HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-05-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:01): As you know, I am here to speak about the Supply Bill 2010, for the appropriation of money from the Consolidated Account for 2010-11. I would like to just take a moment to point out that, just before question time, the Premier mentioned the ascent of Everest today by Duncan Chessell. I think it would have been equally important to mention Katie Sarah, who is the first South Australian woman to have made that same ascent. I recognise that great feat and congratulate her on that.

We have heard people from our side of the chamber speak today—the members for Davenport, Waite, Goyder—with regard to statewide issues. The member for Norwood gave us the exciting speech that he promised us, and the member for Schubert spoke very passionately about agriculture and the impact that the decline in funding for agriculture, particularly in research and development, has had.

I would like to really support the member for Goyder with regard to focusing on regional issues. It will not surprise anybody here that this is very important to me. It is very disappointing to me that regional South Australia has been so ignored over such a long time by this government. Dealing with regional issues is always difficult. I certainly will not oppose this bill. I am a realist and I understand the mechanisms. I understand that it is important to get the money through. I also understand that Adelaide will always be the centre of South Australia—there is no doubt about that—but regional areas should not be forgotten.

The government tells us all the time that money needs to be spent in the city because country people come to the city all the time to use those services, and that is very true, but the reverse is equally true: city people go to the country—to rural and regional South Australia and the outback—all the time and access services as well. I think that it is very important to recognise that the money needs to be divided equally.

Every single person in South Australia, regardless of where they live, has a vote. They all contribute to the government, they all pay taxes, whether they are payroll taxes, personal taxes or business taxes. We all know there are lots of taxes—far too many—and everyone in regional South Australia contributes in exactly the same way as other people.

Madam Speaker, I know that regional South Australia—Whyalla and the north-west of the state—is very important to you, as Port Augusta and the Mid North and the north-east is important to me. This is a very important aspect. Isobel Redmond said before and after the election that she wanted to be, and hopes one day to be, a premier for all South Australians, and that is exactly the sort of premier I would like to have. We do not have that at the moment. The current Premier would struggle to claim that for all South Australians. Isobel Redmond, before the election—

The SPEAKER: Member for Stuart, I just need to point out to you that you have made your maiden speech. From now on, it is not appropriate to refer to members by their name but by their seat or their position. I am not telling you off; I am just reminding you.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much—the member for Heysen.

The SPEAKER: You can address her as Leader.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The Leader of the Opposition, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Yes, the Leader of the Opposition desires to be and I hope very soon (in four years' time) will be a premier for all South Australians because that is sadly lacking at the moment.

Stuart, as I hope everybody knows, is a very large electorate. Almost everything that can be found anywhere in regional South Australia is found within Stuart. It runs from—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Almost anything, but no crayfish—not yet. It runs from Kapunda and includes a section of the Riverland—fantastic farming lands—all through the Mid North, Port Augusta and through the north-east pastoral district. People in those areas are visited very regularly by people from the city. Every road up there is not just for an outback person or a country person but it is for a city person as well and, very often, it is for an international person or an interstate person who has come here for tourism. So, it is extremely important.

I fear that this government is trying to shrink regional South Australia by stealth. By providing decreased funding year after year to communities in regional South Australia it forces small towns to contract as people go to the slightly bigger towns in their area. Of course, when that happens, in an unfortunate irony, then the services have to contract as well. It is quite a sneaky process that I object to dreadfully. I think that comes from a lack of funding across the region.

This government says that it spends more money in regional areas, and I do not doubt that that is true in many cases. Where that happens I give them credit for it, but I also think that a lot of it is hidden with regard to inflation and other ways of hiding things: it might be spent more in one area and less in another.

What I can tell people absolutely is that regional people know that their services are diminishing, and they are the people who I listen to. When the government tells me that it is spending more money in a certain area, but the people of Stuart tell me that they are getting less of a result in that area (which is really what counts), that is the most important thing for me.

Regional people are not silly. Regional people are no sillier, no dumber, no less able to figure out what is going on in their communities than any other people anywhere else in the state or in the rest of Australia. They know if their roads are not right; they know if their schools are not adequately funded; they know if their hospitals are not adequately funded; and they send a very strong message that they are incredibly disappointed with the funding that is going to regional South Australia—and they know.

We have a situation at the moment in regional South Australia where a town of about 1,000 people is the break-even point. Towns below 1,000 people living in them are shrinking and this has been going on for about a decade. Towns in regional South Australia with a population of over 1,000 are growing. That is a trend from smaller towns to bigger towns because smaller towns are being starved and shrunken and they are really deteriorating. I do not believe that the government is not aware of this. I do not believe that the government is not doing this deliberately.

