HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 13 May 2010.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:02): I am pleased to continue my remarks in response to the Governor's address. From memory, I concluded my remarks on Thursday over a week ago by thanking those many people who assisted me in being re-elected to this place; however, I now want to turn to some quite serious issues that continue to exist in my electorate of Kavel in the Adelaide Hills.

I have spoken about these issues at length in this place. They relate to the significant residential development that has taken place in parts of the electorate, namely, in and around the Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne district, or what I call the tri-town district in that part of the electorate. Significant residential development has taken place and, as a consequence, pressure has been put on infrastructure and services.

I have spoken about this particular infrastructure requirement since I have been in this place, for over eight years now, that is, the need for a second freeway interchange at Mount Barker. The Liberal Party has committed to funding half the cost of that infrastructure build. The freeway is actually a federal government infrastructure responsibility but, to hasten the construction of that much-needed infrastructure, the Liberal Party has, as part of its policy, agreed to fund 50 per cent of that.

If we continue to delay the build for this essential piece of infrastructure the cost will only escalate. At the moment it is at about the $30 million mark, but every week, every month that the state and federal governments delay committing to this infrastructure requirement the cost will continue to increase, and obviously that has a greater impact on the budget.

Obviously, as residential development continues, it will put pressure on our health services. The maternity section at the Mount Barker hospital is at capacity, and that part of the hospital does not have any capacity to allow local mothers to attend the hospital for the delivery of their babies. From memory, I think that about 300 women have their babies at Mount Barker hospital; over and above that number, local mothers have to travel down to Adelaide and, obviously, that is not meeting the needs of the local community.

Coupled with the government's 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide and its plan for anywhere between 16,000 and 20,000 additional residents in that part of the Adelaide Hills (that is, Mount Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne), without any real plans for the development of infrastructure and services to meet the demands of that population growth, that issue is obviously going to place additional pressure on infrastructure and services. So, while that part of the hospital is at capacity, there is no commitment or plans from the government to meet the needs of the 30-Year Plan it is now rolling out.

I know from talking to local people that there is real frustration, particularly at the local government level (the District Council of Mount Barker), about the lack of meaningful engagement by the government, the minister and the department with the council to roll out a properly structured, sustainable and sensible plan in terms of meeting the increased demand. Also as a consequence, we have some environmental issues.

An area is being developed at the moment called the Bluestone Estate, which is farming land which has been rezoned and where 800-odd new homes are being developed. A few weeks before the election (back in February or March), a significant dust problem was being created by the excavation of the site works.

The development is obviously on the perimeter of the current residential area of that part of Mount Barker, and the dust was at a level where it was impacting local residents—so much so that, when my wife and I were there one afternoon doorknocking and campaigning, it was the biggest issue raised with us.

The residents had become so sick, upset and concerned about the issue that they held a residents' meeting on the corner of the development, on the lawn of a home. I attended that meeting along with 50 or 60 people—and that is quite a significant number of people to attend a street corner meeting on such an issue.

To the council's credit, it went to the earthmoving contractor and shut them down—the council shut down the works on that site until the contractor was able to come up with a decent plan and a decent map of how they were going to control the dust on that site. So, that is another issue as a consequence of the residential development—the opening up of more land in that part of my electorate.

Another issue I also want to mention concerns the middle and northern section of my electorate, specifically what we describe as the Western Mount Lofty Ranges catchment area. Several years ago, the government made the announcement that it was going to prescribe this area. That is fine: that was its decision, even though the consultation was absolutely appalling.

Mrs Redmond: What consultation?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Exactly! The leader highlights the government's lack of proper consultation which is something that we have raised in this place many times. The actual consultation process is that the government makes the decision behind closed doors and then comes out and communicates the decision to the community and says, 'That's our consultation.' It is no consultation at all. The government has made the decision and it is just communicating the decision to the respective communities that are affected.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Indeed. However, in relation to the prescription of the western Mount Lofty Ranges water catchment area, the issue that I want to talk about is the next stage which is the development of a water allocation plan. The minister placed a moratorium on all the users of water in that western Mount Lofty Ranges water catchment area so that the viticulturalists, the horticulturalists, the cherry growers, the apple growers, the pear growers, the wine grape growers, industry, the graziers, the potato growers—or anybody who uses water—cannot apply for any increase in their allocation while we are going through this water allocation plan process.

This has been dragging on for about five years, if my memory serves me correctly. How can a crucial, vitally important part of the economy be held back, constrained and stifled by a bureaucratic process that has taken five years? Our food production industry is a vitally important part of this state's economy and the Adelaide Hills is a vitally important part of our food-producing capabilities.

Mrs Redmond: Our food bowl.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Our food bowl, as the leader says, because it has a cool climate, high rainfall, good soil and is close to a capital city, markets and a port.

An honourable member: And a good member.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: And good members, plural. We have the member for Bragg who comes up over the hill now as well, so we have good members representing that very important part of South Australia that makes a significant contribution to the state's economy. However, we have paralysis within the government, within a ministerial office and within the bureaucracy in developing this water allocation plan and, while that process is dragging along, the primary producers, industry and the like are stifled. They are crippled in relation to any expansion of their operation which is just plain wrong.

My advice to the government is to get cranking and get out the draft water allocation plan so that there can be some proper community consultation. I think the problem is that the department has bitten off more than it can chew in that the water resource is very diverse. The underground water resources comprise separate rock aquifers. It is not like a big sedimentary bowl or basin. It is not like a big underground bath where people just put a pipe down and draw out water from the same underground pool.

These are individual rock aquifers and you might put a bore down and it might be very successful, and yet you put another bore down 50 metres away and all you get is air that blows up through it. It is a very unique and complicated resource, and I think the department is struggling to come to terms with it. I only have a minute or so before my time concludes.

Mr Williams: That's a pity.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: It is indeed a pity. Unfortunately, we are faced with another four years of a government that has no ideas, lacks vision and is a policy vacuum. We saw that through the election process, where any decent policy initiatives it had were stolen from us. The government is lazy, out of touch, disengaged and arrogant and, unfortunately, we are facing another four years of that.

The SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier. As this is the member's first speech, accordingly I ask members to extend the traditional courtesies to him.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:15): It is a great honour for me to take my seat in this House of Assembly for the 52nd Parliament of South Australia, representing the people in the electorate of Mount Gambier. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate both you and the member for Bright on gaining the high office of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. It is tremendous to see women gaining such high positions in government. I am sure that you will act in a fair and impartial manner to bring about some semblance of order to this house.

I would also like to congratulate those members on both sides of the house who were successfully elected to this house, in particular, the three new Labor and six new Liberal members. I am sure that we all come to this house with similar goals, that is, to act in the best interests of our respective electorates and the state as a whole. It is only the paths we take in trying to achieve what is best that differ, and I am sure that, by showing respect for our differences and working together, we can collectively achieve a lot for the state during our term of office.

Congratulations to the Governor, His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, for opening the 52ndParliament of South Australia and for his speech outlining the government's objectives for the next four years. Whilst I congratulate the government on its objectives, I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that there appears to be little mention of increased services and infrastructure spending for regional South Australia.

I will now tell you a little about myself. My forebears first settled in the Mount Gambier district in the 1850s and 1860s. They were mostly economic refugees from Scotland, Ireland and England. They soon thrived in their new environment and contributed a lot to the development of the area and its people.

I was born in 1953, the first of five children born to Fred and Bernice Pegler, who are here with us today. Mum and Dad took up their soldier settler's block in 1956, just over the border in the Mingbool area. At first, we lived in a tin shed, which later became the garage, and then we moved into a house that was built on the property in 1959.

As the roads were often impassable, I first attended school at the age of eight at Mil Lel Primary, and then went to high school at Marist Brothers College in Mount Gambier as a boarder for three years and one year at Mount Gambier High School. I then went on to the Gordon Institute of Technology in Geelong to study wool-classing and sheep breeding. From the age of 19, I worked in the shearing industry as a shearer, wool classer and contractor for the next 22 years.

At the age of 21, I travelled extensively throughout Europe. At that time, the Eastern bloc countries were ruled by the communist regimes. These countries were very poor and their political systems were an obvious failure. All that had really happened was that the rich land-owning ruling classes had been replaced by the power hungry, self-serving bureaucrats, and the poor remained poor.

I also visited countries where the rich were very rich and the poor were very poor, with little hope of ever improving their lot in life. This is when I became very aware of what a great political and social system Australia has. If you work hard, you can enjoy the fruits of your labour, and those who are less fortunate can rest assured that there is a social welfare system in place that ensures that their lot in life is tolerable. As politicians, we must cherish and protect this fact. We must also remember that the long-term viability of a society will be determined by how that society looks after its most vulnerable. This is probably why I sit on the crossbenches of this place.

