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

The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Mitchell, I remind the house that this is the honourable member's first speech and accordingly I ask members to extend to him the traditional courtesies. Congratulations. The member for Mitchell.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (11:07): I move:

That the following Address in Reply to His Excellency's opening speech be adopted:

May it please Your Excellency—

1. We, the members of the House of Assembly, express our thanks for the speech with which you have been pleased to open parliament.

2. We assure Your Excellency that we will give our best attention to all matters placed before us.

3. We earnestly pray for the Divine blessing on the proceedings of the session.

As I rise to speak today I acknowledge and pay my respects to the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Kaurna people, their elders, past and present.

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your election as the first female speaker, and I am sure that under your reign we will enjoy strong and fair decision making in this house. I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker on her appointment. To all my parliamentary colleagues, I congratulate you on your success in the 2010 election. I also congratulate the leader of our party, Mike Rann, on winning a third term in government.

I am truly humbled by the honour and significance of representing the people of Mitchell in this house. I thank the people of Mitchell for putting their trust in me and, in return, I pledge to represent them with the same determination as I and my dedicated campaign team displayed during the campaign. I will ensure that your voices are heard loud and clear.

I grew up in Mitchell Park with my mother, father and older sister in a small Housing Trust half-house. It would be described today as a lower income area, with many of its residents working in the manufacturing sector or as labourers. There were many young families with school-age children and a parent who worked at the Chrysler factory. My father, Noel, was fortunate to gain employment at that factory, which was only two streets from my home.

My primary school was at the end of my street and was the neighbour of the Chrysler plant, separated only by the Tonsley train line. As a small child, I remember wondering how they made cars, and I watched in awe as the trains full of cars went past. I had no idea how important the factory was to our community and the long-term effect it would have on shaping my life.

My father worked hard to provide for us, and the things we take for granted today were luxuries in those days. When I was two, my father suffered a major heart attack and was very lucky to survive. He was in the Royal Adelaide Hospital for a long period of time after surviving open-heart surgery, and he was not able to work for many months. This was a time when our family struggled financially and we needed government assistance and family support to get by. My father did get better and returned to Chrysler and then Mitsubishi until the day he passed away at age 58.

When I was 11 and in year 6, my mother suffered a chronic illness and needed hospitalisation. I believe that what happened next in my life helped shape the person I am today. In an act of generosity that I have only really come to appreciate since becoming a parent, my auntie and uncle offered to look after me during my mother's illness. Anne and Neil Birchmore, and their sons Wayne and Mark, brought me into their home and their life.

Neil was a plumber and a small-business owner in the northern suburbs, and he and Anne worked tirelessly to build up their successful business. He believed in working hard and embraced every opportunity. He was a firm but fair man who loved family and friends; his employees respected him, and I idolised him. During the time I was with them, I attended Blackfriars Priory with my older cousin Mark, and we would go back to the workshop after school and do odd jobs and learn.

After a long period away from my home in Mitchell Park, and the realisation that my mother would not be living with my father again, I returned home to live with my father. I left Mitchell Park High School at the end of year 11 and began my apprenticeship at Mitsubishi as a body maker and spray painter. I remember my first day clearly. I was nervous and yet excited, and I could not believe how big the factory was or the number of people working on the site.

After working in many areas of the plant and finishing my four year apprenticeship, my career headed in a new direction. I began representing the interests of workers as a shop steward with the Vehicle Builders Union, now known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. In 2000 I stood for a full-time organiser's position with the AMWU and, after 16 years as an employee at Mitsubishi, I left to take up my new role and new challenges with the union.

After several years away from Mitsubishi, I returned as the organiser responsible for the Tonsley Park site. Not long after returning, I was greeted with the sad news that the Lonsdale plant would close and hundreds of workers would lose their jobs. I will never forget the mass meetings of workers and the fear that was confronting the workers. Many had worked for Mitsubishi since leaving school and they were uncertain as to what their future would bring.

My final involvement with Mitsubishi (and undoubtedly the saddest day of my working life) was the day my colleagues and I were advised that the plant would close. The factory had been a part of my community and had played a significant role in my life since I could remember, and it would be no more.

Mitsubishi provided so much employment for so many people. It was a multicultural community and a wonderful and rich learning environment for me. I learnt so much about people and our diverse society. I miss the friendship and the can-do attitude that resonated throughout the site, and I am so fortunate to have been called a 'Mitsy' worker.

Unfortunately, globalisation has been largely responsible for the south of Adelaide losing many large employers like Mitsubishi that provided very well-paid skilled jobs. I am so pleased that the Rann government has set the agenda to invest in our future with more apprenticeships and traineeships and the purchasing of the Mitsubishi site at Tonsley Park. This will provide real opportunity to build new value-added industries and much-needed employment for the people in the South.

It is important for the house to understand my passion for the site, and I can assure you that I will work tirelessly to ensure that my government will deliver on its promise for the Tonsley site. It has been an honour and a privilege to represent workers as a rank-and-file delegate and as a full-time union official. The fight for decent wages and conditions, dignity in work, equality and justice and a fair go is a fight that I will continue on behalf of all working people.

A very special moment in my life was the day I married my wife, Michelle, and the birth of my first son, Luke, and my middle child, Bradley. I will talk about another important journey in my life. In 2001, my priorities changed with the birth of my third child, Danielle. She was born with a rare congenital disorder called congenital melanocytic naevus. The disorder affects around one in 20,000 newborns in some form and as few as one in 500,000 in its most severe form.

Danielle was in the children's hospital for the first 12 months of her life. My wife and I were the only ones dealing with this condition, we thought. We were afraid and felt very alone. We wanted to know how we could help Danielle with this condition. There was no support group in Australia, and what we as parents needed most was to talk to other families who had been in the same position that we now found ourselves.

Not content to give up, we continued searching for answers and, with the help of an American online support group called Nevus Outreach and a social worker from the Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital, we eventually made contact with several families in Australia who also had children with this condition.

As we spoke to the other families, it became apparent that everyone had a similar experience of isolation and a desire to connect with other families. In 2002, the concept of Nevus Support Australia blossomed, and by January 2004 we were holding our first national conference in Adelaide and released our first printed brochure about the condition to doctors' surgeries and major hospitals around the country.

Today, Nevus Support Australia is a registered not-for-profit tax-deductible charity. We have a membership of over a hundred families which incorporates New Zealand and southern Asia. We are working collaboratively with support groups and researchers around the world and holding regular biannual conferences so that our very special families can meet each other and share in their journeys.

An ordeal like this can make you weaker or stronger, but when the dust settles you always remind yourself that there is someone in our society doing it tougher than you. Like-minded individuals who volunteer can and do make a difference in shaping our society.

The Mitchell electorate was created in 1969 and is named after Sir William Mitchell, who was vice-chancellor and also chancellor of the University of Adelaide. He was professor of English language, literature, and mental and moral philosophy.

The area has a strong connection with the Kaurna people, and the Sturt River provided life to many. European settlers also found the banks of the Sturt River inviting. In 1838, just two years after the colony was founded, Colonel William Light laid out the village of Marion. The rich soil in the area produced vegetables, almonds, stone fruits and grapes.

In the early to mid-1950s, the South Australian Housing Trust began buying up large tracts of land for the provision of low-cost rental housing. Large companies were also established. In 1955, Chrysler purchased 71 hectares of land in Clovelly Park and established a car assembly plant, one of the largest such operations under one roof in the Southern Hemisphere. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a need for housing in the southern suburbs, and Trott Park and Sheidow Park were developed.

Today, the Mitchell electorate has a number of exciting projects on the go, or ready to go—the State Aquatic Centre, the GP Plus, the long-awaited duplication of the Southern Expressway, the expansion of Westfield Marion, and the electrification of the Noarlunga rail line, just to name a few. A number of other priorities need workable solutions, such as the Marion triangle and preserving our open space. In the electorate, there are people who very well-off and there are others who have very little, so it is important that we as policymakers ensure that everyone is afforded a fair go. At this stage, I acknowledge the work and the contribution to the local community of the previous members for Mitchell: Kris Hanna, Colin Caudell, Paul Holloway and Ronald Payne.

