HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL 2012

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 March 2012.)

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (16:33): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this issue, the Supply Bill. The Supply Bill gives the government the opportunity to obtain the money it needs to provide services until the budget proper is brought down and adopted through the correct procedures in the house. It also gives the government the opportunity to correct some of the errors that are occurring within the budget and within the economy more broadly. I wish to speak in relation to where the supply should be directed to try to correct areas that are issues for the state to address. Since the last budget things have only got worse—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Of course they have, says the member for Croydon; I will get that on the record.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, the member for Croydon—

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order! The member will be heard in silence.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I said it, the member for Croydon repeated it, and I am glad to have that on the record. The reality is that since the last budget things have got worse. The deficit is worse, the debt is worse, the amount of interest we pay as a state is worse, taxes are worse, costs to households are worse, costs to business are worse, red tape on business is worse, the economic performance of the state is worse. So, the state government needs to address its attention to these areas when it gets the Supply Bill through because it needs to explain to the people of South Australia why the South Australian economy is struggling in so many areas and why the budget is in such bad shape after 10 years of Labor government.

Let us just walk through it. With the budget deficit, they are talking about five deficits in six years. In 2008-09 the deficit was $233 million. In 2009-10, there was a surplus of $187 million—that was the election year—and it is interesting to see that the only surplus that they could deliver in this six-year period happened to coincide conveniently with the state election. In the financial year 2010-11, a $53 million deficit; in the financial year 2011-12, a $367 million deficit; and projected deficits in the next financial year 2012-13 of $453 million and the year after that in 2013-14 of $348 million.

We know that minister O'Brien has already put on the public record that the government is borrowing money to pay Public Service wages and that is simply unsustainable. Those are the words of minister O'Brien. What we have here in reality is a deficit. If you add up the deficits, it is about $1.4 billion over that six-year period. This is simply in the operational side of the budget—not the capital works side of the budget—so this government is running operational deficits in five years out of six, and it is borrowing money to pay Public Service wages over that time and, as a result, debt will ultimately increase.

We have a treasurer who is facing the stark reality of not being able to deliver a surplus at all, in any of his budgets since he took the office, until the election. We have a treasurer who is going to go to the election saying that he is not capable of delivering a surplus—that is the reality of his own budget papers. This from a treasurer who waltzed in and said in his budget speech that he did not want to run up a credit card debt and, yet, five out of six of those budgets are running operational deficits.

Every business knows, and every family knows, that if you continue to spend more than you earn then your debt increases, and that is exactly what is happening in South Australia. Not only are we running budget deficits in five out of six years but our debt is increasing. In the financial year 2007-08, the debt was $1.6 billion. By the time of the financial year 2015-16, when the new RAH comes on board—as one of my local constituents said in the pub the other day, 'The RAH is the Rann and Hill hospital'—and comes onto the books, there will be an extra $2.8 billion added onto the debt, and at that point the state debt will be around $11.2 billion. It would have gone up from $1.6 billion to $11.2 billion over that period from 2007-08 to the year 2015-16.

Incredibly, the debt increases regardless of selling the forests and regardless of selling the Lotteries Commission. So, after the state gets the revenue (whatever that figure may be) from selling the forest; and, after we get the revenue (whatever that figure will be) for selling the Lotteries Commission, the state debt continues to climb. What the government is doing—and I would expect, and I will be interested to see—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: When did Lucas run a surplus? What year was that?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Croydon has been here since 1989 and I am staggered he does not know how to read a budget paper yet. If he wants to see the performance of past budgets, go the budget papers and read them. The reality is that, after selling the Lotteries Commission and the forests, debt will continue to increase.

It will be interesting to see, when you add together the amount we get in revenue from the sale of the forests and the Lotteries Commission, whether that adds up to the level of deficit the government has been running over the last five out of those six years. It will be interesting to see whether the revenue figures even cover the deficit. The reality is that what we have is a government that is running budget deficits and increasing our debt.

Of course, they are selling assets when they promised they would not. We all remember the Mike Rann pledge card: 'No more privatisations'. What is the government doing? It is privatising the forests and it is privatising the Lotteries Commission, and after privatising the forests and the Lotteries Commission the debt still manages to go up. We have a government that is running budget deficits, increasing our debt and breaking its promises.

Does that sound familiar? Fancy that: a Labor government (anywhere in Australia) running deficits, running debts and breaking promises. The Queensland government had a $85 billion debt, a $2.1 billion deficit in one year and the occasional broken promise. If you go to the Gillard and Rudd governments, they took the John Howard Future Fund with something like $100 billion or whatever it was—I cannot remember the exact figure, but I think it was around $100 billion.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, billion. Ultimately, through the mismanagement of their insulation programs and their school hall programs, which were poorly managed, there was a huge debt run-up. There was the broken promise about the carbon tax and we are running budget deficits. There is speculation federally: can Wayne Swan actually deliver a budget surplus? There is all this speculation.

There is a pattern with Labor governments: they run budget deficits, they grow your debt and they mislead the public. When you run budget deficits and when your debt goes up, one thing is certain: you have to pay more interest, and the South Australian public are paying more interest. The state paid $290 million of interest in 2008-09. It is now predicted to pay $705 million in the 2014-15 year. That is before the $2.8 billion debt goes on-stream for the hospital, but in the 2014-15 year there will be $705 million in interest payments.

That does not include over $400 million of interest paid to top up the superannuation scheme, which is totally underfunded to the tune of about $10 billion. It will not be fully funded until the year 2034, and I will make some more comments about that later in this address. The $705 million does not include that $400 million in regard to superannuation interest.

If you run budget deficits and you increase the debt, your interest payments go up and guess what happens? The state government has to get its money from somewhere, so it increases taxes and charges. There have been at least three and possibly four independent reports done into state taxation, and there is one consistent theme: that South Australian taxes are the highest in Australia. The state government taxes our population and businesses at a more aggressive level than other states.

For instance, land tax in South Australia is charged at 40 per cent above the Australian average. That concerns the opposition. The Property Council say that the land tax is so high that property developers control their release of developments around the land tax implications, which constricts land supply, and a constriction of land supply drives up house prices. That was in a report released in the last six to eight weeks. We know that land tax is a problem. We moved in the Economic and Finance Committee for an investigation into land tax, to have a look at it, and the reality is that the government used its numbers to quash the enquiry. They did not want to have a look at land tax. They did not want to have a look at land tax for their own reasons, but we know that it is charged at 40 per cent above the Australian average.