Ann and I were married in 1976. Ann was a Mitcham girl who came to Mount Gambier as a bonded junior primary teacher and, like so many others, married a local bloke and never returned to Adelaide. Some say that the bonding system of teachers and nurses greatly enhanced the gene pool in the regions. Our son, Ben, was born in 1980. He worked in the surveying industry and passed away in May 2007. Our daughter Catherine was born in 1986. She graduated with a midwifery degree from UniSA in 2007 and then worked at the Women's and Children's Hospital for the next 15 months. She has been working and travelling throughout Europe for the past 12 months.

Ann and I purchased our first property at Kongorong, south-west of Mount Gambier, in 1978 and have since added a further two small properties. We established a sheep stud in 1982, specialising in supplying rams and ewes to the maternal side of the prime lamb industry. Our stud is now one of the largest and most genetically advanced studs in Australia and we sell sheep to all states except Queensland. We have always been at the forefront of developing and adopting the latest technology to improve the genetics of our sheep in a sustainable manner. I have also been appointed by Meat & Livestock Australia to several roles as an adviser in sheep breeding.

I became a member of the district council of Port MacDonnell in 1993 and I was instrumental in leading the way for the amalgamation of that council with the former district council of Mount Gambier to form the District Council of Grant. I took over as chairman of that council in 1997 and was elected as the inaugural mayor in 2002. The District Council of Grant has been very successful in its financial management, low rating policy, high delivery of services and community engagement.

The Mount Gambier electorate is in the far south-east corner of South Australia. It covers an area of 2,664 square kilometres and has a population of 33,000, 24,000 of whom live in the city of Mount Gambier. Mount Gambier is the largest regional city in South Australia and is situated 450 kilometres from the capital city of Adelaide.

In the past 70 years the electorate has been represented in state parliament by three Independent members, two Labor and one Liberal. Mount Gambier is a regional centre for an area that has many varied industries. The largest of these industries is timber, with an estate of 175,000 hectares of pine and a further 175,000 hectares of hardwood plantation forest. About 3 million tonnes of pine are processed in several timber mills each year and a further 3½ million tonnes of blue gum chip is about to be harvested annually.

Seventy per cent of the state's production occurs in the region and a large percentage of the state's beef and prime lamb production also takes place in the region. We have a large viticulture industry producing some of the best wines in Australia. Many grain and horticulture crops are also grown in the region. Our fishing industry is a wild catch fishery, harvesting about 1.500 tonnes of southern rock lobster and about 150 tonnes of abalone each year. We have wind farms and the potential for geothermal power and the further development of oil and gas fields.

We have a very large transport industry, which supports our high freight-generating industries. We have no rail service. Tourism is also important to the region, and the main attractions are the lakes, caves, sinkholes, wineries, special events, rugged coastline and sports fishing. Many of our coastal towns are also a haven in the summertime for those from further inland.

Many of our industries are facing unfair competition from imports. As an example, the KCA tissue manufacturing plant near Millicent, which directly and indirectly employs 1,500 employees and contractors, many of whom live in the Mount Gambier electorate, faces unfair competition from dumped product from China and the Philippines.

KCA has in place excellent wages and working conditions for its employees and a very high standard of occupational health and safety practices, it uses only pulp produced from plantation forestry, is environmentally responsible and has good corporate governance practices in place, yet it has to compete with overseas companies that can dump product into this country at below the cost of production whilst having poor conditions for their workers and a complete disregard for the environment and using old-growth forests and employing poor corporate principles.

Our farmers and food manufacturers also face similar unfair conditions from imports. We produce some of the best food in the world with strict controls on our farming and manufacturing industries. Our meat-producing animals can be traced back to their property of birth and we have strict controls on what chemicals can be used on these animals, plus controls on what they can be fed, yet we seem to import food products with little knowledge of what controls their country of origin have in place.

We must change our food labelling requirements to better reflect the origin of the food products that we purchase. It is quite ridiculous that one can import prawns from Thailand and garlic from China, mix them together with some Australian salt and water and then label them 'Garlic prawns. Product of Australia. Made from local and imported goods.' All we ask for is a fair go with some honesty in food labelling.

As with the rest of regional Australia, our health services are well below standard, with the number of health professionals per head of population being totally inadequate. In 1994 Professor Holt wrote that when you left Adelaide you left mental health services behind in South Australia, and little has changed since that time. We have no resident psychiatrist and a totally inadequate number of mental health workers and facilities. On top of this, the federal government is threatening to withdraw funding for occupational therapy and mental health social work services in the private sector. Entire families are being put under an immense amount of stress because of the lack of services for individuals requiring mental health support.

Our hospital services a population of 64,000 people and should be funded and staffed as a regional acute care hospital. Whilst we recognise that some services can only be offered in Adelaide, I am sure that the level of service in Mount Gambier could be greatly enhanced. I do not think there is enough recognition of the duress and costs imposed on families when one of their members has to go to Adelaide to receive medical treatments. The PAT scheme is totally inadequate in compensating families for travel and accommodation costs. When considering the cost of providing medical services in the regions we should also take into account the cost to those families involved and also the cost of transportation by ambulance or Flying Doctor.

Our hospital is the only hospital in regional South Australia where the local GPs cannot admit or see their patients and, to me, this seems to be a poor use of resources. The waiting times at accident and emergency are well below the national standards and this will only be rectified by having better resources and systems in place.

I feel that the only way the health system in Australia can be fixed is to have it under one master, preferably the federal government. While health services continue to be administered by both the state and federal governments, we will continue to see a duplication of services, costs and blame shifting, and poor delineation of roles and responsibilities. Health services would be much better delivered to the federal regions by one body and completely ignoring state boundaries.

We now have excellent, well-resourced primary and secondary schools in the electorate. UniSA, Flinders University and Southern Cross University all now have a presence in Mount Gambier. Nationally, 24 per cent of adults have a degree. In South Australia it is 18 per cent, 8.2 per cent in regional South Australia, and only 5.7 per cent in the Limestone Coast region. We must build on the courses offered locally and, for students and apprentices who have to travel away to study, we must make it easier for them and their families to meet travel and accommodation costs. As a community we must also show leadership in encouraging young people to go on to further education.

Whilst our roads and highways are relatively good, we must make them safer by installing passing lanes, shoulder sealing on the more dangerous sections and safety treatments at the more dangerous intersections. The usage of our major highways is growing by up to 5 per cent annually and the spend on our road infrastructure is not keeping up with this growth and the safety concerns of the users of these roads.

The Riddoch Highway-Wireless Road intersection is one of the most dangerous intersections with a mix of 30,000 B-doubles, semitrailers, trucks and motor cars using it daily. This usage is expected to increase dramatically in the near future as most new housing development will happen north of Wireless Road, and there is a new supermarket about to be built north of this intersection that will generate up to an extra 1,700 vehicles per hour during peak shopping times. The only viable treatment for this intersection is the installation of traffic lights, and this must be done as soon as possible.

We must have long-term plans in place for the future development of Mount Gambier. The Greater Mount Gambier Master Plan, developed by both our councils and Planning SA, was the first step in this process. We must now put in place plans for water, sewerage, power, parks, schools, etc., within these new development areas of Mount Gambier.

We must close the rail line easement from White Avenue through to Pick Avenue so that all of this land in the centre of the city can be developed in the future. For rail to become economically viable we need many large, fast-moving trains, and that is the last thing we want going through the centre of the City of Mount Gambier.

To close this line we will have to determine an alternative route from Wandilo through to east of the saleyards. This land could then be rezoned for the purpose of a railway, and in that way you would not have improper developments occurring that would impact on a future rail service.

Close to this proposed rail line we could site large freight generating industries, such as the proposed wood pellet plant at Wandilo, which will generate 250,000 tonnes of finished product each year. We would also leave spur lines intact to the mills east and west of Mount Gambier.

A master plan should be developed for the rail land within the city that could incorporate a bus depot. We would also have links through to Commercial Street and Margaret Street, where, hopefully, we would have an indoor swimming pool. This area would also be an ideal precinct for a skate park, etc., so that young people could gather in a safe, self-policed environment close to the centre of the city. Retail development, car parks and many other developments could also be planned for this area of land.

If many of these developments could occur they would only add to what the city council has achieved around the cave gardens. It would make Mount Gambier an exciting 'want to go to' place that we would all be very proud of. Without proper plans in place it is almost impossible to get government grants and private developers to achieve these developments. To be fair to the Mount Gambier city council, it is very much hamstrung in any future planning whilst the rail line easement within the city remains in place.

