HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-05-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL 2012

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (16:12): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:12): The lack of consultation by this government is part of its want to control and centralise everything. We heard about the four school amalgamations today, even after the review committees opposed it. Yet another example is the maintenance of our hospitals, with engineering and building maintenance services and minor works of less than $150,000 in value at South Australian health sites to be provided by the Across Government Facilities Management Arrangements (AGFMA) over the next 12 months. Here we go: another disaster in the making.

One reason for the change is, 'to improve the management of government assets by reducing maintenance and operating costs'. We can all see what is going to happen here: costs will skyrocket and service levels will drop. It is said that the arrangement is aimed at achieving, amongst other things, competitive hourly rates. Current maintenance officers receive approximately $24 to $25 per hour, regardless of the job they undertake. Currently, these experienced maintenance officers do almost everything, including being on-call for 24 hours and, indeed, seven days a week. These are people who we all know, local people who have been doing it for years, and they certainly do not rip anybody off.

Once again, local employees with local knowledge will be lost. This will impact on country hospitals the most. It has shades of the Shared Services debacle. We all know what happened there. We were supposed to have shared services. Services left the country, came to Adelaide, and what did we have? A blowout in costs of millions of dollars. If current maintenance workers are able to continue with AGFMA they will have to work across a diverse range of sites, not only the one they know but if they are deemed to be a non-trade employee they will be either redeployed somewhere within the government or deployed to provide services to the AGFMA.

What about the maintenance officer who has worked at a country hospital for the past 20 to 30 years, and I know one, but does not have a trade? This Labor government is showing scant regard for their expertise and years of loyal service, some of it unpaid. These experienced people will be lost along with the long-term local tradespeople who have supported them, and the knowledge that these people have of these facilities will be lost. They will obviously cost a lot more. We know that. It is obvious that this will be a much more expensive exercise. It will probably include mileage. It will probably include overtime and penalty rates. With this government's record, this is bound to be totally counterproductive and another disaster.

I raise another couple of issues. There is a bridge in Nuriootpa called Robin Bridge located on Murray Street (the main street of Nuriootpa) in a very prominent position. I spoke about this bridge in this place in 2009 and have raised the issue twice with the minister. The bridge was constructed in the early 1960s on land partly donated by the Robin family. The handrails of the bridge are supposed to be white and the railings a dark green colour, but the paint has deteriorated to such an extent that it is basically non-existent and very shabby, and the prominent lampposts are very unsightly indeed.

I have been contacted by a constituent and urged to again raise the matter. There is a strong community push to have this bridge repainted, so much so that, a few years ago, there was enough support from locals, service clubs and businesses that the bridge could have been repainted at no cost to the government. However, this was not—and is not—allowed to occur, and two reasons are given.

How can this be? Cop this: the paint that remains on the bridge—what little there is—is lead based and, because the railings and uprights would need to be removed, taken to Adelaide, sandblasted and painted and then repositioned, it would be a huge exercise. The reason given was so that any flakes of lead-based paint did not contaminate the South Para River, because they would fall into the river. I would find that laughable, if it were not true. The other reason that has been provided since I commenced this campaign was provided in correspondence from the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure in 2010. He said:

The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure advises that it does not permit volunteers to paint the Robin Bridge as it is considered to be a high-risk environment.

What a load of garbage! I cannot believe that, when a community wants to self-help, not only does it get no encouragement, it is told that it cannot. I also received a response from the minister in 2009 saying:

The painting of the bridge will be included in a list of candidate projects for future funding and therefore it will be necessary to prioritise this project against other statewide projects.

That is 2009, of course. Guess what has happened? Absolutely nothing. Here is this bridge, right in the middle of the beautiful Barossa, looking terrible. Here we are in May 2012 and the bridge is looking far from its best. I wrote to the minister again on 30 March 2012 but to date have not received a response.

I urge the minister to have the bridge painted. To have a bridge in such a dilapidated state in such a prominent position does not reflect the Barossa's high tourism standard. If the government does not paint this soon, I will. I will put a tarp underneath the bridge to catch the bucketloads of paint—there might be a cupful—and dispose of it correctly. I will undercoat it with a premium sealer undercoat and I will paint it with a full gloss green. I will paint it. If I go to gaol, so be it.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (16:18): I would like to use this opportunity perhaps just to reflect on the education portfolio and what is coming home to roost now after the first budget.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): Member for Unley, I think the clock has been set incorrectly.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr PISONI: I know that the member for Florey thinks too much is never enough when it comes to the speeches of the member for Unley. However, I shall continue. I would like to take members back to the very first budget of the now Premier, Mr Weatherill, as education minister, where the entire budget was basically put together by the Sustainable Budget Commission, based on savings directed through Treasury. We saw today the charade that this government has been going through for the last two years, telling parents that, 'We are going to listen, we are going to consult, we are going to set up these review panels.'

As a matter of fact, they spent $375,000 setting up these review panels for ministerial appointees on those panels. Of course, the poor parents who sat on those panels were not remunerated for their time. Only the ministerial appointees were remunerated, to the tune of $375,000. That, of course, was done purely to save money. If you go to the budget papers for 2010, it will tell you that the co-located schools policy or 'initiative', I think they describe it as—it is an 'initiative'—will save $8.2 million over two years.

We also hear that the minister is telling us that there is a whole lot of new funding there for capital programs to deal with that, but the budget papers tell us that nearly $11 million was already there from existing investment funding that was already in the budget. So, again, not only do we see the spin with the review panels, we also see the spin with the actual real cost or real benefit in the way of capital projects for these schools.

We have to understand, these capital projects are not for classrooms, they are not for equipment, they are not for canteens: they are for administration buildings. They are not for educational outcomes for these children because we know that there will be substantial cuts to leadership. Principals and assistant principals will be lost from these sites.

We all know how important it is to engage parents in school communities. We know that many of these schools are in disadvantaged areas and we know how much more difficult it is to engage parents in larger schools. The minister may very well say that these schools are operating like they are a single school, but the main difference is that there is a culture of involvement at the junior primary level in particular. I find it strange that this minister, who boasts about early childhood development, is making cuts at that very beginning of the education sector—the cuts to the junior primary schools—by removing specialist leadership in those areas and making schools bigger.

We also know the implications of making schools bigger, particularly in difficult areas—lower socioeconomic areas in Adelaide—that is, we see less engagement, with fewer kids turning up to school. This government continually, even today, makes large and loud announcements about how it has changed education in this state and how they have legislated to keep students at school to the age of 16 and keep students either in training, at school or in work to the age of 17.

Let us have a look at what effect that has had on attendance rates in that time. It is one thing to compel children, through the law, and their parents to have kids at school; it is another thing for students to actually turn up. What was interesting in FOI documents that were released to me several weeks ago, and were discussed in the media earlier this week, is that 27.8 per cent of the 166,000 students in the government system, or 46,391 of those students, missed school for the equivalent of two weeks per term. So, that is eight weeks a year or, if you like, two weeks off of a full term of school.

These figures also tell us that 28,000 of those students are away without reason. They are either wagging or there is no contact from the parents. The school, even if they do follow up, does not get a satisfactory answer as to why that student is not at school. Let us go back to FOI documents that I had from 2004 that show those same figures. The total number of absenteeism of two weeks or more was 9.1 per cent of the school population, or 12,500 students. So, what we have seen under the management of this government here in South Australia—the so-called 'education government' here in South Australia—is a tripling of the number of students who do not turn up for longer periods or for more days every year.

In 2004, there were 12,476 students—9.1 per cent of the student cohort; 27.8 per cent or 46,391 students are now not turning up for whatever reason, and 28,000 of those are not turning up for a full term or more per year. This is a shocking indictment on this government's inability to engage students in schools. I seek leave to insert statistical tables into Hansard that support my remarks.

Leave granted.

Absence rate/numbers with and without authorisation—Total Number of students away for 10 or more days Term 3, 2010

Students % Number
Total Students 166,875 27.8% 46,391


Absence Rates by Index of Disadvantage, Term 2, 2004

Index of Disadvantage
Year Level State Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reception 7.8% 12.7% 9.9% 9.1% 8.2% 7.4% 6.9% 5.8%
Year 1 7.1% 13.0% 9.4% 8.3% 7.3% 6.6% 5.7% 5.5%
Year 2 6.4% 10.8% 8.2% 7.4% 6.6% 6.1% 5.5% 5.0%
Year 3 6.4% 12.0% 8.2% 7.3% 6.5% 6.2% 5.5% 4.9%
Year 4 6.3% 11.2% 8.5% 7.2% 6.7% 5.9% 5.3% 5.0%
Year 5 6.3% 11.9% 8.2% 7.0% 6.4% 5.8% 5.4% 4.9%
Year 6 6.8% 11.4% 8.6% 8.0% 6.7% 6.3% 5.9% 5.7%
Year 7 7.0% 11.6% 8.8% 8.4% 7.0% 6.3% 6.2% 5.7%
Primary Other 8.1% 8.2% 8.5% 8.0% 7.6% 8.8% 6.7% 7.0%
Year 8 9.6% 20.2% 14.8% 10.6% 10.1% 8.2% 8.1% 6.8%
Year 9 11.2% 25.5% 16.2% 12.4% 12.5% 9.7% 9.3% 8.0%
Year 10 11.9% 22.2% 17.8% 14.7% 13.3% 10.1% 9.7% 8.6%
Year 11 11.0% 20.9% 15.2% 13.3% 12.5% 9.9% 9.5% 8.1%
Year 12 10.4% 14.9% 13.2% 11.7% 12.7% 8.8% 8.8% 9.3%
Secondary Other 10.7% 15.0% 15.8% 9.6% 8.0% 9.2% 9.4% 9.1%
Primary Total 6.8% 11.7% 8.7% 7.8% 6.9% 6.3% 5.8% 5.3%
Secondary Total 10.9% 21.5% 15.7% 12.5% 12.0% 9.4% 9.1% 8.1%
Total 8.2% 12.7% 11.4% 9.4% 9.2% 7.3% 7.1% 6.2%


Number of Days Absent, Term 2, 2003 and 2004

Number of Days Absent 2003 2004
Number of Students Percentage Cumulative Percentage Number of Students Percentage Cumulative Percentage
0 35,046 22.4% 22.4% 35,109 22.7% 22.7%
1 29,002 18.5% 40.9% 28,118 18.2% 40.8%
2 21,818 13.9% 54.9% 21,247 13.7% 54.6%
3 15,762 10.1% 64.9% 15,434 10.0% 64.5%
4 11,495 7.3% 72.3% 11,739 7.6% 72.1%
5 9,259 5.9% 78.2% 9,059 5.9% 78.0%
6-10 21,601 13.8% 92.0% 21,651 14.0% 91.9%
11-15 6,791 4.3% 96.4% 6,672 4.3% 96.3%
16-20 2,675 1.7% 98.1% 2,698 1.7% 98.0%
21-30 1,945 1.2% 99.3% 1,977 1.3% 99.3%
31-40 679 0.4% 99.7% 721 0.5% 99.7%
41 + 404 0.3% 100.0% 408 0.3% 100.0%
Total 156,477 100.0% 154,833 100.0%


Mr PISONI: You might ask: 'What is interesting about the impact of the 2010 budget? Why are we talking about the 2010 budget when we are only a few weeks away from the 2012 budget?' The reason is that a lot of the decisions that Mr Weatherill made as education minister, in his first budget as education minister, are starting to impact now. What we saw today was the beginning of the impact of one of those decisions for the school year starting next year, which of course was the forced amalgamation of schools.

