HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption (resumed on motion).

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:36): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your elevation to your role. The other issue with the resources tax being proposed by the Rudd government ultimately is the combination of increased costs of that tax and their proposed ETS scheme on the mining industry. It is one thing for the mining industry to run off to Canberra and argue about the impact and extra costs of the super tax on the mining industry, but they should also keep in mind what the Rudd government has planned in relation to the increased costs of the ETS proposed for 2013-14.

I mentioned earlier there was a typical Labor approach about taxing the more successful side of the economy and I want to speak about what the government is proposing to do in relation to the other side of the economy. In particular, I want to speak about small business.

The Liberal Party went to the state election with proposals for payroll tax reform, land tax reform and workers compensation reform. I note that the Treasurer has essentially picked up the land tax reform and announced that as part of the election policy, so he essentially followed the Liberal Party on the debate about the need to reform land tax. With payroll tax, he has also essentially copied one element of our policy about apprentices and trainees. We welcome that, but you would have to ask the question, from a small business viewpoint, as to why it has taken eight years for the government to address that question, when we all know the government was being lobbied for many years about that particular issue.

The other issue is workers compensation and WorkCover. It is not lost on the opposition, or indeed the injured workers, what the WorkCover board has announced in recent weeks in relation to the reduction of the levy. Prior to 2002 and as they took office in 2002, this government castigated the previous government for a reduction in WorkCover levies on the basis that the workers compensation scheme was not fully funded, and at that stage the unfunded liability was around $55 million to $60 million. Currently the unfunded liability is something over $900 million, from memory—from the latest public figures—and WorkCover has decided to reduce the workers compensation levy.

While businesses will rejoice in that, because we have the highest WorkCover levies in Australia, the point is the hypocrisy of the administration. The Labor administration criticised the Liberal government for reducing WorkCover premiums when it had an unfunded liability of $55 million to $60 million on the basis it was unaffordable and it should not reduce levies until the scheme was fully funded, and here we have a scheme with an unfunded liability not of $55 million to $60 million, but around $950 million, and WorkCover has seen clear to reduce the levy. It will not be lost on the injured workers out there that they are getting fewer benefits under this government at the same time that businesses are having their levies reduced. I know many of the injured workers have some concerns about that particular aspect of the government's policy.

I will comment about the delay in the budget. I think the argument the government puts forward as to why it needs to delay the budget is a nonsense. This is not a new government. In fact, there have been very few changes in the government over the years in the key ministries. Here is a government that has been in power for eight years, wins the election and says that it has to delay the budget until September so it can work out what it wants to do. It seems unbelievable that South Australia is so accepting of this particular act by the government. All around Australia, when governments are re-elected, they do not delay bringing down the budget by another six months. It is almost as if the government has got across the line in the election, drawn a big sigh of relief and said, 'Thank God we've won and now what are we going to do?' It is now waiting six months to decide what it will do based on a report by the Sustainability Commission which the government has set up.

The government is hiding the budget in the middle of the football finals. It is not lost on the opposition. I hope it is not lost on the media that this government has placed the bringing down of its budget right smack bang in the middle of the AFL football finals. I think it is a deliberate strategy to try to minimise media scrutiny on the budget because of the media reporting euphoria that generally goes with the lead-up to the AFL grand final, which is only a matter of days after the budget is brought down. I think it is a pretty cynical exercise on behalf of the government to delay the budget by six months, whack it in the middle of the football finals and say that it is for some great strategic reason for the state's benefit.

In my view, it is not for any other reason than that the government is not clear what it wants to do. It needs six months to sort out its priorities, which is staggering given it has been in government eight years, and then it will bring down the budget in the middle of the football finals, hoping to minimise the scrutiny. It is a good argument for three year terms. Although that is not Liberal Party policy, it is a good argument for three year terms, not four year. It is a good argument to take the election out of March and put it in November. If you had the election in November, you could have questioning of the government right up until September or October—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, the member for Croydon says it came in under a government in which I was a minister. Yes, a government which was a minority government and which did not control that debate of the house, which the member for Croydon will remember.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I suggest the member for Croydon—excuse me—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Chair, I make the point—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, although you already have.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I think South Australia will be better served by a three year term of government and better served by a November election, not a March election. It is a nonsense for a government that has been in eight years to have to delay its own budget for six months so it can sort out its particular problems. The other issue that has evolved over the last few months—that is, during and since the election—is the health deal signed off between the state government and the federal government and referred to in the Governor's speech.

The only comment I wish to make about that at this stage is that I do not think it is a smart move by the state to quarantine funds to the tune of 30 or 30-odd per cent of the GST. Today in question time the Treasurer was saying that it is the one area where we have budget flexibility—our revenue flexibility is mainly through the GST. Then to quarantine it aside for health, I am not sure is a great principle for budget flexibilities for future treasurers and, indeed, the state generally.

The other issue I raise is the impact of the Rudd announcement on increased superannuation for workers to be paid for by small businesses. This is the increase of compulsory super from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. On the surface, it looks like a reasonable announcement. However, the reality is that the structure of the federal government's compulsory super announcement is that something like two-thirds of small businesses are not corporations and therefore they will not benefit from the reduction in corporate tax from 30 per cent to 28 per cent.

So, in actual fact, two-thirds of small businesses in Australia are going to get a 3 per cent increase in charges based on their payroll and, essentially, no corporate tax rate benefit. So they are getting all of the pain and none of the gain. To me, that is stupid. I think small business is the engine room of the economy, particularly the South Australian economy. We have tens of thousands of small businesses, if not around 100,000 small businesses. About two-thirds of those will get a 3 per cent increase in superannuation costs and, really, no net tax benefit. That is a nonsense.

To put it in the context of a state charge, the WorkCover levy currently is 3 per cent and the increase in superannuation from 9 per cent to 12 per cent is a 3 per cent equivalent, so the Rudd government is essentially announcing a doubling of the WorkCover levy for all of those small businesses, based on no tax offset.

Why would we be accepting that? When the compulsory superannuation scheme was brought in, the workers gave up a pay rise as a productivity offset so that the businesses could afford it, but I do not see this government rushing out to increase payroll tax by an extra 3 per cent or doubling the WorkCover levy because of the jobs impact on small business. So, not only does the Rudd government need to deal with the mining tax, but it also needs to deal with the superannuation surcharge increase, because that is going to be an issue for small business long-term.

The other issue I want to quickly touch on is that of the Southern Expressway, because the Labor government has spent some time criticising the former Liberal government for building the Southern Expressway as it was built. I am very proud to have been in the government that built the Southern Expressway, for this reason: all the previous Labor governments never built it. They sit here and ridicule us, of course, for daring to build it—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We do.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: 'We do', says the member for Croydon—but, of course, the previous Bannon government never gave priority to the south of Adelaide. Its priorities were a little bit different. Of course, the member for Croydon was here then and was part of that government. We all remember that that government invested in 333 Collins Street, New Zealand forests, South African goat farms and insurance schemes in America, but it would not invest in a Southern Expressway for the southern suburbs. Well may members opposite criticise the former Liberal government for daring to build the Southern Expressway but, given that we were paying $2 million a day in interest—from memory, it was about $700 million a year, and the police budget at the time, I think from memory, was around $400 million or $450 million, you can see the financial troubles that that government left the previous Liberal government.

