HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-02-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption (resumed on motion).

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (15:37): I will lead off by continuing on with my remarks that we are one of only 13 nations in the world today that can create a vehicle from the ground up, starting from the design right through to the showroom floor. It is important to recognise that every one of these 13 countries offers some form of industry assistance to their vehicle manufacturers. Why? Because they understand the strategic importance of this industry in terms of investment, jobs, skills, innovation, exports and research and development.

The Australian automotive industry accounts for around 10 per cent of the total business R&D and more than 20 per cent of R&D undertaken by the manufacturing sector. The value of R&D is that developments that may never end up being used in the automotive sector can often be picked up by other industries, including health, agriculture, defence and space science, just to name a few. Therefore, the spin-off value of a strong R&D sector should not be underestimated.

That is why countries that have the capacity to design and manufacture value this capability. They recognise that it is a contributing factor to the broader prosperity. Labor recognises this, too. We understand that our manufacturing sector is too precious to lose. We know the challenges are great, the competition fierce, but we will not take the easy road and abandon these industries that bring so much value.

There are many other challenges ahead. The impact of climate change and the shifting of the world's political and economic power from developing countries to emerging nations are both issues which in some way will determine how South Australia will look in another decade. The CSIRO has warned that as a result of climate change we face a future in which drought, bushfires and heatwaves will play an increasing part in our lives. Our relationship as a trade partner with the Asia-Pacific region will obviously become more important than ever before. At the same time, our positioning as a defence hub will also be paramount, providing new opportunities for increased employment and skills in this sector.

Water and energy security, housing affordability and supply, the development of contemporary law and order policies to address the emergence of cyber crime will require hard work, commitment, vision and the willingness to take action now and in the preparation for the years ahead. Boldness, courage and commitment to get the job done for the long-term prosperity of our state will be the qualities needed over the next 10 years, and Labor is the party to deliver them. We can not afford the short-term, easy road that history tells us that the Liberals will take us down.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:42): I rise to congratulate the Governor on his delivery of the speech written for him by the government. I would stress that anything I say is no poor reflection of the Governor. I think he is doing an outstanding job for this state. He has given outstanding service to this country previously in the navy, and I applaud the fact that his position has been extended for another two years.

In relation to the Governor's speech, written for him by the Labor government, I refer to the phrase that 'the government understands that many South Australians are troubled and uneasy about the shifting and uncertain times the world now faces on so many fronts'. I think we see that when we look over at the other side at members of a Labor government that have a 9.8 per cent swing in front of their eyes, when they realise how many of them will not be here if that swing goes through at the next election. I think there is certainly a concern on the other side that that Labor seat, that bastion of Port Adelaide, has now become a very marginal seat.

Reflecting on the Governor's speech, the government have said that they believe they need to act and embrace bold new approaches. What have they been doing for the last 10 years? Just running the state bankrupt? That is what I think is going on. We are heading into a deficit of $11 billion, and the state is going backwards fast.

The government indicate that they have reviewed where the state stands now and is making decisions about where the focus needs to be for the future. Why did they not start that a decade ago when they got into government, instead of just spending those rivers of gold that came with the GST that was coming into this state? They were rivers of gold, unallocated funding that this government did not bank on, and all of that has just been frittered away by this government.

I will start on the seven primary areas that the government is supposedly interested in. It was interesting that the speech was headed with reference to the clean, green food industry. We have a fantastic clean, green food industry in this state, and I should know: my family have farmed here since 1840. My property at the moment has been leased out since 2005 but we still live there and very much enjoy being part of the rural lifestyle, and I certainly enjoy the odd time when I can do a little bit of work on the property.

To think that this government thinks about the clean, green food industry of the state when we are in the current budget cycle where they have slashed $80 million from Primary Industries funding. Towards 400 jobs have gone in the last two years from the primary industry sector in the government sector, and this is a government that comes out in the government speech trying to tell us that they are worried about the food industry. I really could not think of anything further from the truth.

This is a government that does not govern outside Gepps Cross and Glen Osmond. Hang on: they do govern up in Ramsay and Salisbury. They were fortunate to keep that seat, but it is a very short-sighted government, and I was actually shocked to see that they supposedly are concerned about a clean, green food industry.

When you talk about some of these cuts that have come out of Primary Industries funding, we see a slash of $12 million in Rural Solutions which is the extension part of Primary Industries. We see that the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) has cutbacks of $8 million over four years. We see cutbacks where fishermen have to pay more fees—and in aquaculture, more fees—just to run their businesses and here we have a government that just thinks they can pillage private enterprise because of these massive budget cutbacks to the food industry.

I would like to think of one issue where the government has actually helped out the food industry in this state because I am really struggling to find it. We see that the government has ceased funding the Advisory Board of Agriculture, and that will happen. The funding for the advisory board has been scaled back for this financial year, and that will completely cease to exist. I should say that the funding will cease to exist: the advisory board will not. The funding will cease in June this year and I think that is an absolute disgrace when this government comes out with one of its lead statements that it is committed to the food industry. It was because the former minister for agriculture, who believed that he was the greatest agriculture minister in the world—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: He certainly thinks so.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: No, he made the statement that he thought he was the best agriculture minister in Australia, and that is a fact.

Mr Whetstone: Better than minister Caica?

Mr PEDERICK: Better than minister Caica, by the sound of it.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Point of order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am not quite sure that that is actually what the former minister said and I would just request that the shadow spokesperson be factual in what it is that the minister said, not what he thinks it was the minister said.

Mr PEDERICK: I am quite sure that he said he was the best agriculture spokesman in the country, and if anyone wants to prove me wrong I am happy to come back to protect the record. But I really struggle with how this government thinks it is supporting agriculture. This minister decided that he would cut the funding to the Advisory Board of Agriculture, so the board, which has been going for well over 100 years in this state, is going to have to rely on its own funding so that it can keep up this vital work of giving advice to the government. But when you have a government that believes it does not need advice, it is just totally outrageous.

The minister set up this higher level group, this business group, and there are a lot of good people on that group and I have no problem with the people on this higher level group, but they are at the next tier of primary production in this state. They should be listened to as well, but we still need to see the people at the ground level of primary production listened to in this state.

We also saw back in 2010 that the minister had no funding to replace the Premier's Food Council. The Food Council at that time was to be replaced with a new strategy group—as yet frameless and nameless—to consider the opportunities available. More Labor cutbacks, and here they are making out they are looking after our food industry, but I will expand on that later.

We have the state government talking about the mining boom and its benefits and the claim from the Premier yesterday—and he tried to back it up today in question time—that we will be matching Western Australia in a decade's time as far as money that comes back to the state in royalties. We will have to match $4,800 million. We would have to be producing, on a gross value of mining, somewhere in the realm of $80 billion to $100 billion worth of mining to be anywhere near that mark. It is just ridiculous that this government thinks we can get $4,800 million worth of royalties into this state in that time.

Olympic Dam will spend six years, when they get the go-ahead—and I know there is initial work going on—to open up that site. I know there is a lot of mining opportunity around the state as well and I hope a lot of the potential goes ahead so that it can help invigorate not only our mining areas but our regional areas and our grain growing, because we certainly need some more access to ports with our grain farming to get more competition into the market.

The government also talked about advanced manufacturing, and we see people that just cannot compete in this state and take their industry elsewhere. The government talks about a vibrant city. What about the vibrant regions, the powerhouse of this state that drives the economy in this state? The government talks about safe and active neighbourhoods, yet we see shootings and crime gangs out of control. You cannot even go out and have a cup of coffee and feel safe in this city.

The government mentioned affordable living, where we see the price of water going through the roof, for people not just in the city but also in country areas. Early childhood funding was mentioned. Let us see the early childhood funding that keeps the childcare centres open, unlike the ones that have closed in my electorate. The government is saying they must make these choices that are strategic and fundamental to the changed direction of this state. Well, they have a lot to do and I wonder what they have been doing for the last decade.

The government's speech talk about the innovation of the food industry and that the spirit of innovation needs to continue. Where is the support from government for that? They are walking away from SARDI. That will end up in Adelaide University's hands. What will become of the $70 million to $90 million worth of assets? I believe they will be gifted, quite frankly, and there is another loss of not only income but also income from the learning, the strategy and the teaching that we can have as a state.

There was also talk about the legislation that this parliament will bring in to preserve the districts of Barossa Valley and McLaren Vale. At first thought, a lot of people would suggest that that is a great idea, and on face value it does sound like a great idea, but what happened to Mount Barker? There was no planning there, with all the explosion of building and development, where development was going ahead of strategic roads and strategic infrastructure to keep that going.

We already have people that are concerned about their future in what they may do with their properties—people from the Barossa and the Sellicks area who are frightened that they will not have any option but to stay where they are, pay high rates and not have an option to leave their land. I have a fundamental thought that in a lot of ways we should not tell people how to manage their lives and how to manage their business, that we should let the market do the job.

I also question how people are going to make it work into the future. I actually got the price on 200 acres (or 80 hectares) of land at Bridgewater—$1.8 million dollars the real estate agent quoted me—and I thought, 'Well, how can you make that work for primary production?' Do not get me wrong, we absolutely need primary production in this state but it has to be done in a viable manner. You have to do it in a cost-effective manner and I cannot see that you could produce enough off that amount of land to make it viable, but that discussion will go on.

The government says that it will take whatever means necessary to save the Murray, and the concern about the depletion and pollution of the Murray overallocation. Yes, there has been overallocation. We saw the minister suggest only today that he cannot guarantee the allocation for this state's irrigators. I know as much as anyone, having the electorate at the end of the river, not only how much the irrigators but also how much tourism and the environment need this river. You only need to talk to anyone in the MDBA to find out that there will be at least 5,000 gigalitres coming down the northern basin side, out of the Darling. This will be coming out of the already full Menindee Lakes and down through Lake Victoria, and there will be a massive amount of water coming into this state. So, I cannot see why the minister—just on that amount of water coming through without the southern basin—cannot tell our irrigators that they can have full allocation this next year.

The Hon. P. Caica: It's called rules.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, there are rules.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: If the minister wants to make a contribution, I am quite happy for him to do that later on. He should give the industry certainty so that we do not have irrigators through the Lower Murray, the Mid Murray and up in the Riverland losing out because of poor decisions—

Mr Whetstone: Again.

Mr PEDERICK: Again—thank you member for Chaffey—because of poor decisions made by the state government in regards to allocation. It has really knocked people around in regards to carryover, whereby many people have lost a lot of money in regards to the programs around how carryover water could be managed, and about the water that they have lost, and there is a lot of anger right up and down the river.