When that announcement was first made, there were about 78 schools, I think it was, which included high schools and primary schools being forced to amalgamate. One school that comes to mind is Modbury High School, which is the only traditional high school in the district where the high school is separate to the primary school, and it was under this hit list of forced amalgamations. I have to congratulate Julie Caust, who is the chair of the governing council at that school, who took up that fight. She contacted my office and we took up that fight.

Ms Bedford interjecting:

Mr PISONI: She came and saw me because, unfortunately, the member for Florey was not very sympathetic.

Ms Bedford: That's not true.

Mr PISONI: That's what she told me. She felt that you did not have the ability to make any difference. That is why she came to see me.

Ms Bedford: And you made all the difference?

Mr PISONI: I made all the difference. I got the minister to backflip on that decision, and none of the high schools were forced to amalgamate in that instance—not even an evaluation process. It just shows you what a farce this review process has been, because minister Weatherill, as he was at that time, made a decision to backflip on the high school and primary school amalgamations because he could not handle the political heat in that instance in marginal Labor seats.

Of course, we need to understand that the difference with the primary school amalgamations is that they were almost exclusively in safe Labor seats or Liberal seats. There were no schools amalgamated in marginal Labor seats. Isn't that ironic? We went through this farce of a process that this government insisted on. When they were in opposition, it was this Labor Party that insisted on this process for the amalgamation and closure of schools, yet they have gone through this process simply so they can say, 'We have consulted,' and then ignored that consultation process. They are only obeying the law. They are certainly not taking into consideration the concerns that those parents and school communities had.

I think that is an indictment on where we are with this government today. The Weatherill government is no different to the Rann government, other than the fact that they employ consultants to help them disagree or take on those that are challenging decisions that they have announced and that they are now defending.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (16:29): As I move around the Florey electorate, one of the issues that continually crops up lately is the concern about council rates rising and the debt of one of Florey's local government areas, which is the City of Tea Tree Gully. The City of Tea Tree Gully has recently announced differential rate rises of 50 per cent on businesses. It would be fair to say that there has been a good deal of outcry on the result this impost will have on local businesses and the flow-on to the wider local community.

I speak to local traders all the time. Following an article in the Leader Messenger on 29 February this year, I called into Tea Tree Plaza to see local newsagent Peter Nutter and his wife Tracy. The article says that Peter and Tracy have been in Tea Tree Plaza for over 30 years, and I have certainly known them to be there that long. They say it is a bad time for business at the moment due to many factors and they simply do not understand why Tea Tree Gully council is imposing such a big increase. Like all small business owners they spend a lot of their time in their shop. They employ eight people at the moment and say that they would have to consider cutting staff hours to make ends meet, meaning much less family and free time for them. Quoted in the article, Peter said:

My wife and I will have to swallow the cost somehow, and sadly that will be in labour. Our costs are governed by recommended retail prices of magazines, greeting cards and newspapers. Small business is the biggest employer of local residents. This is a disappointing council decision that will impact on employees as well.

I refer to the transcript of the recent rating review public meeting chaired by Stephen Hains, a well-respected and, in this role, independent chair with acknowledged local government expertise. Local shopping centres were represented by spokespeople or owners. Westfield Tea Tree Plaza, the largest shop group in our area, was represented by Mr Malcolm Creswell, who, with experience from the Marion site—Marion and Modbury being South Australia's two largest city regional centres—does not oppose differential rating but does 'oppose the timing of it for a start'.

He went on to reiterate the tough times retailers face and felt notification in December, when most retail businesses are at their busiest and have completed next year's business plans and budgets, was unfair. He said TTP had plans and budgets that were signed off in October, and I quote again:

...now at the beginning of July, there's a chance we could have $800,000 increase in our (TTP) rates.

He went on to say that he was involved in Marion council's process, which was staged over two years with a year's notice. That implementation is nothing like what traders in the Modbury area are being forced to face.

The last and perhaps most damning point that Mr Creswell made was that no market research has been done on the impacts of this decision on the businesses and the local community, something that would seem a reasonable exercise on the strength of the size of the proposed impost. It would be fair to say that several people rightly raise the feeling that the decision already had been made and the process of a public consultation was merely going through the motions and spin.

Council was asked what criteria were used to provide what they called 'a fairer rating system and funding for agreed service standards'. If a minority 3 per cent of ratepayers is subject to this enormous increase, in what way is this new system going to be fairer? Will council conduct a study on the possible long-term impact of the new system before implementing it, and who will be held responsible if an increase of this magnitude, targeting commercial and industrial ratepayers, triggers a massive exodus of businesses and job losses?

The Florey area is surrounded by dormitory suburbs. We do not have industries locally, only retail businesses. They are doing it hardest and everyone holds grave fears about the outcomes the proposed increases could trigger. According to an article by Sydney's Richard Noone in The Advertiser on 16 March this year, the National Retailers Association has commissioned Ernst & Young to compile a first ever report with in-depth data on the fate of the retail sector. They claim more than 118,000 retail jobs, or one in 11 throughout Australia, will be lost over the next three years because of a range of factors.

Businesses raised in the public meeting the scenario of people from the community having to commute further to find employment. So, there is a recognised need for sound research and planning. These remarks and sentiments were reflected by other local business owners. Our area's one big hospitality site also made a submission. Their biggest concern was about the timing and staging of the increase.

A local hotelier, who has a longstanding commitment to the area, said he does not get any services from the council and cannot see how a 50 per cent rate increase in one hit can be justified. This feeling was shared by many. Most business people say they have never seen a 50 per cent increase and just do not know how they can meet it. One compared Tea Tree Plaza to Burnside, which has recently been upgraded. Costs are apparently similar, and so with this increase on the radar the trader in question has opted to set up in Burnside.

Other owners have tried to tenant their vacant shops, as people have been forced to close down rather than sell because of poor economic conditions in the area and a lack of disposable income. I quote:

People come to look (to set up) but go to other areas because of better economic opportunities and bigger populations, more economic activity and better planning and regulation from council. In desperation, landlords have tried to sell their properties but just can't realise market value.

Another submission was from Ms Liz Davies, a prominent local business person, who represented the Liberal Party at the last federal election. While not objecting to the concept of differential rates, she said in part:

...the extraordinary rate hike for non-residential users is outrageous. CPI increases of 3.6 per cent per annum are usually the norm not 50 per cent or 75 per cent unless businesses are faced with ambient log of claims. It will put an extra burden on cash flow in businesses that are facing tough economic times. Please reconsider the impact on local business as this would mean less money and jobs in the area.

Importantly, there is no guarantee from Tea Tree Gully council that the residential rates will be on hold from July 2012 and, further, how long the rates might be on hold. Residents have been told that rates would go up 8 per cent if the differential increase does not go through.

Another presenter told the public meeting that reducing the burden of future rate increases on residential properties could be controlled in two major ways without favouring one group or discriminating against the other. Councils should identify more justifiable ways in which to generate revenue and increase accountability and implement internal savings measures. It was claimed that nothing much has been heard about council reining in spending and that the premature adoption of a new differential rating system would create long-lasting negative effects for all ratepayers.

Some people felt that councils raise rates with impunity 'possibly because they do not obviously have political parties to compete against each other'. Council is urged to moderate its expenditure and keep rate rises in line with cost of living measures. Others asked what businesses would get for this massive rate increase, and the answer seemed 'nothing good'. Council was urged to plan expenditure in line with income and leave off non-essential projects and to make sure that they are getting the most from every dollar. An example of waste was the replacement of a perfectly good sign by another simply because they featured a new design.

More worryingly, I have been told that the mayor and CEO of Tea Tree Gully council are in favour of council changing the lease and licence agreements with local community and sporting clubs. They want to scrap the peppercorn lease arrangements and start charging clubs more to pay off council debt, which I believe is currently at $37 million. Surely, this plan cannot be true. Hitting the most vulnerable groups in our community, providing the necessary services and recreational opportunities for our locals, all with voluntary helpers, is not the way to go.

How did we get into this debt? I am told that a recent audit committee spreadsheet for the 2009-10 year showed a $20 million increase in debt in two years. It is bad enough that these rate increases apply to businesses, mostly local retailers, but there were submissions about vacant land and the spurious contention that higher rates will encourage development. What I hear is that people are facing all sorts of economic factors prohibiting development and so, as a stick rather than a carrot, they will be facing a huge increase—a double whammy. They believe that this rate rise is a blatant money grab, robbing Peter to pay Paul, to balance the budget that has got away from council.

Some business people raised the ability of businesses to pay and the resulting impact on residents. If businesses have fixed prices, they cannot pass on rises to customers, so they will face staffing cuts and closures. If they can pass on rises, the consumers pay. If consumers lose their job, their disposable income goes down. If there is no research into possible outcomes, no-one can plan. Any way you look at it, business people are very worried and councils should be too. All presenters agree that the rate rise needs to be timed to better economic conditions, staged over a longer period, after research and better consultation, and be kept in line with the cost of living rises. A minority of councillors raised these concerns at meetings but were outvoted.

Lately, and more worryingly, I see the sale of local parks and reserves in the longer established Tea Tree Gully council suburbs is again being raised, and it is causing anxiety and stress to local residents—in another revenue raising exercise, I imagine. Selling open space will not keep Tea Tree Gully one city naturally better. Local residents (and I have been one for 35 years myself) all want council to keep open space, particularly in suburbs such as Gilles Plains, where I know the member for Torrens was actively involved in making sure that parks have been upgraded and made reasonable.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: That was when she was in charge of that particular area before a boundary change saw it come back to Florey, where it had been many years ago.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Ms BEDFORD: I know she is joining with me now in expressing her angst at the Tea Tree Gully council's decision to sell off these parks. We put on notice to the Tea Tree Gully council our intention to follow this up.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:39): I am sure that Miriam Smith's council will be delighted with that rant. I want to turn to a matter that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs raised in the house yesterday when he talked about the unveiling of a plaque for Sapper Jamie Larcombe at Parndana School on Kangaroo Island. I was asked last week by the family to thank the community—and I mean the Australian community per se—on behalf of the family for every bit of assistance that has been given over the last 12 months. I spoke to the Treasurer after the function because I forgot—and I apologise to him—to thank the state government last Thursday for their efforts in procuring the plaque and for their assistance with the unveiling, and I would like to put my gratitude on the record.