Insurance tax in Australia is charged at 53 per cent of the Australian average. It is interesting because there is this national debate about the national disability scheme and how we can better service those who are unfortunately in the disabled community, how we can better help them, and that is a good debate to have. However, it was this government that had a court case fall in its favour. Ultimately it means they can charge stamp duties on disability insurance (they are called life riders). In actual fact, disability insurance has become more expensive as a result, which means that fewer people take it out, which exposes more people to financially difficult circumstances if they happen to fall into that category, which we obviously hope they do not.

Stamp duty is charged in South Australia at 27 per cent above the Australian average. This is what happens when governments run deficit budgets, when debt increases, where the interest payment increases and, guess what? Taxes and charges increase—exactly what has happened in South Australia. So what does that mean? It means that costs on households ultimately increase and costs on businesses increase because the government increased taxes—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Plural. The walking dictionary over there keeps correcting me, Mr Acting Speaker. The reality is that household costs continue to increase. The public only have to get out their water bill to see what we are talking about. Water bills have trebled for the average household in the last five year period. Included in that is a 40 per cent increase expected to come on 1 July. The reality is that households are hurting, and they are hurting because of high costs. The high costs go directly back to budget deficits, large government debt, interest payments increasing as a result, and taxes and charges therefore need to increase.

Then there are business costs. You wonder why the business community is struggling in South Australia. You only have to look at what this government has done to them. I have already mentioned the highest taxes in Australia—that is a given. Not only do we have the highest taxes in Australia but we also have the worst compensation scheme in Australia. WorkCover recently announced another increase in its unfunded liability, up to around $1.16 or $1.15 billion. When the Liberal Party left office it was around the $55 to $60 million level of unfunded liability. The government has come in on a number of occasions with its grand schemes to change WorkCover and it is going to fix it. The reality is that the unfunded liability is now north of $1.1 billion and not looking to come down any time soon.

They have had a decade to deal with this. It went up, and up, and up. We asked questions, we made speeches, we did all sorts of things to draw it to the government's attention, and they have simply dropped the ball. The reality is that not only are businesses in South Australia stuck with the highest taxes in Australia but they are also stuck with the worst compensation scheme in Australia, the highest WorkCover rates in Australia. Of course, the reality is that the poor old workers—this is what the scheme is all about—get the worst return to work rates in Australia.

This is not the Liberal Party's scheme; this is a scheme designed by this government that has been in office for 10 years. They have no one to blame but themselves. Then, what do they do? As if business is not suffering enough with the highest taxes in the workers compensation scheme, no, no, no, what the government is going to do is increase more costs and more complexity onto the employers, because somehow having more costs and more complexity on the employers helps employees. I do not follow that argument, but what they are doing is bringing in more complicated, more costly and more complex occupational health and safety laws.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So fewer people will be injured.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Even though—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: That would be terrible, wouldn't it?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Fewer people would be injured—that would be terrible.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Croydon says, 'Fewer people would be injured.' The member for Croydon should go and look at the figures. The reality is the number of injured workers has dropped significantly. Workplaces are safer now than they ever have been. Go and look at the record. What problem are you trying to fix? The numbers are coming down significantly—we acknowledge that on this side of the house—but you have not addressed and will not address the worst WorkCover scheme in Australia from a cost point of view.

Then they introduced more public holidays, which is an added cost and added complexity and, just to top it off, just in case the business community have not got enough problems trying to provide employment for South Australians, the government, through the federal government, is going to introduce a carbon tax. They are going to introduce a carbon tax. Everyone who has been involved in business and employing people knows that red tape and taxes increase costs. The more cost you have, the less likely you are to employ or you pass the cost on to the consumer so household cost goes up.

The poor old consumer is getting hit from both ends. They are getting hit by direct taxes from the government, whether that be through water tax or its levies, and then getting hit indirectly, because of all the taxes on the business—the land tax at 40 per cent above the Australian average, stamp duties at 27 per cent above the Australian average, insurance at 53 per cent above the Australian average. I have not mentioned payroll tax, but we all know they collect about $1 billion in payroll tax a year.

All that flows on to business costs. They pass on to the consumer what they can and, ultimately, the consumer pays a higher price for the goods. If you wonder why retail figures are so bad in South Australia, if you wonder why real estate figures are so bad in South Australia, the consumers are getting squeezed, if you like, at both ends.

Let us just talk about the economy for a second. We have gone through the deficit, we have gone through the debt, we have gone through the interest payments, the taxes and the increase in charges. What is really happening in the economy?

What this government has been able to produce after 10 years of being in government are the worst real estate figures since 1985. Even when the State Bank occurred, the real estate figures were better than now. So, this government really has some major problems within the state economy. The housing industry approvals are absolutely disastrous for the housing industry. In the retail area, the sales of goods and services are the lowest in Australia.

There was some media comment about South Australia being in recession and the poor old Treasurer, who cannot take a trick, comes out and says, 'No serious person or economist is going to say South Australian is in a recession,' other than of course, on the very next day, when Tim Colebatch and Darryl Gobbett, who have basically spent their whole lives studying economics or being economic commentators, both came out and suggested that South Australia is in a recession.

That is why South Australia ultimately has very low business confidence. The reality is the government have belted them with the highest taxes and they have belted them with the worst WorkCover scheme. They are all looking up saying, 'My God, I have got the carbon tax coming down at the end of the financial year.' We have the new public holidays, we have new occupational health and safety laws and the businesses just feel swamped. The reality is they have simply lost confidence in this government because of the way they have handled the economy and the budget.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are conceding that they once had it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry?

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are conceding that they once had confidence.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, I am not conceding that at all. They started out with a low level of confidence and it has got worse, member for Croydon. The member for Croydon should look at the latest surveys, which will show that business confidence in South Australia is the worst in Australia.

The point I make to the government is: why is the South Australian economy performing so badly compared to the rest of Australia? The government will trot out the global financial crisis back in 2008, it will trot out GST revenues, but those impacts are Australia-wide. The GST is an Australia-wide tax; the global financial crisis affected every state in Australia. Why is it that our state is going worse than other states? Part of it is that the government are very poor managers, and I will come to that in a second.