I have enjoyed my involvement in supporting my children in sport, in particular, junior soccer. For the past 10 years, I have enjoyed my role as a junior coach at school level and as the Secretary of Southern Districts Junior Soccer Association, and I was very honoured recently to be awarded life membership for my contribution. I believe sport has an important place in teaching our children the value of teamwork and discipline, and I encourage all parents to get involved with their children; it is so rewarding. Unfortunately, in recent times, I have witnessed all too often work pressures and family breakdown influencing a child's opportunity to play sport. Unfortunately, I have struggled to find a solution. I have also made many lifelong friends, and I hope that I have made a real difference.

In conclusion, I take the opportunity to acknowledge several people. My heartfelt thanks go to my former boss and friend, the State Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, John Camillo. This would not have been possible without his endorsement and support. To Peter Malinauskas and the team at the SDA, who worked so hard and so tirelessly over the campaign to ensure that I and a Labor Party government were elected, I say thank you.

I say a special thank you to Bob Geraghty, the Secretary of the CEPU, the electrical and plumbing union. It is with great sadness that I am witnessing Bob fighting his own battle with ill health. My thoughts—and I am sure the thoughts of this parliament—are with Robyn and her family. I say thank you also to the past secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (Vehicle Division), Paul McMahon, the present Secretary, Jon Gee, and the vehicle division rank and file; the Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (Print Division), Craig Larner; the Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (TSA Division), Peter Bauer; the Secretary of the Transport Workers Union, Alex Gallacher; the Secretary of the CEPU Communications Division, Graham Lorrain; and Secretary of the Finance Sector Union, Debbie Black.

To AMWU officials—Brendon Patchet, Scott Batchelor, John Short, Stuart Gordon, Nigel Alford, President Richard Wormald, staff and membership—I thank you. Thank you to my great friends from Mitsubishi, long-time friend, John Monaghan, Ray Sara, Allan Matthews and Alfie Baga. To my parliamentary colleagues—Treasurer Wayne Swan, Senator Don Farrell, Senator Annette Hurley, Senator Dana Wortley, Amanda Rishworth, Russell Wortley MLC, Bernard Finnigan MLC Robyn Geraghty, Michael Atkinson, Jay Weatherill, John Hill, Michael Wright and the Premier Mike Rann—thank you for your valuable advice and encouragement. In particular to Aemon Burke, who is my campaign manager and whose efforts went far beyond what was expected, and my campaign team—Matt Ellis, Peter Gonis and Dianna Zollo—thank you.

I want to make special mention of my staff—Cathy Perry, Lisa McIntosh and Emma Cope—who have been of great support setting up the office and who have done a tremendous job in the weeks since the election. Cathy was my sounding board over the campaign and I thank her for being there. As you all know, we do not have the opportunity to represent electorates without a loyal band of volunteers assisting us. In that respect, I pay tribute to all the Labor Party branch members and special tribute to Maureen McEwen, Joan Watkins, Maurie and June Appleby, Robert Lloyd, John Gaucci and volunteers who supported me. There were so many people that it is impossible to name them all but I thank them all for their help and for their belief in me. To all my friends who have joined me here today, thank you; and to all those who could not join us here today I express my heartfelt thanks.

My mother has always been the most vocal of my fans and is proudly sitting here today. To my Aunty Anne and my Uncle Neil (who passed away at a very young age from a cruel disease in multiple sclerosis), I am certain that I would not be standing here without your guidance, support and love. To my mother-in-law, Marilyn, and my father-in-law, Geoff, for all the support over the particular 12 months, I thank you. To my children, Luke, Bradley and Danielle of whom I am extremely proud: they have been amazingly tolerant and supportive.

Finally, my wife, Michelle. I am the luckiest man to have found my best friend to share my life. Without your love, understanding and support, my journey would have been so much harder; in fact, it would have been impossible. It is an enormous honour to sit here today. I shall never forget or disregard the enormous faith the electorate of Mitchell has placed in me and I will do my best to make Mitchell and our state an even better place to live. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, and well done. I now call another new member. I ask you to give her the same courtesy that you gave the member for Mitchell. The member for Taylor.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:30): Madam Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to the role of Speaker of this house. May your good sense and earthy sense of humour calm people, when necessary, in this chamber. I also congratulate the member for Bright on her elevation to the Deputy Speaker's position. I congratulate the Premier and the government on their re-election. I also congratulate the new members to the chamber on both sides of the house.

I especially wish to congratulate the new members on our side of the house—the members for Mitchell and Little Para. I extend my sympathy to party colleagues who were not successful in this election cycle. Most particularly, I hope their hard work and effort will be remembered and that the effort put in by new candidates only whets their appetite for the future. I would say to Mary-Lou Corcoran, the hardworking Tung Ngo and the legion of Young Labor Unity activists, 'Not getting what you want sometimes is a wonderful stroke of luck.' Believe me, I know this for a fact. You never know what door will open in the future and where it will lead you.

It is traditional to speak about the people and events that led us to this chamber and the areas we are privileged to represent. In my case it was my parents. My father, unknowingly through his chats, poems and excursions to different places in my early life, set my early interest in politics. My father was raised by his mother, who soldiered on her own, to raise her son by playing piano in pubs in Melbourne. Dad has told me stories about how he sold papers on St Kilda Road when he was a 10 year old to help out.

My father is a hardworking gentleman. First, he was a salesman, then a manager and later a managing director of a company. It is through his eyes that I have learnt hard work and dedication to your work can lead to better economic reward, better housing, good health, the opportunity to travel and more choices in life. The Frost-Nixon interviews glued me to the black and white TV as much as The Young Doctors did when I was a kid. My father's handing out how-to-vote cards at the dismissal election and as a child the view from his shoulders at a Don Chipp rally made lasting impressions on me. It is from these experiences that I came to understand some of the basics of government and the importance of democracy in Australia and the world.

My mother is a lover of the arts. She is the daughter of a wing commander and a country war bride who raised their daughter for a destiny of marriage and children. The landscape for women in the 1960s and 1970s was shifting. Her excursions with me included bookshops, cookery classes, musical productions, plays, galleries, church regularly, fetes and museums. The ABC and newspapers were almost always on or around our house, no matter what our budget. She encouraged me to help and be active in school clubs, Girl Guides and later scouting. She taught me the concepts of service and helping our community.

My mother wanted me to be independent and have choices her generation had lacked: a higher education and career before marriage and children. Hopefully, I have achieved this. I can remember clearly in the early 1970s in either reception or year one going to 'show and tell' to talk about a current affairs program I had seen on TV that featured Germaine Greer and the book The Female Eunuch, how I thought this new idea of equality and partnership between boys and girls and men and women was fair, sensible and reasonable. Not surprisingly, all the children in my class laughed at me and only the teacher really knew what I was talking about, but it was the start of my library dwelling, nerdy years that would only really end when I got to university. I had the long hair and plaits but I did not have the glasses. At this tender age I was a novice at the art of convincing people of the merit of my argument.

In the late 1970s the divorce law reform started reshaping Australia and many marriages. My parents' marriage was one of these. Dad went to work for a multinational in Brazil and mum headed north to her parents on the Gold Coast and a single parent's pension. The Gold Coast is a great tourist town, but it can be very uncompromising for those who are bound to the seasonal ebb and flow of high-rise housekeeping, domestic help and retail work. Housing is hard to find when you go in and out of work, and we moved a lot. Life was difficult at times. These were also the years of the 'white shoe brigade' and Premier Bjelke-Petersen. His influence on the state's economy was strong but on social markers it was a difficult time in Queensland to have a different or alternate view.

Whilst my grandmother attended National Party fashion parades and thought about the frocks I should wear, my mother voted Liberal because that is what her parents had taught her to do, and I struggled with not feeling comfortable with either of these things. My Year 12 exams were marked by the electricity workers' industrial actions and rolling blackouts and the introduction of the emergency services legislation designed to stop the blackouts. Marchers were routinely photographed and placed in special branch files.

I was the first of my family to attend university and, thanks to the financial support of Austudy, continued there. I enrolled in the business faculty of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) to study health administration. I remember being one of 15 or so kids to go to uni or BCAE from my year at a public high school, and that was after I worked nights at McDonald's to get there. We had more than 100 students in our Year 12 class, but few went on to further studies. Even nursing and education careers were considered to be special. No-one really encouraged my peers to dream—let alone big dreams.