On the same matter, I give my gratitude to the former premier, Mike Rann, and the former minister for veterans' affairs, Tom Kenyon, who last year after Jamie's death contacted me in relation to meeting with the family and were very helpful—particularly the former premier, Mike Rann. I had a great deal of respect for the way they went about meeting with the family at the time, and I just want to put that on the record now.

In the few minutes available to me, I need to pick up on the matter of school amalgamations. I am bitterly, bitterly disappointed at the announcements today. I find it incredible that all these schools got the same letter just with the address and the name of the school changed. I find it an affront to the good people of South Australia, particularly those associated with these schools, that they went through these amalgamation processes, they took places on the committees, and they gave of their time—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Look, if the member for Torrens wants to have a crack, she can have a crack in a minute, but I have the floor at the moment. Let me say—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I seek your protection from this vicious attack, Mr Acting Speaker.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Hon. M.J. Wright): It's so vicious, I don't know how you are coping.

Mr PENGILLY: The reality is that there are scores of good South Australian citizens who took part in this process on school committees, who gave countless hours and who have actually been dropped on by the announcement by minister Portolesi today. We had a sniff about what was coming about two or three weeks ago. I go back to the recommendation made by the committee of the Victor Harbor R-7 School. They were pretty much told what they had to do in their recommendation; however, they said that:

The decision of the committee is not to amalgamate the Victor Harbor Junior Primary School and the Victor Harbor Primary School. The review committee therefore makes the following recommendations: the Victor Harbor Junior Primary School will not close; the Victor Harbor Primary School will not close; the Victor Harbor Junior Primary School and the Victor Harbor Primary School will not amalgamate.

After all of the hours of work that they did—and that included having people on the committee from the local community such as mayor Graham Philp and others—they had countless committee meetings, they did enormous amounts of work, they used vast resources to get this report together, and it has been poo-pooed. I find it disgraceful.

It is interesting to see in the last two or three days that the former minister for the environment and the former minister for education, now Premier, has turned around and walked all over the good people of South Australia, both with the education amalgamations and with the marine parks announcement. You just wonder where this government is going. It has no morals as far as I am concerned, no morals whatsoever. It is totally intent on getting itself re-elected in 2014 and it could not care who it walks on in getting there.

I can tell you that the chair of the Victor Harbor Primary School Governing Council went into my office this morning. They learnt what was going to happen and they were greatly upset, and so they should be. Because of financial incompetence, this government has had to turn around and do this, and try to pay off schools cheaply for 12 months to achieve its stated aim of reducing the budget. The budget overrun, the budget deficit and the cost of running South Australia is like it is because they are totally financially inadequate—they have been for a long time and they are getting worse.

They can turn around and blame poor old Kevin Foley but now they have their hands on the till. The Treasurer, the Premier and other ministers have their hands on the till, and we have seen what a mess the health minister has got himself into in the last few days and it is only going to get worse. It is going to get worse and the Lord alone knows what it is going to look like by 15 March 2014. Heaven knows what it is going to look like; it fills me with despair.

The issue of school amalgamations is going to bite deep into the South Australian community and this government. It is a stupid decision and I can only see that it will turn more and more people against this government. I feel bitterly disappointed for the people of Victor Harbor whose children attend these schools and I feel desperately disappointed that those who are responsible for the finance at those schools are going to have less to play with and they are going to get shafted. They will have to reduce programs and ultimately it will be the kids at the school who suffer while the Minister for Education can take her great big salary and make these announcements in parliament without any fear of anyone coming after her whatsoever.

Let me tell you that, when the time comes for the next state election in 2014, I reckon I can round up a few dollars to knock off the member for Hartley—I am sure we can. I feel certain that the money will be forthcoming. We will beat her comprehensively and I am sure that the people from my area, as they have done in the past, will put their hands in their pockets to get rid of this incompetent minister and this incompetent government.

I would like to revisit the subject of marine parks, which I spoke about yesterday and mentioned a while ago. The MAG committee on Kangaroo Island met this morning. I have not had a chance to hear what they had to say but they are bitterly disappointed with the announcements. It seems to me that the member for Flinders' area around Ceduna, and parts of my electorate, are being crucified in the name of the great green monster, as I said yesterday.

I return to the subject of the Adelaide metropolitan area: the worst and most highly degraded piece of coast in the state, with no marine park. This is where it gets absolutely nonsensical. If this government and this department had any brains whatsoever and wanted to do something genuine about the environment, the first thing they would have done was turn their attention to the scores of kilometres along the metropolitan coastline from Outer Harbor in the north to Seaford in the south and do something about that. They should turn that into a park and put some plans in place to try to rehabilitate it and get it going again instead of taking a knife to rural areas, destroying business opportunities, destroying families' lives and the way they go about their normal fishing industry business, and destroying recreational fishing. I find the whole thing offensive, quite frankly.

The former minister for the environment, now the Premier, was the one who micromanaged this and he stands accountable. The minister for the environment was given the big shunt on this. Quite clearly it has been micromanaged by the Premier and he can wear the ramifications.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:49): There are a number of issues I want to canvass in the 10 minutes available to me today. I will start by continuing on from the remarks that the member for Finniss concluded with about the marine parks fiasco in this state and back up his comments about the marine environment off the metropolitan area.

I would urge the government to have another look at the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study which was commenced under the previous Liberal government in about 1999 and which I think was instigated by minister Di Laidlaw. It took some five or six years before it was completed. That study clearly demonstrates that there is a significant problem with regard to the marine environment off the metropolitan beaches of Adelaide, and it clearly demonstrates what some of the issues are, and one of the principal ones, obviously, is stormwater, which still flows out to sea every time it rains.

That is one of the reasons why the opposition took to the last election a comprehensive integrated stormwater management policy, something that this government has chosen to basically ignore. It is not just about seeing stormwater as an asset rather than a liability: it is about doing something to protect our coastal waters, something positive which is completely unlike the outcome that we will probably get from the current marine parks debate and fiasco which has been going on for over 10 years now.

As I said, there are a number of issues I want to canvass. Let me refer to a couple of comments that have been going around of late. I noticed in the press last week, if not earlier this week, where the Premier was quoted as saying that it is motor cars that make people fat. He was talking about making Adelaide a more pedestrian-friendly city and getting people out of motor cars and onto the footpaths. Let me suggest to the Premier that the first thing he should do if he wants to make Adelaide a more pedestrian-friendly city is to get the buses running properly, because if people are not coming into the city in their motor cars a lot of them will want to be coming into the city on public transport.

We heard the minister today in question time, and she did acknowledge that, in some instances at least, the bus companies have got problems with increasing numbers of vehicles on the road which is curtailing traffic speed. That is, indeed, something which is a real problem in Adelaide, and a lot of it goes to decisions taken by this government. You only have to go out in front of this very building in peak hour and see the fiasco that is caused with the number of traffic lights from the North Terrace-King William Street intersection going west towards West Terrace.

In a space of about 400 or 500 metres I think there are seven sets of traffic lights. It is just madness, and this government wants to build the major hospital for the state just a little further down the road. Just imagine how disastrous it is going to be getting ambulances in and out of that hospital. If they come from the Port Road end, it might be fine, but if they come from any other sector of the metropolitan area it is going to be a disaster. Can I just say to the Premier: if you have an issue with too many people using their cars, talk to your minister for bus timetables and, for God's sake, get it out.

The minister needs to be a little bit more open and accountable about what is going on, too. She refused to answer a question from the opposition yesterday. The question being: is there a penalty, is there a cost impost, to change the timetable before 1 July? The minister went to the point, 'Yes, we actually have to print new timetables and that costs money, etc.', and a couple of other things. She did not answer the question: is there a penalty clause in the contract? I believe that there is, and that is why people will remain inconvenienced for another couple of months by a timetable system which is just not working.

Another issue which I read with some interest in the media—and, again, it was quite recently; if not earlier this week it was late last week—where the Minister for Police was canvassing the idea that we in South Australia may impose a $300 levy on South Australians who happen to have a motorcycle licence endorsement on their driver's licence. What an absolute absurdity. I am sure that the thousands and thousands of South Australians who have a motorcycle endorsement on their driver's licence will not be voting for this government if they go ahead with that stupidity.

I would suggest that more than half the farmers in the state have a motorcycle licence so that they do not break the law when they happen to chase a stray animal off the roadside, or something, because motorcycles are a very important tool of work in the farming industry. Supposedly, they are going to be slugged another $300 for the privilege of being able to ride their motorcycle to bring back inside their fences a stray animal, or something. In a lot of cases that is the only reason why they have a motorcycle licence, so that they do not break the law.

The reality is that motorcycling is a recreational activity. There are huge numbers of people who use motorcycles just for that purpose, not for day-to-day commuting but for recreational activity. I happen to be one of them myself, having been a motorcyclist for most of my life. I think it is an absolute absurdity.

I want to take the opportunity to also comment on the Premier's answer to one of the Dorothy Dixers today in question time when he had a red hot crack at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, particularly the CEO, Craig Knowles. The Premier does not get it. He is suggesting that there is not an option of not having a plan. He is possibly right. But remember, there were people who thought it was not an option to not complete the Darwin to Adelaide rail line. How many years did it take to complete it? It was completed.

If the Premier continues to be part of the problem, rather than attempting to be part of the solution, that is what is going to happen with the Murray-Darling Basin plan. We will still be arguing about it in 100 years time. It needs people like the Premier of South Australia—who should be an incredible winner out of this process—to get on board and seek to be a part of the solution and not continue to be part of the problem. One hundred-odd years of bickering is not what this Premier is about ending, he is about continuing it.

I remind the house that on the very day the draft plan came out for consultation this Premier's first response was to talk about High Court challenges, rather than getting on board, looking at the draft plan and saying how it may well be improved, and working with the MDBA instead of working against it. I also remind the house that it is this government that has claimed to be the architect of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It is this government that has, over recent years, claimed all the credit for the establishment of the authority. It is this government that said, 'We've established an independent authority which will base the plan on science', and yet it is this government that is the first cab off the rank when it comes to crying foul.

I suspect this Premier thinks there is more political opportunity if he is in the camp that destroys the plan as it is going forward, so that we continue to bicker over the next 100 years. South Australia will be the loser, but, more importantly, the river and the river communities. Obviously, this government does not represent any of the river communities, but it is those river communities that will be the real losers. They are already suffering and have done so for a significant number of years.

I think it ill behoves the Premier to be, as I say, a part of the problem. It is time he got on board. It is time he sought to bring the states together and get the best possible outcome he can for South Australia, not to destroy the good work that is being done by the MDBA to try to come up with a solution which is going to benefit both the river and river communities and, indeed, be of great benefit to South Australia. I have a genuine concern about the current Premier's attitude.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:59): As many members would be aware, Friday 13 April marked the beginning of National Youth Week, and a number of members would have attended functions to mark that. Those members who spend a bit of time in the chamber during grievance debates will be inspired and happy to know that I will be commenting further on some of the events that I attended at the next opportunity I get. The theme for this year's National Youth Week was 'Imagine. Create. Inspire.' That theme inspired me to imagine a state where we created a juvenile justice system that was worthy of the name.