It is tough economic times, and I understand that. It is difficult and costs have to be cut, but they should never be cut more in regional areas than they are in the city. Every time there is cost-cutting, people in the country suffer more than people in the city. I will always keep reminding the government of that because it is absolutely not acceptable.

There are roughly 30 towns throughout Stuart. There were many more 10, 20, 30 years ago. I fear that there will be fewer in the next 10, 20, 30 years. The government has an opportunity to help. The government talks about putting money into regional services, but this is a very important thing. The member for Schubert talked about agriculture: if you cannot feed yourself, you are going nowhere. It does not matter whether you are a family, whether you are a town, whether you are a state or a nation: if you cannot feed yourself, you are going nowhere.

If we have this perpetual drain on communities, this shrinking of people living there, every time a person loses a job in a country area it is so much harder to find another job in a country area. If a person in the city loses a job, that is a terrible situation, too, as every job, every person, every family is important, but there are more opportunities to get yourself back on track and to find another job. In country areas, that opportunity is devastatingly small, and I think that one of the things that needs to be looked at is regional employment.

To its credit, the government has set some targets. The government has population growth targets in the South Australian Strategic Plan for regional South Australia, but I do not believe that they will be achieved, and I do not believe that the government is spending money, or planning to spend money, in ways that will allow it to achieve those targets so that regional South Australian population grows at the same rate as Adelaide's population grows. It is the government's own target, and it is a good target, but it needs to be taken far more seriously.

I would like to talk about health, and again I give the government credit. It has just announced chemotherapy services for some regional towns, including Port Augusta in the electorate of Stuart, and I think that is terrific. It is actually matching an election promise the Liberal Party made before the election—we made that promise. We said that if we were elected we would put chemotherapy services in town for the people of Port Augusta and the surrounding area. To its credit, the government matched it, and to its credit the government is now about to implement that, so I think that is absolutely fantastic.

I am extremely disappointed, though, that the government will not support the implementation of an MRI licence. I understand that the licence is provided by the federal government, but the state government is not supporting it. There is an operator capable of doing it, there is a site capable of doing it, there are skills, and there is even money available. The reality is that this would not cost the South Australian government anything or, at worst, very little. There is no reason for the government not to support the granting of an MRI licence; that is, the licence for the operator of the MRI machine at Port Augusta to have their patients claim Medicare rebates. It does not cost the state a cent.

There is an operator ready to go, and I am extremely disappointed that the government will not support it, because if it were put into place, it would support not only the people of Port Augusta but a whole fan all around Upper Spencer Gulf, including the outback, the Mid North and the closer Eyre Peninsula. I think that this should be a very high priority, and it should be in the budget, particularly since it is an incredibly cheap matter for the state government.

One of the most important things about the Liberal Party's policy to rebuild the RAH where it is at the moment is that the savings would have been spent on the health system throughout the rest of the state. We can all haggle about what the savings would have been, and there is plenty of argy-bargy to be had about the numbers, but there is not one person on either side of this house who does not know or admit that it would have been much cheaper to rebuild on the current site. The reason I supported it so wholeheartedly was that there was a commitment to spend the savings—the significant savings—on health throughout the rest of the state, and that would have included suburban Adelaide and regional and remote health facilities. I think that would have been a very important thing to do.

It is a sad thing to say, but people in the country—people in my electorate—do not trust the government in regard to the health plan. It is an indisputable fact. The government is saying that it will do the best it can, and I will do everything I can to help the government do the best it can for health in country South Australia. However, in all my travels, both within and without Stuart, people do not trust the government on that. That is one of the first things the government has to rectify, and it has do whatever it needs to do to get people to believe them, to get people to trust that they are not trying to shrink the health system in country South Australia.

Hospitals in country South Australia belong to the communities. They do not belong to the government. The government should do the best it can by them with funding and resources and training and all that sort of thing, but they actually belong to the communities. In country areas more than anywhere else, people know that and people believe that, and people raise money for the hospitals and do everything they can. Without a hospital in a country town, you do not have a GP, you do not have a pharmacy, and you do not have an aged-care facility. The hospital is so much more than just a place where people need to go for some quick service as day patients or perhaps even stay for a couple of nights. It flows onto everything in a country town, and you lose all those other terribly important services.