My university was populated with private school kids who did not need to go home during the term breaks to earn money to come back to university; and, when the Young Nationals at the nearby university closed down the student radio, I became increasingly alarmed. The same conservative types on my campus tried to close down the student newspaper, too. This was enough to drive me to stand for student union elections as the business student representative. I thought, 'Don't get angry, change the outcome, get involved.' When the Goss Labor government was finally elected during my years at QUT I felt like a door had been opened and the sunlight was streaming down on the state for the first time.

In 1991 I joined the ALP, and not long afterwards moved to South Australia for a better position in health administration and ultimately my first job in politics with the quietly humorous and generous Vehicle Builders Union member Dominic Foreman. Dominic, who I am very fond of, gave several young Labor people a good start to a political career. He rarely demanded much in return apart from loyalty to the party, prompt travel bookings to Canberra and a cup of tea upon his arrival. Dom's generosity also extended to the Retired Members Association, and it was wonderful to hear Reg Bishop and Ralph Jacobi talking about the party's past.

My other federal parliamentary employers were John Quirke and Martyn Evans, and I thank them for the skills gained. Martyn Evans introduced me to the challenges of the northern suburbs, the area I now represent; and he opened my eyes to modern mining techniques and renewable energy when he was the federal shadow minister for science. John Quirke has an amazing tactical mind and an uncanny skill for telling how high or low the election result will be in any cycle. Life is never dull around John. He and his wife, Davina, and their boys have been very kind to me over the years. I thank them for that friendship.

Whilst never employers of mine, I wish to acknowledge the good influence that our Premier, Mike Rann, Senator David Feeney and Nick Bolkus have had on my career. As an enthusiastic activist, I was able to help the then Labor opposition leader, Mike Rann, with the thankless campaign tasks behind the scenes that needed to be done. I know that, at one point, I was sick of the paper cuts, of stuffing 'Labor Listens' invites and booking halls, but I learned a lot from the Premier's traits of perseverance and persistence during this time.

I would not have gone to Israel in 1993 after the Oslo Peace Accord if it had not been for David Feeney's support, nor gone on to establish for the party SA Progressive Business, with Nick Bolkus as its chair. It has been a great pleasure to work with and around Nick since 1992, and I admire greatly his optimism and his belief in this great state. The amazing business people I have had the good fortune to meet and with whom I discussed our state's economic future at SA Progressive Business events were educational, and they reshaped some of my views. These are the people we are here to help, not hinder, in growing our state's economy.

Let me turn my attention to the electorate of Taylor. It is indeed an honour to hold a seat named after a practical and successful woman, Doris Taylor MBE. Doris was instrumental in 1953 in establishing Meals on Wheels, an organisation that prepares and delivers more than 1.25 million meals to aged and infirm South Australians each year, much of this done with voluntary labour. Although Doris was severely handicapped from the age of seven as a result of an accident, she spent much of her life helping the aged, ill and needy. The first president of the organisation was the late Don Dunstan, who would later become premier of South Australia.

Taylor is a unique seat and one set for a great deal of change under the recently released 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide. Covering close to 525 square kilometres to the north-west of the city, it incorporates the residential areas of Paralowie, Salisbury North, Burton, Andrews Farm, Buckland Park, sections of Angle Vale and Elizabeth South next to the great GMH car plant, market gardens and vines around Virginia and Two Wells, and the Edinburgh RAAF base. Its boundary to the north-east is the Light River.

Like the member for Mawson's seat, it is full of horticultural abundance and is also a location of considerable disadvantage. Poverty, housing, poor dental health, intergenerational unemployment, dysfunctional families in need of support, mental health problems, special needs children, domestic violence issues and young people at risk of disappearing from the education and training system well before year 12 are common—far too common for many people in Taylor. These are the issues my office staff and I grapple with most days.

The people of Taylor deserve quality representation and advocacy, and I intend to provide this to them and the great community organisations that assist them. The northern suburbs in Taylor are full of hugely promising potential, with:

new employment lands being created around the Edinburgh Park precinct;

the tertiary education sector eyeing off the north for future growth;

the advancing development of housing, and families looking for new lives in Buckland Park and Two Wells;

the arrival of the army battalion;

the development of the Edinburgh super base; and

the much-promised second shift at the GMH plant.

I admire the people who are dedicated to making a difference in our local community with their practical assistance and advocacy. Most people I know who are dedicated to making a difference have a clear vision of the services, resources, roads, training, housing and the like that are needed to make this a reality. There are many of these optimistic and hardworking people in the northern suburbs, and it is these people I intend to support with capacity building.

A great example of this is the collaborative fundraising being done with the support of one of my colleagues, Nick Champion (the federal member for Wakefield), and the Hope Central church at Elizabeth South. Last Tuesday morning was wet and cold, yet nearly 200 northern suburbs people gathered at Hope Central at 7am to join us for Championing the Cause, another event Nick is running to aid the Northern Domestic Violence Service, Northern Carers Network, Elizabeth Special School and the Elizabeth Vale Primary School.

Our Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, kindly supported the event and spoke very movingly of the importance of social inclusion and its healing effect on troubled lives and the economic benefits to our whole society. Her message that 'your demographics are not your destiny' touched many people that morning.

Apart from the voters in Taylor who supported me, there are many people I need to thank today. To the Labor Party, for its faith and trust in me: thank you. I have not been one to shirk responsibility or hard work in opposition or government in the past, and I will work hard to repay the party's faith in me in the future. To Michael Brown: thank you for tolerating my excursions out of the office and into the electorate. Thank you to the Deputy Premier, the Minister for Health, Stephen Conroy and Nicola Roxon for their support and good wishes.

To my friends and supporters in the business community, particularly Cameron Milner: I look forward to hearing your views on what is needed to keep our state moving forward and your practical support. To John Boag, who kept me company on the long road I travelled at party office: I will sorely miss your wise counsel and Dulcie's friendship. I also thank Mandy, Cathy and Joanne for their years of help.

Big thanks go to Senator Don Farrell for his steady support over time; his judgment of people and politics is truly inspiring. I also wish to thank ministers Snelling, O'Brien, Holloway; new parliamentary secretary, Bernard Finnigan; the Hon. Carmel Zollo; and the boys in the party office, particularly Reggie and Paul.

My first part-time job at high school was at Woolies, Runaway Bay, where I joined my first union, the SDA. I am a member today and will remain so. With Peter Malinauskas at its helm, it represents its members' values and beliefs amazingly well.

To my predecessor, the Hon. Trish White, I thank you for your friendship and support over the years. I wish you well in your new life with Joe and success in your new roles you have chosen. To my campaign team, a huge thank you—Julie, Sue, Shane, Lucas, Jess, Alex, Chad and AYL—you did yourselves proud.

To Nick Champion and Tony Piccolo and their wonderful teams, your advice has always been sound and practical. To my mother, Robin; father, Dennis; siblings, Alexander and Victoria; and my wicked stepmother, who I call with love Di, I say thank you. Also, to friends, Nick, Anna, Sharon, Rachel, Zoe, Carla, Moira and Helen, your thoughtful emails, Facebook messages and texts from interstate made my days better.

To the Taylor sub-branch, your support has been invaluable. To the nearly 100 volunteers who staffed our booths on polling days, you are too many to mention but thank you. To the Krashos, Tolis, Nisyrios, Christakos and Louca families and our godchildren, I am fortunate to have you to ground me.

To my in-laws, Garyfalia and Christos Vlahos, who I love like my own parents, thank you. My respect for you and your selfless work ethic and commitment to family is hard to quantify. Your life story as diaspora Greeks starting a new life in a new country deserves a speech on its own, and one day I will provide that to you. I also give thanks to Mark, Vicki and Christos Hancock and the extended Kiamos and Vlahos clans for their love, companionship and care.

Finally, to our cheery children, Leia and Christopher, who are in the gallery today, and my husband, George, thank you is not enough for the forbearance you have shown and continue to show for this odd life. George, your reminders to work hard and do better inspire me most days.

