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

APPROPRIATION BILL

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

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

(Continued from 6 July 2011.)

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:35): I want to continue my remarks in relation to estimates. I agree with the member for Davenport about doing it better next year. I think it is time, under your stewardship, Madam, while you are the Speaker, and myself as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, that we had a good look at this and updated the whole estimates process. I think we can do this across the house on an apolitical basis, because I think it is time, in every way.

As I was saying last night, cost of living pressures are affecting many of our people in South Australia, and the situation is likely to get worse in the not too distant future as costs increase from 1 July. Once again, it was revealed through estimates that funds allocated to rural and regional South Australia continue to be slashed in all areas: health, agriculture, transport, tourism, and the list goes on and on.

I was interested to hear the response of the Executive Director of Primary Industries and Biosecurity, Dr Donald Plowman, to a question from the shadow minister for agriculture relating to the $2.7 million decrease in expenses as a result of reduction in research and development activity and service delivery to meet budget savings targets. He said, 'bearing in mind that SARDI is unquestionably the leading research institute in the country'. I commend Dr Plowman on his acknowledgement that SARDI is the leading research institute in Australia, and I agree with him; but given this recognition, why is the Labor government cutting support? How long will SARDI continue to be the leading research institute in the country if funding is continually reduced, as it has been now for about the last five years?

I note the minister is sitting here, and I will try to make it as easy as I can on him, because he is the best agriculture minister we have had for decades. According to the government's own website:

Agricultural and wine industries contribute more than $5 billion annually in production value and more than double this in value-adding to South Australia's economy.

Well, as it did in last year's budget, the Labor government has again shown scant regard for the value of agriculture in this state in the 2011-12 budget. As I said in my budget reply speech, as food security becomes more and more of an issue we need to have more money put into agriculture research and development, not less. After all, as the minister would know, every year we have got to grow more food on less land. I have mentioned in this house—for probably five or six years now—that it has been a problem, and all of a sudden the world is waking up, or Australia is. It is now becoming an issue and I think now is the time to strike.

I found the minister for agriculture's explanation about how much of the $1 million allocated per year for new export programs to drive food and wine sector growth has been allocated to the wine industry very surprising, particularly given the difficulties the industry has been facing over the years with oversupply, low prices, and the high Australian dollar, not to mention the extra difficulties experienced by vignerons this year with late rains causing disease. The minister explained (and I quote):

The exact breakdown is: FoodSA, $550,000 per annum; the Wine Industry Association, $250,000 per annum; and then $200,000 held by PIRSA for investment attraction opportunities.

The fact that the wine industry is being allocated only a measly $250,000 in funds per year is an insult. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, South Australia is home to the most famous wine region in Australia, the Barossa, along with many other iconic wine regions, and this is how the government treats an industry worth so much to the economy. It is atrocious. This week we saw the sacking of the SAFF grain section and the minister's intervention, saying that he had not received an audited account of expenditure of levy moneys entrusted to SAFF for grain research. I heard that comment on radio and instantly made some phone calls, because I know the people who did those reports. I was told that audited accounts—for at least for the last three years—were forwarded.

They were sent, at least, over the last three years, and I personally checked it. The minister said yesterday that he has never received audited accounts of expenditure; apparently they have lost them—apparently; I do not know, sir. What happens now? The expenditure of the levy this year is approximately $500,000. What happens to the SAGIT proportion of this levy? I have made speeches in this house before because I have been concerned for some years about the expenditure of these levies. I have mentioned it in this house, so it is not all new, and it is not all criticism, because I too was concerned about where this money goes.

I presumed that you, the minister, had the auditor's report and that you would have made comment if anything was wrong. Now we see what has happened here with this dispute. I have never had any problem with SAGIT getting good value for our levy dollars because they are fairly open. I know the people involved, particularly Mr Geoff Thomas, who is a long-term friend of mine. Yes, I was a bit unsure about how SAFF spent its money.

I have no problem paying the Grains Council members their out-of-pocket expenses as board members to attend council meetings. I have no problem with that at all because they do put their hands in their own pocket. I have no problem with assisting with the cost of the grains section executive officer's remuneration, but my concern is: what is the split of that? As you do, too, minister, we want to know what the split is. Various accusations are floating around—and I say accusations—about where the money was going, who was paying what, and why there is a rift now between the two. It is a sad day when you see the board sack the grains section committee because, after all, it did appoint them.

It was a sad day when they went away from the election by the members, because now we select them. The board members took it upon themselves to appoint them, and now we see this. I am no longer a member of SAFF; I probably ought to be, and in fact I am considering rejoining. It is pretty sad day because we need SAFF to be in a strong position—a strong position—with the industry as it is, and this is not good for anybody. It is a sad that the board has sacked the grain section.

Chairman Michael Schaefer commented on the ABC that if we ever needed our sole agriculture body to be strong it is now. I take the minister to task when yesterday, apart from saying that he had never seen the auditor's account, he also said that he 'needed an advisory board'. You said those exact words. I say to the minister: you had one until a few days ago, but you never used it; you never asked it to perform. I can understand the minister saying that he needed a specialist-type board. You could have asked these people to do the specific work you wanted them to do.

I also note that these people have got the sack and that they will no longer be employed by the minister or get any money. The whole board costs the minister basically one salary—$160,000, I think, so it is pretty sad. It is also sad that the board has not spoken up. It has always been apolitical in its entire 125 years. It is not spoken up, and it has taken the sacking without any comment at all. I am sad about that. I have tried to make some comments to stick up for them because they have been a very good board and served all ministers of all persuasions honestly. They have certainly given good service, and it is sad that this has happened.

I also note that yesterday in the house the minister announced his agribusiness council. I congratulate the 13 who have been nominated; I know most of them, particularly Louisa Rose, Chair of the South Australian Wine Industry Council. Well done! You will certainly get some good value out of her. Why was the President of SAFF not appointed? Is it because of a gender balance? My God, I cannot believe that.

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Well, I just think, particularly with what has happened in the last week, it would have been prudent—

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Well, put another member on there, then. I can understand that, with gender balance, there is an issue, but to exempt the President of SAFF I thought was a bit unusual.

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I do not think that I am on his Christmas card list either, minister, so do not be offended by that. Also, most of them are city dwellers—I know two of them definitely live in the country, but most of them are city dwellers—and how often will they meet? I understand they are going to meet four times a year for two-hour meetings. That is eight hours total, which is not a lot considering what you got out of the advisory board, which was probably 10 times that.

An honourable member: It is a very high level.

Mr VENNING: It is a very high level, yes. And they are all individuals; I know them. I believe you could have left the advisory board in place as an extremely good representative of the primary industries across the state, with the agriculture bureaus as the nominating groups and, of course, you have the final say about who is there. It is the largest group probably in Australia.

I agree that there is some merit in an agribusiness council because we have had them before, but not at the expense of the ABA. After 125 years, this minister thinks the ABA is no longer relevant, which is pretty sad. I think that the first issue an agribusiness council needs to address is the current plight of the wine industry. I do not know what we can do, and I am interested to see what will happen and what this group can do. There are some people on there who are very good corporate thinkers, so let's see what comes from it. The big question for me is: do I think the council will succeed? Well, time will tell; we will see what happens.

I also note that minister Kenyon said on radio that he did not believe that road conditions were responsible for accidents or casualties. I could not believe it. I have driven on the roads—I would rank either second or third in this place in terms of the number of kilometres I do—and some of the road conditions are bad, and they have to be part of the problem. But if the road conditions are bad and somebody is not paying attention then, yes, it is a mixture of both.

When you see the verges of our roads, they are pretty bad. I have trained all my family to put their wheel off the verge. A lot of these accidents happen because drivers, all of a sudden, find that they have driven off the road and the resulting noise of the stones flying underneath the car panics them, and they whip the wheel hard to the right and the car goes straight across the road in front of other traffic or it hits a tree on the other side of the road. That is the classic, standard one-vehicle accident, and it is started by the bad condition of the verge. There can be a drop of up to three or four inches in places where they have not graded the verge, or there has been wet weather and it has washed out. So, to say that it is not the condition of the roads is quite a ridiculous comment, and I cannot believe that he would say that.

Also, currently, we are discussing school bus contracts, and I am very concerned that it is a cost-cutting thing. We have seen five major bus providers in the Mount Lofty and Gawler region lose their contract in the last few days, and I am very concerned about this. It has been taken over by a large company (I will not name it) that is operating passenger services in the north.

I am very concerned. These particular companies, one in particular, and I will name it, Dunns of Kadina, and another large one in Gawler, between the pair of them, they have over 120 years of service to this community, and they now find themselves out of contract for operating school buses. We all know that these bus contracts were the backbone of these businesses. Some of these businesses will go, and we will be relying on this large company, which, incidentally, is a Victorian-based company, to run all of these services.

What about the service we get from these bus providers? They run our children to sport on Saturday, and they are available for excursions—whether it be private or whatever, they are there and happy to serve. They have been fantastic contributors to local communities. They are there when the hat comes around for donations for various events, and they sponsor all those things.

So, what happens now? We see that these five companies have gone, and I am very concerned about what will happen next. Are we going to go the whole lot? Are they going to go right round? The Barossa will be next. We have three providers in the Barossa, and do you think they are concerned? Of course they would be. This large company, ATC, I think it is—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: ATE—operating out of Victoria. It operates LinkSA and Southlink. They operated in a big way, and here it is squeezing out all these little operators. I would like to see what is the benchmark that is used here. Is it fair, and is it a level playing field? I know these companies would have higher operating costs here in South Australia than ATE would in Victoria. We know why: it is the cost that the government charges that go with that.

I would ask the minister to hold the contracts until we can all have a look at the benchmark. If the benchmark shows that our local operators were not providing an efficient service, I will be the first to admit that, 'Okay, you have done the right thing,' but I think to be penny-pinching in order to squeeze out family companies such as this is quite blatantly wrong. I am happy to have a briefing with the minister, and he can tell us why this has been done.

I also want to discuss, as we have seen in the budget and through estimates, the increased cost of drivers' licences. Can I also say how cross I am that the government has taken away the right to keep the numberplates of historical vehicles. Say you have a 1928 Buick and it has the original number on it, if you want to continue using that number you have to go to auction and buy it; I cannot believe that.

I think the government has misjudged here. There are over 100 clubs in South Australia that are affected by this, and they each have about 80 members on average; work that out—8,000 disaffected people. There are a lot of people here with a fair bit of clout that are pretty annoyed. I agree there are people out there who trade in numberplates, and I am happy for them to be forced to go and buy the plates at an auction.