With regard to education, again there is this shrinking by stealth issue. A very important issue going on at the moment in my electorate is the Melrose kindergarten. People may not understand how important a kindergarten is, but for a family, for a child, for a community, it is everything, even if it is only 10 or 15 or 20 kids who are going to go to that kindergarten.

If they do not get to go there, they have to go to the town down the road. Now, the town down the road, if you are lucky, might be 25 or 30 kilometres away. It may be further. If you do not go to that kindergarten, and you go to the kindergarten in the next town down the road, well then you probably stay with your friends and you go to primary school in the next town down the road. And guess what? A few years after that, the primary school in that first town is not needed any longer, and it is just disgraceful. It is a stealth issue. I think many people opposite just would not have thought about it, understandably; it is not part of their electorate, not part of their work. I am so concerned that there be some people opposite who would have thought about it and it is a deliberate plan to save money, shrink regional communities and just move on because it is not a high priority.

Shared Services is a mess, an absolute mess. Sixty million dollars was meant to be spent to save $137 million over five years by contracting services. Now, I am a realist and I come from a business background. I understand how important it is to save costs, but why do those costs have to be saved in the country? The only reason this is possible is because services can be shrunk. We do not need to pass a piece of paper from one person's desk to another person's desk right next to them in the same office, and have that happening absolutely everywhere. Technology allows us to effectively work and communicate remotely.

It does not have to be in Adelaide. We could have the Shared Services payroll for all government departments in Whyalla, Madam Speaker. It could be absolutely anywhere. It could be in Port Augusta, it could be in Mount Gambier, it does not have to be in Adelaide. Why is it that everything has to shrink back to Adelaide? If people would open their eyes, they would say that what allows the shrinking could also allow some growth out into regional areas; harness exactly the same technology and send it out to the regions instead of trying to pull it away from the regions.

On the matter of infrastructure, we need infrastructure to develop the very important mining industry, and tourism is also a terribly important industry. The regional development infrastructure, which was put in place by a previous Liberal government, has only had funding withdrawn from it every single budget over the last period since that happened. We went to the election saying that we would put a share of mining royalties—25 per cent—into that.

That would have taken that funding in the regional development infrastructure program from about $2.5 million to about $42.5 million overnight and, because it is a percentage-based program, that would have grown and grown and grown as our mining grows, the mining that our Premier and Treasurer keep telling us is on the way. We hope it is, and, as that grows, that 25 per cent would have grown. Hence, the money available for regional infrastructure, which has an extraordinarily high multiplier effect—I think it is 100 or 200 times—so for every dollar that is spent through that regional infrastructure development program it amounts to $100 or $200. You cannot get that kind of growth, you cannot get that kind of multiplier effect in just about any other way.

The silly thing is that, if we do not do it, we will not be able to grow mining or tourism. We will not be able to grow all of the other very important programs that both sides of this house know are important for regional South Australia. And we will not be able to reverse the population decline. If population declines, then communities decline and it is a negative multiplier effect. When a business closes because there are not enough people in the town, then even fewer people will stay and live in that town. It is absolutely disgraceful. If you have a town like the one I live in, Wilmington, of about 250 people, if one of our service stations or one of our shops were to close, then all of sudden the town would shrink even further. It is not just about Wilmington, it is about all the towns throughout regional South Australia, but particularly the towns in Stuart.

I would like to challenge this government to spend money in the budget. They have a long time, a long lead-up with regard to putting this budget in place. We talked about it in question time. The Treasurer has explained to us why he needs so much extra time to deliver his budget. I challenge him directly to spend the money equitably between South Australians who live in Adelaide and South Australians who live in the country. 'Equitably' is not saying, 'We will spend the majority of it in Adelaide and country people are welcome to come and use those services anytime they like.' That is not equitable because we know that is not how it works. That will only perpetuate the shrinking of regional communities.

I challenge this Premier to spend the money in his budget equitably across all South Australians. Everybody has a vote; everybody is a real person; everybody contributes to their communities; everybody is responsible for choosing their government; and everybody deserves equitable treatment by the government, whichever government it is, when it comes to handing down the budget.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:20): It is a pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of the people of Adelaide about the Supply Bill, which I support, but ask that the government give due consideration to some of the most important and pressing issues facing the electorate of Adelaide. The government's own media release on 24 March 2010 states:

Following the departures of the former Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith and Minister for Water Security and the River Murray, Karlene Maywald...this reshuffle of portfolios means Cabinet Ministers will be able to take a fresh look at important portfolios and bring to the table new and invigorated ideas.

When will the people of South Australia see the fruition of such invigorated ideas?

