HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee) (11:03): On behalf of the member for Bright, I bring up the report of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee A and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the votes and proceedings.

Motion carried.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I bring up the report of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the report be received.

Motion carried.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I bring up the minutes of proceedings of Estimates Committee B and move:

That the minutes of proceedings be incorporated in the votes and proceedings.

Motion carried.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services) (11:04): I move:

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

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (11:04): I am pleased to rise in response to this Appropriation Bill. I did not actually make any comments during the estimates process, but I have annually made comment about the estimates process and what an extraordinary waste of time and money it often is. I do that on the basis that I absolutely accept that the government is the government of the day and that it has the right to set its budget and to carry out its agenda. We, the opposition, have the right to question the government about that, but the estimates process seems to be designed specifically to prevent that from happening in any sane way.

Numerous public servants are dragged in here, having spent weeks and weeks of valuable time preparing for estimates lest there be a question asked which cannot be answered instantly, when in fact most of the time in estimates ministers simply say to us, 'I don't know and I will bring back a report to the house,' or give us some other off-putting exercise. There is an enormous amount of Public Service time committed to the exercise of estimates only to find that we have very limited amounts of time to investigate what is really going on.

We have ministers giving sometimes quite lengthy addresses to start the estimates for a particular portfolio—and, indeed, sometimes even simply quoting from the budget documents we have read anyway—and then interrupting the flow of questions from the opposition with Dorothy Dixers, which have been prepared in advance to shield the ministers. It was evident in this estimates, for instance, that the new Treasurer wanted a bit of shielding because they had much less time than has been the case. No matter what one may think of former treasurer Foley, he did at least face the music, as it were, in estimates, with no Dorothy Dixers, and allowed the opposition the full time allocation to question him. Such is not the case, sadly, in the current situation.

When I spoke originally on the budget reply, I said that this state budget had delivered more debt, more deficit and more deceit to South Australian families, and nothing discovered during the estimates process has led me to vary from that view. We still have a situation where households in this state are increasingly struggling with the rising cost of living, and it is for that reason that I believe more time should be set aside for the opposition to have appropriate time to scrutinise this government's decisions. People want to know why we are paying so much more in taxes in this state. We are the highest taxed state, and—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, we're not.

Mrs REDMOND: The minister says, 'No, we're not,' and I am sure he is relying on the report in The Australian a few weeks ago, which was based on some figures provided by Queensland, setting us at about the middle. Of course, that was Anna Bligh (the Labor Premier) trying to make her situation seem a little bit better than it perhaps is. If the minister had bothered to read his own budget papers, he would see that indeed his own budget papers show—based on sources which are quite independent—that we are the highest taxed state.

People want to know why they are paying more taxes. They want to know why they are paying more for water bills, motor registration, driver's licences, bus tickets, and even why, if they are speeding at less than 15km/h over the limit, there will be such a massive increase in the amount they have to pay by way of a penalty for that behaviour.

Furthermore, the big question is: if all the taxes are going up—we are the highest taxed state, and we have had these extraordinary revenues, and so on—why are we not in a good economic position? Why are we increasing our debt? Of course, the government was already going to put the debt up to $7.5 billion; now it has decided it needs to put it to $8.2 billion, but that is without really paying for anything.

It is the opposition's job to ask these questions, and I must say that I am profoundly disappointed every year to find that the government does not want to answer them. For the government to try to hide behind the estimates process by having these rehearsed Dorothy Dixers is simply unacceptable. Indeed, I was talking to a former Labor MP yesterday who said that estimates used to go until 10 o'clock every night for weeks. Clearly, there has been an increasing move over the years to make the budget more complex and less easy to understand. It changes in its format from time to time so that you cannot find what you found in previous years and compare it.

In one committee even the Minister for Education, who, of course, is spruiking his leadership credentials because he is one of the contenders and talking about how he wants openness, accountability and consultation, even he hid behind Dorothy Dixers in the estimates process.

Furthermore, what we get in this estimates process is a government that cannot even get its own message straight. On 8 April—I can remember the date because it is my birthday—the Premier said, 'Our finances have never been better; our economy has never been better.' He must be living in a different state already!

Mr Williams: This is the man that said Tim Marcus Clark was the best thing that ever happened to South Australia.

Mrs REDMOND: That is right. It is the man who said Tim Marcus Clark was the best thing that ever happened to South Australia. It is also the man who wrote a book about a mirage in the desert, isn't it?

Mr Williams: That's right, the same man.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, I thought it must be the same man, because he said on 8 April, 'Our finances have never been better; our economy has never been better.' As I said, he cannot be living here, the highest taxing state, with the highest unemployment of all the mainland states. Today the HIA has put out a media release—actually it came out on 4 July. It is talking about the fact that new home building levels in 2011 are likely to become the worst in the last decade. So what does the government do? The government decides to phase out the First Home Owner Grant. What the HIA says about that is:

The government's recent decision to phase out assistance for first home buyers can only be described as negligent in light of the circumstances facing the South Australian home building industry.

They are forecasting that the number of dwelling starts in South Australia will fall by 12 per cent in 2010-11, with a further 3 per cent expected in 2011-12. Of course the government has already reduced by some $60 million the amount it was expecting to get by way of stamp duty and that also is indicative of where our real estate market is going.

This government has no idea of management of the economy. They simply think that if they repeat a mantra often enough, they will have the public believe it. For nine years of this government Kevin Foley got up and said, 'We are good economic managers.' He thought that was all there was to good economic management of the state; not actually managing the budget, but just saying, 'We are good economic managers, we are good economic managers, we are good economic managers,' because on the back of the work done by the Olsen Brown governments of the previous decades they did manage to get the AAA credit rating.

On the very same day that the Premier said—and I cannot help but say it again—'Our finances have never been better; our economy has never been better', on the very same day the Treasurer said, 'We have a very soft economy.' Funny that! You wonder how they can come to the same place and come to such different conclusions. The Premier is at war with plenty of others in his own government, of course. There is so much angst going on over on that side of the house about who is going to lead the government. There is so much angst on that side of the house and they get so upset with us being united and nice on this side of the house.

Even yesterday, we had the Premier being exposed as favouring a bridge to the Convention Centre. You can understand why, because he has had to convince the Convention Centre that of course they want to pay for a bridge across the Torrens—of course they do! They have their budget of $390 million, or whatever it is, to do the next stage of the upgrade of the Convention Centre. I welcome that; I think it is excellent. It was always planned that there would be a third stage of redevelopment of the Convention Centre and it is a fact that the existing original part is becoming tired and outdated and it does need to be brought into the 21st century.

I welcome all that, but I can imagine the people at the Convention Centre, when it was suggested that they were going to pay for the bridge, because of course remember when we were going to get the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, and it was going to cost to cost $450 million, 'not a penny more', not a penny more? It happens to be $85 million more, but as well as adding the $85 million—not a penny, $85 million—they also removed the car parking and the footbridge. We all went to briefings from the SMA, we have had various briefings at various times, but those briefings always included a footbridge—always—because they explained that when you have these massive numbers of people having to exit the area you could not possibly put them on to the bit of existing footbridge on the current bridge across King William Street. You have to actually exit them from the area fairly quickly.

I heard some time ago about this proposed bridge. In fact, I mentioned it to Michael Owen when he rang me about the new proposal to put the new building behind the parliament on the plaza, with private apartments and all that sort of stuff. When he asked me about it, I mentioned to him in that conversation that I had been told that, in fact, the Convention Centre was being asked to pay for this new footbridge and as a result, of course, they wanted it to go to the Convention Centre. Surprising that, don't you think—that they would want the footbridge they are paying $40 million or so to have to go somewhere near their premises?

Of course, there is the problem that the SMA intends to use the oval, at least in part, as something of a convention centre itself. You can imagine how cheered up the Convention Centre is to think it is paying out of its budget $40 million to create the new footbridge when, in fact, it is going to deliver people across to the Adelaide Oval, which is going to be running its own conventions.

You can imagine what an attraction it would be for people coming from overseas, for instance, to the historic—well, it will not be anymore—Adelaide Oval and looking across the ground they have seen on television, St Peter's Cathedral, and so on. It would be fairly attractive, and the SMA, no doubt, thinks it is going to be a good way to make some extra money. I am sure that the Convention Centre is thrilled by the idea of $40 million of its money going to provide the new footbridge. As we know, there are others in the government who do not agree with the Premier on where it should go.

We also continued to have people contradict each other; in fact, minister Koutsantonis said a couple of interesting things during estimates. I asked the Premier about the carbon tax. I did not ask minister Koutsantonis about the carbon tax, but I did ask the Premier, and he was unwilling to say where he stood on the Gillard government's carbon tax. He said that he supported the former Rudd government's emissions trading scheme because he was very close to Kevin—very close to Kevin; not so close to Julia, for some reason.

