will continue to highlight these issues as we progress.

Time expired.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (20:26): I just want to touch on an issue about a Sustainable Budget Commission report (a report that was famously leaked prior to the last budget) and the reason that this impacts on the Supply Bill. I have just got off the phone from the Australian Hotels Association in relation to a media report tonight that the government is looking at going back and reinstating some of the Sustainable Budget Commission report recommendations that the hotels industry understood were rejected by the government, not included in the budget or the forward estimates and not included in the Mid-Year Budget Review.

As I say, I have just got off the phone from the Hotels Association so I have not had the chance to go back and check that exact position, but, clearly, the Hotels Association's understanding is that the government did not include the measure I am about to address in either the budget, the forward estimates or the Mid-Year Budget Review.

What the Hotels Association is saying is that, the government has been in discussions with the Hotels Association regarding the introduction of yet another increase in tax, yet another increase in fees. The fee that it is looking to introduce now is an increase in an annual liquor licensing fee. It was the Sustainable Budget Commission measure E 5.2.9.2, and, according to the Sustainable Budget Commission report, it would raise additional revenue of around $4.5 million per year out of the pubs and clubs industry.

The issue here is twofold: one is that if the government is now going to go back and revisit this particular Sustainable Budget Commission recommendation, then it is clearly obvious that all the other Sustainable Budget Commission recommendations may well be reconsidered by the government. Why would they pick just one out? That is a signal that the budget may well be in trouble.

Members might remember that the government laid out four years' worth of savings measures, four years' worth of revenue measures, in its last budget. It has been a very, very unpopular budget. It saw the demise of the then treasurer, the member for Port Adelaide, now the Minister for Police; and, of course the new Treasurer has come in saying, 'Well, we're going to adopt exactly the same policy.'

However, the new Treasurer appears to be going one step further. The new Treasurer now seems to be saying that he is going to go back and look at the Sustainable Budget Commission report and see where he can pick up more revenue or, indeed, more cuts to the Public Service or programs out of the Sustainable Budget Commission report. The concern is, of course, that the Sustainable Budget Commission report—all those things that were rejected—may well be back on the table.

The second issue is that you would have to ask the question on behalf of South Australian businesses: when is enough tax enough tax? After nine years of Labor government, after nine years of what some in the media say has been good economic management by the former treasurer, we have the highest taxed businesses in Australia, we have the worst WorkCover rate in Australia, and we have the worst return-to-work rate in Australia. All of those things—

Mr Pisoni: And the highest unemployment.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And the highest unemployment, my colleague interjects, in Australia.

Mr Marshall: And the worst government in Australia.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And the member for Norwood may well be right: we have the worst government in Australia. However, I have to say on behalf of my federal colleagues that I think the federal government would take some beating, but the Rann government may well just do it. On behalf of those businesses you have to start asking the question: how many more costs does the Labor Party, federal and state, expect them to bear before it breaks the camel's back?

The introduction of a carbon tax federally will impose a cost not only on households but also on all those businesses, of course: that will be an extra cost. There is a proposal for a national disability insurance scheme levy. That will be an extra administrative burden for someone within the scheme: there will be an extra cost there. The issue is not only the fact that the government has gone back to look at the Sustainable Budget Commission issues again—it is a clear sign the budget is in trouble—but it is also the cost to business.

One of the problems with this government is that on some occasions it has failed to make a decision and on other occasions when it has made a decision it has made a bad one. I will give the example of marine parks. This government has been consulting for eight years. It has had four ministers that have run a consultation program for eight years. It has had five consultants' reports—five surveys—into the issue, and the government simply cannot make a decision.

The other example is the dispute between Treasury and the department for recreation and sport over the princely sum of $1.4 million ($200,000 a year). Treasury and the department for sport were in dispute for six years, and no-one could make a decision. It is a classic example of a government that does not have the confidence to go on and make decisions.

When they have made a decision, they have panicked. They have been spooked by the politics of issues and they have made bad decisions. This government spent an eternity telling South Australia it did not need a desalination plant. It absolutely did not need one. That was after the Liberal Party announced that the contractor in Western Australia said he could repeat that exercise in South Australia for around $400 million.

John Hill, the minister for the environment at the time, and other ministers such as Michael Wright went out and said, 'We don't need a desalination plant.' When the politics of the issue turned the Liberals' way, the government came out and announced a huge desalination plant that has now blown out—it is not the $400 million cost; and I think one of my colleagues quoted it—to $2.2 billion or $2.4 billion, a massive increase.

The Adelaide Oval was an announcement because the Liberal Party talked about football being in the city. It was only a year before that that the state government and football were arm in arm walking along at AAMI Stadium saying, 'This is the future of football.' The government was going to put in $100 million, football was going to put in $100 million and football was going to survive at AAMI Stadium. Only when the Liberal Party announced the concept of football in the city did the government panic, and it went from a taxpayer contribution of $100 million at Football Park to $300 million at Adelaide Oval to $450 million at Adelaide Oval to $535 million at Adelaide Oval, and it is climbing.

Today we have the issue of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the increase in costs there. All of these increases in costs, all of this poor management of process and all of this poor management of projects adds cost to living in South Australia, and that is why we are the highest taxed state in Australia—because we have an incompetent government. We have an incompetent government that cannot run process and it cannot run projects. I hate to think how much the—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The Hindmarsh Stadium.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The poor old member for Croydon mentions the Hindmarsh Stadium. Go and get the Auditor-General's Report and it will tell you it came in on time and on budget—$28 million.