But, for people who have no other interest than to keep a number on a car that has been there since it was new, I think this is pretty mean. A lot of them cannot afford it and are single car owners—and this does not apply to me—and yet you are going to force them to hand in the numberplate and then go to an auction and buy it back. I think that is pretty rough and, in my time remaining in this place, I am going to say that that is just not just.

A lot of these people are working class people. They are the government's own constituents, and are regularly writing to me saying, 'Well, we only wanted to keep this number.' I was contacted by a man yesterday who owns a 1950 BSA motorbike which has a three-letter numberplate. He wanted to put it back on the motorbike so he could pass it down to his grandchildren, and was told, 'No, you can't have that number, you've got to go and buy it at auction.' It is likely to sell for $2,000 or $3,000. Well, that is just out of the question.

So, I ask the Minister for Transport to please have a look at this. I have written to him several times already, and I think it is quite ridiculous. I just want to say that I am very concerned about what this budget delivers for South Australians. It delivers more debt, which is a huge worry to me. It delivers a higher deficit, and it is a very deceitful budget, because it is conning the people of South Australia.

As in life, you have to pay for what you spend. We are all paying, and we have to pay this money back. We cannot be paying $1.1 million a day. I remind the members opposite that you are also going to pay with your electorate come March 2014, because people out there are pretty upset. In all my time here I cannot recall so many people coming up and saying, 'Why aren't you getting anything from the government, why don't you get into them, go in harder. We're sick of these people. This can't be allowed to happen. Why are we spending so much money. Why are we spending the money on the Adelaide Oval, and now we are spending it on the Torrens precinct. What about our roads in country South Australia?' It goes on and on. So, it will be interesting to see what happens in March 2014.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:53): I wish to make some comments in the debate on the report on the estimates committees. In particular, I want to comment on the two or three estimates committee sessions I attended, in regard to various portfolios. The first was the Treasury portfolio. Obviously, Treasurer Jack Snelling was the minister on duty there. I just want to make some comments in relation to the way estimates committees are structured.

I was involved in three sessions of the estimates committees. During the session with the Treasury department proper, there was a two-hour allocation for the whole of Treasury, which is generally the most wide-ranging session of the estimates committee, because the Treasury portfolio obviously influences every other portfolio. So, there is often more scope to ask wide-ranging questions. Compare that to the one hour that was allocated to the Public Sector Commissioner. If you look at the number of staff, the budget concerned and the importance of the portfolio, it really was a nonsense of an allocation of time.

Where the Treasury portfolio gets just two hours, the Commissioner for Public Employment gets a one-hour allocation. It was an indication of the way the government has manipulated the estimates committees to try to limit the opportunity for the opposition to raise matters that might be of interest to them and the media.

During the Treasury estimates there were a number of issues that are worthy of comment. The first is the issue of the Ernst & Young reports into the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project. The house might recall that during various ministerial statements, questions to parliament or, indeed, media interviews, the Treasurer has indicated that there were two Ernst & Young reports and that his intention was to put 'all' of the Ernst & Young reports onto the Treasury website.

The opposition has received communications and understands that there are at least three Ernst & Young reports relating to the Royal Adelaide Hospital: the two that have been put on the Treasury website and a third report that is less favourable to the government in terms of whether it was value for money for the taxpayer to actually proceed with the Royal Adelaide Hospital project.

So, we quizzed the Treasurer about the existence of this third report from Ernst & Young, and, indeed, other reports from Ernst & Young. The Treasurer went around the answer by saying that the government had received lots of advice from Ernst & Young but could not release that advice because of commercial-in-confidence reasons, but, coincidentally, could release the two reports that the Treasurer claims favour the government's project by way of the level of risk, the valuation of the risk, and therefore put those on the website.

We will keep pursuing this matter through other processes, but it is crystal clear, from the Treasurer's answer, that the government has received more than the two reports. The opposition understands that the other report is less favourable to the government's claim that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project is value for money.

It is interesting that the Treasurer indicated to the house that he was willing to put 'all' of the reports on the Treasury website and is now using slightly different language, saying that there are reports and other information received from Ernst & Young that they will call advice. Ultimately, it is at the Treasurer's discretion as to what goes on the public website so that the public can analyse it.

This goes to the central question of: is the Royal Adelaide Hospital project value for money? It was interesting that during the Budget and Finance Committee in another place, and also during the estimates committees, the issue arose of: what set of guidelines for public private partnerships did Treasury use to estimate the value of risk attached to the Royal Adelaide Hospital project?

It came out during those processes that if they used the South Australian government's guidelines for public private partnerships then there was a lower value for the risk associated with the project, meaning that there was a lower value to the risk of the government doing it as a traditional own and build project.

The government, for its own reasons, decided to do the comparison based on Infrastructure Australia guidelines, so not the state guidelines but the national guidelines. Quite conveniently, if you believe the government, that then means that the value for risk was higher, which then favoured the government's case for doing a PPP.

So, the government was not prepared to use its own guidelines (the state level guidelines) but went to the federal level guidelines and ultimately got a valuation for risk that was higher than had they used the lower value of risk under the state guidelines. There are some question marks around this whole issue. What was all of the advice received by government; what was the advice received from Ernst & Young; what reports were received from Ernst & Young; and, indeed, what did all of those reports say, not just the two reports that have been released onto the website? Anyone who reads the Hansard, I think, can read between the lines: it is crystal clear that there were more than two reports received by the Treasurer with regard to that issue.

This leads me to the issue of ForestrySA and the forward selling of the forests. It became apparent through a radio interview just days before estimates committees that the government has essentially totally ignored the ForestrySA board. Mr Ross, the chairman of the board, was on ABC radio in Mount Gambier the weekend before estimates committees commenced saying that the board really had not been properly consulted by the government, that indeed the board has written to the Treasurer and other members of cabinet expressing their concern about the regional impact statement that was undertaken into the forestry sale by the government, and they were very concerned that the government had chosen to only give the board five days to look at the regional impact statement before the government actually made its decision.

Having announced this some 18 months to two years ago, they then produce a regional impact statement and give the board less than five days to look at it. The board then writes to the government saying that it is a flawed regional impact statement and then the government proceeds to forward sell the harvesting rights of ForestrySA anyway. The real concern, from ForestrySA's viewpoint, as I understand the interview, was that the ForestrySA board was denied the opportunity to develop a business as usual case versus a what the government proposed case and make that comparison and give some advice to the government.

The ForestrySA board, in one form or other, has been around for decades. That a government would ignore all that corporate knowledge about how to run forests and the economic value of forests and forward dividend projections by denying the ForestrySA board an opportunity to make the comparison between the business as usual case and what is being proposed case, I think is telling on the government. It is telling on the government because it is crystal clear now, following the budget and following the estimates committees, that there is actually no economic case, in essence, to sell the forests.

I agree with the Minister for Forests when he told a public meeting in Mount Gambier that now is not the time to sell forests. The reality is that they are selling the forward harvesting rights of ForestrySA to prop up their budget, to pay down some debt and for no other reason. It is not a huge economic reform as such; it is simply a matter of 'We are overspending; our debt levels are too high. We need to sell an asset to pay down the debt,' so ForestrySA is one of those assets that is being sold.

The other asset that is being sold, of course, is the Lotteries Commission. This is an interesting one because last year then treasurer Kevin Foley's budget was a crisis budget. They totally turned their back on the election promises they had made just months earlier. They promised $2.5 billion dollars of budget cuts and tax increases to try to get their budget out of trouble. When they did that, Kevin Foley as treasurer and then cabinet did not suggest selling the Lotteries Commission.

They did not suggest selling the Lotteries Commission during that budget, even though it was suggested by the Sustainable Budget Commission. It was considered by the cabinet and rejected. This year Treasurer Snelling takes over, and Treasurer Snelling is on the record as opposing the idea of selling out government assets to pay down debt, but having taken over as Treasurer, suddenly that view has changed and he has decided that somehow this has become a risky asset in the last four or five months. Somehow the Lotteries Commission has become a risky asset to own. I note that the Western Australian government do not think that; they still have theirs in public ownership.

We asked the Treasurer what were the risks. He really cannot give an explanation as to what are the risks associated with the business of the Lotteries Commission and why the government would seek to sell it. The concern that the public are expressing is simply this: our debt is increasing, our expenses are increasing because of the mismanagement of the government, we sell our forests and our Lotteries Commission, what do we sell next time? The next time the state is in trouble, where does the state go?

The reality is that the government needs to develop budget discipline to control its debt levels and its expenditure levels, and you cannot keep selling assets to prop up your budget. That is exactly what this government is doing, and one of the reasons they are doing it as we have been told during the estimates process is to do with the 2014 election when the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is built—a hospital that is going to cost taxpayers $1.1 million a day for 30 years. My 18-year-old daughter, when she is older than I am, will still be paying for that hospital. It is an enormously long contract. One of the reasons they are doing this, trying to pay down their debt now, is that after the next election $2.8 billion worth of debt is to come onto the balance sheet because of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and, as a result of that, the government are nervous about their AAA credit rating, so they are trying to pay down some debt to preserve their AAA credit rating.

The government really has not explained its reasons behind the selling of those two assets. Part of the reason that our debt has increased to such a level is that the government has been running operating deficits—that is, they are spending more money than they are getting in through taxation. Given that we are the highest taxing state, that is a significant achievement by the government to be spending more money than it is getting in through taxation.

This year they are looking at a $263 million deficit over the next 12 months. The last year, just completed, it was well over $400 million. Two years ago there was also another budget deficit. So, for three out of four years, this government has been running a budget deficit, not on its investing side, although there is certainly a deficit there as well. Put the capital works aside for one minute. This is not a debt that is being run up just on the basis of capital works. This is a debt being run up because the government's operating side—that is, its day-to-day operation of the education department, the health department, the environment department, etc.—is running up $738 million worth of operating deficit.

As the Minister for Forests told a public meeting in Mount Gambier, this is a government that is borrowing money to pay Public Service wages, and he is quite right. So, that $738 million, about three quarters of a billion dollars, is going onto the debt level. When you are selling the Lotteries Commission for what industry experts say is about $350 million to $400 million, what the government is essentially doing is selling the Lotteries Commission to cover its operating losses. That is essentially what it is doing, and I think the public have every right to be concerned about the state of the budget and the need for the sale of those particular assets.

Take out those assets, and there are not too many left. SA Water is still an income-producing asset, but the state slowly but surely is owning less and less income-producing assets and owning more and more assets that actually cost money to be maintained, and that becomes a budget squeeze. You have less and less income coming into the budget but more and more assets that need expenditure to maintain.

