HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Adjourned debate on motion to note grievances (resumed on motion).

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (17:34): I commend the Premier on coming in and clarifying the situation, but I am still rather perplexed by this. If I could just take a moment during the debate to ask this question: all members here would recollect that a lot of media scrutiny occurred in the four weeks before the election about costings and, being part of that process, I was asked many questions.

I am very aware that the Hon. Rob Lucas, early in the process, spoke about an overrun—I think the figure quoted was $90 million—on the Adelaide Oval that he had been reliably informed about, and we put that before the media. I am rather surprised that the Premier can now come in and say he did not know about it. Surely—and this is what truly surprises me about how government process must work—if that sort of media speculation exists, the Premier must have been asked the question by the media, so is the Premier not then responsible to actually ask a question of the Treasurer about this media speculation and whether it has any basis? If that did not occur, I am flabbergasted by how the process works.

Others will take up questioning on this matter, no doubt, but for a government to exist in a situation like that, where one person knew about a significant additional cost the day before the writs were issued, chose deliberately to keep the information, not only from his own parliamentary colleagues within cabinet but also from his leader, the Premier, and from the people of South Australia, is very disappointing to me. The Treasurer has provided an answer on that, and there is no need for me to go into more detail, but I am sure a lot more questions will be asked in future about it.

I will take up the matter of the Supply Bill. I acknowledge that the member for Light in his contribution talked about great things happening in his community; no doubt about that, but, honestly, it is clearly the role of government to invest in services and infrastructure. While it is very true that we on opposite sides of the chamber have different priorities and different opinions in some matters, there is an overwhelming desire from all of us to ensure that investment occurs is in the communities we represent in this chamber.

I commend the member for Light on his victory. I would like to have seen a different result in the election, with Cossie Costa in this chamber, but the member for Light put up a great campaign and had tremendous support. However, it is important to reflect upon the fact that what he talks about are exactly the sort of things that we on this side of the chamber want to see in our communities also. It is the frustration we display sometimes that brings out the negativity in us. When I came to this place I was a positive person; someone who always tried to see the optimistic side of things, where opportunities lay, where the good things were occurring, and to recognise them and to applaud those decisions when they were made.

My frustration in having to sit on this side of the chamber is that you suddenly have to have a very negative aspect in your mind and have to look at any opportunity to criticise any component of a decision made by the government. Personally I find that hard to do, because I recognise when the right decisions are made. Political reality does sometimes require other opinions to be expressed.

We all want to stand up here and talk about the great things occurring in our communities, and I will take a few minutes to do that. I am grateful that SA Water is part of a Yorke Peninsula long-term water infrastructure planning group that has been meeting for probably 18 months. I am grateful that the minister provided me the opportunity to sit as an observer on that group and take part in the discussions. I hope, now that the report is nearly finalised, that it leads to significant investment occurring in water infrastructure on the Yorke Peninsula area, because it needs it. There are 16 communities that do not have a reticulated, potable supply. Those communities rely totally upon rainwater for all their water needs. Some cannot cart water from standpipes, admittedly, but it is important that that infrastructure investment take place. I hope that in future years a significant investment will occur.

I also recognise that in the last two months I have had investment occur in my CFS. The Balaklava and Hamley Bridge brigades have gleefully reported back to me that work has commenced on their new structures, and that is wonderful for those communities, because these are volunteer people who come together and have done so in many cases for a lot of years. I attended a function at Balaklava probably six weeks ago: a dinner in recognition of people who have given 10, 20, 30 and, in one case, 40 years service to the CFS. It is wonderful that not only is their effort recognised, along with that of their partners, who are also important contributors, but also indeed that the CFS is investing, with state funds and with emergency services levy dollars, in the infrastructure required for that.

There is a significant need to invest in all our communities, because we all want where we live to become great places. They are, in many instances, tremendous communities, but there is always a need for an investment to occur. Now, $15.05 billion creates a tremendous opportunity for the expenditure of funds in appropriate areas that allows not only the economy of our great state to move forward but, importantly, for the social needs of our communities to be met.