The Cavan outbreak in February has received some attention in this chamber, but I wanted to place a few things on the record about the report into that nearly catastrophic failure in security. We did not have the opportunity to do so when the report was released during that sitting week. I note that the minister in another place bragged of how his office had offered me a briefing on that report before it was released.

Just by way of filling in the house on the way that this government conducts its business and the manner that it takes to consultation, I can inform the house that I was indeed given the opportunity to have a briefing with the minister's chief of staff, the CEO of the department and another adviser at which we were not provided with the document on which we were being briefed and we were advised, when we asked any questions about the substance of that document, that the information would be contained in the document which we could read when it was released. I had not encountered such an extraordinary approach to public policy, and I look forward to going into some of this in estimates.

That meant that we were not able to discuss it in any detail in the house at the time, but I want to put on record the security failures at the Cavan Training Centre that led to the escape of eight young offenders, some of whom were on trial for, or convicted of, extremely violent crimes—a number of which were indeed murder. I believe there is firm evidence that the security failures that led to that escape are the result of 10 years of poor management by a Labor government obsessed with spin rather than good government.

It is not good enough for the government to suggest that staff are to blame for this monumental security failure. Many of these problems would not have occurred if the government had paid more attention to public safety and risk management at the centre or, indeed, if the government had gone through with the project that was already on the books, was already in the budget after the previous Liberal government, to build a new centre for high-risk young offenders 10 years ago rather than next year under this government's plan. This 11-year delay is definitely part of the reason for this catastrophic breakdown in security.

I note that at the moment our system at Magill has the places for those offenders between the ages of 10 and 18, some of whom have committed serious offences or are being remanded for serious offences but, by and large, the more serious end of the spectrum are those who are in the existing Cavan facility. Those at the more serious end of the spectrum will be moved to the new facility which will have improved security, which will have improved systems, and those who would currently be in Magill under the current arrangements are going to be at Cavan. If the new facility had been up and running, many of these things would not have occurred.

However, in addition to the specific problems that relate to this specific escape, the minister's review conducted by officers from the department of corrections did note a number of systemic problems. Let us go through a couple from the review. On 29 of the 98 days between 1 January and 2 March, no perimeter patrols were undertaken—that is, 30 per cent of the required security patrols were not undertaken. I note that the Cavan Training Centre did not have at the time of the review—which was a couple of months ago now—an operational procedure detailing how to conduct a security patrol of the perimeter or detailing what is expected of the patrollers or the control room.

In May 2011, it was decided that safety procedures would remain unchanged until the new operational procedures for the new Cavan centre currently being built were determined and, of course, some nine months later, we found that that was probably not the right approach to take. Page 4 of the review notes:

There is little evidence that [the Cavan Training Centre] conducts post incident reviews or root cause analysis. As a consequence, staff are not able to learn from an incident or improve procedures or training.

Page 5 of the review notes:

During discussions with [Cavan] staff, it was indicated that:

[Cavan] does not have a formal Incident Management System.

[Cavan] does not have a committee to review its operating environment.

[Cavan] does not schedule the testing of escape contingencies or of any other emergency procedures.

The conference room at [Cavan] doubles as an emergency control centre...however there is no evidence that the equipment needed for an [emergency control centre] to operate effectively (such as radios, PC systems, telephones, photocopier, desks, tabards, electronic clocks, whiteboards, wall maps and floor plans) or the operational and emergency procedures to be referred to are in place.

This is a litany of serious problems that have been in place after 10 years of Labor.

Page 8 of the review notes that Cavan does not conduct tool audits or reconciliations and does not have a master tool register. Only tools valued at $50 or greater are reported on the assets register in the learning centre. Teachers place their own orders for tools and materials through an internal purchase order system but no approval was necessary for Cavan management.

Given that, as I will get to shortly, a hacksaw blade from one of the education centres within Cavan was used to cut through the fence and make the escape, it is noteworthy that there was no tool register in the entire facility. I quote from page 17 of the review, noting that:

Based on the information available to investigators including the information outlined above it is found that:

1. There is no specific instruction on supervision requirements for staff dealing with residents.

2. Procedure * [blanked out] does not identify specific search/security check instructions for all areas within unit accommodation.

3. There is a lack of consistency in search/security checks conducted by staff within unit accommodation.

4. There are three areas in which staff are required to record/identify searches/security checks conducted.

5. There is a lack of consistency in the appropriate recording of searches/security checks conducted.

6. Conflicting priorities have often meant that security checks are not completed appropriately, or at all.

Specifically in relation to the escape in February, I note that there are no records of security checks being conducted between 23 February and 28 February on the unit in which the escapees were based. The report found on page 13 that there were three toolboxes in a storage area at the rear of the metalwork room, the contents of which was not determined. Residents in these classes had unsupervised access to this storage area during the course of a lesson. At least one of the toolboxes was unlocked for a period to identify any tools appropriate for use in the horticulture class. Residents moving between the metalwork room and the outside recreation area during class were not searched and tools and equipment moving between these areas was not searched.

Further, based on the information available, the report found that one of the residents, X, secreted one half of the hacksaw blade down the front of his pants during the afternoon outside recreation visit on 21 February. Resident X was not searched when he left this area and returned to unit X. Resident X secreted the other half of the hacksaw blade down the front of his pants during the afternoon outside recreation visit on Wednesday 22 February and resident X was not searched when he left this area and returned to unit X. Finally, and I quote again from page 15 of the report:

During interviews conducted with staff regarding the searches of the accommodation units it was put that, due to conflicting priorities on many shifts, the searching of areas within the unit was either done superficially or not completed.

This is a litany of failures that includes systemic problems as well as specific procedure breakdowns that were specific to the escape in February. The result of this is that eight dangerous young offenders were able to cut through the inner fence, jump the outer fence and escape into the community where they posed a clear and present threat to public safety.

There is a very, very high financial cost to the state of this escape, of course, because the incredibly intense police resources that were needed to recapture the seven within 24 hours and then the last one a couple of weeks later came at a high financial cost. As I have previously, I commend the police officers for their excellent work and the work that they did. There is further a social cost of a loss of confidence from the community in the systems we have in place.

The minister has done some work. We have a new person in charge of Magill and Cavan and I wish them all the best. I look forward to the minister outlining to the parliament what procedural improvements or even that procedural improvements have been undertaken to fulfil the many, many problems identified in this report, both systemic and of a direct nature, specifically to the escape in February. I look forward to that coming from the minister. I hope he will do it soon because the community deserves better. The community needs to have confidence in our youth justice facilities.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:09): I rise today to make a grievance speech in the Supply Bill debate. I just want to make some comments on the latest developments regarding marine parks, where a map with a few green spots on it has been placed on the website and we are trying to work out exactly where the new sanctuary zones are. I want to give Daryl Spencer's version of what he thinks of the new sanctuary zones. He is the President of the West Coast Crayfishermen's Association. His letter to me today is titled 'A Northern Zone's Perspective'. I quote directly from his letter:

Hello good people.

Anyone who has had anything to do with management/research in the Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery over the past 20 years should have alarm bells ringing in their ears after the release of the latest version of the sanctuary zones.

This has the potential, unless changed, to devastate a fishery which has been on its knees over the past five to ten years. We have endured just about everything you could imagine being thrown at us: 50% quota cuts, the SARS virus, the biggest upwelling in history as well as the uncertainty of the Chinese market.

There is no alternative but to either change these new zones or the Government must compensate.

And then you will not have a fishery as the guts will have been ripped out of it—senseless, as this industry is sustainable and provides employment and much needed export income, and direct income, to regional areas of South Australia.

Common sense must prevail; the managers and researchers must stand up and show that this will happen.

Once these areas of Lobster bottom are locked up the biomass attached is lost—our significant bulk of tagging data shows this. 90% of our lobsters are territorial, they don't move from settlement to the time they are caught or die.

We have an 'oasis-type' fishery where we have a quota of 310 tonne in an area TWENTY times the size of the Southern Zone which has a 1,250 tonne quota.

THINK ABOUT THAT.

So this should show you that if you lock up these oasis areas, which may seem small, but with the majority of the other areas 'desert' or sand, the impact will be huge.

We, the managers of the fishery, have worked hard at making this fishery sustainable. Those in power responsible for making these decisions must be alerted to the mistake they are making.

We are all in favour of marine conservation via marine protected areas. But they must be implemented in a sustainable way with real science backing them up and all the facts/justification on the table.

This doesn't seem to be the case at the moment. Aside from banning commercial fishing, which should be addressed under the Fisheries Act, what threats or risks will these sanctuary zones protect against? They won't protect against climate change, run-off from the land or commercial shipping. And all of this at the expense of our sustainable, low impact, export fishery.

I hope this gets the message across and that the Government is listening. Let's learn from the MISTAKES made in Victoria.

Everyone needs to keep at it or risk seeing a fishery fade away.

Daryl Spencer

President West Coast Crayfishermen's Association

Port Lincoln S.A.

He certainly is not a lone representative of different fisheries groups around this state still voicing their disgust at these proposed sanctuary zones put out by this Labor government.

Another issue that I want to discuss today is the forced schools amalgamation. This involves one of the schools in my area. The Murray Bridge Primary School and the Murray Bridge Junior Primary School will be forced to amalgamate. I presented a petition to this house on Tuesday 18 October 2011, signed by 723 residents of Murray Bridge and Greater South Australia, requesting the house to urge the government not to go ahead with the proposed amalgamation of the Murray Bridge Primary School and the Murray Bridge Junior Primary School.

The review committee states that it received a total of 112 submissions/petitions against the amalgamation, with only one being for the amalgamation. The result of this review is likely to cut or reduce the following programs: breakfast club; canteen upgrade for the student pathways program; student physical education programs, which means equipment, the gymnastics program, hydrotherapy and Be Active; and the dance media program will be halved.

Neither the primary school nor the junior primary members were in favour of amalgamation. The review committee acknowledged that the pilot amalgamation has affected support staff workload, roles and responsibilities. This amalgamation will result in the removal of base grant funding to these schools of $358,000. This reduction of funding will see programs such as yard support, pedal prix, artists in residence and mentoring programs reduced. With the amalgamation and loss of funding, this will have a negative impact on the educational and social needs of the school students.

The loss of leadership accessibility and support for counselling and direct intervention in behaviour management and loss of support programs will lead to problems carrying over into classrooms. School support officer hours are to be reduced, which assists students with disabilities such as Asperger's and ADHD, who are integrated within mainstream classrooms, and social programs. The conclusion reached by the panel clearly reflects concerns or doubts expressed by Australian Education Union members and community members, and these concerns arise from the loss of significant funding to the school under amalgamation. After all of the above, the review committee made the recommendation that the schools amalgamate. This was signed off on 19 December 2011.