The question the Labor voters in the south should ask is: in all those years they voted for the Bannon government, why could that government not be bothered to build them a road? It could not be bothered to build them a road, such was the arrogance of that government. At least the Liberal Party invested down south when it could afford it.

The only other issue I wish to raise is that of the state election in terms of the vote. While this is not Liberal Party policy, I think it is timely for the state parliament to reconsider the various results of both federal and state elections where the party that gets the majority of the two-party preferred (or popular) vote does not form government. I acknowledge that it happened to the Beazley opposition and it has also happened to—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It happened to Mick O'Halloran time after time—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, that is right.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: —by you and your faction of the Liberal Party.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Apparently, when I was not yet born, Madam Chair. Given the way party politics has evolved in the parliamentary system of politics in South Australia over the years, I think it is fair for the South Australian public to ask why the parliament is not looking to set up an inquiry to look at changing the voting system so that the principle that the parliament has previously espoused can be guaranteed, that is, that the party that wins the two-party preferred vote statewide should form government. I think the public are now at a point where they are saying that that principle is actually right: the party that wins the two-party preferred vote statewide should actually form government. Certainly, the feedback to my electorate—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: People have raised that with me since the state election. They are confused.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! A moment please, member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: He is taking my time up deliberately, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, and if you would allow me to make that point that would be very lovely. Member for Croydon, I know it is very exciting being on the backbench, but if we could just control our excitement that would be fantastic.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: People in the electorate have been asking why is it that a party that wins 51.6 per cent of the statewide vote does not actually form government. My view is that the parliament should look at setting up some form of inquiry or get a group of experts to look at the question of whether the voting system cannot be changed so that the party that does win 50 per cent plus one of the two-party preferred statewide vote wins government. Whether that is a top up system, whether that is a weighted vote system, that is a matter for this group or the inquiry to look at.

I do know something: if the system was changed so that it was guaranteed, suddenly a Liberal vote in Port Adelaide becomes as important as a Liberal vote in Burnside and a Labor vote in Port Adelaide becomes as important as a Labor vote in Burnside, and the whole system of the way the government operates and the way the parties campaign would have to change because every vote statewide would be of equal value.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Good point.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Croydon says 'Good point.' I'll get that on the record because it will be the only time he will agree with me for four years. My view is that we, as a parliament, should be looking at how to deliver that principle because I think it is a bit of a nonsense in modern times to have the government decided on who wins the majority of seats based on artificial boundaries. The boundaries are artificial in the sense that there is a tolerance in them. Liberal votes can be locked in some seats, Labor votes locked in other seats.

The reality is that the party system is now so developed in our politics that the public are ready for the debate about whether the party that wins 50 per cent plus one should form government and, if that is the principle the public wants, the parliament should start developing a system to deliver that result for the people. The party that does win that—and it will be a Labor government sometimes, a Liberal government at others—would win government based on that principle.

The parliament in 1990 adopted that principle. It asked the Electoral Commission in making the redistribution to do the redistribution on the basis that the party that wins 50 per cent plus one has the best chance of forming government. So, the parliament in 1990 already said, 'That is the principle we want to adopt. Please change the boundaries to try to develop it.' The reality is that the boundaries are arbitrary. We have the state boundaries, so why don't we look at changing the system so that the party that gets 50 per cent plus one vote across the state then forms government. That would deliver fairness to the system.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I have said they should look at all the different systems around the world, member for Croydon. I am not a voting expert but I know this: the system is wrong. It was wrong for Kim Beazley when he won over 50 per cent of the vote and didn't win it.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: I didn't hear you say anything in 1998. You didn't say anything then.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Neither did you. You didn't even stick up for him. Wasn't he from your faction? Why didn't you stick up for Kim Beazley at the time?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Because I'm not a whinger.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You're not a whinger. There are some comments. I think the voting system needs to be reviewed and changed. I think democracy in South Australia would be far fairer if we did look at adopting that principle and somehow guaranteeing it in the parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call on the member from Norwood and, as this is the member's maiden speech, accordingly I ask members from both sides of the house to extend the traditional courtesies to the member.

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (16:55): It is with great pleasure that I rise in support of this motion and sincerely thank the Governor for his opening of parliament last week. I am a strong supporter of a non-political head of state and I pay tribute to the Governor and the excellent role that he and his office plays in supporting both the legislative process and more broadly the people of South Australia. I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to the important post that you shall hold during the term of this parliament. I also congratulate the Speaker on her appointment. I congratulate all newly elected members, indeed, all members on their election to this the 52nd parliament.

Although it is an honour and privilege to be addressing the chamber for the very first time, it will come as no surprise that I would prefer to be doing so from the benches opposite. Isobel Redmond's Liberal team won a significantly higher proportion of the primary vote and a clear majority of the two party preferred vote in the state election just held. In fact, the Liberal Party has won the two party preferred vote in two of the past three state elections, despite Labor going on to form government after all three. This is certainly an issue which this parliament will need to consider.

How can we claim to have a fair democratic system when we so consistently appoint the losing team to govern us in South Australia? Premier Rann and his government do not have a mandate to govern from the people of South Australia. It is, therefore, very important that the government acknowledges this and does not continue to pursue policy and legislation which is not supported by the people of South Australia. I refer specifically to the current position of the government to move the Royal Adelaide Hospital to the proposed rail yard site. This is a significantly flawed proposal, as evidenced by the failure to win the popular vote and the losses in crucial city and city fringe seats, such as Adelaide, Norwood and Morialta.

I earlier congratulated those who, along with me, have been elected to this parliament. I am indeed privileged, but I cannot reflect for too long on my good fortune without thinking of those who should also be here, in particular Joe Scalzi, Maria Kourtesis, Cosie Costa, Matt Donovan, Jassmine Wood and many others. Each of these people fought hard to win their respective seats. They were often fighting against a member so obsessed with winning that they would stoop to using deceptive and malicious tactics. It is naturally good to win, but winning at all costs can compromise our democracy. This is the situation we find ourselves in in South Australia.

I wish to begin this speech by particularly thanking the electors of Norwood for the confidence they have shown in me. It is a great privilege and honour to serve the people of Norwood. Norwood is, undoubtedly, a rich and diverse electorate. I could not wish for a better electorate to serve. It is no coincidence that both major parties chose to launch their election campaigns in the Norwood Town Hall on The Parade. Adelaide may be the capital of South Australia; however, I believe that Norwood is the capital of Adelaide.

I have lived in the eastern suburbs for the past 22 years. In reality, it is not easy to define the Norwood electorate. It is made up of so many parts which combine into the most wonderful community. The electorate is named after the suburb of Norwood; however, Norwood is only a part of this rich and diverse electorate, which includes: Kent Town, Hackney, College Park, St Peters, Joslin, Royston Park, Vale Park, Klemzig, Maylands, Marden, Evandale, Stepney, Payneham, Payneham South, Trinity Gardens, Firle, St Morris, Beulah Park and, of course, Kensington, which came into the electorate at the last election.

