HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL 2013

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

(Continued from 3 July 2013.)

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:37): Just before I begin my comments on the estimates committees, I want to bring to the attention of the house the passing of a South Australian icon and a Barossa legend, Mr Peter Lehmann. To Margaret and the Lehmann family our sincere condolences, and I will raise this matter later.

I feel a slight tinge of sadness as I will never again participate in an estimates hearing in this place, but I do say that with a smile on my face. Unfortunately, as has been the case, I have not received many straight answers throughout this hearing process. I think it is time the parliament looked at the standing orders to address some of the anomalies and the crazy practices that happen during our estimates process. Premier Weatherill has been a cabinet minister for 4,303 days.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert will be seated. It is contrary to standing orders to use people's Christian names, nicknames or surnames in this place. The standing orders are there for a good reason. The member for Schubert has been here, like me, for 23 years. I ask him, in this his swan song on the Appropriation Bill, to refrain from breaching standing orders.

Mr VENNING: Thank you, sir. I will rephrase and do the best I can to the Premier. I will just leave the other word out. I did put his title in there. He has been a cabinet minister for 4,303 days and he has helped make every decision in that time. We have seen a decade of cuts from Labor, and we certainly saw that right throughout the whole estimates process.

Primary production in South Australia is our largest export industry and the most important contributor to the state's economy. Yet again, this budget takes an axe to this sector. Why? Because it is a soft touch. It is a sector that is supposed to be our economic saviour in the wake of the cancellation of the Olympic Dam. Even the Governor, in his opening speech of this parliament, commented on the number one priority: clean, green food. This is just hypocrisy! Forget all of the rhetoric and all of the politics—it just does not stack up. You say one thing and you do another.

The recent budget sees the government's net appropriation to PIRSA fall from $89 million to $77 million, including $4 million less for SARDI which, I remind the house, was the brainchild of the Lynn Arnold government—and I was here when it happened. SARDI has been a fantastic success story for South Australia, but full-time employees fell from 1,052 in June 2012 to 961. The priorities of Labor have been such that every year they have taken the axe to primary industry. We have a previous minister sitting over there and he does not comment; so it has been a sad indictment on this government.

Just last night, I attended my 21st Koonunga Agricultural Bureau and we did relate the facts, and the president of the advisory board was present. Again, it is sad to realise that this government has cut the funding for the advisory board. Basically, the board now has to fund itself and basically relies on volunteers to run a very large movement in South Australia. The Agricultural Bureau Movement is highly successful, particularly in the Barossa where there are four branches. It is unbelievable that they would make this cut—I think $168,000 was the budget for the whole advisory board and now they have a part-time officer and they basically fund all of the programs themselves. It is an absolute disgrace.

I am so disappointed that the minister was unable to provide an answer to my question on why growers are unable to access the old vines that form the old vine collection at the Nuriootpa Research Centre. I eagerly awaited her response, and I will make sure that I will follow up if one is not forthcoming soon. It is really very important that the vignerons in my electorate, especially the Barossa Valley, have access to these because there are no others available. What happens is the plant breeders go and cut some vines from existing vines and, of course, that is lowering the gene pool considerably. You need to go back to the parent stock which is there, and the reasons we are told are quite ineffectual and not right.

Health is always an interesting hearing to be involved with and I was pleased to be in there and to be able to ask several questions pertinent to not only country South Australia but, specifically, the Schubert electorate. Although, given the mess that the Weatherill Labor government has made of our economy, a recent report for the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies said that the state has experienced its biggest downturn since the 1990 recession. It confirms our economy is in a recession.

I can say that I was not hopeful for positive responses to the questions I raised, but how could I let the opportunity go without a question on the new Barossa hospital and the need for a dialysis service in the Barossa? As predicted, the minister did not provide any new information on any of these important issues. In relation to my questioning on whether a new health facility for the Barossa is still high on the list of public works, he basically ruled it out unless federal funding was forthcoming.

Ten years ago, when I was on Public Works Committee, this hospital was listed as priority one. If the Kerin government had been re-elected in 2002 it would have started, and I have letters and correspondence to prove the fact. Now I have to say it has never been further away and it is not even on the drawing board, and that is not fair. This government, I think, have changed their priorities completely and they do not have it on their forecast at all. Of course, all of the money is going to come here on North Terrace.

I know the member for Light is sitting here, and this would affect some of his electors because they do attend the facilities in the Barossa—it is not up to standard and just not acceptable—just not acceptable at all. People cannot believe it, they come to the beautiful Barossa—a magnificent region and a magnificent place—but do not get sick, do not go to the hospital, because the infrastructure there is way below standard. As I always say, the quality of service you get from the staff in this hospital is just fantastic, but it is not fair that they have to work in facilities like that; and you as a patient have to be looked after in a very much substandard facility. But, again, I pay credit to those who work there.

Regarding the dialysis services available in our country hospitals and any plans to expand dialysis in country areas, including the Barossa, the minister said, 'There are no current plans to extend dialysis in regional South Australia other than what is currently there.' It is pretty rough to expect people to take three or four days out of every week to drive a couple of hours to Adelaide, spend all day and then drive home again. Whereas if the facilities were closer, particularly in the Barossa, they would save themselves probably four hours a day, and that is 12 hours a week.

Can I say, being very careful and cautious, that we had the loss of our icon this week. He was on dialysis. I know that Margaret put herself out hugely, as did his friends, to get Pete to dialysis, and the fact that he has gone is sad indeed. I just wish that country people were thought of, because the hassles of having to get people to life-preserving machines like this ought to be a higher priority.

The HAC system, which replaced hospital boards some years ago, has been a dismal failure, and I question the minister regarding any plans there may be to rejuvenate this structure. The minister responsible is not encouraging, despite his acknowledging the importance of the operation of HACs in regional South Australia. He said that the government has no immediate plans to do a review into the current arrangements.

I am very pleased that the opposition has announced that, when we get into government, it will re-establish hospital boards. I have a previous history with hospital boards, and I have to say that most of them, not all, worked very well. It gave local ownership of hospitals to the communities, and that is what we as MPs should be encouraging, not what we have now.

I have representatives on two HACs, one in Mannum and one in Barossa, and I have difficulty finding anybody to represent me on these because they go along and they become public servant talkfests. All my representatives want to do is to work out what should be the service to the local community, not talk all the time about the system from the public servant point of view. The negative responses I have received clearly demonstrate that country health services are not a priority for this current Labor government now or into the future.

As this is my last estimates committee report, I cannot help but compare this one with the first one I did in this place in July 1990. Today, after 11 years of Labor in South Australia, things are really in a serious mess. When I came into this place in 1990, we had the Arnold Labor government and, of course, we had the State Bank at its height—and you were here, sir—and things were pretty desperate.

We went to the polls two years later and, of course, the result was such that the Liberal opposition became the government and won all but 10 seats. In fact, I sat over on this side in government. I sat in the middle of this bench, and they called me the captain of the B grade. I said then, and I have said since—

The SPEAKER: You used to interject from behind me.

Mr VENNING: Yes. The rump of the Labor Party, the 10 who were left, felt very vulnerable because we were in front of them and also on the side of them. I said then, and I say again today, that I do not know why we as an offshoot of the Liberal government did not form the opposition, because we could have. We could have taken 11 members away from the government, and they could have still governed comfortably and we could have been the opposition, and the then the opposition would have been totally starved of any honour or any facilities or anything else. But, no, being gentlemen and true professionals, we did not do that, and we allowed the opposition to be the opposition with only 10 members. But that was pretty horrific.

Then the Liberal government started straightaway to rebuild this economy by looking at its asset management, selling off assets and getting us back into a very good financial position. Until 2002, things were going along extremely well, with our getting back the AAA rating, which we regained in 2003. Of course, now we see what has happened with subsequent estimates and budgets. Here we are, we are back in serious trouble again—more serious, I believe, than the State Bank because we do not have the assets to be able to manage ourselves back into the black.

This is my last estimates report, and it is sad because it is nice to finish a career saying you are leaving it better than when you found it, but I am sorry that I cannot say that. In fact, it is decidedly worse—much worse. Can I say, 'That says I failed'? Yes, you could argue that I have not been able to put the case, but I think all MPs have to look back and say, 'We are all going to be judged in this period of time,' because I really do think we are in serious trouble.

Today, after 11 years of Labor, things are really in a serious mess and a lot worse than people realise or the media are prepared to report. This Labor government, and South Australia, should be in a much better position than it is today with yet another budget deficit, spending more than we actually earn—more than we have—for three out of the last four, and state debt now heading for its largest ever of $14 billion.

We have suffered 11 years of financial mismanagement and reckless spending under this government and we really cannot take any more. State debt is fast approaching $14 billion, the highest in our state's history. That is $14 billion, with a B not an M. It is billion. And we are only a small state. Debt has been growing at $4.2 million per day every day for eight years. Fourteen days of that would build a new Barossa hospital. It is all about priorities and what you do with your money.

Paying interest is all very well. I have paid interest most of my business life, but you have to spend the money on a project that is going to have an outcome that is positive to be able to produce more, to give you more liquidity, and to make the bank manager smile. In this instance, it is totally the opposite. When you are paying $2.6 million a day in interest, on our GDP, the alarm bells ought to be sounding very loudly. This year's deficit exceeds $1.3 billion, the highest in the state's history. Nobody is getting concerned about that? Nobody is worried about that? The financial journalists just say, 'Well, that's how it is nowadays.' What have we got to show for it? That is what we have to consider. Are our roads all in pristine condition?

Honourable members: No!

Mr VENNING: Have we got all our outback airports sealed?

Honourable members: No!

Mr VENNING: Have we got our pipelines painted?

Honourable members: No!

Mr VENNING: We got one bridge painted. Talking about estimates, that bridge painting exercise again, as I said, raises the question—and the former minister raised it; he was the minister at the time, the member for Elder—of the figure of $680,000, which it was going to cost. Who sets that figure and who questions it? Who in the government says, 'This can't be right'? Who does that? I should have asked the question in estimates but I did not, and I should have.