I want to read the minority report by Virginia Gill into Hansard. Ms Gillwas the AEU representative on the Murray Bridge amalgamation review panel. She indicates that she is submitting a minority report for the following reasons:

As indicated in the report, the vast majority of the submissions from the school community were opposed to the amalgamation due to concerns deemed by them to be very significant. These include:

loss of specialised intervention programs to support students with special learning needs, including a reduction in SSO hours for classroom support for these students;

the need for well resourced staffing and initiatives to engage positively with students, parents and members of the wider community in a complex category 2 site;

increased demands on the workload of the leadership team and the principal in particular, leading to reduced accessibility to the principal by parents and the wider community members;

reduced resources for programs and strategies to support Aboriginal students in their learning to close the gap in terms of learning and life outcomes for them; and

concerns about staff morale and wellbeing expressed by primary staff in particular during the trial amalgamation pilot in 2011;

Submissions/petitions opposed to the proposed amalgamation numbers 112, and only one was in favour of the amalgamation. This is particularly significant in my decision to lodge a minority report, as the voice of the school community, while certainly not ignored by the panel, is so overwhelmingly opposed to amalgamation in 2013.

Still quoting from Virginia's minority report, she states:

I would like to acknowledge that I believe the principal and all panel members acted in good faith and that the processes undertaken to prepare the panel report by the chairperson in particular were comprehensive. My key issues focus on the reduced finances available to such a high-needs, complex site, and the views of parents, teachers and support staff provided to the panel in consultation process. My understanding is that the process of setting up the amalgamation review committees was to investigate the issues as seen by the communities and the schools. I believe it is clear that the community's preference was that the two schools retain their separate identities. I am also very concerned that the community may respond very negatively to a decision to amalgamate the schools, given their strong opposition to it.

That is why I cannot understand why this process worth $375,000 was spent by the education minister to talk about a proposal to amalgamate schools when, obviously, the minister and her department and this Labor government had already decided because they could save about $5 million across the state—I think it was already decided.

This is so-called consultation, with just a tick the box, thinking that they talked to community members. They do not even listen to their own union members who support the Labor Party. They certainly came into my office. I have never had so many union members in my office at any one time lobbying me to stop this proposal. It shows that this government will still operate in an announce and defend way of doing things instead of consulting in a proper manner so that communities can get the right outcome.

I believe this will have a damaging impact on the educational outcomes at the Murray Bridge Junior Primary School and the Murray Bridge Primary School. The government should have listened to the community. The government was comprehensively told by the community that they did not want this to happen, yet the government just runs roughshod over a community once again. The year 2014 cannot come soon enough.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:19): I thank the house for the opportunity to use this grievance speech to continue my remarks on the Supply Bill. I make no secret of my concerns about the spending by the government when it has such a poor track record of waste and also priorities which seriously disadvantage regional South Australia and all South Australians. Another unfortunate but clear example of this is the fact that, for the last several years, every budget we have had has shown a deficit for the following two or three years, with a surplus in perhaps year 3 or year 4 after that, but we never actually get to the surplus times—we certainly have not for many years—and I do not see that changing this time around.

I could bet that, when we get to the budget from Treasurer Snelling on 31 May, it will show a deficit for the next two or three years and it will show a surplus in year 3 or year 4, and I bet we will not get those surpluses when they are forecast to arrive. I would also bet that the deficits will turn out, in fact, to be much worse than forecast in years 1, 2 and 3, because that is the pattern we have seen over the last several years, and there is no reason to be optimistic that that will change.

With regard to regional South Australia particularly, I did not have time to put on the record some more concerns of mine. One is that Patient Assistance Transport Scheme (PATS) funding is not nearly good enough. I also have grave concerns about dental care. I know the health minister is working on trying to save the Peterborough school dentist, and I am hopeful of a positive outcome. We should all be very aware in this house that access to public dental care in regional South Australia is a very hard thing to come by.

In Peterborough at the moment the school dental program, a one-day-a-week program that is very important to that community, looks like closing. I will be the first person to thank the health minister if he is able to reverse that. He did delay the closure, for which I am grateful, but I cannot impress upon him and this house, though, how catastrophic it would be for the Peterborough community if that program disappears. It is very easy for planners sitting in Adelaide to say, 'That's okay. We'll close that program, and those kids and those families can just go to Port Pirie, Jamestown or Clare.' It is not that simple.

It is unfortunate to say the reality is that, if there is no school dentist in Peterborough, some of those kids will not be taken to the dentist. It pains me to say that, but it is a fact. We in this house should be aware that many health outcomes, not just dental, are directly linked to dental health. So, for the good of those kids and for the good of their future health—for the good of those future adults—I implore the minister to do whatever he is able to do to keep that service in Peterborough.

In relation to rural roads, we have seen this government decrease speed limits on many rural roads—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be well aware of this issue in the northern part of your electorate. That is a shameful thing. That is just a way of covering up poor maintenance—covering up the fact that roads are not being maintained and looked after the way they should. Along with every member of this house, I certainly support efforts to reduce our road toll and to improve road safety, but let me tell you clearly: reducing the speed limit from 110 km/h to 100 km/h is not going to do that.

The real issues lie with the people who are travelling at 130 km/h, 140 km/h, 150 km/h or more. The person who is currently travelling at 110 km/h and is going to follow the new rules and travel at 100 km/h is not the at-risk person. That is not the person who is most likely to die on the road, but that is the person who is being penalised by this change in the speed limit. The good people, the responsible drivers, are being penalised. It is not going to make an impact where it is expected to make an impact. My view is that it is more to save the government money in relation to road maintenance more than being a road safety policy.

While on roads, I would like to correct something that I said earlier. I said that there is not one single overtaking lane in all of the Eyre Peninsula, and the very knowledgeable member for Flinders has been able to advise me that there is one. There is one overtaking lane out of the tens of thousands of kilometres of roads on the Eyre Peninsula: there is one very short overtaking lane, up a hill, just on the outskirts of Port Lincoln. It is remiss of me because I have actually been on that road several times myself.

So, out of the tens of thousands of kilometres of roads on the Eyre Peninsula, there is actually a few hundred metres of overtaking lane in one place. I say to this house, one of the very best things that can be done on rural roads with regards to road safety is to put in overtaking lanes. I can tell you that the road immediately south of Port Augusta on Federal Highway One has seen a significant decrease in road accidents since those overtaking lanes have been put in, so I encourage the state government to concentrate on roads all over the state.

I have a couple more examples, and one very small one, which I suspect nobody in this house is aware of. The Stonefield standpipe, just off the highway between Truro and Blanchetown currently supplies water to the local residents—their only local supply of fresh water outside of their homes—at a rate of five litres per minute. So, if you are trying to fill up your 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 litre trailer with water for your property—or for your home, so that you can park your trailer at home for domestic use, or to fill up a trough or for stock use—five litres per minute, outrageous, absolutely ridiculous, and the government squabbles with the local council about whose responsibility it is to put in a very small, very cheap, upgrade. All it would take is a 20,000 litre aboveground tank on a stand, so that it can get filled up slowly at five litres per minute—no problem there at all—and then it can be discharged at an acceptable rate into the trailer. That is a very small, but to the local people, it is a very important example of where this government is not looking after the local community.

Mr Griffiths: Or for firefighting purposes.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: As the member for Goyder quite rightly points out, how are you going to fill up your CFS truck? After it has been emptied, it is parked, obviously full of water, but after you have run out of that water, how are you going to fill up your CFS truck to protect local homes and properties if you cannot access the water at more than five litres per minute?

The registration rate for the A-trailer of a B-double combination is extremely popular at the moment and is incredibly efficient. The greatest gains in efficiency in heavy vehicle transport all over Australia at the moment, including in and out of Adelaide, are coming through the increased use of B-doubles. To spend approximately $6,000 per year to register the A-trailer of a B-double combination is killing that efficiency; it is taking advantage of that efficiency; it is not what it costs the government to register that trailer compared to any other trailer, but that is what the government wants to charge. It is taking away the greatest area of operational efficiency so that people will now reverse the trend and move away from those trailers or register them in the Northern Territory where it is much cheaper to do so, and that would be a great shame for South Australia as well. They are some examples of government priorities not supporting regional South Australia as they should.

In the less than one minute remaining to me, I would like to touch on a very important rec and sport issue. I am still in the process of doing my homework, but I have great concern about the fact that the office of rec and sport manages so many of our publicly owned sporting facilities in this state. I think that that is not their area of expertise. They have other areas of expertise but running those facilities is not one of them, and I have further work to do to look into that. Sharing of school and club and council owned sporting reserves needs to be investigated as well.

Time expired.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (17:29): I will take this opportunity to take up where I left off earlier today. Unfortunately I had to take leave over the lunch break and was unable to return at my allocated time.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: It was a good lunch.

Mr TRELOAR: It wasn't a good lunch. I was involved in a conference—what do they call it?

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: A deadlock conference.

Mr TRELOAR: A deadlock conference, which was an experience in itself as a new member. I will pick up where I left off and continue almost from where the member for Stuart finished, and that was to do with roads and heavy vehicle transport.

It seems that due to a recent agreement by the state government with the National Transport Commission we are about to see huge cost increases impact upon the heavy transport industry. The member for Stuart talked about B-trains, A-trailers and so on. In fact, the government has reduced the registration fees for the A-trailer by 50 per cent and I commend it for this. What they have done at the same time is dramatically increase the cost of registering a road train.

What has happened in the regions—I do not know whether or not the government is aware of this, but it should be—is that because of the expense of registering a B-double people have gone away from that configuration towards road trains because it is cheaper. Lo and behold, now the costs of registering a road train have gone up, so it is a big impost on the heavy transport industry. As we have said time and time again, this state relies on heavy vehicle transport; it is so critical. Efficiencies being gained by the heavy transport industry, it would seem, are now being penalised by the government—really disappointing to see.

Time and time again in this place I have said that, although we are somewhat ensconced in this place and removed from the real world in many ways, the reality is that we do compete on the world market. Our primary producers and our export manufacturers have to compete on the global stage and they need to be competitive. The efficiencies that we can gain are vital to keeping us competitive in the world market, and from time to time governments forget this. I am sure they forget it; they simply do not realise.

As well as the increase in road train registration there is going to be an increase in fuel prices for our trucking operators, so it really is going to be an impost. It seems to me that the transport industry, through its various representative bodies and individuals, has spent a huge amount of time and effort in discussions with the government—seemingly to no avail—on this.

It becomes a consumer issue because these prices are passed on to the customer. When a freight operator transports fruit and vegetables, food and even grain or heavy duty goods and consumer items, the costs that are imposed upon them by the government are, of course, passed on to the consumer or the customer. So it becomes a consumer issue and it feeds into that whole cost of living issue that we have been talking about so much of late; that is, how expensive this place is becoming to live in.

Costs like registration fees, water and electricity—those utility fees that the government does have control over—have been going up and up. The real impost is on people on fixed low incomes such as pensioners and people who do not have any flexibility in the way that they spend their money and who do not have any discretionary income, if you like—that is where it really hits.

