HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-06-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL 2013

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:58): I seek to continue my remarks in regard to the budget reply speech. I note that something else that this government totally disregarded is the funding for regional development, where we see $4 million being cut. This reflects the complete attitude of the government to the regions, having only one seat in regional South Australia. I would like to note that there have been some minor wins—and I stress, some minor wins—in the bush.

We have seen two ferry replacements announced out of the five that are needed up along the river, with $6.1 million to be spent to replace the ageing wooden ferries with steel hulled ferries. We certainly welcome that announcement, but it does concern me that the government was chasing the local councils to fund these replacements. There is also $2.6 million over four years to establish innovation clusters in the Riverland, Murraylands and the Limestone Coast regions. It will be interesting—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. It will be interesting to see what this actually means in these regional areas. I note there is $2.5 million over four years targeting Chinese markets with South Australian food and wine, and I also welcome $1 million in extra fruit fly surveillance and controls. We cannot have enough considering the amount of money that has had to be spent on the outbreaks in South Australia over the last 12 to 18 months.

I am interested in the $6 million to the environment department; I think this is going to the Environment Protection Authority and I hope it goes to some realistic arrangements around compliance. I say that because there have been instances where people want to replace their shacks if they are running to rack and ruin, and I had one incident up the River where someone wanted to replace their shack and they had basically been told they cannot because there is a risk that they might let their effluent into the river. It is just outrageous—the EPA say they might put an axe through the holding tanks because they are connected to a community wastewater management scheme and I do not think there will ever be one at this location due to a range of logistical problems.

The other issue is they might visit the shack more because they have a nice shack. It is a totally idiotic way to go—this total precautionary principle way that the EPA seem to manage these outcomes where there could be far better outcomes for people along the River if there was some realistic—and I say 'realistic' because I know what the EPA can be like with compliance, they can come down with a heavy hand—compliance arrangements around what people can do with their shacks and when they are replacing them with a better structure.

In the closing little bit of time I have left, I want to talk about the impact on the cost of living in this budget. There is a direct result of 11 years of Labor and Premier Weatherill and his government. We have seen property charges which have increased at twice the rate of the Consumer Price Index; we have seen state taxes that have increased at three times the rate of the CPI; we have seen electricity bills which have increased greater than five times the rate of the Consumer Price Index; we have seen gas bills that have increased at seven times the rate of the CPI; and water bills which have increased a staggering 11 times the rate of the Consumer Price Index.

This is a real problem, especially in regional South Australia, for people that are having trouble paying for the water, not just for their homes, but to water the stock that they own. Some people might have a herd of 500 cows and all the cattle associated with that, with calves and bulls etc., and they are facing massive water costs.

It is not uncommon to see people with water bills of $100,000 or $200,000. So this is going to really cause a problem as we move ahead in this state, because I really fear that the cost of water in this state will cause the destocking of large areas of this state because people just cannot afford to pay for this water. In fact, there are many people, either in my electorate or next to my electorate, that are putting in very large pipelines from Lake Albert (which is very saline) to supplement their water supplies.

Time expired.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:04): In joining the debate on the budget bill, I just want to reminisce on what has been, and perhaps what could have been over the last 11 years of Labor government here in South Australia. We all recall those days before, or when Labor was in opposition, when the then member for Ramsay said that he was going to be the education premier. We all remember that; the education premier was what Labor was going to suggest. I know I have more than five minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know I am efficient, but 25 per cent is a tough call.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time is wrong.

Mr PISONI: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us look at the record. There have been a lot of Labor education ministers over the last 11 years. There have been five Labor education ministers and, as a matter of fact, in that same period, there have also been nine CEOs or acting CEOs in the education department, and nine restructures, the latest restructure being in April this year. If you hear Labor ministers over the last 11 years, they will tell you that we are spending more money than ever before on education, yet the facts are that when Labor came to office about 24½ per cent of the state budget was spent on education and, guess what? To this very day about 24½ per cent of the budget is spent on education.

There have been significant differences and significant changes in that time. The most significant change is that when Labor came to office in 2002, only 30 per cent of families sent their children to the non-government sector. They were very happy with the way the education system was running and South Australia had a lower number of students in the non-government sector to other states on average. Looking at that statistic now, 37 per cent of parents or families choose to send their children to the non-government sector. That is a drift of about 10,000 students out of the government sector and a growth of about 13,000 into the non-government sector. Parents are sending a very strong signal to the Labor government about the way it is managing its schools.

Of course, they are not wrong in their concerns about the education system here in South Australia. What did we hear from Jay Weatherill when he was the education minister—the member for Cheltenham, now the Premier—when he was explaining the fact that the NAPLAN results had dipped in South Australia compared to the rest of the nation? He said that we were sitting around about the middle and, by the way, we have a lot of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds here in South Australia so that is why we are not up there at the top. However, he did insist that we were in the middle of the pack.