I ask the minister again now: who was going to question this figure, when I painted it for a cost of around about $2,000? Of that $2,000, a large lump was for insurance, I can tell members, because I could see what could happen because I did create a public nuisance. Yes, we did stop the traffic and, yes, people were hanging around and there could have been an accident, so I had the insurance. That was the biggest lump of it.

Irrespective of that and call it what you like, it did focus on a project that really was out of control. The minister set the EPA onto me and they came up four times. I told them to lock me up. Would I do it again? I said, 'Yes, I would, and I am not going to seek forgiveness.' The whole thing brings a smile to your face but, seriously, it should not have got to that. The minister should have said, 'That's ridiculous, we'll get the painters in,' just like I did, 'and knock it over in two or three days', and the government could have got out of it for $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000—who would have cared—and that would have been the normal thing to do. That is what the problems are.

The facts are that the revenue has grown by 3 per cent per year. You have had the money over these years, and you have really wasted it. In my final gasp, things are pretty bad. How would a private company address this situation? I have been a businessman.

Mr Goldsworthy: Sack the CEO.

Mr VENNING: Yes, you would sack the CEO and you would change the management. How bad can it get before somebody says, 'Enough is enough'? Who is the umpire? Is it the federal government that says, 'Hang on, you are exceeding your limit'? Who is going to be out there saying, 'Hang on, you've reached your limit'? I think we are well over that now. Somebody has to say, 'Your ability to repay this debt has exceeded your capacity.' I think the only way is that we have to cut our spending to only the essential things, particularly infrastructure, because it is now hurting us, particularly roads—not footbridges but roads.

I can understand that the Labor government has done some good projects and one of them was the duplication of the highway from Adelaide to Port Wakefield. That was a good project and you got value for money. I cannot understand with the Northern Expressway, which is a great project, why you then put all this traffic onto the Port Wakefield Road, and you did not put the three lanes right through because, as soon as you get onto it, you bring it from three lanes back to two, and you have an automatic jam. The land is there on which to put the third lane. It is not a big deal at all. You should put the three lanes right down to Gepps Cross.

Anyway, I do not know why you do not carry out the rest of the freeway plan and go through underneath the bridge on the expressway and go across the salt pans and link straight into Port Adelaide. If that is the plan, why don't you do it, or are you saving that for the election? It is obvious that we need to get rid of this bottleneck that is Gepps Cross, and it certainly is. If you put that in there, you will take half of that away. I have certainly enjoyed my processes here in estimates over my time here in parliament. I only wish I could be more positive with my final speech.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:57): I rise to make my summary contribution to estimates and I share very strongly the opinion of the member for Schubert that we should not be in this financial situation. We just should not be in a situation where our debt is going to peak in a few years' time at nearly $14 billion. We all know that over the majority of the life of this government, income, primarily from GST, has extensively exceeded budgeted income, yet spending exceeded budgeted spending even more than that, and that is what has really got us into this situation.

We have no need, if you look back over the last 11 years, to be in the really difficult financial commercial situation that our state is in at the moment. The government keeps throwing up the emperor's clothes-type budget which says, 'Look, just trust us, we are going to be in deficit for a couple of years and then we are going to be in surplus for a couple of years and then it will all be okay.'

After nearly 12 years of that sort of performance and that sort of explanation, nobody—I am sure not even the government members—believes it any longer. Nobody believes that those promised surplus years are going to come because, after nearly 12 years, they just have not come. Every year we take a step forward and we will just be in deficit for a few more years, and then we will get in to surplus after that, but the 'after that' never ever comes.

It is a real shame for the government, it is a shame for the opposition and it is a shame for the people of South Australia that we are in that situation because of overspending, and it is just a flat-out fact that income for the majority of the life of this government has exceeded what was budgeted, but spending has exceeded what was budgeted by even more, and that is a real shame. So, our whole state has missed out, and I would certainly put forward that the regional areas of our state have missed out more than the city, but certainly our whole state has missed out.

With regard to some of the specifics of the estimates, it is a fairly long, gruelling and, in some ways, unfulfilling process to go through for government and opposition members. I probably appreciate estimates, I would have to say, more than most of my colleagues, more than most people here. I think it is the one chance that you get to sit down and ask, for the allocated amount of time, the questions that you would like to ask of a minister. Even though it is frustrating because you might not get straight answers, or you might get too many Dorothy Dixers, or you might get extensive opening statements, after all of that is done there is some time left for opposition questions, and I think that is valuable time and I appreciate that.

I would also like to put on record my appreciation of minister O'Brien for the fact that, while I did not always get a straight answer, because if there was an opportunity to push the question somewhere else or answer differently (he did take it occasionally), to his credit he did not waste one second on opening statements, he did not waste one second on Dorothy Dixers, and he did for the most part answer my questions very directly, so I thank him for that, and I am happy to put that on the record.

Nonetheless, those answers did provide information which I am sure the government as a whole would be quite embarrassed and ashamed about, and the opposition quite frustrated and disappointed in, and the public perhaps quite angry about. Minister O'Brien did answer very directly, but as a minister in this overall government he obviously had to provide some information which is not flattering to the government, and that is just basically unavoidable. I was here for almost all of the day that minister O'Brien sat answering questions, from the first all the way through to the last estimates committee.

The ones that I was obviously directly involved with as shadow minister were police and corrections. Of the police time, the two hours that we got to deal with police, quite a few very concerning issues came up. One of them was with regard to the Community Safety Directorate. Let me just say right at the start that this is a very important issue for the government and the opposition. It is an important issue for the public and for professional and volunteer emergency services workers, and other people who are involved with community safety.

For me, it is not an issue about Tony Harrison, former assistant commissioner. Tony Harrison was offered a job, and he decided to take it. It is as simple as that; it has nothing to do with him. It is, though, a bit about how and why he was offered that job by the government, and it is a lot about how that position is going to be funded, and not just his but the other positions in the Community Safety Directorate.

I certainly understand the issues about seconding people from agencies, bringing them together to do this work and having those agencies provide funding, but when those agencies, in this case, unanimously say they do not know what this Community Safety Directorate is meant to do, they were not consulted in the lead-up to its formation and they do not want to be spending any part of their budget towards it, you get a pretty clear message. You get a very clear, very straightforward message.

The opposition hears that message loud and clear and says, 'Well, it doesn't look like there is a lot of value in that.' The government, of course, is taking the opposite position and saying, 'Oh, no; there is extraordinary value in that. There is gigantic value in it. It's very important. We can't tell you exactly what it is yet, but we're sure it's going to be very important. It will be wonderful for the community'—just like the surpluses that are coming some time down the track.

Minister O'Brien had among his advisers by his side Commissioner Burns. I have to give Commissioner Burns credit, too, for not dodging any questions; he answered as directly as he possibly could, and he stuck to his guns on this issue. He has told the public through the media that he does not know what the Community Safety Directorate is for and he does not want to contribute to it, he does not see value in it. He has told the Budget and Finance Committee of parliament exactly the same thing under oath, and he told the estimates committee exactly the same thing.

In fact, his words were, and I paraphrase this, but it will be an accurate paraphrase—the minister allowed him to answer some questions directly and some he advised the minister—'I told the government I do not want to contribute any money. If I am directed to, if I am told that I must, well then certainly I will, but short of that, I am not putting any police budget towards the Community Safety Directorate.' You cannot ask a person to give more direct information.

It is worth highlighting the fact that the amount of money involved here, just from the police, is very significant. The direct salary is $244,000—a pretty healthy salary. You would like to get some results for that. Once you build in superannuation, car, leave and sick entitlements and all of those sorts of things, it comes up to $303,000. The minister and the commissioner were not aware of that $303,000 figure, but I can tell the house, and I did at the time in the estimates committee, that it is accurate because it was provided by the police through a supplementary report to the Budget and Finance Committee, so I have every reason to believe it is accurate.

That $303,000 would go an enormously long way within the police budget to providing other resources. That might be two or three other officers out there on the beat, on the frontline fighting crime. It might be $303,000 per year that goes to fulfilling some of the government's election commitments from 2010, not one of which has been fulfilled yet. So $303,000 is a very significant amount of money within the budget, and commissioner Burns said, 'Yes, I don't want to be spending this money out of my budget,' so we investigated this a little bit and said, 'Well, what has actually happened?'

A week or so earlier, it was reported in the media that the minister and the commissioner had come to an agreement and the police were going to be funding that $303,000. How has this come about? This was my question through the minister: 'Were you directed?' The minister said that he had not directed the commissioner, because he had actually been overseas at the time and had not played any direct role in that whatsoever, and that he certainly had not directed the commissioner to do it.

I asked whether the acting police minister, in the police minister's absence, had directed the commissioner to do that and was told that no, that had not happened either. I said, 'Short of being directed, you are not going to spend the money but you are going to spend the money. Who directed you?' The answer came back: Treasury. The answer came back that, because SAPOL are going to finish the financial year which has just finished four days ago with about $5 million in surplus—good to know that one of the government departments can manage a budget—Treasury said, 'It's okay, you can use some of that money to pay for the $300,000 for the Community Safety Directorate.'

Every member here knows that any government department that finishes the financial year under budget does not get to keep the money. It goes back to Treasury. They can apply to cabinet to keep the money, and there may be, on occasion, very good reasons why they might be allowed to keep that money. There is a fairly detailed, fairly rigorous, fairly difficult (and understandably so) process to go through to get to keep that money, unless the money is to go to a pet project of the government, so it seems. That rigorous process was not necessary in this case.

It was not necessary for commissioner Burns or minister O'Brien to go to cabinet, cap in hand, with many good reasons about why they wanted to retain some of that $5 million. I am yet to find out whether Treasury said, 'Look, I know you are going to finish with about $5 million surplus. What we would like you to do is just spend $300,000 of it straight away, please, and you will finish now with just a little bit less than the $5 million,' or whether the entire $5 million (in round figures) was returned to Treasury and then Treasury said, 'Right, we've got your money. Now we will kick it back into the Community Safety Directorate directly on your behalf.'