We have already spoken a little bit today about sanctuary zones. I wonder how the government intends to manage and police the proposed sanctuary zones and what impact that will have on the budget of this state. There seems to be no consideration for that, as far as I can see, as yet. Of course, when you put in place sanctuary zones or a park of some kind it does need to be managed or should be managed and policed, and there will be a cost on all of that.

What has really flabbergasted me about the latest proposal with regard to marine parks is that the government seems to forget that, at the moment, a select committee is considering evidence on the impact of sanctuary zones and how they might impact on fisheries and also coastal communities. That select committee is a Legislative Council committee, an upper house committee. It has not yet tabled its findings, yet the government has seen fit to put out its proposed sanctuary zones before even seeing the report from that committee—arrogant in the extreme! In fact, when the select committee visited Eyre Peninsula, the two Labor members of that particular committee did not even bother to go. They did not go to hear the evidence, which I found extraordinary.

I am a great believer in productive landscapes. I understand the value of landscape and the preciousness of it, and I understand also how reliant we are as a species on the landscape that we inhabit. Unfortunately, I think that the days of shut-the-gate conservation are well and truly behind us. It is a hangover from a generation gone by. I make this point in regard to the sanctuary zones within the marine parks but I also make the point in regard to the 22 per cent of this state that is now locked up. I fully realise that a good portion of it is out in the Nullarbor and within the pastoral areas, but 22 per cent of this state being locked up is actually too much. We are taking too much productive country out of the equation, and there is very little in the way of management that goes into that. It would seem that somehow the government knows best with all these things.

There are a few big ticket items that we are paying for now and will be paying for for a long time. Of course, there is the desal plant, and we have talked about that a lot; the new hospital that is on the old rail yard site; and Adelaide Oval. It is a pity in my mind at least—and I know there is probably no going back now—that one of the loveliest cricket grounds in the world is to be transformed into a stadium. It is a real pity. They are big ticket items that we will be paying for as a state for many years to come.

I do not think that there has been a lot of thought go into how we might do that, and certainly the benefits of those three items to country people are going to be very limited. All this contributes to a state debt, as I mentioned earlier today, of $8.5 billion, with Labor borrowing an extra almost $4 million every day. Once again, that figure in particular is one that people can get their head around. I think that one of the things that epitomises where we are as a state and where the Labor government is at the moment was highlighted last week by the fact that the CFS was throwing out brand new uniforms purely and simply because they had two stripes rather than three. A lot of people in this state have been very frugal and cautious and managed their way through as a result of that, and what they cannot get their head around is government waste. It just does not sit with the way we approach the rest of our lives.

With all that, and the red tape and the bureaucracy that has been put in front of business, I firmly believe that a government's role, apart from providing basic services, is also to provide and build a framework in which business can operate, and it needs to do that without too many constraints, without too many obligations. Certainly that framework needs to be workable. Unfortunately at the moment we are just seeing a continuing build-up of red tape, bureaucracy and reporting requirements that need to go into government, and some of them have been touched on today. It is occurring even within the Public Service, and I think that it may have been the member for Stuart who talked about nurses who, rather than being carers, are more and more becoming reporters and administrators. All of that goes into increasing the cost of health.

Certainly I have been disappointed over recent years to see the reduction of funding into PIRSA. My background is in agriculture, obviously, and historically Primary Industries in South Australia has supported agriculture, the development of technology and the extension of that technology into the industry very well, and it is a pity to see that being reduced.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:39): I rise to continue my remarks particularly about food production. One issue that sits alongside the food industry is biosecurity, and that is a subject that works hand in hand for safe, reliable, consistent, clean, green produce, particularly in South Australia, and today, the pressure is mounting. The New South Wales Department of Primary Industries has ceased its containment and eradication efforts in the Riverina earlier than usual this year and will not start up until much later than usual. It is believed that the Department of Primary Industries has simply run out of money.

The problem is that New South Wales has an unprecedented number of Queensland fruit fly outbreaks on its hands at the moment and there are quotes of a DPI inspector saying that there are up to 1,000 detections every week in the Griffith area alone and that maggots are being found in all kinds of fruit and vegetables. I was astounded to hear that they are finding maggots in potatoes and onions and all sorts of vegetables that I have never actually seen before, after growing fruit and vegetables for 25 years. It is only a matter of time before they start turning up in some early season citrus varieties.

There is a very real risk that all of these outbreaks, combined with the slackening off of efforts by the New South Wales DPI, will lead to the Queensland fruit fly becoming endemic in the New South Wales part of the fruit fly exclusion zone that covers southern New South Wales, northern Victoria and, most important, South Australia's Riverland. This will substantially increase the risk of outbreaks in Victoria and South Australia. This is a looming problem for food producers in the Riverland, which has, luckily, and some would even say miraculously, remained free of outbreaks during the crisis which began in late 2010.

The cost to the taxpayer of containing and eradicating a single outbreak in the Riverland would be around $2 million, and that is according to South Australia's biosecurity. Not to mention the additional cost to the industry of cold treating in the outbreak area, the enormous risk of losing export markets and the demand for fruit fly area freedom.

SARDI and PIRSA will be conducting an 18 month trial importing sterile Mediterranean fruit flies from large international production facilities in countries like South Africa and Austria. They are doing it because, essentially, they are trying to save money on the fruit fly program, a saving of around $5 million a year.

South Australia contributes about $750,000 a year to a facility in Western Australia that breeds sterile Mediterranean flies, which are endemic in Western Australia. This is a fixed annual cost, regardless of how many flies we might get from any of them in any one year. We use sterile flies as part of our local containment and eradication efforts. It is referred to as the sterile insect technique (SIT). It is a proven, effective and chemical-free way of treating an outbreak.

The trial will look at the cost and logistics of getting these flies from overseas on an on-needs basis, so there is no fixed cost. This raises a few potential problems. What if there is a sudden rash of outbreaks that immediately require a large amount of sterile flies? How quickly can we get them from these overseas facilities? Considering these facilities also supply other customers all over the world, there is also a risk that we might not be able to get them at all.

What will the withdrawal of $750,000 a year have on the Western Australia facility? Will it have to reduce production, or even shut down altogether? Will the Western Australian government have to reduce fruit fly efforts elsewhere to keep it going; for example, reducing the vigilance at the South Australia/Western Australia border? Why is our government persisting in attempts to cut the relatively inexpensive fruit fly program—announcing and then reversing the decision to cut the nightshift at Yamba and Ceduna, now the SIT program in Western Australia—at a time when the risk of outbreaks in South Australia has significantly increased, when it should, instead, be putting more resources into it?

PIRSA's budget has been slashed and we know that is the motivation for trying to cut the fruit fly program. However, the government is pretending to base these moves on a review of the fruit fly program conducted back in 2010. This review showed a benefit to industry of around $20 million a year, a reduced community benefit of 5 per cent due to a drop in backyard fruit production in Adelaide and also highlighted a reduced risk of fruit fly outbreaks being caused by travellers bringing prohibited produce into the Riverland quarantined area.

I am not arguing the benefit to industry, but it is a selective figure considering the overall contribution of the citrus, wine, fruit and vegetable industries to the economy and the fact that aspects of the program like the roadblocks at Yamba and Ceduna also benefit all other industries like livestock, grains and even the building industry. The government is using this benefit to industry as justification for attempting to recover costs from industry.

Former ag minister Mike O'Brien specifically said during estimates last year that the review clearly got a couple of things wrong. Firstly, backyard fruit production in Adelaide is on the increase and gardening expert, Jon Lamb, was quoted in a story in The Advertiser some time ago, saying that in 2010, backyard fruit trees and vegetable gardens had produced the equivalent of $50 million worth of produce and that nurseries were experiencing a surge in demand for fruit trees. Jon told me that more people want to grow their own food mainly because they were concerned about the cost of groceries and fruit.

Secondly, the results of recent random roadblocks at Blanchetown would comprehensively demonstrate that the risk of travellers causing an outbreak remains considerable, and that does not take into account the risk of commercial traffic. For example, Berri Estates, the largest winery in Australia, located just outside Berri, receives thousands and thousands of tonnes of grapes, this year having a record crop of 215,000 tonnes crushed in one facility alone. It does receive some of that fruit from Victoria and New South Wales during vintage every year, and it comes on trucks that usually travel through Yamba. Biosecurity costs are a small price to pay for the safe, clean, green produce that we rely on today.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:47): We have dealt with many matters in the last days speaking about the Supply Bill. The issues that have been dealt with are all extremely serious for each and every South Australian. My portfolios are police, corrections, emergency services, road safety, volunteers and Aboriginal affairs and these areas are at the lead of just about every news bulletin. Perhaps Aboriginal affairs is not, but police and emergency services certainly are, and the government and the opposition do all we can to support our police and emergency services.

One area that has been bipartisan—although there have been different priorities—is the area that I have had responsibility for before and now have again, and that is Aboriginal affairs. There are some serious issues still in Aboriginal affairs in South Australia, mainly in the APY lands but, having been to the Gerard community last week, there are some serious issues there. The Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee that I am on visited Gerard, and we will be putting our concerns to a number of agencies to seek some answers to queries that we have about the way that that community is being run at the moment and the lives of the people who are living there and those who are affected by the way that community has been managed.

Next week the committee is going across to Port Lincoln and then across to Maralinga and Oak Valley and, of course, there are a number of issues over there. Just today I heard that there are some issues with the Tullawon Health Service. There are some disputes amongst staff there. Fortunately, the health services are still being provided at Yalata to the Aboriginal community there, but there are some serious issues going on.

At Maralinga in December 2009, section 400 was handed back to the Maralinga Tjarutja people, and that took a lot of negotiation and has involved a lot of transfer not only of property but also funds to ensure that the old Maralinga village and the surrounds are able to be managed by the Maralinga Tjarutja people. When the land was grabbed by the Australian government and the British government for atomic tests, there were not the concerns that we have nowadays for the welfare of Aboriginal people. Fortunately now, as a result of strong representation by various groups for Maralinga Tjarutja, the Piling Trust was established, with $13 million initially put aside for the benefit of the Maralinga Tjarutja people. The interest on that money was to be used. Some capital can be used under special circumstances. I understand that $13 million is about $20 million now and the interest is still being used.

Next week, I am looking forward to seeing what has happened at Maralinga village after the handover. I hope that the ventures that were spoken about on previous visits—the educational opportunities and the tourism opportunities—are going to be realised. It will be an interesting visit. Of the 23,000 people of Aboriginal descent in South Australia, the 3,000 people who live on the APY lands capture most of our attention and that is because, if any members of this parliament have been to the APY lands, they will see that there are many issues that have been going on for many years.

The former premier, Mike Rann, was the minister for Aboriginal affairs back in the early 1990s—1992 and 1993. Some of his aims were admirable but, like with many things, expectations were raised but things failed to be delivered. It is really quite sad that one of the legacies of the Rann period as Aboriginal affairs minister was a comment by the then federal Labor minister, Robert Tickner, about the Labor government's response to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. When the then minister Mike Rann said that there had been a lot of money put into gaols and refurbishing gaols, federal minister Tickner said, 'If that is the only answer they have got, well, that is a sick joke.' Unfortunately, short-term solutions for long-term problems have been the whole scene for Aboriginal affairs in South Australia.