The Port MacDonnell boat haven, which caters for a fleet of 80 professional rock lobster boats and a large fleet of amateur boats, is in dire need of a decent wharf incorporating berthing and refuelling facilities. Once this wharf is in place the existing jetty must be refurbished for recreational purposes. Blackfellows Caves also require a new boat launching facility for both the professional and amateur fishermen who launch their boats there.

Our airport runway needs to be strengthened so that larger commercial planes and private jets can use this facility, thus encouraging more competition from the commercial airlines. We must assist the owners, the District Council of Grant, in raising the money to carry out the works on this vital facility.

The rock lobster fishery is under threat from ever-decreasing catches. None of us know whether this is cyclical or as a result of overfishing. I believe that as a first step we should close the fishery in October, when the females are breeding, and also ban the transfer of quota during the season. It seems pointless to me to lower the quota, as this will affect only those few who are catching their quota and will have very little effect on rectifying the lack of biomass.

Our water resources, which are under threat from over usage, are quite unique to most of the rest of Australia in the fact that they consist of an underground upper unconfined and lower confined aquifers. These aquifers are predominantly fed from the rain that falls on the surface. Most other areas in Australia rely on using water from dams and rivers as it passes by.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative requires significant water intercepting activities to be accounted for and managed. Large scale commercial plantation forests, along with irrigation and urban and industrial usage are examples of activities that have the potential to intercept large volumes of water now and into the future. All industries and activities that affect the security of water resources need to be managed within sustainable limits. Plantation forests intercept water by reducing groundwater recharge—that is, the trees drink a large percentage of the rainfall water before it can pass through the soil into the aquifer—and in areas where the water table is within six metres, the trees also extract this groundwater.

In the South-East, forestry accounts for about 14 per cent of the land mass and uses about 30 per cent of the water. In determining the permissible annual volumes of water that could be used in the South-East, existing forest and pasture interception rates were taken into account. We can all make motherhood statements about sustainability and equity, but these will achieve nothing unless we aim for real outcomes that take into account all the issues and are in the best interest of all concerned stakeholders. Doing nothing is not an option.

In the South-East, we need to get all the stakeholders together to come up with an agreed plan that is in the best interests of all industries and the community in general. Each of the stakeholders will have to determine whether they want to be at the table and part of the solution or whether they do not want to attend and be part of the problem. If we do not find a suitable outcome to the over usage of water in the South-East, we will end up in the same mess that the Murray-Darling system is in, and that would be devastating to our whole community—industry, people and environment.

Whilst I fully support the aims of the government and the Native Vegetation Council in trying to increase the area that we have under native vegetation, I have found the Native Vegetation Council to be quite intransigent and untimely in their approach to native vegetation clearance applications. They seem to overlook the possibilities of long-term gains for the environment and should be working for better outcomes for all concerned. Their present deliberations only seem to get the general community off side, with little gain for the future preservation of native vegetation.

I have said much today about what we lack and I would now like to praise my predecessors, being Messrs Fletcher, Ralston, Burdon, Allison and, most recently, Rory McEwen, and the governments they served for the high level of services and infrastructure that we enjoy today. We are often quick to point out what we do not have and fail to recognise what we have already achieved.

I would now like to thank the many people who helped with my election campaign. Firstly, to my wife, Ann, and our family, your support and encouragement was invaluable. To Dale Keatley, Peter Lamond and Jim Pegler, your fundraising efforts in such a short campaign—I only decided to stand six weeks prior to the election—were quite extraordinary. I thank Frank Morrelo for assisting me with my press releases. My father, Fred Pegler, and Peter Lamond did a tremendous job organising volunteers for the 17 booths. I also thank those many volunteers who worked on booths and as scrutineers, and to my friends and colleagues who made financial contributions and helped in many other ways. Lastly, I would like to thank the people of the electorate of Mount Gambier, both those who voted for and against me.

I look forward to my time working here with my colleagues on both sides of the house to make all of South Australia a better place to live and enjoy. Thank you.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The SPEAKER: I congratulate the member for Mount Gambier; well done. I now call the member for Morialta. Again, as this is the honourable member's first speech, I ask that we extend him the same courtesy.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:40): I am pleased to support the motion and, in so doing, I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your election to such a prestigious position. I am sure you will do admirable service to this house and the people of South Australia in the years ahead. I also join with others in offering my congratulations to all new members in both houses upon their recent election.

Being elected to serve our local communities is a great honour for us all. Serving those communities well must be our first duty. It is only thanks to the faith our constituents place in our endeavours that we are here and, particularly as I rise to speak for the first time, it is a truly humbling thought.

I am grateful for this opportunity to serve, and I will endeavour to meet the highest of standards set by my distinguished predecessors of both political persuasions. Morialta—or Coles as it was until two elections ago—includes the suburbs of Paradise, Athelstone, Newton and Rostrevor. It continues south through Magill, Skye, Auldana and Rosslyn Park down to Wattle Park.

It extends east into the Hills through Teringie and Woodforde, up to Horsnell Gully and Norton Summit, Ashton, Basket Range and Marble Hill to Cherryville, before it makes its way through Montacute and Castambul to the Campbelltown council area. Our community benefits from the contribution of our volunteer groups—from the CFS brigades to service clubs, the active communities in our 14 local schools and so many others.

My family moved into the Morialta electorate before my first birthday. First, from our flat near the corner of St Bernards and Montacute roads and, a couple of years later, from our house behind the Campbelltown council chambers, I remember walking or riding my bike up the Fourth Creek trail to Morialta Falls and delighting in the stroke of luck that I had been so lucky to have the opportunity to live in such a place. Some 31 years later I have moved about 500 metres upstream. My fiancée, Chelsey, and I now look forward to having the opportunity to share that slice of paradise with our children in the years to come.

In a world where simple pleasures have too often been left behind, I love the fact that the icecream truck still plays Greensleeves as it rolls around the streets of Rostrevor—except, living in Rostrevor, of course, it is Pedro's Fine Gelati not Mr Whippy. We are a migrant community that is proud of its multicultural heritage. A considerable majority of our families have arrived in Australia since the Second World War, with Italy and the United Kingdom being the major departure points, although we also have significant German, Chinese, Irish and Greek communities and many smaller groups that contribute so much to our vibrant community life.

As a child in the early 1980s I stood at the Marco Crescent corner and watched the Holy Mary of Montevergine Festa procession, and other festa processions, pass by with a touch of wonder and curiosity. As an adult, and particularly as a candidate for parliament, I have appreciated the way in which these communities delight in including the wider population in their cultural and religious celebrations. I am pleased to recognise Domenico Zollo of the Holy Mary of Montevergine Association in the gallery today.

The Holy Mary of Montevergine Festa brings together more than 10,000 people from around Australia and the world who come to Newton over one weekend—and they do a great job. It is, no doubt, why they won Campbelltown council's Community Event of the Year this year. I think it is the largest religious festival in South Australia. I am grateful for the way in which these communities welcomed me and in many cases supported me throughout 22 months of campaigning. I look forward to continued close engagement with all my local community groups in the years ahead.

For all that our individual spirit and strength of purpose defines us, determines our direction and how we focus our talents, I believe we are foolish if we do not admit being shaped to a degree by where we have come from: by our parents, by our families and by our upbringing. My story is similar to many of my generation in Adelaide's eastern and north-eastern suburbs. I am the child of migrants. My father's family came to Australia after the war to seek a better life than the ravaged English landscape could offer.

Dad's upbringing was hard, and so was much of his younger life. He served our country in the Navy, he worked on North Queensland railways as a fettler, and he mined for tin and later opal—without much success I'm afraid. As a boiler attendant, he came to the new Port Stanvac oil refinery, which led him to start his own small business in chemical distribution and water treatment. His constant focus was to provide more than he had for his kids and to contribute something new and worthwhile to his community.

Mum came later to Australia. A qualified nurse and midwife, her plan was to stay for a year working in the Northern Territory in Aboriginal communities and then return to Blighty. That was 42 years ago. Instead of a return to England, she fell in love with this country and, after several years working in the most challenging but rewarding of conditions in Central Australia, she settled in Adelaide, working initially as a nurse and midwife at the Queen Victoria Hospital before meeting dad.

Together they worked hard to build the small business, manufacturing cutting edge ultra violet light water treatment equipment that may be found treating drinking water in Australia's embassies around the world, in our navy's submarines, and treating waste water and effluent in communities throughout South-East Asia and as far away as the Middle East. Dad won the Premier's medal for his contribution to South Australia's water industry two years ago, but it has always been to his chagrin that a small business such as his was able to export water treatment equipment around the world and around Australia, yet in South Australia, where our need for water infrastructure has been so brutally apparent, our own government and its instrumentalities have shown minimal or occasional interest only.