So, we do not know exactly how it has happened. What we do know is that the government's own process has not been followed. We in the opposition suspect it is because it would be exceptionally embarrassing for the government if that Community Safety Directorate were to fold, because we in the opposition believe that it was a pet project of former police minister Rankine.

We are not sure exactly why former police minister Rankine thought it was so incredibly important that assistant commissioner Tony Harrison, who was unsuccessful when he applied for the commissioner's role, be given a different job. We do not know why that is. As I said before, no doubt former assistant commissioner—currently community safety director, I believe is the right title—Harrison is a very capable person with a lot to contribute to the state, but what we do not know is why it is so important that he has this job that none of his peers in the senior ranks of community safety and emergency services believe he should have.

Why is it that the government managed to thwart their own process of returning all surplus funds at the end of the financial year to Treasury and, if necessary, making a cabinet submission to get to retain some of it? Why is it that Treasury can say, 'Oh look, this is a very important government priority. We understand that the Commissioner of Police and SAPOL in general do not want to spend this money, but we are going to make it happen on your behalf anyway'? We do not understand exactly how that is because that was not possible to be gleaned from estimates.

I will tell you one thing that we do know: every single other senior executive from every single other government department must be looking at this with great interest. They must be looking at this and thinking, 'Oh, that's how it works when there's a project you don't want to do. How can I make this work for me when there's a project I do want to do? How can I make this work for me when there's a project that I think of at the last possible minute and it doesn't seem to be quite right? I am going to have a bit of a surplus.

I could certainly have spent the money out of my surplus sooner if I had known all about this, but right at the very end of the financial year I have an unbudgeted, unplanned and unfunded pet project. Can I talk to Treasury and see whether there's a way that I can kind of circumvent the system and get this money transferred back towards this pet project?' I am sure every single government department senior executive is looking at that and saying, 'I wonder if I can beat the system the way Treasury and the government are beating the system for this particular project.'

That raises real concerns for the opposition, for me as a shadow minister, I am sure for every one of my colleagues, and quite likely government members as well. Quite likely government ministers are thinking, 'Goodness, what sort of can of worms have we opened up? What are we going to do now when other departmental senior people say, "You know that little trick that you did for the Community Safety Directorate; you know the way that you got the Commissioner of Police to pay for something that he didn't want to pay for? Well, we are going to use it this other way now."'

Ministers will be looking at that. Everybody will be looking at that and saying: (1) 'What is so special about the project that can't be disclosed?'; and (2), 'How can I use that trick myself to get taxpayer funds spent through the government on a project that the key people in all the supporting agencies do not actually want to contribute to?' For me, that was one of the most revealing issues that came out of estimates.

Another very revealing issue that came out of estimates on the Corrections side of things was that of new prison beds being built—expansions to existing prisons—capital money being allocated, but operational money not being allocated. So, you have a four-year forward window with estimates and if you have capital money allocated for a prison expansion, for beds to be up and running and operational and used, say in two years' time, it would be very logical to say, 'Right! We are thorough. We are organised. We know what we are doing. We are good financial managers. We had better put some operational money into the budget for the two years after that.' But, no, that is not the case at all.

That is not the case at all with the expansions that have been committed in this budget, and it is not the case in regard to 60 extra beds at Mount Gambier. In fact, it is not the case with the 108 beds that are very soon to be completed—in six months or so, at the end of the year or the very beginning of next year—at Mount Gambier. This is the first year that any money has been put in for those beds because it is actually in the current financial year that they will become operational.

I wonder if that is a way to make it look like you are going to be in surplus, when you know you are not. Is that a way to make it look like you are going to be in surplus? You say, 'Well, we've got these capital step-outs. We're wonderful people; we're a great government. We're spending capital money on these important projects,' but you forget to fund their operation after they are built.

You know you are going to have to; you know that the money is going to be necessary. It is not possible to run extra beds in a prison without extra operational funding for the prison, but you leave that operational money out of the budget, potentially because it will make your budget position look good. Minister O'Brien told me that that is the way it has always been done and that is the standard government procedure. I do not believe that is appropriate when you know it is necessary to spend the money.

You know you will get zero value out of your capital expenditure if you do not have operational money in the budget and it is well inside your four-year budget estimates period. It is actually just flat out wrong not to include that money in the budget. It is flat out wrong: it is bad accounting, and guess what? It improves your predicted surplus versus deficit position and it will contribute towards looking like you are going to be in surplus when you know that you are not.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:17): I am pleased to make some comments in response to the estimates committees. As I said in my budget speech a couple weeks ago, I have been here for 12 budgets, so I have been here for 12 budget estimates committees, and I have to say that things really have not changed tremendously in the way the government views and deals with budget estimates committees.

Obviously, the government determines the committee program, using one minister in the committee for the full day, but it is my understanding that departmental officers, senior officers right down through the ranks of the department, spend literally weeks and weeks, if not months, preparing for estimates. You can see that they all come into both chambers with massive volumes of notes and information in their folders in anticipation of any and every question the opposition may ask.

It has been my observation that in the morning the ministers and everybody are supposedly on top of their game, and the opposition certainly does not wane in its efforts to seek information. However, it seems to me that over the period of the late morning and afternoon, and into the concluding parts of the committee, the ministers seem to tire and they look to take more questions on notice as the day progresses. In the morning, they are sprightly and supposedly on top of everything and dealing with their senior departmental people for advice, but it is my observation that, as the day goes on, they tire and they say basically, 'We can't be bothered looking that answer up; we'll take it on notice.'

I think that is very poor because it is really flying in the face of the time that all the departmental people spend—as I said, weeks and weeks, even months—in preparation for estimates. I know: people tell me. It is no secret. Public servants tell us that they get bogged down with work and cannot focus on any other thing because the minister, their staff and the government put so much pressure on the bureaucracy to prepare for estimates, but many questions are still taken on notice. It has been my experience, from when I was a shadow minister, that it takes many weeks, if not months, to receive a response to the questions that are taken on notice.

I had the pleasure to be part of the health services estimates committee, the finance estimates committee and also the correctional services committee with the member for Stuart, who eloquently and articulately spoke about some of the issues within correctional services. What is glaringly obvious—the budget highlighted the fact and the estimates committees confirmed the fact—is that this government cannot be trusted. It was highlighted in the budget. The government has promised six surpluses, but what do we have? Zero surpluses delivered. In seven years we have had only one surplus delivered, and that did not even reach the forecast amount.

This government has a track record of never realising its forecast budgets, and the estimates committees confirm that fact. I will highlight one specific point. I think it was the first day, the member for Morphett was the lead person on behalf of the opposition, it was during the health section of the estimates committee, and he asked the health minister about Public Service cuts and what cuts, if any, would be made to nurse numbers. The minister said, in an around about way, that there was no guarantee that nurse numbers would not be cut.

That is in direct contrast to what the government's line has been for many budgets, particularly since the budgets got into trouble, that there would be no cuts to front-line services. The mantra the government has been spraying around is that: 'Okay, we might have to adjust'—I think the number is around 6,000; I am happy to be corrected on that—'but we will not cut front-line services: doctors, nurses, teachers, police, emergency services personnel, those areas of government.'

What do we see on the first day of estimates? The health minister has gone back on that commitment, broken that promise and has said, 'We can't guarantee that nurse numbers won't be cut.' He then went on to try to flower it up and spin it up into a way that nurses—from memory—constitute 40 per cent of the health services personnel numbers, and those sorts of statistics. It confirmed the fact that the government cannot be trusted.

In relation to the finance section of the estimates committee, which I was a member of, and the Minister for Finance, the member for Napier, the member for Davenport was the lead on this side of the house in that committee. There was some interesting information that came out of that committee as well. There was a question asked in relation to allegations of fraudulent activity within Services SA. That is my understanding of the questioning from the member for Davenport.

On those allegations of fraud, the answer basically came back that they were being investigated and that the person has had some of their authority and responsibilities removed. They were not actually stood down or put on leave without pay, or whatever course of action can take place. That was an interesting question asked of the minister about allegations of fraud. It is very important that, once the investigations have been finalised and the outcome is known, that information is provided to the opposition, particularly to the shadow treasurer (shadow minister for finance), so that he knows the outcome and the issues surrounding those allegations, given that they are being investigated.

Another interesting piece of information came from the finance committee. The minister was asked, 'Have any formal or informal discussions taken place with the Motor Accident Commission about providing funding for upgrade works at the Festival Centre?' We know that $100 million has been pulled out of the Motor Accident Commission and put into proposed transport infrastructure—

Mr Whetstone: Pet projects.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, the member for Chaffey says 'pet projects'. It is a pity that the electorate of Kavel, and the work needed in my electorate for interchanges along the freeway, did not get any of that $100 million, but we live to fight another day and continue to lobby the government for those works. I will talk about that a little later if I have some time.

The minister was asked if there had been any formal or informal discussions between government and the Motor Accident Commission regarding any funds to carry out upgrade work on the Festival Centre. The minister prevaricated, he looked to the left, he looked down, he looked around, he looked to his advisers and said (and this is my understanding, my interpretation) that no formal discussions had taken place. The member for Davenport then pushed along a bit with that line of questioning, and about three or four questions later the minister again prevaricated and said 'maybe', or words to the effect of, 'We're not sure, there might have been some informal discussions take place.' So what is the truth?

We had the Minister for Transport appear in a media interview (I think it was on the Sunday evening news) saying, 'No, definitely no discussions have taken place, no plans for the Motor Accident Commission to fund anything here on the Festival Centre.' But what we want to know on this side of the house is: what is going on? This government is shrouded in secrecy. We have seen examples time after time of how the government puts this cloak of secrecy around these things, and we have been exploring that in the house over the last couple of days with other very serious matters concerning our children.

What is the truth about any potential Motor Accident Commission funding? Be open, be honest, and give us some information that we can actually trust you about. As we have seen, and as I have said, this budget and the estimates committee process continue to confirm the fact that the government cannot be trusted.