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: No, but the Minister for Industry and Trade does support a carbon tax: he said so. Of course, he has not spoken with the major employers in this state whose businesses are going to be wiped out—never mind about that. He admitted during estimates that he has never been to Nyrstar in Port Pirie or to OneSteel in Whyalla. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you would prefer that he had been to OneSteel in Whyalla and that you appreciate the importance of that industry and the likely effects of a carbon tax on it. So, there we have the minister saying one thing and, again, the Premier saying another.

We asked questions in estimates about Tiger Airways and trying to lure them to Adelaide, all the money that was contributed and what departments were involved in contributing to that. However, again, as is usual in the estimates process, the minister did not seem to know the answers to the questions—strangely. The minister did not know the answers to the questions, but we do not actually get answers even if there are public servants there who might know the answers. We just queue them up behind the minister for a bit of moral support or something because they never actually ask them anything. They always say, 'I'll bring back a report to the house,' or they make something up on the spot and give us what they think might be the answer. Maybe my friend—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: the Leader of the Opposition has just accused me of misleading the house. She said—

Mrs REDMOND: I said—

The SPEAKER: Order! Sit down, Leader of the Opposition. I will hear the point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: She accused me of making things up on the spot whether they were right or not. I ask her to withdraw that.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I think the Leader of the Opposition has strayed very closely there.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The deputy leader just said I do make it up. I ask him to withdraw that, as well.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Williams: You were quoted in this morning's paper as—

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Williams: —saying that we were calling on the shutting down of trade offices in China.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You did.

Mr Williams: You made it up.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You did.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You did.

Mr Williams: We did not.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Williams: There is a recording. You did.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Wait until question time. Check your press releases.

The SPEAKER: Order, minister, also! Those statements were very close to the bone that were made by the opposition. I ask you to be very careful about what you say. You did say 'they' and did not name but be very careful now what you are saying. I will listen very carefully.

Mrs REDMOND: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I will continue, and I will move onto another topic, perhaps, the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Because I am out there a fair bit speaking to them, I know that the public of South Australia are flabbergasted—there is absolutely an audible intake of breath—when I explain to them what this government, for no particular reason—we do not need to build a new hospital and bulldoze a billion dollars worth of infrastructure at the other end of North Terrace—other than they have painted themselves into a corner over this issue, is going to invest in this new hospital. As I said, there is an audible intake and a gasp around the room whenever I explain to people that just to supply the building—no doctors, no nurses, not your medical equipment, a little bit of it, but not all of it—just to provide a functioning building with its air conditioning, and cleaning and maintenance, is going to cost the people of this state $1.1 million a day for 30 years.

That is a disgrace, that is an absolute outrage, and the people of this state have every right to be flabbergasted that a government, which has already got us into such financial disarray in this state, is so consumed with its own indulgent behaviour that it is going to proceed with this thing in spite of the fact that we could actually rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital on its current site, not only much more cheaply but also much more efficiently in terms of where patients are dealt with, and where medical and dental students and all those things are located.

It would be much better for this state, but this government is too arrogant, too proud and too self-absorbed to learn the lesson and listen to what people are saying and back away from this proposal. We have a Treasurer who says that he does not want to run up a credit card debt for our youngsters to have to pay, and that is precisely what the government is doing. It cannot afford to build the hospital itself, that is why it is a PPP, and, as a result, the child who is 15 now will be paying for it as they turn 50.

In addition to all that, there is going to be $2 million worth of artwork in the new RAH. For $1.174 million, we could have kept the Ardrossan, Moonta, Keith and Glenelg community hospitals all funded, and had change. We still would have had eight hundred and something thousand dollars to spend on artwork. But, no, we are going to spend $2 million on artworks. So, we are going to buy artworks rather than keep the Keith hospital open.

Furthermore, in estimates we discovered that the government changed the PPP guidelines to make costings for the hospital look better. As I pointed out the day after the Treasurer made his big announcement about the PPP signing with SA Health Partnership, the government has only compared, even on its adjusted figures, the cost of building as a PPP at that site with the cost of building as a government build at that site. It has not even bothered to do a comparative cost of what it would cost to rebuild the Royal Adelaide on its current site—which we own; there is a novel idea, something that we own. Every step of the way they adjust things to make themselves look bigger. Under the previous PPP guidelines used by Treasury, the new Royal Adelaide Hospital cost more than a debt-funded build, that is, a government build, but under the new PPP guidelines, guess what? It comes out better as a PPP.

I remember that we asked some questions in here about whether there were any other Ernst & Young reports, and the Treasurer said, 'Absolutely not.' The Treasurer said, 'Ernst & Young reports are out there, they are on the web.' What do you know? We have now found out that they will not release all of the reports because they only want to put on the web the ones that make them look good and favour their position. Strange that.

At the same time, very alarming figures are being delivered to us about public hospital overcrowding, the crisis that is going on, and that is where this government is fundamentally failing the people of this state. Yes, health is a priority, but not putting money into providing a building unnecessarily at enormous cost to the people of this state for generations to come rather than providing doctors, nurses and equipment to provide the services that people need in our hospitals.

What about the sale of SA Lotteries? As I said at the time, when I did media about the issue, you are selling the goose that laid the golden egg. There are possibly two explanations for that. One is that it is such a good offer. If someone offered me $2 million for my house in Stirling, as much as I love it, I would sell my house in Stirling because it would be a really good deal. If that were the case with SA Lotteries, yes, I could understand. But that is not the case. The other alternative, of course, is that you need cash, and that is what has happened with this government—they need cash.

Of course, in estimates the Treasurer admitted that, as part of the sale, there would be nothing to stop the buyer putting X-Lotto in our Coles and Woolworths supermarkets and in our pharmacies and coffee shops. So, we could have X-Lotto available everywhere. Well done, boys, these who guys rave on! We could end up like Las Vegas. Remember when we came out with our vision for a new precinct where they want to put this awful hospital? We came out with that vision, and they said, 'It's like a Las Vegas by the Torrens.' Remember that?

Mr Williams: And they're going to have it in every shopping centre.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes. Let's turn to the public sector. It was revealed that the government provides attraction and retention payments to some public servants of up to $40,000 per public servant in addition to their wages. A public servant could apply for a $60,000 a year job and then get up to $40,000 by way of a retention bonus Their actual salary ends up at $100,000, but the person outside who is looking at the job thinks it will only pay $60,000, so they do not apply for it—no strange goings-on there, no absolute advantage given to public servants there.

The Parks Community Centre, remember a year ago we were talking about the Parks Community Centre? I still have this theory that they actually put it in there because they expected that we would win the election and they wanted us to deliver what you might call a sandwich—and we did not.

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I just said 'a sandwich'. This government just does whatever comes to its mind at the time.

Mr Williams: Makes it up.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes. The state budget, on the basis of its announcement about it, has to be at least $14 million worse off than the budget papers show because, post budget, the government announced it is funding a rebuild of the Parks Community Centre. So, we have gone from closing it to having a complete rebuild of this same community centre.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Yes. They were going to bulldoze it, but now they are going to upgrade it. Good on them. I think it is a good thing because that community centre is used by some 20,000 people. It provides a whole lot of training for the lifesavers and all those sorts of people. It was the only swimming facility available for the people in that sector of the city. I welcome the decision, but this government's management is just haywire.

In the last few weeks, of course, we have heard a wonderful story. Excuse me, Mr Williams, you will have to give me that highlighter because, if you want a new highlighter, you have to hand in your old highlighter before you can get a new highlighter. Is this a penny-pinching government? If you want a new highlighter, you have to hand in the old one before you can get one. If you want some staples, you can get a row of staples but not a box of staples. I think they are working on the theory that if you look after the pennies the pounds will take care of themselves. Big news, guys: we moved out of pennies and pounds in 1966, and it is time you learnt to run the budget.

The film centre at Glenside is costing $1 million more than the budget papers show. Furthermore—and I raised this on behalf of the member for Bragg, who handed on the information to me—there is a strong suspicion, and certainly allegations being made, that certain people are being treated more favourably than others in terms of leasing space there. The Premier said on the record that, in fact, they are oversubscribed in terms of people indicating an interest in renting space there, so why you would need to discount it, for instance, is beyond me.

Elsewhere, of course, they are giving more and more money to that, but they have slashed funding to science and innovation and they are failing to promote innovation and entrepreneurship in the small business sector. No doubt others, especially the member for Waite, will be talking about some of those issues when he speaks.

One of the fascinating things said by minister Koutsantonis was this wonderful statement, and I quote, 'It is not the government's job to make businesses succeed.' I did agree with him that the Liberal Party is the party of small business. I did agree with him on that because, clearly, those of us on this side of the chamber have largely come out of private sector enterprises; we are not union hacks or staffers.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I ran my own business, minister.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Did you?

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, for several years.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: After you left New South Wales Labor?