At the moment, one of the big issues we have on the APY lands and, I should say, in the southern and northern suburbs with some Aboriginal and white families, is income management. Particularly on the APY lands, there has been a long history now of trying to get some form of income management onto the lands. In fact, in February 2010, the Anangu Pitjantjatjara executive wrote to the then minister—now current Premier, Jay Weatherill—and to myself as the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs about a trial of the families and relationship commission on the APY lands. In that, the chairperson, Bernard Singer, wrote:

We believe that a trial in the two APY communities could take place through by-law under the APY Land Rights Act together with the Commonwealth support, for about one-half to two-thirds of the cost of the Queensland trial.

They were talking about an estimated cost of $80 million to $90 million that had been put by the minister, but the APY executive believed that a families and relationship commission could be in place with income management for much less than that. So, way back in February 2010, before the last election, the APY executive representing the communities and representing the people on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands were looking for some family relationship type commission and some input into money management—nothing has happened.

We move on to March this year—just a matter of weeks ago. The NPY Women's Council said that they were strongly supporting an income management trial on the lands. It says in their press release:

NPY Women's Council appeals to all service providers and government to be open to new ideas and models of income management, for example a model that includes voluntary and compulsory income management and which offers options to people on salaries and on government benefits.

I am proud to say that, back in October 2009—so way before the letter from the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara executive and way before the letter from the NPY Women's Council—I wrote to the then parliamentary counsel to seek the drafting of a private member's bill to implement welfare reforms for Aboriginal communities in South Australia based on the Family Responsibilities Commission Act 2008, where Aboriginal people are required to attend if one of the following triggers occurs:

1. If a parent or person responsible for a school-aged child allows the child to have more than three unexplained absences from school...

2. If the parent or person responsible for a child is the subject of a child safety notification...

3. If a Magistrate convicts a person of a relatively minor offence.

4. If a person breaches the public or State-owned housing agreement for the residency they have rented.

The Family Responsibilities Commission could then act, control of that person's income would come into effect and the welfare of the whole family could be assured. However, nothing has happened with that. I asked minister Macklin over at Maralinga in December 2009 what was happening with the federal legislation. Minister Macklin assured me that federal legislation was coming and would be in place by May 2010. As we know, nothing has happened and, as we saw from the NPY Women's Council's press release, they were still clamouring for that as late as 26 March 2012.

Food security has been a big issue on the lands. We know that there was a recent report on food security, and the reports of the Red Cross handing out food parcels is of great concern. Fortunately, it is not widespread, but there are issues. At Watarru, the store has closed. Food management and food prices are an ongoing problem. On 12 May 2009, the APY executive wrote to the then minister, the Hon. Jay Weatherill (now Premier), asking that a by-law which had been passed by the APY executive be passed on to the Governor for assent. That did not happen, so we still have the shemozzle that we see with food being very expensive, stores being closed and food parcels being handed out. It is just not good enough that the ministers can carry on like this.

Another example, unfortunately, of this government ignoring the APY executive was with the former minister, the Hon. Grace Portolesi, when the APY executive wrote to her in June 2010 asking for a conciliator to be appointed under section 36 of the act to deal with issues going on in the lands. This did not get a response from the then minister. So, we have had premier Mike Rann, Premier Jay Weatherill and former minister Grace Portolesi all ignoring appeals from the APY executive.

It is about time this government took Aboriginal affairs in South Australia as seriously as we would like them to. There are no votes in Aboriginal affairs and it is not going to change the government, but we cannot have South Australians living in the way that some South Australians in Aboriginal communities live today. It is an absolute disgrace. I encourage every member of this place to visit the APY lands and see for themselves exactly what is happening.


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


Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:57): I am pleased to continue the process in relation to the Supply Bill and make a contribution in the grievances. I want to continue the remarks that I made earlier in the day concerning the bill itself and go over one point I raised concerning the performance of the Office of Consumer and Business Services. I quoted from a letter that the minister wrote to me advising that a specialist team had been established to review the processes and so on. I will not necessarily quote verbatim from the letter but, continuing on from those remarks I made earlier in the day, I want to know what the findings are of that specialist team that the minister put together in relation to reviewing aspects of the performance of the CBS. I am certainly aware that the minister did issue a press release that was entitled 'Improving the Trade Licensing System'. I quote from the text of the release:

The State Government has met with key trades' representatives to hear their ideas about improving the system of issuing occupational licences.

Minister for Business Services and Consumers John Rau said the meeting late yesterday was prompted by concerns about the speed and efficiency in which Consumer and Business Services (CBS) was issuing licences.

Then there is a quote from the minister:

'The meeting was positive and constructive, and it has resulted in an excellent collection of suggestions to improve licensing processes,' Mr Rau said.

That is the end of a quote from a press release. It is all very well and good that the minister has released information via a press release, but I want to know what the findings of that specialist team are and what the team reported to the minister's office by the week ending 9 March. I have requested a meeting with the minister or his appointed representatives to traverse this issue, so I look forward to a positive response from the minister's office in relation to those matters.

I want to make some further comments in relation to the performance of the Office of Consumer and Business Services. My office does still continue to receive a steady stream of complaints and concerns and matters that need to be followed up from members of the public, as I said, in relation to consumer and business services.

I just want to highlight a particular issue that a business owner (whose name I will not identify because I do not need to), who contacted my office raised concerning the issuing of his building licence. I will not necessarily hold the house with the relative details of it, but the matter involved some incentive payments, I understand, from the federal government. This particular business was employing some apprentices. If the deadline was not going to be met, then these incentive payments were in jeopardy. My office referred it to the minister's office for prompt follow-up.

Speaking to my office today, the advice that the minister's staff communicated to my staff was that CBS treated this business person, this business owner, in an 'appalling' manner. That was the description that the minister's staff communicated to my staff, that this business owner received appalling treatment from the Office of Consumer and Business Services. That was a direct quote from my staff to me today. It is pretty evident that there are still some quite significant issues within that agency that the minister has direct responsibility for that need to be addressed. I want to know what the outcome and findings of that specialist team are. I wanted to highlight that issue to the house this afternoon.

I want to continue my remarks from earlier concerning the Mount Barker Ministerial Development Plan Amendment that saw 1,310 hectares of land rezoned to residential. I spoke earlier about the Greens' party involvement and how they float in and out of the issue at the local level. They might get a couple of headlines in the local paper from time to time; however, they are not on the ground in the local electorate, as I pointed out earlier. I am, week in and week out, and I am addressing the significant issues that the community raises as a consequence of this decision to rezone that area of land, and also the consequences of the government not providing a satisfactory level of infrastructure services to meet the current demand within the community. We have significant issues with healthcare services, transport infrastructure and educational requirements. I have mothers of autistic children coming to me crying because they do not have access to a satisfactory level of education services to meet the needs of their children.

I think I am a reasonably fair person; I will give credit where credit is due. Within the Mount Barker Primary School, on the Dumas Street site, a special school facility has been established (the people in the education department would know the site I am talking about), and we are very grateful for that. However, it was not without some significant level of lobbying on behalf of the school community, the general community and myself to see that that facility was established. It is my role, and I certainly enjoy it, and I relish the fact that people within the community do come to see me about these issues, but I am using it as an example of how the Greens just float in and float out on these issues. I am not aware of their having any constituents contacting them about these day-to-day, week-to-week problems that members of the local community experience. It is all very well for the Greens to grandstand on these issues, but they are not up there in the Hills dealing with these issues.

I do want to make the point again that the government could not have made a bigger mess of this process if it had tried. The previous minister for planning and urban development, Paul Holloway, who has now retired from the parliament, went out and said, 'I want Mount Barker to be the Mount Gambier of the Adelaide Hills.' It is all very good to make those bold, grand statements, but where is the commitment from the government to provide the infrastructure and services that a Mount Gambier in the Hills would require? Where are the plans for employment opportunities at a local level to make the Mount Gambier of the Adelaide Hills function? I think I have said before in the house that I regard the Monarto area as a good area for employment opportunities.

Time expired.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (18:08): I am pleased to be able to contribute to the grievance debate on the Supply Bill. As the lead speaker on the original second reading debate, I understand that I get 30 minutes to contribute to the grievance. I just want to touch on a few issues about the government's poor management. What is becoming apparent to the public is that, across a whole range of areas, this government simply cannot manage the departments and certainly cannot manage the budget and, as a result, taxpayers are feeling a lot of pain and, I have no doubt that, as a result of the budget that will come down on 31 May, they will be feeling significantly more pain.

I want to go through a couple of issues, without going over a lot of the debate I contributed during the second reading stage of the debate. Let's start with the health department and the health minister. If ever there was a department that is in crisis, it is the health department and the health ministry. Here is an agency that could not even get the basic bank reconciliations right. Here is an agency that has a budget approaching $5 billion (or about 30 per cent of the state budget) and, even though the Public Service has increased, in round numbers, by 20,000 extra public servants over the last 10 years, it was beyond the capability of the agency to go through and do its standard bank reconciliations.

As a result of that, the reconciliation variances ranged from $60 million, $90 million, and even a larger figure has been suggested, but let's take the minister's latest figure which is $60 million. In fairness to the minister, he says that he previously gave the wrong figure—an illustration of yet another mistake out of that agency. How the minister would not know exactly whether it was $60 million or $90 million, I will leave for others to ponder, but here is an agency that takes one third of the budget, and the simple truth of the matter is, it is being poorly managed.

We had the pleasure of the company of the Auditor-General before the Economic and Finance Committee in recent weeks. The Auditor-General spent about five hours in two different sessions at the Economic and Finance Committee, and the Auditor-General confirmed that the health department's problems came about because of its poor management. So, the opposition does not accept any of this nonsense put out by the government, that somehow changing to the new system was the issue that led to the health department financial mess that delayed the tabling of the health report by six months later than it should have been.

The realty is that, if you go back to the Auditor-General's Report of the previous year, the Auditor-General makes it crystal clear that there was a risk to the government if it did not manage the process properly. Through the Auditor-General's Report into the health agency proper, the supplementary report tabled in recent weeks—I invite members to read it—the Auditor-General mentions something like seven or eight times that there was lack of management attention to the process. The simple fact is that this minister, the Minister for Health, and the health department, have totally mismanaged the implementation of Oracle, an IT system and, as a result of their mismanagement, they could not do their reconciliation.

The Auditor-General made it crystal clear. It was nothing to do with the change in audit methodology implemented at the Auditor-General's level or anything to do with the audit process. The Auditor-General was asked that question and he made it crystal clear. He pointed the finger back at this government about its poor management, and the issue with poor management is the impact that it ultimately has on the taxpayer. Already South Australians pay the highest level of tax in Australia—we already pay that—and that is before the coming budget on 31 May. We are running budget deficits in round numbers—$350 million, $427 million and about $340-ish million; around those sort of figures.