An honourable member: Under budget.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Under budget. The Labor Party make a great kerfuffle about that, but under budget and on time. I hate to think what the current estimate is for the duplication of the Southern Expressway. I wonder what the cost estimate currently is for the duplication of the Southern Expressway. We have a government that is tired, we have a government that is divided and we have a government that is imposing huge costs on South Australia, not only for this generation but for many generations to come.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI (Unley) (20:35): We hear cheers from the member for Croydon.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You do. Bring it on.

Mr PISONI: You should actually take your suit off when you are going to have a sleep and put some pyjamas on, then you might not have as many crinkles in it. Today, I did in fact ask the Minister for Police a serious question in regard to police resources in the department. We know there was that terrible situation at Craigmore High School where we saw a child suffering from Aspergers who was king hit to the ground and knocked unconscious and videotaped. That was a terrible situation. A few weeks later we saw the education minister then go down there on the first National Anti-Bullying Day. Somebody obviously briefed the Governor to say that this was an isolated incident—'Craigmore is a great school; this is an isolated incident.'

We can look back to a very similar incident that happened on 9 February 2009 where a grandmother, living in the seat of Morialta, wrote to the then member, Lindsay Simmons. She wrote to Lindsay Simmons complaining about the lack of police action when her grandchild was assaulted at the school. I was very curious to read the letter that Ms Simmons received from the then police minister, the Hon. Michael Wright, the member for Lee. He explained in the letter:

South Australia Police (SAPOL) advises that after...made the report, it was allocated to a police officer attached to the Family Violence Investigation Section of the Elizabeth Police Station to investigate. The investigating officer assessed the report but was not able to progress this investigation prior to commencing his annual leave.

Then no further contact was made until 6 May. This poor family were distressed at the violent incident—an assault on their child. No action was taken by the police department. This action was obviously sanctioned by the police minister, because it appears to be a legitimate reason for a three-month delay in an investigation on a violent attack in a school.

It is no wonder that we are seeing these types of things not being dealt with by the department and the police, because the department's very own KPMG report that deals with the way the department handles complaints and investigations says that the department does not even have a memorandum of understanding with the police, nor does it have qualified people in its investigation branch. There is nobody with investigation experience for investigating these types of incidents, disputes between teachers and principals or disputes between teachers and the department. There is nobody that is qualified in that department to deal with it. That report was received by the minister in November last year.

I was very surprised to hear that the police minister could not answer that question. I would have thought it was pretty obvious that, if investigations are being delayed because of annual leave, you have a real staffing issue. I would imagine that you would have a very severe staffing issue if there is not somebody else to pick that up. If you are not covering for people who are on leave, that would suggest that, despite all the rhetoric we have been hearing for the last nine years from this government, we have an under-resourced police—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: A 40 per cent reduction in crime.

Mr PISONI: The member for Croydon says there has been a reduction in crime, but what did the new Attorney-General say today? He said that Adelaide is not a safe place, you cannot go out at night. That is what he said today in reference to the attack on the police minister on the weekend. What has it come to when you cannot even go out at night? That is exactly what South Australians are asking themselves: what has it come to when you cannot go out at night? I would like to know what evidence he has that there is some campaign out there where people are saying that it is a sport to attack the former treasurer. I would like to know what evidence he has to make that claim.

Mr Marshall: That's just in his own faction.

Mr PISONI: That's his own faction, is what the member for Norwood tells me. I am sure that a lot of that is happening in the Labor party room at the moment—a lot of attacks on the member for Port Adelaide.

I would also like to spend some time talking about stormwater management and how that is going in my electorate. I thought I might spend some time discussing the management of stormwater by this government, and again relate it to the promise that was made by this government, Mike Rann standing knee deep water in Mitcham in the floods of November 2005, saying, 'We will fix this; we will fix this flooding.' We all remember the sight of Mike Rann visiting the homes of the people of Mitcham affected by flooding in November 2005.

Legislation was introduced to this parliament in 2006. We were promised that it was going to bang together the councils' heads, that this was going to make them fix the stormwater issues in Adelaide and in particular in those creeks that run through Burnside, Mitcham, West Torrens and, finally, out to sea. The further downstream you are the more threat there is from flooding in South Australia; but that has obviously all gone out the window with the drought that we have had because nothing is being done.

Just to show how inept the Stormwater Management Authority is, I wrote to its manager on 15 July 2010 to inquire on behalf of a constituent about an issue he had in dealing with some debris that was threatening to cause flooding in his home. All of July went past; all of August went past. By 1 September I had not even received an acknowledgement of my letter, so I made an inquiry and then I got an acknowledgement immediately. That is obviously a culture that has developed under the management of minister Conlon about how the Stormwater Management Authority must work.

I received a letter in January this year ensuring me that I should be very excited about this, that to ensure that all five councils meet their time line in delivering the stormwater management plan for the Brownhill Creek and the Keswick Creek, the SMA resolved to issue an order to councils to have a stormwater management plan prepared by 30 April 2011. The Stormwater Management Authority was set up five years ago, and their report for a plan is not even due yet. Here we are, five years later and it is not even due. So, God knows how long it is going to be before the residents in Burnside, Mitcham, Unley and West Torrens are going to see any work done. As a matter of fact, the City of Unley has now been left out in the cold by having $500,000 of funding, that it believes it was verbally guaranteed by department heads for the culvert under Unley Road, pulled from it. That is another expense for Unley ratepayers.