The Norwood electorate values community, heritage, open space, equity for all and our environment. It is also a most ethnically diverse electorate, with strong multicultural communities, including: Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Russians, Koreans, Chinese, Germans and many more. These people, and their cultures, add an extremely valuable dimension to the broader community. They have brought their food, culture, language and sport to the electorate of Norwood. It has been an absolute pleasure to get a greater depth of understanding of the electorate during my candidacy, and I very much look forward to working with the people of Norwood as their elected representative.

Naturally, the people of Norwood will remain my priority. Nevertheless, I also feel strongly about representing those people and causes forgotten by this government. In particular, I plan to work hard to represent those with disabilities, those with mental illness, Indigenous Australians and those struggling with circumstances beyond their control.

I particularly plan to champion both the environment and business sectors, especially our crucially important family business sector here in South Australia. I strongly believe that a clever and hardworking government can achieve a strong and growing economy without losing sight of those less fortunate. This requires a government which looks beyond the populist policies. It requires leadership and vision.

A maiden speech is traditionally an opportunity to reflect on one's path to the parliament and one's core beliefs, objectives and goals to serve. I would not be here today if not for the support and assistance provided to me by many.

In my first speech in this chamber I wish to recognise my parents and the debt of gratitude that I owe them. Unfortunately, my mother is in hospital today and could not be present, but I thank them both very much. By way of interest, my parents met in the electorate of Norwood at a dance at the Norwood Town Hall, so I owe a lot to Norwood, of course. I have learned much from my parents.

My father has taught me and my two sisters the importance of hard work and goal setting. He is a quiet but determined man who started his early life in Port Adelaide. He worked extremely hard his entire life to better his lot and that of his family.

My mother is originally from Broken Hill. She is an extremely compassionate person who has taught me the importance of family, looking after others and self-sacrifice for the common good. She has been a great role model to me and my sisters. We are a very close and supportive family, and I would not be here in this chamber today if it was not for their love and support and, indeed, for their very good humour.

Undoubtedly my greatest inspiration comes from my two children, Charlie and Georgie, present in the chamber today. They are both outstanding children, wise beyond their age. They have been my partners in Norwood for the past two years, and I dedicate all my work in this chamber to them and to the next generation of South Australians. If I am successful they will find jobs and a rewarding life here in Adelaide.

There are many others whom I wish to recognise. I congratulate and thank the Norwood campaign team, the Norwood SEC, the Norwood central branch and the Norwood Young Liberals. Their support and commitment was unwavering throughout the almost two years of solid campaigning. I particularly wish to acknowledge and thank my campaign chairperson Vickie Chapman, my Legislative Council pair the Hon. Rob Lucas, state director Julian Sheezel and the hard working team at Liberal HQ, our leader Isobel Redmond and the entire Liberal parliamentary team.

I would especially like to thank Norwood campaign manager James Stevens. James worked tirelessly on the Norwood campaign for more than 18 months. He kept an inexperienced and anxious candidate calm and, most importantly, focused. He has a tremendous strategic political brain and I hope to see him one day using his talents in parliament here or in Canberra.

I would also like to thank my very tolerant employer Michell Pty Ltd and, of course, the Michell family for their support. I have very much enjoyed my time working for this iconic Australian family business. All South Australians should be proud of the Michell company, which has represented our state on the world stage, exporting merino wool for more than 140 years. It is a most successful, ethical and environmentally responsible company.

Finally, I would like to thank my many patient and long-suffering friends for listening to my constant political commentary over the years. Thank you for your support; I really appreciate it and guarantee that I will tone down the rhetoric from now on.

We are all a product of our experiences. Today I would like to share with the chamber a little of my journey to this place. I was born in the western suburbs of Adelaide. Many people say that that explains a lot, but I am actually very, very proud of my heritage. I attended the Ethelton Primary School and was actively involved in my local community from a very young age.

Growing up near the beach meant that I was fortunate enough to participate in plenty of activities on or close to the water. I was a member of the Largs Bay Sailing Club, the Semaphore Surf Lifesaving Club, the 1st Semaphore Scouts, the Port Adelaide St John's Ambulance Brigade, the Ethelton Amateur Swimming Club, West Lakes Shore Tennis Club and, for a short time, the highly regarded but nevertheless little known Semaphore Park Football Club. Many people wonder whether I should in fact be running for the seat of Port Adelaide.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Quite a long time ago.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Well we might have been playing together on the same team at that point in time. My parents were very active in the local community and they encouraged their children to do likewise. They were and are extremely interested in their children's lives. They have both worked very hard to ensure their children were given opportunities they never had.

My father was a strong believer in the importance of education, and in 1980, I started at Immanuel College. The school—its headmasters, teachers, staff and students—had a profound effect on my life, too many people to acknowledge individually. Nevertheless, I do want to pay special tribute to former headmasters, Rob Patterson and the late Noel Volk, and to Margaret Ames, the deputy headmistress. Each of these people had a very significant influence on me. Immanuel taught me the importance of service to others. Immanuel taught me the importance of substance. I treasure my time at this school.

From Immanuel I graduated and attended the Institute of Technology where I studied for my Bachelor of Business. That was the only business course you could do back in those days. At the same time, my family purchased the ailing South Australian business Namco Industries. My entire family, but especially my father, worked extremely hard to return this manufacturing company to success.

We invested heavily in technology, design and marketing, and transformed the languishing company into a growing and thriving business. This business taught me the value of manufacturing and 'making things'. Manufacturing is a tough sector. It requires tenacity. It also requires innovation and ideas. I was fortunate enough to serve on the government's Manufacturing Industry Advisory Board for several years under both Liberal and Labor governments.

In 1992 I journeyed to the UK to study for my MBA at Durham University. This university had a particular specialisation in the family business sector—another of my great passions. On completing my studies I returned to Adelaide and to my family business.

In 1997 my father offered me the role of managing director of our family firm. I was 29 years of age. We had 200 employees, including a dozen apprenticed tradesmen. By this time manufacturing furniture in Australian was extremely tough. I was not deterred. In the next three years I negotiated one of Australia's first enterprise bargaining agreements, introduced a rapid new product development system, set up a trainee placement program with the Rosenheim Technical College in Germany, implemented a fully integrated ERP system, designed a program to integrate employees with disabilities, and substantially grew our business turnover.

In 2001 I negotiated to sell our business to Steinhoff International, a German-based multinational. It was a sad time to be leaving the industry, but it was the right timing for our family to exit this sector. Since this time I have worked for a range of companies in both board and executive positions. I have very much enjoyed working in diverse sectors to broaden my experience. I have particularly enjoyed my time at Jeffries (a fourth generation South Australian family business) where I finished as a director in February this year; and also Strategic Data Management, where my great friend Geoff Rohrsheim taught me about the strategic importance of efficiently managing IT. I have also enjoyed working on a range of not-for-profit boards too numerous to mention here today.