Social needs form a variety of issues: the hospitals, the roads, the water network, the telephone, the broadband connections, the schools, the kindergartens—everything comes into that. Like many members of parliament, we are constantly contacted in our electorate office about the needs of a particular sector or person in a community who want a lot more things to happen. It is important that we do that, and $15.05 billion has to be spent appropriately. There are tremendous competing demands.

I take some heed from the words of the Treasurer when he made his second contribution to this bill this morning—and I might be mixing the words up a bit—that, basically, community expectations will never be able to be met within the resources of government. Regrettably, I have to go by that principle, too, because there will never be a willingness to pay the taxation required to ensure that everything the community wants, in every possible way, can be met. That is why governments are faced with difficult decisions.

I think it was very unfair of the member for Light to say that the Liberal Party did not present an alternative vision. It was clear to us on this side of the chamber that, in the period approaching 20 March, that vision was well and truly put to the people of South Australia. Isobel Redmond—the member for Heysen and the Leader of the Opposition—managed to connect with the community of South Australia in such a way that it frightened the life out of Labor. In that last week, they were very desperate for anything. Isobel, through sheer effort and will, made South Australians believe that there was an alternative.

We all feel frustrated—and certainly many people who not only supported us but those who believe in the principles of democracy—that, with 51.6 per cent of the two-party preferred vote going to the Liberal Party, we were unable to form government. I have to reflect upon the fact that democracy gets it right, but our job over the next three years and nine months is to ensure that the government is held to account in every possible area. That is why the Supply Bill debate has been an important one.

We are talking about $5.22 billion out of a budget that will probably exceed $15.5 billion. It will no doubt have challenges, but it is important that every one of those dollars that come out of the pockets of Australian residents—and a lot of borrowings by the sound of it when it comes from federal money—is spent in the most appropriate way. That is why debate has to occur.

The Supply Bill debate is an opportunity for members on this side of the chamber to ensure that the real gaps in service delivery and infrastructure delivery that exist in our communities are brought first and foremost to the attention of the government, to the ministers and to this house. This is the place for that debate to occur. We try to have meetings one on one and we try to put issues forward but, in opposition, you are very much left on the outside, without being given a real opportunity to put issues before the people. Parliament provides that, because it is a forum in which every word that is said can be reviewed, and let us hope that it is, because we need that investment to occur.

The member for West Torrens (the Minister for Small Business) today talked about initiatives that are being created for small business, and I commend him on that. Small business is clearly one of the important drivers of the economy of South Australia. It has faced a lot of challenges in the last two years, especially with the global financial crisis. These people are working as desperately as they can to ensure their profitability so that they can provide for their own families and, indeed, ensure the continued employment opportunities for their very dedicated and loyal employees and their families. We need to ensure that the policies of government—and I will talk about this constantly—actually support business enterprise and effort.

When we have taxation policies in place or overly harsh levels of regulation that create tremendous imposts on businesses of all levels, but importantly for small business, where quite often there are only a couple of people who work 80 to 90 hours per week, these people need an enormous amount of support. So, I hope that the Minister for Small Business considers the needs of those people who work very hard to ensure in their own way the economic viability of the community and the business that they operate, as well as the community of South Australia and the community of our nation. We need to make sure that we get it right.

Finally, I want to comment briefly on a driver awareness seminar at Two Wells about three weeks ago. It was supported by the Motor Accident Commission, I believe. It was a tremendous function and I learnt an enormous amount from it. There were probably about 40 young people in attendance, and it was hard not to become emotional when hearing stories about the impact that car accidents have had on them. I commend the government on its support.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:44): The Supply Bill is providing $5 billion to keep the government going through until the budget is delivered. One of the important groups that will benefit from that continued supply is, of course, our Country Fire Service. As a member with a number of CFS brigades in my electorate, I am very proud of them, and I know that a number of others are, too. I see that the member for Finniss, the former presiding member of the CFS board, is in the chamber, and I know that the member for Goyder has very strong CFS communities in his electorate and that he works very hard for them.

With the budget still some months away, this is an excellent opportunity to talk about a few issues that relate to the Country Fire Service that I think the Treasurer would do well to take on board. I particularly draw his attention to a wonderful document entitled 'Emergency Services: Creating a Safer Community through Effective Emergency Services', authored by the member for Kavel. During the South Australian election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Kavel put together an excellent document and a set of policies that, I think, would benefit the Country Fire Service—particularly through increased emphasis on support for volunteers in the CFS.