The other issue that was interesting that came up during the budget process was the issue of retention allowances and attraction allowances. The Treasurer says that he is going to negotiate another allowance for the Public Service in exchange for his backflip on the annual leave provisions. You might recall that in last year's budget the government said (all of cabinet agreed) that it was important to rein in the Public Service expenditure, so they cancelled the annual leave provision and gave the Public Service two extra days a year leave in exchange. That was the proposal. However, before that could kick in—it was proposed to kick in in the next 12 months—the government reversed that decision, at a cost to the budget of about $22 million a year.

The government also moved to change long service leave provisions in the Public Service and, because of the change to long service leave provisions, the government now wants to negotiate another allowance—a retention or attraction allowance. The evidence provided in the committees was that these retention/attraction allowances are already in existence. The interesting one was Mr McCann, the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, who has a number of non-executives who receive these attraction or retention allowances. If you add those allowances to the salaries of those public servants, they actually go into the executive level range of salaries, but they do not have to give up tenure.

The whole idea of having the executive level range was that, if you wanted to get the highest salary, you had to give up your tenure. What is happening in a whole range of departments is that public servants are being put onto these retention and attraction allowances which push them over the executive level salary range, but they do not have to give up tenure.

When we asked the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment who was monitoring this, the answer was that that was up to the chief executives. In his own section, these allowances had gone on for at least three years and had not been reviewed. They are now about to be reviewed, but no-one is reviewing these retention and attraction allowances across the whole of government. The opposition's understanding from sources within the Public Service is that these allowances go on and on in perpetuity, so the benefit is permanent.

The other issue, of course, is that the government has a target of getting more women into the executive level service. If these women are being paid retention/attraction allowances and not progressing into the executive level service, then it is a form of glass ceiling as far as career development is concerned for those particular public servants.

The other point that is obvious from the estimates committees is the total lack of any support to the business community within this budget. Look at what has happened to South Australia over the recent trading period: we had the largest fall in business confidence in May this year; we had the largest fall in housing finance commitments in the last 12 months; South Australia has the highest youth unemployment rate of all states; we had the largest fall in job advertisements of all states in the last 12 months; South Australia had the lowest proportion of exporting businesses of all states; we had the largest fall in quarterly business investment of all states; and we had the worst quarterly performance in state final demand. And the Treasurer would have all these figures at his fingertips.

With that background, the budget was staggering in that there was simply nothing there for business other than more costs through higher taxes. In relation to taxes generally in the state, the government wants to grab an extra $1.1 billion in taxation over the next four years, and it is going up at twice the rate of inflation.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:13): I also take this opportunity to say a few words on the estimates process. I attended some of the hearings, and the member for Davenport has very correctly picked up on the total lack of understanding, knowledge or ability to assist the business sector, particularly the small business sector in South Australia. I cannot believe that a government that has been there for just over nine years still has absolutely no idea—apart from the minister for primary industries, I might add—about the business sector. If they listened a bit more to minister O'Brien, they might have a bit more knowledge. However, by continuing to crucify small business in South Australia they are digging themselves into a deeper hole. I totally support what has been said about that by other speakers on our side of the house.

It was with interest that I attended the budget estimates hearing with the Minister for Police last Friday. I actually found, in comparison with some hearings, that minister Foley actually took questions, fielded them to his offsiders, whether it be the acting commissioner or whoever, answered everything, said that it was the opposition's opportunity to ask questions, took it all in his stride and capably answered, whereas some other ministers were totally out of their depth and were unable to answer questions or preceded the questioning by extensive long statements about nothing. One was minister Caica, who was accused at one stage of reading out previous ministers' briefing notes.

To turn to one of the issues under minister Caica's jurisdiction, that being marine marks. The discussions over marine parks and estimates were nothing short of pathetic in my view, and this issue is not going away. It just so happens that I have been given a copy of a letter sent out towards the end of last week, and it has fallen off the back of a truck. It is from the Minister for Environment to Mr Justin Phillips, the Extension Officer of the Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery. I will read the letter into Hansard, but all I can say about this is that it is a classic case of an incompetent minister signing letters written by his department—in this case I suspect by the head of the marine parks branch—with no understanding of the issue, and it is simply another attempt by the bureaucrats to divide and conquer, keep people separate and then put their own versions of things on it. The letter says:

Dear Mr Phillips,

Thank you for your recent letter regarding stakeholder consultation for South Australia's Marine Parks Program.

The provision of 'preliminary' sanctuary zone scenarios to the Marine Park Local Advisory Groups (MPLAG) and peak stakeholders in mid-November 2010 was the commencement of a six-month opportunity for both MPLAGs and peak stakeholders to bring important local and industry specific information. This parallel process was the result of the clear preference expressed by peak stakeholders that they would not be required to share information and advice to government via the MPLAG process.

An opportunity for peak stakeholders to share their views with MPLAGs was identified between the fourth and fifth round of MPLAG meetings (between mid-February and late April 2011).

Talk about bureaucratic nonsense! It continues:

However, most peak stakeholders, including the SA Marine Parks Management Alliance chose not to take up this opportunity at that time.

It was not anticipated or suggested that peak stakeholders would be asked to review or comment on the final community advice coming from MPLAGs. The MPLAG and peak stakeholder processes were always promoted as being parallel processes.

Why? Because they want to divide and conquer. It continues:

It is my understanding that your sector has provided advice to several MPLAGs and that, as a member of the SA Marine Parks Management Alliance, your association's views will be encompassed in that whole of industry submission. Industry advice on the preferred zoning scenarios for the 19 marine parks would be of great value. I thank you for providing advice through both these avenues offered.

That said, what I was expecting from the alliance—

bureaucratic speak—

and other peak stakeholders at this time, in line with what was requested (and has been provided) by the MPLAGs, was peak stakeholder advice on preferred zoning scenarios for the 19 marine parks in line with the 14 marine parks design principles. Such advice may provide different alternatives to those provided by MPLAGs, and it is this advice I would find of greatest value.

Please be assured that the various advice from both MPLAGs and peak stakeholders will be carefully considered when developing the draft management plans with zoning for the 19 marine parks and accompanying impact statements.

I repeat: what a lot of bureaucratic nonsense! It continues:

Importantly, I intend to give priority consideration to zoning scenarios that are competent and balanced in line with the 14 marine parks design principles.

This is nonsense! Minister Caica would never have written this sort of nonsense—he has just merely signed the letter.

The draft marine park management plans and accompanying impact statements are expected to be released for formal statewide consultation later this year, with the final plans not due to be implemented until mid-2012. Your association will have the opportunity to make a fully informed written submission during the public comment period.

I expect there will be further discussions between the Department—

DENR—

and the SA Marine Parks Management Alliance in developing the draft management plans and impact statements, to ensure that any industry-related government commitments can be met.

For further information, please contact Mr Andrew Burnell, Team Leader, Marine Parks—

DENR, blah blah blah—

I thank you for your continued interest in this matter.

Yours sincerely, Paul Caica, Minister for Environment.

What I am saying is that this is an ongoing debacle overseen by minister Caica. He thinks it is going to go away. I can tell you it is not going to go away. Meanwhile, we have decent people who operate in the sea for a living doing things such as what is in the local Islander from Kangaroo Island this week, where Mr Graham Walden and crew on his boat Tasha's Choice picked up and dragged back to Kingscote wharf, I understand, several kilometres of rope weighing up to 3 tonnes floating around in the water.

I would say to you, Madam Speaker, and I would say to the house, that if the department for environment wants to do something about the marine environment, instead of running around trying to stop everybody doing everything they should get off their backsides and get out and do what the fishing industry is doing for the sea—which is a lot, instead of absolutely nothing, which minister Caica's department is doing. I think it is outrageous—absolutely outrageous! This would have cost the Walden family a small fortune in towing and bringing this rope out of the sea, a marine hazard. They are actually doing something about the environment, not just continuing to talk about it. I rest my case on that.

Let me tell you, I was at a meeting in Myponga on Monday night. It was actually a Lions meeting, but there were people there involved with the marine parks from the community point of view, and their anger is only getting greater. It is not going away, it is getting greater and greater and greater, and their frustrations are leading them to boiling point on this. It is simply not good enough. The minister has allowed this out-of-control department to keep going on this marine parks process. He is not listening. He is totally incompetent on this matter and his department is out of control.

On top of that, they had a $15,000 stand at the Boat Show, manned for the days that it operated; there were six to eight staff down there all day, every day, promoting the marine parks plan. I actually ran into a few people from my electorate, from the Fleurieu and also some from Kangaroo Island. They went up there and they just walked away shaking their heads.

This is the sort of nonsense that continues to go on—$15,000 worth of taxpayers' money to promote this flawed marine parks process at the Boat Show! They had an EPA stand there as well, part of it, but I don't think anyone was going to that. The general run-of-the-mill community people there, the fishing people that were there, recreational fishing people that were there, left me in no doubt as to what they thought of the government's absolute waste of money being expended on that Boat Show promotion by minister Caica's out-of-control department.

Let me also turn to the current debacle in relation to the school buses that operate across the state, and the contract services. I think my colleague, the member for Goyder, first alerted us to this some 18 months ago, possibly—18 months, two years ago—and we had meetings with the people who operate the buses—

Mr Griffiths: June last year.

Mr PENGILLY: June last year, thank you—12 months ago. We had meetings and have met with the bus operators, and it is an absolute tragedy what is now happening to small businesses that operate school bus contracts around South Australia. How minister Weatherill can sleep at night while this nonsense goes on, I do not know. If this is an example of what we would get if Mr Weatherill was premier, I shake my head in disbelief. How on earth you can allow small business to be crucified once again, bring in big interstate operators and crawl all over the top of local small operators that are providing local jobs, providing food on the table for families, and providing an honest and good service to local communities that work in tandem with the DECS buses that operate in some places, I do not know.

Christine Rufus, from Rufus Bus & Coach, says, 'It's very disappointing how callously they've treated us.' I quote that from this week's issue of the Victor Harbor Times. I also read into Hansard the editorial in the Victor Harbor Times this week, which states:

School bus decision not fair. The decision made by the state government to hand the school bus contracts over to a Victorian business is unfair, not only because [South Australia] is losing business, but in the way the situation has been handled.

The schools are in a state of confusion and don't know who will be providing their services, and the smaller bus charters themselves were left in the dark for a vast amount of time.

In this period of hard economic times supporting local businesses has never been more important. For the state government to take business away from country towns like this is unthinkable. More explanation needs to be given as to why this decision was made.

I will tell you why in a minute, Madam Speaker. The editorial goes on to say:

Eastern Fleurieu School in Strathalbyn—

in the member for Heysen's electorate—

has just been given a major funding boost in the latest state budget for upgrades to the campus, a reflection that the school is in a positive position for continued growth into the future.