Mrs REDMOND: Yes, well after. I only belonged to New South Wales Labor for one meeting; it only took me one meeting, minister, to figure out that that was a very dysfunctional party, and that anyone in their right mind would not remain a member of it. It is a party where one cannot follow one's conscience, a party where the faceless union men make the decisions and where people come in and say, 'Well, I hold the proxies for this union and therefore I will decide what the vote will be on this particular issue.' It took me less than hour, minister, attending my first meeting, to decide that the Labor Party was the wrong party for me and for government in any state.

The minister says that it is not the government's job to make businesses succeed; that is what he said during estimates. I have to profoundly disagree, because one of the main functions of government is to provide an environment where businesses can succeed. Businesses have to have the right environment. This government, having created the highest taxing government in the country, is doing exactly the opposite; indeed, we have more businesses leaving this state. We have less than 8 per cent of the population, yet of all the businesses that are moving out of one state to another, 22 per cent of them are from this state—and for some of them it is because it is being forced on them.

Mr Goldsworthy: Bus contracts.

Mrs REDMOND: As the member for Kavel says, bus contracts are a prime example. During the first week of estimates, I think, we were asking where were the bus contracts. We were aware of family businesses that had been in place for 50 years and more, running the school buses around this state, being of value to the community not just in the service they provide for the students and their parents but also in local employment for people, actually providing the drivers and giving a great service around the state. More than a year ago they were supposed to get their contracts renewed; but no, the government had not got around to that, even though the minister said, a year ago, that he recognised it was urgent and needed to be a priority.

We went out and did some media, and said 'Look, it's time for the government to actually do something about this. They said a year ago that it was urgent, but they have done nothing.' So the next week the government comes out and announces the first raft of bus contracts, and more than half of them have gone to an interstate firm, throwing businesses in this state—good, solid, strong family businesses in this state—out of work.

Why would that happen? It would happen because businesses here cannot compete because of their costs—because of the WorkCover levies, the payroll tax, the land tax, because of all those things—the rates of taxation in this state being the highest of any of the states. That means that the businesses here cannot compete with the costs of the interstate businesses, which can come up with a lower figure. We then end up with a situation where those businesses will close. We literally had people ringing our office in tears, threatening to commit suicide, because of the decisions of this government over that issue, just that single issue. I hate to think what will happen as the next three lots of contract are let.

It is an absolute indictment of this government that it would allow that to happen, and allow our economic situation to get to the point where we are pushing out good, small, family businesses from this state and forcing them into financial ruin. Some of those bus contractors had held back buying new buses (they are probably thanking themselves now for doing that); the government wanted them to provide the new services and the new whizz-bang buses, but would not give them a contract. Some of them were wise enough, it seems, not to go ahead, but others actually went and bought buses, hundreds of thousands of dollars invested, on the basis that the government still wanted to run the buses, still provide the service, right up until it gave them the death knell last week. It is a disgrace, and you should all hang your head in shame.

Labor ministers and small business; they just have no idea. However, he is right about one thing: Liberals do always prefer lower taxes, smaller government and less regulation. The minister's comments in estimates actually underline the fact that this government has no idea not only of small business but also of the impact that every decision it makes has on the economy of this state. There is its original plan for Shared Services—I refuse to call it a reform; the government keeps referring to it as Shared Services reform, but it is anything but a reform.

There is nothing but complaints. Every dealing that anyone has with Shared Services seems to find its way to me as a complaint because it is so woefully inadequate; but worse than that, it was going to save, I think, $60 million a year. It has now blown out. They have not made anything like the savings they promised, but the original cost has now blown out to something like $128 million, and they still have not got the so-called reform in place.

The fact is that this government has over the years taken this economy, that was actually beginning to tick along almost reasonably when they came into office, to a deficit. They had the best years for their first seven years until the global financial crisis. And no-one will deny that that must have had an impact, although this government seems to want to argue it both ways and say, 'Well, we weren't affected because we were so good,' but then when anything happens they blame the financial crisis. The fact is they had seven of the best years regardless of the global financial crisis, and yet, instead of having money in the bank, secure positions for small businesses, and a tax regime in this state which would encourage small business, what we have is a massive amount of debt, an unbelievable amount of deficit.

I will close on this, because you will recall, of course, that this government said in the Mid-Year Budget Review on 16 December that we were going to go into the next year with an $81 million surplus. Instead of that, they have taken it from an $81 million surplus, in less than six months until the budget was delivered, to a $263 million deficit. This is a government that is clearly financially incompetent and irresponsible, which should hang its head in shame. Really, I only wish that they had got out of the road and that we could have taken government last year. I know we didn't, and we have still got two years, eight months and about a week to go until the next election and, hopefully, we will get into government so that we can start to put the economy of this state back on track.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:37): I wish to contribute to the debate on the Appropriation Bill. I concur with my leader that the estimates exercise could be a lot better. I think it should be an important exercise, it should be an important part of the democratic process in this state. The government does need to be kept accountable through a process where the opposition and other members of the house can question the government line by line on the budget.

However, the reality is that ministers come into this place and by and large make longwinded opening statements, and then read out the answers. I will come to the opening statements of one of the ministers, the Minister for Water. His opening statements, each and every one of them, were directly read out of the budget papers. The information was already there for everybody to read, but he just put all the highlights and all the targets together into a lengthy 10 minute statement and then took Dorothy Dixer questions from his own side and read extensive answers to those questions.

Consequently, the time for the opposition to ask real questions on the detail of the budget was very, very limited. This is a very poor process and ill serves both the parliament and the people of South Australia, the way the process works under this government. I will not labour the point too much, but I think it is important for the house to consider it. I doubt whether it will happen under this government, because it will not serve the purposes of this government to stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Hopefully, when there is a change of government in the not too distant future there will be significant changes to the way the accountability to the people of this state is managed through this parliament.

I want to spend a few minutes on each of the estimate committees that I was involved in as a shadow minister. I will first go to the energy committee that was held late last week. There is a new Minister for Energy, and I am very thankful for that, because I had a reasonable dialogue with the Minister for Energy and got quite a bit of information from him. He had a very different attitude towards the estimates committee, towards the process, and was more forthcoming with information than was the previous minister, in the experiences that I have had in questioning him in previous years.

I was a bit disturbed by what I consider as a lack of understanding of the energy scenario in South Australia. The minister is relatively new to this portfolio and hopefully he will get more on top of his portfolio and the ongoing—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: He is apparently the best agricultural minister in the country but I can assure you that he is not yet the best energy minister in this country. One thing that has been disturbing me for a long time about the supply of energy into South Australia, and I am talking principally of electricity at this point, is that we have this incredible reliance on wind power. I will quote from a report that was put out by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) on 30 June, so it was only last week that the report was put out. I quoted one particular piece from it to the committee, and I will quote the minister's response to that. The AEMO report states:

The methodology for calculating the expected wind farm contribution during peak demand has been revised, with the summer and winter peak contribution now anticipated to be 5% and 3.5% of their installed capacities.

That is, in the summertime if you have an installed capacity of 1,000 megawatts of wind power you can expect to get 5 per cent of that 1,000 megawatts at any particular time.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Fifty megawatts. So, you have an installed capacity of 1,000 megawatts and you can only expect to get at any one time in the summer 50 megawatts and in the winter 35 megawatts.

Mr Goldsworthy: That's efficient.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes; and they can supply that amount of power 85 per cent of the time. That is the criteria used. So, I am questioning—and I have been questioning the previous minister on this for a number of years and he has chosen not to answer my questions—the reliance that we have in South Australia on wind power.

Wind farms have been built in South Australia not because of anything that this government has done and not because they provide reliable power, they have been built because of the mandatory renewable energy targets that have been set out of Canberra and the fact that South Australia has a very good wind resource.

If you are a New South Wales energy retailer and you are obliged to supply 20 per cent of the power to your customers from renewable sources, which they will be obliged to by 2020, then you have to source it from somewhere and the best place to source it, if you are going to build a wind farm, is South Australia because you get a better return than you would in New South Wales. In fact, in New South Wales instead of having a 5 per cent reliability, or 5 per cent capacity, you might only get 2½ or 3 per cent. That is why they are built in South Australia.

Members will recall that the government spent about $1 million on a study into what was called the Green Grid; that is, developing a major infrastructure across the Eyre Peninsula to allow wind farms to hook into the grid. The study cost $1 million and the grid would cost billions of dollars.

I put it to the minister that I do not know that it would be in the best interests of South Australia and that we would need a rule change to the national electricity market for it to happen, in any case. The market has just made a determination on that rule change only within the last week or two to say that it will not accept the rule change, so if we are going to build that infrastructure then guess who would be paying for it? South Australia.

That is something that I have been asking the previous minister about for a number of years and he was always in denial of it. At least the new minister understands that point, or his officers did, and conceded to it, but what did disturb me is that the new minister suggested that the new expanded Olympic Dam operation might rely on wind power. Five per cent capacity during the summertime and 3.5 per cent during the wintertime: I am not too sure that BHP Billiton is going to spend $20 billion, or whatever, to drive its mine with a windmill. I do not think that is going to happen, but the minister will get his head around that. What did disturb me, though, was that the minister suggested it was a proposition suggested by Professor Garnaut.