So, despite the promises on stormwater and despite the television images of the Premier knee-deep in water in Mitcham promising to fix stormwater in the inner southern and western suburbs of Adelaide, nothing is done. Five years later, board fees—and on that board, of course, we have Anne Howe, the water commissioner, she was on the Stormwater Management Authority. No wonder nothing got done. I am sure she had an excuse. It was our fault in the Liberal Party and, of course, she had an excuse to blame others.

Time expired.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (20:46): I am inspired to speak tonight about one of the most complete and comprehensive failures of a minister in Her Majesty's Government ever, and that is the Minister for Families and Communities. There are a number of reasons for that, and I am going to be brief tonight, but let me give you an illustration of what happened in last year's budget.

First of all, we had that monumental announcement about selling off the Parks. The poorest and most vulnerable people in the community have services provided there. When this embarrassment was exposed and there was public outcry, what did the government do? As usual, it sent it off for review. Who did it get in? Monsignor Cappo, as usual. Trot him in, he does a review and we are still waiting for his report.

In the meantime, the Port Adelaide Enfield council has done a report and it says, 'Double the money on it, do the development and keep it there.' So, we are waiting, with bated breath, for that monumental disaster from last year's budget to be remedied. I have asked the Treasurer to do so by retaining that site, redeveloping it and making provision for that service.

Secondly, her other great contribution to last year's debate was to announce that, notwithstanding that her own Premier had promised, in writing, that he would not use the $30 one-off payment from the federal government for the purpose of calculating rental payments on Housing Trust properties, what does she do? Blow that. She says, 'It's in; it's to be assessed.' The only minister in Australia.

Minister Macklin writes to her protesting about this. Recently, under FOI, I found that she is still writing to her, this year, asking that that be remedied. That is another disgraceful abandonment of the very people she is supposed to be here in this parliament to fight for.

What do we have next? We had this other little gem. Two weeks after last year's budget we find that she is going to change the rules of assessment for rental payments to Housing Trust, and she is going to add in other payments that tenants receive at a 100 per cent rate that previously had not been taken into account. But so that she does not get caught out on that, she does not put it in the budget at all. It is announced two weeks later.

What is her excuse for that? Her great excuse for that is, 'Look, we made that decision in cabinet a few years ago so I didn't need to put it in the budget.' She just turns up with a letter to the thousands of Housing Trust tenants across South Australia, who are provided housing by this government, and she says, 'Well, bad luck, you tossers are going to have to pay under a new rate.'

Next, she decides to announce—as she did today with her great monumental effort about what she is doing on public housing for South Australians, after she is selling off with gay abandon public housing in the state—that she has, on time and on budget (apparently, ahead of budget) the money that she is spending from the federal government. This is the bailout money for her incompetence. She is using that money to be able to do property development, and she wants to tell us today that she has approval. Well, we know that. Why did she come in to tell us that today? I wonder if it is something to do with the FOI we have in at the moment to release those reports that have been sitting on her desk and that we are still waiting for.

Next, of course, is Lochiel Park. You remember that little gem, the Premier's great green village in the seat of Hartley? Taxpayers have put $10 million in to produce this little gem of a green village. I accept, as I said to the LMC, that when you are starting up new technology and new green ecology sometimes you need a bit of seed money; that is fair enough. What has happened with all these promises for this modest little village? What happened? She only has to build four community houses. They have had the money for six years and she has not even built four houses. That is a disgrace.

So, let me say one other thing. I read in the paper this week that when we have asked that all the proceeds from Strathmont for those 66-odd residents who are still there, they used to have about 400, and of course—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: What's your policy?

Ms CHAPMAN: The Liberal government had commenced the policy to put them into community housing. This government continued it, and we are pleased about that, but wait for this: she is the owner of this site and yet, when asked to ensure that the balance of the proceeds of this site—some of which have already been earmarked for our youth prison—be actually set aside for people with disabilities, what did she say? She said, 'I have to discuss that with the Treasurer.' She owns the property, for goodness sake. What a complete fool!

So, I ask the government to get smart and get rid of her. Seeing that poor old Michael O'Brien is going to have stuff-all to do once they have got rid of PIRSA, you may as well give him the job because he is the only one who knows what he is doing in the government.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (20:51): Last November, I spoke about the difficulties facing the wine industry, particularly the impact the strong Australian dollar would have on the industry. Unfortunately, sir, as you would know, being from the Southern Vales, the situation—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We all took no notice.

Mr VENNING: Well, you are probably right. The situation for grape growers has not improved. The recent wet weather could not have come at a worse time, right before harvest. Many growers will have their fruit rejected or downgraded because of the damage the rain has done. This is after many had to pay out for expensive chemicals to try to combat the diseases caused by the wet weather, such as downy mildew. Many vines, especially whites, have been affected by butt rot and botrytis, and many have just split on the vine. So, it is an absolute calamity.

This comes on the top of years of hardship for the wine industry. Oversupply, low prices, drought, water shortages and the high Australian dollar have all contributed to a difficult period. Problems began when the Aussie dollar got up to US75¢; that was about two or three years ago. Well, how do you think we are getting on today? This morning, the dollar hit $US1.04. So, how do you think the exporters are going against that? It is extremely difficult.

Recently, the independent grower body, the Wine Grape Council of South Australia, said that only one-third of more than 1,000 growers who responded to their recent survey said that they made a profit in 2010. The council has also said that two-thirds of the grapes harvested in South Australia were sold below the cost of production. Sir, you would understand as much as I, representing a wine region, the problems that wet weather has brought about this season. Predictions are that prices will be even lower for the 2011 vintage grapes.