I note that, according to the government's ministerial directory, we no longer have the title of minister for water security nor do we have the title of minister for water and water security; just the Minister for Water. One could presume from the change in title that security of South Australia's water supply has, in the government's view, diminished in importance since the election. If so, this is a sad reflection of the government's failure to realise and act accordingly on South Australia's water security needs.

I call on this government to act and commit to the innovation of stormwater harvesting by supporting the Eastern Regional Alliance, which is a cooperative of seven suburban city councils: Burnside, Campbelltown, Norwood, Payneham and St Peters, Tea Tree Gully, Prospect, Unley and Walkerville. The Eastern Regional Alliance seeks to create a scheme for the capture, storage and distribution of urban stormwater within the eastern metropolitan region of Adelaide to enable a secondary source of water and to reduce the council's reliance on mains water. The Eastern Regional Alliance is seeking funding of $6 million—which is just 18 per cent of the total cost of the project of $33 million—to make stormwater capture a reality.

I now turn my attention to the needs of the Adelaide electorate's only public secondary school, Adelaide High School. Thus far, since the pledges of action by this government during the election campaign, the Minister for Education has been silent on the expansion needs for Adelaide High School. The silence is deafening. Adelaide High School has had significant pressure for many years from parents wanting to enrol their children, so much so that at some stages up to 500 students have been on the waiting list and now even sibling rights have been removed for special entry students to curb demand.

Under the government's 30-year development plan the Adelaide city population will increase by 11,000 people; this will only exacerbate the problem. Currently there are six public primary schools and only one public secondary school in the Adelaide electorate; this is not satisfactory. How will the government's proposed extra 250 places solve this problem? This is a piecemeal, half-hearted attempt to address this issue.

On Tuesday 16 March, only days before the election, in a last-minute effort to save the seat of Adelaide, the government announced an expansion of Adelaide High School of 250 students by 2013. I quote:

By expanding the schools, we can relax the zones—so students from Prospect or Walkerville, for instance, will be able to attend Adelaide High School.

I call on the government to look to the future, not to the short term. An extra 250 places for Adelaide High School will not even bring it into line with the state asset management plan benchmarks that were given to DECS in June 2001. These benchmarks indicated at the time that the building area identified as 10,471 square metres equated to a shortfall of space for approximately 226 students. Based on current figures this would now be a shortfall of 329. As Adelaide High School is already over capacity by 329 students, and the numbers are increasing yearly, adding Prospect and Walkerville could increase the demand by up to a further 650 students.

Thus, by 2013, Adelaide High School will require around another 800 places. The people of Prospect require another public school option. Every child is entitled to a local education. The proposed super school in Gepps Cross is not what the people of Adelaide want, and the people of the electorate let the previous member for Adelaide know of their displeasure with this idea at the recent state election.

I refer to the statement by Jay Weatherill on the front cover of the school post, which says: 'By listening to what communities have to say, I believe we can together build a responsive school system.' Will the Minister for Education honour this pledge? This is not about Liberal or Labor or which party holds the seat of Adelaide; this is about the needs of our children, our future and the clear and defined, unquestionable need for a second school in the inner north city area.

I also believe we should be investing in the reinvigoration of Rundle Mall, as there has been no major reinvestment back into the mall since it was first established in the 1970s. The mall received a minor facelift in the mid-1990s, with repaving, the erection of the Gawler Place canopy and various subsurface infrastructure improvements. I believe this should be given a high priority, given that it is visited by 85 per cent of tourists to South Australia, has the highest point of pedestrian traffic with over 23 million visitors a year, has annual sales of approximately $800 million and employs around 5,000 people.

Rundle Mall is the premier retail centre in the heart of Adelaide, home to over 700 retail specialty stores, 200 service providers and 15 unique arcades and shopping centres. As mentioned, the precinct employs around 5,000 people and is visited daily by thousands of the 110,000 city workers and 50,000 students who earn or learn in the city, as well as thousands of tourists each year. I believe it needs the assistance of the state government to return this important tourist attraction to its former glory.

At present, I am advised there are around 80 shop vacancies from the corner of Hindley Street and West Terrace to the end of Rundle Street and East Terrace. Historically, this connection of streets has been the premier shopping district of Adelaide. Whilst I believe one could argue that a significant factor for the high vacancy rate is the lack of state government commitment to Rundle Mall and Adelaide, other factors such as the government's unfair tax regime are hurting South Australian businesses, making South Australia an uncompetitive place to conduct business. I ask this government: why would a new business choose to start an operation in South Australia? What incentive does the government offer for businesses to grow and prosper? How many businesses are we going to lose to other states due to our unfair, uncompetitive and punitive state tax regime?