As I said earlier, I was also a member of the Correctional Services committee. The member for Stuart outlined some issues as the shadow minister for that area. He highlighted some issues in relation to the lack of any evidence that there is any operational funding being provided for the increase in prisoner accommodation. That makes me think that this government has not given up on its policy of 'rack'em, stack'em and pack'em'; that they will find any nook and cranny for another bed in a prison and, okay, that is another allocation, if you want to call it that, another bed or area of accommodation for an additional prisoner number without any increase in funding to provide facilities for their correctional services officer to manage an increase in prisoner numbers. We have highlighted that in previous years, too, in relation to the government's ongoing policy of 'rack'em, stack'em and pack'em'.

I would now like to comment on some issues within the budget in relation to transport infrastructure, which would have been included in part of the estimates committees process. The member for Chaffey highlighted previously that $100 million out of MAC has gone to pet projects. We have talked on this side of the house about how we think the government and the federal government have their priorities completely wrong in relation to transport infrastructure. The superway down on South Road-Grand Junction Road is a wrong priority, but they are the government and they can make the decisions how they want to, and so be it.

I want to talk about the $24.9 million that was highlighted in the budget in relation to the work proposed on the South Eastern Freeway. It is not actually included in this year's budget. The papers say that it is in the forward years, and it is in partnership with the federal government. We will see how that transpires in the foreseeable future. The total amount that was highlighted is $24.9 million, and it is split into two parts: there is a $16 million tranche to go to improving the corridor signage and so on between Crafers and Bridgewater, I understand; then there is another $9 million to be expended on laneway work. However, there is no commitment, no mention or no funding for any improvements on the existing interchange or any new interchange at Mount Barker.

I had a briefing this week from senior officers within the Department of Transport, and I was very appreciative of that. The chief of staff in the minister's officer arranged that for me. The information that came from that briefing, I certainly found worthwhile. As I have said, there is some engineering work being done in relation to the existing interchange at Mount Barker, and that is certainly necessary because we have had instances where the traffic exiting the freeway at the Mount Barker interchange and exiting the freeway coming into Mount Barker has been so heavy that, at times, it has banked up on the exit ramp and onto the freeway corridor, and that is a highly dangerous traffic situation.

So, I think that work is certainly necessary. I know that there has been a dollar figure put on it, and I have encouraged the government to accelerate the funding proposal for that particular work. Also, obviously, there is an ongoing requirement for the second new interchange at what we locally refer to as the Bald Hills Road interchange, and I understand that engineering work and proposals and the like are continuing, and that is basically a two-stage process. I certainly encourage the government to accelerate those proposed works as well.

I also want to talk about what we call the Dumas Street park-and-ride proposal. That is certainly a necessary piece of infrastructure in the township of Mount Barker and the plans for that park-and-ride have changed—developed, if you like—and they are looking to take in some land close to the TAFE facility. But it has had an impact, and this is an important local issue. This is certainly not a trivial issue; this is a very important local issue. It is having an impact on the facilities that house the Mount Barker Christmas Pageant floats because the park-and-ride is going to consume the area of the sheds that house the floats.

The local council has been liaising with PIRSA for a long time in an effort to secure some space out at the old Flaxley research centre site, to move the floats from the Dumas Street site out to the old PIRSA site at Flaxley, the old disused research centre. But it seems that PIRSA is really dragging the chain on this issue so, in this place and from the point of view of the place I hold here, I strongly encourage PIRSA, the minister and his staff to work on this issue. The Christmas pageant is a very important community event. It is the largest pageant of its type in the state, apart from the Adelaide pageant. I encourage the department to work out a resolution to that problem.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:37): It is certainly not the first time, and I doubt whether it will be the last time, that I make comment about the process involved in estimates because I suspect the process, if possible, is getting even worse. The theory of the estimates is that it gives the parliament the opportunity to question ministers, who, with the aid of their staff, give detailed responses to matters that are in the budget papers so that the parliament can have a better understanding of how the taxpayers' money is being spent.

The charade continues. I do not know what the estimates process itself costs the taxpayer but I am led to believe, and have over many years, that the agencies spend a fair bit of time preparing briefing notes for their ministers. I have no idea how many hundreds or thousands of hours of work go into that, but I believe it is considerable. The parliament spends quite a bit of time going through the process, but what comes out at the other end is of very limited use—very limited use.

Mr Whetstone: That's the whole idea for the government.

Mr WILLIAMS: As my colleague the member for Chaffey says, that's the whole idea for the government. That may be the case, but it is not what the parliament should get out of the estimates process. What we should be getting is openness, accountability, and answers which go to the nub of the question and deliver information to the parliament so that we can make a judgement on whether the taxpayers' money has been spent appropriately.

To demonstrate the frustration, I give the example of the minister for sport and recreation, the member for Mawson. I had the pleasure of having 90 minutes to question the member for Mawson on the budget lines relevant to sport and recreation. The chairman said to the committee, 'We'll give the minister about 10 minutes to make an opening statement,' or I think he said 10 minutes. The minister made an opening statement that went on for some 17 or 18 minutes, did not really give us any information, and it was basically a treatise on how wonderful this government was.

It was an election speech really. It gave the parliament no information or very limited information on how effectively taxpayers' money was being spent in that portfolio area. That would have been bad enough to take up a considerable portion of the time allowed but, during the course of the rest of the balance of the 90 minutes, the chairman invited government backbench members to ask questions. I think there were six questions posed by backbench members, all of which caused the minister to basically regurgitate most of what he had said in that first 17 minutes.

Mr Pengilly: To keep him out of trouble.

Mr WILLIAMS: It was designed wholly and solely to keep him out of trouble and make sure that the opposition had very limited time—and much less than half the 90 minutes—to ask probing and insightful questions about the use of taxpayers' money in this particular area. It is a travesty that the parliament is abused in this way, and I am not the first and I will not be the last, I am sure, to make these comments, but I think it is a nonsense that we have opening statements in the estimates process; it is an absolute nonsense. If we must have them, they should not go for more than four or five minutes; they should only be there to provide new information which is not already in the public arena. I can assure the house that there was absolutely nothing in that minister's opening statement that was not already common knowledge or in the public arena, or had been available through the daily press.

If there was some new feature or function that had been taken on board or a new program, then I think it is probably reasonable that the minister has a few minutes to open the committee hearing to give some detail of that. It might have led the parliamentary members to ask further questions on that, or it might have highlighted something that they were, until that time, unaware of; but that is certainly not what happened. So, that is a great pity, but there were some interesting questions and some interesting answers given. One of the Dorothy Dixers—and I will read it out—asked by the member for Kaurna was, and he referred to a budget page and then asked:

…what the government is doing to support the growth and development of sport and active recreation in regional South Australia?

Now that is a really probing question to get down to the nitty-gritty of what taxpayers' money is being spent, and how it is being spent, and how effective it is. The answer was as follows:

The government has made a significant commitment to supporting sport and recreation in regional South Australia in 2012.

Regarding Starclub field officers, of the projects most advantageous to regional areas, the employment of regional Starclub field officers by the Office for Recreation and Sport is paramount.

The minister went on for about a page in the Hansard. At one point I got to ask a supplementary question and it went exactly to that bit that I read out about it being paramount that the Office for Recreation and Sport employs field officers under the Starclub program. It turns out that one of the things that the Office for Recreation and Sport does is that it gives sporting grants to various community organisations, local government and individual sporting clubs. It is those organisations which employ the Starclub field officers. So, on one hand the minister tells the committee, 'Aren't we so wonderful by giving all these grants,' and then, on the other hand, the minister tells the committee, 'Aren't we wonderful by employing these Starclub field officers.' In reality both of those statements are about the same outcome.

You cannot have it both ways, minister. That is why the estimates process should be a process which reveals that sort of spin, and it is very difficult to do it because time is limited and ministers obfuscate to fill out virtually the whole of the time. I will not talk any further about sport and recreation other than to reiterate that I thought the vast majority of the 90 minutes was an absolute waste. Can I say, I was disappointed, when I did ask that particular minister specific questions about the expenditure of taxpayers' money, the minister had little or no idea, and referred to his officers and a lot of time was wasted with the officers coming up with the answers to the question.

I would have thought that a minister, when the budget is published, would go back to his office, sit down with the budget and make out that he or she was the shadow minister, and say, 'What questions would I ask?' and make sure they had in their mind the answers. That is what they should be having their agencies prepare for them. It seems, from my experience of this year's estimates—and nothing has changed from previous years—that is not the way ministers behave, it is not the work or preparation that they make.

It is unfortunate because certainly the minister for rec and sport is very good at making speeches, opening things, launching sporting things, and having his photograph taken, but I do not know that he has a very deep understanding of what is going on in his agency and the effectiveness or efficiency with which taxpayers' money is spent to promote sport and recreation in the state.

I had a little bit of a better time with the Minister for Industrial Relations. We had quite a meaningful session, particularly on WorkCover, which is an area I previously had a responsibility in, and I have over many years done a lot of research into our WorkCover system. One of the things that I do in preparing for the estimates is go back and read previous year's estimates questions and answers to get a bit of an insight into what might have occurred previously. I was somewhat surprised when I will read last year's responses from the then minister. The WorkCover hearing was held on 21 June last year. The WorkCover annual report to 30 June, which is only nine days later, as we all know, gets handed to the minister by statute by 30 September and it usually gets tabled in this place in early October, so some three or four months later.

When I read the responses that then minister gave (the member the Playford) and compared those responses with what actually appeared in the WorkCover annual report, there was a huge discrepancy, so much so that I do not know that the then minister had any idea what he was talking about. If he did, that is even worse—a very dangerous situation. I can assure you that the committee 12 months ago was told things which certainly were not borne out in the fullness of time when the annual report for the agency became available.

It was rather disturbing, when I was preparing for the estimates questioning—and WorkCover is very interesting thing to prepare estimates questions for—because I found only two references to WorkCover in the whole of the budget document, and both references contained basically one word, and basically informed us that WorkCover was a part of the government. It gave us virtually no other information. Obviously, as a shadow minister you need to utilise other sources of material to come up with some questions you might put to the minister. We had an hour to ask the minister questions, and I do not know that we could have done a good job just basing our questions, technically, on what was revealed in the budget about WorkCover.