We see the government and the Premier—he seems to have tempered his call on the 4,000 gigalitres for the river, and he is threatening a court challenge if we do not get it. Well, I think the Premier wants to be careful, and the Labor government wants to be careful, because this is just the type of language that the eastern states want to hear. They want South Australia to basically poop in its own nest so that they have an excuse to say, 'Bad luck fellas, you are not going to get the water.'

It is not so much the number that he has come up with, it is how we use the water: how we use it strategically for the environment; how we use it for irrigation so that everyone can win; and also for our tourism industries. If we do not get this plan right now we will never get the plan, and it will be on Labor's hands in this state if they put the boot in that hard, and the eastern states say, 'Sorry, you are not going to get enough.'

I want to talk about how the government says it will establish a bipartisan committee to explore the potential for a future fund. As the leader said in this house the other day, 'What are they going to do? Borrow some more money to put into the future fund?'—the great Liberal initiative from three months ago, because that is what it is. They will have to borrow some more money. because there is a $9.1 billion investment basically going into the city, and it is sending our state broke.

I look at the Adelaide Oval program. We were going to build a city stadium on this side of the house, and the government panicked and had to come up with its own policy, but to fund it they will sell the forests and sell out the future of the South East. We still cannot get any clarity on how many rotations they are selling: is it one, two or three? I know the minister was asked in the other place, I think it was yesterday, how long a rotation was, and she had no idea. No idea. When you have a minister for forests who does not even know that a rotation is 37 years, that is tragic. It is a sale that will decimate the community of the South-East, and not just for the thousands of workers involved but for the thousands of other people reliant on that. It is the mainstay of the South-East economy. It is an absolute shame.

Then the shops are going to be open. Yes, the shops are going to open, and that is the new legislation the government is going to bring in. That is fantastic, but we have Peter Malinauskas from the SDA (he calls the shots over the other side) and Business SA saying, 'Yep, we'll do that. We're going to have two half-day public holidays.' But if you are running the Innamincka Hotel you have to pay those rates as well. You are nowhere near Rundle Mall or Adelaide or anywhere there. All those regional towns and all those regional areas throughout my electorate—whether you be at Pinnaroo, Goolwa or Tailem Bend, anywhere throughout there—have to pay those rates if this legislation gets through.

Then the government talks about being close to public transport, being near essential services. That would be great. I would love public transport. I would love the buses to come a bit further down the freeway to Murray Bridge. I think that would be a very sensible plan, especially in light of the development there—apart from other developments with respect to the racetrack—with 3,500 homes to be built there.

You do a bit of driving around the city and you look at where they are going, heading up to Freeling in the north and Aldinga in the south, and Murray Bridge is pretty equivalent as far as the distance out of town is concerned. People can get very affordable living. If we could only get public transport out there it would make it a lot easier for kids in terms of university education and for people to commute to work. It would be a fantastic initiative.

Then we see that the government is saying that it wants to find other ways to reduce the burden of living costs on working families by developing flexible payment options for service charges, well-targeted concessions and specific relief initiatives. Instead of hitting you with one big bang, they are just going to bleed you slowly to death. It is incredible—the rates, the power prices, gas and water.

We have farmers who have to get their water through the Murray off the pipes, off the reticulated system, paying close to $3 a kilolitre. As one farmer budgeted, that is costing $20 per animal, $20 per sheep. It is just a good thing sheep are where they are, but it is getting very close to being uneconomic. I know that the member for MacKillop and I, as well as other members, fought in here when the Water Industry Bill was debated last year trying to get some reality in regard to the price of water, but the government will see nothing of it. It will not be happy until there is a desert of farms out there, right across this state, that cannot keep stock going.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, you just want to go out there in the real world. Say that someone has a pipe leak. I know that the Coorong council has a seminar coming up, and I notice that some technology is being developed so that people can be sent a message from a water meter when it suddenly goes berserk when there is a leak so that they can catch it, because you don't get too much sympathy from SA Water when you do have a leak. I know that I had a water meter that only lasted about four years and it had to be replaced the other day.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Well, they are not very sympathetic when you have an excess bill of $3,000, I can tell you.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, that is what causes the excess bill, Tom. You want to get out there and have a look. I just want to talk about some of the issues which affect this state but which also centre on my electorate. I want to talk about the risk of branched broomrape. I have mentioned before that the government and the National Review Committee are walking away from the management program as far as branched broomrape is concerned.

We had a meeting the other night which one of my staff attended. Will Zacharin, the head of Biosecurity, has had a casual chat with Viterra. These are the main players in our grain industry and Will Zacharin tells our farmers that he has had a casual chat with Viterra about whether or not it will take our grain. They are having a meeting soon. What is happening there?

We have got people with stock. Will they have markets with their sheep—with their hoggets and young lambs? Will there be an issue with wool? At least the government is saying it is going to monitor some cropping ground for the next three years. Will Zacharin has actually made the comment that there are other major weed problems—well, they are not quite the same as broomrape—and he reckons there will be no problem trading and there shouldn't be any different stock demonising it. The problem is, Will: your job has been about cost recovery in the fishing industry and you are belting up the agriculture industry with the same thing, and these people will not be producing anything to be able to pay the bills.

This is a real problem. People are coming into a season where the main funding—the funding for 10 years of $45 million—cuts out at the end of June this year, and I am afraid hundreds of farmers in my electorate, the electorate of Schubert, and there may be some in the member for Chaffey's seat—

Mr Whetstone: Yes.

Mr PEDERICK: —will be affected by this, and it is just a disgrace. This is what we see in the Australian Year of the Farmer. We see governments just walking away from their funding commitments to primary industry in this way.

I was talking previously about the payment plans for people with services. I wonder what the government is going to do with its debacle of Shared Services. It is an absolute debacle that was supposed to save tens of millions of dollars. I have almost had my phone cut off and I know some other members over here have had their phones cut off because they cannot even pay the phone bills. I have members on my side who have decided to fork out of their own pockets, who are subsidising this state Labor government by paying their phone bill so they can keep in touch with their constituency. That is an absolute disgrace, and I am sure it is happening on the other side of the house. You need to talk to your Treasurer and tell him to reverse this decision because this is an absolute disgrace.

How can the Treasurer manage the finances of this state when they cannot even pay politicians' phone bills? It is an absolute joke! That is why we are in such a mess in this state. The phone company rings you up and says, 'Mr Pederick, your phone bill was due last week. Why hasn't it been paid?' I said, 'Well, you ring Treasury and Finance to sort it out. Sort it out with the Treasurer. It's not my issue. It is my issue, though, if you cut my phone off.' Thankfully, I have not had to subsidise the state government and pay my own phone bill.

Mr Whetstone: I have.

Mr PEDERICK: I know the member for Chaffey has, and others.

Mr Treloar: I've had my phone cut off.

Mr PEDERICK: And the member for Flinders has had his phone cut off. So, come on, Jack, pick up the ball and just get on with the job and reverse this flawed decision of Shared Services. It is costing the state tens of millions of dollars. Put the money back into the regions, put the pay officers back out there in the real world and let's see something really happen.

As I said, the Australian Year of the Farmer is a great initiative. We see the nine vehicles heading around the country and we on this side fully support them and I wish them all the best. I think it is a great initiative to promote Australian produce, and we will certainly see them at all of our local shows.

I want to talk about the Dukes Highway which runs through my electorate to where it runs out just north of Coonalpyn. I have argued in the Public Works Committee and talked in this house about the simple fact that the Dukes Highway should have been duplicated. We are now in the middle of seeing $100 million of overtaking lanes going in, and I must say there are a lot of them going in between my property at Coomandook and Tailem Bend, so that no-one thinks I am not declaring my interest. These will be good, but what a halfway measure.

The government could have bitten the bullet—and most of this was federal money—but it started putting in dual lanes at $5 million a kilometre when it could have done the job properly. In fact, what is going on out there at the minute is we are going to have the road widened and there is going to be a metre wide strip in the middle so that you can poke your nose out a bit so you can see if you can overtake. What everyone has said to me when I mentioned that to them is that we will end up three abreast and there will be a bunny in the middle. So we will see how it goes.

I do wonder at some of these so-called safety upgrades when you see, I think it is, about 150 metres of wire rope go in on an island at Tailem Bend on the south side near the Meningie turn off. I have never seen anyone run up. It is a built up island, several metres wide, and obviously runs narrow at one end, and I think, 'The only man who made any money out of that was Mike Mason.' And, good on you, Mike, you do a good job. Mike Mason Fencing—I know he does a lot of government contracts and he does do a lot of those wire rope contracts, but I just wonder: why was it done there? I cannot see the need.

Regarding roads, we see the easy out by this government. Instead of carrying out road maintenance it reduces the speed limit by 10 kilometres. What do we do next year if it does not want to spend any money? Instead of coming down from 110 to 100, it will go down to 90? It is ridiculous.

In the few minutes I have left I want to talk about what is going on with the 5¢ grain levy paid by farmers. I think it has been disgraceful on all sides. That the industry has not been able to sort this out is an absolute disgrace. The South Australian Farmers Federation had a grand opportunity to let the farmers of this state, all levy payers, not just SAFF members, vote to put people on the grains committee, but no, it did not take that opportunity. We had Grain Producers SA set up. SAFF decided to change its position. There was a document signed on 14 October by several people. Peter White from SAFF signed it and then he walked away. He is doing a deal now with Grain Growers Limited.

I offered to assist the minister to get a bipartisan approach to this issue and to sort it out, but that did not happen. The minister rang me up one day and said that she was meeting with SAFF and she was going to organise a primary industry funding scheme. So, the industry has stuffed it up because it has lost control of it, the minister has taken over and Labor has won the game. This is what happens with disunity. I hope that we get some common sense into this and the minister realises that we could have found some common ground and got on with this and got the job right. At the end of the day, I do not see much hope for this state under this Labor government.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (16:12): I would like to contribute and respond to the speech by His Excellency the Governor of South Australia on the opening of the Second Session of the Fifty-Second Parliament of South Australia. As the member for Fisher indicated yesterday, I also would like to congratulate the Governor Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce and his wife, Liz, on their reappointment and thank them very sincerely for their dedicated service to all of our state over the last few years and wish them well in the next couple of years.