I would like to leave you with this quote, and it often inspires me, and I hope it will inspire all of us here in our work to craft good and useful legislation for our electors in our seats and state:

Be the change you wish to see in the world—M.K. Gandhi

The SPEAKER: Congratulations again to the member for Taylor and the member for Mitchell. It is very daunting, that first speech, and you both did very well. I am sure you will make wonderful members in our place. I now call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen—Leader of the Opposition) (11:49): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and may I say what a pleasure it is to be referring to a madam speaker at last in this house. I second the motion moved by the member for Mitchell. I congratulate the members for Mitchell and Taylor on their maiden speeches. As the Speaker said, it is a tough gig that first one, especially since we all sit here. For the rest of your career, you will find that none of us are sitting here or listening and, if we are, we are interjecting. So, enjoy the fact that you have had your day in the sun without any interjections, even if it seems tough at the time. I congratulate you on the content of your speeches and the insight it has given all of us into the lives that you have led before coming to this place. I look forward to hearing from the many new members on this side of the chamber in due course as they talk to us about those things.

Having done that some time ago myself, today I thought I would talk about the address to which we are replying. In seconding the motion, I welcome the fact that at last we have the opportunity to say anything in this parliament, since it has been from 3 December last year until 6 May this year that we have been in this chamber. I personally think that is too long a break and we should not have been up for quite that amount of time.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: It was okay when Olsen did it.

Mrs REDMOND: We did not have that long a break. In fact, we did not have fixed terms until the end of that era. As I say, I welcome the opportunity finally to be here. As we experienced last week, a lot of opening day concerns pomp and ceremony and, of course, the very important swearing-in of the new members of parliament, but to me the Governor's speech is really the heart of the day. In theory, although the speech is delivered by the Governor, it is made on behalf of the government about its intentions for the next term—in this case, sadly, the third term of the Rann Labor government. Typically, therefore, the written version of the speech delivered by His Excellency is full of spin, rhetoric and, indeed, a lot of misinformation.

In terms of its introduction, the government talks about renewed vision and commitment and yet nothing I have seen thus far indicates any renewed vision but, rather, the continued arrogance of this government. Its overarching aim, it says, will be to continue to foster confidence and help create jobs, and it has committed itself, says the Governor of behalf of the government, to reconnecting, re-engaging and listening to South Australians' concerns and aspirations. It has been there for eight years and it has done none of those things as yet, so I do not know why it has put the 're' in front of those words—connecting and engaging might be a start.

As for ongoing consultation, in my time in this parliament I have seen nothing but a redefinition of the term 'consultation' by this government—much as Mr Rudd has in the last week or so when he decided that he is going to negotiate; he makes an announcement about what the outcome is going to be and then says, 'We are going to negotiate now.' In that way, in that vein, this government, throughout its term, has consistently made decisions and then said, 'Now we are going to have a consultation process,' and the consultation process consists of setting up a public meeting and advertising that public meeting so that people will come along and be told what the government has decided to do to them.

Furthermore, it is all part of a process so that it can put a little tick in a box—it is not actually this government but the Australian Rail Track Corporation. Some of my colleagues, such as the member for Davenport and the member for Kavel, are aware that at the moment there is a so-called consultation process going on in that regard with the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which wants to put a loop through a particular part of the Hills. It is not a consultation. It conceded to me when it met me last week that it is all just part of the mechanism by which it can tick the box to say 'consulted with local member of parliament'. It does not matter that nothing it said convinced me in any way, any more than it convinced the people who attended its previous so-called consultation meeting. But, let's get on to the specifics of this particular speech.

In his speech the Governor says, 'the state's economy remains strong and increasingly diverse.' I find that an utterly extraordinary statement. Let's have a look at the reality of the economy of this state. Can I remind members that in its own budget papers this government in last year's budget—of course, we have not really got to this year's budget; we are still months away from this year's budget, for no apparent reason—in June last year they indicated that they have already, in the face of the best economic times that this state has ever seen up until the global financial crisis, got our state into a situation of $6.8 billion of debt—$6.8 billion—

Dr McFetridge: How much?

Mrs REDMOND: $6.8 billion. And that, even on their figures last June, was going to cost this state $711 million a year in interest. That is without things getting any worse; that is just to service the debt they have got us to. That does not take into account the unfunded superannuation liability, and it doesn't take into account the destruction of WorkCover and the blowout in the unfunded liabilities there, just the debt: $700 million a year to service that debt.

My guess is that the figure is actually now up to $730 million, because, of course, we have had several interest rises since that was published. And, if is not $370 million then, guess what? We are right back to $2 million a day in interest—$2 million a day. What I want to ask the people of this state is to imagine if you had a map of this state, and you were able to give every town, every day, $2 million. If you could just get up and put on a blindfold and say, 'Here's a town. Let's give this town $2 million today,' and go on doing it every day of the year, not just for this year but for next year and next year and next year.

Let's look at some of the truth about the extraordinary statement that they have made about the fact that this government has such a wonderful economic record, that they say the state's economy remains strong and increasingly diverse. Here is some of the reality: after eight years, South Australia's living standard, service levels, infrastructure and economic position relative to other states has declined. Our share of the national economy has declined from 6.8 per cent to 6.5 per cent under this government.

If we had kept pace with the national growth in jobs, then we would have 20,000 more jobs in this state than we have at the moment. In fact, in April the seasonally adjusted number of newspaper job ads in South Australia fell by 19.1 per cent, just in April. This was the largest fall for all the states and territories. It is now at the lowest level that it has been at for years. In fact, at national newspaper job ads fell by 0.7 of 1 per cent in April, and ours fell by 19.1 per cent. South Australian newspaper job ads was the largest fall of all states and territories. In fact, the most recent Access Economics business outlook report predicts national jobs growth will outpace South Australian job growth over the next five years under this government. We will get on to the mining supertax and the further impact of that a little bit later in this speech.

Access Economics forecasts that our jobs growth will continue to underperform; so, we will get further behind than 20,000 jobs. We had only 7 per cent of national business investment when Rann came to government in the 12 months to March 2002, but we have gone backwards under him from 7 per cent to now only 5.3 per cent of national business investment in the 12 months to December last year.

The value of our exports has fallen. Without even adjusting for inflation, just taking into account the absolute bald figures, our exports in 2001-02—that is, when we were last in office—were $9.1 billion. Where are they now? This is a government that keeps adjusting upwards its target in this regard, so its latest target in the State Strategic Plan is to treble South Australia's export income to $25 billion by 2014. In 2002 the government came in and put up a target; it has increased that target, and it wants to treble our export income to $25 billion by 2014. Between 2002 and now we have gone from $9.1 billion backwards to $7.9 billion. That is without even adjusting for inflation and determining what the true value of those exports would be in those days' terms, were we to add up that amount now.

Our export growth is currently the lowest in the nation. South Australia's exports have declined by 23 per cent in the past 12 months alone. They went down from $10.3 billion to $7.9 billion. We now have the lowest proportion of exporting businesses of all mainland states. Our car exports alone fell by 84 per cent. Only 9 per cent of businesses in South Australia actually export. The national average is 14 per cent but in this state, 9 per cent.

The state continues to lose residents to other states with four times more people migrating to other states than under the previous Liberal government, and so our share of the national population has, like everything else, declined under the Rann government. Furthermore, our state taxes have been lifted to historically high levels under this government. I can tell you that it was 61 per cent but, in fact, the most recent figures now put it up to 66 per cent—a 66 per cent increase in state taxes, so that the only thing the government has achieved in getting us to the top is that we are now the top of the pile in terms of where our state taxes sit relative to other states.

The government has increased land tax by raising the revenue from it by 301 per cent. It has risen to $561 million in the 2009-10 year. Payroll tax revenues have increased by 50 per cent, rising to $903 million in 2009-10. These figures became very familiar to me, of course, because before the election I was out talking to the business community.

One of the things that is obvious is that this government bleats about its wonderful infrastructure projects (and I will talk about those later on) but a lot of those major infrastructure projects are not won by the contractors and tenderers in this state. The reason is not that they are not good producers, operators or workers: they are terrific in all of those things, but they cannot compete against companies from interstate that have a much more acceptable tax regime than the one that has been imposed by this government. Our debt, within the forward estimates, will be $6.8 billion.

Our WorkCover scheme is the worst-performing in the nation. We have the highest levies in the nation by more than 50 per cent. It is my recollection that our state WorkCover levies are 3 per cent, and in other states they are less than 2 per cent. So our WorkCover levies are not just more than but significantly more than every other state's. From that, one would think we actually have a better scheme, but what did this Labor government do? It damaged workers' entitlements in the so-called effort to fix it up but, in the meantime, it took the unfunded liability from where it was (at about $59 million when we lost office) to now over $1 billion. I think the unfunded liability has blown out to $1.06 billion in the course of this government's operation in this state.