I mentioned WorkCover earlier. I want to walk through that. The reality is that the WorkCover scheme in South Australia, which is essentially another tax on payroll, is acknowledged as being the worst scheme in Australia. The government has had two or three goes at trying to fix it up.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: By whom?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The government has brought in—the poor old member for Croydon. I am happy to respond to the out of order member for Croydon's interjections because we all know that the member for Croydon has been here since 1989 and maybe his memory is not what it used to be. I think if the member for Croydon looks at the Hansard between 2002 and 2012 he will find numerous ministers coming into the house saying, 'Here is the latest set of WorkCover reform that is going to fix the scheme.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Including you.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I don't think I actually introduced any legislation to fix WorkCover. I think I did ask some questions on it, but I—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You were a member of a cabinet that did.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Not between 2002 and 2010.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, between 1989—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The poor old member for Croydon, I hope he gets help because I was not here in 1989. I was not here in 1990. I was not here in 1991. I was not here in 1992. I came in on 11 December 1993. So, unfortunately, between 1989—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Croydon should note that between 1989 and 1993 there was a Labor government and workers compensation was a basket case then as well. Then the Liberal Party came in—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And how did your reforms go?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Order!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, I'm asked a question, Mr Acting Speaker. How did our reforms go? Let me guess. I do recall sitting here very late one Thursday night, one Friday night, one Saturday morning. It was in the grand old days of the parliament when we worked all hours of the night for the best interests of South Australia, not like this part-time mob over here these days. We sat all Thursday night, all Friday night and all Saturday to get the WorkCover changes through, and they went through.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And that's what I was referring to.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Right! That's what he was referring to. I thank the member for Croydon for the interjection. If I wait long enough, he always jumps in. As a result of those changes, when we lost government in 2002, the unfunded liability was not $1.16 billion like it is now, not $1 billion, not even $900 million. It was a bit under $800 million, a lot under $700 million, it was lower than $600 million. It did not even get close to $500 million. You couldn't see $400 million. Actually it was $55 million to $60 million. Damn those Liberals! All they did was get the unfunded liability down to $55 million and $60 million. Gee, they mismanaged it—if you believe the member for Croydon's argument! The poor old Labor government has been there 10 years and the unfunded liability has gone up from about $55 million to $60 million to $1.16 billion. So I think there is a fair argument to say that the Liberal Party managed WorkCover a little bit better than the Labor Party.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Well, the figures don't lie, member for Croydon. Of course, the sad thing is that the $1.16 billion unfunded liability does not even include the public sector liability; that has to be added on. The reality is that this government has mismanaged the workers compensation scheme. Then we go to the superannuation scheme. Back in 1989 to 1993, when there was a former Labor government, and when the Liberal Party came in on 11 December 1993, one of the issues that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How many seats did you have back then?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thirty-seven. One of the issues that confronted the parliament was that the superannuation for the Public Service was unfunded. The then Liberal Party, through (I think) treasurer Baker at the time, set up a scheme so it would be fully funded by 2034. The unfunded liability in 2002 was about $3.2 billion. The unfunded liability as we speak is $10.6 billion. It has gone from $3.2 billion to $10.6 billion; just in the last year it has gone from $9 billion to $10.6 billion.

The point I make in this address is that the state has major problems with its budget. It impacts on the economy because the business community simply no longer has confidence, if they ever had confidence at all in this government. The simple reason is that the government cannot manage. If you cannot manage the little things, you struggle to manage the big things. People in business understand that. If you cannot manage the little things, then you cannot manage the big things.

How is it that the Treasurer did not even know for five months that he did not have observers on the zoo board? Did he issue instructions for the observers to be appointed? Did he follow the instructions through? Was he meant to be getting monthly reports and just did not notice he was not receiving them? How is it that a treasurer can sit there for five months thinking he had appointed observers to the board and it simply not occur?

How is it that the Minister for Transport Services is having so many problems getting the buses to run on time? There are hundreds of complaints about the simplest issue of getting a bus to run on time. We have the farcical situation where the minister stood up in the house and said, 'I can't tell you about any penalties because it is confidential.' When we asked her how it was that public servants could release the penalties, essentially she said it is confidential because the minister says so, not because it was necessarily a contractual arrangement. Then we have the bizarre situation of the minister for employment and training who cannot even buy a car without getting into trouble. One day, one press release about the new ministerial car—it was changed. The simplest thing—he cannot even buy a car.

Then we go on to bigger picture issues. We have had the government bail out the tenderers in relation to the prison PPP project. We had the payout of $5 million to Marathon Resources. We had the bailout of the Newport Quays development. These were all issues of the government's own making, and it is all taxpayers' money. The cheque has been written out, the debt is going up, the deficit is getting bigger, taxes are getting higher, household costs are going up and this government is writing out cheques to all these entities because of the government's own mismanagement. The government's mismanagement is ultimately hurting households and businesses.

The government cannot even organise the Clipsal race and a symphony concert. Can you imagine anywhere else in the world where the state leader is ringing up from the concert saying, 'Can we delay that car race, because we have had a year to plan it and we have actually put them on at the same time, so we can't hear?' My point is that it is a simple management issue.

Then, of course, some capital works projects have had problems. We all remember that famous promise with the Adelaide Oval—'$450 million, not a cent more'. Then we had the poor old member for Croydon who was so embarrassed he had to go into his caucus and move a motion to cap the expenditure that cabinet could possibly spend on the Adelaide Oval. Just to back him up we came in here and moved that the cap be $535 million. The parliament had to essentially cap the expenditure because the cabinet was so incapable of capping the expenditure.

Then we had the issue with the Royal Adelaide Hospital blowout. Before the election it was going to be $1.7 billion. We now know the debt going on the books is $2.8 billion and the cost itself is somewhere around, I think, $3 billion—these are some figures that have been used. Then we had the bizarre situation about the desalination plant. When the opposition first said we should be looking at a 50-gig desal plant—25 per cent of Adelaide's water supply—minister after minister came out and said, 'We don't need a desal plant; we can't afford a desal plant.' At that point the contractor constructing the Western Australian desalination plant would have been happy to build one in South Australia for $400 million—just $400 million.

The government said, 'No, no, no. We don't need it.' Then all of a sudden—typical of the Hawker Britton model—they did a bit of polling and, guess what? The drought was occurring and South Australians thought that maybe having a bit of reserve water might be a good idea. So all of a sudden they announced the desal plant not at $400 million but at $1.1 billion. Then they needed some pipe work with it, which was another $0.3 million. So it ended up being a $1.4 billion announcement.

Later on when they did further costings, all of a sudden—without the pipes—the desal plant itself was going to cost $1.4 billion. The pipes were just not in that particular announcement. Then later on when they decided that 50 gigalitres was not enough for a desal plant (we needed 100 gigalitres for some reason), the desal was then $1.8 billion and the pipe was $0.4 million, it ended up being a $2.2 billion project. The reason this government has problems with its budget, the reason our taxes are so high, the reason household costs are so high and that businesses are struggling is this government's management.