I would also like to comment on some of the seven primary areas of focus for action by the government which were mentioned in that speech. I will start with the clean green food industry. Our state is already a leader in sustainability in many areas. I will mention one of those, and that is South Australia's own Spencer Gulf King Prawn Fishery, which has become the world's first king prawn fishery to receive the prestigious Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for sustainability. That has been a great achievement and I congratulate everybody involved with that award. This is only one example of South Australia striving for excellence in terms of food sustainability and security.

Talking about food sustainability and security, the next issue is water. Not only is food security a challenge, but also our water security. I will continue to lobby for what I consider is best for our state and work with members of this house and the other place and also with regional South Australia. We must act as Australians, not as individual states, to ensure that we all survive. We should look at ideas that may not be conventional and to some may be controversial. We need to be innovative and look at increasing the amount of water that is in the system, not continually reduce what we use for food production and human needs.

We must have a vital and healthy River Murray system and Murray-Darling Basin. We must also ensure that the livelihoods of those people on the River Murray and the Murray-Darling Basin are not decimated, and that the food production future of our state and nation and also opportunities for exporting overseas are secure.

Regarding the resources, this state is on the cusp of a new beginning with regard to our resource opportunities, with many projects in varying stages of development, not only in the northern part of the state but in the different peninsulas. The world is demanding our resources for their own growth and existence. We, as a state, should not lose sight of the fact that we are in the box seat. However, to be able to achieve this great opportunity we need power and water. It is very easy to say that we need these resources but we cannot continue to take from the existing resource—in particular, from the Great Artesian Basin. These basins have taken millions of years to fill and if we keep extracting greater than the infill, then we will have a great environmental disaster.

Again, this is in line with my previous statement. We need to look at innovative ideas to be able to bring more water which will allow these activities to be able to be achieved. The top end of South Australia in particular is a gold mine. It is going to be a great opportunity for whoever is in government and for all of our state and our families. To ensure that we have those opportunities, we need to look at how we get extra water and not take it out of the basin.

With regard to manufacturing, along with other parts of Australia, this sector is competing with other regions, in particular China and Asia. We are competing to be able to produce consumables at a very realistic price. As a nation we have lost numerous manufacturing sectors—the whitegoods and textile industries to name two—and now our car manufacturing is under threat. Until recently this state was a proud supplier and builder of various marine projects. I mention the Whyalla shipyards. These closed many years ago and thousands of jobs were lost at the time. Whyalla is only now starting to recover. The resource opportunity may overcome that, but we lost that proud industry in Whyalla, and it is something we really do not want to lose again.

Our defence industry has now started to get back on track with the activities in Adelaide. However, we need to work to ensure our jobs are protected, not only for ourselves but our future generations.

Regarding education, I am very passionate about young people and how we steer them through the formative years. Being a parent and a grandparent of 13 from my now extended and blended family, I have been blessed with a happy and healthy family. My family has not had to engage with specialist services such as speech pathology for our children but I have been lobbied by those directly affected by conditions such as autism and Down syndrome.

I mention these two issues as I have been meeting with the relevant ministers and although the government has allocated funds to allow these people to access services, there is in fact a shortage of allied health professionals to deliver the actual services. However, to the credit of both the ministers that I have spoken to, they are investigating this issue and looking at solutions. Every child deserves to have the best opportunity for their future and each child will achieve the best that they are able to achieve in their life. However, as legislators, we must ensure that there are adequate resources and funds.

Another area of concern is in regard to ever increasing pressures being placed on families, pensioners and the unemployed. Other people in this house have mentioned the ever increasing costs on utilities. These people are struggling to be able to pay for their increasing utilities costs. There are also issues associated with accessing medical specialists in terms of the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS). The rate of reimbursement of this scheme has not changed for many years despite the significant increase in fuel and accommodation costs. I will continue to lobby the minister and my fellow colleagues for a change and an increase to the PATS.

Regarding land tax: whilst it may not have been on the list the other day, this is an area of concern, especially in regional South Australia, particularly for developers. Land was selling fast, then the global financial crisis hit and confidence started to wane in regional areas. I speak not only for my electorate but I know that other country members here also have the same concerns. Developers were left with many unsold blocks. Under the current system they are not only paying council rates but also have to pay land tax on each individual block, eventually eroding the profit.

I refer now to country roads, and, again, this has been brought up by other members. Regrettably, there are still too many accidents on regional and rural roads. Fatalities and serious injuries happen all too often. Some of the roads in regional South Australia are in a very bad condition. Whilst lack of maintenance continues to be cited as a reason for some accidents, consecutive governments have neglected our regional road infrastructure.

It is my belief that we should also be reinforcing school-based education programs aimed at road safety across primary and secondary schools. I can certainly speak from experience: if you lose somebody in a road accident it has long-term effects for many years, not only on yourself but also your family and your friends.

However, I would like to congratulate the government for the reconstruction of the main street of Bute. After negotiations with the minister and the department, the main street was not patched but reconstructed. I congratulate them for looking at the longer term and the best way of doing that which was not to patch up but to reconstruct, and also for the funds that will allow for the redesign and reconstruction of Anama Lane and the Spalding intersection just north of Clare over the next couple of years. I also congratulate the government on the major works that have happened on the Tarlee to Kapunda road. This state has the greatest opportunities for growth. It is our window of opportunity and we must not let it slip.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:21): I would like to thank His Excellency the Governor for his opening speech. I congratulate him on the extension of his term as Governor for another two years. I acknowledge Kevin and his wife, Liz, for their exemplary service to the State of South Australia.

Just before I speak on the primary areas of focus, I would like to make one comment, through some frustration on hearing our new Premier asking for more etiquette in this chamber. Over the past couple of days it has been highlighted to every person on both sides of this chamber just exactly what is going on. The etiquette that has been asked for I think has been compromised by what I have seen over the last couple of days, particularly the personal attack on the wife of one of the opposition frontbenchers on Tuesday. I think it was absolutely deplorable.

We sit here and see questions being asked with no real answers. We look at the Dorothy Dixers not being answered properly. There is a very legitimate reason why the opposition is so frustrated and vocal. It appears that the questions that are being answered are really just spin.

Also, we talk about having a cost-effective government. I have a particular concern, watching the two departing members for Ramsay and Port Adelaide. Both those MPs (formerly premier and deputy premier) made a four-year commitment to this parliament that they would be there for the people in their electorate. Albeit they were stabbed in the back and they moved aside, we now see that the former premier has been given a very comfortable package to sit in a staffed office with a chauffeur and a car, etc. They should be in their electorate office serving out their term. That is what they were elected on and that is what they were there for. We see now that this Premier has given them almost a jar of marmalade to keep particularly the ex-premier happy. After saying that in frustration, I will move along.

I am pleased that the government has acknowledged the contribution of our food industries to the welfare and sustainability of South Australia. It is unfortunate that in the Australian Year of the Farmer the government did not see fit to specifically acknowledge the state's farmers. Without farmers there cannot be a clean, green food industry in this state, let alone a capacity to meet growing world demand for food. This omission by the government, however, is not surprising. I feel that the disconnect between regional and metropolitan South Australia has never been greater than it is under the 10 years of this Labor government. Farmers will be an essential element in growing our food industries and taking advantage of increasing global demand.

Our focus must also be on the quality of South Australian food and exports if we are to be competitive. To maintain a quality edge we must have a strong agriculture research sector and a robust quarantine regime. I have spoken a number of times in this house on the need to restore government funding for agricultural and horticultural research in general and specific facilities in Chaffey like the Loxton Research Centre.

Farmers in Chaffey yearn for the days when Loxton was undertaking cutting-edge research and when the former department of agriculture was highly active, disseminating research outcomes and assisting farmers in adopting them. Loxton's research on issues like new varieties of fish, irrigation and salinity management was responsible for the Riverland region becoming one of the world's first-class horticultural regions, as it is today.

Loxton needs to thrive as a centre of research excellence once again. While much research and development is now conducted by the private sector, publicly funded research outcomes are more readily adopted by farmers due to their inherent impartiality. If the government is truly committed to making our food industries a priority, it must increase support for our food research sector. This does not mean cutting funding to SARDI and PIRSA. If this government gives them the appropriate support, they will respond.

This government needs to understand that South Australia's clean and green reputation is not something which fell in the state's lap because of our geographical isolation and favourable climate. It is the result of decades of innovative research and development, extraordinary vigilance against exotic pests and diseases, painstaking efforts to develop export markets and, not least, the hard work and sacrifices of South Australian farming families and their communities.

These foundations must be maintained and proved in order to grow our food industries. South Australia is indeed in a prime position to cater to the increasing global demand for food, for much of the world's population growth will be on our geographical doorstep in Asia. However, it is important to note that Asia's population is not only growing but becoming more affluent, and this affluence is seeing changing food consumption preferenced by a focus on quality.

We are continually told that we have to be competitive, we have to grow more with less. In saying growing more with less, that underpins my next point, that is, we need to have more water efficient food. We need to have fewer chemical inputs into that food, and we have to have fewer straight out inputs. When we grow food, the biggest barrier we have is the cost of production—the cost of chemicals, diesel, machinery and technology.

We have had two of the world's leading experts—I am privileged to have them living in my electorate—in Peter Magarey and Peter Gallasch. They both worked at the Loxton Research Centre over a number of years, and they are leaders in their field. Peter Magarey researched growing plants that are resistant to disease. For instance, when we look at a grapevine much of the inputs into growing grapevines are as a result of mildew disease. We know that that creates a lot of input—a lot of chemical impacting on the environment and impacting on the health of particularly the farmer who has to apply those chemicals, extra diesel and extra labour time.

If Peter Magarey had been given the funding, he was on the edge of developing grapevines that were resistant to that disease. Again, that would make us more competitive on a world stage. If we look at Peter Gallasch, we would see his achievements in irrigation technology, his achievements in monitoring not only moisture but salinity and nutrients in plants, which would make it much more cost-effective to grow and be competitive on a world stage.

Really, we have to be driven by economic benefits. We have to be driven by the long-term strategy of research and development and not just rely on commercial industries to promote what product they want to sell to the farmers, what product they want to sell to keep our food production alive. We need more environmentally friendly solutions. We need to be able to cope in the lean times and I think, in saying that, the lean times are when we most need to be cost-effective. We need to have that cutting-edge technology. We cannot just rely on the private sector doing that.

In the Mallee Sustainable Farming sector at the moment, in my electorate and in the Mallee, in that marginal country, we have seen over the last five years something that was never thought of as being possible, that is, a huge amount of the grain crop coming out of marginal rainfall country, country that was just very light and very sandy and unable to really produce any viable crop at all. We look at some of the R&D that has gone into it, and we are seeing substantial crops coming out of that very marginal country. We are seeing fewer inputs, but it is also environmentally friendly.