Of course, his very close friend, the member for Hartley, when she became the education minister, used the same line: that we have a higher proportion of lower socioeconomic people here in South Australia but, anyway, we are in the middle of the pack. What has Garry Costello, the head of schools, been telling principals as he has been going around the state selling the latest restructure? He has been telling people, and this is a quote directly from his PowerPoint presentation:

South Australia consistently languishes near the bottom of the states and has been below the Australian average every year and at every year level to date.

That is a damning indictment of Labor's record on education. Again, if we look at some of the statistics, in the very same PowerPoint presentation that Mr Costello gave to principals in South Australia:

Over 16 per cent of year 11 students failed to meet the numeracy requirement.

Only 41 per cent of...[South Australian] students passed pattern and algebra testing compared with 51 per cent nationally.

Only 37 per cent of year 3 students in South Australia passed the recall questions compared to 49 per cent Australia wide.

These are pretty damning statistics. The day before the budget was released, the education minister tabled in parliament the latest education department annual report. That annual report tells us that there has been a 16 per cent drop-off in the number of students getting a pass mark or equivalent for their ATAR—that is the year 12 score they need to get into university—in 2012 compared to the baseline set 10 years ago, in 2003. If we look at the sheer numbers, out of the 13,500 to 14,000 students who complete SACE Stage 2 every year, only about 3,000 students actually get a pass mark in chemistry, physics or maths at the level that gets them into university.

Of course, we heard more bad news about Holden today but the Premier will keep telling you, 'Don't worry. We are aiming for a smart economy.' Well, for a smart economy, kids have to be able to read and write, and we need students participating at a higher level in high school. I was at a function celebrating the success of the maths and science school, an innovation that was started by the previous Liberal government near Flinders University. I was very pleased to hear that Garry Costello, the head of school, had been doing some work about the differences between Shanghai, for example, and Australia.

What was interesting was that he reported to that function that it was not so much that those countries are doing much better than Australia in their academic outcomes or the fact that more kids are doing so much better, it is the fact that more kids are not being left behind. In other words, the gap between those students who are excelling in their education and those students who are in the middle of the bell curve is much less, and that is what gives them their much better academic results, particularly in maths and science.

Here in South Australia if you listen to what David Gonski reported in his review of school funding, he will tell you that in the 10 years that this Labor government has been running the education system and other Labor governments around the country have been running education systems—because remember state governments run education systems, not federal governments. In that 10-year period, when it was wall-to-wall Labor governments for a sustained period of time, the gap between those students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and those students from higher, more privileged backgrounds widened.

We saw the gap widen. That was not because those students in the leafy green suburbs were getting better results, it was because the most vulnerable students were being left behind and getting worse results. That was a key finding by David Gonski. I like the way that the Premier and previous education ministers spun the line about the funding models in the Gonski report. This government is so desperate not to be left off the list of states that are reforming education systems that it has the audacity to boast that, according to David Gonski, we are the most autonomous education system in the world.

That is not what he said in his report. This was a small section of the report that was only talking about the funding model. Before 2010 South Australia had a very complicated funding model for schools. It was based on a complex formula where the loss of a single student could see a school lose an entire teacher. That was replaced and we supported the government in doing this. The Australian Education Union was opposed to it, and I congratulate the government for moving to the model that we have now which funds every child. It is a unit count and if you have a certain amount of students you get a certain amount of dollars per student.

David Gonski was not talking about the management of our schools. He was talking about the non-bureaucratic nature of our funding model. It was clean, it was crisp, it was easy to understand. That is where he was putting us in the Victorian box with the Victorian government, not in school management. That has been twisted and turned around by the master of spin, the Premier, in trying to mask the fact that this state is way behind in school reform when you look at what other states have been doing such as Western Australia with its independent public schools.

Western Australia started with 30 schools in 2009 moving into local school management. They now have half of their students going to government schools that are run and managed locally. What has the outcome of that been? The outcome has been that, for the first time in 40 years, the Western Australian education system is the only education system that has seen a net drift back to the public system from the private system. Parents have regained control. Decisions are being made to suit their cohort.

Principals can make decisions about their teaching staff that they cannot make under the system we have here in South Australia and parents have said, 'That is a great idea. That is exactly what I want for my child. I want to participate in my child's education. I want a principal who I can hold accountable and a principal who is prepared to make the decisions that derive better outcomes for my children's education.'

Let's talk about the so-called Gonski announcement. Let's not get too carried away about Gonski. David Gonski recommended $6.5 billion per annum as an injection into the school funding system. What do we get? We get $14.5 million over six years. It is a long way; it is about 22 or 23 per cent of what David Gonski recommended, and to this day, the independent Catholic sector does not know what its funding is going to be at the beginning of the next school year. To this day it still does not know.