I truly fear for the future of this state and the way the government has run the economy. It thinks it is significant for Kevin Foley, every time he gets to his feet, to simply say, 'We are good economic managers', 'We are good economic managers', 'We are good economic managers', but all the while these things are getting worse.

Our unfunded superannuation liability has climbed from—are you ready for this—$3.2 billion to $8.9 billion. In addition to the $2 million a day that we are paying on interest just on the state debt, which we shouldn't even have given our good economic times, this year taxpayers have to pay $455 million in interest payments on this liability.

In the meantime, GST revenues have increased by about 58 per cent since 2001-02. In the past eight years, GST revenues have exceeded expectations. They have budgeted an amount and they have exceeded expectations in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars; yet, Labor originally opposed the GST. Instead of that, they have now taken it and wasted it.

From 2008-09 to 2009-10, commonwealth government grants rose by more than $1.2 billion. That has been such a bailout for this state. You will note from the Governor's speech that the government talks about things like the Northern Expressway and $564 million or whatever it is. The fact is that 80 per cent of that money is coming from federal government funding.

Then, having made such a mess of the economy that they couldn't actually straighten things up, they brought down their budget last year and said, 'We need to find another $750 million in savings, but, oh dear, we have an election coming in March, so we better not tell people where we are planning to cut things. I know, we'll set up the Sustainable Budget Commission.' So they engaged all these people to be on the Sustainable Budget Commission and what do you know? They have not come up with the savings—in fact, I think they are still trying to find them—but even the Sustainable Budget Commission has blown its budget. The Sustainable Budget Commission has blown its own budget by $2.5 million. It is extraordinary, but it doesn't surprise me; nothing about the way this government runs this state surprises me.

We have an additional 11,000 public servants employed in general administration; not doctors and nurses and police officers, etc. but bureaucracy. They talk about social justice. I will divert for a moment to talk about the issue of social justice. They talk about, for instance, social housing and the wondrous job that the government does in creating social housing. Their problem is that they see this money coming from the commonwealth. It is meant to come from the commonwealth and go to organisations that can actually build social housing and put in place the sorts of supports that are necessary to help the people who need social housing. But not this government; this government says, 'Oh no, we'll have that money and we'll build the social housing ourselves.'

Of course, they can only build one-half or one-quarter of the amount of social housing because they have so much bureaucracy enslaved to the system and, at the same time, they do not have the support to put in place. Organisations such as Anglicare and all those other well-intentioned and hard working bodies, where we would get far more bang for our buck, miss out because the government keeps three-quarters of the money to do its own thing. For them to say that they are good economic managers beggars belief. To state at the very outset of this address by the Governor in terms of where this state is heading that the state's economy remains strong and increasingly diverse is an outrageous misstatement of the true facts.

The State Strategic Plan targets are like Rudd: it is all about big statements, they never have any idea of how they are going to get there; it is all about strategy and never about tactics. As I pointed out, the consequence is that, with the loss of export income in this state, we are actually going in the wrong direction. They have no footprint, no idea of how they are going to get there. When they say that they are going to maintain prudent and diligent management of the state's budget, that is just the most extraordinary statement given the information that I have just laid before the house.

I will move onto the second topic the Governor addressed in his speech at the opening of parliament, and that was on the issue of training and apprenticeships. It states that 'the government plans to introduce additional training places and apprenticeships across a number of industry sectors'. As usual, there is no detail. It is a bit like Mike Rann's magical promise of 100,000—

Ms FOX: On a point of order, on three occasions now I have heard the leader referring to 'Rann,' 'Foley,' 'Rann,' etc. and I do not think you are meant to do that.

The SPEAKER: Yes, that is a point of order. However, there is some leniency—

Members interjecting:

Ms FOX: I confess I do not know the number.

The SPEAKER: I think you do have a point of order there; however, Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs REDMOND: As I was saying, the speech from the Governor refers, with no detail, to just this 100,000 training places that will be offered over six years. Don't you love this idea of six years? Apart from the arrogance, it gives them an excuse because obviously with their current trend everything is going to go down for four years, and then they will lose office and suddenly it does not matter any more that they do not have to have any plan to get anywhere by a particular time.

There is no detail at all about these 100,000 training places that will be offered over six years. There is no statement as to whether these are additional training places to those already in the pipeline, where they might be, or who might be funding them. There is no indication as to how that is going to be. I seem to remember that, at the end of the last session of parliament, we had a lot of questions to ask about the Panorama TAFE, and it was pretty clear that the government's intention was indeed to close the Panorama TAFE.

There is no indication as to whether they will continue the things that they have been dropping. I have been talking to lecturers who used to do things like deliver the elementary training in literacy and numeracy and basic prevocational courses, and they have been scrapped as well. If you cannot get people up to the level where they are capable of taking on a traineeship or an apprenticeship, I would be interested in how they will achieve this magical number. It is such a nice sounding number—100,000 new training places. I wonder if that is the same 100,000 as the 100,000 new jobs they were going to have, and I would love to know why it is over six years.

One thing I will congratulate the government on in the area of apprenticeships and training is copying our policy on removing the payroll tax from apprenticeships and trainees. We identified the ridiculous situation where payroll tax was payable on apprentices and trainees but rebated to the tune of 80 per cent of that payment. It just created, unnecessarily, a huge amount of paperwork for all the small businesses that were trying to do the right thing and increase our productive workforce by taking on apprentices and trainees, so I welcome their seeing the sense of that. Interestingly, I note, at the very bottom of page 3 of the speech, the statement:

My Government will also remove payroll tax on wages for apprentices and trainees—

as I said, congratulations. Same sentence—

and will introduce further reductions in land tax rates, which will see nearly 75,000 South Australians no longer liable for land tax in 2010-11.

Can you remember the response when we started talking about land tax? 'No, there wasn't a problem.' Land tax, according to the Treasurer, was simply a thing that people who were very wealthy had to pay. He refused to recognise that virtually every business in this state runs out of rented premises and, if they are running out of rented premises, they are running out of premises that are owned by somebody who is paying land tax and, mark my words, that land tax is passed onto the tenant and it becomes a cost for employment and a cost for anyone running a business in this state, but, no, the Treasurer would not believe that.

Strangely enough, the little half sentence at the bottom of page 3 seems to be the only real discussion about the taxation situation in this state, notwithstanding that we are now the highest taxed state in the commonwealth. It is a very odd thing. I have a feeling that this might disclose a bit of a hint that, when we get to September and finally get the budget—that was due, of course, in June—there is not going to be any tax relief to speak of in our next budget because I think that they are in deep doo-doo with the budget, and that is why we have the Sustainable Budget Commission already $2½ million over its budget, which I think is an extraordinary irony.

Let us have a look at what this speech goes on to say about jobs and the economy. On page 7, interestingly, the speech talks about all sorts of things. In particular it states:

The Government recognises that the south of Adelaide continues to undergo major population and commercial growth and, consequently, will duplicate the Southern Expressway as well as build a new interchange at Darlington.

Does anyone remember that during the election? I thought that was extraordinary. I know—because Labor members have told me so—that in fact they just made this up because they found out that we were about to announce the duplication of the Southern Expressway. What makes it so extraordinary is that they suddenly came up with $445 million to do it in the term of this government.

Now, this is a government that very shortly before that, during the last session, when we were having a debate—

Mr Bignell: You should have done it properly in the first place; it should have gone two ways.

Mrs REDMOND: The member for Mawson says that expressway should have gone both ways in the first place. That is absolutely true, and if his side had not bankrupted this state we would no doubt have done that. We were lucky to be able to do anything, given the state of finances in which you left this state.

Can we go back to this duplication of the Southern Expressway. Suddenly the government, out of nowhere, is able to produce $445 million—not over six years, like their jobs. No; within this term the government was going to complete this arrangement.

A very short time earlier we had been having a debate in this chamber and asking many questions about the state of the Magill Training Centre. Members may recall there were complaints to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and in all sorts of places—

An honourable member: The United Nations.

Mrs REDMOND: —and to the United Nations, indeed—about the state of the Magill Training Centre. We could not spend a very minimal amount of money in doing anything to fix that, because the Treasurer said it would place at risk our AAA credit rating. So we could not do something to fix up the Magill Training Centre, which was under the scrutiny of the United Nations and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and so on, because it would risk our AAA credit rating and yet, out of nowhere, unallocated capital expenditure that does not appear anywhere in the budget can be found to come up with $445 million—not much shy of half a billion dollars. It just shows us what hollow logs this government is able to find when it wants to.