Once upon a time, we would look at some of the news bulletins after a big wind event and we would see that half the country had blown away into neighbours' paddocks. Roads were covered with sand. Today, with some of that R&D and some of that technology, we see minimal-till farming. We are seeing that the country is stabilised, and that is all through research and development. That is all through farmers who are prepared to try different things, but it is coming at a great cost, and that partnership needs to be a publicly-funded R&D project in sync with commercial interests. When we look at commercial interests, we look at a commercial interest trying to sell a product, trying to make money for their own benefit, not for the entire economy.

What it comes down to is that we are looking at the government of the day to make long-term decisions, to make long-term investment in research and development. We do not want shiny-shoed bean counters sitting in an office here in Adelaide giving advice to government on a four-year election cycle. We want good government investing in food security through R&D and investing for our food production future, which is a huge economy driver. We do not want to see cheap import deals secured for unregulated and sometimes unsafe food products.

In this house, I have also spoken a number of times about the state's need for a robust quarantine and biosecurity regime. I have serious concerns that have been raised by this government's unrelenting attempts to shift the cost burden of quarantine and biosecurity to farmers and industry. A line has to be drawn. Quarantine and biosecurity benefits every South Australian, not just food producers, and this government must bear the cost on behalf of every South Australian.

At this point, I acknowledge the government's response to the locust plague in 2010. That was well received by farmers and industry, and I only hope that the government considers the enormous economic benefit this response had—one in which every South Australian shared—when it comes to funding ongoing programs that meet our other biosecurity threats. This government must also restore funding into Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia (PIRSA), particularly in rural services. It simply makes no sense to reduce funding and staff numbers in its department when South Australia's economy and exports rely so heavily on the agriculture sector.

South Australia's economy relies even more heavily on the River Murray and, as you well know, Madam Speaker, the River Murray is something that I am very passionate about, and I cannot emphasise this enough. Towns like Whyalla and Adelaide could not function any more than the communities on the river could without water from the Murray, but the difference here is that Adelaide and Whyalla's existence are not threatened by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The existence of South Australia's river communities are very much threatened by this plan, and the combination of anxiety, uncertainty, frustration and the sheer fatigue of river communities in Chaffey caused by this exhausting and ham-fisted water reform process is almost beyond description.

There is determination to see it through, but there is also despair that our voice will ultimately be ignored. This fear is certainly justified. This process began more than four years ago, but South Australia's 40 years of responsible water use and reform, and its massive investment in state-of-the-art irrigation efficiency and its historic compliance with caps on water use has so far completely been ignored.

The fault for this lies squarely at the feet of the Labor governments in Adelaide and Canberra. The Premier and the water minister, and their predecessors, have had more than four years to press South Australia's case for recognition of the state's responsible water use, and they have failed. They cannot convince their own federal Labor colleagues. They cannot even get them to listen. All the Premier can do is copy his predecessor and make grandiose threats of a High Court challenge. All he can do is create an atmosphere of confrontation and community division in order to appear tough, and this is not in South Australia's interest.

Federal Labor, with its history of incompetence in the implementation of environmental policy, is not managing the Murray-Darling Basin reform process in the nation's best interest. However, from South Australia's perspective, this has been like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. South Australia is potentially going to be even worse off and its future even more uncertain under the latest version of the draft basin plan.

As with the previous version, the plan articulates no solution to the problems facing the Murray-Darling Basin. South Australia is being ignored, because this government will not articulate a solution. The entire process has denigrated into a pointless, highly politicised and divisive debate over a magic number. The number is not the solution, it is just a number—a compromise made in a panic, an untested figure that is supported by no-one.

The solution is a balanced, practical and elegant solution that delivers environmental flows as well as certainty and security for our South Australian river communities. It is how we obtain the water needed to save the Murray-Darling system that is important. This has been the opposition's position from the beginning, fully articulated in its submissions to the authority and to the standing committee on the regional Australia panel. This is where the focus in the debate must now shift.

The government must sell our infrastructure projects to recoup water back into the system. If we look at projects like the Menindee Lakes engineering solution, that is a $400 million project and the money is on the table. The government is yet to have the will to spend that money. That will put 170 gigalitres back into the system. That is a huge amount of money. If we look at the viability of the South-East drainage scheme—60 gigalitres back into the southern lagoon of the Coorong. There is also the South Australian wetlands and river management.

We have to look at the issues in our backyard as to how we can best address water saving initiatives to help save the river. At the moment, we have governments that are looking at the irrigators and their communities as the solution, and that is not the answer. If we look at engineering works down at Lake Albert at the narrows, there are a huge amount of savings to be achieved down there, not by saving the water but needing less water to gain an outcome.

We can look at the salinity credits through the Salt Interception Scheme. I do not know whether the members of this house understand that the Salt Interception Scheme mines highly saline water from deep bores from all the states in the Murray basin, but all that saline water is deposited in evaporation basins here in South Australia. We need to be recognised for that.

What will the South Australian government's contribution be to the SDLs? We have a Save the River Murray levy—$25 million a year—that is a junket account for administration, it is achieving nothing to actually save the River Murray. Where can SA Water make savings? Everyone across the board is being asked to look into their business management, look into the viability of their businesses, and the way that their communities are run to find savings. Where is SA Water on that? Again, we are looking at on-farm savings. There are many farms in South Australia that can still make on-farm savings and can still contribute to the sustainable diversion limits. We look at removing pumps off the backwaters so that we can manage our wetlands. We can put them into a wetting and drying cycle, and that is of huge benefit to this state. Of course, we need to buy-back water from willing sellers.

Premier Weatherill and environmentalists are absolutely fixated on a number and, again, I say that number is almost irrelevant. It is about the outcomes of what the environmental plan will do. It is almost as though the Premier and the environmentalists are walking hand in hand into a lolly shop and they are looking at the top shelf saying, 'That's what I want up there. I want the lollies on the top shelf,' without really knowing what is in the jar. So, it really does prove that the number is highly political and we need to find solutions elsewhere.

The Environmental Watering Plan is still three years away, so with the environmental lobby and the Premier fixated on the science, where are we going to use 4,000 gigalitres? Where are 4,000 gigalitres going to be used? The balance is in the plan on the table, that 2,750 gigalitres will be put back into the environmental water holder for the benefit of the river. That is the starting point. While it might not be the ultimate number, it is the starting point. We risk derailing this plan and having no states agreeing to it, and if we do not agree to 2,750, what is the answer? Is no water the answer? No plan means no water. I have to ask the Premier, if he is listening in his office, whether he has met with the premiers of the Eastern States to discuss just how this plan is going to be implemented, and how we can have a benefit for all with the balance between the environment, the irrigators, its communities and the river's health.

Again, South Australian irrigators and their communities need certainty. It is like living on the edge without knowing just exactly where the edge is. We look at the huge amount of public money that is being put into a desal plant here in Adelaide—$2.3 billion. I can ask anyone in this chamber, 'When are we going to turn the desal plant on? When is it going to be of benefit to this state?' Most people come out with an answer, but they say, 'Why would we turn the plant on when we have the River Murray there, and we can keep sucking it out of the River Murray at no cost?' But it is at a cost, it is an environmental cost, and in drought it is to everyone's detriment, particularly the communities and the irrigators that produce this state's food. We look at something that is a huge financial cost to this state but, even more significant than the financial cost is that, to date, three lives have been lost at that desal plant. Money cannot bring those lives back, that is something that needs to be highlighted.

The sum of $228 million in federal funding has been put on the table for the desal plant. Unfortunately we had $216 million taken away in GST funding, so in that $228 million of funding, the state has had to give up six gigalitres of water. Where did the six gigalitres of water come from? I would imagine it has come out of the taxpayers' purse. So, again, that funding has been of no benefit to this state. Who really paid? I think it is South Australian taxpayers, and if only they knew, they will still be paying for many years to come.

Will the desal plant help the river? It is not looking like it. As the minister for water keeps telling us, the desal plant will take the reliance off the river but it will take no less water from the river. When will the government switch on that plant? That is another pressing question. What is the trigger for that state's investment on the desal plant? For $2.3 billion when are we going to turn on that plant to have an impact on helping South Australia and helping the River Murray? I really do think that the 100 gigalitre desal plant was just a kneejerk reaction. They could see a bucket of money from the feds and they went with it, without even considering the diversity that this state could have embarked on.

When I say 'diversity' I look at recapturing stormwater, storing water in aquifers and reuse of grey water. Myriad diversification projects could have been used. Through the course of debate and an argument over the desal plant versus not using stormwater, people need to understand that river water—all water—was once from the sky, and it has all run down the streets, run down the hills and run down the creeks into the main channel. It is all stormwater. Again, diversity was always overlooked.

I will move from the water into mining and its benefits. Obviously, the mining sector is going to play a significant part in South Australia's future over the next several decades. It is going to be the economic stimulus for South Australia for quite sometime; and it is not just about the mining sector, it is about the employment base, it is about the jobs, it is about the regions that it will support, it is about the lifestyle that it is going to give this state and the opportunities that Chaffey has in the mining industry.

We do not have any mines as such in the electorate of Chaffey, but we do have a very good skilled worker base. We do have the good attributes of a workforce in the mines. We are accustomed to working in isolation. We have a great resource hub. We have great skilled businesses there that can complement the mining industry. There is the potential for the fly in/fly out. As I have said in other speeches I have given, I spent a number of years in a fly in/fly out exercise and it can be of huge benefit to regions, to a lifestyle, but there is a balance there.

For the mining employment sector to come to a place like Chaffey, it is a great place to live. It is an affordable place to live. It really does lend itself to mining. Just touching on advanced manufacturing, the electorate of Chaffey has significant advanced manufacturing through the food sector. I will just touch on a couple of businesses that have really shown world-class technology, world-class product. Look at the almond industry and the Almondco brand. It is a world leader in quality, it is a world leader with its name on a box of almonds, and that is why it is such a successful export driven business.

The biggest concern that all manufacturing has in the electorate is dealing with red tape. Red tape continually stalls advancement in manufacturing in my electorate. Look at Nippy's juice products, which is expanding its processing. It is using Australian citrus in its fresh Australian juice brand. It produces, in my opinion, the world's best orange juice. I have travelled in many countries and I am always keen to try an orange juice where ever I travel. Nothing beats Nippy's.