I went back and read a variety of materials, and fortunately there has been a significant change. When I was last responsible for the opposition on WorkCover, the Auditor-General had no powers to audit WorkCover. That changed in 2008, and now the Auditor-General reports extensively on WorkCover, and thank God for that. It is very revealing to read the Auditor-General's annual report pertaining to WorkCover. A lot of information is now available to the members of the parliament about the failings that are happening in WorkCover. It is pretty obvious to us that WorkCover is an organisation that is not fulfilling the role the parliament has asked it to fulfil.

We have this burgeoning unfunded liability, which in my personal opinion may well see the demise of the whole scheme as we know it. We cannot keep racking up hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of unfunded liability—I will not use the word 'debt' because technically it is a little different—albeit that at some stage the money will need to be found. We cannot keep racking up hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, year on year, and expect the scheme to continue on indefinitely. That just cannot happen, yet this government has gone down that very path for the last 11 years.

This government has seen that the problems with WorkCover and the unfunded liability have just continued to grow, and everything they have done to try to arrest that has failed. The legislative changes made in 2008 were dramatic. They did pit the government against the union movement, but the changes that they brought about, the outcomes and the bottom line for WorkCover have been miniscule, if anything. The reality is that the WorkCover unfunded liability continues to grow.

Last year, the committee was told that we were about to turn the corner, that things had changed, that the level of complaints had become less and that the only reason the unfunded liability had increased was because of the change in the discount rate, that it was basically a paper figure, 'Don't worry about it. It will go away. The discount rate might change back in our favour and it will disappear.' The Auditor-General said in his report, when he was talking about the $600 million-odd change in the fortunes of WorkCover, that only about half indeed was due to the change in the discount rate. The other half—about a lazy $300 million—was about a failure within the scheme. That has been going on and on, year on year, and the government continues to turn a blind eye.

I asked the now minister, the member for Enfield, a number of questions about this. One of the questions I asked was: why is it that WorkCover sets itself a probability of sufficiency level of 65 per cent when the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority sets for every private insurer a probability of sufficiency of 75 per cent? The Motor Accident Commission here in South Australia sets itself a probability of sufficiency figure of 80 per cent. Why is it that WorkCover sets that figure at 65 per cent? I pointed out that the Auditor-General said that if WorkCover used a figure of 75 per cent instead of 65 per cent, it would make the unfunded liability look $143 million worse.

Here is a scheme which has a record of failure over the whole tenure of this government, yet it sets a probability of sufficiency for its fund 10 per cent lower than any private insurer would get away with but makes its numbers look $145 million better. I did not get a response that made me feel happy. I quoted the WorkCover charter. This charter was signed by the previous minister only 12 months ago in late June. The charter says, amongst other things:

The Government expects the WorkCover Board to uphold its fiduciary duties in the annual setting of the average premium rate. The Government expects that the scheme should be fully funded as soon as practicable, having regard to the above objective.

Given that, I asked the minister: why does the board of WorkCover continue to set the average premium rate well below where it should be to fund the scheme? And that is just to fund the scheme for the relevant year, not to try to recoup the past failures—the nearly $1.3 billion or $1.4 billion of unfunded liability.

I asked the minister another question to which I did not get a satisfactory answer. I asked him: in the face of the actuarial advice given to the WorkCover board last December, why did the board come out in March this year and again set the average premium rate at 2.75 per cent when the actuarial advice was that it had to be at least 3.37 per cent just to cover the claims cost for the current year—that is for this year that we have just entered. That was just to cover the claims cost. It had nothing to do with helping to unwind all that unfunded liability sitting on the books of WorkCover.

Why is it that the board does nothing, and the government does nothing, and the minister does nothing when the actuary does a hindsight calculation to go back at the end of each year just to check its figures and see whether its earlier advice was accurate? The actuarial advice to the board, again in December last year, was that from 2009 until the current period the average premium rate would need to have been over 3 per cent, yet it has not been over 3 per cent for years because the government, at the time of the 2008 legislative changes, decreed that it would get the rate down. The government promised that it would get the rate down, and the only reason that the board is setting the rate at the level it is is that it is trying to fulfil a promise for the government. It is an absolute disgrace.

WorkCover is doing nothing for anybody in South Australia. It is not doing anything for injured workers, it is not doing anything for those injured workers who find themselves with a long-term incapacity to work, and it is certainly not doing anything for the state's economy. This government continues to sit on its hands—worse than that, this government is receiving high-level expert advice, yet it fails to do anything about it, and the minister could provide no satisfactory answers to the estimates committee.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:57): Sitting through estimates really was a very frustrating time for myself, as it sounds like it was for many opposition members. Sitting through estimates did give me time to ponder what we achieved and what actually came out of estimates. The worth of the process is probably the biggest factor I jotted down when I was twiddling with my pen in absolute dismay at the opening statements and the Dorothy Dixers.

As the member for MacKillop has just said, the opening statements and the Dorothy Dixers are just reannouncing something that has already been announced. It is something that has been on the public agenda for some time. It has been on the front page of the papers, on radio and on TV, but they continue to shine their boots, get up there and really just feel proud of a nothing statement.

I see that the government is making an art form of not answering questions, not dealing with the issues and not giving the information that the estimates process has been designed for. It is really about the government giving away very little so that they cannot be held accountable for their answers and their decisions. In the real world, I wonder how successful the process would be. Having said that, I would like to thank the chairs of both A and B committees. I think they did an outstanding job, as did the acting chairs and their standing up to take up some of the slack is to be admired. The members for Lee and Giles did great jobs as Chair.

I also acknowledge the heads of departments and their devotion to their respective ministers. Obviously those heads of departments have spent many hours, weeks, or in some cases probably months preparing, and I was privileged to speak to a couple of heads of department who said that they had been giving briefings, giving advice to ministers to within an inch of their political lives because the ministers and their departments were very fearful that the real information was going to be leaked out into the public arena. I find that very sad.

What does the estimates process really cost the taxpayer of South Australia? I think we would probably be shocked to know what the dollar value to answer ratio would be. It is something that will go on, and the way the government positions itself through the estimates period is the way the government will do it. The only way that that is going to change is potentially if this side of the house gets into government and really shows some foresight and some real authority about not trying to be such a destructive, proud government without any accountability.

Sitting in estimates, I did have some responsibility for several shadow portfolios. I sat in on estimates to listen in some cases but I also sat on the committee, and I would like to just reflect on particularly the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Housing and Urban Development, and Transport and Infrastructure. I think he was quite forthcoming with answers to questions and I think it is out of character for minister Koutsantonis to actually be forthcoming without beating his chest in one way or another, but I considered him to be across his brief and I gave him a pass.

Minister Fox came in as Minister for Transport Services. She had a cold. Minister Fox should have stayed in bed; I think she got a resounding fail. The Minister for Finance—minister O'Brien—seems to be across his brief. He did not come in with opening statements; he did not take Dorothy Dixers; he was honest with his answers. His department was well briefed and they worked well together. If he was not across the answer, his department had the answer and I think he took very few questions on notice. I think that was probably pretty good value for taxpayers' money, so I give him a pass.

Then, moving along, I had the sad displeasure of sitting in for multicultural affairs. Minister Rankine had plenty to hide and there was no doubt about that. She gave a glowing endorsement, as I see it, to the next minister for multicultural affairs, and that would be the Hon. Jing Lee in another place. It was an audition for a local current affairs program on the issue of the Vicki Antoniou show and it really was sad to hear the slanging match across the chamber. It really achieved very little. It is sad to say that I left before the end of the session, because I was absolutely appalled at the slagging, so the minister got a fail.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WHETSTONE: The member for MacKillop has just mentioned the Minister for Recreation and Sport. Sadly, I was not part of the committee, but I did observe a very disappointing performance by the minister for sport and rec. He just did not have the answers. He continually relied on his department. Look, I will give him some slack, he has not been the minister in that role for very long, but he is clearly not around the detail of this department. He is very good at giving statements without having to read a prepared paper, but I am not at liberty to give him a grading on recreation and sport because I was not part of that committee.

However, I was part of the committee on tourism. I thought the minister was quite disappointing, particularly in not being able to answer questions on information around visitor information centres, not being able to give any real value or real evidence of what regional tourism means to the South Australian economy and not being able to give any real numbers on just exactly what the cost spend ratio is with metropolitan tourism or with regional tourism. It is my view that the regional tourism brand is what brings this state's tourism industry together. I think that was something that he was not prepared to give any detail on. So, all in all, the minister got a high fail.

We move on to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and Regional Development. This was a very, very sad indictment on what this government's priorities are in regional South Australia. We see what the budget has done to agriculture and regional development and if we look at what the budget lines have said over time, there was this grandiose statement that the department had put more money into biosecurity, it was putting money into clustering, premium food and wine clusters, and yet the minister, who has been briefed, as I said, to within an inch of her political life, was inaccurate, lacked detail and spent more time on cost recovery than on policy.

It was a very sad indictment on something that is probably one of the state's premium economic drivers, and she received an absolute fail. Moving on. We looked at the Minister for Volunteers. As a new minister, I was pleased. He has a department that he has obviously worked with. I guess my view after the process was that perhaps he could learn a lot from the member for Morphett, shadow minister McFetridge.

The SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey, we are not to use Christian names—

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, I understand that.

The SPEAKER: —surnames or nicknames. It is of long usage. It is in the standing orders for good reason. It prevents quarrels.

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes, Mr Speaker, and I was getting to that. I was actually going to give the Minister for Volunteers, Disabilities, Youth and Social Housing a pass. So, I am not here to slag off at everybody. I am giving an honest view of how I thought ministers performed. Moving on. One of my great passions in this place, undeniably, has been the River Murray, water and the environment. I did sit in to listen to minister Hunter give his environment answers, his sustainability and conservation answers, and he crawled across the line. There were some, I guess, highlights in what the commonwealth government has tipped into a large need for a sustainable environment.