The first point was that a state Liberal government would provide an additional $13 million over four years to the CFS and SES to provide additional front-line resources for the protection of our community. It would also maintain the CFS, MFS and SES as three distinct services, and, importantly, ensure that SAFECOM focuses on coordination and support and does not usurp control of the operational agencies or undermine their distinct roles.

I note the presence in the gallery today of the Liberal candidate for Adelaide in the upcoming federal election, Luke Westley. I congratulate Luke on attaining that position and, in particular, given that before the end of the year Luke will go to Canberra to represent the people of Adelaide, I draw Luke's and our federal representatives' attention to a further issue in the Liberal Party's emergency services policy; that is, we would seek to lobby the commonwealth government to allow out-of-pocket expenses as a tax deduction for emergency services volunteers. I commend that policy to Luke and to the commonwealth government. It is certainly something that I believe the government would do well to support.

The Country Fire Service exists because of its volunteers, and the work of those CFS volunteers keeps many country communities alive in all sorts of disastrous situations. To reflect a little on the history of the Country Fire Service, it is a very proud history and one of significant change. It started off with farmers and rural residents in regional areas forming ad hoc firefighting groups, and it has now developed into a significant organisation which benefits from a lot of volunteer and community work. If the state government had to pay for everything that the CFS does, it would cost a great deal more than the $57.9 million that the emergency services levy provides, so we have a lot for which to be grateful.

Originally, of course, councils were responsible for the equipment and appliances of the CFS' predecessor organisation, the EFS. I am informed that back then the knapsacks they had—effectively, glorified water pistols—were the main firefighting tools used. They say that things were tough back then; that saying is heard often, but as far as our country firefighters are concerned that could not be closer to the truth. The risk from fire has not changed, but thankfully some of the equipment has. Those pioneers, ill-equipped as they were, did their part for their communities with great courage.

Today we have a bit more bounty in our society so we must ensure that our volunteers are suitably equipped and resourced as they go about their important work. In South Australia we benefit from 15,000 volunteers doing as their predecessors did and, when called upon, they drop what they are doing, whatever it may be. They leave work, they are disturbed in the middle of the night, and they protect their community.

No longer do the volunteers listen for fire sirens to be called to action. Pagers do that job now, and they may chime at any time—rain, hail or shine. Volunteers respond immediately. It can happen in the middle of the night, as we saw in Athelstone last year in December, when Black Hill went up. The Black Hill fire, at about two in the morning, highlighted an issue that may not have been anticipated in relation to the turning off of sirens. While the existence of the sirens might, in the first place, have been a call to arms for the local brigade to come to help, there was also a secondary function of the siren that clearly was important in a case like this: the sirens serve as a warning to the local community that there is a fire in the area. That was why it was very important, as part of the Liberal party's policy for the election, that it have a distinct policy of turning the sirens back on where they had been turned off, and of building new sirens where they need to be built. I urge the government to take that up.

At Athelstone, the Black Hill fire in the middle of the night came to within 20 metres of some suburban backyards. The fact is that residents were sleeping inside and got the shock of their lives when they woke up the next day to find that there had been a fire 20 metres away. Thanks to the great work of the CFS volunteers who answered the call of their pagers (and I am proud that one of my staff members is a member of the Norton Summit/Ashton brigade, one of the local brigades which worked so hard on that fire; congratulations to Scott Kennedy), there was no loss because of that fire.

It is not surprising that the local community wants a siren, given those sorts of circumstances. The East Torrens Messenger conducted a poll which, I think, for one of these polls, had a very high response rate. A total of 380 people voted, of whom 83 per cent were calling for the siren to be reinstated for the first time since it was turned off. This is not as simple as just flicking a switch and turning on a siren because, with the way that housing has been built up in that area, the siren is currently pointing into somebody's backyard. They would get the shock of their lives if it was turned on on Saturday morning.