Mr Treloar interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Exactly. Nippy's has just undertaken a huge upgrade in its packaging line. It is now packaging and processing all types of beverages; and, because it is in a central location, it can pack the juice products and ship them to all destinations, particularly on the eastern seaboard. We look at JMA—which has been a leading provider into the wine industry over a number of years—diversifying into mining and diversifying into concrete products, as is the business of high tech.

These businesses offer the mining sector and the state's economy a huge opportunity to decentralise and to come out to the regions where there is affordable living and a great lifestyle, and it is a good place for people who want to embark on new businesses to come and live.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: As the member for Stuart acknowledges. Touching on the other points, yes, I want a vibrant city and, yes, I want affordable living and a safe neighbourhood. Many members have touched on the issue of safety within our local neighbourhoods and the debacle that we are seeing with the thuggery that is going on in the organised crime and bikie world at the moment. It is something that is really putting a threat onto the streets of Adelaide, particularly, but, mark my words, it could easily spread into the regions.

Of course, early childhood fundamentally underpins the regions of this state. This government seems to be hell-bent on centralising all those initiatives. Why wouldn't we decentralise and move to the regions? The cost of living is less. A lot of the regions are very central to the mainstream cities. We have hospitals that are not overcrowded and we do not have the waiting times. We do not have the huge infrastructure pressures on roads, and pollution. It is all about coming out to the regions and smelling a bit of the fresh air.

This government needs to perhaps get away from Gepps Cross and the Adelaide Hills and come out and smell the roses and look at the opportunities the regions of this state offer. They offer so much, yet we continually look at the pressures of living in cities, pushing people into hospitals, overcrowding hospitals and overcrowding our infrastructure, as I said. Come out and smell the roses.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon]


Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:52): I rise to make my contribution to the Address in Reply and, like many who have spoken before me today on both sides of the house, compliment the Governor on his delivery of the speech. There is no need to beat around the bush: we all know that he did an excellent job delivering the government's and the Premier's speech. I also would like to put forward my personal opinion that he is an excellent governor. I thank him for his contribution to the entire state. I congratulate him on his continuing appointment and would like to make the point that he is greatly appreciated throughout all of South Australia, not just in Adelaide. He attends a lot of functions in country South Australia, and I have personally been with him in Port Augusta, Eudunda and Morgan. So, thank you to him for that.

Of course, we are making these speeches because we had the proroguing of parliament, because we have a new Premier and because we have had two by-elections, so the Premier and the government decided it was time for them to try to pretend it was a fresh start, for them to try to pretend that everything would be better and for them to try to pretend that the Rann-Foley era was over and some form of new Labor was going to improve everything for the state.

Of course, no-one is fooled by that. We all know that Premier Weatherill was in cabinet every single year and every single day for the whole of the Rann government, so he participated and supported and was in no small way a driver within that government and he contributed to all of the things that they did. It really is laughable and foolish for him to try to pretend that he is different, fresh and new.

Of course, the by-elections will not change anything, either. They will bring us two new members of parliament, and I genuinely congratulate those two people, Susan Close and Zoe Bettison, on their election. Regardless of who we are and what our political thoughts are, we all know that it is no small feat to be elected to this parliament, and they should be very proud of their achievement. Again, their coming here will not change the government. A new Premier and two new members in the Labor government will not change things at all. We will still be faced, as a state, with the same government waste and mismanagement that we have known for the last 10 years and that, no doubt, will continue under this new Premier.

Government waste and mismanagement leads directly to an increase in the cost of living for every single South Australian, particularly those people on low and middle incomes. It leads directly to an increase in the number of public servants on full pay but without a job. It leads directly to the continuation of this government's user-pays cost recovery system, which, as the member for Flinders quite rightly pointed out to me several months ago, is becoming a business model for this government. It is used as an excuse.

The government says to agencies, businesses and people who would like to access support, service and leadership by this government that, 'That is okay, but it is not coming out of general revenue anymore. That is okay, it is not coming out of the normal tax base. That is okay, but you will have to pay for it.' I understand economic rationalism and there is much of it that I agree with, but it is becoming an excuse. What it does is turn some government departments and services into organisations that can charge whatever they like, under the guise of: it is efficient user-pays cost recovery.

The questions need to be asked: do we need some of these services? Do we need to pay to regulate some of the industries and practices that take place? The answer, of course, is yes, for many, but the answer would be no for many as well. It is just an excuse to seem efficient. The government is using this process to get other people to fund things they do not want and, in many cases, do not need. So, we are not going to see any change in that.

With regard to government waste and mismanagement, one feature of the government's speech, through the Governor, was that public sector reform would be driven by an increase in ideas and creativity and rewarding risk-taking, but no decrease in numbers. I know that we have thousands and thousands of very hardworking, very capable, very good public servants supporting all of us in this state, but I also know that they are not all like that.

One thing I can tell you for sure is that their increase in ideas, their improved creativity, their reward for risk-taking will not be genuinely undertaken if their jobs are not at risk. If they can sit there on full pay with nothing to do, then why change? That is human nature. So, until that nexus is broken, until what is referred to as the waiting room or the departure lounge is addressed, the things that the Premier talks about regarding increased creativity and activity will not take place, because until people feel some pressure, some requirement to be better, to work harder, to be more innovative, it just will not happen.

To prove and to highlight what I am talking about regarding government waste and mismanagement and why we should have no expectations—and we should be under no illusion that two new members of parliament or a new Premier are going to change things—I would like to put some numbers on the record, and I have them here for Hansard if I do not speak clearly enough, but I think it is very important to get all of these numbers onto the record.

The budget for the 2009-10 year estimated that in 2010-11 we would have a budget surplus of $78 million. The 2010-11 budget estimated that we would have a deficit of $389 million in the 2010-11 year. Then, last year's 2011-12 budget showed us that we would have a deficit of $427 million. The 2009 budget estimated that in the year 2011-12 we would have a $96 million surplus. A year later, in 2010-11, for the same budget year (2011-12) they estimated a $55 million surplus. Then, a year later again, the 2011-12 budget stated that for that same year the 2011-12 budget would finish with a $263 million deficit. Only six months later, in the Mid-Year Budget Review, concluded late last calendar year, it was estimated that we will actually finish up with a $367 million deficit.

The forecast surpluses never eventuate, and this continues. The 2009 budget forecast for the year 2012-13 that we would have a $304 million surplus. The 2010-11 budget estimated for the 2012-13 year that we would have a $216 million surplus. The 2011-12 budget estimated for the same year that we would have a 2012-13 surplus of $114 million. But guess what, six months later—surprise, surprise—the Mid-Year Budget Review tells us that actually at the end of the 2012-13 year it will be a $453 million deficit.

This continues down to the point whereby we were expecting to get a surplus in the 2012-13 financial year but in actual fact we are now expected to get a surplus in the 2014-15 financial year. The reality is that people just do not believe these forecasts. We are told by the government that there is always going to be a surplus a few years down the track, but it just does not eventuate. In six months between the 2011-12 budget and the 2011-12 Mid-Year Budget Review late last calendar year, the surplus was delayed by two years. The predicted surplus was put back two years, and that surplus (the 2014-15 figure) is also now only half what it was going to be. Six months ago we were told that that was going to be a $655 million surplus. Most recently, in the Mid-Year Budget Review just a month or two ago, we were told it would be a $334 million surplus.

These numbers tell us that there is an ongoing, unavoidable pattern according to the government of predicting surpluses, but they just do not eventuate—government waste and mismanagement. Government waste and mismanagement has led us to the fact that we will have a greater than $10 billion state debt in the current forward estimates. We will have approximately a $700 million per year interest rate and, as the Leader of the Opposition often reminds people, that is about $2 million per day. That is what all South Australian taxpayers spend just to service the government debt. Government waste and mismanagement increases the cost of living for every single South Australian. Before we do another thing, we have to spend $2 million a day just to pay for the interest.

Of course, the government says that the global economy is to blame for this. The government tells us that it is not their fault: it is actually the global economy and it is Greece, the EU and all of those issues. The reality is that there are very serious economic issues overseas. There are great challenges overseas and, yes, they do have an impact on us, but this is just an excuse because the debt was entered into long before any of those overseas factors came into play. As you can see from the numbers I gave you before, we have been going down the tubes financially for quite a long time. Sure, the global economy has an impact today, but we have been heading this way for quite a long time, so it is just an excuse not to be believed. Our government overspent well before the global economy was an issue and it cannot use that as an excuse.

Government waste and mismanagement has led to the fact that the government owes hundreds of millions of dollars to private enterprise in this state. The government pays its bills late. The member for Norwood, the shadow spokesman for small business, outlined very clearly how this is not an accident. This is just taking advantage of basically big player versus small player. Small businesses cannot jump up and down. There is no pressure they can exert. There is nothing they can do. They just have to lump it, and that is dreadfully unfair on our small business community. Another example of government waste and mismanagement is that the health department, as of 12 February, still had approximately $20 million of unreconciled accounts. Nobody can say that is good management.

The new Premier's first actions: the new Premier would have us believe that things have changed, that it will all be better and that we can forget Rann and Foley, that he will lead us on and make things better under his government. His first few actions after becoming Premier included a visit to the Riverland. I give him credit for that because I tell you that the previous premier did not go there for a very long time, so I give him credit for that.

He went there in the midst of what we all understand is the very biggest issue facing the Riverland at the moment, that is, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is one of the biggest issues facing our state and our nation right now. He went there and people were expecting some good news; they were expecting some sort of contribution; they were expecting some leadership from our new Premier but they did not get it. All we know is that the state Labor government and the federal Labor government cannot agree on what to do. This is our opportunity, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for all governments to work together.

The next thing the Premier did was to visit Mount Gambier. Again, the forest sale is one of the biggest issues facing that community and it expected some good news. The Premier went down there and had nothing for them. He went down there basically on a media stunt just to say, 'Well, I'm not changing. I'm not going to do anything. I'm sorry, we're selling your forests; we don't care.' So it was hardly great leadership, hardly great government.

Another fascinating move—and I cannot figure this one out; I have no idea why any new Premier would do this—and one of his first big public decisions as a new Premier was to say that ex-premiers would get all sorts of perks. This government is going to spend approximately $200,000 over six months to support ex-premier Rann. First, it is a waste of money—government waste and mismanagement; and, secondly, I just cannot figure out the politics of that. Why would any brand-new Premier tell the public that one of his first big decisions is to provide all sorts of benefits for ex-premiers when he knows that he will be the very next ex-premier?