So why then take away from a local business an increased need for its services? Yes, the actual bus service will still remain and children will still be able to access bus routes to and from school but the Victorian company is the one that will benefit from the growth.

This is not about rivalry between states; this is about looking after small family owned businesses that may now close because of this decision. The tender process needs to be reconsidered before more damage is done.

I compliment The Times newspaper on that article. They have picked up the issue and run with it. I say to the house and minister Weatherill: have a great big rethink on this matter. You have stuffed it up, you have stuffed it up properly, and what has happened is an embarrassment to the government. It shows that the minister has been totally run over by his bureaucrats and that the Treasurer has had his evil way in crucifying, even further, small business in South Australia.

This mob does not care what they do to ordinary South Australians. They could not care less. We had a good example of that yesterday in the Public Works Committee where there was an absolutely disgraceful exhibition of bullying and arrogance by this Rann Labor government when they tried to ram through $350 million worth of state government expenditure in just on an hour. They rammed it through. They did not even follow due process.

At the end of a hearing in the Public Works Committee, the witnesses leave and then you resume the meeting to have further discussion and move any motions. Vini Ciccarello, of blessed memory, would never have allowed what happened yesterday to happen. She was fair and not driven by factions. What happened yesterday was outrageous, it was a disgrace, and it is a blight on this government that will not go away.

The poor old taxpayers are picking up the bill for $350 million worth of expenditure on the Convention Centre, yet that very committee was put in place after they stuffed up the State Bank. The Public Works Committee was reformed to take scrutiny of public expenditure, but it was cut short by this arrogant, self-serving government with union hacks responding to their right faction mates to jam things through.

There has not been proper exposure. You saw what happened on television last night, and I tell you what: it has got a long way to go, Madam Speaker. If the government thinks it is going to get away with this just because it has the numbers, it is not going to get away with it, let me tell you. It is a blight on the government.

Mrs Vlahos interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: The member for Taylor pokes her head up. I suggest if she wants to make a comment she gets back to her seat, in her proper place, because she was the architect of the disgraceful conduct yesterday. If she wants to stick her head up, I will knock it off gladly, trust me. It was absolutely outrageous. She has been here two minutes and thinks she knows it all.

Vini Ciccarello, the former member for Norwood, was an exceptionally good chairman, and we had an exceptionally good committee where there was widespread debate; matters were discussed and debated, and it was all taken in the way it should have been taken, and proper scrutiny was taken. We will hear more of that one, Madam Speaker, let me tell you.

I go on to talk about the hearing with the Minister for Families and Communities. If there was ever a minister who was totally out of her depth, it is the Minister for Families and Communities. She has no idea whatsoever. She cannot answer questions without arcing up. She probably gets a bit of encouragement to get arced up, from time to time, I might add. However, she cannot answer questions off the cuff without consulting at every opportunity with her officers around her and her staff and getting something to read out. It was a disgrace. It was several hours of comedy with the Minister for Families and Communities.

If it was not so serious it would have been laughable. This is the government that has sold off housing trust properties everywhere. I heard the minister this morning responding to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire from another place, accusing him of being a cabinet minister in a government that had sold off thousands of houses. The difference was that when the former government did sell off housing trust properties, many of them were turned into community housing places; the money was turned over and put into that. Not this lot. This government would sell its grandmother if necessary.

This government has got itself into an unholy damn mess by over-expenditure and it has no idea how to get out of it. We have a Treasurer now who desperately needs training wheels. I say bring back Kevin Foley; at least you could deal with the fellow; at least he had an understanding of what he was doing. The current Treasurer and the budget he delivered was just a joke—it was an absolute joke. Our debt is soaring and going back to unbelievable levels. My children and their children and their children's children are going to be paying off this debt.

As the minister for primary industries correctly said, we should not be selling off the forests. It is madness, absolute madness. It will get away with it because it gets about two votes in the South-East at the best of times, and that is at a good election. It will get even less after this lot.

All its allies in the trade union movement come out and talk the talk but they do not walk the walk when it comes time to making tough decisions. There is no clearer example of that than some of the unions based in the city that deal with the Public Service. They come along and piddle in the opposition's ears and tell them sweet nothings and then they go away, and when the crunch comes they side with the government. You know where all the money will come from for the ALP in the next election: it will come from those very unions that stand out on the steps and criticise the government now, but come election time they will all go into a hole and then come out and support the government.

The estimates process, once again, exposed seriously flawed policies of the Rann Labor government and exposed seriously flawed ministers who were incompetent. It also brought to light the absolutely devastating impact this is having on rural and regional South Australia in relation to things like school buses, marine parks and everything else which I have talked about and which I am sure other members will talk about or have talked about.

I am filled with horror at the prospect of another 2½ years of this government. It is absolutely appalling where this state is going to end up. In tandem with this debacle, we have in Canberra a Prime Minister who would not know poop from clay, quite frankly. The only thing that the Prime Minister has in common with Pinocchio is that Pinocchio never told quite as many lies as Prime Minister Gillard—that is about the only difference.

I am concerned about the future of this state and I am concerned about the future of this nation under the Labor Party regime in various states. We are slowly getting rid of them but I do not think South Australia can wait another 2½ years for a change of government. We need a change of government in this state before the people rise up in absolute anger over issues such as marine parks.

Last night I was interested to hear that the federal minister has reversed the ban on the live cattle trade. What an absolutely stupid decision that was, made in haste without thinking through the consequences. Quite clearly, the federal government has been belted around the ears very severely. The next poll will be even worse for the Prime Minister, and I hope the next one is even worse for the state government.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:34): I rise to make my contribution to the Appropriation Bill and the conclusion of estimates. I, too, am dismayed, as is the member for Finniss and other members on this side of the house, at the scant regard that this government has for South Australian businesses and constituents. As a regional member of this state parliament, I find it horrifying that, with a $9.1 billion infrastructure spend this government has in place, very, very little—only the dregs of that—will make it into regional areas.

We have a government that barely recognises regional areas. I certainly acknowledge the Speaker and her seat of Giles; she will bring some part of relevance of the regions to a government that otherwise has no focus outside Gepps Cross and Glen Osmond, because all this government is concerned about are votes. They look at the seats and they work out whether they will even worry about standing in so-called safer Liberal seats or they will just run people who are in university and do not even know which part of South Australia the seat is.

It is a real issue for democracy in this state and how a state is run when they are only governing for the city, for the urban areas of this state. I reflect on one of my portfolios, agriculture, which has taken a real hit with the gross over-spending of this state. I will go back to the budget that was laid down last year just for a bit of historical reference compared to what has happened with this year's budget.

We saw primary industries out of the agriculture section losing 179 jobs, and this was on top of 100-odd jobs from the year before; and $80 million worth of cuts coming out of primary industries over four years. We see Rural Solutions South Australia losing $12 million over four years, and we are still in part of that budget cycle with those cuts out of Rural Solutions. It is interesting, because the government had a problem with its so-called targeted voluntary separation packages within Rural Solutions.

I asked the question about what seemed to me to be 27 people who had been hired but who were not accounted for. One adviser (and I will not use his name; I will protect the adviser because they are doing their best), when I pushed the questioning in estimates about the calculation of the 27 TVSPs, said, 'Well, it was a miscalculation,' and that they needed those staff for the extra work that needed to be done through Rural Solutions.' But then the minister came back in response to another question a couple of minutes later and said, 'No, it wasn't a miscalculation.'

So I am not sure whether or not it was a miscalculation, but what we found out during the estimates process was that 27 targeted people actually were needed to do the vital extension work and program work that Rural Solutions does for primary industries in this state, and the government is in a real hole as to whether or not they need these people. They just seem to pick numbers out and decide, 'Well, we'll cut them out here, we'll cut them out there,' and do not even have a full hand on the programs that are on the way.

We see SARDI's research cutbacks, supposedly to save $8 million over four years. Out of the budget line this year we see a direct line that says that $2.7 million is to come out of SARDI research. My understanding is that SARDI owns all these facilities, which includes the facilities at the Minnipa Agriculture Centre, over on Eyre Peninsula, which does great work in dryland farming. We have the Waikerie Inland Aquaculture Centre up in the Riverland, and we have other centres. We have the West Beach marine facility that does great work in the fisheries and aquaculture fields. There is another aquaculture facility down at Mount Gambier. We have the Struan Research Centre, Turretfield and Kybybolite.

I note Flaxley is still listed on the SARDI website, but the dairy herd from Flaxley has been sold off, and we are still awaiting to see the outcome of the sale of that land at Flaxley. What bothers me is that, when I asked the question about what specific programs or what specific scientists would be cut with the $2.7 million from vital research and development for the agriculture and fisheries and aquaculture sectors of this state, the government and the minister indicated that they would have to come back to me.

That is not good enough because I am sure on this budget line the minister must have said, 'This needs to go in as part of our $8 million slashing of research and development funding for agriculture.' He would have put it up to the Treasurer, and there it is, but there is no substance to show where these cuts are going to be made. I note that Dr Pauline Mooney, Chief Executive of SARDI, has also expressed her disquiet and disgust at these cuts, and she is certainly concerned, as am I, about where research and development are heading in this state.

I am concerned that with these deeps cuts we may not have a research entity in this state, and that would be a very great shame with the outcomes that have been developed over time in the fields of fisheries, aquaculture and agriculture. I also asked questions on the SARDI research line about where we were with the SARDI-owned facilities that could end up with Adelaide university because the government obviously wants to divest itself of any responsibility of the primary industries of this state.

The government is quite happy to take all the kudos, and you would have thought they made it rain to get the 10.4 million tonnes of grain that contributed about $3.5 billion to the economy of this state, but I do not think that this Labor government with its spin can even go that far. The government is quite happy to take the results of the sector that provides the most income of any single sector in this state—still well ahead of mining, which is still going through a major exploration phase, before the potential mining boom.

I would also like to talk about commercial fishing and aquaculture, where we see that more cost recovery will happen as the government claws away at the good businesspeople of this state, making a good income and building their businesses. These people rely on some of the research I was talking about previously. There is the biosecurity cost recovery, where the government introduced Property Identification Codes, but they have not been game enough to introduce their biosecurity levy because I think they will have a fight.

I think they will recover something like $8 million through that levy, which was to be introduced this year but has been put off by 12 months. The government is saying that it wants to go out and consult. Well, that might be a first. I can assure you that industry does not take kindly to being hit time and again for different fees and charges, and there will be a strong debate around that budgetary measure when the legislation is introduced. I believe it has to come in under amendments to the Livestock Act.