Finally, I ask this government to consider this: if we are successful in our World Cup bid in 2018 or 2022, will the government put the $800 million-plus commitment for the Adelaide Oval (being last year's state government commitment of $450 million, and not a cent more; a further commitment of $85 million; the footbridge commitment that has been estimated at anywhere from $20 million to $38 million; and the federal government's contribution of up to $250 million) into building a purpose-built stadium with an enclosed roof and adequate parking? Please do not destroy our beautiful Adelaide Oval and turn North Adelaide into a car park.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:28): I rise at this late hour on a Thursday evening to indicate my support for the Supply Bill.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Hear, hear!

Mr PENGILLY: I am glad that the minister is happy about that, and I will continue my remarks. In supporting the motion, I would also like to say that I also support the Rann government, and, indeed, on this rare, rare occasion, not so much the Rudd government but minister Ferguson and minister Holloway for their announcement about issuing licences for exploration of oil and gas off the west end of Kangaroo Island and also off Margaret River in Western Australia.

It is absolutely critical to this nation that we get on and explore and find what resources we have on land and, equally, in the waters surrounding our mighty nation. I noticed in the local Kangaroo Island press this week, and I have noticed in some emails and correspondence that have been put about, that there is a degree of emotion coming into the opposition to the announcement by the two ministers, and that concerns me. Let me make very clear that, as a lifelong resident of Kangaroo Island and of South Australia, I want absolute assurance that there is no threat to the fishing industry; I want absolute assurance that there is no threat to the tourism industry; and I want absolute assurance that there is no threat to the marine environment. However, let me also assure the house that I want to make sure that my children, my grandchildren (should I have any), all Australians and our descendants, in 100 to 200 years, have those resources available.

Quite clearly we must look now. It worries me that an emotive campaign is launched. Of course, I do not want any spills—of course I do not want that. But to try to put together a fear campaign based on a spill in America and what happened off north-west Australia last year is simply beyond the pale as far as I am concerned in opposition to the announcement of this exploration licence. Purely and simply I say to members and to the parliament that I do not believe—and I believe that I am right—that there has been any semblance of a spill of oil or gas offshore in South Australia in the last 50 years. Of course, we must be exceptionally careful.

It worries me that an editor within the Fairfax newspaper group—under Rural Press, in this case The Islander on Kangaroo Island—has chosen to get emotive about the subject. It is no good being emotive. We must look for these resources; we have to see what we have got to provide for the future.

You even have the Premier, who called a certain mine a 'mirage in the desert' 25 years ago, now boasting about having all these mines and looking for uranium. I join with the member for Newland, an advocate for nuclear power, in saying that this is the way we have to go in Australia. We have this old continent. We have the capacity to bury nuclear waste and we should be looking to develop a nuclear power industry as it eventually happens. These are my personal views. I know there are differing views in the house, and I respect that.

However, we have a nation, a very stable continent, and it does not matter now how much fear and anxiety is brought into people's minds. The reality is that in 150 years when there is no oil and no gas, they will still be looking for it. Uranium will be one of the major sources of power, along with, I suggest, the wind, the sun and the waves (because we will get that technology going as time goes on), and we do need to look for these things.

You simply cannot hide it way and say, 'No, no, no, we can't do this,' because generations to come will curse the day that the generations now occupying Australia rejected that as something to be scared about. I want to know that, in the future, these things are put in place to cater for those generations. We will have terrific technology. Wind is exceptionally expensive to put into place and it has a fair degree of impact on carbon production and whatnot in terms of constructing the turbines and everything else, along with the environmental aspects of wind power. Wave power is used in Europe, and there are areas around the South Australian coast that have enormous currents where that wave power could be harnessed, and I look forward to seeing that.

Indeed, some years ago, Professor Brian Kirk from, I think, Flinders University made a presentation about solar power that I witnessed. However, until we find better ways to store that solar power we have a long way to go. We cannot have fear and trembling and great concern without balancing it up with reason and looking forward to the future, because we do have to look to the future; we owe it to our descendants to do that. Having got that off my chest, I will move on.

Clearly across my electorate, there is an enormous demand for funds from federal government. Councils need it all the time; there is never enough money. The five councils in my electorate—Onkaparinga, Alexandrina, City of Victor Harbor, Yankalilla and Kangaroo Island—are all screaming out for money to deal with the roads. It is simply beyond them to do it.