Other members present who grew up in a family business environment will understand the all-consuming nature of that situation. Child care was in the office staffroom, and Saturday mornings were spent helping out in the yard. Work experience and first jobs were in the factory, and paid work while studying at university was two days a week helping out with the business side of things.

I was about 13 years of age the first time I had payroll tax explained to me by the company's accountant. We were in the middle of Paul Keating's recession and, although the business had just won a couple of big orders, taking on any extra staff would have bumped us up over the payroll tax threshold. I could not understand why on earth the government would provide such a disincentive to small businesses employing more people; but, ever since it was brought in as a wartime measure to free up potential workers for national service, payroll tax has remained the addictive drug of choice for our state governments to pay for their spending programs. One of the tragedies of the last wasted decade in this state is the missed opportunity to free ourselves of the shackles of payroll tax and the bonds of land tax (another tax on jobs, paid directly or indirectly by every business in this state, including in excess of 400 businesses of all sizes that have had the good sense to set up shop in Morialta).

I am proud to represent those businesses. They are iconic firms such as Bianco, which gives so much back to our community; and its near neighbour, Codan, a proudly South Australian company that makes the special radio equipment you see on the front of the UN's peacekeeping vehicles and also mine detectors that are distributed throughout the world for humanitarian and commercial use. Both these companies employ hundreds of local residents.

Other businesses in Morialta are smaller but still contribute to the community and employ local residents. As we have stretched further into the hills with successive redistributions, we have taken in many more primary producers. The market gardens that have always been a feature have now been joined by orchards and wineries. Morialta is proudly home to the famous Penfolds Grange. Retailers, restaurants, exporters, builders, tradies, service companies and high tech industries find their home in Morialta, and it is through their success that our constituents find meaningful employment. Each and every one of those businesses would be in a better position to employ more people were it not for South Australia's oppressive tax regime.

I note that one of the many recommendations of the federal government's recent Henry review of taxation was that governments should be 'ensuring that land tax applies per land holding, not on an entity's total holding, in order to promote investment in land development'. Yet, we have just gone the other way, adding millions to state revenue as land tax bills have gone up exponentially for many landlords and businesses. Land affordability goes down, the cost of doing business goes up, and the first casualty is employment.

While I do not support all of the recommendations of the Henry review, I am also pleased to note that another of its recommendations is for the abolition of payroll tax. Thanks largely to increased revenues from the GST, our state budget has grown from $8 billion to $15 billion a year over the life of this government. However, when the music of the boom years stopped at the end of 2008, we were left standing poor, despite the enormous revenues of recent years. Imagine for one moment the competitive advantage South Australia would have had if we had used those good years to reform our taxation system in order to encourage the private sector.

Instead, we see interstate firms flying in to construct our major infrastructure projects because they operate from states with better tax regimes that put South Australia to shame. We should be aspiring to give South Australia that competitive advantage. I want us to be a state that is the preferred choice to which companies come to do business and to employ young South Australians who can build a career here.

Too many South Australians of my generation (and many of my friends from school and university are among them) are now making their futures instead in Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and further afield. Only business and not government can provide the jobs and the career paths that will see educated young South Australians choose to build their futures here where they grew up. We need to be brave in reforming and reducing the intrusions of government. The best thing we can do in this place is to enact a framework of policies that will create the environment for jobs growth—removing red tape and getting rid of anti-job taxes. But, instead, we stifle innovation and we tax the hell out of anyone who wants to set up shop in South Australia.

Government cannot prosper in and of itself: However, it can govern wisely so that men and women of creativity and purpose may build prosperity for our state. That prosperity and business activity generates the impetus and the means to improve our infrastructure and our vital human services (police, mental health services and hospitals, schools, support for people living with disability and our emergency services), but this government does not seem to see things like that.

During the election campaign, one of the key promises from the Labor Party was that it would deliver 100,000 new jobs. Fortunately for me, the electors of Morialta understood that the government's plan—consisting of state and federal training places—does not equate to a sustainable employment policy. They understand that jobs are not created by government fiat: they are generated by the private sector operating under business-friendly policy settings. You could put every man and woman in South Australia on the government payroll, and you would have zero unemployment in the short term but it would not be sustainable. There would be no-one left to pay the taxes that fund their salaries.

I said before that the boom years of prosperity had been wasted. Given that public revenue has grown from $8 billion a year to $15 billion per year over the life of this government, one could be forgiven for wondering where all that money has gone. Has there perhaps been a sudden and dramatic growth in front-line services? I can inform the house that the answer is no. In 2002 there were 32,161 full-time equivalent sworn police officers, teachers, doctors and nurses in our Public Service.

The most recent available figures show that it has gone down from 32,161 to 31,203. Let me say that again: there are today 950 fewer full-time equivalent public teachers, doctors, nurses and sworn police officers than there were when Labor came to office, yet over the same period we have seen an increase in more than 15,000 public servants overall. According to the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment, full-time equivalent public servants in South Australia grew from 68,884 in June 2001 to 83,885 last year—a 21 per cent growth in the Public Service over two terms of this government, but not in those front-line service delivery roles.

It is not my intention today to disparage gratuitously the work of the Public Service, but, while a number of those bureaucrats are doing important jobs that will contribute to a better future for South Australia, it defies logic why the numbers of teachers, doctors, nurses and police should have dropped by 950 over the same period that the bureaucracy overall has grown by 15,000. As the old saying goes: the bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

There is a tendency for bureaucracy to become self-perpetuating–to shift from being a solution to a specific problem, to being a solution desperately searching for problems. How often do you hear a government agency say, 'We don't need any more staff in order to achieve our goals.' How often do you hear a government department say, 'We understand there is a problem, but the best solution is to be found in the initiative of the local community'? It is always easy to identify problems, but each time government steps in to try to address them the possibility for individual or community action is diminished, and it is not possible for a government to identify a solution better tailored to an individual's needs than that individual could develop for themselves.

It is thus important for legislators to be mindful of the cost of what government does; not just the financial cost, but the stifling of individual and community possibilities. The leader is right to point out that, in the Sturt Street precinct, half a million dollars has now been wasted as a local government initiative has proven to stifle the local community and local business and has now been withdrawn. I congratulate the member for Adelaide for her role in that.

The government should step in only when individuals, families, companies or communities are unable to deal effectively with a problem first, if such a problem exists. The principle is simple: the best decisions get made when decision makers are as close as possible to the people who are affected by their decisions. Any nation with multiple layers of government faces the question of how authority should be allocated between the levels. I believe that a level of government only has the right to legislate where lower levels cannot act effectively. This is not some sort of obscure philosophical debate; it is intrinsic to the DNA of the Australian system of government. Our federation came into being following these lines. The colonies gave to the commonwealth certain powers—the right to legislate in certain limited areas where it was thought a common approach was more appropriate—but they retained for themselves power over all other areas of government.

Unfortunately, successive commonwealth governments, particularly since World War II—and I acknowledge the role that the coalition governments have played in this, unfortunately—have perverted the spirit of the Australian Constitution, pulling more and more power into Canberra. But states' rights are important. South Australians are not Queenslanders, and what works for them will not necessarily work here with our problems. There are exceptions. Control over the Murray-Darling Basin is an area where state governments to the east have clearly failed the reasonable use test, and we have seen the environmental and social degradation that has followed. The only solution has to be a national approach driven by independent experts and working in the national interest.

On the other hand, I am still agog at the capitulation to Canberra that we saw on health and hospital funding during the state election campaign. There was a time when state premiers used to contest an election by sticking up for their states and taking the fight up to Canberra. This must surely be the first election fought on the basis that the government does not think it has the capacity to undertake one of its most basic functions and wants to outsource it to Canberra. With power comes responsibility, yet this government works almost as ruthlessly to divest the responsibility as it does to retain the power.

But let us imagine for a moment that this health reform was inevitable. It was still a botched process from South Australia's point of view. Other state premiers went in to bat for their states and secured billions of dollars worth of improvements for their health systems, as well as fundamentally keeping control over their GST revenues, but it was difficult for our Premier to play hardball when he had already signed on the dotted line weeks earlier during the election campaign.

Think for a moment what could have been. We have critical mental health policy challenges in South Australia, yet the government is carving up Glenside Hospital to fund reforms to service delivery. Some of the land is due to be sold this year for new shops to be built and other land will be put to an open market sale in 2012 for residential housing development. All up, 40 per cent of Glenside Hospital's land will be sold off, and according to the Department of Health's Q&A sheet on the internet, this is necessary 'because funds from land sales at Glenside will be directly reinvested to help deliver the new health facilities and reforms to delivering our services'.