Mrs Redmond: Well, that doesn't surprise me.

Mr WILLIAMS: Well, it disturbed me that the minister is listening to the man to be quite honest. Because the minister deferred one of my questions on this matter to one of the officers, the officer indeed acknowledged that the renewable energy certificates (the RECs) that are created from the power generated by these wind farms are not credited here in South Australia. They are actually credited in New South Wales and Victoria, because that is where the green energy is being purchased, and that is a point that the previous minister would never concede.

The strategic plan has been drawn up by this government—and this is listed in the budget as a performance indicator. The criteria it uses is calculated on the basis of the total amount of renewable energy generated divided by the total consumption in South Australia. It does not acknowledge where the renewable energy generated is used. It does not acknowledge where the renewable energy certificates are credited. That is the problem and that is why this government continues with the lie that we are doing so well with renewable energy. The reality is that it is New South Wales and Victoria that are driving investment in renewable energy in South Australia, simply because we have a wind resource.

The minister suggested that he is quite happy with the baseload capacity here in South Australia. I think he has that all wrong. We are far too reliant on wind power and we are far too reliant on peaking power which comes at a significant cost. Major industries in South Australia are now shutting down their operations when power price gets above $300 per megawatt hour, and that happens on a number of days, particularly during the hot weather, and that is undermining the economic capacity of this state. That is simply because we have failed to invest as a state in baseload generation because we have been chasing this elusive wind power and renewable—

Mr Venning: Mickey mouse.

Mr WILLIAMS: Mickey mouse, as my colleague the member for Schubert says. We do have some serious issues. Another thing that came out in the energy estimates committee was that we have this Residential Energy Efficiency Scheme (REES) where retailers are obliged to gain certain credits by going around to domestic consumers and doing energy audits and changing the way that they use energy in their homes. It is claimed that, over the two years of the REES scheme, there has been a saving of some 456,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions because of the REES scheme.

The reality is, as it became revealed in the estimates committee, that some 46 per cent and 30 per cent (in the two years that the scheme has been going) of reductions achieved by ceiling insulations were because of the commonwealth pink batt scheme. So, 46 per cent and 30 per cent in each of the two years was achieved by the commonwealth pink batt scheme. A further 33 per cent and 58 per cent in those same years of those CO2 reductions were achieved by changing from incandescent light bulbs to energy-saving light bulbs.

Again, the change from incandescent light bulbs to energy-saving light bulbs is something which was mandated by the commonwealth government. It is not something that occurred because we had these energy audits and because anything this government has done. It was mandated—incandescent light bulbs are illegal in Australia. To claim hundreds of thousands of tonnes of benefit from something which had nothing to do with this state government, I think is outrageous.

I also pointed out to the minister that, whilst we have been wasting—and it turns out from the recent debate in the place—hundreds of millions of dollars promoting small-scale PV rooftop generators, we should have been promoting new technologies like the BlueGen technology which is almost ready for commercial release. In fact, I think you can buy them now where you use natural gas to provide hot water, central heating for the home and electricity, getting an efficiency rating of something like 85 per cent of the energy in the natural gas. It has an incredible efficiency rating when we compare it to generating electricity and then transmitting it to the homes, and it provides what we call embedded electricity generation which will reduce our requirements to continue to pour millions of dollars into our distribution networks. There are technologies that actually work and actually give benefits to the community, rather than the technology that this government has linked up with, such as the rooftop PV cells, which have imposed a public cost, and only provide a private benefit.

The Victorian government actually has 30 of them installed in public housing in Melbourne now, and is trialling them, and they have actually been used in Japan for a few years. It is new, cutting-edge technology, and I think it is a very, very exciting technology, and one that we need to get on board with.

Madam Speaker, I note on the clock that time is getting away from me, so I had better move on. I had the pleasure of again having a new minister in the minerals portfolio area, and that was also an interesting estimates committee. There were a couple of things that came out of that particular estimates committee. I suggested that the government had been caught out over-hyping the mining industry, and the growth in the mining industry. I think I did point out that there are fewer people employed in the industry today than what there were in 1985, and I—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: No, you didn't.

Mr WILLIAMS: I didn't? Well, I make the point now. I did use the example of Nick Bianco having been quoted in the paper last week, saying that he believed the hype that the mining industry was going to provide huge economic benefits for business here in South Australia. He thought that that was one of the things that caught him out.

I also pointed out that the City of Whyalla had developed an industrial site and were struggling to sell parts of that estate—in fact, they were discounting them. The minister said, 'The truth is that Whyalla is booming.' I am not too sure that that is exactly what the people in Whyalla are saying.

While we are talking about Whyalla; I raised the issue of Deepak Fertilisers. Again, the new minister was lauding this as a fantastic project for South Australia, and defending the decision that an explosives plant had to be built at Point Lowly. I remember suggesting that it might not be the most appropriate site, given that other projects where probably going to be build in that vicinity. The minister was at pains on radio a couple of weeks ago lauding this project. It turns out, Madam Speaker, that the minister has never met with the company. He is out there selling their proposal and their project, but he has never met with the company, and I found that out through an FOI request to his office.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister says it is inappropriate, but a company that he had met with (Central Petroleum and Allied Resources) made an announcement early last week to the Stock Exchange that they were proposing a mining venture in the Far North of South Australia—in fact, straddling the South Australia/Northern Territory border. The minister suggested, on radio, that this was a very exciting project, and said it was comparable with Roxby Downs and a 'game changer' for South Australia. I question, Madam Speaker, whether a minister of the Crown should be out there pumping up such a proposal, when the proponents were going to the market seeking capital. I really question the sensibility of that and, to be quite honest, I thought it was something that a minister of the Crown should not be doing.

So on one hand, the minister is saying that he could not meet with Deepak Fertilisers because he was going to be the authorising minister, and yet he was out there and had met with another company which had a proposal on the table and was, in fact, going to the market seeking funds; and he is out there, spruiking what a wonderful project that would be.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I know where the Pedirka Basin is. So, I do question the double standards by the minister. But the icing on the cake for the minister was when I asked him about carbon tax. He said he supports carbon tax; notwithstanding, he eventually admitted that he does not know the details of what has been proposed, but he did admit that he has met with neither Nyrstar or OneSteel in the north of the state—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Point of order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Again, the member for MacKillop—sit down.

Mr WILLIAMS: It's alright.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sit down.

The Hon. M.J. Wright: It's in the rules; you sit down when there is a point of order. You know the rules.

The SPEAKER: Minister.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for MacKillop is implying things he did not mention, and he is putting words into my mouth which are not true. He is doing it again; I have met with OneSteel.

The SPEAKER: The member for MacKillop needs to be very careful about how he is phrasing his comments.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, from my recollection, when I put to the minister—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WILLIAMS: —'Have you been to Port Pirie and met with Nyrstar, have you been to Whyalla and met with OneSteel?' the answer to both questions, to the best of my memory, was no.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Point of order: I would ask the member for MacKillop to provide supporting evidence of that.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will check the Hansard. Let me say, for the minister's benefit, that I withdraw the comment in regard to OneSteel—but I did ask the question—just for the sake of moving on. The minister did definitely say that he did not meet with Nyrstar, has not been to Port Pirie and met with Nyrstar, but he supports a carbon tax. That is the reality. This is the Minister for Industry and Trade, this is the Minister for Mineral Resources Development, this is the minister who is saying that we have a target of getting a $4 billion minerals production industry in this state by 2014, and he has never met with one of the biggest mineral producers in this state.

Nyrstar at Port Pirie is the biggest single trade lead smelter in the world and he has not met with them, yet he is supporting Julia Gillard's carbon tax. That is the problem that this state is facing. Not only is the government's budget going down the gurgler but the very businesses, the very industries that are driving the economy of this state, are being ignored. They are being ignored because these ministers just do not care. This minister just does not care. If he cared, he would have been out there to meet Nyrstar. He would have been up there talking to Glenn Poynter, and he would understand the problems and he would be arguing their case in the cabinet. That is why he is a minister. That is the job of the minister—to argue the case in his cabinet. This minister just does not care.

Unfortunately, I have run out of time to speak about the water and River Murray portfolios, but suffice to say that I could be making very similar comments about the minister in that portfolio as well.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:57): I would like to discuss the two estimates committees I sat on and, in particular, the contrast in the two leadership contenders, Mr Snelling and Mr Weatherill. I first sat with Mr Snelling, as the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education on the Tuesday of the estimates process, but unfortunately, as I arrived, I was informed by his chief of staff (Mr Louca) that there had been a change in the arrangements for questions and that TAFE questions would need to be asked towards the end of the estimates process, rather than during the two hours I had allocated for employment, training and further education because there had been a split in the ministerial responsibilities.