Once we got to water, the river, the department for water, SA Water, I thought that the minister, albeit he has been classified as a nice guy, a nice person, is a fairweather water minister. He is definitely not across his brief. Being a water minister for as long as he has he should have a much better knowledge of the basin plan. It is the most important reform package in the history of the River Murray. He gave no detail. He gave no evidence of what the intergovernmental agreement had achieved. It is something that has taken seven long months to put in place and it really was a sad indictment, because, as I hear it, the minister is trying to make the River Murray one of his key priorities in his portfolio, and I, quite rightly, think that he did a very average job. So, I gave him a very, very low pass.

Just moving into some of the issues, particularly, in agriculture, on face value with the announcements on agriculture and biosecurity, we saw this fantastic $1 million fruit fly funding over four years. I went out to the media and said that I thought it was a positive result for biosecurity, but of course we looked into the detail: dollar for dollar. It is all about this cost-recovery mechanism. Not only is it embedded into the minister's DNA but it is also the way that the government is treating agriculture and the way that it is treating the regions. It is all about cost recovery: 'We are not prepared to stand by you and support you as an industry.'

It is not just about standing by the industry with regard to fruit fly but about standing by South Australia. It is not about supporting industry so that they can actually have clean, green, first-class premium food to be exported. Let's face it, has any person in this room who has a peach tree in their backyard ever bitten into a peach and found a mouthful of maggots? Just visualise that. That is what biosecurity is there to prevent: it is about preventing fruit fly coming into this state. I think that South Australia has done a fantastic job in keeping this state fruit fly free. It is about the government putting the priority on cost recovery back on industry.

It is not about giving people freedom to go into their backyard to bite into a peach and know that they are not going to get a mouthful of maggots. The sterile fruit fly program is a $700,000 a year program that was put into place to retrieve sterile fruit flies from Western Australia. Obviously, we are now seeing that we are going to import those flies from overseas. It is a cost-saving measure, but what sort of a risk is it putting this state at to keep our fruit fly free mantle?

We looked at premium food and wine clusters. The minister could not really give us any insight as to what that means to South Australia. The minister was asked the question: 'What is premium?' 'A nice bottle of wine is premium.' But minister, you have to be able to articulate more than what a nice bottle of wine is. I am sure you are well-credentialled to know what a good bottle of wine is.

Could I give you a few tips, minister? It is produce grown in a clean, green environment; it is value-added within this state; it has maximum returns to the local economy; and it is presented as a standout product. It is marketed as something that needs to be put on the top shelf, not the bottom shelf, and not just exported in the hope we have a market for it. It is something that is promoted to the market as the number one product—a go-to product. It was very sad that the minister could not articulate that.

Again, as I have said, it all comes back to cost recovery. In relation to the reprioritisation of service delivery and implementation of administrative efficiencies to eliminate any duplication, there is not much there that you can duplicate, minister, because there are very few people left in the departments that you oversee. Minister, that is why you have to fail.

Concerning regional health, I would like to touch very briefly on the regional upgrade of the Berri hospital in the Riverland which was costed at $41 million. As we saw last year, suddenly they found a $5 million or $6 million saving. How could they find a $5 million saving when it was a costed, tender process? Please tell me that? What has happened is that we now have rooms with no chairs and we have rehabilitation with no pool. We have services that need to be put in place to make a regional hospital work so that people do not have to travel many miles and they do not have to use the PATS. What they need is to go to a one-stop regional hospital.

Mr Speaker, I am grumpy, and the reason for that is that I am participating in Dry July so that I can help raise money to put one chemotherapy chair in our chemotherapy unit—the brand-new unit at the regional hospital that has no chairs! That is absolutely outrageous. I am sure the previous minister for health would understand that those budget savings must have something to do with why there are no chairs and why there is no pool at that hospital. It really does beggar belief.

We also looked at the Health Advisory Councils. Some of those HACs have money within a building fund for those hospitals but they cannot access the money. They cannot spend the money that has been fundraised by the community or bequeathed to the hospital. Why can't they do that? Because that money has to be used as a budget bottom-line exercise. That is just such a sad indictment. That money should be used to better the hospital, it should be used to put better facilities in the hospital. I understand that the health budget is under pressure, but there is money there that could be for the betterment of the hospital.

That money has been put there by the community, it has been bequeathed to the hospital, yet it is sending the message to the fundraisers, to the elderly people and to the people who want leave in something of memory of their contribution to a community, and they are saying to me, 'Why should we fundraise? Why should we bequeath money to that hospital when the government is just going to scoop in and use it as a budget bottom line?' It really is a sad indictment of what this government is doing with our health system in regional South Australia.

Obviously, regional development is something that is very important to the regions of South Australia. We have seen the state government redraw its funding to the RDAs. Obviously, once the state government withdraws its funding, there is some commonwealth money that is put there, but all of a sudden the RDAs are almost that cash strapped they have to go to local government to get the money to put into the Regional Development Australia bodies.

When they go to local government, and they need some funding to keep them afloat, where do you think that money is coming from? That's right, Mr Speaker, it is coming from the ratepayers. Again, that is putting more pressure on ratepayers, and the reason it is putting more pressure on ratepayers is that the councils are having to dish out money to the RDAs to keep them afloat, so rates go up. So, that is cost of living. Again, that is sending a very cynical message to the people of South Australia that the regions are not quite as important as they could be.

We looked at the Riverland Sustainable Futures Fund, and the Minister for Regional Development even got her facts and figures wrong there. We have $5.1 million remaining in that fund. She initially said that that money would be used to leverage out of a Murray-Darling Basin Regional Economic Diversification program. During estimates, she said that it was going to be leveraged out of a Water Industry Alliance program. That is wrong—that is absolutely wrong. So, the minister needs to get a brief—let me tell you, she really needs to get a brief. It is a sad indictment on agriculture.

I know my time is running out, but before I sit down I want to talk about the intergovernmental agreement. What a sham! Seven long months we have been waiting for that, yet we still cannot get any guidelines of how we are going to access that money. We still cannot get any information on what the Premier signed. The Premier signed an intergovernmental agreement that is going to make huge difference to the sustainability of this river. Still no information.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Kaurna) (12:18): I will not speak for long. I rise to respond to a couple of things the honourable member for Chaffey said in relation to country hospitals. I did not hear everything he said, so I apologise if I get some of the detail wrong. I want to make some general observations about country health. It is something that members on the other side speak about greatly but, as I have said in the past, they speak from a point of ignorance. They know little about the workings of country healthy generally, they know a little bit about some of the issues in their local communities, which is part of their role.

What we have tried to do in government is to make sure that people in country South Australia have very good access to health services wherever they happen to live and, to that end, we have invested heavily as a government over the years of our term to make sure that people in country South Australia do have greater access to services.

In my term, I know the amount of elective surgery which was done in-country increased. So, more patients were able to get elective surgery in their country communities so that they did not have to come to Adelaide for services. I know that we had more renal dialysis chairs placed in country South Australia so that fewer people from the country had to leave their communities and move to urban areas in order to—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I would say to the member for Finniss: if he wants to contribute—

Mr Pengilly: But they weren't all funded by the government.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: If the member for Finniss wants to contribute to the debate, he can certainly do so. It may well be the case, as the member for Finniss said, that there were contributions from others, but overwhelmingly the investment was from the taxpayers of this state—the funds that were allocated to health and then spent by the government to ensure that we had a much better network of renal dialysis in country South Australia. We are also building up mental health services in country South Australia, and that is going on as we speak.

The member for Chaffey mentioned the issue of cancer chairs, or chemotherapy chairs. I am not aware particularly of the issue or the hospital that he was referring to. What I do know, though, is when I was first made health minister I became aware that there was very little chemotherapy done in country South Australia and I thought it was quite appalling, to be honest. I was surprised—and I have mentioned this in this place before—when I visited the Port Pirie hospital, which is a relatively small country hospital, that it was doing something like 25 per cent of all the country chemotherapy, not because people were coming from other parts of South Australia to Port Pirie for chemotherapy: it is just that they, of their own initiative, had developed a chemotherapy service. Even servicing that relatively small community, they were contributing about 25 per cent of the total that was done in country South Australia.

In other words, the vast majority of people in the country who needed chemotherapy had to come to Adelaide. Of course, as we know, if you need chemotherapy, it is not just one trip, it is multiple trips, and usually, as the course of the chemotherapy proceeds, you get sicker and sicker and you feel really poorly towards the end of it. It was a very big burden on those individuals and their families and I was really determined to do something about it.

Fortunately, the commonwealth government, the then Prime Minister Rudd (now Prime Minister Rudd), had an initiative to establish some cancer centres in country South Australia and we were able to get together a package which meant that Whyalla was to become a major cancer centre in our state. We received one of those centres.

Working with Dorothy Keefe, the head of oncology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, we are developing (and I know the current Minister for Health and Ageing made some announcements about this just recently) a network of cancer services through, I think it is, 13 or so country hospitals in the bigger communities so that wherever you live in the country you are within reasonable distance of a service that can provide chemotherapy. This has to be done very carefully, of course, because you are relying on people away from the major cancer services to deliver the treatments. It is easy enough to deliver the drugs to those areas but you have to make sure that the services are provided in the appropriate way.

I am not sure exactly where all of those hospitals are at but it is being rolled out over time. It involves training and also technology to make sure that there is a common database so that the dosages and the processes used to deliver the chemotherapy are able to be supervised appropriately. It does take time, but it is being rolled out. We will get to the stage where, as I say, I think it is 13 but it might be15 country hospitals across South Australia in the larger communities will have chemotherapy. This will be a huge boon for country South Australians.

It is really, I think, just the beginning of the networked approach to health that we can get through the establishment of one local Country Health network. Prior to the establishment of Country Health, there were 40 or 50 individual hospital boards who were competing with each other, often, to provide services in their communities without any cohesive, overall strategic approach to delivering services in the country.

What I keep wanting to say to members opposite is that this strategic approach which is run through Country Health means that we can do something like the Country Health chemotherapy centres because we are planning to do it across the state. If you left it up to the individual hospitals like Port Pirie, you would have one hospital that might be doing it but that would be the only one—there might be two or three of them, but you are not going to have a network across the whole state.