The redevelopment of Glenside Hospital is costing $130 million and the new film centre there is costing $40 million. Imagine for one moment the situation had our Premier demanded $170 million for mental health when he went to Canberra instead of choosing to provide political cover for the Prime Minister's botched policy decision. I will be passionate in my defence of federalism and I will be fundamentally suspicious of any piece of legislation that seeks to move any decision-making power to a ministerial council body or an anonymous bureaucracy in Canberra.

Better still, I maintain that the best solution to a problem will be the one that reduces any government's role to the bare minimum. Liberalism's success is based on the realisation that the fundamental and most important unit of society is the individual. Government draws its authority only from the consent of the governed; it has a moral right to intervene only where individuals cannot appropriately address a problem, whether acting alone or by voluntarily working together with others in their community. Government is a necessary servant of society in such circumstances, but the social democratic and statist tendency to regard government as the best judge of what is good for individuals leads to public alienation from the political process. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we are a state that has a government—not the other way around.

One of my esteemed predecessors, Jennifer Cashmore (then Adamson), made the point in her maiden speech some 33 years ago that one of the major problems besetting South Australia at that time 'was the pervasive feeling that individuals have little or no power to influence events and that they are at the mercy of remote governments'. Government works best when its interventions provide for greater individual empowerment, not less, so in those areas where government intervention is necessary I will always support policies that provide for that individual or community to be empowered.

Few areas of public policy would benefit more from a greater emphasis on individual empowerment than the disability services sector. Much has been said in this place and elsewhere about the tragic passing of Dr Paul Collier. I only met Dr Collier twice, but he was compelling in his argument for individualised funding arrangements for disability services in South Australia. Who better than the individual or their family to determine what priorities to place on their own service needs?

Let us not forget: not only will the individual, the family, the school council or the community-based NGO be better placed to design appropriate solutions than remote bureaucrats, there is ample evidence that they are also likely to achieve best value for the public purse. Over the last 15 months we have seen more than $16 billion spent on school halls around Australia.

Effectively, two programs have been running simultaneously. Private schools have been given the funds directly and have used them to build whatever their school needs. Public schools have been hamstrung by multiple layers of education bureaucracy spending money on their behalf. In the latter case, we have seen crazy examples of million-dollar gymnasium sheds and covered outdoor learning areas that cost more per square metre than Sydney office space.

How much better would it have been if that money had just been given directly to the schools' governing councils for them to determine the best way to spend it, in the same way that private schools could, and have. There are few better examples of the price of Labor's arrogant centralisation than the lost opportunity and disgraceful waste of funds that could have delivered so much more to our schools.

The same centralising drive confounds progress across the entire education system. There are three levels of governance over public schools. They have a local school council made up of teachers and parents, who work with the principal of the school. They in turn are responsible to the state government, and increasingly it seems that we are devolving our responsibilities to the federal government. However, as every decision—from curriculum choice to the local school's right to hire and fire—gets moved from the local communities to Flinders Street, and then via North Terrace to Canberra, each step has been and is in the wrong direction.

Around the world, the school systems that are producing the best results are those that are moving towards greater involvement and autonomy from the local community. Rather than devolving responsibility to Canberra, we should be providing for the establishment of charter schools along the lines of those that are producing such remarkable results in Sweden and elsewhere.

We know that the most important variable in a student's success is the level of interest taken by their parents—the more parental involvement in the child's education the better. How better to encourage that involvement than to allow parents and communities to work with educators and really run their own public schools, with the education department providing just a basic regulatory framework.

Members who have children under 20 would all be aware of John Marsden's work. Even when I was in high school his novels were on the shelves, although his great international success has been more recent. My favourite of his works, however, is possibly his most obscure. It was his submission to the Senate committee inquiry into the Schools Assistance Bill 2008. This was the bill which initially sought to prescribe the national curriculum onto all schools in Australia. It was a very brief submission in the form of a one-page letter to the committee, so I hope the house will indulge me if I read it in full. He writes:

Dear Senators,

As an author who—and I'm afraid this is going to sound pompous—has always promoted the interests of young people, and more importantly, as a teacher and school principal, I'm a bit stunned to think that the federal parliament might contemplate passing a Bill which could deprive schools of the right to develop their own curricula, and to innovate and develop special, school specific learning programs. Good grief! Schools should be massively encouraged in the development of new curricula and innovative programs. Anything else will lead to a moribund system, and will threaten progress in this most important area of our society.

The dead hand of bureaucracy already rests heavily upon Australian schools. The Parliament should be working to lift it, not to add to its weight.

[Yours sincerely]

John Marsden

At a time when more and more internationally recognised educational pedagogies and curricula are becoming popular, why would we lock our schools into Kevin Rudd's prescriptive national curriculum, which has been beset by controversy at every step of its implementation?

I note that even in today's paper we see it has been revealed that the framers of the curriculum had not noticed that South Australia and some other jurisdictions have year 7 as part of our primary schools, not our high schools, such is their New South Wales-centric view of the world. I for one do not want our teachers to do things the way they do in New South Wales. Talk about slowing the herd to the rate of the weakest gazelle!

I congratulate the new Minister for Education on his appointment. I have no doubt that he is more capable of meeting the needs of supporting South Australian students and parents, teachers and schools than his federal counterpart. I therefore encourage him to cease his government's abrogation of responsibility to Canberra.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mr GARDNER: While on the subject of Canberra, for the last two years of the former federal coalition government, I had the privilege of holding an adviser's position with the minister for substance abuse issues, at that time Christopher Pyne. I witnessed firsthand the impact of the decisions taken in the late nineties that led to hundreds of millions of dollars of federal government support being given directly to non-government organisations, such as the Salvation Army and Odyssey House, to support treatment and rehabilitation programs. I saw how effectively those non-government organisations were able to use those grants in conjunction with their own funds and professional and volunteer workforces to get far more bang for their buck than the public system has ever achieved.

I maintain a deep interest in the public policy challenges presented by substance abuse. I dislike the value-laden terms such as 'harm minimisation' or 'zero tolerance'. A holistic approach to tackling substance abuse includes sophisticated education campaigns to reduce demand. It includes adequate resourcing for law enforcement to ensure that they can keep up with the ever more sophisticated techniques of the crime networks plying their deadly trade. Importantly, it includes readily available access to rehabilitation programs, often delivered by the non-government sector. The Howard government's tough on drugs policy was certainly moving in this direction and getting good results according to published data, and I am proud to have been involved in working on that policy.

Solutions to serious problems do not have to begin with government either. In 1988 a million Rotarians around the world agreed with the proposition that it would be great to wipe polio off the face of the earth. Twenty-one years later, thanks to the work done by Rotary and its partner organisations, we have gone from 350,000 children around the world infected with polio every year to just 2,000 reports last year, a 99 per cent decrease in 21 years.

Volunteering takes many forms. In addition to the Campbelltown Rotary Club, I also enjoy my current role on the board of management of the Pilgrim Lutheran Church in Magill. The role that faith plays in political life is regularly debated, and I have seen those debates from a few different angles over the years. I was not raised in a religious household. I was then schooled by the Anglicans, and finally the Lutheran Student Fellowship found me at university.

Within the small geographical boundaries of Morialta there are nearly 20 different faith communities with their own places of worship. Adelaide is known as the City of Churches, not because we were a colony of puritans, but because our early history of religious tolerance and civil liberties allowed individuals of so many different faiths to worship in whatever manner they chose. In the same way, I trust that my relationship with God will guide me in my life. I do not, however, believe that parliament has any jurisdiction over our souls. My faith is a personal matter, and I abhor any suggestion that government would ever seek to stop me or anyone else from practising their faith or from living life by any other principles they hold dear, so long as they are not impinging on anyone else's freedom to do the same.

I also joined the Liberal Party at university in late February 1996, about three days before John Howard became prime minister. I joined because I wanted to make a contribution to my society and my nation. Rather than accept alienation from the process, I wanted to make it better. Robert Menzies founded the Liberal Party to be a progressive party based on liberal values, celebrating the autonomy and the ability of the individual to achieve in life to the level of their innate capacity without undue restriction from the heavy hand of the state. At the same time we also recognise that the Liberal Party has benefited greatly from the conservative tradition that places such value on the institutions that serve us well: the courts and the common law that strive to treat all participants as equal, and the family unit, in whatever shape it takes, that sits beside the individual as the most important building block of society.

The importance of family should not be underestimated in areas of significance to government policy. No government program could ever have such effective impact as the love of a parent helping their child make a strong start in the world. No departmental agency could provide the quality of care to someone in regular need to match that of a loved one for their partner or their sibling.