Then of course we have the $564 million Northern Expressway, the tram extension and the desalination plant—our major infrastructure projects. I have already alerted members, however, to facts about much of the work of those. I remind the house that the desalination plant was in fact the idea of the Hon. Iain Evans and that we argued for that in the face of strenuous opposition from the government for a long, long time until suddenly it decided to do it. It is doing it all right, but then it gives the contracts interstate—nothing for this state. This state has some infrastructure projects, but largely the contracts are let to interstate tenderers. I think that is a disgrace.

I put on the record also that to me the tram extension just beggars belief. I am not opposed per se to trams. They can be quite pleasant, although I have to say that the seats on the new trams are the most uncomfortable public transport seats I have ever sat on. However, the point I would like to make about trams is that it simply seems to me that, if a city has had trams and you then took the trams out, it might at least have been worth having a bit of a public discussion before suddenly deciding that you were putting them back.

If the outcome of that discussion were to be, 'We still want to have trams,' well and good. There is no problem with that. I do not have a problem with trams per se but with the spending of the enormous amount of money that this government has put into trams: $31 million on the first little bit, which had to be produced on time and on budget for a previous election promise—and that happened to be the exact same amount that the government was clawing back out of the disability sector that year—and now all that extra money to go out to the Entertainment Centre.

Wasn't it a lovely situation this week when they suddenly had a daytime function at the Entertainment Centre? We did try to raise that issue at the time. It is all very well to have that as a park-and-ride area, but what is going to happen when there is a function at the Entertainment Centre during the day and nobody knows about it beforehand? It is going to be a problem, but, no, the government did not want to know about that; it did not want to talk about that.

Let us look at some of these other infrastructure projects—the State Aquatic Centre, which the government proudly announced will be finished, hopefully, by the end of this year. That was announced in our last budget in 2001. So, 10 years later, the government is finally going to produce the State Aquatic Centre.

Members interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: They are good at making things up.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: They are good at making things up, and Labor politicians are also very good at backflips, triple pike and double somersaults, if you have noticed recently. Let us also look at the proposal for the Adelaide Oval. Now, there is a proposal. We know very clearly that that came about, because on Adelaidenow, for instance, our proposal for the area to the west of Morphett Street and to the north of North Terrace at the old rail yard site, as it is called, was getting about 83 per cent approval, and we know that the government needed to do something about that. So, suddenly we have an announcement about the Adelaide Oval.

Let us just look at what that announcement is. It is an announcement that they will have an agreement, but the agreement is just an agreement to sit down and talk. There is no agreement. It is just an agreement to talk. Indeed, we also know—and it has been published in the paper, so it is not just from whispers to us—that the people who attended on the oval that day for the big press conference announcing that wonderful agreement to sit down and talk were told to smile for the cameras. They were told to smile no matter what; they had to like it.

We also know that the $450 million never existed. The $450 million was $200 million being pulled back from the trams, except the $200 million for the trams is nowhere in the current forward estimates. It is off in the never-never. It does not exist. Another $100 million that the government had already allocated to AAMI Stadium—oops, forgot. It has already taken back that $100 million from the AAMI Stadium allocation and counted it as a cost saving in its own figures. So, it does not have that money. Then there is the $150 million from the feds. I will be interested to see in tonight's budget whether there is $150 million from the federal government to fund the revamp of the Adelaide Oval.

So, that money does not really exist. Kate Ellis was on the radio saying that she did not have the $150 million. By the way, since then, she has confirmed her view that, rather than putting money in high-level sports, she wants to put it at community level sports. I saw an interview with her fairly recently reiterating that view. So, the money does not exist.

The media release is very carefully worded. It states that, if there is no actual agreement by 30 June—that is, by the end of next month and that is not an agreement to sit down and talk but an actual agreement—the money is off the table. Well, that is pretty handy, because the money was never there to put on the table in the first place, and clearly there will not be an agreement by next month. The fact is that the $450 million was never going to get them there anyway.

The figure that I have been hearing on the radio is $90 million, which is the SACA debt. We all know that somehow that SACA debt has to be dealt with, and we know that that is SACA's problem. It does not really want football there. What it wants is to rid itself of its debt problem for that amount of money that it cannot possibly service with the current use of the oval.

But never was there any suggestion as to how they would deal with the other issues—issues such as, 'Oh, where will we put 4,000 cars? Will we just park them on the parklands?' I wonder whether that could have anything to do with the 14.99 per cent swing that the member for Adelaide achieved against the minister for education! I wonder whether the minister for education's statement that bringing football to the city was a no brainer could have had anything to do with the fact that the people in North Adelaide actually do care about having 4,000 cars parked around their streets.

I understand that the government only recently began talking to the people in the council about just what they might do for the parking in this area, let alone for the expansion into the parklands of the actual building and the fact that, to have it equipped for soccer—which will not work—creates all sorts of problems with this proposal that the government has got nowhere near addressing. It simply needed something to go out and respond to us, because our proposal for what to do with that piece of land on the old rail yards was so much more popular than anything it had ever thought of.

From what the government has now said about that site, it is still planning to put the hospital there and, from memory, the Governor said in his speech that they will let the tender for the build of the new rail yards hospital by the end of this year. The fact is that, again, our proposal was more sensible, much cheaper and much better received by the people of Adelaide and the entire state. The reason was this: we all know that the most expensive part of a hospital is the heart of the hospital which we have already and which is already state-of-the-art with world-class theatres and technical areas. We can well and truly leave it intact and erect the other buildings that need to be built around it and save at least $1 billion—that is on the government's own costings—which we can then redirect into hospitals around our suburban areas like the Lyell McEwin, the Modbury and others they have let run down, and around the rest of the state.

I do not believe that the government's $1.7 billion hospital will ever come to fruition on that site, and certainly if it does it will not be for that price. They started out with a hospital costing $1.7 billion on the basis of 170,000 square metres. As the election drew nearer, rather than increasing the price they decided that they had better reduce the size of it, so it went from 170,000 square metres down to 140,000 square metres. By the time they build it we will get a phonebox-sized hospital.

I was at a cocktail party when the Treasurer was asked about what planning advice they had had regarding that site, and he conceded that they had obtained no planning advice. My theory is that a couple of years ago the government thought: what will we do to have a big ticket item for this next budget? It needed something, and in every state, health, law and order and education are the top three issues. So they said, 'Let's go for health, and let's say we will have a new hospital.' The only trouble is that it is in the wrong place and cannot be afforded.

The $1.7 billion, we understand, has blown out to at least $2.3 billion, if not more than that. They do not really have a design. They criticised us for coming up with ideas and looking at options and coming to a reasonable conclusion so that we could come to some reasonable costings. They have come up with an airy-fairy figure with no design, and it seems to change from being horizontal to now being more vertical, but that does not address the flight path problems and all those other things.

We have not even begun to address the clean-up of the site. It would require a massive clean-up, the estimated cost of which I understand has already passed a quarter of a billion dollars. Why on earth would you proceed down that path when, for a lot less money, you can keep the hospital where it belongs, with its medical school, dental school and the IMVS, where it has all sorts of businesses that have grown up around it, as well as better transport access and all sorts of other things? You could have a brand-new hospital on that site for a lot less money and that other money could be put into other things.

By the way, on the issue of health, during the election campaign our Premier straightaway gave the tick-off to a proposal that came out of the federal government. I have read it, as have several of my colleagues, and I know it is a very detailed document, but the fact is that this Premier gave it the big tick and said, 'Yes, we'll agree to this.' I would like to hear his explanation for having done that when, by holding out, the other premiers managed to increase the package to the states by at least $1.4 billion. Our Premier was all too keen to sign off on it.

I do not know whether he understands this, but I have certainly read it in detail. Indeed, I went to Canberra during the election campaign and talked to people in Nicola Roxon's office, in the department of health, treasury and finance, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. They were none too thrilled about my questions, because the fact is that when you read the details of the plan it is patently obvious that it will lead to a much increased bureaucracy and no increase in doctors. Indeed, it would deplete the money we have in our state reserves for doctors and nurses.