Another thing that confounds people whom I talk to in the city and the country is the government and the deals that it did in the Port Adelaide by-election. Everybody around the nation can look at the mess that we have federally based largely upon the deals and the operation of the joint Labor-Greens government together. I cannot imagine why anybody would think that that was going to work well in South Australia. However, it does show where the government is at. The Premier and the government will do whatever they need to do to support the Greens to get the Green preferences and to get whatever support they need from the Greens. Even without the Liberal Party running a candidate, they still had to do that. It still had to kowtow to the Greens—just the same sort of federal mess now coming to South Australia.

Another example of government mismanagement and waste and the fact that the new Premier is no different from the old premier was denying the parliament's Public Works Committee access to information about the Royal Adelaide Hospital project. Why on earth is that? This is the biggest, most important, highest profile, single infrastructure development in our state's history and parliament is not allowed to look at it. The secrecy continues from one premier to another with no change in style and no change in government.

The Port Adelaide walkway may very well be a very good project, and I am happy to say that I am not familiar with the details of that project. Was it an election commitment made by the Premier, made by the Labor government? It may well be a good thing. What I would like to highlight, though, is that this project was described by the Premier as a very important regional development project—a walkway in Port Adelaide was described as a very important regional development project.

I can tell you that that was an insult to regional South Australia. That was an absolute insult to regional South Australia. Perhaps the Premier does not really know much about regional South Australia, perhaps he just thought he had to say whatever he had to say to do his deals in Port Adelaide, but regional South Australia was insulted that their new Premier thinks that a new walkway in Port Adelaide is an important piece of regional development. In fact, the government's speech, which the Governor delivered, absolutely neglected regional South Australia entirely.

It also neglected small business, by the way: 135,000 small businesses in South Australia were not referred to and not mentioned in the speech. I also put on the record that there is not one target in the recently revised South Australian Strategic Plan that relates directly to small business either, which I think is no doubt no accident. It is not in the SASP and it is not in the opening of parliament speech, so that shows how much this government cares about small business.

The speech did not refer to the racing industry at all. This government made a very deliberate decision not to have a minister for racing anymore, to axe that position. I am a very proud shadow minister for racing. I think the government seriously undervalues and underestimates the importance of the industry to South Australia. It is one of the few sporting industries that competes, operates and runs all year round, 12 months a year, and it is also one of the largest employers in our state. It is incredibly important. I think it is a very unfortunate oversight that the new Premier has decided to ignore the racing industry, but I will do my best to fill that that void on their behalf.

I mentioned that regional South Australia was not included at all in the Premier's speech. I picked that up. I wrote it in my notes at the time, and we were talking about it in the office when I got an email from a colleague in regional South Australia, who did bit of a word search. He sent me the facts. The word 'country' was used once in the speech, and that was in reference to the official welcome to country. The word 'region' was used once in the speech, and that was in the context of 'people throughout our region and the world'.

The word 'regions' was used once, and that was in reference to 'wine regions', specifically the Barossa and McLaren Vale—very important places, but hardly representative of all regional South Australia. The word 'regional' did not pop up once in the speech. The word 'rural' did not pop up once in the speech, but the word 'city' turned up 16 times in the government's speech.

I am very happy to say here or any other place that Adelaide is an exceptionally important city. I lived here for many years. I love Adelaide, but not at the expense of regional South Australia. As I said before, the Governor knows that the state includes Adelaide and the rest of the state. The Governor knows that very well. Adelaide is very important.

I can tell you that city people appreciate the country and country people appreciate the city. We come down to Adelaide for all sorts of services, whether it is entertainment, whether it is medical, whether it seeing family and friends, all sorts of very important things. There is a very important relationship between the city and the country in South Australia, but from the government's perspective it is all one-way traffic. By way of example, in our most recent budget, which includes over 1,000 pages, two pages are devoted to regional South Australia. In Western Australia there are 80 pages devoted to regional Western Australia in their most recent budget, and I think that tells a tale.

I would like to touch on a few important issues facing regional South Australia at the moment. This is in no way a conclusive list, but it includes some of the very important issues. Regional South Australia deserves equity of service. Regional South Australia makes up approximately 25 per cent of the population of our state, but it generates approximately 30 per cent of the economic wealth of our state.

I know that it is actually even more than is currently reported because I recently found out that if you look in the ABS figures at mining, there is an enormous amount of mining income generated in the inner eastern suburbs of Adelaide. I am sure that a large part of the wealth generated in regional South Australia is not reported under regional South Australia, perhaps because there are companies with head offices or accountants or registered addresses in Adelaide. Not only are we 25 per cent of the population, 30 per cent of the economic generation in rough terms, we are even more valuable than that.

Health, education, communication, roads and police are all very important issues, and there are many more, but they are important services where regional South Australia does not get its fair share. The Murray-Darling Basin draft plan report is very important, the most important single issue facing regional South Australia at the moment.

We have had, clearly, Labor division on that issue. Clearly, the state government and the federal government, by all reports, have different views and opinions on what needs to be done there. That is a great shame. There are three main areas of the river in South Australia, and I would like to touch on that very quickly. We obviously have the Riverland, broadly described as above Lock 1 on up to the border. We have the Mid-Murray from Lock 1 down to Wellington, and we have the Lower Lakes, essentially from Wellington down to the Murray Mouth, including the Coorong. All three of those very important areas are within South Australia, and anyone who thinks it is as simple as looking at just one or two of those areas is underestimating the size of this problem. All parts of the river need to be very seriously considered in this issue.

Regarding the South-East forests, the whole issue of selling three rotations of wood from our forests—most likely to overseas interests—is alarming. As we all know, they generate approximately $44 million of income at the moment; as we also know, the need to sell these forward rotations is directly linked to the need for the government to find the $530 million it needs for the Adelaide Oval. Let me say very clearly that my opinion on the Adelaide Oval has not changed. It is a wonderful project and an attractive project, something that every South Australian—city, country or outback based—would no doubt like to have in our state, but we just cannot afford it. Compared to all the other priorities that we have to spend state money on, it is not at the top of the list. It is a nice thing to have, a wonderful thing to have, but we cannot afford it and we should not be spending our money on it at this point in time.

Another very important issue for regional South Australia is Aboriginal affairs; very, very important. Reconciliation and improvement of opportunity and quality of life for Aboriginal people will not be improved if people are divided. I believe in some forms of positive discrimination to achieve specific goals in specific, finite periods of time, but we will never be able to say we have achieved enough for any group of people until both negative and positive discrimination are not an issue. They both keep people divided.

Food production was a key feature of the government's speech, and I congratulate it on that; it is very, very important. Clean and green is very important, there is no doubt about that, but we must have access to the latest and world's best technology in our farming industries. We absolutely must have that. Some of the technology is already in place. We have some of the most efficient farmers in the world in South Australia and no doubt we will have others in other industries as time goes on, but there has to be a balance between clean and green and the very best and most modern available technology. We can never forget that.

I would like to quickly touch on the seawater greenhouse project, a wonderful project near Port Augusta where solar power is used to desalinate saltwater from the gulf to grow vegetables in a very large greenhouse. It is 2,000 square metres, but it is actually just a pilot plant. It is going very well and is a wonderful example, in the electorate of Stuart, of cutting-edge clean, green food production.

Of course, food production is very important in the outback. Our outback pastoralists produce an enormous amount of food, primarily through beef and lamb, but of course wool is also very important. I would like to say that in the rush to try to make up for government waste and mismanagement it appears that the government is trying, in many cases, to more than double pastoral rents at the moment. The Pastoral Board has not increased its formulas, the Pastoral Board has not changed its calculations. Most active pastoral leases incur a 2.7 per cent rent on the unimproved capital value, but it seems that years after values have declined—I think they reached their peak in 2007—the government is going back and revaluing pastoral leases. I suspect this is in an effort to try to increase those rents at a time when it desperately needs money.

Outback people are, of course, custodians of our environment in many cases, and I think people do not give enough credit, primarily to pastoralists but to lots of other people working in our outback, for the work, effort and conscientious way they go about protecting our environment. If we did not have pastoralists we would have more feral animals and we would have more pests and weeds in our outback areas.

Of course, communities are very important. There are approximately 30 communities in outback South Australia, ranging from Penong in the far west to Cockburn in the far east of outback South Australia, including very large communities like Coober Pedy and Roxby Downs. They all play an important part. In relation to resources in the outback, we all know, and I am sure both sides of the house agree, that resources and mining will be our greatest contribution in coming years to improving our financial situation. Whether it is food, fibre, minerals or petroleum, exports primarily from outback areas of South Australia will lead us forward into the future.

On that point, fly-in fly-out opportunities are marvellous opportunities. I really do ask the government to do everything it possibly can to make sure that regional communities in South Australia get the biggest bite of this. We do not want people flying in primarily from Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane into new mining ventures.

I would just like to say that infrastructure plays a very large part. Yorkeys Crossing in the electorate of Stuart is a critical issue. BHP is only one of the mining expansions that we will see in our time. BHP has got their deal through parliament. They have all the support that they need from state, federal and territory governments. It is now beholden upon all of us—MPs, communities, businesses, government agencies, everybody—to make sure that BHP is held accountable. They now need to be held accountable for every single commitment that they made in their Olympic Dam expansion at Roxby Downs. They must actually do all the things they promised they will do. I have no suspicion that they will try and shirk their responsibilities, but we must all make sure that we are vigilant in that area, too.

I would like to wind up by saying that one of the things that really hit me in the government's speech was that they take a view for very long-term decisions. We all know in all of our working lives that short, medium and long-term decisions are important and the long term should not be forgotten. The reality is that it is not just decisions but also actions that must be taken to ensure our future.

The government decided to have budget surpluses, but they did not eventuate. The government decided to build a prison at Murray Bridge but did not do it and it cost us $10 million. The government decided to develop Port Adelaide via Newport Quays but did not do it and it cost us about $6 million. The government decided to renew Marathon's exploration licence at Arkaroola but did not do it and it cost us $5 million.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (17:22): I would like to congratulate His Excellency the Governor Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce on delivering the opening address of the Second Session of the Fifty-Second Parliament. I would also say how pleased I am that Mr and Mrs Scarce will be continuing in the position for a further two years. In my speech I will address the seven primary areas of focus for action that the government has identified.