While I am talking about issues I am responsible for, I want to talk about the forward sale of forests. The government has still not been game to give us the actual number, but I note that the shadow treasurer (the member for Davenport) identified a $682 million hole in the budget where he thinks (and I think he is pretty right) the number they may get for the forward sale of forests comes in. The government has a real issue. Gunns has just sold some forestry assets in the South-East—

Mr Pengilly: Given them away.

Mr PEDERICK: —given them away, says the member for Finniss. They went for something like under 40 per cent of their value, so you have to wonder what is happening here. It has been indicated to me that potential forestry buyers are swarming over the South-East looking to pick up a bargain. Someone has picked up Gunns' assets, and someone can see the potential of picking up 111 years of forward rotations of timber—three rotations—and getting a bargain out of it. I am still stunned by how this government thinks, as it has indicated, that it can put certain controls in some contract agreements to guarantee that that timber will be sawn in the South-East of this state, as well as timber that comes out of Victoria on ForestrySA plantation land.

The government is trying to believe its own spin by saying, 'If the forestry plantation expands, then our mills will be fine.' There is no guarantee of that. There is no guarantee that the forests will expand, because the government has not been spending the money that it has budgeted for as far as expansion of the forestry estate. If there is no confidence in the industry and the mills go before we see the expansion (because obviously timber is a long-term asset and takes a long time—about 37 years—to get to full growth) how is there any guarantee that any mills will be in place?

I will go through the Hansard because I find it quite interesting. I asked a question regarding industry development and referred to the South Australian Forestry Industry Strategy through engagement with forest industry stakeholders. On the subject of engagement with forest industry stakeholders, we learn from the Treasurer's response to a question in Estimates A on 29 June 2011 that certain information about the forward sale proposal was not shared with ForestrySA as it was considered to be commercial in confidence. My question to the minister was:

...does the government not trust its own board to treat such information with absolute confidentiality?

The minister responded:

I expect to receive the South Australian Forest Industry Strategy within a fortnight. My understanding is that it has been developed with wide engagement with forestry industry stakeholders. I have just been advised that some 428 copies of the draft strategy were distributed. There were 21 media interviews and articles, which obviously would have gone to other individuals and businesses with an interest in the industry. There were seven stakeholder forums involving more than 100 people, and 21 submissions were received. I have been advised that I will receive the final strategy within the fortnight, and it is then my intention to consult further on the key recommendations.

Then I responded:

You have not answered the question, minister. Regarding the forward sale of the three rotations, certain information was not shared with the ForestrySA board, and I am wondering whether the government does not trust its own board to keep things in confidence.

The minister replied:

Member for Hammond, you referred to a dot point that referred to the forest industry strategy and engagement with forestry industry stakeholders, and I have answered the question.

I responded:

I do not think you have but it sounds as though that it is all we are going to get. It sounds like the ForestrySA board is out in the wind. How can the government explain its decision not to share the detailed financial information and modelling of the forward sale proposal of three rotations of forestry in the South-East with the ForestrySA board?

The minister responded—I found this quite amazing and I hope the house takes note:

That is not a budget line within my portfolio area. It is one that sits squarely within the budget responsibilities of the Treasurer and I thought the Treasurer made himself available through this process to answer any questions on the forward sale.

Here we have the Minister for Forests, essentially, saying he is not responsible for ForestrySA. I do not think the minister knows the wood from the trees! I responded:

Surely, minister, referring to Budget Paper 4, Volume 3, page 199, Program 4: Forestry Policy, as far as forestry policy, I would have thought the ForestrySA board would have something to do with the Minister for Forests.

Then the minister said:

They do—

So he has had a revelation—

in the sense that it manages and advises within the policy settings. The policy settings are in the process of being determined, in large part by the round table. Once they are determined, they will inform the management practices of ForestrySA and the advice that will be given to me.

I responded:

A policy decision of forward selling three rotations of forest, you do not think that is a policy decision that ForestrySA should be involved with?

The answer was:

It is a policy decision that is made by government.

I further responded:

Obviously, as the Minister for Forests, you are right in the thick of the forest, I would think with regard to this matter, and I would have thought it would be appropriate that ForestrySA's opinion was sought on the advisability of the forward sale. I am advised that their opinion was not sought before the decision to sell was announced. Can you clarify that one way or the other, minister?

The minister's final response on that line of questioning was:

I have made the comment that it is not a budget line for which I have responsibility. It falls squarely within the Treasurer's ambit of responsibilities. He has given evidence and I think these issues may have been canvassed. If they were not, that was a decision the opposition made at the time. We are talking about my budget lines, areas over which I ultimately have responsibility, and that is not one of them.

So, that shows the depth that ministers will go to to dodge answering questions in estimates. We saw it right through the program. There are issues we have where ministers will not take responsibility for their portfolio areas.

Just on the issue of the forward sale of forests, I know that the ForestrySA board is ropeable about not being consulted or acknowledged in the whole process of going ahead with the forward sale. I would have thought they would have been the prime group to consult on this issue.

The member for Finniss gave a very good summing up of the marine parks debacle in this state. I certainly questioned the Minister for Fisheries and went through a detailed address of how well fisheries are managed under the Fisheries Management Act. I asked a question around, 'Do you actually acknowledge that you manage them and will the department of environment be taking over management with their planned marine parks that they want to instil on the people of this state?' He did indicate that yes, he was still going to be in charge and the environment minister will not be.

Well, I hope they get it sorted out because it is certainly clear in my head that the environment minister, who says he is a keen fisherman, wants to stuff everyone else's fishing capabilities up by imposing these marine parks on the best-managed fishery in the world. The minister for fisheries—and it is not often I agree with him but I do on this one—has actually indicated in this house that they are the best-managed fisheries in the world. Why do we need this whole debacle where we will see people in tinnies going six or seven kilometres offshore to get outside a marine park zone, and then we will be sending the search parties out to find them? Sadly, we may lose people because of this.

Just quickly, I too am concerned with issues around school bus contracts. We have seen LinkSA come in with its parent company from Queensland. They are taking over family-run bus operations right throughout South Australia. From what I have heard, some of these operations have buses that are being fitted out as I speak, ready to go on with what they thought were continuing contracts. But no, alas, these people with the local knowledge, who have put money into communities and regional communities for decades, are being overlooked for someone coming in over the top of them. I hope this government does not go looking in a few years time and say, 'Hang on, we need some buses for tourist outlets,' or 'We need some buses for education,' and find out they have sent all these people broke and they have left the state to find their wealth somewhere else.

We see the same issue with the government's regard for country health. I note that the Keith hospital debacle still has not been dealt with. The Keith hospital is 100 kilometres south of where I live at Coomandook. It is a vital hospital on the Dukes Highway, connecting to the Riddoch Highway. It is just a shame that this government does not recognise what goes on in regional areas, and that includes the regional road network that needs hundreds of millions of dollars of upgrades to get back on track.

Just finally, I just hope it is not the irrigators of this state who have to take the hit for the $228 million that the commonwealth has pledged for the desal plant because the Minister for Water cannot work out who has to quantify for that water to come from the commonwealth, to look like we are drawing less water off the Murray.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (11:54): After seeing what the Labor government has done so far by adopting Liberal policies and visions for the future of South Australia, I am slightly hesitant to hand over any more ideas. If you look at the track record, the vision is adopted, distorted and left to the taxpayer to rescue.

Let us first look at what happened with the desalination plant concept. The desal plant was brought up by the Liberal Party as part of a holistic plan to secure our water for the future. The Liberal plan also included stormwater and storage. All through the drought, one of the worst in the state's history, the desal was talked down by the Labor government, and they sat on their hands and told people to pray for rain. Then, surprise, surprise, after a few alterations, a desal became the government's only water security plan.

They unnecessarily doubled the size of the desalination plant, paid a premium to rush it through to fit their political agenda, and they have had a lot of safety issues and even deaths associated with the project. We now have an over-budget, over-time desal plant that has to run even if we do not need the water. We also do not have any new storage for the water so, in theory, if it keeps raining, we could be sending our most expensive water ever out to sea.

It is important to note that, since the announcement of the desalination plant, water bills in South Australia have increased by 16 per cent, 21 per cent, 25 per cent, and now, this year, 40 per cent. Water is an essential item and a cost that cannot be avoided, especially as the supply cost is very high and the smallest amount of use is at the highest price. My electorate office is constantly receiving letters regarding the price of water and electricity every day from angry people who cannot afford these price rises.

The Liberals had a great plan to bring football to the city. The Labor government said the home of football was at AAMI Stadium and talked down the idea of a purpose-built city stadium. After seeing how popular the purpose-built stadium was, the government decided it had better do something and cobbled together the Adelaide Oval idea. As we can see, this idea is still being developed as more and more issues arise.

First, it was $450 million and not a penny more, then the deputy premier decided to generously offer taxpayers' money to pay for the $85 million SACA debt, even though SACA was sure they could pay for it themselves. Then it was $535 million, plus $40 million for a bridge that can be hidden in the figure for the Convention Centre, and no provision has been made for parking, other than on the Parklands and in the streets of North Adelaide. We also know now that, even five rows from the back of the new stadium stand, people get wet. The new building requires extra toilets and a media centre to be added for AFL football to be filmed, and now the lights have to be lifted due to the roof line. When will the expenses ever end?

Besides the costs, which are increasing every week, the government is trying to take control of the whole area away from the Adelaide City Council and give it to the privately-owned commercial business SMA. These are the Parklands owned by the people of South Australia and held in trust by the Adelaide City Council. They are also nationally heritage listed, which does not seem to matter at all.

This brings me to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. This time the government came up with the idea of the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital on the contaminated rail yards first. The Liberal Party then investigated the advantage of using the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, which is collocated with the University of Adelaide's medical school, the Hanson Research Centre and the IMVS. We also looked at making use of the award-winning burns unit, the recently upgraded emergency area, the therapeutic Botanic Garden surroundings, and the space available on the existing site.

The Liberal plan was to cost $1 billion. The government plan was to cost $1.7 billion. This went to $1.8 billion and now is up to $2.7 billion before they have even started. This is a poorly-located hospital, being at a major intersection of North Terrace, West Terrace and Port Road. Every ambulance that enters will hold up traffic in all directions, causing gridlock. There are also questions over whether emergency helicopters can land, as the hospital is in a flight path. This is also a poor use of prime riverfront land.