A local grower in the Barossa, and a dear friend of mine, Mr Leo Pech, has been saying for years that the industry is heading for massive trouble unless the oversupply issues can be overcome. He has provided me and many other members of parliament with a lot of advice over the years and he has been spot-on. Leo has been growing grapes for 61 years and I know things are the worst he has seen in all this time.

Leo recently talked about the situation on ABC radio and said that, on average, he normally sprays about four or five times a year. This year, he has had to spray up to 11 times, and he still has fungus on his vines. Having to spray this many times comes at a huge cost, and Leo's is not an isolated case—there are many, many of them.

In fact, a recent report in one of the local papers stated that there will be an increase in demand for counselling services in the Barossa because of this year's poor grape harvest. We have heard of some very unfortunate incidents where the obvious has happened, without me stating it here.

What is the answer? The growers who are losing money would be better off removing varieties that are not in demand, but how do they do that? Many growers do not have another source of income and cannot sell their vineyards because no-one wants to buy them, so they continue to borrow money and keep going into debt in the hope that the next year will be a good year and prices will increase.

I really feel for these people because I, too, am a farmer relying on primary industry. I feel so lucky that in my enterprise, when wheat prices are bad, I have alternatives. I can go to barley, I can go to legumes, I can go to hay, I can go to cattle and I can go to sheep. I have so many other options to keep the farm viable. Many of these people do not have any choice but to keep on growing grapes at a loss, as you know, sir.

I hope that the next harvest does bring a better year for the growers. It is a shame, when we are about to begin vintage festivities next week, that we will be celebrating a less than stellar harvest, but I hope growers may be able to forget their worries, even for just a short time, and enjoy themselves. I believe the quality of this year's vintage to be good, especially from the hand-picked vineyards, so our quality will be maintained because by hand-picking they can let the occasional bunch that is not up to standard drop to the ground.

Food security is another matter that is of grave concern to me. I think it is absolutely ludicrous that we import any food at all into Australia. Australia has the ability to be self-sufficient in food, yet we import everything and anything, from Chinese apples to fish from Thailand. A report released by Growcom a couple of weeks ago, entitled 'Food Security Issues for the Australian Horticulture Industry', includes some extremely worrying data with regard to our domestic food security and our food imports and exports. Members ought to read this because it gives you the creeps and causes great concern.

The report shows that Australia now imports more than a third of its fruit supply—34 per cent—and 19 per cent of our vegetables. I find this alarming. What will happen to the availability of fruit and vegetables as the world's population heads towards the predicted nine billion people by 2050? Logically, countries will hold onto their food stocks to feed their own people and export less, meaning there will be less available to others.

This highlights a problem that I believe could be easily overcome. We need to become totally self-sufficient with our food. The report lists several of the challenges that our domestic food production industry faces or will in the future: resources such as land availability, water and chemicals, fertiliser availability and prices, a reliable oil supply, farm profitability, food prices, and research and development—a very important challenge. The report recommends an increase in research and development funding from 3 per cent to 5 per cent of the gross value of agricultural production along with the formation of a central food security agency to be set up by the Australian government.

I have been speaking ad nauseam in this place about the importance of research and development to the future of our agricultural industry, but to no avail. Instead, we have seen the Rann Labor government strip 179 jobs from PIRSA as well as slash $80 million from the budget. Funding to the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) has also been reduced to save $8 million over four years. The Advisory Board of Agriculture will have all its funding withdrawn by 30 June this year.

This is the treatment that agriculture in our state receives—an industry that is worth, or was worth, $12.5 billion to the South Australian economy. It is appalling, particularly to hear today of South Australia's wonderful export record, all due to the grain growers. I said in my contribution on last year's budget:

The government should be increasing the funding to ensure South Australia's food security. Ensuring our food security will be a major challenge for the future.

Now we see a report which states quite clearly that food security is an issue for us in the future, and increases in research and development activities are needed in order to try to prevent domestic food security problems in the future. I hope the minister for agriculture saw a copy of the report—and I have some time for this minister, incidentally—and took note of how important R&D is for our future food security.

This Rann Labor government has demonstrated that it does not consider research and development a priority, and I shudder to think what further cuts it has in store for the agriculture sector in its 9 June budget. Rann Labor seems more concerned about building city stadiums and new city hospitals than it is about future food supply. It will not be in my lifetime when food supply problems emerge but probably in my children's or grandchildren's time, and then the shortsightedness of some of the Rann Labor government's decisions to cut research and development will become apparent.

Today we had more bad news: a $1 billion blowout on the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, up to $2.7 billion. Add to that the $530 million for the Adelaide Oval. Who is doing the budget on all this? Who is making these decisions with all the other debt we have and are running up and the interest we are paying?

A lot of us on this side have run businesses and do budgets and, you know, South Australia cannot afford either this $2.6 million blowout of the new hospital or the Adelaide Oval. We cannot afford it; you will break this state. Shades of the state bank! I was in this house back there by that pillar when the Hon. Jenny Cashmore did exactly as Iain Evans did today—revealed the extent of a financial mismanagement of the then Bannon Labor government. She walked out after being suspended, and it was not too long before 14 members of the government went with her. Fourteen members of the government lost their seats at the subsequent state election on that issue.

All I can say to members here is, you have time. I say this very genuinely: you have time to turn some of these things around. Admit that you have made a mistake with this hospital. Okay, we might give you a hard time for six or eight weeks, but the right decision has to be made, and the right decision is to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital right where it is.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (21:01): I wish to talk about some things that are relevant to my electorate also when it comes to the grievance opportunity as part of the supply debate. The first one relates to a decision that was made and announced on 16 September last year when the budget came down and the impact that that is going to have across forward years on my community, particularly as it relates to my community's private hospitals.