It is interesting that the federal government was able to release a list of funding that Victorian schools would be getting in six years' time, but it was not able to release a list of the funding that schools would be getting next year, and nor has it released a list for here in South Australia. What was funny about the federal government's list in Victoria was that two schools that had closed a couple of years ago were supposedly getting more funding under the so-called Gonski model.

We need to keep a very close eye on this, because remember the Premier sold out way below the reserve on this auction that the Prime Minister was conducting around the country. She would go to one state and up the offer, then go to another state and up the offer. The Western Australian premier was able to squeeze three times the original figure out of the Prime Minister, from $300 million to $920 million. Of course, even the last surviving Labor premier, after the premier we have here in South Australia, said she is not signing; she is not signing the Gonski review because she is concerned about federal intervention in the state school system.

That is exactly what the non-government sector is concerned about; that is exactly what the Liberal states that have not signed are concerned about: the fact that control will be taken further away from the local models that have been successful, particularly in Western Australia and Victoria. That is the concern that Liberal states have, and even the state of Tasmania, a Labor state, is raising those same concerns. It is interesting how confident Lara Giddings is of a federal Labor win. She is concerned that Christopher Pyne will be running the education system; that is her excuse for not signing the Gonski review. She was quoted as she said that on Friday—an extraordinary admission by a Labor premier.

The government tells us that there is additional funding in Gonski, but if you look at the detail that is there, it is only $80 million next year, of which the South Australian government contribution is around about $28 million. We can go to what Mr DeGennaro said—we all know who he is; he runs the finance at the education department. Just six weeks ago, on 6 May, he told parliament's Budget and Finance Committee that there are savings requirements that add up to $252 million from 2012-13 right through to the forward estimates in 2015-16—a significant amount of money.

The interesting thing, or the scary thing, about that for parents is the fact that, of that $252 million in savings that Mr DeGennaro told the Budget and Finance Committee about, $152.5 million is unspecified. In other words, the department does not know where it is coming from—it is unspecified savings. In the 2014-15 year, the first year that we will see funding through the Gonski model, there is nearly $28 million in specified savings, Mr DeGennaro tells the committee, and another $49 million in unspecified savings. So we are looking at $77 million in cuts in the first year that we see this so-called new $80 million in funding coming through from the so-called Gonski money.

We remember Brighter Futures, the ninth restructure of the education department that was announced on 8 April this year. It was an eight-page document with lots of motherhood and apple pie but very little detail—until you get to page 8, where the truth is finally revealed. It says that the purpose of the Brighter Futures campaign is to deliver the efficiencies required to meet DECD state budget savings. So it is a restructure all about cutting the education budget, packaged up with motherhood statements about what they are going to do about education.

But let's not look at what this government claims it is going to do about education, because it has made many, many claims about education—in opposition, when they were going to deliver the education premier, to every NAPLAN result where they continually claimed we were sitting in the middle but it was exposed by Garry Costello, the head of schools, that we are actually bouncing on the bottom. So you cannot believe what this government tells you—and, particularly, in the lead-up to an election.

I remember the Liberal Party promised a second city high school, a second campus of Adelaide High School. Just four days before the election, the Premier cobbled up a little plan and said he consulted with the schools. I happen to know—and I am happy to say this because he is not associated with the school any more—that the principal at the time did not know this was going to happen until one hour before the announcement, yet the Premier told the media to their face that this was a result of consultation with the school.

You cannot believe this government in the lead-up to an election, because what they will deliver is a different option altogether. They promised in that press release that there would be no encroachment by Adelaide High School on the Parklands, yet what do we see? We see encroachment on the Parklands. They promised that people living in Prospect and Walkerville would be included in the zone: now the Minister for Education is telling us that is no longer the case and it is under review.

They also said that 250 extra students would start in 2013. The budget tells us the building will not even be finished until 2015. It is the same thing with Glenunga high school in my electorate. They promised 100 extra students would start in 2013 but the budget papers tell us it will not be finished until term three in 2014. Brighton high school was another election promise. In 2014 there would be an extra 250 students but that is now 2015. Marryatville High School in 2014 would have an extra 200 students and that is now 2015. That was another promise made during an election campaign which was not delivered after the election.

I warn South Australians that the promises made by this Premier and his ministers in the lead-up to the election are not worth a pinch of salt. They are not worth the paper they are written on, they are not worth the media release, they are not worth the press, and they are not worth the radio interview, because they will not happen. If they do happen, they will be severely modified.

Look what happened to the promise to enable employers to take on apprentices and trainees and exempt them from payroll tax. First, they tried to delay it and they were caught out and had to deliver it and, after one budget cycle, it is gone—taken away. It was put there simply to copy the Liberal Party's announcement, because we had been out there consulting with industry, training organisations and small businesses, who said, 'You have got to bring down the cost of employing apprentices. We want to employ apprentices but you have to bring down the cost. Why don't you give us a payroll tax holiday,' and that is what we promised and costed at the last election. In a mad panic, the Labor Party matched the promise and then did not deliver. Just remember that when you go to the polls.

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