My route to this parliament is different from many. I was not a student politician. I was not an employee of my party. I have not worked for a politician. My training for this role has been in the real world, employing South Australians, growing businesses, taking commercial risks, learning, growing. My life and work experiences have made me the person that I am today. They have prepared me for my next role as a member of this parliament. There is no doubt that business, community service and the environment will remain a strong focus for me whilst I am in this place.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have two specific themes that I would like to address for the remainder of my speech: liberalism and federalism. During the election campaign I found many people were surprised that someone with an obvious interest and concern for the environment was a Liberal candidate. This, in turn, surprised me as I see the Liberal Party and liberal philosophy completely compatible with environmentalism.

I am a Liberal because I strongly believe in the liberal philosophy. The definitive statement on liberalism was John Stuart Mill's On Liberty first published in 1859. Mill was a great defender of the rights and liberty of the individual. He believed that the role of the law and of government was not to impose majority rule but to ensure the liberty of the individual. To me, this is fundamental. I do not want to be told how to live my life by others. I strongly believe that we all have the capacity to determine how we can best live our lives and best achieve our own goals and aspirations. I want a government which facilitates, not stifles, this. I am increasingly concerned about our 'nanny state' direction. I do not believe that governments have any right to interfere in our lives save to prevent harm to others. When discussing the formation of the Liberal Party Robert Menzies stated:

We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary, but believing in the individual, his rights and his enterprise, and rejecting the socialist panacea.

I honestly believe that the Liberal Party is the party which best suits the breadth of opinion and diversity in Australia.

The Liberal Party is often referred to as a broad church, tolerating and, indeed, encouraging many often divergent opinions. Often, this can be targeted for political point-scoring. In reality, I believe that it is our greatest strength. There is simply no central authority stifling opinion and debate in our party, no central authority determining policy, which I must then adopt and subsequently preach to others. This is not the case in other parties, which converge around narrow interest groups which cannot possibly serve all Australians.

I am a committed federalist. I believe very strongly in the federal system of government. I have sought to represent my community and the state parliament because I believe it is here that we can effect the most change and influence a bright future for our children in this great state of South Australia. Nevertheless, it is disappointing to reflect that, at present, the role and value of state governments across our continent is being called into question. I have to say that to me this is no surprise.

In recent years, there has been a widening gap between the role that state governments should play and the role that they actually play. State governments should be focused on service delivery and be designed to keep decision-making as close to the people affected as possible. People should feel that their state government is there to look after them, to educate their children, attend to the sick, police their communities, build their infrastructure and help the vulnerable within their society.

By contrast, the role of our federal government should be to take responsibility for those matters that are clearly best dealt with at that level. Maintaining a defence force, a uniform corporate environment and the conducting of foreign policy should all be in the domain of a national government. However, it is interesting to note that at the time of Australia's federation the constitution that was adopted involved a specific codification of the powers and responsibilities of the federal government.

As is made clear in section 107 of the Constitution of Australia, apart from those powers enumerated to the federal government all and any other powers and responsibilities lie with the governments of each of the states. This point is very telling, that at federation the thinking was extremely clear. There was and still is a defined role for a federal government, but the default and most substantial level of government should be that of state government.

The situation that we find ourselves in today is far from the intention of the founding fathers. Problems that our state government should be addressing have been neglected. The federal government has greedily sought more and more of the powers and responsibilities that state governments should provide, and our state governments have glibly acquiesced to such advances. The most recent ceding of responsibilities for health care is a prime example of state governments preferring to give away responsibility rather than to take responsibility.

Far from being the default and substantive level of government in Australia, debate and public opinion is heading towards the concept of abolishing state governments altogether. Indeed, at a recent public appearance of former Labor prime minister Bob Hawke and Liberal prime minister John Howard both men agreed that the role of state governments was defunct and unnecessary in modern Australia.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: Indeed. It is no surprise to hear such statements from a member of the Labor Party. Labor does not favour the federalist structure. For them, any power and decision-making that they can centralise they will seek to do. Where they can take decision-making away from local communities and place it behind closed doors with faceless bureaucrats they will do it. What is concerning is that this opinion is echoed by a man I greatly respect and consider to be one of our greatest prime ministers, John Howard. But I know the basis and motivation of John Howard's position. It is not the theory behind state governments but the reality of their recent performance in carrying out the functions that they are supposed to. He speaks from exasperation with the status quo attitude prevalent in our state governments tailored towards buck-passing, blame shifting and nest feathering.

Current state governments are letting this country down. However, I am not prepared to cede to the notion that this means that the system is broken or incompatible with modern life and ways. I am here to fight for the role of state government and to demonstrate that it is not the system that is broken but the people running it.

I currently represent the same electorate as the former Labor Premier, Don Dunstan. Whilst I would not have voted for him, Don Dunstan was unequivocally a political leader who held the courage of his convictions and his ideology. In our democratic adversarial system, there is no greater outcome for the people than when two competing ideologies stand up and clash against each other, allowing the public to adjudicate the arguments on election day, but what we have today is far from this. Rather than a government engaging in a battle of ideas, seeking solutions to our problems, encouraging our endeavours and empowering our aspiration, it is obsessed with self-preservation through media manipulation and spin—no bold thinking, just safe mediocrity.

I am here to participate in a battle of ideas. I have the courage of my convictions and my ideology. I believe in small but effective government. I believe in the strength, determination and freedom of the individual. I believe in the enterprise of the South Australian people and our ability to be the best in the world at whatever we choose to dedicate ourselves to. It is time for bold ideas, vision and action. I relish this opportunity and commit myself to this cause while I have the privilege to serve my community and my state in this chamber.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: Thank you. Congratulations to the member for Norwood—very good.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:17): In speaking to the address, I thank the Governor for his speech and his dedication—along with that of Mrs Liz Scarce—to this wonderful state. His speech highlighted the work that this government has undertaken and will undertake as we build together for the future and the exciting times ahead. I welcome all new members and all returning members and remember the retiring and former members. I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, member for Giles, on your elevation to the office that you now hold, and to all other members on their appointments.

I acknowledge that we gather and meet in this 52nd parliament on the traditional lands of the Kaurna people. I thank Uncle Lewis O'Brien for his welcome on opening day. It is fitting to acknowledge our debt to Aboriginal people for their care of country, especially in the lead-up to National Sorry Day later this month (26 May), followed by Reconciliation Week from 27 May to 3 June.

One of the most important challenges that we face today is ending the disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people imposed on Aboriginal people after colonisation resulted in massive destruction of their traditional social institutions and kinship ties. The damage inflicted cannot be overemphasised, with many Aboriginal people today still searching for their identity and for lost links to their traditional lands. The impact of these practices laid the foundation for generations of exclusion from mainstream society, with the resulting impoverished conditions leading to poor educational outcomes and income levels, high levels of unemployment, incarceration and poor living conditions. Whatever approach is taken to close the gap and reduce the burden of suffering for Aboriginal people, it needs to be done in collaboration with the Aboriginal community. Anything less than this would further disempower an already disadvantaged population.