From time to time, all political parties feel tensions and stresses as they seek to distil the wisdom of large groups of politically-minded people coming from all walks of life. My Labor Party friends tell me that they are proud of what they describe as their machine on that side of the chamber. In the Liberal Party, on the other hand, we celebrate our members' right and, indeed, our responsibility, to think for ourselves.

As the Young Liberals state president for three years, I appreciated that opportunity to challenge our parliamentary teams to new ways of thinking about certain issues. Young Liberals over the years (and I should say at this point I recognise Brian Mitton in the chamber, who was president of the Young Liberals in the 1960s) have contributed to changing government policies on issues as diverse as women's opportunity for service in the Australian defence forces—a debate we were very actively involved in while Robert Hill was defence minister in the Howard government—to mandatory seatbelt laws in the time of the Tonkin government.

As the youngest member of the House of Assembly, and as a life member of the Young Liberal Movement of South Australia, I will always encourage young people to be active within the Liberal Party. We need young people to be involved in the political process, both to challenge us and to keep us grounded, to open our eyes to new approaches and, of course, at election time, we need them to support us.

Very few of us in this house, and particularly those of us who have won seats described as marginal, would be able to come close to election without having great teams around and behind us. In my case, I am so grateful to my dear friends from those Young Liberal days who drove my campaign, led by my outstanding campaign manager, Courtney Morcombe, and her husband, Simon Birmingham, who were constantly pushing me to keep working, keep doorknocking and keep focused on connecting with the community.

In a similar vein, I received great support from my paired members, the member for Goyder and the Hon. Robert Lawson, whom I welcome back to parliament today. Legislative Council candidates Jing Lee and Rita Bouras were also of great help to me. I congratulate Jing on her success and, while Rita missed out this time, I know she still has a great deal to offer her community in the future.

I could not have asked for a more supportive branch and SEC, led by its President, George Hallwood; to all of them, I give my thanks, as I also thank all those supporters who gave of their time, their finances or their counsel. I hope they will not be offended if I do not make an attempt to name them all.

I am grateful that so many have come along today, and I acknowledge that I would not have been able to arrive here as a Liberal member of parliament had they not first chosen me as their candidate. In particular, I benefited from the tireless efforts of so many of the next generation of 20-something young leaders in the Liberal Party—people like Scott Kennedy, Jack Batty, Kelly Ansell, Andrew Smolilo, Zack McLennan, Haley Welch, Ben Bartlett, Bec Lynas, Talis Evans and so many more—who were at the supermarkets with me, pounding the pavements with me and putting the posters up week in and week out for months and months and months. I look forward to see them all achieve great things in the years ahead.

To my various employers over the years, I learnt something from each of you and I am grateful for the opportunities, challenges and lessons I have been given. I will just briefly touch on the political ones. The former member for Adelaide, Trish Worth, gave me my first chance to learn how I could make a contribution through political office. It is now a great pleasure to sit so near the member for Bragg; not only was she a generous employer in terms of sharing her experience, insight and knowledge but she also taught me how to round up stock and deliver a calf on her family's Kangaroo Island farm.

Most recently, I am grateful to Christopher Pyne, one of the most experienced parliamentarians in Australia at the age of 41, whose understanding of the parliamentary process is exceeded only by his devotion to his local community, so much of which is shared with the state seat of Morialta.

To the Leader of the Opposition, it was a delight to be on the campaign trail, talking to people about your vision for South Australia, and to be with you personally on so many occasions. Your no-nonsense, honest and intelligent approach to public policy shone through in the campaign and I look forward to the opportunity to sit with you on the other side of this chamber one day in the not too distant future.

Throughout the campaign, my family were a rock. My parents, of whom I have spoken and who I am so glad are here today, were unwavering in their support in what was a difficult time for them. We lost my maternal grandma two days after my preselection and we lost my paternal grandfather, my last living grandparent, in the last month of the campaign.

Our lives have also been brought joy with the birth of two cherished goddaughters—Astrid Ilse Whetton and Ava Celeste Flett. I am thrilled to see that Ava has been able to make such a good contribution today. I take this opportunity to express my love and gratitude to my fiancée Chelsey who has put up with so much over the last two years. She is my partner in my endeavours and my life.

I am grateful most of all to the people of Morialta. Thirty years ago my family was welcomed into this extraordinary community, as were so many before. In March, the people of Morialta bestowed upon me the singular honour of representing my community in this chamber. It is a responsibility I do not accept lightly, and I undertake to be tireless in my endeavours to serve their interests.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Morialta, and perhaps the members would like to resume their seats as we listen to the member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to that august position—a very fitting reward, and I might come back to comment about your fine self shortly.

I take the opportunity also to say that I support the motion to adopt the Address in Reply, and I congratulate the Governor and his wife for the way they perform their duties in the office of Governor, as they go about the various parts of the state. I recently had the opportunity to join them at a dinner in Mount Gambier a few weeks ago. It was great to have them down in that part of the world and to have them go through the area that the new member for Mount Gambier has so ably described, which includes many parts of my electorate. I congratulate the Governor and Mrs Scarce for that work.

It is quite fascinating to listen to the new members of the house, and I congratulate all those members as I congratulate all members who have returned to the house. I particularly congratulate new members for their election to this place and on the quality of their addresses that we have heard in recent weeks. I am particularly impressed by the six new members who have joined the Liberal team on this side of the house. Their contributions give me great confidence and I think it augurs very well for the future of the Liberal Party and the service it will give to this state. As we just heard a few moments ago from the new member for Morialta, he hopes to serve this parliament on the other side of the floor in the not too distant future. I hope to be there with him, and I look forward to that.

Listening to new members delivering their maiden speech reminds me of the first time I rose to address this chamber: it was, I remember, with considerable trepidation. It is with great honour, I believe, that every member comes into this place—representing those thousands of electors in the various electorates—in good faith to do what they can in undertaking that representation and in making South Australia a better place. Indeed, it is with great honour that I find myself returned here, and I am most grateful to my electors who continue to return me to this place. However, I can only contemplate what it must feel like to return to this place having sought to dupe the electors whom you are asking to vote for you. There are a number of members who will sit in this chamber for the next four years who actively sought to dupe the very people they were asking to put them here in a place of trust.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you, because I understand that when offered such an opportunity to deceive your electors you refused to enter into that deceptive behaviour. That cannot be said for every member of this chamber, and it is with great shame that some members will sit in here for the next four years. I hope they seriously contemplate what they have done; they have stood before their electorates and said 'Trust me to represent you—but, by the way, I am going to deceive you on the day that I am seeking that trust.' As I said, I can barely contemplate how that must feel.

A number of comments have been made about the election, particularly about its outcome, and I will also make comments about that. I am sure there will be an ongoing debate, and I think we need to have an ongoing debate about what the election should do and what it should deliver to the people of South Australia. Should it deliver 47 individual members to the lower house or, indeed, weigh up the various offers made by groups of those members regarding what they would provide if elected and able to form a group that held a majority?

Some members of the government have argued that it is about winning the most votes in the most seats, but I am not too sure that that is what democracy is about. In fact, I believe the most recent election was fought on a number of issues, because the various parties to the election actually put out manifestos or platforms; they actually put forward proposals regarding what they would do. They spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars advertising their proposals. I did not see television campaigns funded with hundreds of thousands of dollars praising individual candidates; what I saw were television campaigns aimed at praising various programs promised in the manifestos of the various parties.

One would have thought—if one were an arm's length observer of the electoral process we have just been through—that if the major groups, in particular, put forward a platform for election or re-election, that under a democracy the proposals that received the majority of support across the state would be the ones put into place for the ensuing term. Unfortunately, that is not the case for South Australia.

Some significant proposals have been put forward. We have had a proposal for the redevelopment of the Adelaide Oval, and debate is raging on this as I speak. The people of South Australia rejected that proposal, and I firmly believe that they will get their way because I do not believe that proposal will get off the ground. In fact, I do not believe that proposal was ever designed to get off the ground; it was designed to fail. It was a sham proposal designed to get the government beyond 20 March. It was designed to do nothing more than that.

There is a proposal to build a new hospital in the rail yard site to the west of Morphett Street and demolish the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, with all the assets sitting there. That was a hotly contested proposal and counter proposal put by the parties in the lead-up to the election. The people of South Australia collectively rejected the proposal to move the Royal Adelaide Hospital, yet members of the government would argue that we have a democracy which is fair and which works. The reality is that we have a democracy which is not fair and which does not work, and we may well find that the proposals—very expensive proposals—that were put to the people of South Australia and rejected by those people may, in fact, come to fruition. I say 'may' because I suspect that even the government proposal will never see the light of day.