I agreed that I would hang off for the TAFE questions for the last half hour, but it was only an hour before Mr Snelling had to move in to take questions on WorkCover in the other chamber, even though the industrial relations minister was being questioned in that chamber. I can understand why he was not given the responsibility of WorkCover: they wanted somebody who could actually handle that position, so I can understand why Mr Snelling was given that process.

So, I had to ask him questions about TAFE earlier than anticipated, and Mr Snelling then returned for the last 20 minutes or so of the hearing. I was not made aware of these changes, but we did establish that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education was in fact the sixth minister in seven years to have that responsibility under this government.

It is interesting to look at the history of the ministers who have moved into this position. On average, each minister has had one year and four months in this position. It appears to me that the Premier has been using this position to train his own ministers, as opposed to providing jobs and training for South Australians.

We have had record youth unemployment. Time and time again the youth unemployment figures come out and South Australia is the worst in the country. If you look at the way the government has treated the training portfolio you can see that there is very little long-term commitment to having a training minister who can get in there, be hands on, understand how training works and deliver some results. We are seeing some very poor youth unemployment figures, in particular, under the management of this government.

Mr Snelling had no Dorothy Dixers: it was a very quick opening commentary and I had two hours with both ministers (Mr Kenyon and Mr Snelling) asking questions without interruption from the other side. I appreciated that because it is the role of estimates to be able to question ministers about their portfolios. Because it is a committee process it is an opportunity for members who have questions arising from the budget about portfolios to be able to ask those questions. Good ministers enable you to pull the bow and ask questions that might have a segue to a line in the budget. Dorothy Dixers, when they are asked, often pull the bow and pull a segue because they are never about figures; they are generally about statements in the budget.

However, if you compare that to the left's leadership contender in South Australia—Mr Weatherill—it seemed as though he had seen Mr Rann's performance the night before where the Premier lined up literally dozens of Dorothy Dixers to stop the Leader of the Opposition and others asking serious questions about portfolios. Mr Weatherill used that same approach. I have not done a word count but my guess is that more than a third, perhaps up to a half of the time, was spent with pre-prepared questions and pre-prepared answers for the Minister for Education. I think political commentators out there will probably compare the performance of Mr Snelling and Mr Weatherill and how they handled their very important portfolios through the management of Dorothy Dixers.

If you want some idea as to how the government uses the Dorothy Dix process to manage the estimates process for its own benefit, you only need to look at the master of the Dorothy Dixer, minister Gail Gago. I represented the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place on consumer affairs, and when I arrived I was offered a reduction in the time from 45 minutes to half if I agreed to no opening statement and no Dorothy Dixers. I was offered 22½ minutes, a free run at the Minister for Consumer Affairs, but I declined because I really did not think that she would have the audacity to use half the time for an opening statement and Dorothy Dixers to block the opposition asking serious questions about the consumer affairs portfolio—but she did. Every question had a written answer that the minister read out in reply.

Just like Mr Weatherill—he had orchestrated a number of written answers and written questions. I even managed to negotiate a longer period on the new SACE in the estimates process. Generally non-government education—that is the independent Catholic schools—and SACE are allocated 30 minutes. I was able to negotiate the first session of the morning, a longer session on SACE, because this is the first year of the new SACE and there are many questions that need to be asked.

I tried to get some answers about the new SACE through the FOI process but I was quickly advised that the SACE Board is exempt from the FOI process. It was important for me, as a member of parliament representing the interests of many of those students who are going through the SACE process for the very first time, to ask as many questions as I could because I had been blocked from that access through the FOI process.

There was some objection to how difficult and detailed my questioning was, but I have a series of commitments from the minister for answers to come back that could not be answered by either the Chief Executive of SACE or the minister, and I look forward to getting those. It is also interesting that the minister said that there will be a review of the research project. The research project was very controversial, and any parent with a child studying year 12 and any teachers that are out there teaching year 12 will understand that it is controversial.

We have to go back to the history of how we ended up with the new SACE. If you recall, when a national curriculum was a federal Liberal government idea, it was criticised by the then Labor education minister here in South Australia as not making one iota of difference to education in South Australia. They then proceeded to spend $100 million developing the new SACE here in South Australia, and then a Labor government was elected that believed in a national curriculum also.

Now we are seeing South Australia moving to a national curriculum after spending all this money developing a new SACE for South Australia and putting thousands of year 12 students through an untried system that the minister has admitted is going through a review. My guess is that next year's year 12 SACE will be different from that of this year because of the experience of this year, but my question is: what about those students who are doing SACE this year?

Year 12 is a very important year. We know, because of this government's poor commitment to education, and science and maths in particular, that in 2000, 44 per cent of South Australian students who were doing year 12 received a pass mark at ATAR level in maths, chemistry and physics; that in 2003, when that had slipped to 39 per cent, the government said in its strategic plan that it wanted to lift that figure by 15 per cent to 45 per cent by 2010; and that here we are in 2011 and only 37 per cent of students in South Australia are getting a pass mark in year 12 for their ATAR in chemistry, physics and maths.

This is at a time when the Premier is on record as saying that he wants to deliver 100,000 new jobs here in South Australia—in fact, he promised that during the election campaign—and he said that those jobs would be in the areas of defence, mining and engineering. Guess what? You need maths, physics and chemistry for those areas in South Australia, but we have fewer students coming out of our education system with those qualifications.

What did the government say it was going to do? It was going to set up a new Teach SA program here in South Australia. I pulled down the tender documents earlier in the year and, according to those, that process was supposed to start last Friday, 1 July, yet the minister was not able to tell me, two days before the start date, whether the tender had been let and who the contractor was; of course, it has not started on 1 July as planned. We are not even sure whether the original $8 million-odd is still available or when the tender is going to be let. So, that is another test Mr Weatherill has failed. We know how important maths and science are for our students here in South Australia—

The CHAIR: Member for Unley, can I remind you that you have consistently referred to members by their names, rather than as minister or by their electorate, so could you refrain from calling them by their names. It is not the practice in this house.

Mr PISONI: Certainly. The Minister for Education has failed in his first test of arresting the downturn in maths and science in South Australia. As a matter of fact, he dismissed it by saying that we cannot help student choices. Students need guidance: they get guidance from their parents, they get guidance from their teachers, and they should be getting guidance from their education minister, as well. The Premier has identified that maths and science based employment is the key for South Australia's future, and yet the minister is failing to deliver those results in the school system.

If we look at fees and charges in the budget for those two portfolio areas, in the education portfolio we are seeing an extra $25 million being collected over the forward estimates over four years in school fees in South Australia. In TAFE fees, we are seeing a shocking $53.9 million being collected in extra TAFE fees.

The parliamentary library has done some research work for me. We have already identified that, in South Australia, we have the highest TAFE fees in the nation. So interested were other states that, when that story about South Australia being the state with the worst TAFE fees came out last year, the parliamentary library was approached by the Queensland government to try to get those figures so they could get their own comparisons. Those comparisons told us that Queensland was at the lower end. Of course, Queensland is a boom state for employment and a boom state for the economy.

Here in South Australia, we have kept the brakes on training, we have kept the brakes on self-development, we have kept the brakes on employment, by having high state government taxes and charges on all of our businesses here and, now, of course, the highest fees for TAFE. Do not forget our shocking WorkCover rates here in South Australia, compared to other states. This all, of course, affects the employment figures.

The Premier, again, made the claim and the promise during the election campaign that there would be 100,000 new jobs and there would be 100,000 new training positions. During the estimates process, we have established that they are, in fact, double dipping. They are double counting. They are counting apprentices as employment positions and they are counting apprentices, in those numbers, as training positions.

So, we are seeing an overlap of employment and training positions in that 100,000. It does not mean that we are going to see 200,000 people being trained or employed: we are going to see an overlap of some degree in that area. Do not forget that training happens in the employment process. It is not just in the apprenticeship system, but in other areas, whether it be retail, catering or other areas where there is an overlap of employment and training.

Another issue raised with the minister was where I was accused of being bitten by a union as a young boy when I raised the question as to why it is that SA Unions are notified of businesses that take on children for work experience. I mean, work experience is a part of the PLP—the Personal Learning Plan—and it is part of the new SACE. Work experience has been around in schools for a very long time.

When I was an employer, we were strong supporters of the work experience program. We would have several work experience students coming into the workshop over the year and we met some bright young kids. Some of them went on to move into the trade, doing apprenticeships, and others realised that perhaps it was not really for them. So, work experience for students is a very worthwhile process because it enables them to define what it is they want out of their education, where their next step is and where they want to go.

I was shocked to hear that the minister thought that was fine and dandy, even though it is a fact that WorkSafe SA does not have to be notified. The Employee Ombudsman is not notified, Business SA is not notified—only SA Unions. I did not get an answer to the question as to what happens if the box is left blank, if the employer does not tick yes or no for SA Unions to be notified of their premises being available for work experience. I was not given an answer as to what would happen and whether SA Unions would, in fact, still be notified.