Prime Minister Rudd's historic national Indigenous apology in 2008 was aimed at building a bridge between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians, urging all of us to embrace a new partnership. I look forward to working with the state's new Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation in this very important work.

Many years before the apology, I helped establish the Florey Reconciliation Task Force in my own electorate in an effort to begin to understand, acknowledge and support Indigenous culture and people at a local level by involving Indigenous and non-indigenous members of the community in initiatives within the electorate. We have had many successful events, perhaps the most colourful being the quilt project.

In another, local Kaurna people identified a scar tree in our local council area at Pine Park in 2002 and the task force, with the help of the Archaeology Department at Flinders University, is currently working on developing a proposal for a cultural trail to showcase Tea Tree Gully's rich indigenous histories and European heritage and settlement. My thanks go to the current task force coordinator, Lea Crosby, and all members who have contributed to the proposal so far, and I look forward to continuing to assist on this exciting project. I would also like to thank Shirley Peisly, a tireless worker recently retired from the paid workforce after 20 years at the Otherway Centre and continues to serve the community now in a voluntary capacity.

Education and schools play a vital part in this state's future and I acknowledge the work of teachers and all who prepare our young people to take their place in society. The many schools in the community with a focus on cultural inclusion also deserve our recognition for their efforts. On 19 May, Modbury School, which has students representing over 30 cultures, will be holding a whole of school Racial and Cultural Inclusion Day. I commend the school for contributing in this way towards breaking down barriers and fostering understanding and equality through their cultural learning program.

Other schools I commend are Modbury West, with a wonderful music program under Mrs O'Dea. They also have a beautiful 'Garden of Dreams' created by students and volunteer parents. Para Vista School also has a wonderful choir and music program and learning environment, with a band called The Fossils—a fine example of something to aspire to. They recently unveiled the Ann Beruldsen Memorial Sundial. Ann was an inspiration and really improved the educational values of the school.

Another school I would like to commend is the East Para Primary School. They also have a wonderful music program under Mr McConnochie in music. EPPS emphasises the importance of diet and healthy lifestyle through their parents encouraging their children to eat fresh fruit and vegetables and take water for 'crunch and sip' breaks which are taken during class time. This new program is aimed at students at the school achieving optimum consumption of two serves of fruit and five serves of vegetables each day. They are in harmony with my long held view that vegetables are great—and I have, of course, spoken on broccoli in this house before.

The East Para Primary School has had a school vegetable garden for many years. I know Wandana School (also in Florey) is in the process of re-activating their vegetable patch and I look forward to seeing the fruits of their labour. The Heights School, which is an R-12 school and where my own children attended, offers many extras, including a wonderful observatory. The Florey Music Award is in place in all my local schools and I also support Pedal Prix in many of my local schools. The AIPP, which is chaired by Andrew McLachlan assisted by his board, provides a great event over three heats during the year, which encourages the wider school community, all parents and children to be involved, and round 3 at Murray Bridge—which the member for Hammond and I attend each year—is a highlight of my year and perhaps my only long weekend.

Most of us would have celebrated Mother's Day or Mothering Sunday last weekend with our family and loved ones. I wish to make a particular mention of all South Australians who act in a nurturing capacity for their care of our children and young people. We have the wonderful Modbury Special School in the electorate of Florey and I pay tribute to the mothers of autistic children. Mums like Helen Howson, who, together with Alison Dix from the autism support group, Rainbow Land, have drawn our attention to the special needs of this growing group through the celebration of the first International Rainbow Day last week.

Last August, these special women made a presentation in my office to Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services (Hon. Bill Shorten) on the need for including people with intellectual and complex developmental disabilities in the issuing of disability parking permits. Credit must go to the City of Tea Tree Gully, at the insistence of councillor Paul Barboro, for taking the national lead on this issue at local government level. In December, the parliamentary secretary announced that the federal government has provided $1.6 million to develop a new universal parking permit, which, after extensive community consultation, I hope will be rolled out nationally by the end of this year.

May is Autism Awareness Month and Autism SA figures indicate that there has been a doubling of the annual number of children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder over the past four years. Our state government has pledged two new special education units with a focus on autism by 2014 and an extra $4.25 million over four years for assessments and early intervention. This is clearly much needed support, given that in term 1 of this year, 24 children with an autism disorder have been suspended or expelled from South Australian schools.

While reflecting on Mother's Day, I am pleased to note that a new pregnancy research facility at the Lyell McEwin Hospital was opened last month by Professor James McWha, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Adelaide. By focusing on the earlier stages of life, the Robinson Institute is looking at preventing disease and improving the health of pregnant women and their unborn children. The facility at the Lyell McEwin will incorporate laboratory research with clinical investigation to discover more about reproduction, fertility, pregnancy, stem cells and the origins of healthy living. Through community support and donations, the Robinson Institute will continue to provide immeasurable benefits to the health and wellbeing of future generations and, for that, we owe the nine research staff and 16 University of Adelaide PhD students our thanks and recognition for their efforts.

The Lyell McEwin Health Service is also home to the Mothercarer service, launched here in Parliament House in 2002. It was my honour to be involved in the organisation of this launch. I pay tribute to Professor Gus Dekker and his team. They are always on call and provide a remarkable service to birthing mothers in the north and northeast, working with them on their return home after birthing. It remains a personal hope, as someone who is a mother and still in awe of the whole birthing process, that I may be instrumental in seeing a low-risk midwifery-led birthing unit In place for women in my area. Birthing should be a wonderful and natural process, and it is in the best interests of mother and child to keep the process as intervention free as possible while still ensuring a safe and healthy outcome.

Finally, in considering the health and wellbeing of future generations, I hope that those of us who bought or received chocolate this Mother's Day will remember the production of our favourite treat can be a nightmare for workers. Since the year 2000, the chocolate industry has been under scrutiny for using cocoa beans from West Africa where there are estimated to be close to 300,000 child labourers, many thousands working in slave-like conditions on cocoa farms. These children are mostly under 14 years old and are involved in dangerous work, including the use and spraying of pesticides, handling machetes and carrying heavy loads. Some media reports have claimed that in the worst cases children as young as six years are being forced to work between 80 and 100 hours a week, enduring malnutrition on top of their backbreaking work. They have no access to education or health care, and physical abuse is also common.

Fair Trade certification guarantees cocoa farmers a fair price for their products. It also explicitly prohibits the use of forced or slave labour, requires support for community development, and has a system of independent auditing. The good news is that over the past several years more than 25,000 Australians have lobbied the chocolate industry for change. They have called and visited chocolate manufacturers and retailers, signed petitions, held protests and visited members of parliament to demand change. I have received letters from residents on this issue myself.