I have one other example. Go to the pipeline project that is being done through the metropolitan coast for pumping sand. This announcement was made because there has been a longstanding practice of trucking sand. We have a south to north drift of sand, so sand is trucked down to maintain the southern beaches. The government came up with a scheme to pump the sand down to the southern beaches. They announced the project as a 22 kilometre long pipe costing $17.6 million.

When they finally got to do the project, all of a sudden it was not 22 kilometres long, it was only nine kilometres long—so less than half its length—and the cost had gone from $17 million to $26 million. It cost nearly $10 million more and it was less than half the length. That is a classic example of mismanagement by the government.

If you want the pearler of them all, you would only have to go to everyone's favourite, Shared Services. Every time you speak to members of the Public Service about Shared Services they are just glowing—not in praise, they are scathing of Shared Services, and here it is. They were going to spend $60 million on Shared Services. They have spent nearly $130 million on Shared Services. I think it is $128 million, so $68 million more on Shared Services. Having spent $68 million more, it has delivered $100 million less savings than predicted.

This is an agency that is so incompetent that it cannot pay the phone bills of members of parliament on time. We have members of parliament who have had their phones cut off. Can you imagine that? The phones of members of parliament have been cut off because the government agency responsible for paying the bill cannot pay the bill on time. Having spent $128 million on Shared Services, they cannot pay an MP's phone bill on time.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall—this is, I think, a Yes Minister program to be made—but I wonder who the public servant was who had to go and explain to the minister responsible for Shared Services that the reason the delivery of his newspaper was cut off was because Shared Services could not pay his News' account on time. It is just unbelievable that an agency could be that bad.

Then we have the tragic circumstance of the businessman from the Mid North who was waiting five months for his money and who essentially had to close his business as a result of cash flow problems because the government agency responsible could not pay the bills on time. Then, just to add insult to injury, the brainwaves in Treasury who came up with the Shared Services concept have now decided to opt some of the functions out of Shared Services. This is the agency that set it up, and it was under Treasurer Snelling. Treasurer Snelling handballed the poison chalice to the Minister for Finance, minister O'Brien (and ultimately it was transferred to the Department of the Premier and Cabinet), and when that occurred Treasury took a decision, we understand, to withdraw some of its functions at least out of Shared Services.

If you want another example just go to the media grabs today. There is the $48 million Mike Rann film hub at the Glenside Hospital, and the biggest and most expensive production to come out of that so far is Mike Rann's going away party. It is a classic example. The member for Torrens shakes her head, but that is actually the truth as far as I understand it.

The reality is that there is a very simple story that is happening to the South Australian budget and to South Australian businesses. This government has been in 10 years; there has been a Labor administration for 10 years, and it did not control its expenditure when it should have. Its expenditure was well above its budgeted expenditure. In fact, over a 10 year period it spent about $3 billion more than it budgeted to spend. As a result, the government is now running budget deficits; five out of six years it is budgeting deficits.

When you spend more than you earn your debt goes up, and the debt is going up from about $1.6 billion to $11.2 billion. When your debt goes up you have to pay the interest, and the interest is going up from in the mid range of $200 million to over $702 million. So, how does the state government recover its interest? Through increased taxes and charges. We are the highest taxed state in Australia, and households are hurting out there in South Australia.

Remember two things about this particular government. It came to the parliament last year and said that this budget was a budget for families. How are families better off in March 2012 than they were in May or June (whatever date it was) 2011 when the budget was introduced? They have increased charges hitting them left, right and centre. The other issue is that it was the treasurer who said that he did not want to leave a credit card debt yet, by its own admission, this government is borrowing money to pay Public Service wages.

Where does all that leave us? It leaves us with our AAA credit rating under threat, despite the fact that we are the highest taxing state in Australia, despite the fact that we are selling our forestry assets that bring in about $43 million a year to the budget, despite the fact that we are selling the Lotteries Commission that brings in, I think, $80 million from memory. So, despite having all the revenue from the highest taxes in Australia, all the revenue from the sale of the forests, all the revenue from the sale of the Lotteries Commission, by the Premier's own admission the AAA credit rating is under threat.

The problem with losing the AAA credit rating is that there will be no discipline within the Public Service or the cabinet with regard to expenditure. Once you give up the issue of the AAA credit rating, trying to maintain pressure on expenditure—and this government has had enormous problems trying to control its expenditure; its budget expenditure has had an increase of about 1.6 and its real expenditure has been about 6.5 per cent—and discipline on the Public Service and on the cabinet becomes harder.

The Supply Bill gives the government the funds to operate until the budget proper is put through its processes, but if ever there is a time for a change of government, if ever there is a time for a change of direction in South Australia, it is at the 2014 election. We cannot continue to run budget deficits, we cannot continue to drive up the debt, we cannot continue to borrow money to pay Public Service wages. We cannot, as a state, continue to penalise our businesses with the worst workers compensation scheme and the highest taxes in Australia. We cannot expect our households to suffer a trebling of water prices in five years and not hurt, or for car licences and rego fees and all that to be increased significantly to cover the high taxes. That is the reality of it. We need a change of government in 2014. The opposition supports the Supply Bill, and we hope that at last the government will start to make some decisions that do something for the economy and something for the terrible budget position in which we find ourselves.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17:15): Sadly, the Supply Bill comes to the parliament after over 10 years of Labor government, which has seen the state reposition from a state in vibrant recovery to a state in decrepit decline—or certainly a budget in decrepit decline—all the doing of this Labor state government. It could have been such a different story, but I will come back to that in a moment because I think the problem is that the Labor Party has lost its way. I think we are seeing that federally. We have seen it in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and WA. Increasingly, we have a Labor Party which seems no longer to be driven by ideology or by principal, but rather simply seems to be driven by the need to remain in power, and to do whatever it takes to stay there. As a result, it has attempted to reinvent itself in whatever form is required to stay in power.

It is interesting that the party that once championed the cause of no privatisation, now privatises. The party that once stood for the working man and heralded themselves as the champions of education and health is now spending money on stadiums and big picture infrastructure projects—the sorts of things that, arguably, in previous governments they have criticised us for doing. When they were in opposition, they made an art form of criticising us for the Hindmarsh Soccer Stadium. They criticised every infrastructure project we attempted, yet they have realised that they have to build these things, and here they are doing all the things they criticised us for doing. However, I will come back to that in a moment because I think the story could have been quite different.