However, there is ample scope to work with the Campbelltown Council and also the Athelstone CFS in particular. Its Captain, Eero Haatainen, and the Deputy Chairman of their Management Committee, Mr Peter Monkhouse, and other members of their committee have been working hard. They have identified some suitable sites where the new siren could be built. One at Wadmore Park is, I believe, favoured and suggested by the council. The DEH also has a site at the top of Addison Avenue which could be appropriate. For a very insignificant cost, I think we could set a lot of people's fears at rest, and this would provide an excellent safety measure for the people of the Athelstone community.

The correspondence I have had with the Minister for Emergency Services on this has been helpful. To start with, the minister seemed to want to move the station entirely, which had not been sought by the council nor the local CFS brigade. On my informing him of that he has now written back to me saying that the CFS is currently undertaking an audit of fire sirens across the state. The fact is that the former member for Morialta promised her electorate, which is now my electorate, that this would be sorted out immediately after the election. I now seek the government's assurance, and I hope that the Minister for Emergency Services and the Treasurer will deliver this very minor sum so that the Athelstone community can have their fire siren, as they deserve.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I suggest the member for Finniss and the member for Croydon go outside if they want to have a conversation and let the member speak in silence.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you for your protection, Madam Speaker. It is of some concern, more broadly, that the average age of a CFS volunteer today is 51, and that is rising. Over the last eight years of the Labor government, some 2,000 volunteers have been lost and not replaced. We have gone from 17,000 to 15,000 in South Australia and, if something is not done soon to make volunteering more attractive to young people, then areas of the state will be at risk because of the lack of service here.

Living in a fire danger zone myself, in Rostrevor, it pleases me to know that many of the CFS brigades in my electorate, including Athelstone, Basket Range, Cherryville, Montacute and the Norton Summit/Ashton Brigade, are young and vibrant and have many younger members. The Athelstone CFS sometimes has to turn away potential volunteers because it has become so popular. However, in saying that, I pay great tribute to the earlier generations who are still there to watch over the new, young ones and share their experience. I pay particular credit to Sandy Taylor of the Norton Summit/Ashton Brigade who recently celebrated 50 years service and who was awarded an Australian Fire Service Medal. Congratulations to Sandy, and thank you for the work of all of our CFS volunteers across South Australia.


[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill]


Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:54): I appreciate the support of the minister in giving me the extra five minutes after six o'clock. I rise to support the Supply Bill and raise a few issues pertinent to the state and also to my electorate. When I was up in my office, I heard a member speaking down in the chamber just a while ago, talking about driving and road accidents. I would like to put forward my support for, hopefully, some budget funds for driver training.

I have down in my electorate a gentleman called Bill Jerram at Mount Compass. Bill is a retired school teacher, who very tragically lost his teenage daughter some years ago in a motor vehicle accident, and he has done everything possible since then to educate children. He has a great proposal for driver training in schools, and I think it is out of ideas such as Mr Jerram's that we get things proven out in the field. So, yes, I do support that.

I know this whole subject of driver education and the age at which people drive encourages some discussion. I am probably fortunate that I started driving around the paddocks when I was about seven years old, like many of the country members. One member told me today that they used to steer the vehicle while their father fed out hay on the back. We did these things because we had to do them; that is just the way of country life.

I find many of the younger drivers quite responsible. Unfortunately, those in the minority who are irresponsible make it difficult for everybody else. I see plenty of older drivers around who are far more dangerous on the road than some of the younger drivers. However, when we have the hoon drivers out doing foolish things and something tragic happens, as it did a week or two ago, it then becomes headline news. We can regulate all we like but we will never stop stupidity. We can pass as many laws in this place as we like but we will never stop stupidity. So, I support funding for that area.

I also want to briefly comment on the BER funding that has gone into schools across Australia, in particular, South Australia and what is happening there, with the state attempting to rip money out of the federal BER funding to do jobs that should be funded by the state. In particular, I am talking about my area at the moment and I refer to the Yankalilla Area School, which has had to find $103,000 out of its BER funding to put in firefighting tanks.

I point out that we are becoming bureaucratically crazy in this nation, for example, when you have a local CFS brigade that says, 'No, they don't need it', when you have a mains system that goes through, when you are identified as a high risk area and sometimes you query how high that risk is, but then centralist bureaucrats step in and say that, no, you have to have these things. It just makes people shake their head in disbelief. It has happened at Yankalilla and it is now happening at the Parndana campus on Kangaroo Island where they are finding that they have to put $60,000 of their BER funding into providing tanks and additional firefighting components. I point out that they also have mains water.