That is an approach that I think is really worth investing in. I am sure the minister will follow up about the particular chair at the centre the member refers to but what I do know is that we had resources to ensure that the 13 or 15 hospitals will have the appropriate resources. I honestly do not know what the problem is there, but I am sure it is something that can be addressed.

In relation to the other matter the member for Chaffey raised, which is the HACC funds, I do not believe the arrangements have changed particularly. What I was keen to ensure when we set up Country Health was that the HACC funds were applied in a way which was consistent with the overall strategic goals of Country Health generally but the specific hospitals in particular.

That is the same view I had as minister in relation to city hospitals, and I am thinking now more about city hospitals than country hospitals. With the Women's and Children's Hospital, in particular, there is any number of groups who want to raise funds for kids who have cancer and kids who have health problems, as the member for Adelaide would no doubt know as the hospital is in her electorate.

There are probably a dozen or so charities that raise funds, and I think some charities are very good, very responsible and very keen to work in a collaborative way with hospital managers and doctors about the application of those funds; others are very demanding and want to produce things which are not on the priority list, and they say, 'Well if you don't let us do that, we won't give you the funds'.

So, I wanted to make it very clear in the way in which we ran health that there was only one set of priorities, and only one plan. You cannot have individual groups doing things which are contrary to the plan, and we have seen a lot of that through country health over the years, where the most famous example, I suppose, was the ambitions of those in Mount Gambier to have a hydrotherapy pool. They raised funds, they got money from all sorts of sources, and they had hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it eventually came to nought because it just was not capable of being delivered, and it was not consistent with the overall strategic goals. In the end I had to bring legislation to this place to allow the fund to be dissolved and the money sent back to the people who gave it or, if they wished, it could be put to another purpose.

I think that is a really good example of where you have a great lot of local passion and desire to do something good but, without it fitting in to an overall strategy. I think what we were trying to do, and I am sure it is still the case, is to make sure that those funds which have been raised by volunteers and generous benefactors are used strategically rather than in an ad hoc way.

I know there are provisions that allow some discretion. I cannot remember exactly the total that can be used by any HAC in any individual year, but they can expend funds to a certain limit. If they want to spend a lot of money, it has to go through a proper process, and I would have thought that people who raised funds would want a proper process to be put in place so that those funds are not wasted. We might have a disagreement about what that process is, but I would have thought that the principle is essentially a sound one. With those few words, I conclude.

The SPEAKER: The member for Finniss—who will make his own contribution rather than making it during the contribution of others.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:27): I always make my own contribution, sir. I was interested to hear the member for Chaffey give a snapshot and record his points out of 10 for government ministers. I have sat through the estimates process now for nearly two terms and find it a completely pointless waste of time in many respects. I found we got more out of it when former premier Rann and former treasurer Foley were in their heyday. They actually answered questions and, even though they play acted, in particular former treasurer Foley was always ready to take questions and give as good as he got, and it was always entertaining, if somewhat raucous, in whichever chamber they happened to be in, I might add.

I seriously question whether this estimates process is not an enormous waste of time and money—a waste for the government, the opposition and the Public Service. I am of the personal view that we would be far better served with estimates similar to those done in the Australian Senate, where it has to get busy and do the work, and it could be something that those in another place might find a useful exercise and, given the amount of sitting hours they have, putting them into estimates may be a much more useful purpose served.

I make some general comments on estimates. For example, I was there when one minister talked for 17 minutes in his opening statement, and I find it absolutely ridiculous. They do not answer questions. Some of them attempt to battle their way through it with spurious answers, and others are required to turn around to their public servants, or those on the left or right, to seek urgent answers. To keep me entertained, what I found amusing was when someone sitting in one of the rear galleries had an answer to a question and all of a sudden they came flying to the table to give the minister the help they needed. It was like George Custer's cavalry, quite frankly, but fairly regularly they did not quite get there in time.

I hope that in the event that this side of the house is fortunate enough—if the good people of South Australia wish—to be elected to the government next March we will see estimates take a different format. As to the time wasted, we would be better off sitting in the houses, quite frankly, than sitting there for five days chewing up valuable time when we could be doing something more useful.

I read the Hansard of the estimates committees on matters I was interested in. The answers from some members on this side have covered them. When you get down to a couple of subjects that seriously impact on my electorate—and I will talk about the effect on the farming community of the natural resources management board's operations on the Fleurieu Peninsula—there is a singular lack of desire for ministers to get involved.

Along with the Hon. David Ridgway from the other place, I met with a group from the farming community at Victor Harbor a couple of weeks ago. They are savage about the imposts that are being put on them. They are not in the least impressed, and they almost said to us on the day, 'A pox on both your houses.' We are letting down the rural sector of South Australia. They are reminded of who the government is, and they are reminded that the government is run by the Public Service and they could not give a toss about people who are producing food and fibre for the world, and that is a sad indictment on the current government.

I return to the issue, yet again, of the ongoing marine parks debate. What is taking place at the moment is quite beyond comprehension in relation to the propaganda being put out by the department, under the banner of PIRSA or the Department of Environment, and the nonsense that has been perpetrated in relation to marine parks. The organisation RecFish is a disgrace, it is an outrageous disgrace. It has been bought off by a government that has no conscience whatsoever. The announcements from RecFish, in my view, are just ridiculous. They are completely and utterly—and have been for some time—bought off by the current government, and they are just a mouthpiece for the government.

The piece in the Sunday Mail, I think it was, a couple of weeks ago tried to explain how recreational fishing will continue to occur in marine parks; it is a disgrace. The professional fishing sector in my electorate, and in other areas, is objecting very strongly to what is being proposed when the sanctuary zones come in. I think there needs to be great deal of passion and common sense and business sense—and that is something this government completely lacks. Only one minister, the Minister for Finance, has had any business experience whatsoever. I pooh-pooh the Premier saying he had a small business. I bet by the time he finished it was even smaller, quite frankly. The only minister or member who has any business experience over there, as far as I know, is the finance minister, and he gets a pretty raw deal from his own side fairly regularly.

They just do not understand. They do not understand the fishing industry and they do not want to understand the fishing industry. Certain ministers run around lauding the great food, or the wine, or the seafood we have in South Australia and saying how wonderful it is. I think 70 per cent of our seafood is now imported from overseas—a nod of agreement from the member for Flinders. Why on earth this government wants to set about destroying the seafood industry and the fishing industry defies comprehension.

Fortunately, the Liberal Party has fully understood what is going on, and our leader—the past leader and the current leader—shadow ministers and the party generally have come out and said that, if elected next year, we will completely revisit this sanctuary zone nonsense and hopefully prevent a lot of damage. Fishermen do not want to get paid out. They do not want compensation; they want to catch fish. That is what they want to do. Whether it be rock lobster, abalone, scalefish—and the list goes on—that is their job. Every time I hear one of these weak-bellied ministers on the other side talk about what wonderful food, fish and whatnot we have, they should want to get out and have a good look at things and see how it really works.

As I expand a little bit, the Fleurieu farmers, in relation to water meters, dams and low-flow bypasses, have had an absolute gutful of this government. They have had an absolute guts-full of the bureaucracy and the way they are being treated. They do not like being told what to do and how to do it. I have a case of one family in Inman Valley. When the husband's father, who fought in World War I, came home nearly 100 years ago, he dug a dam. He is now being told that he has to put a meter on it and he is not allowed to use so much water. It is an absolute damn nonsense. It is no wonder they are upset. Again, if we were lucky enough to form a government after next year's election—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: —it is well and truly—well, there are a fair few on the other side that are not going to be here. If we are able to form government—

Mrs Geraghty: No, that's by choice.

Mr PENGILLY: —it is one thing that we—well you better stand again, Robyn. One thing that seriously needs addressing are these rampant, out-of-control natural resource management boards and departments that are riding roughshod over people who are going about their lives in an honest manner and trying to earn a decent living.

I do not think I need to expand any further. I go back to where I started and say that, in my view, the estimates are a failure. We might as well put in freedom of information requests, because we will get more information that way than from what we learn from estimates, and you will not get ongoing diatribe from ministers who really do not have a handle on their portfolio or who do not have a good brief on it. I am not quite sure that I agree with the member for Chaffey on all his markings, but there are too many important things going on in this state outside of this place. Members of the government need to go out to regional and rural South Australia with open ears and listen to what is really going on.

In my view, at the moment, what took place in this chamber yesterday over the education issue and the issue of sexual abuse of children is appalling. I have no doubt that there is far more to this than we know about and there is a common thread right through it if you go back over past education ministers. I think there is a lot more to come out of it. I sincerely hope that heads will roll. It is an absolutely fundamental principle that we treat our children properly and they are looked after, wherever they are. Whether they are in institutions or at school, they should not have to suffer what they have.

I think it is horrendous, and I commend particularly the member for Unley for exposing a lot of what has been exposed over the last few months. I hope that he exposes even more. In my view, as I said, there are people in positions who should not be in those positions, whether it be in this place, whether it be working for ministers or premiers, or whether it be in the education department, who should be removed once and for all for their failure to properly address the issues surrounding children in this state. With those few words, I resume my seat.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (12:40): I also rise to speak on the estimates committees. This was my third year of sitting on the committees and I was fortunate enough to sit in on many of the different portfolio areas that are of great interest to me and also of great concern to my constituents, including education, health and social housing, along with several other portfolios of Treasury. It was interesting to see the different styles of the ministers, the different aptitudes or ability to answer the questions, and also how some of them were quite aggressive and angry in answering and some just answered the questions, which is what I would expect to happen.

There is one thing that concerns me about estimates. I do not mind there being opening statements. It is fair enough if the minister wants to spruik the relevant information and the highlights that are happening, but I find it quite odd that there would be three government members who also ask questions. I would have thought that they would be able to ask their own minister in their party room. Instead of ministers being asked questions as a platform for them to give long speeches, they have the opportunity to do ministerial statements, and grieves are also available for that purpose. There are also Dorothy Dixers in question time.