What was done? In 2002 the government inherited a good set of accounts. They had wrecked the state in 1993 with their State Bank farrago. It took the Brown and Olsen governments eight years to fix it. We had to make some extraordinarily tough decisions about asset sales but we got the debt virtually to zero—or it certainly zeroed shortly after the current government came into office as a result of the work we had done—and we set the state up for recovery. Having fixed the state, the people of South Australia voted for change. What they got was a government which, instead of holding its expenses to inflation, knowing that it was looking at vibrant times and buoyant revenues, simply let out its belt as quickly as it swallowed the cash. Incomes were vibrant from 2002 right through until recent years. They were awash with cash and, instead of holding their expenses down and banking that excess revenue either into a future fund or an infrastructure fund so that they could build for the future without having to borrow, they spent it.

We know that because the facts simply speak for themselves. There were buoyant revenues in those years. If you look at the facts on unbudgeted revenues alone, in one year, 2002-03, $528 million (over half a billion dollars) was taken in unforseen, unbudgeted revenues. A year later in 2003-04, there was $794 million in windfall revenue on top of what you would have expected to receive. So it went on in subsequent years, with well over half a billion dollars of unexpected revenue in most years that followed.

However, the problem was that there was a whole lot of unbudgeted spending. I mentioned 2002-03 when there was $184 million of unbudgeted spending, and in 2003-04 there was $467 million of unbudgeted spending. Kevin Foley, then treasurer, was crowing that he ran a good budget. He did not at all. This was the Labor lie. What was happening was they were not containing their costs at all. They were blowing their budget year after year, but they were being saved because on each occasion there was unbudgeted revenue.

It is easy to cover up your mismanagement when you have unbudgeted windfall revenues, and that is simply what the facts tell us. That all came to an abrupt end in around 2009-10 with the GFC, and now we have a situation where revenues are falling short of expectation. Of course, the government now is forced to have to try to rein in years and years of poor budget discipline. That is essentially the situation we are in. For those listening to this debate, it is just like running any other business: you have money coming in and you have costs. If you allow your costs to blow out, it does not matter how much money you have coming in, you will not make a profit and you will not make a surplus. That is what this government has done.

How did they do that? In a range of ways, but particularly they blew the payroll. There are over 18,000 additional public servants, hired year after year. It was around 66,900 in 2001-02 and it is well above 85,000 now, and that is FTEs. When you count the bodies, I understand it is well over 100,000 people. That has happened in a range of ways. We have 15 ministers for the first time in the state's history. That means you need more interdepartmental committees, more CEOs and more bureaucracy as they all communicate with one another. We have created all these schemes and all these projects, many of which, arguably, we never needed and which employ all these people.

Bureaucracy and Labor governments have something in common: in order to survive they need complexity and complication. However, business and Liberal governments need simplicity. We like small governments. We like to keep the costs down. We like to leave South Australians to get on with their lives, but not Labor and not the bureaucracy that they have built.

The story of the Labor government since 2002 has been one of financial mismanagement and failure to control its expenses. It was rescued initially by windfall revenues, all of which has now come to a crashing halt. It could have been a very different story. Imagine if those costs had been kept to inflation. Imagine if those extraordinary excess revenues had been put aside into an infrastructure fund. We would not need to borrow now to build roads, hospitals and desal plants because we would have the money, or at the very least the borrowing we did need to carry out would have been significantly less. However, we are not in that position because of this government's mismanagement.

For former premier Rann and former treasurer Foley to claim that they were good financial managers is simply a joke. Look just for starters at the tax increases that this state has had to endure. We have gone from being one of the lowest-taxed states to one of the highest. It has all been said before. Land tax alone is up 345 per cent under Labor—taxes across the board. The very people who were their supporters—people with an investment property, particularly from the multicultural communities, upon which they relied for their retirement, are being charged extraordinary land taxes. There are motorists. People with low incomes are struggling to pay their taxes, their water bills and their power bills. It is a terrible and shocking legacy and it simply needs to be fixed, and the only way it will be fixed is with a change of government.

As I look back over the last 10 years of Labor, as I mentioned, I see a party that has lost its way, that is no longer in touch with its core values. This is a debate that I am sure is thriving within the party after the results in Queensland just this weekend.

But worse than that, I do not see any strategic thread in the decisions this government has made over 10 years. I do not see any grand vision. In fact, I think they spent their first four years just struggling to hang on in the hope that they would get a second term. In their second term, having built or done nothing, they then started to make some announcements about what they would do if they got a third term.

Now, we are hoping to get delivery in this third term on some of those projects which, arguably, should have been under way in their first term. The trouble is that by now they have run out of money; they left it too late. Had they had those projects on their books earlier, they might not have bloated the Public Service, they might not have wasted the money, they might have run a tight ship through necessity, but that was not done.

I want to comment on some ironies as we consider this budget, and I want to start with privatisation. Isn't it an irony that the party that railed against the sale of ETSA, the party that railed against every attempt the former Liberal government made to outsource, for example, our water contracts or our bus contracts, is now doing exactly the same thing.

I commented at the time, in 2003, regarding the position of this current government on the sale of our electricity assets: why didn't you buy them back? If you were so unhappy about it, why didn't you rush out to the bank in 2003 and offer to borrow that $6 billion back so that you could run off and buy the assets back again? You never had an answer; in fact, you had the union movement suggesting that. Of course you were not going to do that because, quietly, you agreed with what we had done.

You criticised us for outsourcing the management of water infrastructure. Oh, we'd sold off our water to the French (I think it was). 'Oh, it was a terrible thing. That shocking Liberal government, selling off our water.' What have you done? You have renewed the very same contracts that you railed against. Now we have got the poor, hapless minister for public transport services trying to manage privatised bus contracts, the very thing you railed against when you were in opposition. And now what are you doing? You are not only renewing the contracts, you are diversifying the privatisation of the bus system to the point where it is simply chaos.

I do not know how members opposite can actually look at themselves in the mirror. The party that railed against privatisation—the quotes are all there in the Hansard—and they are doing exactly what they promised they would not do, and they have taken it to new heights. They are now going to sell the Lotteries Commission—even we did not do that—and they are now selling the forests. We would never dream of doing that.

You are taking privatisation to new heights, to Mount Everest levels. You people are the princes and the princesses of privatisation, and you hold yourself out there as the government for re-election. You must be joking! If you ever need an example of a party with no principles, a party that has no ideological foundation, and a party that is out of touch with working men and women, look at what they have done on privatisation.