My guess is that it is a little scheme that was concocted quite some years ago to help the trade union movement increase its membership by identifying businesses where they might find members. I certainly experienced that when I was running my business. We had several occasions when unions insisted on meeting up with my employees, after there may have been a bit of publicity about the business. Whether it be a new contract that we got, a new advertising campaign or some other publicity, inevitably we would get the CFMEU—in the old days, it was the furnishing trade union but in recent years it was the CFMEU—demanding to speak to my employees. I gave them access but, to the best of my knowledge, they did not manage to sign up a single member because my staff understood the relationship they had with their employer and they did not want the interference of a third party.

Here we have the education department assisting what is a private organisation. It is an industrial organisation that represents people for a fee—it is no different from Business SA, no different from a lawyer, no different from an interior designer who presents a fee for service—yet the education department is complicit in giving them market details that are not available to even Business SA, for example. That is an area that concerns me and makes me wonder how many small businesses have refused to participate in the very valuable work experience program for fear of getting a knock on the door from the trade union movement.

My colleague the member for Goyder also raised the issue of the management of the school bus operations in the budget. We learned that a Queensland provider had knocked out a dozen or so local contractors who had been not just providing reliable bus services but were also very loyal to the government and were continuing to provide those bus services. They upgraded their buses while the government was still going through the tendering process, but five years after they promised to upgrade buses with seatbelts and air conditioning they were still going through that process. They were very concerned about the safety of their students, and they did all the right things only to be shafted when it came time for those contracts to be let.

It appears to us, on this side of the house, that any community benefit of having a local contractor with community history who is involved in the local footy club and in other community events within the school and who had an established routine outside the bus services to service the community with their buses for other purposes, was not a consideration. They were totally and completely shafted by the government; it was interested only in the dollars and cents, the hard financial model which will, in turn, see spin-off effects in the regional communities that were disadvantaged. That, of course, is of great concern to my colleagues in rural seats, whether they be in the Riverland, on Eyre Peninsula, in the Barossa Valley or down in the South-East. They are all very concerned.

I also need to raise the debacle of the Adelaide High School expansion. If members recall, in the lead-up to the election the Liberal Party did a lot of research and, due to the good work of the then Liberal candidate for the seat of Adelaide, identified that many people in the inner northern suburbs who wanted to use public education were locked out of Adelaide High School. We decided that we would bite the bullet and take advantage of the former Clipsal site purchased by the government at Bowden for a TOD. Of course, if you read about TODs, or visit TODs, you would know that a school is a very integral part of making a TOD work because they bring mass into the area. We announced we would build a multi-level school on a small footprint in the Bowden area.

It obviously polled extremely well because, a couple of weeks before the election, the government announced that it was going to expand Adelaide High School. It also promised that it would expand Adelaide High School without encroaching on the Parklands, yet four of the five options presented to the governing council for the extension of Adelaide High School encroached on the Parklands; the one that did not involved the destruction of a heritage building. Here we have a government that will say anything when it is pushed up against the wall and then not deliver on its promises.

It is a similar situation to what we saw in Marryatville, where we saw the government trying to push the easy option of a new building in front of the beautiful main building and shortening the length of the oval because it was a cheaper, easier and best value for dollar option, ignoring the other options of removing some 30-year-old temporary buildings and placing a building there, or renovating and extending some of the other buildings on the site. I was at the briefing, and the reason it did not want to do that was that it would involve making those buildings disability compliant, and it did not want to spend that money. This is what this government has come to.

It is all about what they can present in the media, what they can present in the lead-up to an election. It is not about caring for the little people. They are not interested—not interested—in those with disabilities, not interested in those who are struggling in school; they are only interested in presenting the smoke and mirrors that they need to hang on to government or to win the 24-hour media cycle. Madam Speaker, we had some difficulty with the clock starting, and you have been very generous with your time, and I thank you for the opportunity.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (12:20): It has been a very interesting estimates period. I am one who believes that the discipline of estimates is actually good for both sides of the house. I say that for two reasons. Firstly, it forces departments to drag all the skeletons out of the closet, dust them off, and present them to the minister. It forces ministers to engage with their departments and go over all the contentious issues of the year past and the year ahead and, if you like, have a spring clean, and then come into the parliament with their people very focused on dealing with any questions that the opposition may have.

It is a very good discipline for government, but equally it is a very good discipline for opposition, because it means we must pick up the budget papers, we must go through them and scrutinise them, we must engage with stakeholders, and we must come in, having identified the weak spots in the government's financial planning, past and proposed, and pluck the eyes out of it. And, boy, can I tell you, in this particular budget estimates cycle there has been plenty to pluck. I want to start with chicken in chief, the Minister for Industry and Trade.

He has been out there with some outrageous spin. He has slashed the department down to the bone. He has carved people up and thrown them out the window, and he has sacked so many people there is hardly anybody left in the department. He has thrown himself up for budget cuts. He has seen his department—this is the supposed champion of his department—whither on the vine.

People wanting to invest in this state are ringing, and no one is answering the phone. Then he has the temerity to put out some media late last night claiming that he is doing a fantastic job on exports. Let me tell you what a fantastic job the Minister for Industry and Trade is doing on exports. Back in 2001-02 exports were $9.1 billion. His announcement last night, champion of the crusade, is that exports have now hit $11 billion. What a remarkable achievement over the course of nine years, barely keeping pace with inflation.

Of course, he conveniently forgot to mention that his premier and his government had promised the people of South Australia, in their notorious and glossy State Strategic Plan, that they would treble exports to $25 billion by 2014. Well, it is 2011 and he has hit $11 billion. It is going to be a spectacular result over the next three years to see it zoom from $11 billion up to $25 billion. The fact is this government and this minister are failing on exports. Under the previous Liberal government, in 2001-02, South Australia's exports were $9.1 billion, as I said, and our share was 7.5 per cent of the national export market; but, under Labor that has slipped to 4.5 per cent of the national exports market, and his crowing about it.

He goes on with more misinformation. He has made the outrageous claim that the opposition have an official policy that says we will close our trade offices in India and China. He says we have an official promulgated policy—it is out there—posted up somewhere that we will close our trade offices in India and China. Well, here's the rub, Madam Speaker: if he is wrong with that claim, if that claim is untrue, if it is an accidental untruth, or, even worse, if it is a deliberate untruth, the message really is that everything else he said is also untrue. So, I challenge him to show us the official policy of the Liberal Party that says we will close our trade offices in China and India, as he has suggested. If he cannot show us the official policy document, then it is untrue, and he should apologise.

Not only is it untrue, I draw his attention, as I did in estimates, to a discussion paper that I have produced on behalf of the opposition which points the way forward on our future trade engagements with China. It is out there for public debate and I would be delighted to receive a submission from the minister, if he has the time. I would love to see if he has anything intelligent to say about our trade with China, because we are still waiting to hear what his policy is.

Apparently, he has a couple of people working on it, they are still beavering away, but once again the opposition said in the agenda, 'We have been out there for ages now.' They are probably out there now plagiarising our work so that they can reinvent it as their own. But what does it say? It says that we should enhance and bolster our trade functions in China so that we can do better, because we are not doing very well.

That makes a particular point. The reason that we are seeing a small lift in the last 12 months in our trade performance, and it is happening across the nation, is that our farmers have had a bumper year because the drought has ended, and there is some result coming from grains. We are also seeing record minerals exports, but of course all of that is negotiated by the national government. All of that is dealt with by Austrade.

All of those contracts are managed by major international corporations directly with their customers in overseas destinations. I doubt very much if the South Australian government has anything whatsoever to do with negotiating those sales contracts. The wheat and minerals go up and down, under national control and under commercial control, with very little input from the state government.

What the state government's job is is to make sure that our wine producers are exporting. The state government's job is to make sure that our manufacturers are exporting. The state government's job is to make sure that small to medium enterprises in this state are exporting. What are the results there? Very poor indeed.

In fact, wine, which is overall for South Australia one of our most significant exports, when it comes to China ranks very lowly. By overwhelming numbers our biggest export to China from South Australia is minerals. It is the manufacturers that need the minister's help. It is our food producers, particularly processed food producers, that need the minister's help. It is the service industries that need the minister's help. They are not getting it.

What we have heard today from the minister is nothing but utter and absolute spin. From a government that was off funding trade fairs in Puglia, off on farragoes all around the world; that was its trade priority, while our trade to China and India (our biggest trading partners) needed support.

We have been critical of some aspects of the way the government is doing business in China and India. For example, we have asked questions about why the head of our trade office in India, Mr A.K. Tareen, is getting paid $340,000 a year. Not a bad job if you can get it; more than the Premier, I believe; more than half of the budget, as we heard during estimates, used to fund our office in India.