I will tell members why that is the case. Under this new plan things called regional councils will be set up. When you read the description—about page 60 or 61 of the little blue book, if members would like to look at it—it uses the word 'local' and says that these regional councils will include local health administrative and management professionals, and so on. However, when I questioned that, it became obvious that the word 'local' was really only there to make people think there would be something local about these councils. They are not local at all.

Under some degree of cross-examination, they agreed that, in fact, these councils will have the money. The first year of the plan is to pay the money to the states, the states would pay it to the regional councils, and then it would flow through to these regional networks for hospitals. After that it was to go straight to the regional networks, and the descriptor that goes with it makes it clear that the people on these regional councils will be paid and will have to have sufficient expertise to manage the millions of dollars coming through. That regional network will then employ a CEO and, of course, once you have a council employing a CEO that council will make decisions that the CEO will implement. Inevitably there must be another level of bureaucracy below that to put in place those council decisions and do the bean counting of all the money for accounting back to the commonwealth.

More worrying still, and the most staggering part of it—which is blindingly obvious to me but is clearly something about which the Premier did not care when he said that this was for us—is that it also says, in the same description area on page 60 or 62, that none of this can be paid for out of the money coming through from the GST and that it has to be paid for out of the existing state budget. So this massive bureaucracy—the regional council with all these paid professionals (who will not be locals at all), which will have a CEO and a bureaucracy below that—all has to be paid for out of the existing budget. Yet our Premier was prepared to stand here and say, 'Yes, this is a good idea; we'll have some of that.' He signed off on it when every other state premier held out and managed to get much more.

Mr Goldsworthy interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: Well, this state gets sold out all the time. Have members noticed that in the last couple of days the Prime Minister made an announcement about a 40 per cent super resources tax? Apparently for this purpose super profits are defined as anything more than the government bond yield. For anyone who has ever run a business—which most of those on this side of the house have and most of the people, such as all the union hacks, on the other side have not—it surely begs the question why someone with money to invest would not simply put it in the government bond. That is the whole point.

I want to quote from something, and I do not know whether anyone else noticed this. It was a bit hard not to notice in The Weekend Australian on page 10 of The Nation an open letter to the Prime Minister from Atlas Iron Managing Director, David Flanagan, which states, amongst other things:

...Prime Minister, I urge you in the strongest and most genuine terms to rethink your plan to impose a super tax on Australia's resources industry. The astronomical level of tax you plan to impose on resource projects will swamp the engine room of not only the WA economy, but that of the nation.

He was not saying that you should not have some increase in tax, but he goes on:

I stand wholeheartedly by my comments that those who could afford to pay a little more should have to do so...

I am just quoting bits and pieces here. He goes on to say:

I sought to highlight the importance of a healthy social balance underpinned by world-class services that would help make our society a better place in which to live, work and do business. But in the same breath I warned governments against strangling the golden goose...your advisers have failed you woefully...Make no mistake. This imposition will be crippling...it will cause some projects to shut down altogether and some to wind back. Others will simply not start in the first place. This…is not scaremongering; it is the result of basic arithmetic.

That is something that those on the other side seem to fail. No wonder they have said they are going to employ more maths and science teachers. Here is the nub:

Mining is a high-risk business and investors...will not provide the immense funding needed to develop projects unless there is the prospect of a robust return...The effect of this chain of events on employment, export revenue and the overall economy will be nothing short of disastrous...the tax which flows to governments...will ultimately shrink, rendering the whole strategy destructive...

Here is something that those on the other side do not seem to get:

The impact of your proposed tax on the share prices of Australian mining companies over the past week should be ample evidence of the widespread damage it will cause...the toxic fallout for superannuation funds. This is just not fair for the 6.7 million ordinary working Australians who own shares.

Remember working families? Kevin Rudd has had a penchant for mentioning them again lately.

...their retirement savings were slashed [by this decision]. It is a flawed and ultimately highly destructive attempt to redistribute wealth from those involved directly in the resources industry to those with supposedly no link to it.

Thus it goes on. I will also mention briefly an article by Michael Owen in the same publication which states:

Mike Rann has long spruiked the importance of an expanded Olympic Dam mine to the wellbeing of South Australia.

It has been so long, for the whole time that I have been in this parliament, that we have been poised and on the precipice of this great mining expansion. Michael Owen goes on to state:

Yet this week, in the wake of the federal government's proposed resources tax, the SA Premier has stressed [that it] was always a long-haul venture.

Isn't that remarkable? This article goes on to talk about the fact that it is a high-risk venture. It is as simple as that. If people can earn 6 per cent in government bonds, why would they take their money and put it into a high-risk venture? The only reason for going into a high-risk venture—

An honourable member: John Bannon did.

Mrs REDMOND: Yes. He took our money and put it into a high-risk venture, unfortunately. Getting back to the Governor's speech, I have, of course, already been questioning Olympic Dam. How long has Mike Rann been promising this? How many jobs are actually involved? I know that the people from BHP will not tell you that 23,000 jobs are ever going to come out of this mining venture even if it does go ahead, but when will it ever happen? The fact is that Mike Rann wants to count every conceivable job under the sun. The RM Williams store on the corner of North Terrace here might sell some extra boots and that gets counted, and that is terrific if it ever happens, but at this stage there is no sign of it ever happening. Then Mike Rann went on to talk about—I am sorry, the Governor went on to talk about—

An honourable member: Point of order—

Mrs REDMOND: I have fixed it, Madam Speaker.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: The leader is repeatedly referring to the Premier by his surname and his surname only.

Mrs REDMOND: I will correct myself, anyway, Madam Speaker. I meant to refer to the Governor—

The SPEAKER: Standing order 123 says not to refer to members by name.

Mrs REDMOND: The Governor's speech states—are you ready for this—'South Australia continues to lead the nation in renewable energy investment.' That may be true, but it is not the government that has invested; it is private investors who have invested in it. He very carefully now says that South Australia is home to around 50 per cent of the nation's wind power—and that is probably an accurate statement. I remind members that, during the televised debate leading up to the election and, indeed, I think during the Labor Party's campaign launch, the Premier made the outrageous assertion that South Australia produced more wind power than all the other states combined—

An honourable member: It sounds like a good story.

Mrs REDMOND: It did sound like a good story, but the only thing is that it wasn't true. That was the only little problem.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: I know that you find it hard to believe, but it wasn't true. Indeed, I understand that, after the debate, the government was in damage control trying to figure out how to fix that because it was not true; that is, South Australia does not produce more wind power than all the other states combined. They thought they might cut out Tasmania, but Tasmania is a state and it is connected to the grid, so there is a slight problem with that.

The fact is that this government has been just outrageous in a number of its assertions, most of all on the economy, throughout its time in office. Yet, would you believe that, in spite of the disastrous consequences of this tax they are proposing to place onto the mining sector in this state, having spruiked the benefits of our mining boom—and I remind members that the mining boom in this state has only ever reached the stage of a mining exploration boom, and even that took a downturn with the global financial crisis—last year our royalties were only $143.8 million, whereas in Queensland their royalties were $1.8 billion and in Western Australia, $2.6 billion. So, our mining boom is but a drop in the ocean compared with those states because it was only ever a mining exploration boom.

However, in spite of this wonderful new tax they are planning to put on the mining and resources area so that they will probably destroy the economy of the entire country, the government still says—and this is on page 7 of the Governor's speech—that it wants to address long-term disadvantage by ensuring that a social dividend is derived from the economic benefits that flow from the mining sector's expansion. So, the government's solution to all problems is the mining sector, yet it does not mind absolutely crippling the mining sector.

I do not have very much more that I want to talk about in response to the Governor's speech—and I thank the Governor for the excellent delivery of his speech—but there are two areas, that is, mental health and regional matters, that I think deserve special mention and, Madam Speaker, you would no doubt appreciate my comments about regional matters. In the area of mental health, I can but beg the government to reconsider this idea to which it seems so committed, that is, to put a film hub in the middle of our jewel in the crown—our mental health facility at Glenside.

I remember that, when Lea Stevens was the minister for health, the government sought nationwide for a replacement for Margaret Tobin, and it found Jonathan Phillips. Lea Stevens, as the minister at the time, announced with great pride the appointment of Jonathan Phillips as the new Director of Mental Health in this state. If any of you care to talk to him, he will tell you that it is the jewel in the crown and something that no other state has: such a wonderful precinct and wonderful mental health facility on the edge of and so closely associated with its major city. He will also tell you about the importance of the open space as part of that in terms of mental health and mental wellbeing.