It just amuses me extraordinarily to compare the electricity privatisation with the forest privatisation. We were forced in the end to lease our electricity assets rather than to sell them outright. And what are they doing? They are selling forward rotations of our forests and arguing that because they still own the asset it does not matter whether the rotations are sold for the next 100 years or so: we still own them. Well, that was exactly the same argument we put up about ETSA, that we still owned the assets, we had just leased them for an extended period—and that was terrible then. You people have no principles at all, none whatsoever.

Of course, that is not the only irony. Look at the current government's revelation in regard to a 'vibrant City of Adelaide'. All of a sudden, we had an outburst today that we need a new vision for the city, we need new planning rules for the city. Not only, as my honourable friend the member for Davenport noted earlier, have you come with us on desalination but you have come with us on the stadium. You railed against the stadium; it was the worst thing. We were going to have football down at West Lakes. It was never, ever going to happen, and you came in hook, line and sinker. You are the champions of a new stadium now and, frankly, it will be lovely. I am a great supporter of it. It will be wonderful. You adopted our idea and made it your own—well done! If you do not have any ideas of your own, it is always a good idea to copy the ideas of someone who does. I commend you for it and I have given several examples of how you have done it.

Now the current Premier is out there wanting to reinvigorate City West. He wants a new vision for the City of Adelaide. I can point him to the dates and the documents when I announced those very things on behalf the Liberal Party and when the Liberal Party laid claim to them. The reinvigoration of City West; our announcement that any project within the CBD over $10 million should be taken over by the state government. All of this that the current Premier is touting now about City West and a new vision for the City of Adelaide, the need to invigorate it with face to river, no longer Victoria Square, were all our ideas.

He must have been sitting over there when Pat Conlon and the former premier were describing our vision as 'a squint, not a vision' and saying in cabinet, 'Wow, this stuff the Liberals have come up with is terrific. Why don't we copy it?' Of course, now that he is Premier, he is doing exactly that. It is just the ultimate irony. I just say to the people of South Australia: why bother with a Labor government that does not have any ideas of its own and just copies the Liberals' ideas? You can have the real thing at the next election. Vote Liberal and we will give you more of that because all you have is the Labor Party copying our ideas. They have come with us on an ICAC. There is a long list.

They are wandering around there. There is sort of an empty vacuum between the left ear and the right ear. Someone is looking to flick a light switch so that a bright bulb will go pop. You know what? They have to come over here just to work out what they want to do for the future of South Australia. I can tell you the real deal is over here. We are ready to go. If you do not have ideas of your own, get out of the way. We will take over and we will fix the mess you have created. Sadly, it will take time.

I just want to start winding up my remarks by making some comment on health because this supply budget comes before us at a difficult time for the health system. It is around $4.5 billion in 2010-11 of government spending of $15.5 billion. By 2014-15, it will be $5 billion of government spending of around $16.7 billion. Around 30 per cent of government outlays is spent on health. It employs nearly 30,000 people and there is no portfolio more important.

Every single one of the people who vote for us has come into contact with the health system. It is important for them, it is important for their loved ones and I have to say that we could be doing better. I think, as a nation, we do well in health, as a result of the work of successive governments going back many decades, compared to some other countries. I think we have avoided some of the major mistakes other countries have made strategically going back 30 or 40 years, but it could always be better. It could always provide a better service to those for whom we care.

I talk in particular about our emergency departments and our elective surgery waiting lists. There are very, very significant issues at our emergency departments. Looking at the statistics on how we compare relative to other states, there is massive room for improvement. When we have people who are emergency presentations and urgent presentations not being seen within the 10 and 30-minute time lines respectively, in such crushing circumstances as we are seeing at Lyell McEwin and Flinders, then we clearly must do better.

On that point, I direct the house's attention to what I think was a very important strategic mistake this government made. The former health minister, the Hon. Lea Stevens, based on the Menadue report, had a strategy that was very focused on primary health care. Her view as health minister was that we should spend our money getting out there intercepting people before they came to the hospital system. She listened to Menadue's advice that, if you had a centralised hospital-focused health strategy, the bucket would never be deep enough. The current health minister in the current government changed that strategy to a very centralised hospitals-based system.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: That is totally untrue.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, the minister says it is totally untrue. It is not totally untrue because the centrepiece of his policy is a $12 billion hospital in the rail yards we do not need which will be a white elephant and a millstone around his neck for years to come. As a result, doctors and nurses are underresourced, emergency departments are underresourced. He has tried to close country hospitals to build his Taj Mahal that he dreamt up on the back of an envelope over a cappuccino so that he could drive past for years to come in some egotistical exercise and say, 'I built that hospital.' Well, we don't need it. He could have saved billions by rebuilding the Royal Adelaide where it is.

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, minister!

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: And that money could have been put into doctors and nurses where it belongs.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Waite, minister, thank you.

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have said enough, I think, minister.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (17:36): With all the discussion that was going on, I thought they were still arguing. I rise today to support the Supply Bill and place on record some of the priorities of this state government in the 2011-12 budget, particularly in the key areas of communities, health, transport, infrastructure, education and justice. I will start with the health system, as it has been of discussion this afternoon in the chamber.

The state government has made a record investment of about $4.6 billion in the 2011-12 year to help cater for the demands of a growing and complex health system to support the state's hardworking doctors and nurses—the people at the coalface of our health system. This expenditure includes $69.5 million over three years to expand and improve regional cancer services, including additional beds and equipment at the Whyalla Regional Cancer Centre, new chemotherapy chairs in regional locations and expansion of the radiology and oncology services at my local hospital, the Lyell McEwin in the north of Adelaide. I know the regional cancer centre at Whyalla (in the member for Giles' electorate) is welcomed there as well.

The expenditure on health also includes $55.9 million over four years for the redevelopment of the Port Lincoln Country General Hospital and the Mount Gambier Hospital, and $6.8 million over the 2011-12 and 2012-13 year to construct a new Mount Gambier ambulance station and Wallaroo community dental health clinic.

This government has also prioritised funding for community services and provided $140.7 million over four years to support those who need it most in our community. This funding includes $41.7 million over four years to meet the growing area of children needing alternative care and extra support arrangements—something that is welcomed in my area; $37.5 million over four years to provide extra resourcing for people with disability, their families and carers—again, a most welcome initiative which I have only had positive feedback about; $19 million over four years to increase the level of reunification of children in state care with their families; $10.8 million over four years to build extra adult and children disability equipment to reduce waiting lists—again, a needed and welcome opportunity for people in those sectors; $7.7 million over four years to move 32 residents at the Strathmont Centre into community supported homes—a slow but very important process for those families who need to be dealt with gently and carefully.

This government is also easing the burden for those most in need by providing $23.9 million over four years for extra concessions, including increasing the current water concession as well as introducing the new medical heating and cooling concession—something that many people in my electorate have been keen to find out about and apply for.