In my case it is Moonta and Ardrossan that were affected by the budget decision, and I have to tell you that the immediate effect of this was absolutely one of shock in those communities and a great fear that evolved immediately as to what the future was going to be. I understand, yes, that a lot of discussions have taken place since then. A lot of nervous energy has been expended by the hospital boards, the management of the hospitals and the wider communities of those areas in trying to determine that they have a strong future.

I do recognise that Country Health has become involved and helped develop revised business plans but, as I posed the question previously, I pose the question again this evening. When decisions like that are going to be made, in trying to control panic that is going to be evident because obviously people are going to be fearful about the future of their facilities, come in early and talk to the communities and do not rely upon it being dragged into the debate and the argument about it. Give some specifics, though, especially as it relates to Moonta because to me it is still a crazy decision even though things have moved forward a bit in the argument about it since.

Moonta is a private community hospital. It has some eight beds and a contract existed where patients could come from the public hospital system which was full—and in most cases probably that would be close by in Wallaroo which has, I believe, only about 19 or 20 beds—and they would accept those public patients into the Moonta private community hospital on the basis of a fee of only $120.05 per night. In itself that sounds very cheap, and it is very cheap, especially when you compare it to what the cost of a bed is within the public system. I am advised that, for example, something like the RAH has a cost of approximately $1,400 per night. I find it very hard to comprehend, from a financial viewpoint (and when you have a system that works well, it provides an overspill facility and there is only a cost being met when the service is required), that you do not retain that sort of thing.

Yes, it identified a savings across those four community hospitals of $1.174 million. It has a detrimental effect upon those communities enormously, which I hope they do recover from. I was there not long after the announcement, and a public rally was held at the Moonta Hospital and a thousand people were there. They filled the lawn area in front of the hospital. They showed up as a sign of support for their facility, which they have supported for generations. They were fearful for it. They wanted everyone to understand the importance of it, and they were prepared to take up that fight in any way possible.

Similarly, the Ardrossan Community Hospital has been challenged financially for a vast number of years. It has had an agreement in place since 2006, I think, for originally $120,000 per year in recognition of accident and emergency costs. That has increased a little now to its current situation of $146,000 per year. From 30 June that hospital, like Moonta, faces the withdrawal of those dollars.

The Ardrossan Community Hospital has also looked at business plan opportunities and recovery of funds for the aged-care facilities that it provides as part of its operations from the federal government, but it is that accident and emergency issue. Ardrossan, being located on the coast road, with probably 300,000 visitors going past that area of Central Yorke Peninsula heading further south, has a very important position. Its ambulance service is extremely busy collecting, transporting and treating injured people.

Those people are delivered to the Ardrossan hospital and treatment is provided to them. It does come at a cost. The hospital board recognises that and contributes towards it, but it does require that level of support. It might have found some other revenue sources that will compensate in some way to allow it to have a future, but it is still a great frustration to me that public funds cannot be committed to provide facilities to ensure that the public can be treated.

The next issue I wish to talk about is marine parks. I commend the member for Bragg for organising the meeting last night. Some members in this chamber will say that it was blatantly political but, really, it was a forum and a voice opportunity for the thousands of people across South Australia who are really strong recreational fishers and who wanted to have the chance to express themselves in one united voice.

Being there and hearing those people and the anger in their voice, how loud they yelled things out, the fact that they wanted to get on the microphone and the fact that they were comfortable being in front of a television camera or a radio microphone indicated that they wanted a chance for people to hear the frustration they felt.

Marine parks are a very emotional issue, and for the people I represent in this place from Yorke Peninsula and the Adelaide Plains it is one they will continue to argue against for ever and a day. I have been to the public meetings held on the peninsula, and they are not ones that I have held, so they are not political. They are meetings that have been called by local action groups that have formed themselves together or, indeed, by the local advisory group (LAG) that the minister has appointed. In each of those meetings I hear a lot of frustrations and tensions flowing through, too.

The people who attend those are very supportive of the principle behind marine parks. The Liberal opposition is supportive of the principle behind marine parks, but there is a level of frustration that is flowing through these sanctuary zone declarations that came out at the end of November. There was no consultation with the local advisory groups, and, again, they are being instructed by big brother who sits to the right-hand side of the Speaker that 'This is what you are going to take.'

These people want the chance to go out fishing. It is for the commercial operators, it is for professional fishers and it is for the rec fishers, and it is the impact upon the economy of the Yorke Peninsula that we in this place all have to be concerned about. Last night, a member from the Real Estate Institute, Mr Robin Turner, as a private individual, provided some comment from a real estate operator on Yorke Peninsula who talked about the percentage of transactions that go through his business that are related to people who buy holiday homes or homes on the peninsula. Those people are not permanent residents.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: How would you do it if you were in government?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I want to make sure, Mr Foley, member for Port Adelaide—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: How would you do it?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Consult; consult early. Tell people, engage the local advisory groups. You appoint local advisory groups but do not use their expertise. You come in there and you tell them, 'This is what's going to happen.' You get people to nominate for this and they are the ones who become the public face of it and they are the ones who cop the flak for it, but those local advisory group members are good people, too. They cop an enormous amount of flak over it. Those people want to get a positive outcome, too. They want to find a middle ground opportunity that allows marine park principles to be reserved, for some small level of sanctuary zones to exist—a smaller level.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: And I can quote to the member for Port Adelaide an example of a group of people who have gone to an enormous amount of physical effort in the Port Victoria, Chinaman Wells and Balgowan communities for Marine Park 11. They have looked at the 14 key principles that the minister has asked his department to look at when determining proposed sanctuary zone locations. They have met those and they have found areas that they think meet all those criteria and occupy only 3.2 per cent, not the 25 per cent that is currently proposed, or thereabouts, for Marine Park 11. So we have to, indeed, use this forum as an opportunity to argue the case.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am not disputing the out of boundaries, member for Port Adelaide. I am talking about the sanctuary zone boundaries that are within the parks.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Already I have had people contacting my office asking, 'Can I go fishing off the beach?' That is the level of anxiety and fear that exists. All you are doing is putting fear in the community. The level of distrust that is out there is enormous at the moment.