There are other proposals, such as the completion of the Southern Expressway, which was put forward by both parties, and whichever party was elected would certainly have a mandate to build and complete that project, and I commend that project.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I know that the former attorney, who has had more than his fair share of opportunities to put forward his opinion in place over a great number of years, is of a mind to continue to interject. I will raise my voice a little and continue to speak because, as usual, I do not know that what he has to say is worth listening to. I will quote somebody who made comments some years ago about the South Australian electoral system. This is what they said:

Every citizen has to live subject to the law, therefore every citizen should have an equal and effective voice with every other citizen in what the law should be which governs him.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Croydon, choose your battles well, I would say. However, having said that, member for MacKillop, you do have a loud voice, so you probably do not need my protection.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am still waiting for the member for Croydon to tell us about Barton Terrace and—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not provoke the member for Croydon. Let us carry on.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Croydon! Carry on, member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The person I am quoting is, of course, the mentor of many of the people in the government, and that is the late Don Dunstan. I will repeat what he said in 1970:

Every citizen has to live subject to the law, therefore every citizen should have an equal and effective voice with every other citizen in what the law should be which governs him.

What Don Dunstan was saying is that a vote for a Labor government in MacKillop should have the same weight and power as a vote for a Labor government in Croydon, or a vote for the Liberal Party should have the same weight in Port Adelaide as a vote for the Liberal Party in MacKillop.

If our democracy reflected those values, whomever is in government would indeed have the same sense of providing a level of service in every corner of the state. Unfortunately, the Labor Party, represented in this place by members of one sector of South Australia's community, barring the member for Giles—that is, metropolitan Adelaide—has little or no interest in those parts of the state outside of metropolitan Adelaide, and I will expand on that shortly.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, people to my right.

Mr WILLIAMS: The late Don Dunstan did not give up at the 1970 election. In 1973, in his policy speech, he said:

We demand a state which gives its people liberty and democracy, a state where people's votes are equally valued.

That sounds very similar to what I have just said. He continued:

We will alter the constitution of South Australia to achieve democracy in our parliament. Our firm policy for all elections is that there must be one man vote, and one vote one value.

That is not what we have in South Australia. We have a system where there is a distinct gerrymander.

We have a system where, in the 29 year period since 1985 and 2014 (which will complete this electoral cycle) in the seven elections that have been held, the Liberal Party has won the popular two-party vote on five occasions yet has only formed government twice and the Labor Party has won the two-party popular vote at two of those elections (1985 and 2006) yet has formed government on five occasions. There is something rotten in Denmark.

The Labor Party won 48.4 per cent of the two-party preferred vote but garnered 55.3 per cent of seats in the house. The Liberal Party, conversely, won 51.6 per cent of the vote and yet only holds 38.3 per cent of the seats in the house. My colleagues and I will continue to talk on this matter. I suspect that the government will show little interest in making the necessary alterations. It was dragged, in the period after the 1989 election, into changing the Constitution Act by inserting a fairness clause. Recent history has shown that the fairness clause is not fair. It does not work and it is time that we revisited it.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That's a relief.

Mr WILLIAMS: The member for Croydon says, 'That's a relief' because the members of the Labor Party do not like playing fair. That is why he said that it is a relief that the fairness clause does not work because members of the Labor Party, as I have already said, have gone to their electorates and said, 'Trust me, vote for me, but don't expect me to play fair. I am going to deceive you on the very day that I am asking you to vote for me.' That is why the Labor Party, I expect, will not seek to make our Constitution Act and our Electoral Act more fair. That is a great pity.

Let me now move to a couple of significant concerns in my electorate which point to why I made the comment that this government has little interest outside Adelaide. I addressed a public meeting in Naracoorte in the heart of my electorate last week. The public meeting was called because a group of concerned citizens right across the township was upset that the Housing Trust had purchased land in a number of streets and proposed to build multiple dwellings on individual blocks.

I asked the government a question on the opening day of parliament and the Minister for Infrastructure answered, 'The only reason that we've made a regulation to bypass the normal development application and assessment process is to allow the commonwealth stimulus package funds to be spent quickly.' He went on to say that different standards will not be applied. In the development plan for Naracoorte, the first objective under the residential plan states that one dwelling only should be placed on each block.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You don't want the Housing Trust?

Mr WILLIAMS: The member for Croydon bemoans that. When I addressed the meeting, I made a couple of comments. One of the comments was that we have development laws in South Australia to provide a number of things, and one is orderly development. The community actually has some involvement in the development plan so the community decides what sort of development it will have and where it will have it. That is one of the reasons we have development plans.

One of the other reasons is so that people can invest with some confidence, knowing they will be investing in a street or suburb where there is orderly development and where they will not have something built next door to them which is going to devalue their investment.

I believe that the government and Housing Trust have not acted in good faith regarding what has occurred in Naracoorte. They are aware of the development plan but, because of the regulation to speed up the process, they have chosen to take advantage and construct dwellings that were not contemplated by the settlement plan. In my opinion, they have acted in bad faith. I do not know that that would have happened in a Labor-held seat. It might have.

I think the Minister for Housing was invited, and she did not turn up. I think the Minister for Planning was invited, but he did not turn up. As the local member, I turned up at the public meeting, as did my colleague, the shadow minister for planning.

I want to talk about another issue, again in my electorate, and the new member for Mount Gambier mentioned this in his speech. The Kimberly-Clark pulp and paper mills at Millicent are under fire. They are under fire because cheap imports of toilet and facial tissue coming out of paper mills in Indonesia and China are being dumped in Australia.

Kimberly-Clark and a number of its competitors put a case to the federal customs department that this material was being dumped and was undermining Australian manufacturers. To put that case and have it heard and adjudicated is about a two-year process. After that process, the federal government accepted that there was dumping and imposed anti-dumping duties on the import of these tissues.

In the meantime, there was an appeal and, more importantly, in the meantime, the Indonesian government threatened to go to the World Trade Organisation. Even more importantly, in the meantime, a boatload of refugees anchored in an Indonesian port was causing severe embarrassment to our government. Are the three events connected? To me, it seems they are. The review has accepted that this material is being dumped into our markets, but the review claimed that, notwithstanding that, no material damage has been caused. It is too damn late when the Kimberly-Clark plant in my electorate—which underpins the employment of 1,500 people—closes its doors. It is too damn late for our federal government to then say, 'Woops; there was some material damage after all.'

We have seen the demise of many industries in this country because of this sort of thing. We have only to look at the orange juice industry, which suffered a similar fate. I am very concerned about the Kimberly-Clark plant in my electorate, the people employed there and the people in the region who are employed because of that plant.

After getting an email from the manager of the plant, Scott Whicker, I wrote to the Premier and implored him—this was before the election—to hop on an aeroplane to Canberra to show Kevin Rudd just how important this issue was. The Premier wrote a letter and in the last sentence of the letter said something like, 'I'd be pleased if you could look at this matter.' It was pretty soft and half-hearted when we needed the Premier of South Australia thumping the desk in the Prime Minister's office. Instead, the Premier wrote a little letter and then appeared on our television screens during the election campaign saying that he was going to create another 100,000 jobs in South Australia.

The reality is that we are losing jobs in South Australia because the Premier is again involving himself in spin when he should be doing the hard yards. It would have made a much better commercial for the Premier, and it would have been of much greater benefit to South Australia, if he had got on the plane and taken a TV crew with him, but he chose not to. I think that tells us something about the Premier. That is why I made the statement that this government is not really concerned about things that happen outside Adelaide, in regional South Australia.

Other members have talked about the health agreement and, again, the failure of our Premier to stand up for South Australia. We do not know how much of the GST will be subsumed in that agreement. We do not know that. We do not know whether it is 30 per cent, one-third, or some other figure—that will not be determined until 2013-14—yet the Premier on day one signed on the dotted line. He let South Australia down.

More recently, in one of the portfolio areas I am responsible for on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the house, we heard the commonwealth government's response to the Henry tax review. I have always conceded that the move in South Australia to encourage people to come here to explore for mineral wealth and then to mine it has received bipartisan support. The Premier never acknowledges that. He actually changed the name the program we had when we were in government to do that, that is, the targeted exploration initiative of South Australia (TEISA).

On coming to government in 2002, this Premier ignored the mining industry for about 18 months and then renamed and rebadged our TEISA program, re-established the funding and called it PACE, and now he goes all around the place talking about PACE. The program to encourage the exploration and mining of minerals in this state has received bipartisan support for over 20 years. However, when Kevin Rudd said, 'I want to reap the rewards of the mining industry for Canberra,' what did Mike Rann say? 'That's a good idea.' What did Kevin Foley say? 'That's a good idea. What a fine policy that is.'

They then came to the realisation that companies like BHP Billiton might have thought that it was not such good idea, that it might have some impact on their establishing an expanded operation at Olympic Dam, that it might have some impact on those 23,000 jobs that the Premier keeps claiming will come out of such a development, and that it might put a great big hole in the 100,000 jobs that would be created, as Premier claimed during the election campaign.