The Adelaide High School is another cobbled together policy on the run to try to counter the popularity of the Liberal policy to build a public high school at the Bowden Urban Village, formerly the Gerard Industries Clipsal site. In a last-ditch attempt to get votes in the marginal seats, $60 million was offered to build on four different high schools, including Adelaide High School. The promise was that it would expand the area to Prospect and Walkerville, it would not encroach on the Parklands, and it would add an extra 250 students. Currently, by the benchmarks, Adelaide High School is already 200 students over capacity.

When I questioned the minister, both at the governing council meeting and in estimates, he maintained that it will expand by 250 students but would not confirm whether that means they are adding space for 450 students, to account for the 200 they are already over plus an extra 250 students, or whether it just an extra 50 places, to account for the 200 they are already over plus 50 more. He also cannot confirm any expansion of the zone, so we still do not know whether students from Walkerville, Prospect, Fitzroy and Medindie can even access the school.

Out of the five plans that were put forward to the governing council (of which I am a member), four encroached on the Parklands and one had heritage implications. The second of our two choices was chosen and it almost entirely covers the Parklands, so it is completely unsuitable and does not account for the 400 or more people who, every year, try to get into Adelaide High School, let alone the expected 3,500 extra residents who are expected to move into the Bowden Urban Village, as well as the increase in population of the city expected under the government's 30-year plan.

This brings me to the Convention Centre. Yesterday in the Public Works Committee it was confirmed that the Labor government approached the Convention Centre regarding an expansion almost six months after the Liberal Party had released its policy paper on redeveloping the centre. That is just another example of Labor following Liberal's initiatives. Let us hope that they do not mess this one up and go over budget and over time, as they have with every other project.

The last comments I want to make are regarding business. Having been in business for 16½ years, I think the last 1½ to two years have been the worst economic market for small business that I have ever seen. In my own electorate, on Prospect Road about 12 to 13 businesses have gone under in the last six months; some have moved because they are not doing any trade in the area, but most of them have actually closed.

The cost of rent is one of the high costs, which can also be attributed to the high cost of land tax. This state is very uncompetitive with its land taxes, payroll taxes, and all the red tape involved in running a business. We have a national wage rate so it is no cheaper to employ staff, yet our overheads are higher, and the population is lower so turnover is lower. Why would anyone start a business in Adelaide? We really need to look at what we can do to help businesses survive.

I note that the minister, in one of the estimates committees, was trying to tell me that BECs are the same as Business SA. Again, having been a member of Business SA for several years and having also used the facilities of the Business Enterprise Centres, that is like saying that TAFE is the same as a university. Yes, they both provide tertiary education, so, yes, BECs and Business SA are both available to small business. However, for a very small business it is a lot easier, psychologically, to ring the BECs. They are less formidable, you do not have to pay a $400 plus fee to be a member, you can just go in off the street and you can call at any time. The service is not the same as Business SA and, whilst Business SA is a fantastic group, I think the BECs provide an essential service and should have state funding reinstated.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:03): I want to quickly talk about what I have been involved with over the last week; in fact, my second estimates. There were a couple of highlights for me—or lowlights, whichever way you like to look at it—and one in particular was with regard to health. In examining the health budget, it is obvious that it is a huge portfolio. It is probably one of the most important areas for policymakers and constituents alike, without a doubt, and that is becoming obvious.

One part of the health budget that particularly interests me relates to the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme. I have spoken about this scheme many times in this place because it is hugely important to people in my electorate and in regional South Australia more broadly, and I do not think there is any more glaring example of this government's neglect of the regions than its neglect of this particular scheme. I am very disappointed that this government has been unable to make significant levels of funding available for the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS).

Unfortunately, there has been no increase in funding for this particular scheme since 2001, i.e., the life of this government. Do you know, Madam Speaker, that patients who need to travel to Adelaide to seek specialist help for medical issues are reimbursed just $30 a day for their accommodation? Now, I do not know of anywhere you can stay in Adelaide for just $30 a day; in fact, the most basic room costs about $90 a day, and more.

These levels of funding continue at a really rather low rate, and that is despite having a health budget of roughly $4.7 billion, according to the health minister, and the overruns that occur in health. I will argue that it demonstrates to me that the government has many priorities wrong in its health budget and, in fact, has lost control of its health budget in many ways. I implore the health minister and the government to reassess the health needs of regional South Australia and acknowledge the importance of the PAT Scheme and make some long overdue changes to it.

Country health services more generally, I believe, need to be a priority of federal and state governments. Capital works and upgrades in regional South Australia are very welcome, and we are seeing some of those in both Ceduna and Port Lincoln; but it is critical that we have the doctors and nurses to provide front-line services in these areas. We desperately need a practical scheme with which to attract GPs and other health professionals into the country, to attract them there, to encourage them to set up practice, do business, raise a family and stay; it is doable. I am sure there is a constructive way to do this. I think it just needs some lateral thinking from the government.

Next on the list is education. I am going to stick with the big issues this particular day. I was disappointed and somewhat surprised by some of the answers provided by the Minister for Education in response to a question I asked in the estimates process. The minister very kindly visited EP quite recently, and he quite rightly pointed out that $4 million had been granted to the Cleve Area School. I am sure that they, and myself, are very grateful for that. But I did ask the Minister for Education a question about capital investment generally, particularly capital works from high schools.

My question focused on a $60 million grant in capital works funding, which went to a number of city high schools between them. I asked whether these schools had capital works submissions lodged at the time of the funding announcement. Unfortunately, I did not believe the minister provided a satisfactory answer, because he was not aware and he was not in the portfolio at the time. He also made a curious remark about the election trumping any such submission. I believe a great many schools that had lodged submissions would be disappointed with his answer, and the uncertainties surrounding the process unfortunately has not been explained sufficiently.

In my electorate of Flinders there are a great many schools which are crying out for upgrades of this nature, so the minister needs to reassure them that the proper processes are in place and that they are not denied funding because of an election pledge trumping the proper funding procedure. I will continue to talk with the minister about a couple of projects in particular that he is aware of in the seat of Flinders.

As a number of my colleagues have done previously, I would like to talk about primary industries, agriculture, food and fisheries and their importance to the state's economy and the neglect that they have been shown in the state budget. The estimates process revealed some disappointing details, unfortunately, about the cuts to the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI)—this is cuts to research and development (R&D), to research expenditure. It is incredibly short-sighted.

The government only yesterday was spruiking the value of our exports in the last financial year, and a big part of that came from primary production and a record state crop. One of the reasons we have been able to achieve such production figures is because R&D in this state in the past has been good, expenditure into that area has been appropriate, and the results have been extraordinary. We have seen that out in the field in increased yields, better farming and aquaculture techniques and developments in fishing.

These developments cannot take place unless appropriate research is done, with extension of that research into the public domain. Some of the cuts are hugely disappointing because they will severely compromise the ability of the research to be done and extended. It is such an important industry to this state's economic prosperity, as was highlighted by the government only yesterday.

Part of the PIRSA brief is to be in charge of biosecurity. We have had some negotiations with the minister and his department about the two quarantine stations that are permanently in place, one in Ceduna, in the electorate of Flinders, and the other at Yamba. After considerable lobbying and effort by myself and a number of my colleagues, we have been able to ensure that the nightshift at both Yamba and Ceduna remain in place. We could not see for the life of us how the saving of 3½ full-time equivalents would, in any way, enhance our quarantine and fruit fly free status in this state.

I understand that Biosecurity SA is now considering a possible shift of the operations carried out at Ceduna to the South Australian-Western Australian border. It is looking at a joint operation with the Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food. This sounds all very good (and I understand that investigations are ongoing), but I can say that this is causing a great deal of angst amongst the staff at Ceduna. I believe there are a number of issues that have not been given appropriate consideration in terms of shifting the current operations out to the border. I think the answers provided in relation to these issues do not give any certainty to those people who are operating at Ceduna.

Unfortunately, the minister's non-committal answers regarding these arrangements warrant greater scrutiny and, certainly, we as an opposition will be endeavouring to get some straight answers about this situation. As I said before, what price do we put on protection? I have talked already today about attracting professional staff into the regions and keeping there. The difficulty with placing a quarantine station on the border, at the Border Village, will always be attracting and retaining staff.

In fact, I visited the Border Village (the electorate of Flinders extends right out to the Western Australian border) some months ago with my wife and a couple of friends, and it became very evident that people are out there for a short time only. It does nothing to satisfy those who are currently working on the quarantine station in Ceduna—people who have their family life in place in Ceduna and who have kids at school and family members who are working—and enjoy the convenience of living in a regional service centre, with all of the services required by families.

I will now touch briefly on mining. It is interesting to note the overblown rhetoric on mining in this state. This could not be highlighted better than by the fact that, as I understand it, there are now fewer people employed in mining in South Australia than there were in 1985. I believe that Eyre Peninsula could well contribute significantly to this state's potential mining future but, unfortunately, until we have a government that can actually deliver, instead of merely spruiking the mining boom that is yet to occur, that potential remains locked away.

The former treasurer, Kevin Foley, once described opening statements as gratuitous and boring, and I think that says a great deal about the quality of this government, because what I saw last week was that many ministers opted to make lengthy opening statements. Unfortunately, the most glaring example for me was when the Minister for Mineral Resources Development said, 'I will try to be brief in my opening statement,' and then proceeded to speak for 20 minutes.

That particular minister is also the Minister for Small Business, and he said during estimates, 'It is not the government's job to make businesses succeed.' That is true; I agree with him, but this was said in the context of the removal of funding for Business Enterprise Centres (BECs). It is my belief that it is the role of government to provide a framework in which businesses can thrive and I think these comments reveal, unfortunately, that this government does not really care about whether or not small businesses succeed.

There was no apology for the funding cuts to the BECs, and this just shows the attitude of a Labor government towards small business. It is the backbone of this state's economy—we say that time and time again to no avail. I firmly believe that the hurdles and the regulations that small businesses are confronted with in this state is making it more and more difficult for small business to do business and to succeed. That framework needs to be a good framework; it needs to be an essential framework in which businesses can function efficiently and effectively in order to do well and thrive.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:17): I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate in relation to the Appropriation Bill. I had the pleasure of being involved in seven committees in total, and having responsibility, if you like, for four of the committees in relation to the opposition: State/Local Government Relations, Volunteers, Emergency Services and Road Safety. I would like to make some remarks, as other members have done, concerning the estimates committees' process.

I think we do need to look at some modifications in the process. This business of having to sign in and out when the members comprising the committees change is somewhat archaic. I know a lot of what we do here is based on tradition, and tradition is an important part of the institution of parliament; however, I think we could look at streamlining the process concerning some of the procedural matters of the estimates committees.