I do not understand why you would not talk about it in your own party room rather than make us sit through and listen to your questions with pre-prepared answers when we only have a very limited amount of time to ask very important questions. It is the job of the opposition to hold the government to account and I think that the amount of time that we are given to do that in estimates should not be eaten into by questions from the government to the government, with pre-prepared answers. That is one issue that I have with the process.

I have a few different concerns that are of particular interest to my electorate, one being Adelaide High School and the zoning issues for the students in Prospect and Walkerville. As we know, on Tuesday 16 March 2010 the government made a promise that it would be expanding four of the most popular suburban high schools in order to cater for up to 250 extra students at Adelaide High School. They said, for example, 'To expand the zone to include, for instance, the students of Prospect and Walkerville.' The residents of Prospect and Walkerville took that to be a promise and, from speaking to governing council chairs who were around at that time, they believed that that meant the council areas of Walkerville and Prospect, because they had been on the committees that had submitted a report in 2008 to the then minister for education which explained and showed the dire need for a school or access to Adelaide High School, either through expansion or through a second campus.

Given that they were on the committee that presented the report, when the minister responded to that report by saying that the students in Prospect and Walkerville, for instance, would be included in the expansion, they believed that to be a promise and some of them voted for Labor on that basis. Through FOI documents, I have some letters from some very angry people who voted Labor believing that to be the case and now they feel very misled. I know that I had to withdraw the word 'misled', but they were given information that led them to believe one thing, which is now looking like it might not happen.

When questioning the minister in estimates about the residents in Walkerville and Prospect, it was pointed out that that was just 'for instance' and there was no obligation given to the residents, and there is no obligation now or in the future that any of them will be included, and 3½ years later we are still waiting for the zoning to be released. Regarding the figure of up to 250 students, the member for Kaurna pointed out that 'up to' could actually be one student or 10 students. 'Up to' does not even mean 250, so I find it quite inappropriate that the government, in an election grab four days before an election, gives the appearance of offering 250 places for students in Prospect and Walkerville, by the year 2013 I might add.

Now we find that it will only be 50 per year because you have to start at year 8 and allow for the numbers to go through and the earliest would be 2015. If you then allow for the five different intakes, you are looking at the year 2020 before the extra 250 places are actually available at Adelaide High and there is still no guarantee that any of those places will be realised by students in Prospect or Walkerville. It is quite astounding and very disappointing for the residents in my electorate.

Another big issue is the Women's and Children's Hospital car park. We have seen in the media in recent weeks reports of nurses carrying scissors back to their cars at night because they have to walk through Parklands and it is quite far away from their cars. The Minister for Health has been quoted on the radio and on the record as saying that he is not in the business of providing car parking. Elizabeth Dabars was quoted as saying that providing access to a hospital is equally as important as providing the actual hospital. I tend to agree that, if you have a hospital that your staff and your patients cannot access because of inadequate parking, it is very difficult to say that you are really providing a very good service.

I find the minister's stance on this issue quite confusing because if you believe that it is not the government's role to provide car parking, then why in the budget is there $7.559 million allocated for metropolitan hospital car parking? This, when questioned, was for the expansion probably of the Lyell McEwin Hospital's car park and that was due to the expansion of the Lyell McEwin Hospital of 100 beds. The Women's and Children's Hospital also has an upgrade of $64.44 million in the budget, which I would assume means there is going to be some expansion of services, unless you are just redecorating at a very high cost.

Why, on the one hand, when you are expanding the capacity of the Lyell McEwin, can you spend money on hospital car parks, yet when you are expanding the capacity of the Women's and Children's Hospital not only will you not expand the hospital car park you are looking at selling the hospital car park? We all know that if the car park is sold to a commercial enterprise the existing discounted rates that all the hospital staff get cannot be guaranteed in the future. You cannot put that in a contract. Certainly you might be able to cap the price for the first few years if you reduced the price of the car park, so therefore you are going to lose money on the sale.

The car park, from my understanding, brings in revenue of $1.2 million to the state government every year, so I also find it quite concerning that you would sell an income-producing assets when we are heading to the biggest debt levels—even higher than the State Bank—and we have a deficit and we need forms of income to pay off the debt that this Labor government is leaving us with. Besides the irresponsibility of selling a hospital car park that provides a service, it should be expanded, and at no point have I ever indicated that the government should be the one paying for the expansion of the car park.

However, there are plenty of private companies and private investors who know that car parks are a very good income-producing asset, so there is no reason why the Stadium Management Authority might not be interested in adding a few levels there, and there is no reason why the Women's and Children's Hospital Foundation, which is already a part owner of the car park, might not look into expanding the car park. I just find it very disturbing that the government, out of desperation for money, would look at selling the Women's and Children's Hospital car park.

The other hypocritical thing about the sale of that car park, because the government is not in the business of providing car parking, is a recent announcement of the $12 million spent on the Entertainment Centre car park and that will provide 600 car parks at $4 day. If you multiply that for workers who work five days a week, if they worked 52 weeks a year, that would bring in potentially at the maximum $612,000, yet, because we are in massive debt, if you calculate the interest on $12 million at, say, 5 per cent, that is about $600,000 on interest.

If you add any repairs and maintenance and the fact that on Monday, when my staff member drove past that car park at 8.30 in the morning, there were 700 places still available, if you count that it is not going to be full all of the time and there are repairs, maintenance and electricity costs and everything for a car park, they have just built a $12 million car park that will lose money and they are looking to sell a car park that actually makes money, which we desperately need, especially after selling income-producing assets such as the lotteries and the forests.

So, for the safety of the nurses and the staff in the area, for the residents who live in the area who already have cars parked all around them and for the patients who try to access the hospital who cannot get parks—and we hear every day on the radio more and more examples of people having difficulty parking in the area and, mind you, this is before the oval is even up and running, and this has been going on for years—I find it astounding that the government would seek to sell that asset. With that, I will end my comments.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:50): I indicate that I am the final speaker from this side on this particular topic. I think that all contributions thus far have been wonderful. In my first term I have come to the fourth series of estimates and each year I note that there is much criticism of the process, from all parties, and yet nothing seems to change. Nobody particularly enjoys the estimates. The opposition tends not to get the answers that they want to the questions. The ministers do not particularly like being grilled over budget lines over a long period of time. I am sure the departments do not particularly enjoy the weeks and weeks they spend preparing for the process. However, having said that, it is the opportunity that we have as an opposition and, indeed, a parliament to question the executive, the government itself, on its budget, its budget lines, its expected expenditure and the value it expects to extract from that expenditure.

It was interesting to see the programming of the estimates. My understanding, and certainly it is the opinion of our shadow ministers, is that the time allocation given to some topics was not adequate and in other topics it was far beyond what was absolutely necessary. Much has been said already of the ministers of the Crown taking the opportunity during estimates to give opening statements. I understand that they have that opportunity. I sat in on a couple of committees where the minister took in excess of 15 minutes to make an opening statement, making inroads into valuable time, time that could be better spent, in our opinion at least, taking questions on the budget line.

All that time and effort was spent, particularly by the department members, preparing for the budget process, just to see the ministers take the opportunity to make opening statements excessive in length and which really could have been done in another forum. As the member for Adelaide quite rightly pointed out, there are opportunities for ministerial statements at any point during the parliamentary sitting week. So, rather than use that valuable time to say how good and constructive the government is, it would be far better to open themselves up to the questioning from the opposition and the parliament.

It is all about the budget. Ultimately, that is what the estimates are about. It is about the state's budget. Unfortunately, (sadly) we see a dreadful set of figures yet again. The expected budget deficit, after 11 years of a Labor government, predicted is $1.314 billion. The debt is approaching $14 billion. These are figures that each and every member of the opposition have highlighted, but for the sake of putting it on the record we will do it once again. In the last seven years, Labor has delivered six budget deficits, and in each one of those deficit years it promised that the budget would be in surplus. In the seven years to 2014-15, Labor has promised $2.6 billion in surpluses. In fact, they are delivering $3 billion in deficits.

It is really quite simple to me: if you run a deficit, your debt increases. Is there anything too difficult in that? I would not think so. After six years of deficits (and with another forecast) we can then understand how the debt is occurring. The interest bill that Labor will owe on its debt will reach $952 million per year—that is almost $3 million a day. To put that into context, South Australia's interest payments will be larger than the entire police budget.

There has been a choice by the Labor government which has flagrantly disregarded the warnings of the Auditor-General. The government continues to overspend, and there will be a stark difference come 15 March next year when South Australians have the opportunity to make a choice between what I believe is a tired and inept government, as opposed to the current opposition led by our capable leader which is determined to repair the state's finances and provide the confidence and framework that will enable business to thrive once more in this state.

I did take the opportunity to ask some questions during my time on estimates, and I thank the ministers for the answers they gave. I also asked questions which I was not able to get answers to, so I will be following up on those. The questions related particularly to my electorate of Flinders. Of particular interest to me was a budget line that I picked up on for the first time when the budget was released. In fact, I did not get wind of it at all, but it relates to a $14 million spend on the Tod Reservoir.

The member for Bragg, representing the shadow minister for the environment, questioned the Minister for Environment on how this money would be spent and the answers we received were not particularly satisfactory. She asked, 'can you just explain what this $14.5 million is going to be spent on?' The minister responded:

The answer is in two parts. Part of the construction is for an increase in flood capacity.

Well, Mr Speaker, I can tell you that it is very unlikely that the Tod River Reservoir will flood, given that two of the three streams that direct water into the reservoir are, in fact, directed past the reservoir at the moment. So it is taking very little water. The second part of the answer was that the minister had been advised that:

...we need to bring the dam up to Australian national standards. I am further advised that SA Water is in negotiations with an entity to use non-drinking water for a commercial operation.

This certainly does not surprise me given the interest in mining exploration that is occurring on the Eyre Peninsula at the moment. Certainly, a big part of the issue of any future mining development or, in fact, the development of any other industry—further to what is already in existence—will put great demands on our existing water supply. So I am not surprised that there are discussions going on with regard to a new entity, but I would like to know exactly how the money is going to be spent and if we are going to get value, if the taxpayer is going to get value for the $14.5 million. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to resume my remarks at a later point.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


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