On 26 August last year, Cadbury Australia (a company with a long history in an industry that goes back to the Quakers) announced that it would use Fair Trade cocoa in the production of its most popular product, the Cadbury dairy milk chocolate, in both Australia and New Zealand. This move will triple the amount of Fair Trade cocoa available in Australia, and Cadbury has assured consumers the taste and price of the chocolate will remain the same. My staff recently put their dietary needs under strain and conducted a test in the Florey electorate office, and I am pleased to advise that the consensus was that Fair Trade chocolate is smoother and more satisfying.

There is still much to be done to deliver ongoing change to the lives of tens of thousands of Ghanaian cocoa farmers and their families, but this outcome is proof of the power of grass roots activism. Fair Trade is, of course, an international issue over many industries and it is beholden on Australia to do what it can to support fair work practices both overseas and within this nation.

Employment is a pivotal issue. The working conditions of all Australians is what led me and many of my colleagues to this place, and what continues to inspire us to work as hard as possible to ensure that everyone has a job that allows them to have a high quality of life and the opportunity to be the best they can. That is why making sure we have great schools remains perhaps our most important responsibility. Through learning, we can gain meaningful employment.

Our Deputy Prime Minister (Hon. Julia Gillard) visited Modbury South school last week and opened the BER building, a gym that replaces the much-loved and well-used Shedley. The choir, led by Mrs Mysak, sang beautifully, and the concert band of Modbury High, under the baton (or, should I say, the waving finger) of Mr Duncan, enthralled the Deputy Prime Minister with their musical ability. I am happy to say I will be accompanying the band to Mount Gambier this weekend as they perform in the annual Generations in Jazz. This is a wonderful event, and I take with me the best wishes of the principal, Mr Martin Rumsby, and the entire Modbury High school community.

The other vital responsibility we have is the delivery of health care. Modbury Hospital continues to provide great care for the north-eastern community, and I thank the staff for their dedication and service over many years to what is a fine institution, now in line for $44 million worth of improvements. This must be the end point of the whispering campaign around the hospital and the beginning of a renewed pride in it for the fine health professionals who work there and their place within the state's health service.

With this revitalisation, along with the eagerly anticipated GP Plus that will soon open, we will see a new outlook on health and wellbeing. Each of us can take a more active role in our health by monitoring what we eat and remembering the maxim—everything in moderation (perhaps except broccoli and chocolate).

This includes exercise and, like many people, I walk in the morning—a great time to think and plan. If the outdoors is not for you, there are many other ways to exercise safely, and I am particularly proud of the Tea Tree Plaza Mall Walkers, a group of seniors who have expanded their health activities over many years by including attention to their social needs: organising events and outings and caring for each other by keeping in touch, especially if they do not show up for their morning session under the wonderful Jeanette Richards and her team of instructors.

Many other seniors in the north-east are involved with the University of the Third Age at Modbury. Again, it was good to be able to help with negotiations that have seen a surplus primary school building returned to lifelong learning, and it is now the home of many U3A classes in almost every subject area you can imagine. It is wonderful to see the experience of our community still making a difference and helping others.

It is an honour, perhaps the highest honour in public life, to serve your community as a member of parliament. I am grateful for the assistance of my family and my campaign workers, Team Florey, for the trust that has been placed in me and the opportunity to serve the wonderful people of the Modbury area. Wherever I meet them in local community groups, sporting clubs, particularly calisthenics clubs, in schools and other institutions including those who provide health care, I know we all share the same ambition: the best for our children and our area.

As I move around the area, the many suggestions they make will shape my contributions in this place and help me to represent them and their best interests. The role of a local MP is often maligned and misunderstood. Through representation and support of my community, I hope not only to serve but to lead by example and encourage others to become activists for what they believe in and aspire to. In my recent research of a great South Australian woman, Muriel Matters, I have learnt again the value of activism and the importance of the democratic process. Long may both last along with the enthusiasm for change for the better and the chance for everyone to succeed in their ambitions and contribute to a better world.

The SPEAKER: I call on my neighbour and new member, the member for Stuart. As this is the honourable member's first speech, I ask that we extend the traditional courtesies to the honourable member.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:33): Madam Speaker, thank you for my first opportunity to speak here on behalf of the people of Stuart. Especially during International Volunteers Week, volunteering, a remarkable feature of Australian society, is no more evident than in the country areas of our state. Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating you on your election as Speaker of the House of Assembly. We first met each other at Pimba, 170 kilometres north of Port Augusta, in mid-1999 and I am sure that, while you have your work cut out for you, you will find your feet very quickly. I also congratulate all the new members who like me are starting their first term in parliament. It is freshest in our minds how hard it is to get here. I will do my best to work with all members regardless of political persuasion to achieve the best results I can for the people of Stuart.

It is hardly possible to mention the electorate of Stuart without thinking of my predecessor and friend the Hon. Graham Gunn. That Graham McDonald Gunn was the member for Stuart, named after John McDouall Stuart, for so long seems hardly a coincidence. I can confirm that it was not a coincidence; however, it had nothing to do with their shared Scottish heritage. Graham Gunn and his wife, Jan, worked incredibly hard. Graham was and still is very politically astute. He could sniff and interpret the political winds well, and he also went about his work with some very basic strong personal rules which helped him to win 12 elections in a row—a remarkable feat for any politician. My wife, Rebecca, and I are extremely grateful to Graham and Jan for all the help and everything they have taught us over the past two years, and I look forward to a long friendship between us.

The electorate of Stuart is magnificent. It covers 374,000 square kilometres. It runs from Kapunda, 75 kilometres north of Adelaide, all the way up to the Northern Territory border about 1,500 kilometres away as the crow flies. It includes a section of the Riverland and heads east to the New South Wales border. It includes the Mid North agricultural region, all of the internationally renowned Flinders Ranges and the vast north-east pastoral region surrounded by the Northern Territory, Queensland and New South Wales. It includes the iconic Birdsville and Strzelecki Tracks, and Cooper Creek. It includes Nepabunna and other indigenous communities, and it has the wonderful regional city of Port Augusta as its heart and main population centre.

Stuart includes many national parks and the world heritage listed Coongie Lakes. We have major mining, oil and gas exploration and production, and a power station supplying the necessary electricity to our region and to Adelaide. We enjoy the environmentally delicate coastline of the Upper Spencer Gulf, a section of the River Murray, amazing arid lands, some of the best farming land in the state, commercial fishing and forestry, fruit orchards, vineyards, tourism and much more.

In Stuart, there are 30 townships, supported by 42 schools. There are 11 hospitals, 21 police stations and two prisons. There are seven different local government councils, plus the outback lands and four Natural Resource Management Boards. There are countless football, netball, cricket and other sporting clubs. There are churches, youth groups and a myriad of other community-based support networks. Every community in Stuart is important and I will fight to retain these services, industries, community groups, townships and the environment.

I come to this role with a strong sporting, community and business background, both corporate and small business. I have lived and worked in Adelaide and overseas and, importantly, in the outback of South Australia for seven years. Rebecca and I moved to Wilmington nearly five years ago—a town of about 250 people in the Southern Flinders Ranges, just outside Port Augusta.