Some of them are unsustainable and we wonder where that is going to go. I note a bill that was introduced today in reference to local government. I think we have to have a debate in this parliament about where we go with local government, how much we want of local government and how we assist them. However, in assisting them we turn around and ask the federal government to assist us.

I have an enormous network of roads, as indeed do other rural members in this place. For example, the members for Stuart, Hammond and Flinders alone have countless thousands of kilometres of road and I join them in that. I get constant grumbles from all my councils about road funding. We have seen the problems that Kangaroo Island Council has had and its suggestion for a tourism levy (which I do not support and I have made that quite clear). However, we have to find a way out.

Are we going to get more money from the feds? I do not know. Are we going to get more money from the state? Let me say that, if we can find $535 million or whatever it was for Adelaide Oval, we should be able to find a bit of money to do something around the state and in other places for the health, welfare and the betterment of our community.

I love football and cricket. I love going to it, but where are we going with this expenditure? Where is this money going? We have such a list of social ills: mental health, Aboriginal health, rural people's health. The list goes on and on. My colleague the member for Chaffey has enormous problems in his area. It does not matter much where you go. I say to the parliament and to the government: where on earth are we going with all this expenditure?

Similarly, our education system is struggling for funding. We have an excellent education system, I believe, in this state, both private and public. We are very lucky. The public system continues to have a demand on funding. We are seeing the 'Julia Gillard memorial halls' go up around the state. They are being welcomed gladly by schools—there is no question about that— but ultimately we are going to have to fund the maintenance of them, so the state will have to find more money in due course for maintenance on these facilities.

A variety of them are going up in my electorate and some schools are most grateful to get them, but once again I say, with the debt that has been incurred by the federal government, our children and our grandchildren are going to be paying for this debt for decades to come. Whilst they are welcome, they have to be paid for—the buck stops here. That is a concern.

I mentioned yesterday that there is a demand for preschools and that brings me, of course, to the health sector and the enormous demands that are put on the state budget by the health sector. The minister has said—and he is not definitely right but possibly right—that, in due course, the health budget alone in South Australia will devour the state budget. That is a frightening thought for the future. How do we split that up between schools and the transport needs and everything else?

What we have to do in this state is advance the cause of the industries we have. It is probably worth remembering that far and away the most important industry in this state is agriculture. It is still the biggest industry in South Australia. It is feeding and clothing the world. My electorate has an enormous capacity to produce food and fibre on the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island and that is under threat. I notice with interest that we are having a change to the Department for Environment and Heritage. It is disappearing, and we will have a new department of environment and natural resources.

What concerns me is whether the bureaucrats in DWLBC will be sucked into the new department and continue business as usual or whether there will be a strength of purpose by the government—and I sincerely hope the minister rips these people into gear—in order to get common sense prevailing across rural South Australia.

Farmers know what they are doing. They know how to produce food and fibre, but what they do not know how to do is deal with increasing numbers of bureaucrats telling them how to operate. This is a common occurrence. The former member for Stuart was loud and clear with his views on certain bureaucrats. He was quite forthright in this chamber over nearly 40 years about what should happen to some of them.

I want to see them pulled into gear and I want to see a good working relationship between the farming community and the bureaucrats. In some cases that is happening, but normally that does not happen. You cannot have bureaucrats dictating to landholders, people who have purchased their properties. Sometimes these properties have been in families for over 100 years. You cannot have these people telling landholders what they should and should not do.

It is fine to give assistance. The government is there to help. If a farmer needs help and goes to Primary Industries and Resources SA or the Department for Environment and Heritage, or some similar organisation, to ask for assistance, that is one thing, but to have these people running around in shiny government-plated cars telling everyone how to run their life is totally alien to rural people and farmers. I would like to think that we could see some change.

Along with the agriculture sector, another couple of areas in my electorate get forgotten regularly, including the fishing industry. The fishing industry is critically important to my electorate. We have professional fishermen operating on the Fleurieu Peninsula and on Kangaroo Island. We have scalefishing, rock lobster fishing, abalone fishing and net fishing. We have a host of industries which, once again, are in very well managed fisheries—and have been for decades.

The northern rock lobster zone fishery has been through the quota system over the past couple of years. This year the biomass is up considerably. They had filled their quotas by the end of February this year in many cases, even the end of January, whereas the southern rock lobster zone is in dire trouble—I recognise that—but it may be because of a variety of seasonal reasons with cold waters and upwells. We need to protect the fishing industry.