We have lost touch with reality in this nation about how we can do things. Of course, we have to take appropriate measures to protect our communities, our children in schools and everyone else. However, we are going to ridiculous lengths, in my view, and putting additional costs on the taxpayers to do things that you seriously have to doubt sometimes.

I now turn to the subject of tourism in South Australia and tourism funding. Like many other departments, my understanding is that under the Sustainable Budget Commission, the tourism budget is about to be given a savage cut. Just recently, we had the Australian Tourism Exchange in South Australia, which is a major showcase for Australian tourism. We were very fortunate to get it in South Australia, and it was very well done. I commend the South Australian Tourism Commission on its presentation at the ATE and its South Australian display, the way it fronted up and the way it carried out the whole ATE.

I was fortunate enough to go through there one day when the ATE was on, and I was fortunate enough also to attend a function one night where I dined with buyers from the United States and New Zealand. I had the opportunity to have a lot of discussion with some of those people. It is a great thing.

However, just being perfectly parochial and talking about my electorate, the Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island, we have two marketing bodies as regions in the state. The Fleurieu Tourism Board marketing body is chaired very capably by Lucy Willson of Bremerton wine fame, who has been there for some years, who does an excellent and outstanding job in promoting the Fleurieu. We had this bizarre nonsense about changing the name in the lead up to the election, and it has caused a great deal of angst in the tourism fraternity during the last few months. I believe I am correct in saying that it has referred to Fleurieu Tourism—

Mr Pederick: Has it?

Mr PENGILLY: That is my understanding, and so it damned well should have, quite frankly. It never should have changed. It was another plot to try to salvage the political career of the member for Mawson, to change its name. We have all the respect in the world for McLaren Vale wineries, Southern Vale wineries, but it is Fleurieu Tourism that markets the Fleurieu, and that is the brand name that goes around the world. South Australia, in its own right, is recognised as a major wine region.

This Friday night the tourism awards for Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island are being held at Currency Creek. Unfortunately, I cannot attend due to a commitment to attend a Rotary changeover dinner, and I am sure other members in this place will be doing similar sorts of things; but it will be a great night. The shadow minister for tourism, the Hon. Terry Stephens, is representing me. I am unsure whether the member for Hammond is attending.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I hear voices from the back bench, from the extinct attorney-general. I can hear it.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Of blessed memory!

Mr PENGILLY: Of blessed memory—who, whilst in government for eight years, still failed to get Barton Terrace West open.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Watch this space.

Mr PENGILLY: 'Watch this space', he says. We'll watch this space, but he is consigned to the back bench. I do not know what he is doing while he is back there, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I reckon he is creating chaos.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: He's keeping the bastards honest.

Mr PENGILLY: He is too; that's exactly what he's doing. It was a perfect delight to read what the former attorney-general had to say about the government and where its priorities are. Now, I am sure other members in this place picked up on it, and we were absolutely delighted to hear about it. I do not know what else he plans to do over the course of the next four years, but, my word, he will be creating maximum mayhem in the Labor Party. I reckon the knives are out with the cloak and dagger stuff. He will be cycling between—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Whoa! Hang on, member for Finniss! There's a bit of excitement here. Point of order. Let's all calm down to my left.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Madam Deputy Speaker, is there any requirement on the human vuvuzela opposite to be relevant to the bill before the house, or are there no boundaries of relevance?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, this is a very interesting point you raise, member for Croydon. I am noting the time and you will get your time, member for Finniss, don't worry. No taxation without representation, I believe, is what is called upon here, and we are discussing a supply bill and, as a result, whether we all like it or not, the member for Finniss can pretty much say what he likes.

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you very much for your ruling. It is highly relevant of the former attorney-general to raise it. Indeed, in talking about the priorities, he is implying that the money being spent by the Rann government should be going to health, education, schools, and so on; so, he is, as the member for Waite said, keeping the bastards honest. I look forward to seeing him pedalling around—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me—point of order from me: I know that it is a very famous quote, of course, member for Finniss, but I do not think we are going to chat about the 'bastards' because that is unparliamentary language.