The first is a clean, green food industry. I welcome the fact that the government recognises the important contribution that our farmers and food processors make to the state. As a professional and not practising farmer, this is a matter dear to my heart. It is essential that we have secure and well-managed water resources, not only from the Murray River but also from other areas such as the groundwater resources of the South-East.

Our natural resource management boards must ensure that weeds and pests are controlled and that our natural resources are managed in a sustainable manner. I find it hard to understand why our government continuously reduces funding for research and extension in the agriculture industry. We must remember that agriculture is by far the largest contributor to the South Australian economy, and much of this has come about from the excellent work done by our researchers and extension officers.

Our farmers' right to farm must be protected and urban encroachment must be controlled. People who move into country areas for the lifestyle must realise that they are moving into a primary industry zone where they will experience different smells, noises and living conditions.

The red tape and hoops that farmers and businesses have to go through must be reduced. We must ensure that the infrastructure in our regions is of a high standard so that we can get our produce to the market in a timely and economical manner. The dumping of products into Australia and the totally inadequate food labelling laws that we have must be addressed immediately so that our producers can compete on a level playing field.

The mining boom and its benefits: I certainly recognise the contribution that mining is going to make to our state but can see no sense in setting up a future fund at this stage. Right now, we would be much better off reducing the massive debt that has been accumulated. Unlike the forest industry, mining is a finite industry and we must ensure that we get the best out of it for the future of the state.

For far too long, we have been selling our assets for our day-to-day living. Just imagine how much easier it would be today, if we still had the income from a State Bank, a TAB, an ETSA, yet we are about to continue the folly by selling our pines and lotteries profits for a short-term gain. Soon, there will be nothing left to sell unless we forward sell our mining royalties and taxes.

Advanced manufacturing: we must ensure that our manufacturers have access to well-skilled people with smart ideas. We must also make sure that it is not too onerous for our manufacturers to employ people and to carry out their business. They must be able to compete in the international market and dumping of products must be stopped in a more timely manner.

As an example in the South-East, Kimberly-Clark, a tissue manufacturer, has to compete with countries that have little environmental controls, poor worker safety and wage conditions and use old-growth forests, yet they can sell their products into this country for less than they sell them in their own country. Our timber mills are competing with the European mills that receive massive credits for environmental initiatives, and the sawn timber is now a by-product that they can sell into Queensland for less than we can cart it from the South-East.

A vibrant city: I agree that we must have a vibrant city, but it is also about time that we all recognise that both the City of Adelaide and our regions rely on each other and we should be more careful when making decisions that can have a detrimental effect on the other. As an example, one of my local restaurant owners sent me the following:

Dear Don,

Re: New Public Holidays introduced without consultation

I write to express my concerns about the recent announcement by our Premier of two new part public holidays on Christmas and New Year's Eves.

My concerns rest in two areas—with the fact that these announcements were made without consultation with our industry sector and also in terms of the economic impact on our industry if these changes are enacted.

If the public holidays are introduced at 5pm on those days the cost to my business will be approximately $3,000 in additional wages for the two nights. These two nights are two of the busiest nights of the year and we rely upon them to earn a reasonable income.

In the restaurant industry, we are lucky to make 10% profit from each sale, with many restaurants earning significantly less. This profit is not evenly distributed out over the year, during the quiet times we are lucky to break even and rely heavily on the profitable busy times to see us through.

Given this huge impost, there is no way we could possibly generate a profit on these nights. This means that my capacity to generate revenue and cover costs on those evenings will be completely wiped out, so I will be forced to not open.

This leaves all restaurant owners with the unenviable choice of opening and making a loss or closing and losing out what are usually highly profitable nights.

The premise upon which these changes was introduced was in a deal forged between Business SA (who does not represent my industry) and the SDA Union in order to deregulate shop trading hours and bring life and vibrancy to South Australia. If it is not economically viable to trade on Xmas and New Years' Eves this will mean that many businesses will close those nights—creating the reverse of that intention to create a vibrant SA.

He goes on to say, 'Please do not support this initiative.' The point I am getting at is that every time we make a decision in the city we should also look at the repercussions it will have out in the country and, vice versa, when we make a decision out in the country we should look at what the impact will be in the city.

The government mentioned safe and active neighbourhoods. I support the idea that local councils and communities must be worked with to ensure that we have active neighbourhoods and, as a government, we must work closely with these communities to get the best bang for our buck. I also support the fact that the government is introducing legislation to come down hard on organised crime and the gangs that benefit from it. Our society and communities demand that these criminal perpetrators be dealt with so that we are all safe.

Another issue is affordable living. Public and community housing must be more readily available, and the waiting time for category 1 clients is far too long in this state. We must also make sure that enough money is made available to maintain our present public housing in a timely manner. Housing affordability is also going to be challenged if the Work Health and Safety Bill is passed, not only from stamp duty but also the ever-increasing costs of power and water.

Regarding early childhood, I concur that we must invest in our youngest children, but we must continue that right through to adulthood. We must have an environment in which our children can learn to their fullest potential. Along with knowing what their rights are, they must also know what their roles and behavioural responsibilities are. We must also have in place good resources to assist our young people when they are having difficulties dealing with life. The safety of our vulnerable children is of paramount importance.

I would further like to say that we must reform our public sector. Our public servants do a tremendous job, but it is now costing us far too much to administer our state. We must set priorities and slowly wind back the costs of administration, and not just simply wind back those people at the coalface.

Little was mentioned in the opening speech about our health services, yet these services are the most important to our people and have the largest impact on our finances. We have to be very smart about how we manage health services into the future. The demand for health services is ever increasing as people live longer and we improve technology.

The decisions that we make in this next decade will be extremely important to the future of our state. We must learn from past follies and build on our assets, rather than sell them for short-term gain. We must live within our means and set priorities that are in the best interests of all people who live in our great state.

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (17:33): I would like to firstly congratulate and thank the Governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, for his wonderful speech opening this session of parliament, and congratulate him on the extension to his term as Governor. I also congratulate him and his wife for the fine execution of their duties in the office of Governor.

The Governor's speech is, according to members of the opposition and our Premier, a break in tradition. For some reason, the opposition see that as a negative thing. I think it is an appropriate change because, whilst the opposition have considered it inappropriate, it is an opportunity for this new government to outline its vision and values for the balance of this term and beyond.

What is the vision, and what are these values? The Governor has identified the following seven primary areas of focus for action. The list is not exclusive and does not diminish in any way those areas which are not mentioned; rather it identifies those areas that can be leveraged to maximise the benefit to the community.

I would like to go on to some of these key areas. As to the clean, green food industry, the importance of food production is recognised by this government, and our recent moves for protection zones is an example of us recognising the importance of primary production in this state. The state government's legislation to introduce a small business commissioner is also very important, because one of the industry codes of practice which will come under this act would be one for the farming sector.

It is also interesting to note that the small business commissioner legislation and also the code which will come from it—which came from the farm machinery inquiry by the Economic and Finance Committee of parliament—were two initiatives opposed by the Liberal Party. As we can see, their rhetoric does not match their actions.

The mining boom will benefit this state in two ways. Firstly, there will be the royalties and, secondly, the service industries and employment—apart from the direct employment—that will create. My electorate is one of those which will benefit. The employment lands in my area are set to grow enormously as a result of the mining industry, and many companies are already manufacturing goods and services for the mining sector.

In relation to advanced manufacturing, the government is prepared to invest in manufacturing, in particular in the north and north-western suburbs of this state—and my electorate will benefit from that. The government is prepared to give an undertaking which is both mature and strategic in the response to the challenges facing General-Motors Holden's, and not only General-Motors Holden's but also those other companies and small businesses in the area that provide products and services for General-Motors.

Contrast that with the responses—and I do say the 'responses'—from the Liberal Party. It is very difficult to know what its response is because there are so many of them. It is appropriate at this point to highlight a developing theme in the opposition's responses or actions on a range of areas. While it is appropriate for an opposition to hold a government to account, it is not appropriate for an opposition to do it in a way which undermines our state. This opposition has no shame at the collateral damage from its actions. I will explain why. It does not care about the damage it does to the economy or the community in its endeavour to attack the government. This is no clearer than in the example of a lack of bipartisanship in ensuring support for the manufacturing in this state.

There are more examples. In the two focus areas of safe and active neighbourhoods and early childhood, the Liberals' attack on volunteering and schools is unforgiveable. I will explain why. In their attempt to make a cheap (but inaccurate) political point, the Liberal Party has undermined both volunteers and schools. The Liberal Party issued a statement this week which stated that parents on school councils now risk their home. While pretending to support greater local school autonomy and greater parental involvement, the Liberal Party's statement seeks to scare both parents and volunteers from actively participating in their school communities.

So the Liberal Party does not care about the collateral damage from their actions. Another example is the recent surfing festival—excuse me if I do not have the right name for it—on Kangaroo Island. Their actions there have been so opportunistic that even their own member, the member for Finniss, had to rebuke his own side today in his speech in this place. When you look through what he said, it is quite clear that it was quite a veiled attack on his own members who have attacked the government's investment in this event. It is quite unusual for a member to attack their own side, so one has to grasp how bad this opposition is.

What is the collateral damage here, and this is a theme which is quite clear through the whole response by this opposition? They do not care about the collateral damage they are doing to both the economy and to the community. The collateral damage is to tourism and small business on the Fleurieu Peninsula and KI, and closer to my own home.

While the government is working to make living more affordable in my own electorate by improving public transport, and in particular the town of Gawler, what have the Liberals done? Over the last few months they have issued a number of statements attacking the new public transport system to the extent that they seek to undermine it. This service has in its first six months made 20,000 passenger trips, yet they call it 'not viable', they call it 'unnecessary', etc.

Why would the Liberal Party attack a new service? Why would they not encourage people to use it? Why would they actually issue statements attacking it? When you look through the paperwork and the Liberal Party's policy for public transport in my town of Gawler at the last election, their response for public transport was to introduce a community bus. That was the extent of it. One line in a document about public transport was that the Liberal Party will investigate a community bus. That was their response to a growing community of 20,000 people.

Embarrassed by that lack of policy response, what do they do? They attack our initiative, which is a full metro public transport service for the town—the first in the town's history. What do they do? They try to undermine it, again. They have no shame in the collateral damage they seek to impose on both the economy and on the community. When you carefully read those media statements put out by the local Liberals, and more recently the member for Bragg in her role as opposition spokesperson for transport, it is quite clear that a reasonable conclusion to reach from their statements put together is that, if they win government in 2014, they will axe it.