Working hard and effectively on behalf of the people of Stuart will always be my primary work responsibility and focus. Supporting and promoting regional development more broadly throughout the state will receive whatever time and energy I have left over thereafter. To this end, I will happily work with a wide range of people both within and outside politics.

I challenge the government to show far more support for our state's regional and remote communities than it has over the past eight years. If and when that happens, I will be the first person to give credit where it is due. I would be pleased to give the government credit for expanding country health services rather than removing them. I would be pleased to give the government credit for increasing the maintenance of outback roads rather than reducing it. I would be pleased to give the government credit if it were to increase the money available in the state's Regional Infrastructure Development Fund rather than reducing it.

I would be pleased to work with the government to provide the much needed increases in support for aged care, special needs education, disability services and mental health—in many cases they just do not exist in regional areas. I will be pleased to work with the government cooperatively on all regional service and development issues—but, unfortunately, I am not optimistic. Madam Speaker, you and I both know why I am not optimistic. I cannot count the number of times that I have heard you, on our local radio programs, speaking as the member for Giles, saying that you have advocated hard on behalf of your communities, and I know that you have, but that your colleagues have not supported you.

Madam Speaker, you already know that I fully support your elevation to your current position; however, I must say that in one regard I am disappointed with the government on your promotion. By choosing you as the Speaker of this house the government has deliberately removed its one and only member of parliament representing a regional electorate from participating in debate on the floor of this house. The government has chosen to have no-one on its side fighting for regional people in this place. I support you in your new role, but I am disappointed in the government.

Where I am optimistic, however, is in the strength and resilience of the people living in rural and remote South Australia. Our people have shown strength for over 150 years, and many of them for tens of thousands of years. While I fear that sometimes their resilience, flexibility, perseverance and ability to find a way to make things work is taken advantage of by decision-makers in the city, I am always optimistic that they will not give up, and neither will I.

Graham Gunn told me on many occasions that if you want to be a good member of parliament then the most important thing to remember is that you have to be prepared to stick up for the people you represent, and that it does not matter who is on the other side of the argument against you. I guarantee to do this. I am comfortable with this commitment for two reasons: first, it is in my nature anyway; and, secondly, because I know that I will be supported by our leader.

Isobel Redmond captured the hearts and minds of so many people during the last election campaign because she said what she thought was right and wrong immediately, and then thought about the politics of the issue. This is the type of honest, no-nonsense leadership which South Australians are looking for. This is the type of leadership which saw her unanimously re-elected as the Leader of the Opposition. She is the leader who will take us to the next election.

Madam Speaker, I am new to politics but not new to the real world. I have lived and worked interstate, internationally and, most importantly, all over the electorate of Stuart for the last 17 years. I am a down-to-earth person who takes this responsibility and this privilege extremely seriously. I plan to operate in a very professional but not overly formal way.

I have already shared my passion for my electorate and for regional South Australia, in general, and I am sure we all agree that we all live in the very best state in Australia. We have a wonderful culture in South Australia; we have tremendous industries and small and medium-sized businesses in place already; and we have wonderful new opportunities ahead to create wealth and significantly increase the prosperity for all South Australians through the mining projects which we hope, after the 40 per cent resource rent tax announcement, may still go ahead.

On the other hand, our state's water security issue and the dreadful condition of the River Murray still loom as large as ever, despite the fortunate rains which are flowing our way at present. We must improve on Indigenous and rural health outcomes in general, and our state's youth unemployment remains far too high. We should always encourage and support people to create and make the most of opportunities, and we should also provide the best support services possible for those people who genuinely need them.

I believe in business and industry because they, combined with a fair wage system, create positive employment. Businesses must be successful for employment to grow. Employment pays for families' mortgages, grocery bills, school books, Christmas presents, and advances in standards of living and self-esteem. Employment in one generation improves the quality of life immediately and also for the generation that follows.

Our natural environment must be protected and improved. We will never be able—and should not try—to return the planet to the condition it was in thousands of years ago. We should use our natural resources to continue to improve our society. However, we must harness ever-improving technology and public will to reduce our environmental impact with every new project that goes ahead, and some projects or some components of projects should not go ahead if the environmental cost is too high compared to the return to the state.

As members of parliament, we have many opportunities, challenges and responsibilities to work through together for the good of the people we each represent and for the state as a whole. I look forward to working with all members for the good of South Australia, and I will never let this parliament forget to consider the people of Stuart and the rest of regional South Australia.

I must also point out that I note that the government's plans for this new term, as outlined by the Governor last Thursday, include minimal reference to our state's regions and no commitment regarding improved regional services. My colleagues and I will be working very hard over the coming four years to ensure that this omission is corrected in 2014.

Lastly, I would like to thank the many people who have helped to give me the honour of standing here today. Family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and strangers have all contributed in so many ways. I have thanked almost everybody face to face, so I will not go through a long list again today, but at the top of the list is my incredible wife, Rebecca. Thank you to her and thank you to everybody who has supported me. Thank you to the people of Stuart for their faith in me. To the old, the young, the rich, the poor, the Indigenous, the non-Indigenous, the farmers and the factory workers, I will stick up for you. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: I would ask honourable members to return to their seats. Congratulations to the member for Stuart; very well said. I look forward to working with you over the next four years. I call now on the member for Goyder.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No spin.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:47): No spin; exactly. Yes, that's true. I shall reflect upon that. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak before the chamber today. Indeed, I congratulate you on your election. You are a person whom I do respect enormously for your commitment to the communities in which you serve. I have absolutely no doubt that you will undertake the role of Speaker in the manner that we would all expect, in fairness to both sides of the chamber. I also congratulate the member for Bright on her selection as Deputy Speaker, and wish her well, not only in the role but also in learning the standing orders. I hope that she can give me some lessons afterwards. It is one thing that I sadly lack.

I support the motion for the adoption of the address of His Excellency's speech to open this session of the 52nd Parliament. The speech outlines the agenda of the government over the next four years and obviously focuses on many economic opportunities which are going to drive the future of South Australia. I hope that those words become reality. Sadly, I feel as though that will not be the case on all occasions, but I hope that in the spirit of cooperation that does exist on some occasions in this chamber, and, as wonderfully espoused by the member for Stuart, we will have the opportunity to assist, to a far greater degree, to ensure that all South Australians benefit from the chances that are going to be here in the next four years.

I do recognise those members who are returning to this chamber, and the other place. I join particularly with all members to congratulate those new MPs who have decided to dedicate their lives to the service of the community, who have decided to give up any level of a private life to ensure that they have the opportunity to represent their communities in parliament. They have actually chosen a wonderful vocation. It is not a job, but it is a role, really. It is not a career, I do not think, but it is choosing, and to have this chance is a wonderful one that we all respect enormously, but one that takes up so much of our time that it is hard. You have to sacrifice many things to have this opportunity.