Mr PENGILLY: Well, the sods then, Madam Deputy Speaker, and in this case the sods are the members of his own side. What you are going to see is the former attorney-general pedalling around between—

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Of blessed memory!

Mr PENGILLY: Of blessed memory—pedalling between electorate offices on his pushbike, encouraging all his members to not only get rid of the current trio running the state but to put the money in the right place. Have I run out of time?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fully; you have run out of time and you are taking up the time of the member for Waite.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (18:05): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to rescue the house from my colleague and friend the member for Finniss and bring the house to the question of the government's investment in defence. I do so with a particular emphasis on plans to build future submarines here in the state. During the election campaign, the Premier was out there promising that at least $30 billion would be spent on the submarine project and implying that that investment would be spent here in this state. Recent revelations in Canberra have shown us that investment could be as little as $9 billion.

It was in the Rudd government's 2009 Defence White Paper that there were indications that the government intended to:

...acquire 12 new Future Submarines, to be assembled in South Australia. This will be a major design and construction program spanning three decades, and will be Australia's largest ever single defence project.

Sadly, the Defence White Paper did not put a dollar figure on the total spend required to build the submarines, but, as I mentioned a moment ago, that did not prevent the Premier from claiming in his election policy that he had secured the project for South Australia—he himself—at an estimated value of $30 billion.

I regret to inform the house the defence estimates hearings in Canberra have led to revelations that the Rudd Government may now be looking at off-the-shelf purchases of new submarines from up to four foreign submarine builders, raising questions about Australian content and participation. Evidence given by senior defence officials in Canberra confirmed that the Rudd Labor government is dealing with companies in Germany, Sweden, Spain and France for early design work. I note the following statement on page 6 of the 2009 Defence Capability Plan:

While Australia will not design a submarine from scratch, the ability to adapt an overseas design, or utilise 'best of breed' technologies to meet Australian requirements will be critical to the development of an effective submarine capability. There is also a repair and maintenance capability to maintain operational availability of submarines and to undertake some selected upgrade, overhaul and rebuild activities.

I recall in 1990 that it fell to me as a lieutenant colonel in headquarters Special Forces to walk from G Block of Russell Offices in Canberra to the RAN's Collins class submarine project office to coordinate Special Forces capability needs in their vessel. I must say that I was very impressed with what I saw.

Here was a bold and significant defence project that pushed us towards the 21st century. We had taken a leap of faith. Such endeavours do not unfold without trials and challenges; so it was with the Collins class submarines. There were problems, but, in the end, as a nation we have created a first-class capability.

The Rudd Labor Government must now ensure that we build on this success with the 12 new submarines envisaged in the SEA 1000 Project, which, as I mentioned, forms part of the 2009 Defence White Paper. Members may be interested to note that there has been a considerable amount of discussion on this in recent weeks through the work of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and its papers under the name of 'Strategic Insight' by Sean Costello and Andrew Davies. They note that the project could include up to $36 billion worth of submarines if we design and build our own vessel, or as little as $9 billion if we buy a less capable off-the-shelf submarine from an overseas supplier.

There are already signs that the Rudd Labor government is getting cold feet and looking for soft options on the submarine project. Is this because the money and the surplus we once enjoyed has been spent many times over by this reckless federal Labor government, or is it that after a series of recent bungles, from home insulation to the BER project, the government is becoming risk averse?

It is worth noting that the government has three possible pathways forward. Firstly, it could purchase a submarine from overseas for fit-out in Australia, as has occurred with the LHD project, that is, the helicopter capable ship. Secondly, the government could buy an off-the-shelf design for production in Australia under licence with limited modifications, as has occurred with the air warfare destroyer program, where we went for the Navantia design ahead of the modified Arleigh Burke design that had a higher degree of Australian design content. Thirdly, the government could significantly modify and redesign either the Collins class submarine, though there are some intellectual property issues linked to that, or another overseas submarine design to produce a new Australian vessel.

The first of these options would be the least expensive for the commonwealth but would offer the least benefit to Australian, and therefore South Australian, industry. The last of these options would be the most expensive for the commonwealth, offering the best prospect of Australian involvement. Ultimately, the final decision will rest with the commonwealth, but I say to the Rann Labor government and to the Treasurer that it is a decision in which the state government should participate—and, indeed, a decision which may need to be taken to COAG—for there are both risks and opportunities.