You have to do the economic and social impact study to determine that and then use that as really important evidence to look at the target size: how big do we want this sanctuary zone to be? The minister continually talks about 10 per cent of marine waters being targeted for sanctuary zones. That is his principle. Look at what the economic and social impact will be, because the science and principles are important, but you have to look at people.

That is what we in this chamber deal with all the time, that is, people; and these people have made substantial investments. They are really concerned that, indeed, tourism and all the by-product industries that support recreational fishing and the people who come there to live permanently will be seriously and permanently harmed by such large-scale sanctuary zones. The communities that are close to a sanctuary zone feel gutted.

I will quote Port Victoria again. It is a small town with 400 people and an amazing history in the grain trade, the port, 'Cape Horners' and all that sort of thing. The marine areas have been part of their life forever and they are really concerned that their future is going to be taken away because of this. So, the process has to be right.

Talk about consultation but let's get it right and make sure that we bring the community along with us, otherwise they will keep complaining and clogging the talkback radio stations. They will use any forum they have to ensure that the members of the Labor Party in the government—backbenchers, ministers, whatever it is—are told every day about what they feel. These recreational fishers are 270,000 people who live across South Australia. It is an enormous lobby group. They want to make sure they have the chance going forward to go fishing. We all want to make sure they have got the chance to go fishing but, unless you do it properly, you are going to fail.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (21:12): It is my pleasure to rise tonight and speak on the Supply Bill which is currently before the house. The Treasurer, of course, has asked us to pass this bill, allowing him access to $3.22 billion worth of this state's money. I am loath to provide the Treasurer and his government access to these funds—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Vote against it!

Mr MARSHALL: —I may very well do that—without the full scrutiny of this parliament. Time and again this government has proven itself completely and utterly unworthy of the trust of this parliament and completely unworthy of the trust of South Australians. Tonight I would like to give three examples of the untrustworthiness, if that is a word, of this current government—three capital projects which this government has failed the people of South Australia on.

The first of these is the north-south interconnector. There was no mention of this major $403 million capital project prior to the election; yet, after the election it is quite clearly revealed that the planning for this had been under way for quite some time. In fact, I understand that almost $35 million was spent—when the government was actually in caretaker mode, by the way. They spent $35 million on preparations for this project. This project, of course, is completely and utterly—

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The member for Port Adelaide.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the member is making a very misleading statement. Governments in caretaker mode are not capable of executive government and making decisions. That is the convention. I would ask, for consistency and the quality of his contribution, as someone learning the ropes, as a member on trainer wheels, that he should listen to people like me who are—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Port Adelaide will sit down. You have made your point, but there is no point of order, anyway.

Mr MARSHALL: The project was, of course, not necessary whatsoever. It is there to cover up the government's ineptitude in the doubling of the desal project. There is absolutely no need for this massive expenditure.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: May well the member for Torrens laugh at this $403 million mistake currently being made by this government.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is a point of order. The member for Torrens.

Mrs GERAGHTY: The member knows full well I was not laughing at that issue. I was actually laughing at him.

The SPEAKER: Order! That was not a point of order, either. The member will sit down. The member for Norwood.

Mr MARSHALL: It is another example of this government being tricky, evasive and absolutely deceptive. Prior to the election, there was no mention of the $403 million expenditure but they already had it underway. In fact, they announced the project just two days after the election. They did not tell people before the election and immediately started work after the election. It is completely and utterly outrageous. It is disturbing a lot of homes in the eastern suburbs, dotting the eastern suburbs with a whole pile of pumping stations and encumbering the state with $403 million additional debt, which we can ill afford, because of the incompetence of this government. The second capital project that I raise—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Norwood, sit down for a moment. I know that the member for Norwood is very loud and very vocal, and I am sure that members on my right are looking for an opportunity to pay him back, but he is entitled to be heard in silence. Member for Norwood.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The second capital project that I would like to draw the house's attention to tonight is the Adelaide Oval, and what a debacle that was. Prior to the election the government went to the people of South Australia saying, 'We are going to spend $450 million on the upgrade of the Adelaide Oval.' Other members have covered the detail of this particularly well, but I just want to draw the attention of the house to the $450 million which was stated to the people of South Australia before the election and immediately after the election $535 million—what an outrage!

It all become very clear thereafter that the former treasurer, the member for Port Adelaide, was fully briefed that $450 million would be completely and utterly inadequate. Unfortunately, he did not recall that briefing he received, even though the minutes of that meeting and that advice were actually given to him in writing. He was caught out. As I said before, this is a particularly deceptive government.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order, member for Port Adelaide.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: I am loath to speak in my own defence because I normally roll with the punches, although every now and again I do not roll that well and cop them. I was not provided with a written set of the minutes until well after I had made that unfortunate statement in the parliament, for which I have apologised.