We already know that mental health will affect at least one in five people, and it is something that we should not simply brush away. We cannot put every one into the community. We need to be providing mental health facilities within that precinct, as well as in the community, and we should not put a film hub in it. I believe there should be a film hub in South Australia. Gary Johanson, the Mayor of Port Adelaide Enfield, has a whole city block on which they could build as a greenfield building a new film hub, and that would be a better use and a better way to go about it. Putting a film hub in the middle of it is not the answer to the mental health needs of this state.

In closing, Madam Speaker—and especially in deference to the fact that you represent almost a quarter of the state, I imagine, in your electorate of Giles—I believe that, for far too long, this government has been completely city centric. It has focused all their attention on the City of Adelaide to the detriment of the regional communities. Since I became the leader, I have been to Eyre Peninsula twice. I am hoping to go there again very shortly. I think I went to Port Augusta four times and I have been to the Riverland five times now. This is just since July when I became the leader. I have been to the electorate of Frome on at least five occasions. I have been to Mount Gambier on five occasions.

The fact is that the people in those areas, if the government ever bothered to talk to them, feel very much that they have been completely forgotten by this government. I have committed to them that, whether I am Leader of the Opposition or the Premier of this state, I will remain engaged as a person who wants to govern for the whole of the state and not simply for those in the close metropolitan area.

Certainly, much of our population lives in the metropolitan area; I am not suggesting the government forgets that, but a very strong contingent of our state lives in the regional areas. They are responsible for providing for the people who work in the mines, the people who produce our agriculture and our aquaculture, and a whole lot of what exports we have left under this government. We owe it to our country cousins to realise that they deserve equity in their road maintenance and access to health services and all services around this state, and I believe that the failure of this government to address those issues over the whole time it has been in government will come back to haunt it. Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the house.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: I now call the member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:47): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I congratulate you on attaining the high office. I am sure you will rule the house with the iron fist.

Dr McFetridge: From the Iron Triangle!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Fair enough; 'From the Iron Triangle', the member for Morphett interjects. I place on the record my congratulations to the Governor for his address, the way it was delivered and also the excellent way he goes about the role of Governor throughout South Australia. They way in which he and Mrs Scarce have been performing the role of Governor is a credit to them. It is an important role, and I think they are doing an excellent job on behalf of the state.

I also take the opportunity to congratulate all members who, for the first time, have won their right to sit in this place. It is great to see more colleagues on this side of the house, and I welcome them all to the house and also the new members on the other side and, indeed, the Independent members who are new, congratulations to them also. Regardless of their politics, it is a great honour to be elected by their local constituency to represent them in this particular place. It is a great honour, and I hope that the members elected do appreciate the honour that the 22,000-odd voters have bestowed on them, whether they are on my side of the house, an Independent or the other side of the house.

It looks as though, with the timing of the speech, it will be split between now and something after question time. I want to touch on the mining tax this side of question time. The Leader of the Opposition has outlined an excellent summary of the state economy. I do not intend to rehash those statistics, but I think her statement that the South Australian economy is not performing as well as the Treasurer would have us believe is an accurate summary for those who wish to read it and find out where the state is going.

I want to touch on the Henry tax review, particularly the mining tax. The lack of response by this government to the mining tax proposal by the federal government amazes me. The Premier and the Treasurer could not have been quicker in saying that they support the principle of a super tax on the mining industry. They went straight out into the media and supported prime minister Rudd's proposal to introduce what will be a $9 billion a year tax on the mining industry throughout Australia.

In my view, the stupid part about this tax is that Australia has a two-speed economy. All the economic reporting in Australia at the moment talks about this thing called a two-speed economy. What does the Labor Party do? It targets the one economy—the one economic factor—that is driving the faster of the two-speed economy, that is, the mining industry. The Queensland and Western Australian economies are going gang busters on the back of the mining industry, so much so that the federal government has decided to try to nobble the fastest horses and not help the slow horses.

It seems to be a good example of the difference in philosophy between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. Instead of extending a hand to the economies which are struggling and which are slower—the manufacturing economies that are under attack through globalisation—this government, through its support of the super tax, and the Rudd government, which is proposing the super tax, are saying to the Queensland and Western Australian economies and the mining industry generally, 'You are being too successful. You are being too strong. We will put a higher tax burden on you to try to slow you down.' And slow them down they will!

Members should listen to all the mining executives and look at the drop in the share prices. Madam Speaker, it is well known to this house that I have Santos shares. It is in my declaration of interests. That aside, all the mining executives across Australia are saying that this will have a huge impact on investment, on their capital and on jobs. You do not have to be a brain surgeon to work out that, if you apply a $9 billion tax to an industry, particularly an industry which is high in capital investment and which has long-term projects that last decades, if not centuries in some cases—hopefully, the BHP mine in our own state might do that if that it gets up—and if you start changing the rules midstream, it will have huge impacts on future investment decisions.

The reality is that the mining industry is in a capital market that is global. The boards of the mining companies ultimately have a duty to their shareholders to get a good return on investment. If the Australian government makes it too hard or too expensive to invest here, the simple reality is that that they will not invest here.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Members interject to say that they will go to Canada. From memory, the Canadian finance minister was very quick to say, 'Thank you prime minister Rudd and thank you Australia. We have lots of unexplored territory in a huge country called Canada so come here and invest your money.' That is what will happen. It may not be Canada, but it will be somewhere else in the world. We will now be under attack from every other country for possible investment from the mining industry and it may stop jobs in Australia and take them somewhere else.

The Rudd government has deliberately attacked the fast moving section of the two-speed economy. It has done it with a deliberate decision. Our Premier and our Treasurer said, 'We do not have a problem with this super tax on the mining industry.' Typical of this government, it is now saying, 'Hang on a minute, there has been a bit of negative press. We had better try to look like we are doing something.' It is reported in today's paper that the Treasurer has said, 'I will get on a plane and go to Canberra with BHP to argue for change.' And it is a point that the Leader of the Opposition made quite validly during her contribution: what is it about the Labor philosophy that says that you will announce your decision today and then go out and consult and talk about it later? Prime minister Rudd is already in the paper saying that, regardless of the consultation process, the 40 per cent level of super tax will remain.

Mrs Redmond: What's the point?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: What is the point, as the Leader of the Opposition says, about the consultation? They are talking about the minor detail and not the main game. From South Australia's viewpoint, I guess that the question comes: what will be the impact of this tax on South Australia and South Australian jobs?

Mr Marshall: Disaster!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: One of my colleagues says that it will be a disaster. I think that it will have a huge impact on future investment decisions in South Australia, and that is regrettable, because Dale Baker, when he was the minister for primary industries, started a very good program called the TEIS program. It was an exploration program for the mining industry. The deputy leader reminds me that it was actually on the back of work done by Frank Blevins, who was primary industries minister before Dale Baker. Frank Blevins did one good thing in this house; he—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, he introduced poker machines—I was not in favour of that. But he did one good thing and that was that he expanded the magnetic photography of South Australia so that the mining industry could have a better information base. Then, to his credit, Dale Baker, from memory, made about a $23 million investment at the time, making it easier for mining companies to explore, and then, hopefully, develop more mines.

So, it was the Liberal government under Dean Brown, John Olsen and Rob Kerin that expanded that exploration program; this government has simply continued it. Then what does the Rudd government do? The Rudd government turns around and says, 'Have we got a deal for you! Even if you can get your mine up we will then tax it at a higher level', and you can understand the mining industry saying to South Australia, 'What is your problem?' You have spent over 15 years trying to develop the mining industry around governments of all colours, then you get this madman in Canberra who wants to bring in a super tax; and our government, through the Premier and the Treasurer, did not stand up to Rudd at the time and demand that he not introduce it.

We know that at the last COAG meeting (which the Premier and the Treasurer attended), when that health reform deal was signed off, a briefing on the Henry tax review was given to the various leaders. Our Premier and our Treasurer had a week's notice that this was going to come in. Given a week's notice it is going to come in, where was the fierce opposition? It was nowhere to be seen. The Premier should stop lying down for his mate and start standing up for his state, because South Australia does need a strong mining industry, and the super tax, as proposed by the federal government, will damage the South Australian mining industry long term. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]


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