It will have an impact—it will have an incredible impact. I ask the question: what right does Kevin Rudd have to impose a tax on our mineral resources? They are a sovereign asset of the state of South Australia. We have expended many millions of South Australian taxpayers' dollars to encourage people to come here and explore, and to encourage them, on having found with great difficulty, mineral wealth in our state, to establish mining operations. We have put in millions and millions of dollars, which we could have put into other programs, to encourage that, and then Kevin Rudd comes along and says, 'Thank you very much. I'll take the cream off that.'

If we could believe the Treasurer, he was already in the process of saying, 'I think we should be extracting a bit more of that wealth, and we are going to double the royalty rate.' That is what he has told us after the fact; more importantly, after the election. I am not too sure that he is going to win that argument with Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd—I doubt whether he will. I have not heard one word from this Premier or the Treasurer about perhaps putting an argument to the High Court on who owns that mineral wealth. The Western Australian government has cottoned on to it—it knows what is going on and is now talking about (whatever comes out of Canberra) testing it in the High Court. Section 114 of the Australian Constitution says that state and commonwealth governments cannot tax each other's assets. The Western Australian government reckons it has a pretty good case to fight against the federal government's response to the Henry review.

Any government of South Australia, if it wanted to show faith with the very people it has been trying to encourage to come and operate in this state, should have been making those same sorts of representation to Canberra and saying, 'We don't like your tax. This is our sovereign property and we will do with it what we want. We might make the choice that a company can come here and make a reasonable level of profit because it's providing jobs for South Australians.' That is one of the priorities that the state government should have but this government has abrogated its responsibility in that area; it has abrogated its responsibility to every South Australian.

I see that the clock is well against me. There are a number of other matters that I would like to raise, and I will have an opportunity probably when addressing the supply bill. I will conclude my remarks there and commend the motion.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:47): First, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on going forward in your new position. I would also like to congratulate the member for Giles on her elevation to the Speaker's role. I also congratulate not only the new members of this house but also returning members from both sides of politics on being re-elected to this parliament.

I welcome to the crossbench the new member for Mount Gambier, Don Pegler. He will bring to this place great knowledge of regional South Australia and, in particular, the issues that affect regional South Australians. These issues can be identified from his close contact with people through local government in his previous role as mayor of the Grant council. The three Independents on the crossbench have been elected to represent our communities of nearly 100,000 people. We are looking forward to being an active part not only of the parliamentary process but also through committee discussions. I also congratulate the Labor Party on its re-election and look forward to working with the government and other members of both houses to ensure that this state moves forward and does not lose the momentum that it has gained so far.

It was only last year that I was elected in the by-election of Frome. I remember very vividly the by-election being declared on Thursday, taking possession of the keys to the Frome electorate office on Friday and, upon opening the door, finding that there were no files on any constituent issues, no stationery, not even a biro. The office walls were bare and everything had been removed—a great welcome to the electorate of Frome!

Mr Pederick: Might need a new office!

Mr BROCK: Might need a new office; you are exactly right. You needed a new office.

An honourable member: That's normal.

Mr BROCK: My partner (Lyn) and I were then given orientation by the parliamentary staff in this house.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr BROCK: Thank you; you can have two. Everything was crammed into one hectic day and the very next day I was sitting here in this house. It was certainly a baptism of fire. However, the new members coming in on the general election should have more time to acclimatise to the locations and procedures within the parliamentary system.

I would also like to sincerely thank the members of my small committee group for the great work they did during the last election campaign, and also express my thanks for the great support I received across the whole electorate of Frome.

At the by-election I was able to have volunteers at only seven of the 25 polling booths. However, at the recent general election, I had the great support of volunteers at all 27 polling booths across the electorate. The number of volunteers who came forward to assist on the day was in excess of 120.

During the last 12 months I have endeavoured to try to represent the constituents of Frome as best I could. I established listening posts in seven different locations outside Port Pirie. I have visited—

Mr Venning interjecting:

Mr BROCK: Member for Schubert, I will take you to my next listening post. I have visited the local governments in my electorate; there are five councils there. I also visited the various community development boards, the progress associations and numerous industries to get a better understanding of their operations and concerns.

I am forever grateful to the people of Frome, having improved my primary vote by nearly 80 per cent and having led the primary vote throughout the whole count. However, as other members in this house have mentioned, no electorate can be taken for granted, and I will not take this win for granted but will continue my efforts to further understand the issues that are confronting Frome and regional South Australia.

I sincerely thank my family for their great support, not only during my journey in state politics but also through my journey and time over 20 years in local government. I would also give special thanks to both of my daughters for their strength. As most members here would realise, one daughter lost her 18 month old son to drowning six months ago, and my other daughter lost her baby at 17 weeks of pregnancy. They are both very strong people, something that I as a father did not see previously. I am very proud of their dedication, commitment and loyalty to me.

I would also like to touch on the Governor's speech at the opening of this parliament concerning the government's plans to introduce additional training places and apprenticeships across the whole industry sector. This is a very important issue if this state is to capitalise on resource industry opportunities. I see that the government has indicated over 100,000 training places over six years. We in this house must ensure that regional locations are included in this move forward.

In Port Pirie we have private industry that is prepared to partner with the government to provide training not only in the wet trades but also in water management and food production. I believe going forward that private industry, if it has the opportunity, should be able to partner with government to be able to provide these opportunities.

With regard to the resources activities that have been mooted for upper north and central South Australia, I would certainly hope that, as the Treasurer commented in the previous sitting of parliament, we endeavour to ensure that this proposed commonwealth resource tax, if implemented, does not impede the growth opportunities in this field.

Just in the electorate of Frome there are some five projects that we are confident will be established within the region. It is estimated they will create some 700 to 1,200 jobs. However, these projects are reliant on BHP Billiton's Roxby Downs expansion going forward, plus the other mines continuing their progress to fruition. Therefore, it is essential that this new proposed tax by the commonwealth government does not impede these projects. This is a tax that is causing grave concern in regional South Australia.

South Australian country health was under some uncertainty some 12 months ago; however, there has been public consultation over the past few months and we are looking at the 10 year plan being completed. I have attended some of those forums, and I will certainly be keeping a close eye on the plan moving forward. Country people need to have not only the services and facilities that are currently there but also access to extra specialised services within their own regions without having to continually go to Adelaide for these services. This is not only expensive but it also creates upheaval and issues within families. At times, this may create other health issues with the extra burden of the financial and emotional stress.

In Port Pirie, we have been fighting for renal dialysis machines in the regional health service for many years—even in my previous role as the Mayor of the Port Pirie Regional Council. However, after many years, and direct consultation with the current Minister for Health, I congratulate the government for establishing the four units in the Port Pirie Regional Health Service. We do need these units in Port Pirie.

This will now enable the current and growing numbers who require this treatment to be able to have the service—and, at times, they require treatment up to three times a week—without having to get up at 5am, travel to Port Augusta or Clare for treatment and then return home. At times, this entails people having to be away from their home for eight to nine hours per day. This creates not only stress on their health but also financial problems. On many occasions, the distance they have to travel in their own vehicle does not qualify for any reimbursement under the PAT Scheme.

To get a better understanding of the issues confronting these people, I accompanied five patients travelling from Port Pirie to Port Augusta. I oversaw their treatment, witnessed what they had to have done during that time and stayed until their discharge. This was over a six hour period, and I was very taken aback by the amount of time it took and inconvenience they had to go through. Hopefully, with the provision of these new machines in the Port Pirie Regional Health Service, this stress may be reduced and make their lives more comfortable and enjoyable.

As mentioned in the Governor's speech, South Australia is leading the nation in renewable energy, and I certainly hope that we continue to establish future projects that will assist with reducing our carbon footprint. The state has great locations for wind turbines, and from discussions that I have had with major companies, this state has some of the best locations for this renewable energy to be established. Whilst we must continue in this direction, we must be very aware that, in some locations, the establishment of wind turbines may be detrimental to the environs. We must ensure that, in creating this renewable energy, we do not jeopardise the current tourism and associated industries that are already established in these locations.

The Social Inclusion Board is paying particular attention to the improved disability services across all eight government agencies. This is an area that is growing and many more of these services and facilities will be required for people with disabilities. As members representing the people of this state, we must ensure that they are not forgotten and that these services are not only maintained but extra services are made available for the people requiring them.

` I have a close working relationship with Orana and also Bedford Industries. In fact, I am part of a working committee with other community leaders working with Bedford Industries in Port Pirie to ensure that we are all kept aware of the growing demands within my electorate. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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