Mr MARSHALL: The third—

The SPEAKER: Order! I am not quite sure what your point of order was, but you have made your point. Member for Norwood.

Mr MARSHALL: The third capital project that I would like to draw this house's—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Wasn't it four? You can't even count to four.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MARSHALL: I don't know what you are talking about. The first one was the north-south interconnector, the second one was the Adelaide Oval and the third one was the Royal Adelaide Hospital. That just shows the incompetence of the people opposite. They cannot even count on one hand—absolutely hopeless! Anyway, the Royal Adelaide Hospital is the third capital project I would like to talk about. They went to the election with $1.7 billion expenditure. Immediately after the election, it was revealed that cabinet had already discussed the fact that it had blown out to at least $1.8 billion—just a lazy $100 million, and clearly just small change for this crowd opposite.

Then today it was revealed by the shadow treasurer that it is common knowledge in the investment community that the build on this project is $2.73 billion. This was not in any way denied by the Minister for Health today in the house. He used his weasel words to cloud the issue and talk about a whole pile of other extraneous costs that will exist over the very long period of the PPP. There was no clarity given to the people of South Australia about the entire cost or the entire picture prior to the election, and we still have no clarity now.

Each of these projects has been handled in a tricky and deceptive way. They come in here every day avoiding scrutiny at every opportunity, and this really undermines the integrity of this place. We have very few sitting days: in fact, last year we had 32 sitting days; I think this year we are finally up to something like 52. I think this is only the second time we have sat past 6 o'clock since I have been a member of this parliament. Question time is an absolute farce, with members opposite completely evading answering any decent questions that are provided by the opposition. Estimates are a complete joke; some members treat them with respect, but the vast majority fill up the time asking themselves Dorothy Dixers, which use up the opposition's valuable time for scrutiny.

The committee structure has been allowed to rot under those opposite. The freedom of information is a complete farce, and the member for Bragg has shown that to its full extent in recent times. Questions on notice are completely avoided. Tricky, evasive deceptive—I personally have no confidence in this government whatsoever. I have no confidence in their ability to manage our budget in a prudent and optimal way. They are divided and they are not a worthy government.

They are currently asking us to trust them with the carriage of the Royal Adelaide Hospital PPP. It is completely outrageous that we should be asked to trust those people opposite. I have given three good capital project examples tonight where they are completely untrustworthy.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I thought you gave four.

Mr MARSHALL: Three, already tonight. It is completely outrageous that they should be asking us to trust them with the carriage of the PPP for the Royal Adelaide Hospital, when they have proven themselves unequivocally to be completely inept and completely untrustworthy. They are likely to encumber this state and future generations with the mismanagement they have for this PPP.

They do not care, though. They do not care, because most of those people opposite—not all of them, but most of them—will be long gone, long gone by the time they open the doors on this Royal Adelaide Hospital, long gone when we as a state have a massive noose around our neck, courtesy of the incompetence of the tricky, deceptive nature of the government opposite.

Here lies the problem. They are asking us to trust them, but they do not want this massive project to go to Public Works. There is no scrutiny for the project in this parliament; there is no independent evaluation. They just want us to trust them, just trust this lazy, self-serving, tired, incompetent government and the new L-plate Treasurer.

There has only been one member opposite who I have heard today who has got up to even slightly defend this Supply Bill before the house. It does not show a lot of confidence from those people opposite. As stated earlier, I am loath to support this Supply Bill, and I encourage this government to change their leadership and reinstitute the integrity of this parliament with full disclosure and full parliamentary scrutiny of crucial decisions which will affect future generations here in South Australia.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (21:22): Like the member for Norwood, I rise to speak about the north-south interconnector pipeline, specifically the eastern section, which is due to begin construction this week and which will disrupt the lives of many of my constituents.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: Are you still here? We have heard repeatedly from the government that this is the pipeline we had to have. The only reasoning that I can see behind the need to have this pipeline is because the government have said so. On 13 May 2009 the government announced that they were doubling the size of the desalination plant and that this would reduce South Australia's reliance on the Murray. The desalination plant was, of course, originally a Liberal Party policy, and it was suggested at a size of 45 to 50 gigalitres.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right will behave and listen to the member in silence!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! If you can't cope, go outside! Member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER: This would have been sufficient to provide security for our critical needs in drought years as well as reducing our reliance on the Murray. Together with a suite of other solutions, including increased use of technology and use of stormwater harvesting technology, this was a worthy public policy approach to dealing with our water security needs.

It took two years for the government to recognise the utility of desalination and adopt it as their own policy, but, of course, in doing so they doubled the size of the plant. The then minister for water admitted in a media release on 29 July 2009, one month after the decision to double the plant's size, that:

At 50 gigalitres, the Adelaide Desalination Plant was able to be integrated into the Happy Valley water supply system without the need to interconnect the northern and southern systems. However, the recent capacity doubling of the plant means we need to connect the two systems to ensure we can optimise use of the 100GL capacity over 12 months.

Without that doubling, there would not have been the need for this $400 million of expenditure. Despite this admission, no details were provided on the pipeline prior to the election, what areas it would affect, or the requirement to build pumping stations. A day after the government announced that the contracts to build the pipeline had been signed on 23 March 2010, Russell Emmerson from The Advertiser wrote:

The problem was highlighted back in 2007 when the state government approved the 50 gigalitre desalination plant at Port Stanvac—and underlined when it decided to expand the plant's capacity to 100GL.

The claim that this is a pipeline that we have to have this one I do not buy.