I am very sure that all the members who have come into the chamber for the first time, based on the speeches we have heard today, will do well. I congratulate the members for Mitchell and Taylor for their contributions. I wish to pay particular attention to the wonderful words of the members for Norwood and Stuart. They have all expressed themselves in a different way, but the speeches by the two new members from my side of the chamber have been truly inspirational. I have learnt much about them as people and much about the ethos that they bring to this. I have certainly witnessed their work ethic in the past, and I am very confident that the attitude and skills that they bring will benefit not just their communities but, indeed, the people of South Australia.

To the members for Mitchell and Taylor I am sure you will be a great contribution to the chamber also. I know that you believe in the communities that have the honour to represent, and I am sure that good things will come to those people. I still look forward to the contributions that are still to be made by the members for Morialta, Chaffey, Adelaide and Flinders. As new chums into our side of the chamber, I have seen them all in various ways of last year, and I have been nothing but impressed by each of them. I am sure that, when they learn how this strange place that we call parliament operates, they will make some great contributions and ensure that the issues and legislation considered within this chamber are improved because of their attendance and their involvement.

The member for Taylor referred to one phrase that particularly impressed me, which was, 'Demographics are not your destiny.' I truly believe in those words, too. Whenever I speak to young people, I impress upon them that opportunities are there before them. They cannot just assume that what has been their lot in life is what they are destined to always be. If they work hard, other people around them will recognise that they are worthy of support and they will, indeed, give it. I am a beneficiary of that also, and many people who come to this place are recognised in the same way. They were great words. It is a very simple phrase, but I think it encapsulates everything that is good about our society—it gives you an opportunity to do wonderful things. So, well done.

The member for Norwood also impressed me at another function in the Norwood electorate during the election campaign, where he spoke first. I thought, 'Wow, this guy actually knows what he's talking about.' He was very impressive. I did say to the crowd whom I talked to afterwards that I was glad that I was elected four years before him, because it gave me an opportunity to develop my little niche in the political sphere. I know that Steven Marshall, the member for Norwood, is certainly on top of everything that relates to business. He spoke very passionately about family businesses, and I know that is his background. I think he will also make a difference in financial matters in the future of this state, so I wish him well in his career.

Opening day last Thursday brought back a lot of memories for me as a new member, too. I know it is a very nervous time. An MP gets the call from the Speaker, stands for the first time, has practised their lines as much as humanly possible, but is just overwhelmingly consumed by a sense of nervousness and a hope that God will allow them to sound intelligent for the next 15 seconds when they are asked a question or, indeed, 15 minutes when they make their first speech. You feel as though the eyes of the world are upon you, but I think all who have spoken so far can hold their heads high.

In my maiden speech I reflected upon many things that have been espoused by other members who have spoken today, certainly the issues that were important to my electorate. I spoke about the maiden speech of my predecessor, Mr John Meier, when he was elected in 1982.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: A very nice man, too, and I am pleased that his son is actually marrying my PA. The wedding is later this year.

Members interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. At Emmanuel, he was, yes, deputy headmaster. He reflected upon things which had still not been fixed. I think that took up the theme of the member for Stuart, when he talked about so many issues in regional South Australia, which this side of the chamber is greatly concerned about and, indeed, the support that the government will provide.

I understand as well as anybody that there are a lot of competing demands for the pie, which is the $15 billion that our budget includes. After having had the shadow treasurer's role for eight and a bit months and trying to recognise every intimate detail of a stack of figures that stand about this high, I know that it is a challenge to get it right, but I can assure people in this chamber that we do not get it right. As much as we would like to, we are never going to live in Utopia, but we have to make the best informed decision we can to ensure that the resources available to our great state are spread as much as possible to support all levels of society to ensure that not only do we have an economic future that is strong and viable but also, importantly, that the people at the lower end of the scale get the support they need.

That is our great challenge. All treasurers, in the 153 years that South Australia has had an independent government, have faced that challenge. I hope that the wheels turn again and that, in four years' time, we have someone from our side of politics in control of the chequebook, and that those people work collectively to ensure that it is done, but it will take a lot of work to get it right.

I want to talk about democratic principles. The member for Davenport referred to it earlier. I have always been a believer that it is not necessarily the result that is important, but that the principles of a democratic society are observed. I have asked people within my electorate to support me personally, but I have said that, if they believe someone else represents a better option as their mouthpiece in parliament, to make sure that they have reached that position in an informed manner; not just blindly vote as their parents might have or from what they have read, but actually take the effort to contact the candidate and talk about issues that are important to them. I think that is important, too. Various people in this chamber have reflected on the fact that over the last 21 years there have been four elections where the party that had more than 50 per cent plus one of the vote has been unsuccessful. That is a great frustration. For the Liberal Party to experience an 8.4 per cent swing, to gain 51.6 per cent of the vote and to see some really significant swings in safe seats, both Liberal and Labor—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes. Mick O'Halloran, formerly from Peterborough, I think, and Leader of the Opposition during the Playford years.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I have read some of the history of it.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Did he? Well, there is a lot of frustration out there.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: And Steele Hall did something about it, too, much to the frustration of the Liberal Party for the next 30 years.

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Hey, this is me, not you. It just goes to show that the democratic principles at some levels have been abused and allowed to be thwarted for 70-odd years, with the consequence that the true position held by the people of South Australia has not always resulted in the election of the government they supported. I believe that a proposal is going to be put in the Legislative Council for a review to be undertaken in relation to the recent election result. I think it is important that we put in the effort, do the work on it and consider what are the opportunities for reform, and ensure that the result we get in future years is the appropriate one.

An enormous amount of resources go into each election campaign, bearing in mind that there are 47 House of Assembly seats. An enormous effort is also put in by Legislative Councillors, and I believe that there were 73 candidates for the Legislative Council on this occasion. With the hundreds of people who put themselves up to be representatives in either house, we need to ensure that it is right. I hope that over the next few years there will be an opportunity for that matter to be reviewed. I acknowledge as much as anyone that the poor result the Liberal Party achieved in 2006 certainly did not help our cause when it came to the 2010 result.

An 8.4 per cent swing is an amazing result, and I think it was predominantly the result of the wonderful effort of the Leader of the Opposition (the member for Heysen). As the deputy leader at the time, I had the opportunity to see at close quarters her work ethic and the way in which she connected with people and projected the vision she held for the future of South Australia and its people. Simply put, I think she inspired South Australians. She put forward to the electorate the notion that they should consider their vote very carefully and focus on a vision for our future needs and opportunities.

I am not sure whether Isobel is listening, but she can certainly hold her head very high in relation to what she did for South Australia over that three-month period immediately prior to the election.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No doubt.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: I'm not sure about that. You might say that, but I'm very confident that the member for Heysen will continue to be the leader.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Put a bet on it? We'll see. I'm not normally prone to betting, to tell you the truth.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: That's true. I hope that no-one minds and will take a point of order on that, because she is known as that. She made the people of South Australia listen in relation to politics again. They had become so sick of listening to people who stood up to speak and just droned on in an insincere way. However, when Isobel stands to speak before a crowd, the people listen to every word she says because there is a level of integrity that comes with it which very few people portray. So, the member for Heysen can be very proud. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 17:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 12 May 2010 at 11:00.


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