So, we are certainly asking questions about whether the government is doing the right thing in China and India. To suggest that we do not need representation there is simply silly and the minister is just carrying on with a whole load of nonsense, and he knows it.

Of course it does not end there. During estimates he was not able to answer questions about Tiger Airlines. He seemed completely unaware that the government had made a pitch and offered $10 million to attract Tiger's base here: 165 jobs, $10 million, $83,333 a job. Not a bad pitch. That was really good value for money, was it not?

Of course, they were unsuccessful in that and then claimed that they pitched for a second base. He was unable to tell us exactly, across the whole of government, how much has been spent on that. We heard that it was $2.25 million from his portfolio and another $900,000 from tourism: $3.15 million. I suspect there is money from other portfolios that has flowed into that Tiger bid. We are still waiting for answers.

In last year's budget papers they claimed to have attracted up to 120 new jobs, but he was unable to tell us exactly how many jobs had been attracted, exactly how many aircraft had been attracted and what the benefits of the taxpayers' spending of that $3.2 billion or so had achieved. So, it was a very poor effort from the minister.

Of course, we had secret loan agreements with Bianco. We all have our thoughts with the Bianco family and the company at this difficult time, but why sign secret loan agreements? Why not bring them to the Industries Development Committee? Then we had revealed during estimates that the government has given money to a whole stack of companies—a whole stack of them, in secret, behind closed doors. Secret loan and grant agreements that no-one has seen because these things are not being brought to the Industries Development Committee or any other proper process for scrutiny, which can be easily done; commercial in confidence is required. The government is out there dishing out money in secret and not telling anyone about it.

If the minister wants to have an account of how things are in the economy in South Australia at the moment, having touted the righteousness of Business SA during estimates and telling us that they defer to Business SA, he should do so. He should go and talk to Peter Vaughan, who has been out there as CEO of Business SA just this week saying that things are about as bad as he has seen. He should go and talk to our retailers and exporters, get out there with industry. We know that he has not been to Nyrstar, as the minister for minerals. He is not visiting other companies either. He needs to get out more, get out of the factional back rooms and get out and visit the companies that look to him for leadership. Industry and trade, I have to say, were very disappointing. This is an area where there has been disinvestment and windback from this government, and we will pay a price and we are paying that price.

I want to move on to defence. This is another area of high priority for this state, and it has enjoyed largely bipartisan support. I have publicly, and I do so again, given the current government some credit for building on the good work of the previous Liberal government and maintaining the momentum on defence. There have been a lot of good things done. We did not oppose the Osborne ship-lift redevelopment and common-user facility, and many other of the initiatives that the government has proposed, because we could see they were good for the state—and we are a party that always puts the people of South Australia first, not petty politics, unlike the current government when they were in opposition who would rip anything down if there was a political point to be scored.

I must say that the government needs to do more on shipbuilding. There have been problems with the air warfare destroyer project. The Collins submarine maintenance is on a watch list, and the big challenge before us is the SEA 1000 12 submarine build which is to follow, and there is a real danger that if the federal Labor government dillydallies any longer with the submarine build, there could be a gap between the Collins and the new capability which would see the workforce in South Australia dismissed and then have to be rehired years later when we work up to create a new shipbuilding facility to manufacture the new submarines.

Of course, this is also the case with other ships the government plans to build. It is a quarter of a trillion dollars over 30 years—not 20 years, as the Premier said in one of his media releases. I suggest he check his facts before he goes out with a media release and check with Business SA, in particular, about whether it is 20 years or 30 years.

But a quarter of a trillion dollars is a nation-building investment. If the Snowy Mountains scheme at around $8 billion was a nation-building undertaking that required a national approach, why do we not have a national approach on the issue of naval shipbuilding? We cannot afford to let a federal government go off and write cheques over the next 30 years for a quarter of a million dollars to oversee shipbuilders to buy ships off the shelf when we can build them here and see it generate the jobs and the economic activity we so need.

For that reason, I say that naval shipbuilding should be a matter that goes to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG). I think the states need to be around the table before decisions are made about how this quarter of a million dollars is spent. It is too much money for defence, DMO and the federal government alone to simply decide they will buy off the shelf—they will buy this, they will buy that—to meet a defence capability. Primary though that is, it is also a decision that affects the manufacturing, employment and shipbuilding capabilities, certainly in WA, South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales but also I suspect in every other state and territory. It is simply too big to be left without the states around the table, and I think South Australia should champion that move.

We also heard during the estimates period of the government's disinvestment in science and innovation. This is something that concerns me extraordinarily. In 2009-10, the government spent $31.3 million on science and innovation, but in 2011-12 that has been slashed to $20 million: no wonder the science and research community has been irate with Labor, both state and federal. We have seen cuts to SARDI, we have seen cuts to Bio Innovation SA, we have seen cuts to and, in fact, the winding up of the Playford Capital organisation, Innovate SA and other entities that were there to stimulate innovation and creativity within the economy.

This portfolio of science and innovation, in our view, is linked to industry and trade and economic performance; that is why we have those two portfolios grouped together under the one shadow minister. The government has a different approach: it has science and innovation grouped off with the education minister and not industry and trade. I think that is a strategic mistake. The way forward for manufacturing in this state is through transformation based around science and innovation. We cannot go on producing me-too products—T-shirts, footwear, the sorts of manufacturers and businesses that have closed through competition from emerging economies.

We must go forward with smart products which require a high degree of intellectual input and which are based around cutting-edge science and technology in new areas, and manufacturers must transform their businesses to embrace that value proposition. That is the way we can compete with China and India—because we have a smart, innovative workforce; not on cutting wages and not on cutting cost factors of production, but by being smart.

The number of people employed in science and innovation has decreased, and I want to particularly mention Bio Innovation SA, a creation of the former Liberal government kept alive by this government but suffering a death of a thousand cuts. The momentum in energy that once existed for the Thebarton Bioscience Precinct appears to have diminished and faded within this government, with land proposed for sale and with the energy and thrust in growing that precinct and attracting biotech companies to it apparently having vanished.

More alarmingly, in my view, funding support for the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics may well be at risk. During estimates, the government could not commit to any funding strategy beyond 2012 in anything other than generalised terms. The fact is that that plant functional genomics centre is an example of what we should be doing and, as the minister who helped champion it when we were in government, can I say that we need to see more of that from this government.

I would rather see money being spent on attracting science centres of excellence here, from which genuine business opportunities can be generated, than to see money thrown away on some of the very expensive farragoes this government has chosen to pursue. Let me remind the house that, as a consequence of this earlier investment in biotechnology, we were able to attract Terra Rossa Capital here—a private venture vehicle for biotech start-ups—using private funding from the NTAA based out of Canberra but all linked off a commitment from state government to grow biotechnology.

All that is at risk if this government continues to disinvest from science and innovation at the very time, looking around the world at global structural change, when smart countries like Australia should be reorganising themselves around that very valued proposition—being smart, being scientific and being involved in high technology.

That, of course, leads me to Playford Capital, which the government announced last year that it would be winding up and which it has reiterated this year that it is to close. The Reid report upon which that decision was based is still being kept secret wrongly, and the government is unable to explain why, at the very least, it did not consider selling Playford Capital as a going concern so that at least the capability would be retained; instead, it is to be decommissioned.

All this is bad news for the state economy because we are going into difficult times. I just say, coming out of estimates, that the government is at a precipice: it can go forward and fall over the cliff to its death, or it can go forward, actually show leadership for this state and leave it in better shape than when it took over. It is not too late. I am sure that either way the government is facing execution in March 2014, but it would be awfully nice if they did not leave us with another State Bank wreckage or something like it.

I have to say that the failures I see in this budget, coming out of estimates, suggest to me there is no plan, and there is no vision. Yes, they are building some things, but quietly to the side the economy is struggling, and it is the areas of industry and trade, commerce, defence, science and innovation which must be the engine room for the future of this economy. If you do not water it, it will not flower. I see a picture of money being stripped out of these three portfolios, particularly industry and trade, and science and innovation, and redirected into other areas. That is a strategic mistake and it must be corrected.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (12:40): The budget provides an opportunity to scrutinise the finances of the state. Every government prepares a framework to deliver its priority areas of expenditure while still maintaining services necessary to care for the needs of South Australians. This has always been so. Governments of every persuasion have delivered budgets and they always generate much discussion. This is part of the democratic process, a welcome feature and one to be encouraged.

Political allegiances aside, parliament delivers a system of democracy that is controlled by people for people. People interested in the political process become groups or formalise into parties interested in similar policies or ideals. From time to time, smaller parties or individuals are elected, and we see much of this these days. Even so, the two-party system is a strength and has delivered stability and, one could argue, reasonable and steady progress federally and in each state and territory of the country.

No government makes laws or adopts policies to deliberately aggravate electors because it is to the wider public, those who rely on elected members to represent their rights, that we are all answerable. What parliamentarians have always tried to do, some more successfully than others, is listen to the needs of the community and then communicate and progress those views and positions within the structures in place to deliver outcomes.