I go back to my first words. One of the things that worries me is these minority pressure groups and extreme greenies who want to stop the world. Well, if they want to stop the world to get off, they can get off and we will keep going, quite frankly. That is my view. They are now floating around the marine park stuff, which has been messing around the parliament for eight years without anything happening.

They are now saying, 'We don't want any oil and gas exploration until such time that the marine park is put in place.' I will tell you what they do not want. They want the marine parks in place so we can do nothing. They want to make it difficult for companies to look for minerals, oil or gas—or whatever. That is what they are about. They are selfish, foolish people. They are living in another world, they are living in a bubble. They want to get out and join the real world.

Clearly, the vast majority of members in this place are interested in looking after the environment to make sure we leave it in good condition or a better condition when we depart this earth. That is an important part of life. The farming community lives with the land, works with the land and understands the land. Some 99.9 per cent of landholders do the right thing; there is no question about it.

There is always a renegade element in any industry that does the wrong thing and I acknowledge that. Similarly the fishing industry wants to protect its fisheries. It does not want these minority pressure groups running around trying to create chaos. I am seeing it again with the marine parks. The minority pressure groups are trying to pressure the government into creating zones where you cannot do anything or catch anything. It is a frightening wonder, so if I get a little extreme in this place from time to time its because we have to balance up the extremity the other way—it is simply not good enough.

The other industry is the forestry industry. I am concerned over the future of the blue gum industry and where it is going in my electorate. Both Adelaide Blue Gum on the Fleurieu and Great Southern Plantations on Kangaroo Island are in receivership. These trees are continuing to grow, and with something like 1,100 hectares of blue gums on the Fleurieu nothing looks like happening. More importantly, with 13,000 hectares of blue gums on Kangaroo Island it appears that nothing will happen with them in the long term either. It is a major worry. Forestry is a good industry and I know that the members from the South-East of the state—the members for Mount Gambier and MacKillop—have enormous areas of forestry (radiata and blue gums) in their electorate, and there is quite a bit of discussion and debate over where the industry is going down there.

One of the issues is where you plant things to ensure that they can be harvested. It is a major issue with blue gums on the island and on the Fleurieu Peninsula. We have to have primary industry. I am hopeful that the new minister will quickly pick up and understand, as he has a business background. I think he is the only member opposite who has any knowledge of running a business. I look forward to him picking up on the agricultural, fishing and forestry sectors and putting some well meaning things in place to continue to help in those areas.

It is an interesting time in the future of South Australia as many of these mines will come on stream. I know the Premier likes to promote the view that they have done everything and we have done nothing. I suspect that he will not be around as Premier to see much happen. I do not think he will be here much longer, quite frankly. If this week is any indication of the way the government is travelling, I cannot see anything much but a puff of smoke every now and then. They seem to have lost their way, have no energy left, have no reform areas and have forgotten what they are here for. So, I think we will see a change in the top end of the current government. There will be a number of ministerial changes, the Premier will change and we will have a different leader sitting over there by the time we come up to the next four-year cycle and the election. I am concerned about where the state will go over the next four years. It is a great worry to me and to rural people.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:49): I rise—

Members interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I thank members opposite for their encouragement. I am always very pleased to contribute in this place. I stand to speak in favour of the Supply Bill because we all want to ensure that the state runs, people are paid and small business people's accounts are paid on time—we would not want to see any delays there. It is necessary to do this because we are not actually handing down a budget in June as we usually do in South Australia but, rather, in September, well into the new financial year. The reason we have the Supply Bill, of course, is to keep the money flowing; an amount of $5 billion-odd is what we are debating here today.

It is important that we look at how the government spend its money and how it wastes money as well.

This week there was a blowout of the '$450 million, not one cent more' Adelaide Oval development, with $85 million being added. We also revisited today that on top of the $25 million that was given to SACA initially for the western grandstand several years ago there is $5 million to set up the Stadium Management Authority, so that they could come up with a cost. Then we find out that the extra $85 million is to compensate for the debt that is held by SACA for a grandstand that, now, is $85 million plus $25 million; so, we are up to $110 million, plus another $25 million that came from the federal government. We are up to $135 million for a grandstand that is valued on the SACA books at $90 million. A $135 million investment is valued at $90 million on the SACA books.

Then, we heard today from the Treasurer that he forgot about a loan arrangement that he had made. He is having all these negotiations, all these briefings, but he forgot about a key issue, that is, that he is already in for $30 million regardless of what happens in the way of loan guarantees and lending money. It is interesting the way this government is managing money.