Speaking in relation to the committees for which I was responsible, the first one we actually dealt with was State/Local Government Relations. Our line of questions to the newly-appointed minister, Hon. Russell Wortley, mainly focused on the Burnside council investigation. I have to say that it was somewhat disappointing that the minister refused to answer any of the questions that we put to him concerning the Burnside council investigation.

The minister said the reason for this was that he was going to make a ministerial statement in the parliament, which we all know was made yesterday in the other place. I understand that the minister is newly appointed and has only been in the job for about a week or so, but he sat in that chamber for the entire time the previous minister (minister Gago) had responsibility for the Burnside council investigation, so I would have thought—

Mr Pengilly: Three ministers back.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, well they had four ministers in about four months for State/Local Government Relations, which I think says a fair bit about the current state of the government. Putting that to one side, the current Minister for State/Local Government Relations sat in the other place for the entirety of the parliamentary process, if you like, concerning the Burnside council investigation that had been grossly mismanaged by the previous minister, the Hon. Gago.

So, we did not get any answers to the questions that we put forward. However, fast forward a week or so, and the minister has made a statement in the other place yesterday saying that they are going to scrap the Burnside council investigation and subsequent report. This matter could not have been more mismanaged if the government had put its mind to it; if it tried any harder the process could not be more mismanaged.

We have a bill of close to $2 million and what do we have for our money? Nothing. The inquiry is ceasing. The report is going to be buried forever. The FOI restrictions are not going to be lifted. So, we have this shroud of secrecy still encompassing this whole Burnside council investigation matter.

It is a staggering waste of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. As I said, the estimated cost is, I think, well above $1.5 million, nearing $2 million. The minister said in his statement yesterday that it is in the public interest for the inquiry not to proceed. I make this point, that I would like to know on what basis the minister makes that statement, given the fact that it is in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court judgement that was handed down only a week or so ago. I am happy to quote to the house from that judgement. It is in two parts of that judgement, and I will read both of them out for the benefit of the house. He says:

It is in the public interest that Mr MacPherson complete his inquiry and report to the minister as soon as practicable on matters within the scope of the terms of reference as limited by the court.

Then in another paragraph he states:

Mr MacPherson should now complete his inquiry and report to the minister as soon as practicable.

We had a radio interview about an hour or so ago and the minister says that I am selectively quoting from the judgement. I am quoting some extremely pertinent points, I think, the actual points that go to the heart of the minister's statement that are in absolute contradiction to that judgement. The minister might like to wax lyrical and spin it the way he wants to, however, the fact of the matter is that his statement is in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court judgement.

Furthermore, I understand that the newly elected Burnside council has sought a report. The minister says, 'We want to put it all behind us. We've got a newly elected Burnside council, you know, let's just move on.' It is my understanding that the newly elected Burnside council has called for a report.

Another point to make in relation to this is that the minister also states that it is too difficult to go back and re-work the report, in terms of the revised terms of reference. We know that a number of weeks ago—I have the judgement here; it was 27 May—it was deemed that there were some invalid sections within the terms of reference. The minister is saying that it is too difficult to go back and untangle the report in relation to the revised terms of reference but, again, that statement just does not make any sense.

How can the minister know that they are the facts of the matter when he has not spoken to Mr MacPherson himself and asked the question, 'Mr MacPherson, you are the investigator; you wrote the report. Is it too difficult to rework the report?' The minister has not asked that question, so how can he make the statement that he thinks it is too difficult to untangle the report and present a revised report? It just does not make any sense.

There are a lot of questions the minister has to answer. I know he was on the radio this morning waxing lyrical, gilding the lily, if you like, spinning it the way they want to spin it, but there has been a lot of money spent on this. The government is trying to avoid bad news. There is a shroud of secrecy around this report in terms of not lifting the FOI restrictions. The judgement recommends, as I stated, that the matter should proceed, and we want it to proceed.

I will move on to the next committee in which I was involved and that was volunteers. We all know what an outstanding contribution our volunteers make to the wellbeing of South Australia and the nation. Our questions went to the Volunteers Day Concert that was held a number of weeks ago, and there is bipartisan support for the Volunteers Day Concert—there is no doubt about that.

However, the minister acknowledges that a section of one performance at the concert really was inappropriate, and we highlighted that fact in the estimates committee. It was really the language that the performer was using that was completely inappropriate and the minister acknowledges that, and I am pleased that she does. There is another consequence of this, however. I know that the Governor and Mrs Scarce were present and, unfortunately, the Governor has been drawn into this by a letter a person who was attending the concert sent to him highlighting their disquiet—distress, if you like—in relation to the performance of that entertainer. It is an unfortunate consequence, I think, that the Governor has been drawn into this issue.

The minister did try to explain the process that took place in vetting the performances, and I think that everybody involved—the Office for Volunteers, the minister's office—has learnt a very good lesson that perhaps more scrutiny and a more rigorous approach is to be taken in the future so that we do not get a repeat of this. As I left the concert, a number of people, including some local government mayors I know, spoke to me about how inappropriate that performance unfortunately was. The minister will not agree with me on this point, but I think it did sour the afternoon to some extent.

The next committee I attended was on emergency services and, obviously, the semi-recently appointed Minister for Emergency Services took questions. He was in pretty fine form as usual. I am talking about minister Foley. It was his usual performance in estimates committees. I thought he was not quite as on his game, if I can use that description, in the afternoon compared to the morning when we had police, but that might have been because there was no media presence in the afternoon.

I know the minister does like playing to the media, and he was putting on a fair performance in the morning, but he seemed to quieten down in the afternoon somewhat. Notwithstanding that, he was his usual bluffing self, but we got through it. We had two hours of unfettered questions. I will say that there was no opening statement, from memory, and no Dorothy Dixers. We just flowed through questions from the opposition. One thing that did stand out was a—

Mr Sibbons: Was the Toy Run.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We actually got some good media on that on the TV news that night, but that was in the police estimates, member for Mitchell. That was in the morning when we did have the media, so it paid off for us. It did not go so well for Kevin. Channel 7 ran a pretty good coverage of it, so it did not work out so well for the minister. That was in the morning, not in the afternoon when I had the main responsibility for emergency services.

I am digressing slightly. The point I was getting to in relation to emergency services is that in last year's estimate there was going to be a $9 million cut out of the SAFECOM budget in relation to employees—$9 million cut out of FTEs in SAFECOM. What has come to light is that this current minister has actually cut it another $2 million, so it is my understanding that, at the end of the 2012-13 year, there will be a total cut of $11 million out of the SAFECOM human resources budget line. We will be watching that very closely.

The CFS Volunteers Association (CFSVA) called for a significant increase in funding for support for brigades and front-line volunteers, who go out morning, noon and night, rain, hail or shine to provide a service for our community to keep our communities safe and secure. The CFSVA requested a significant increase in funding for training and brigade support. Unfortunately, that was not provided in this budget. A mere $400,000 in this budget was provided to the CFS, and I think about $100,000 to the SES, which is completely inadequate to meet the training needs.

We saw an article in The Advertiser just this week highlighting the fact that the number of volunteers in the CFS is falling. It has fallen by some 400. I hope the minister is being provided with advice. If he is not, I hope he is seeking this advice to ensure that he understands that the support for our volunteers within the CFS is vitally important. If you do not provide an adequate satisfactory level of training for our CFS volunteers, then you will see some of them obviously become disenchanted and look to leave the service. So, it is a two-way street. We want these people to volunteer. We are very keen on these people volunteering their time for the safety and security of the community but, on the other hand, it is the government's responsibility to satisfactorily support them through their training needs.

I want to get on to road safety concerning some trouble that the Minister for Road Safety has got himself into in relation to what he is not admitting. He was refusing—even though he did a slight backflip yesterday and tried to give himself a bit of wriggle room in coming out in the media yesterday afternoon—in the estimates committee to admit that certain road conditions can contribute to a crash.

Some radio media yesterday morning I think highlighted the fact that the minister is dead wrong in relation to the statements he made. I have a transcript of the radio interview with Ms Angela Bentley, a lawyer, who I understand takes cases concerning road crash injuries to motorists. I will read the opening statement by Ian Henschke, who is obviously the journalist on 891 from 9 o'clock onwards:

Angela Bentley, she's a lawyer who's successfully sued the department of transport because of the condition of the roads in this state...you've had 30 years' experience in this area. When you hear a road safety minister basically putting the bulk of the onus back on to the driver, what do you think?

This is Ms Bentley's response:

I was actually horrified when I heard this when Matt and Dave hit the airwaves at 6 o'clock this morning...with due respect to Tom Kenyon, I don't think he understands anything about road safety, and he's the minister for it.

There you have it. We have a lawyer who has successfully prosecuted DTEI for injuries caused to motorists as a direct result of road conditions. This person has had 30 years' experience, as the transcript states. On the other hand, we have a minister who I believe is dead wrong when he says that certain road conditions do not contribute to road crashes—it is like the poor old beleaguered Minister for State/Local Government Relations—it is in direct contradiction to the advice he has received from the government's own Thinker in Residence, Professor Fred Wegman, an expert in road safety.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:37): I rise to speak on the budget bill and indicate to the house that, during the course of the estimates committees, I represented the opposition in the areas of families and communities, justice, the Attorney-General's Department and, of course, women.

In relation to justice and law and order, which now have such a minuscule percentage of the overall budget in South Australia—ever diminishing—it remains a concern that our superior courts were described by a recent retiring judge as the worst in Australia and that there is nothing forthcoming either in the budget or by the Attorney-General during the estimates that would give us any hope.

However, the Chief Justice told us that $500,000 to $750,000 would be sufficient to undertake a business case for the development of purpose-built facilities for superior courts in the state. I hope that future attorneys-general take note and that members of cabinet appreciate the significance of that, given the importance of funding that jurisdiction so as to be effective.

The area of women was responded to in estimates by the minister for women, minister Gago. There is a vast variety of competence and capacity in any cabinet, and I suppose one would have to say that she is not necessarily the sharpest pencil in the pack; she is probably closest to the Minister for Families and Communities, both of whom are at a level of incompetence, which I propose to outline.

As to women, the minister failed to respond on probably the most important issues: women's employment, the protection of women in domestic violence circumstances, the services and facilities for women in both mental health and the eating disorders unit (which is under review in South Australia), to name a few. Questions were put to the minister for women about which she had no knowledge, no support, no consultation or no answer. That is an embarrassing situation, given that over half the population in South Australia is represented by her portfolio, and the performance we received in estimates was a disgrace.

I now move to the hurt, hungry and homeless, who would have wept upon reading this year's budget in respect of Families and Communities. If the minister were present during cabinet meetings to sign off on this budget, she must have been either silent or ignored (if she said anything) regarding the plight of those people in South Australia. The aspect of concessions, as we move into an era unprecedented in the increase in costs of services in this state, was monumentally underprovided for in this budget.