Parliament is the mother of all committees and anyone who has worked on a committee of any kind will know that adversarial politics exists at all levels of society, and they will also appreciate that many people choose, for whatever reason, not to become involved and in some cases would rather criticise than be part of the solution of whatever matter is under consideration. Nevertheless, we all usually want to end up in the same place. The debate is only about how we get there.

This government's priorities have always been the issues most mentioned whenever I am out and about: to have a place to live, a job to maintain yourself and your family, and to have access to the best possible education and health care. In Florey, our area is mostly residential, with employment being found in strong retail representation and a little light industrial. We do, however, have many aged-care facilities, schools and the Modbury Hospital, which has traditionally been a focus. In addition, we now have a co-located GP Plus Super Clinic to address the needs of a growing ageing population.

With the service hubs for state departments like Housing SA and Families and Communities, and a large Centrelink office and a local council office and depot, we have many healthcare professionals and public servants employed in our area. We are all probably related to a public servant and I am sure appreciate their work and no longer subscribe to the theory that it is a cushy job for life.

In my remarks today, I would like to concentrate on the services being delivered by this budget through the Modbury Hospital and other areas. Modbury Hospital deals with about 36,000 people a year, both patients and visitors. The hospital employs about 850 staff who work in a dedicated manner, striving to ensure a safe, clean and caring environment that puts patients' needs first. Modbury Hospital has a thriving volunteer group across a range of areas. The Modbury Hospital Foundation, which manages the fundraising hospital kiosk, has 120 volunteers. It is to this self-contained community that people in the north-eastern suburbs will often go first when they are ill, need an operation, or have a need for acute care.

South Australia has a health system working hard to meet the community's demands. I acknowledge the healthcare professionals for all they do. Occasionally I hear people complain and use the term 'Third World'. I truly believe, however, that unless you have experienced a poor health system it is not possible to appreciate what we have here. Everyone wants the health system to be the best it can be. Unfortunately, some people have adverse outcomes when they are ill, but—and this is an important qualification—much more often than not people receive the treatment they require to recover or the support they need at the time of a loved one's end of life.

One of my own immediate family members recently faced a severe health crisis and, I am grateful to be able to say, received life-saving treatment at the Royal Adelaide Hospital ICU and is now being assisted during recovery to, I hope, full health. The stresses on family are immense whenever someone is ill, and this is why the government is aware that it must do all it can to assist. There are competing priorities to deliver core services, and so there is much debate in my area at the moment about introducing parking fees in line with other hospital sites in this state. As some sites have existing commercial rates in place and others do not charge anything, there is logic in standardising car parking arrangements at all nine metropolitan public hospitals in Adelaide.

However, I believe that Modbury Hospital presents a special set of circumstances, as the entire central region of Modbury, including the hospital, Westfield Tea Tree Plaza, the TAFE site, and the O-Bahn park-and-ride facility, already has parking problems due to lack of planning and vision. Implementing parking controls within the Modbury Hospital parking area is not expected to adversely affect traffic flows into and out of the facility; rather, increasing numbers of drivers may opt to park in surrounding streets, and local residents will be affected by congestion in this area even more than they already are.

Information to hand indicates that, under parking plans for Modbury Hospital, there will actually be a decrease in the number of spaces available for parking. Parking on the site is already at a premium for staff, with spots reserved for doctors, public parking areas and disabled bays. Therefore, until a multi-level, purpose-built facility of some kind is developed to address the parking needs of the Modbury region, the overwhelming message I am receiving is that car parking fees at the hospital should be put on hold. I will continue to work with the appropriate authorities to ensure that this message is heard and, hopefully, acted upon as quickly as possible.

Another welcome budget measure addressing parking in some way is the provision for additional parking at the O-Bahn park-and-ride. The current facility is at capacity, with commuters being forced to park on private property, including Westfield Tea Tree Plaza, which has resulted in many residents being issued with fines. Extra car parking will assist current regular O-Bahn commuters and make provision for additional growth in a public transport system that is strongly supported by this government.

In education, I work closely with local schools and will always continue to have a strong interest in making it possible for young people to have dreams for their futures and careers and to achieve those careers and dreams. All my siblings and their partners are teachers, as is my daughter-in-law, so I always know firsthand exactly what is going on in the broader education sector from them and, closer to home, through committed governing councils and parents in my electorate.

The above examples are among local issues that this year's budget addresses. More broadly, I know that the Premier is focused on making sure that there are jobs for people who are looking for work and on improving infrastructure and services of this state. The Treasurer and ministers share his determination in delivering on the policies taken to the last election and also with an eye to the future prosperity of the state.

In conjunction with the member for Newland, there will be a public forum shortly in my area when the Treasurer will be on hand to discuss some or as many as possible of the budget initiatives. I hope residents will take the opportunity to participate. We all have a say in how the state progresses. Democracy is not something that happens once every four years; it is something that happens every day, with people phoning or visiting offices for services, schools for their children's education, hospitals for health services, and even calling their local MPs for assistance in a matter that may be of concern to them. We can all be part of the endeavours and the solutions that will keep this state is strong.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:48): I also rise to make a contribution to the estimates process, and I do so on the basis of confirming that I had the great pleasure of sitting in on all five days for a variety of periods on each of those days. It continues a tradition that I have had, regrettably, from this side of the chamber since being elected in 2006 to having been involved in every day that estimates has sat. I am subjected to it just about as much as some of the Labor members opposite who are sitting there also.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. The member for Florey was certainly in Estimates Committee B every time I was there.

Ms Bedford: And working hard and paying attention.

Mr GRIFFITHS: And working hard. It is a process that many have a level of frustration with. It creates an opportunity for an approach in which you can try to get information on a calm basis, ask questions sensibly, get a good answer, pose supplementary questions and get all the information you seek; or, indeed, take the confrontational opportunity that it presents, when there can be a lot of yelling and screaming and potential walk-outs—which has occurred in the past in this chamber, I think, probably about three or four years ago. It is a necessary process.

The people of South Australia, in providing the funds available to government for its services and infrastructure, surely have an expectation of a high level of scrutiny, and that is where the estimates process provides the greatest level of corporate knowledge about where that $16 billion is going that exists within public servants, ministers, government backbenchers, opposition shadow ministers and opposition backbenchers at the one time.

It is a chance for all members of parliament to pose questions either through direct representation on the committee or through someone who does that. I know I had conversations with the Independent members in the chamber saying, 'If you have issues you want brought up, please bring them to me so that I can pose them on your behalf,' because no matter where you come from—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, but unfortunately I did not get any from them. No matter where you come from, there are issues where the budget will have an impact on people, and that is a direct result of the fact that government services are so wide and varied.

I wish to reflect on some of the questions that were posed, the issues that arose, and the answers that were given during the approximately 10.5 hours of direct questioning responsibility that I had as part of those five days. I do so from the viewpoint that I respect the efforts made by the chairs, too. They had a hard job. It is not always an easy one. The Hon. Michael Wright was chair of Estimates Committee B during the times that I was there, and I commend him for his attitude towards it. Ms Chloe Fox, the member for Bright, was the chair of Estimates Committee A. Chloe brings a different perspective to it, there is no doubt about that, but those in here certainly respect what she brings to it.

I was surprised when I asked questions of minister Conlon about some performance issues in public transport. While he might not have got the focus of my question, one point that I took out of it was that, in train passenger numbers for public transport options, the estimated result for the 2010-11 financial year is that we were down by 1.2 million people. I am willing to recognise that the disruption to services on the Gawler and Seaford lines because of the electrification that is occurring there would have transferred a vast number of people onto bus options—I do respect that.

Mrs Vlahos interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Temporarily, while those near $600 million projects, funded predominantly from federal government sources, are being undertaken. I recognise that, but I cannot necessarily respect that 1.2 million people were suddenly transferred onto buses who would have normally gone on trains. I would be interested to get some more detail on that and we will see what we can find out because all political parties come from a position of the need to support public transport, to make sure that we get the maximum number of people on it, and to provide a safe option for people when they are on public transport.

There has been a lot of media recently about concerns from people who have felt either intimidated or have been attacked in some way on public transport. I know that there are 79 transit officers and there is an intention to employ a few more. I do not adhere to the proposal from the Victorian government of the employment of some 980 security officers, who will be carrying guns, for its public transport network. I would hope that our society is a bit better than that, so that level of security support within the public transport is not necessary. Victoria has made a decision to do that based on what it has seen. In South Australia, I hope it does not get to that.

It is a busy role for the nearly 80 transit officers we have in the South Australian system to make sure that we have confidence in our public transport users and the options provided, and we need that. We want people not to be turned off in any possible way. We want them to consider public transport as their first option for transport, so let us make that happen. I asked questions also about the tram breakdowns. There has been quite a few of those. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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