We all remember that one of the big catchcries of the 2006 election was that an American university was coming here to South Australia—Carnegie Mellon from the Heinz family, one of the wealthiest families in America, I believe. I do not know whether or not they have got some connection to the Kennedys. Maybe that is why they are here. We know that the Premier is attracted to anybody who has even farted next to a Kennedy. The Premier will want them here in Adelaide, so that he can put his hand around their shoulder and say, 'I know this guy, he knows the Kennedys.'

We know that the Premier likes to do that. We had one of the Kennedys here speaking for about $250,000 (I think that cost) on an environment program a couple of years ago. One of the Premier's dear friends, who unfortunately passed away just recently, was another strong connection to the Kennedys. I am not sure if he was there when they dragged Edward Kennedy's car out of the lake, but I know he had some connection to the Kennedys, and that was good enough for Mike Rann to bring him to Adelaide.

We have Carnegie Mellon University. In the Premier's own press club lunch before the election, on the day the election was called on 20 February, he told us that Carnegie Mellon was part of the future of South Australia. Don't worry that we are losing our manufacturing industries, don't worry that we have lower jobs growth in South Australia than the rest of the country. Don't worry, we've got new industries happening, we've got mining. Remember mining? 23,000 jobs poised in 2005—'poised', look it up; it means 'just about to happen'. And here we are, five years down the track and we still do not have any confirmation of what is happening with the expansion of Roxby Downs.

Let's get back to Carnegie Mellon. The big announcement was that there would be two campuses of the American university in South Australia. It was a first for Australia, another historic deal for Australia. I am not sure whether he used that word. We could accuse him of repetition, because we hear that word so often, an historic arrangement to bring Carnegie Mellon to South Australia.

What was the cost of that? $39.25 million to get them here; $19.5 million to pay public servants to go to their $65,000 a year courses, because there is no demand in South Australia through the marketplace for that type of product. Then, of course, the second campus was going to be the entertainment technology centre. What Mike Rann told us about the entertainment technology centre was that students—Adelaide students and students from around the world—who go to this college would be working at Pixar and Disneyland creating great animation and other entertainment technology. What did we find out today? We found out that half the Carnegie college has closed down, and it has been closed down for two years—and the minister for further education had no idea! What did he say? He said, 'I have no idea.'

This is a pet program of the Premier; the Premier branded this with his name all over it. It flows really well: Carnegie Mellon, Mike Rann; Carnegie Mellon, Mike Rann. Yet we find that for two years the government has been paying rent for an empty building. What was the government's statement for Channel 10 news? 'Yes, but they shared it with some other people; we let them be there for free for a while' was the government's excuse on Channel 10 news. No-one would front the cameras. We will see what Channels 7, 9 and 2 have to say.

We have 500 square metres at $250 a square metre for two years. That is a quarter of a million dollars, yet this government tells us that it cannot bring down a budget because it has to find savings in schools, savings in hospitals, savings out in rural South Australia; it has to save $750 million because it is not managing the economy here in South Australia; 'We don't know what we are doing so we have to get the experts in.' The Premier boasts that he gets the experts in; he talks to experts. He is saying that we need to do this because Howard did when he came in in 1996, but Howard was there after 13 years of badly managed Labor government.

Dean Brown and Stephen Baker had to do it when they came in in 1993. They were there to fix up the State Bank mess that Mike Rann had a hand in developing, and they had to bring in a budget to deal with that very difficult situation. We have here the Treasurer telling us that it is his budget but he does not know what is going on, so he is getting some outside help—and, by the way, it is going to take longer. Tasmania got its budget out on time and it had an election on the same day, but here in South Australia we have to employ others to do the Treasurer's job—and I have been led to believe that their budget is blowing out.

It is an interesting scenario that we are here today discussing the Supply Bill because the budget will not be ready, and this government has been in office for eight years. In fact, if members want to get some idea about why we in South Australia lag behind the rest the nation on just about all the economic points, I point out that, by the end of this term in 2014, Labor will have been in government in South Australia for 33 out of 44 years. What that says is that the state of this economy is all Labor's fault. It is no good saying that governments are the same; it is Labor's fault. At the end of this term Labor will have been in power for 33 out of 44 years, so it is no good saying that both parties have been at fault, because the Labor Party has its stamp all over South Australia. When your children leave to get jobs elsewhere, just remember that it is the Labor Party. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 17:59 the house adjourned until Tuesday 22 June 2010 at 11:00.

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