They will axe the new transport service to the town, one which has taken heavy lobbying from the community to get going. They will axe the service when it is most needed, when the town is growing, and they do it without shame. There is no pretence of trying to make sure it works well, no pretence of trying to get people to use it and actively support it, encourage it and promote it. What do they do? They criticise it, undermine it and they do not care about the collateral damage.

What are they trying to do, in effect? They are trying to undermine the $2.6 billion investment by this government in public transport—the biggest investment in public transport for many a decade. As I have shown, this opposition will say anything, do anything and damage anything (the economy and the community) to get their message across, and why would an opposition do that? As I said, it is legitimate for an opposition to hold a government to account. It is not legitimate for an opposition to undermine the state in trying to do that.

Simply, the Liberal opposition has no policy responses to the various challenges facing this state. One just has to listen to question time and the nature of their questions. One has to listen to their addresses in reply, especially the Address in Reply by the leader and the lack of policy response. The Governor's speech outlines a vision for this state, which I said was appropriate.

It is interesting to note that, while the Governor outlined a vision for this state through his speech, the member for Norwood earlier today criticised the speech because it did not look at the past, there was not enough of the past in his speech. While the Governor's speech focused on the future, as it should, the Liberal Party is focused on the past. In closing, I just would like to say that this government is quite rightly focused on the future and not the past, because when you look at the past all you find is a Liberal opposition.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:46): I rise today to give my Address in Reply speech and will use the opportunity to remind the government of the real state of our state and, specifically, of the electorate of Adelaide. First, I will touch upon some issues raised by His Excellency Governor Scarce in his speech. His Excellency mentioned the need to supply food for an increasing world population. A secure and efficient food supply is vital not just globally but for our own domestic needs. However, the Labor government has needlessly compromised Adelaide's future food production by rezoning productive land in Mount Barker and Buckland Park for residential development. Hectares of food bowl land will be turned into 500 square metre lots. This decision was made, even though over 500 submissions were received appealing to the government not to rezone for housing high quality ‘low food miles’ primary production land at Mount Barker, while many residents pleaded for the retention of prime agricultural land for food production.

Public transport problems plague the Adelaide electorate. The suburb of Prospect, only a few kilometres north of the city, is supposedly part of the 15 minute ‘go zones’, yet my office regularly receives calls from constituents waiting for up to an hour for a bus, many giving up and starting to walk home to be passed by three of their buses in convoy, and deciding it is easier to take their car. A safe, reliable, affordable and on-time public transport system is an integral part of city planning and infrastructure. Our public transport system is used only by a small percentage of our city workers, yet we have half-empty buses running. City workers choose to drive to the city rather than use public transport because the public transport service is unreliable.

I was very pleased to hear His Excellency's desire for change in the City of Adelaide. His Excellency suggested that our capital city centre should be a vibrant place that expresses our state's confidence and vitality. I agree completely with His Excellency's statement. However, vibrancy and vitality are just buzz words without the actions to help them become applicable. To this end I brought my first bill before parliament to amend the shop trading hours to allow for Rundle Mall to operate as a tourist precinct, which would allow it to trade on non-religious public holidays. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, my bill was unanimously opposed by the Labor government.

Now we find the government introducing legislation that allows for Rundle Mall to open for trade every day of the year, except Good Friday and Christmas Day. But this comes at a very significant cost in wage penalties to small businesses across the state. In an effort to create vitality in Rundle Mall, the government has dealt a serious blow to small businesses by the creation of two new half-day public holidays for workers across the state. So, a restaurant on Churchill Road, a petrol station on Prospect Road or a nursing home on Main North Road will now pay public holiday rates to staff on both 24 and 31 December between 5 p.m. and midnight as a pay-off to the SDA for opening Rundle Mall.

This decision appears to have been made without consultation with small businesses. I have received, as I am sure many members have, correspondence from many, many small businesses adversely affected by this bad deal. I am also sure all members have heard from the newly formed collaboration between the Australian Hoteliers Association, Restaurant and Catering SA, the Motor Transport Association and the Aged Care Association of SA, all united in their view that this is a pig of a deal. To quote from their correspondence:

While we strongly endorse the additional shop trading capacity of the CBD, we object that the cost is being carried by every other small and medium business across the state.

Not a single business constituent with whom I have spoken has said that the government knocked on their door and asked them if they thought it was a good idea to create two half-day public holidays. In fact, the only union even involved in this discussion was the SDA, the same people who gave Rann the tap on the shoulder to inform him his time was up.

I ask: who is running this state? This deal is counterproductive and further reduces our state's competitiveness. I do not believe any other state has implemented either of the half-day public holiday rates. I am not aware if Fair Work Australia has been consulted on this move and I would like the government to be transparent about who it consulted and who supported the decision. Surely, more than just the SDA and Business SA were involved in this decision.

Another very important issue for families within my electorate is the need for affordable and accessible education. Last evening after parliament rose, I attended the Adelaide High School governing council meeting. It occurred to me last night that it has been nearly two years since the 2010 election when the Labor government promised to expand Adelaide High School to allow for up to 250 extra students. The government promised to expand the zone to include Prospect and Walkerville and to expand without encroaching on the Parklands.

Although being the school that needed the expansion the most, the other three schools mentioned in the government's press release are building or at end-stage planning now. It is two years on, yet Adelaide High School has no confirmation, no direction and no plan. So far, the governing council's second option was selected, as their first option was deemed too expensive. Thus, the second option, which encroaches almost entirely on the Parklands and will now require a new service road around the building that is entirely on the Parklands, has been chosen.

There is no possible way of meeting the 2013 promised finish date, so families of Adelaide will suffer. Families living in Prospect with children now in years 6 or 7, who took the government at their word in 2010 and thought their children would have a chance to go to the closest state high school, are left in despair knowing they are going to struggle to afford a private college yet are left with no other choice.

South Australia is already the highest taxing state and among the least competitive. The SDA is just another blow for small business with their deal. This will mean that either the business owners will have to be the sole staff on the days the public holidays have been added or businesses will not open, as the new penalty rates will make it unaffordable. There is a real risk that Adelaide's hospitality businesses will be closed next Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve, turning Adelaide into a ghost town, hardly promoting Adelaide as a vibrant city.

Compounding this, the government seems to think it is good practice to repeatedly award contracts and tenders to interstate businesses which bring with them interstate workers who take their earnings and spend them out of the state. I have been contacted by firms which believe they were competitive in both price and service delivery yet have been overlooked for tenders or repeat contracts with our government.

There are so many SA businesses that are snubbed by this government awarding contracts interstate such as stationery provider Penfolds, who provided quality stationery products to various government departments only to lose to a multinational company. To my understanding, there was no fiscal saving to be found for the government in this decision and now stationery supplies are sent to Adelaide from Sydney. Business profits, again, are going out of this state.

Then we have the new hospital under construction. Two South Australian plumbing businesses tendered for the contract. They were competitive in price and they were confident of service delivery. They did not win the tender because the government thought the best decision they could make was to send the tender interstate. I was contacted by the mother of one of the young plumbers who was laid off because a tender was rejected. She said to me:

He has gone interstate, already got a job. We have lost a good young tradesman and someone who loves South Australia, but he realised there is nothing here for him and he won't be back.

We need these young men and women tradespeople. We need them to build up our state. But this young man, and thousands of other young tradespeople and professionals, are packing their bags. Our government's priorities are distorted. There is big money for big screen TVs out of the bloated budget at Adelaide Oval, yet there is no money for vital regional health services such as the Keith hospital or for the Adelaide Aquatic Centre to remain the place for young athletes in sports such as water polo, canoe polo and underwater hockey to keep training in Adelaide.

Selling the forests in Mount Gambier, which currently brings in $40 million per year, and selling the Lotteries Commission, which brings in around $80 million per year, is like selling the goose that lays the golden egg. Selling the forward rotations of the forests is, in effect, privatisation. We are paying $5 million to Marathon Resources after the government first granted an exploration licence and then further renewed the licence. After renewing the licence, they decided to stop mining in Arkaroola and thus taxpayers are left with a $5 million compensation payout. Then there was a $10 million payout to get out of a contract to build a new prison as we could no longer afford it.

With the pending by-election in Port Adelaide, the government decided to finally listen to the community and stop the Newport Quays development. Of course, this was cancelled just 10 days after renewing the contract, thus $10 million in compensation will now have to be paid. I cannot believe the stupidity and financial mismanagement that this government has got away with for 10 years.

In His Excellency's opening speech to parliament, references were made to the increased cost of living in our state. His Excellency made references to the renewal of public housing and the concessions to ease the burden of the increasing cost of living. It is astounding that according to the review of Mercer's 2011 Cost of Living Survey Adelaide is ranked as the 46th most expensive city in the world. In 2010 we were ranked 90th. I do not believe that this is a contest where we want to move up the ranks.

Cost of living is a very real issue that presents itself daily in my electorate, and I would like to take this opportunity to present the story of a constituent who came to my office last week desperate for help. This constituent is a single woman in her late 50s. She has had personal and health issues throughout her life and has managed to survive in private rental despite a meagre disability support pension being her only income.

Several years ago my constituent took her name off the Housing SA waiting list after being told there was essentially no chance that she would ever get public housing. As in many inner suburban areas, rents in my electorate have increased, and my constituent was recently issued with a notice that the rent of a very modest unit was going up to $255 per week, an increase of $105 per week since she moved in five years ago.

Academics would say that my constituent is in housing stress, and I can absolutely agree with them. She has no money left once the essentials of rent and electricity are paid. When basic food becomes a luxury item for some people, we are in serious trouble as a society. I would think that each member of this chamber would have such constituent issues. The great shame is that there is no solution available. There is nowhere that can really help as there are no resources to help. There are emergency food hampers, small amounts of money to help with prescriptions and maybe a free Multitrip from an NGO, but the reality is that there is little more.

My constituent has met with Housing SA and she has told me that essentially there is nothing that can be done. There is very little private rental housing under $240 per week within 15 kilometres of the CBD and no assistance to move should you find anything. Bond assistance is limited and only partial. So what is someone like my constituent to do? Pray for a miracle? There is little else one can do. The threat of this constituent becoming homeless is very real.

The lack of resources is compounded by the Labor government's commitment to selling off public housing stock. Since 2002, there has been a systematic sell-off of Housing Trust homes in Adelaide, electorate suburbs and particularly in the Adelaide CBD, with a decline of approximately 14 per cent of Housing Trust and Aboriginal housing stock combined. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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