The government remains dedicated to supporting the education system with an extra $56.1 million to be spent over the next four years on initiatives that include $18.8 million over four years to expand and improve facilities through the construction and refurbishment of infrastructure in many schools, including the Eastern Fleurieu R-12 School, Cleve Area School, Keith Area School and Eden Hills Primary School. Sitting on this side of the chamber, I often hear the opposition decry the lack of money being spent in areas, and I say to members opposite that these are deserved as much as we deserve them and we should welcome these initiatives. The expenditure also includes $14.4 million over four years to relocate preschools to primary school sites to improve educational outcomes for children, especially to achieve a seamless transition in the early years for early childhood development and education in kindy to reception and year 1.

The government has committed about $22 million in the 2011-12 budget to keep our community safe by supporting our emergency services and justice system. This funding includes a $6.4 million upgrade to improve and upgrade courts in our state; $3.8 million to upgrade prisons across the state; $2.5 million to provide more resources to the State Emergency Information Call Centre; $2.1 million to provide extra support in DNA analysis and forensic services; and $2.1 million for training resources for the CFS and SES volunteers to provide essential response services to the public—again, something I visited recently in my electorate and I know that the people in those units welcome them.

In Adelaide's north, where my electorate is based, the government has also made a commitment to local jobs and community services. In nearby areas the government will be investing $994,000 over four years to upgrade the plant and equipment at Endeavour House and Innovation House in the Technology Park precinct at Mawson Lakes to attract more companies and jobs to the precinct. We will also be investing $201.7 million in the stage C redevelopment of the Lyell McEwin Hospital for inpatient accommodation, a new multideck car park and expansion of support facilities for increasing demand and growth in the northern suburbs, a result of the 30-year plan.

Finally, the government's investment in infrastructure to help boost our economy and secure jobs will continue in the 2011-12 budget, with around $9 billion being invested in key areas over four years. Major expenditure during this time will include $345.1 million for the South Road superway, the state's biggest individual road project; $265 million for the 100-gigalitre desalination plant and the pipeline to the Happy Valley treatment plant (something I had the opportunity of reviewing when I was the presiding officer of the Public Works Committee); $254.6 million for improved connectivity between the northern and southern metropolitan water supply systems; $160 million to extend the Noarlunga train line into Seaford (very welcome for people in the southern suburbs); $114.4 million for the electrification of the Noarlunga train line; and $97.4 million for the electrification of the Gawler train line (something very important for the people in the northern suburbs; it affects many of my neighbouring MPs and myself); and $75.7 million for the duplication of the Southern Expressway.

Additionally, in the Mid-Year Budget Review the government and BHP Billiton announced $25 million over two years to upgrade the road between Port Augusta and Olympic Dam to facilitate the safe and efficient transport of goods and the Olympic Dam expansion.

The state government's investment during this financial year reflects our commitment to responsible fiscal management, something the opposition continually complains that we do not have but which we demonstrate year on year. As outlined above, we are targeting funding where it is needed most, for critical infrastructure in our state, for the people who need the services, for future generations and for our state's betterment. I am proud to be part of a government that uses its resources to look after the most vulnerable in our society and I think the last budget demonstrated that we will continue these priorities moving forward.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:42): The government's decision to proceed with the $48 million development of the Glenside site and in particular for the Premier's department to acquire the heritage buildings within the centre of the precinct and develop the Adelaide film and screen centre, which was later to become the Adelaide Film Studio, was one which premier Weatherill was up to his neck in. He sat around the cabinet table that made those decisions. He had been very involved in the site prior to that decision being made, and he had in particular overseen for some three years the proposed Housing Trust development on that site under the Rann government when he was minister for housing.

In the last 24 hours it has been announced that the ABC television program to be titled Resistance has now been cancelled. I think originally it was going to be 35-odd episodes, it was then halved, and now we find that the SA Film Corporation's making of this television series has been abandoned.

The government, of course, prior to this abandonment, had already made a commitment of some $1.5 million in incentive and direct payments to film this children's television series. That included a $850,000 cash payment for Resistance, $130,000 in-kind support via free rental of the studio facilities, and $130,000 producer development funding to revert $300,000 of the SA Film Corporation's share of Resistance profits if the second series was filmed in SA and underwrite the production company's application for payroll tax exemption up to a maximum of $100,000.

Having been abandoned, we have not had a squeak from the government about the actual cost in government funds that have already been applied for the development of this television series now abandoned. We have not had a squeak from the government about what programs or opportunities of production have been abandoned as a result of the film studios being booked for this service. We have not had any indication whatsoever of what the cost to the taxpayer is in the abandonment of this project, but we have certainly had the announcement from Mr Richard Harris, the Chief Executive of the SA Film Corporation, that the program has been abandoned.

Obviously we must have that information. Today, of course, I at least expected—six months late, nevertheless—that the government would finally come in with the SA Film Corporation annual report—not a page, not delivered. We know, of course, that the financial accounts have been attended to and even audited. It is referred to, of course, in the audit report last year, yet we still do not have the annual report. How convenient! We have an organisation which receives about $6 million a year in recurrent funding and which has just been given a brand new home that has been upgraded at a total cost of some $48 million, yet it does not have to provide any information to us, and not a squeak from the minister, not a ministerial statement and no explanation whatsoever as to where that money has gone.

What is particularly interesting about this project is that you will recall, as I said, it had been announced in or about April/May 2008 by the Premier that this is what he was going to do. I am not sure whether that was before or after he had been in cabinet, but nevertheless he threw that out there. And then in June 2009 a report was prepared by Eracon on the Adelaide Film and Screen Centre, Arts SA Project Details Update Report, and in that, members might be astounded to know, their justification for the investment of these dollars is that it would be a project over the next 10 years that would actually bring enormous financial contributions to the state.

This report actually suggests that, after the first three years, there would be some 450 jobs a year as a result of this new opportunity of moving into this facility. No business plan, of course, was produced—never a business plan produced to actually justify why it was ever necessary to move to the Glenside site, but nevertheless this was the promise; and furthermore that the gross state product would culminate in a $30 million a year benefit to South Australia.

This was made up of some benefit from existing services of about $3.5 million, that is, a continuation of their existing services. They also said to add on to that $7.6 million which was going to be brought in from film production, another $1.9 million on supplies and $14.6 million flow-on from the state benefit. All round, close to $30 million a year was supposed to be the benefit in this financial year (in 2012) the report says to us. What do we hear today? We hear from Mr Harris that, I think, they brought in an income of $100,000—$100,000 is the income.