Economist Henry Ergas recently argued in an ASPI Special Report in favour of off-the-shelf buys from overseas. Ergas, whose views I regard very strongly and respect enormously, in this case dismisses the benefits of the Australian design and build which include capability and infrastructure development, self-reliance in time of conflict, and workforce and taxation benefits to broader economic growth. I disagree with his views on the submarine project.

Sooner or later, Australia needs to stand up in areas other than mining and primary production. With a manufacturing sector under challenge from emerging economies, the pathway to success is through science, innovation and entrepreneurship. If European nations can establish and maintain first class shipbuilding design capabilities, then why can't we?

The first thing Australia needs from its 12 new submarines is a war fighting capability so that the RAN can defend us and our interests. The second thing we need from the SEA 1000 project is a good old-fashioned dose of nation building. How could any Australian government commit so many billions of taxpayers' dollars on such a project without maximising the benefits across the Australian economy for the long term so that Australian workers, Australian business and Australian families benefit?

The expensive part of modern warships is the smart technology on board, and it is here that the SEA 1000 project may prove to be the foundation upon which a smart naval shipbuilding super highway can be built right here. We must ensure that the Defence, Science and Technology Organisation, our universities, our centres of excellence and Australian industry are fully engaged with this project and leverage opportunities for growth from it. This has particular implications for the ASC in Adelaide and for companies in other states that form part of the consortia that build vessels.

It makes sound strategic sense that we further develop our collaboration with the United States on naval ship design because that is where the science and technology originates, particularly for war fighting systems which are the expensive part of any build. It also deals with security of information best managed on a nation-to-nation basis. A good start would be for us to look beyond the Defence White Paper to the third generation of submarines.

We last built a Collins-class submarine in 2001. The first of the SEA1000 vessels will roll off the line in 2022. The 21-year gap has been unfortunate. We should roll out the SEA1000 submarines over a period of time that enables a third generation of submarines to be built as follow-on for the CEA1000 vessels. In this way we can provide deal flow for industry and a sustainable future.

It is my view that the Rudd Labor government, as openly contemplated in defence estimates in recent days, should not wimp out by failing to invest in designing and building our own submarine rather than buy purely off the shelf. We have an opportunity here. Labor governments both federal and state must pursue it. It is a test of our resolve as a nation to think big.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (18:16): I rise to add a further contribution to the Supply Bill and to comment further on the water—or lack of it—for this state. I refer briefly to the recent floods on the Darling River earlier this year. We had one around Christmas time and one a bit later than that. The second flood was record flooding and exemplified how the northern Murray-Darling Basin is so mismanaged. There is mismanagement in the southern Murray-Darling Basin, but there is massive mismanagement in the north.

While we have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority trying to work out sustainable diversion limits in getting environmental flows through to the Murray mouth, how can we get accurate data when we have such a valuable asset that we do not measure? In these northern flood plains, it is flood plain harvested and captured by major irrigation groups with no real accountability for that water. In fact, with the first flood we had the initial amounts of water that were to flow past the Menindee Lakes, because the first two lakes were to fill up, because they are the only ones that have been operating for the last eight years—until recently. There was a great carry-on that the Premier had negotiated extra water to come past. That water was to come past the top two Menindee Lakes—Lakes Wetherell and Pamamaroo—anyway.

So that was a furphy for a start with all the talk about what water we would get down. New South Wales did not want the shared water resource to get up to the limit where it would have to come under tri-state controls through New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, with the 640 gigalitre limit where they would have to open another lake. What happened with the second flood? Instead of managing it better we had a great wasted opportunity where more water could have been sent down earlier. There is a certain limit—I think about 20 gigalitres a day—and if more than that goes down it floods out on the anabranch and out on the flood plain below Menindee and there are some losses.