If we look at the provision of services for the disabled, the aged, and child protection, even where announcements were made, there was a monumental continued failure by this minister in providing some relief to these important areas in this year's budget. In covering some of these, the area of housing, and in particular public housing, which is under the direct responsibility of minister Rankine, this year for the first time, along with other government instrumentalities, did not show up in any particularised form as the SA housing trust in the budget papers. That has been wiped off the map, and we now have only a summary within SA Housing, continuing a practice of concealment, lack of transparency and lack of accountability therefore in the budget process.

The minister continued during estimates to tell us of all the extra housing, extra support in tenancy areas in rental allowances, and the increase in maintenance of housing that her government had undertaken. The one statistic I remind the house of is that, in the seven years from 2003 to 2010, supported by the data from the institute of welfare, that is, the national body that covers these areas, we have 5,371 fewer tenantable houses in this state. We will no doubt wait until we get the housing trust report later in the year, as we do not have that information now in the budget, to identify whether or not it that has deteriorated further.

What we heard repeatedly during the Dorothy Dixer questioning of the Minister for Housing during estimates was the figure of hundreds of millions of dollars via federal initiatives she has spent in this state on public housing and the hundreds of different houses she has enhanced as public stock availability. The announcements are cherry picked regarding housing developments, but the one statistic I ask the people of South Australia to remember is that, under this government, in seven years alone there has been a reduction in the overall number of public houses of 5,371. It is a very telling statistic, and one that will never be answered by the minister, who just wants to come into the house and tell us of a few houses or proposals—10, perhaps 100 or so—that have been in the pipeline and of which she is proud. There are a number of aspects of housing to which I would like to refer, but time does not permit today.

The Parks sell-off, announced in last year's budget, caused unprecedented public outrage and rebellion against such action regarding that public facility. It was proposed that it would recover $17 million on the capital sale of the property. This year, after receiving a report from Monsignor Cappo on a review of that property on behalf of the government, we saw the Premier announce through his press release on 2 May that he had received the report; a budget comes and goes and there is no provision in the budget (notwithstanding that the Premier had this report on 2 May, according to his press statement) as to what will happen with the Parks.

After the budget was announced, we received a notice of a further announcement and that is that the government, having read the report from Monsignor Cappo, was going to 'accept his vision' (to use the Premier's words) and that it was going to sell off only $10 million worth of property and it was going to make it into a sports hub. The government has failed to answer—whether it be the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, the Minister for Families and Communities (who currently owns this property) or the Premier—why there has not been one cent of funding in this year's budget to even provide for that service.

Let me place on the record that I will strongly object to any of this $10 million—that is, the proceeds of the sale of this property—being used for anything else but welfare services. If that goes to help support a library service which will still accommodate a facility for welfare services, then I can live with that. I would be happy to support it, because part of the recommended model is that the local council chips in a piece of land next to this precinct and that some capital funds be applied to the building of a library complex on it.

Some of these have great merit. I am sure all the sports facilities that have been announced will be welcomed by parents and consumers of those services. That is great, but it should not be coming out of the welfare budget. The extra $15 million deficit in this program needs to come from somewhere other than the much-needed and under-resourced area of Families and Communities. I will continue to maintain that position.

We have, of course, minister Rankine's other area of responsibility, ageing. I want to refer to that for a moment. The ageing portfolio is one which deals with the distribution of grants for a number of ageing projects, but also policy matters. The minister answered some questions on Dr Alexandre Kalache, one of the Thinkers in Residence. She confirmed that, in this last budget, $100,000 has been used to pay for Dr Kalache (as she describes it) to look into the question of the engagement of older people and ensure that we have age-friendly communities and that these are used in line with the design of community that is age friendly—all admirable.

Let me say this: we currently have ministers who go overseas; we have policy units in her department which spend multimillions of dollars looking at these issues; we have the Commissioner for Social Inclusion who has his multimillion dollar unit in the Premier's department; and we have areas in the universities which are dealing with these issues. I just read in the Adelaide University publication today of a project being undertaken there—a very good one, it seems—on the social isolation of aged people in our community. The article states:

Professor Andrew Beer and a team of researchers have been awarded $348,151 by the Australian Research Council to look at the most effective programs to combat social isolation in an ageing society where divorce, lower marriage rates and reduced fertility are contributing to a critical health issue…

Why is the minister approving $100,000 for someone to come from overseas to tell us something we already know? We have a national expert here at our own university already undertaking the research. How many people do we have to have and how many hundreds of thousands of dollars do we have to spend? It is just a complete abuse of the process of the allocation of moneys in a priority area when we have people waiting in line for wheelchairs and when we have over 20,000 people waiting for a housing trust facility, etc.

It is unacceptable that the minister can come in and in one breath advocate for the cutting of financial counsellors in her department, as well as in the outdoor field. In addition, she has failed in the estimates committees to satisfy, in my view, why it is necessary to do that and how she expects the NGO sector to be able to pick up that responsibility with minimal and totally inadequate funding to do it.

How is it that she can say that disability clients of Disability SA now have to pay a fee to the Public Trustee to have their meagre funds managed, all for minor savings over periods of time, and yet she can spend $100,000 a year to bring just one person from overseas when we have an army of people in our own state who are not only undertaking the study but who are charged with the jurisdiction to do so?

It is just unconscionable that that sort of funding is introduced when we are asking people who have no means whatsoever to make provision for these services. Just today we have heard again about the rerun of the issue that was raised last year on the review of tenancy in Housing Trust homes. The absolutely imbecilic lack of priority in the decision making of how we help people in our community who are in need of services is mind blowing.

I therefore say that this level of incompetence by the minister is directly related to her incapacity to understand what is a priority and what is not. We are in a three-year electric car trial by Families and Communities, which is participating in some national program. That is a cost to the department, yet why isn't some other department doing this? Why is this not dealt with within climate change or transport, or something? Here we have Families and Communities money being used when we have people desperate for services.

While I am talking about people desperate for services, I specifically relate to those with a disability. We have welcomed the government's continuation of the program to empty Strathmont, which is the last of the residential facilities based on the very old style model of providing for people with significant disabilities who require 24/7 care. Slowly and progressively, the residents have been transferred. I am disappointed that the government has not moved the balance of 60-odd, but at least they are prepared to move half. What we have wanted from the government is a commitment that the proceeds of the Strathmont centre, just like the Parks Community Centre, is secure and will be applied to the projects necessary to reaccommodate and provide services for our most disabled in the community. That is all we have asked, and we have had no commitment.

Additionally, during estimates the minister told us of the program which is called the Young Persons in Residential Aged Care Program which started back in 2006 which prioritised, we were told at the time, the relocation of people under the age of 65 who are living in aged-care facilities because there was no other disability service available for them. Sometimes these people are victims of motor vehicle accidents and there is no facility close to their residence and there is nothing suitable for them. They end up in an aged-care facility but might be 40 or 50 years of age. Obviously, that is not acceptable. There are some unique circumstances where families in a particular location or community have supported them and we welcome that.

However, at that time there were at least 50 people living in those circumstances. We have a situation where that number has not diminished in seven years, and we heard during estimates that the minister had provided some support packages to some people and the homes they were living in because they did not have adequate access to a separate facility as their parents or spouses aged, for example, and were unable to continue looking after them. We found that, in seven years, of the number of those young people living in aged care facilities, only 27 in all that time have actually been relocated to a specific disability service.

I, probably like many members here in this parliament, have members of family who are caring for children who are disabled. I am a legal guardian of a woman in her mid-30s who is living in a non-government facility in South Australia. Her mother is in aged care. She is not a blood relative. Through the accidents of history, we take on some of these responsibilities and I provide her guardianship.

I have a cousin in his mid-40s who lives on Kangaroo Island, the youngest of four siblings. A tragedy at the time of his birth has rendered him unable to walk or, in fact, to communicate verbally. He is living with aged parents, my aunt and uncle, who clearly are in that cohort in the community who have not reached crisis point (probably, largely, as a result of the generosity of people in the community to support them and provide respite and assistance) but nevertheless are worried about his future when they are no longer able to provide the service of 24-hour care, and they are desperate for some support from the government.

Various projects and reviews have been undertaken to support alternate models for people to even make a contribution to the capital acquisition of properties, but they just seem not to have been responded to by this government in progressing what will be a catastrophic disaster if we do not provide adequate services for these people.

The other thing that really concerned me, on hearing the minister's evidence to the committee, was that of those young people living in aged-care services—and I am sure the parliament will be shocked to hear this—there are four people with disabilities who are under the age of 30. This is a totally unacceptable living environment for them.

How can there be a situation where a minister can pay $100,000 to bring in an apparent expert from overseas under a Thinkers in Residence program when we have an army of them here to do it already? She can allocate $100,000 to do that and other pet projects of the government can be pursued (including the Premier's now Adelaide Studio, the ex-film hub, at the Glenside Hospital site) and yet they ignore the plight of children who are stuck in environments that are totally unacceptable just because they have a disability.

This government does not care. There are people left in critical situations in homes in the care of disability where the capacity to manage the crisis culminates in a Coroner's report. Most recently, we heard of the acquittal of a woman who was apparently found not to have sufficient mental capacity when she killed her adult son who was severely disabled.

We read about these tragedies in the newspapers. We read these Coroner's reports. I read these judgements, and every year we end up with a situation where the government says, 'We are spending more money. We are doing more for these people.' I do not hear that: I hear a very distressed cohort in the community who are struggling against the odds, who have inadequate provision and who have a heartless government and useless minister to advocate for them.

Mr BIGNELL (Mawson) (12:57): I rise briefly, given the time, to respond in part to a comment the member for Flinders made about the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme. I remind him and other members that in the 2011-12 budget there is a $719 million investment in country health in South Australia. That is an 89.3 per cent increase on the last budget under the Liberal government back in 2001-02.

What we are trying to do with country health in South Australia is to spend more money in the regions so that people do not have to come to Adelaide as often for treatment, only for very specialised treatment. I was in Ceduna, in the electorate of the member for Flinders, earlier in the year to inspect the first stage of the $36 million hospital redevelopment there—$36 million is a massive investment.

Also in the electorate of Flinders, the commonwealth—who we are working really well with to get money spent in South Australia—contributed $39 million to the Port Lincoln Hospital. I would just like to reconfirm that the South Australian government is committed to country health in South Australia and will continue to be so.

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) (12:59): I move:

That the remainder of the bill be agreed to.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Small Business, Minister for Correctional Services) (12:59): In English, I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


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