They have certainly got some tenancy in the facility. It is a beautiful facility. I invite any members to go down and have a look at it—absolutely magnificent; half empty, of course, studios closed down. No-one is there to actually do anything. 'Hello, lights on, anyone home?' But nevertheless those who are in their offices, expensive as they are, the elite in the film world who actually get access after a tender process to get into this facility are there and, of course, enjoying the ambience of such a beautiful facility.

Now, if that is not the biggest white elephant, if that is not the biggest financial pet project of the former premier, which the cabinet—including the current Premier—has gone along with, if that is not a project which scandalously was advanced during a time when we had the global financial crisis, while we had the hospital sitting behind it actually delayed for the mental health patients, then I do not what is.

I think it is a scandalous lack of priority, and to actually have promoted that above mental health is absolutely abominable, and I add to this at a time when we pick up the paper today to read a tragic story of a lady whose son has died of suicide. Let me remind the house that we have some 200 suicides a year in this state that are known and recorded. That is double the road toll, fatalities on the roads, in this state. Yet we have a government that is prepared to bulldoze and sell off parts of the premier statewide hospital for mental health acute services and progress a multimillion dollar private housing development on a large northern portion of that site. It is bad enough that Dr Cornwall, under the Bannon regime, sold off large strips of that hospital. Fortunately minister and then premier Brown decided against any further sale of that site and saved it during his administration. We now find that the government is going to sell off 42 per cent and progress along those lines.

It is all very well to have a beautiful place for the outgoing premier to have a great big, swanky party, but it is absolutely scandalous that that sort of extravagance is pursued by this government in light of the financial crisis. We had the former premier and treasurer coming into this house bleating about how difficult and tough things were, yet they advanced that project above all others at a time when they were delaying critical projects for services in this state.

I also take this occasion to indicate to the house what a joy it has been to take on responsibility, on behalf of the opposition, for dealing with questions of infrastructure and transport. The leader has granted me responsibility for women again, and I am loving every minute of it; it is something I really enjoy. But I have to say that infrastructure and transport has brought a new paradigm to my life.

I will confess that, in relation to rail, I have probably only ever been on two major interstate rail trips. One was on the old Ghan—which some of you are not old enough to remember; it used to go up through Marree and was on a different gauge—when I was about 12, to Alice Springs, and one was an overnight train trip up through the member for Davenport's electorate en route to Melbourne with my children. I remember going to the dining car on that trip only to find that it was not really a dining car; you just got a choice of a chicken roll or a pie or a pasty—with a strong recommendation not to try to the chicken roll or we might end up needing other treatment.

I have very limited experience but, like all good, self-respecting mothers, I did ensure that my sons had a Hornby train set—which of course they have left behind with all the other junk that kids leave behind when they leave home. That was actually quite fun; my late husband and I probably got more fun out of that Hornby train set than anyone else did. So yes, I came to this portfolio with very limited experience of the rail network and the incredible service that rail provides to our state. On the other hand, I have had a bit more experience with buses, but understanding the details and intricacies of contracts and the like is all a new experience.

I have to say that infrastructure is a whole new world, but it is also fair to say that in the 10 years I have been here major projects in health and education, which are the portfolios for which I have been responsible on behalf of the opposition, have come across my desk many times. On water, we have had a decade of drought and the government has developed significant infrastructure, which I think has been mismanaged. I think the level of secrecy over projects such as the desal plant, the refusal to publish contracts, the refusal to provide this material to any of us as members of parliament, is scandalous. Nevertheless, that is the continued secrecy which prevails with this government.

On electricity infrastructure, I was recently briefed on a major $750 million power station proposed by a private company in South Australia—in the member for Schubert's electorate, in Tepko near the River Murray—and we look forward to that. In fact, other speakers have mentioned the contribution that was made by the previous Liberal government to the privatisation of power, as it has been described; that is, the long-term lease of ETSA assets. I want to say that unlike New South Wales and Queensland—which I have recently visited and which, I understand, have wholly-owned public electricity systems—we are actually in the box seat as a result of the decisions of that previous government.

We now have private investors interested and participating in the opportunity to provide power infrastructure in this state. Had we not had that, we would be facing a billion dollar expense, because one thing I have found in this area is that meeting future power needs will probably be South Australia's greatest challenge. Already there is a question of supply, so the generational supply of power in this state is clearly the biggest infrastructure challenge that we face, and I will have much to say about that in the future.

Within weeks of taking on this responsibility, I learned that the brand-new bridge at Port Adelaide had come crashing down, and ran into a barge, and all sorts of interesting things happened there. We had train derailments, bus deliveries, and services in chaos. And then, of course, talking about the bridge, the other side of the bridge did not open when the Endeavour ship came to South Australia. So, I was having lots of fun learning about how things go terribly wrong when you do not provide adequate maintenance to infrastructure and/or the people in management are absolute amateurs.

Minister Conlon has been around for quite some time and he ought to know better about how some of these things are managed. I think he is fortunate having Mr Rod Hook as the CEO to manage a number of very significant transport and infrastructure projects but, nevertheless, there are clearly deficiencies there and he needs to take responsibility.

The new minister, of course, needs to have an opportunity to get used to her portfolio, but what a mess! We have bus drivers complaining that they are being spat at; we have train derailments; we have issues of buses either being late or not coming at all; we have 7,500 complaints that have been recorded—on the front page of the paper—so she is certainly on her L-plates. There needs to be a major improvement if South Australia is going to have any confidence in this government to deal with future transport requirements.

I have also had the opportunity to visit the superway and a number of the major projects that are currently under construction. We may find in due course that some of these projects will not have been the best way to spend large amounts of money. That is an $850-odd million project—and a bit will be bought back with money—but these projects will need to be looked at.

Finally, it has become very clear to me, very quickly, that there are a number of intersections—not only Britannia roundabout because that is something close to my heart and part of my electorate—where the government has abandoned projects when they have become too hard. I know about that one. It is still right up there with the RAA's report to say that it needs to be attended to.

But I have also since learned that the South Road/Port Road upgrade is a project that has become too hard for the government. Clearly it needs to be dealt with—and I am with the member for Croydon on this—he is very keen to have it dealt with. We find that when things get a bit hard, they just dump them. With the Britannia roundabout, they needed to knock down a few trees, and they could tear down and bulldoze hundreds of trees to put the tram down Port Road but they could not get rid of a few to fix up the Britannia roundabout. So, to minister Conlon and minister Fox—fix it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.D. Hill.

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