In the first instance, by the government's own admission, the only reason this is happening is because of the decision to double the size of the desalination plant. All of the disruption and the higher water costs could have been avoided had the government adopted a policy solution in line with that suggested by the Liberal Party.

Even with the government's larger plant, I believe there remains the unexplored potential to make use of the aquifer to store water from the desalination plant, rather than building this extravagant, wasteful, disruptive pipeline; to make use, in fact, of the infrastructure kindly provided to us by nature. But I fear that such innovation is beyond the scope of this Minister for Water; such innovation is beyond the imagination or capacity of this government.

Typical of this government is the complete lack of consultation with the public. The Minister for Water has referred to media releases made by his predecessor, announcing the government's intention to build a pipeline. As I have said before, these announcements were accompanied with no detail.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr GARDNER: Announcing projects with little or no detail and then later drip-feeding information to nearby residents does not amount to consultation in anyone's dictionary. There is a great deal that might be said about the Labor Party's approach to consultation over the past 12 months following the March 2010 election. After the election, the education minister belled the cat in his unsuccessful attempt at the deputy leadership. On 22 March 2010, he said on ABC radio that the:

...government needs to renew, and what I am offering is a changed approach, a different approach and a more consultative approach.

I cannot imagine why he would have wanted to say that. For one reason or another, the Labor Party rejected that 'more consultative approach'. The education minister was also kind enough to further define the government's approach a bit later on last year, in labelling that approach as the 'announce and defend' model as opposed to the 'consult and decide' model that it would have done better to adopt.

In that deputy leadership tussle, the Premier gave his support to the member for Port Adelaide but promised, nonetheless, that he and his government would, indeed, reconnect with voters. Meanwhile, on 22 March 2010, AquaLink announced that it had already signed a contract with the government to build the interconnector.

This deal was done a month before the state election, $35 million was spent without going to public works and it was only announced two days after the election. Clearly, the prospect of ripping up roads and knocking down trees was something that needed to wait until after the election before the public could be taken into the government's trust. But still, this announcement included no further detail.

The consultation process with the public, if it could be called that, began with the Minister for Water announcing how much he had consulted with the public. SA Water then informed residents who will be affected by the project that this would take place, but gave them no details. Finally, the minister admitted at a public meeting in the eastern suburbs that maybe consultation had been inadequate.

This all happened after the election and after the contracts had been signed. This is another example of the government choosing the easy option of announcing and defending, rather than consulting and deciding.

To the merits of the project and the expenditure of huge amounts of public money, this is half a billion dollars that could have been spent elsewhere. The government has argued that the desalination plant makes sense because of the $228 million grant from the commonwealth government, despite the state giving up $212 million in GST revenue.

This is another example of the Labor government's financial wisdom. For a net $16 million from the commonwealth, we incur a cost of $403 million for this pipeline, assuming that costs do not blow out. We have already seen delays at the desalination plant, so who knows how much this pipeline will end up costing or how long it will take.

As the member for Hammond pointed out earlier on in this debate, the cost of this pipeline is more than the people of Western Australia paid for their desalination plant and pipeline combined. Imagine what else could have been done with that $403 million. Just in Morialta, we could resurface the Gorge Road, we could stop cuts to the Norwood Morialta High School and avoid the forced amalgamation of the Stradbroke Primary and Stradbroke Junior Primary schools—cruel cuts from last year's state budget.

We could build a state-of-the-art performing arts centre at the Charles Campbell Secondary School to allow them to capitalise on their excellent performing arts program in a meaningful way. We could even get some action on some of the government's own local election commitments to the residents of Morialta prior to last year's election that it has so far failed, dismally, to deliver, such as the promise to install traffic lights at the Graves Street/Newton Road intersection and the promise to deliver a fire siren for residents in Athelstone backing on to Black Hill, promised by the government but for which it is now asking the Campbelltown council to pay in an extraordinary penny-pinching exercise for the sake of about $2,000.

It also promised a new fire station for the people of Montacute. In fact, one of Lindsay Simmons' election pamphlets talked about how the work was going to be commencing 'this year', in early 2010. Not a sod has been turned yet. The government has failed to deliver on its promise. We could even make up for the federal Labor government's failure to match state government commitments to deliver mains water supplies to Skye and the redevelopment of the Campbelltown Leisure Centre. All of these could be delivered 20 times over for the cost of this pipeline and without the inconvenience to my constituents in Morialta.

There are a number of other problems with the project, in addition to the secrecy and in addition to the mismanagement. This project is going to be hugely disruptive to residents in the eastern suburbs, who are going to have their streets ripped up to have the pipeline laid. In SA Water's report to the Public Works Committee in November last year, it was admitted that 'The project will require the removal of significant trees.' In a final admission, something the residents of Wattle Park are already concerned about, the amenity of the area around the pumping stations, and again I quote from its report, 'is likely to change'.

Worse still, is the fact that the government originally did not even want to build the Wattle Park station on the land that it currently owns in the area, preferring to build on an alternative site. Luckily, the residents of Wattle Park, with the help of the opposition—and I pay particular credit to the member for Bragg, whose constituency shares with mine the suburb of Wattle Park—sought the details, asked awkward questions and brought the truth to light.

It is clear that the government has failed to reconnect with the community. It is clear that the government has failed to deliver good policy in the best interests of South Australia's future. To my mind, it is increasingly clear that this government is looking and smelling more and more like the former failed New South Wales Labor government, which was destroyed at the election only two weeks ago.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (21:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 21:33 the house adjourned until Thursday 7 April 2011 at 10:30.


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