The sad thing is that we have also had eight years where the bottom two lakes—Lakes Menindee and Cawndilla—could have been re-engineered to make more water savings. Money was made available under the Howard government—$400 million—to re-engineer the lakes, and we had Penny Wong coming out the other day saying that she had done a report worth multi-millions of dollars. That is really handy! Now we have put hundreds of gigalitres of water into these two lakes and there will be hundreds of gigalitres of dead water, and we have lost a real opportunity to manage our water in this part of the Murray-Darling Basin. We will get a share of that water, but so much will be dead water and dead storage that we cannot get out. The opportunity to redesign the lakes, cut a channel back to the Darling from Lake Cawndilla—the bottom of those four lake systems—and put a weir between Lake Menindee and Lake Cawndilla has been lost for now.

I was very pleased that the Broken Hill city council invited several members, including the deputy leader from the other place, the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the member for Chaffey and me, and we had very good dialogue. A real opportunity was lost there. So, there needs to be a lot more work done right throughout the system. This affects the irrigation sector and the critical needs sector right throughout South Australia, and especially my electorate. We have lost whole irrigation sectors down at Meningie and Narrung; they have run out of water. People are trying to work out the sustainable diversion limits that will come in and whether or not they get rid of water now.

I believe that the federal government is unfairly forcing the price of water down and it is making life very hard for people in the agricultural scene who are stressed out. I have mentioned before in this place the issues with mice and locusts and that this will need further management. The government needs to get further involved in these issues and get on with the job.

As far as water is concerned, another issue that has come up recently is the proposed dry-dock at Mannum which, sadly, the federal government has not funded. It is a project worth nearly $2.5 million. I call on the state government to get on board and get on with this project so that we can help save and make the tourism industry prosper in South Australia. We have four vessels along that stretch of river that contribute $125 million to the economy of the Murraylands. We have had no proactive action from the federal government, so the state government needs to come in and foot the bill so these boats can be dry-docked and surveyed so they can get on with the job.

Mr Venning: Hear, hear!

Mr PEDERICK: I note the voice from the background of the member for Schubert. There are massive issues moving forward. I note that I have limited time, but the mining super profits tax threatens all the mining in South Australia, not just the 20 billion-dollar expansion at Olympic Dam but also the $20 billion of further mining investment elsewhere.

We have seen the health minister do a backflip today when talking about bringing services closer to country members. I have heard the minister say previously in this house when the Labor Party was trying to get the original country health plan through that 90 minutes from a hospital was close enough. We saw the outrage with that proposal from country people, and rightly so.

We have issues with fisheries and marine parks. The government is trying in a backhanded way to manage fisheries with marine park legislation which needs far more thought and input before we have a workable solution. We see issues with the federal government and its Building the Education Revolution. It has been out of control with its funding. If the federal government had put the money into private schools, it would have been able to get full value for the dollar. It could have built decent venues with its BER money but, sadly, public schools have been shafted by state education departments basically charging double for gymnasiums or, in some cases, three quarters, when they could have built quite a structure for the very same amount.

In winding up, I just want to make a quick point about natural resources management. I am very concerned about the money that is spent on administration. I note the ad that was in this week's Advertiser for the rent on the natural resource centre in Murray Bridge. It has a yield of $312,766 a year in rent. That is not bad for an office, and there is no personal reflection on anyone who works there. There is a lot of work that goes into administration there, and I think it is outrageous that we have to pay that much rent for that many people. I wonder how much money really hits the ground in worthwhile projects. It has become another huge bureaucracy under this government. We do have to manage our natural resources, but I think there are far better ways to do it.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the 20 years that the member for Schubert has been in this place. I have worked with him for over four years. When I came into this place, I was offered the job of deputy whip. I had a great time working with the whip at the time (the member for Schubert) for 2½ years. We had a very good working relationship. He was my mentor, and I was pleased to have the opportunity of taking on the Whip's role in this new parliament and having the member for Schubert help to guide me a lot at times. I really appreciate that.

I spoke about the former member for Stuart, the Hon. Graham Gunn, when he left this place after nearly 40 years, and the member for Schubert has given 20 years service and will have nearly four more years. I congratulate him on his service and wish him well for the future.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would like to add my congratulations to the member for Schubert, an august member of this house. Here for 20 years, but only 64—not 70 as some have suggested.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Federal/State Relations, Minister for Defence Industries) (18:26): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 18:27 the house adjourned until Thursday 24 June 2010 at 10:30.

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