We are already running those sorts of deficits and with the state budget, you would have to ask, will they actually push the deficits and the debt even higher because the health department is mismanaged? It already has a $125 million expected overrun this year. Already it is not making its budget savings targets and, if you believe the Treasurer, then revenues have dropped in the lead-up to this budget and that leaves the Treasurer with some decisions to make.

Ultimately the South Australian taxpayer is paying for the mismanagement of this hopeless government through the highest taxing regime in Australia. People complain to the opposition about the high level of taxation—and complain they do—and this government charges land tax at 40 per cent above the Australian average, it charges insurance duties at over 50 per cent above the Australian average, and it charges stamp duties at around 27 per cent above the Australian average. Having had the highest taxing regime in Australia, this government through its own mismanagement, still manages to run $350 million, $420 million and $340 million deficits. It is not as if we are the highest taxing state in Australia and we are running budget surpluses—not this government; they are the highest taxing government in Australia, and this government is managing to run budget deficits.

If you do not believe Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition shadow treasurer, believe the Minister for Finance, Michael O'Brien, who, in a previous capacity but still as a minister of the cabinet, told everyone in the state that this government was borrowing money to pay Public Service wages. We are doing it in 2011, we are doing it in 2012, we are doing it in 2013, and the government intends to do it in 2014.

We are not only borrowing to pay for capital infrastructure, which the government would argue. This government, by its own admission, is borrowing money to pay Public Service wages. Now, you would have to ask the question: why is the future generation being asked to pay for, for instance, the Thinker in Residence program, as just one example? Why is the government borrowing money to pay for a Thinker in Residence program? It is a bit like a household. I remember the Treasurer rolled out the family in the last budget saying, 'This is a family; this is a budget for all families in South Australia.' The only thing in the budget was a picture of the Treasurer's family, but ultimately you have to ask the question: why should the next generation be paying for some of these programs they are running today?

It is a bit like a family in that there are lots of thing you would love to have, but can you actually afford to have them? As every family has to make its decisions, so does the government. This government says it is not going to run up money on the credit card. The Treasurer went out and said he did not want to run up the credit card debt; well, that is exactly what they are doing. This government over six years has run five budget deficits.

So, in five out of six years—the year before the last election——in the year of the last election they managed to get a small surplus, and every year after that they have run budget deficits. Five years out of six, they have spend more money than they have earned. Even though they are the highest taxing state in Australia, they have managed to spend more money than they earned. You would have to ask the question: how is that not running up the credit card debt?

They are borrowing money to pay departmental wages. They are borrowing money to run the departments, and that borrowing alone nets to about a $1.2 billion increase in our deficit over the five years. That does not include any capital works borrowing; if you add in the capital works borrowing, the debt goes significantly higher.

The Treasurer is going to run a line between now and the budget saying, 'Woe is me, poor old Treasurer of the state, our revenues have dropped.' That is the line the Treasurer is going to run. Let us be clear about this: the Auditor-General has been warning this government since 2005-06 that its level of expenditure was unsustainable—since 2005-06. So six years ago, the Auditor-General said, 'Hello, anyone in government, are you listening? Your expenditure is too high; you will have unsustainable expenditure if your revenues turn.' In 2005-06, then auditor-general MacPherson said:

Given the forecast expectation that such revenue growth may not be sustained, control of expenses will be important.

In 2005-06 the Auditor-General said:

...the State has benefited from sustained strength in both the local and national economy with resultant unbudgeted revenue gains covering expenditure increases.

Another quote:

The Government has benefited from substantial windfall property taxation revenue and from higher than budgeted Commonwealth current grants, particularly from GST revenues.

Roll forward to 2007-08, when Auditor-General O'Neill said:

...the State has received very large amounts of unbudgeted revenues.

...the State may have developed a culture of expecting growing revenues to continue to support increasing expenses.

And then again, just in case the government did not pick up on those four or five warnings over the years, we see in 2008-09:

Over the past six years the State has received large amounts of unbudgeted revenues that enabled net operating surpluses...

So the Treasurer is going to roll out in the next month and say, 'Poor old Treasurer, the revenues dropped.' This government was warned. They were warned six years ago, they were warned four years ago and they were warned two years ago that what they were doing was simply unsustainable. Poor management ultimately impacts on the householder and household costs in South Australia; whether it is water, car rego or your driver's licence they are all starting to hurt average South Australians.

Go further than just the mismanagement of the health agency. Let's go to Treasury, the centre of the financial hub of government. We have a Treasurer who ran around telling everyone, 'Don't worry about the Adelaide Zoo, we're going to have observers on the board and they will be able to feed back into government and tell us what is happening so that we will have a direct line of communication.' That was essentially the government's line, only to discover that to the Treasurer's horror there were no observers on the Zoo board. What is the Treasurer's office doing? What is the Treasurer's chief of staff doing? What is the Treasurer doing? What are the Treasurer's advisers doing not even recognising that they had not made a decision to put people on the Zoo board? What were they doing?

Roll forward to the hospital car park issue. The hospital car park issue has been a significant issue of public debate. It was in the 2010-11 budget, the last Foley budget, and they said they were selling the hospital car parks. The current Treasurer was in cabinet when that budget was signed off. It is incomprehensible that the Treasurer did not know or could not remember that the car parks were being sold as part of the last Foley budget in 2010-11. It is staggering that the Treasurer did not recognise and could not recall that figure and it goes to the issue of competence in management.

I am sure that the sale of the hospital car parks is built into the budget because it was announced in the previous budget and I am sure it was built into the budget. I make the point that this goes to the sloppy management of the government and ultimately it is the taxpayer who pays for this mismanagement. The Treasurer says that they have not even modelled the impact on the state budget of the change to the private health rebate at the federal level; they have not modelled it. When I asked about the impact on the state's investments from the United States market, the Treasurer said he had not sought a briefing on the exposure to the United States market. When we asked about the carbon tax, no modelling had been done. You would have to question the management of this government; how it is looking forward to the budget impacts.

I move on to other issues—shared services. If ever there was a policy that needs to be thoroughly reviewed (and we will be reviewing it) it is shared services. It is so hopeless that they have now written out to every electorate office saying, 'Have we got a deal for you! We're going to let your staff pay the bills because we are so scared that Shared Services won't pay the bills on time and your phone will be cut off and your papers will be cut off that we are now going to outsource the paying of those bills to your own electorate offices.'

The reason they have done that is that Shared Services is so hopeless. I know the member for Kavel had his computers cut off, the member for Norwood had his phones cut off and the Minister for Finance had his paper cut off. The reality is—

Mrs Geraghty: Don't forget that some people sent their bills in late.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Torrens keeps raising this issue: 'Did they send their invoices in late?'

Mrs Geraghty: They did.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Let me tell you they did not. They did not. Go and ask the members for Kavel and Norwood. They have ended up paying them on their own credit cards and have sought reimbursement.

The reality is this: go through Shared Services and tell me which part is working. The ambulance officers' back pay issue when it was first established was a debacle, the nurses' pay issue this week that has been in the media was a debacle, as was the lack of savings. They are $93 million short in their savings. Western Australia and Queensland abandoned shared services because of the debacle that it was. It is the poor management ultimately that is hurting ordinary everyday South Australians.

I want to touch on two other issues not necessarily directly related to my portfolio. One is the contribution by the member for Florey tonight about how unfair it is of the Tea Tree Gully council to put up its rates.

Mrs Geraghty: Oh, for goodness sake!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Torrens says, 'Oh, for goodness sake!' Let me explain to the member for Torrens why I have a concern about it. We happened to have a community cabinet in the Tea Tree Gully area in the last fortnight. As part of the briefing we were told that a carbon tax impact on the Tea Tree Gully council was not $100,000, not $300,000, not even $500,000; the carbon tax impact on Tea Tree Gully council is $950,000 a year. The member for Florey came in crying crocodile tears saying it was outrageous that the Tea Tree Gully council is putting up its rates. What does she expect the Tea Tree Gully council to do when the federal Labor government's carbon tax imposes nearly $1 million a year extra cost onto the Tea Tree Gully council? That is just the Tea Tree Gully council. It would be interesting to see what every other council is paying.

We nearly fell over backwards when they stood up and said that the Labor Party's carbon tax is costing the Tea Tree Gully council $950,000. Let's be clear: every Labor member of parliament in the House of Assembly supports a carbon tax, so you can only assume they support the Tea Tree Gully council having a $1 million a year increase in its cost as a result of the carbon tax. It was not an imposition of the Liberal Party, not an imposition of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition or indeed the Abbott opposition. This is a matter for the federal Labor Party. When the member for Florey goes out and says that it is outrageous that they have put up the council rates, I say to the ratepayers of Tea Tree Gully that part of the reason your rates are going up is because that council is being penalised to the tune of $1 million extra a year. It is just under $1 million, and they get nothing else for it.

The other issue I want to raise is a local constituent matter. I put this on the record today for the Minister for Education and Child Development and I want the minister to answer this question. I will write to her formally but I put it on the record so that she will not be ambushed. It is a complicated issue, probably too complicated for question time, so I put the question on notice here for the minister. Will the minister explain why a constituent of mine had a confirmed abuse notification against her name in a departmental file when the department had given a written undertaking in 2004 and the then minister (Weatherill) had agreed at a meeting in 2005 that all departmental records would be changed to record abuse not confirmed for matters relating to her and her husband?

I will explain the issue for the house and the minister. In recent weeks my constituent's sister had her children removed by the department for care reasons. At the time the departmental officer asked my constituent whether she would care for her sister's children. My constituent said that she was prepared to. However, the officer then conducted a child protection search and advised my constituent that she could not care for her sister's children as she had an 'abuse confirmed' notification against her name.

Back in 2001 the department raised 'sexual abuse confirmed' allegations against the husband and 'emotional abuse confirmed' allegations against the wife, both constituents of mine. After a three-year dispute with the department regarding my constituents' innocence an agreement was enacted for an independent person to review the evidence against my constituents and advise. The independent person found that, despite three years of claims to the contrary, there was no evidence regarding any abuse of any kind by my constituents to support the allegations made against them. That was the independent review. As a result, the department wrote to my constituent on 15 September 2004 stating:

Having given careful consideration to the information put before me, I have determined that the 'emotional abuse confirmation' and the 'sexual abuse confirmation' should be reversed. Appropriate steps are now in train to bring this decision into effect. The outcome of intake—

and there is a number, and I will not use the number because it may identify the people—

will be changed to 'abuse not confirmed', the original being 'abuse confirmed', and that the associated written and computerised case records held by the agency will also be adjusted accordingly.

On 15 June 2005 I attended the meeting with then minister Weatherill with my constituents. The minister gave an undertaking that the actual case closure summary on the file would be amended to reflect 'no abuse confirmed', and that the independent person was to write that summary so that it could be attached to the file.

The minister is aware of the constituent to whom I refer because I have written to the minister in recent weeks (since the latest incident) seeking an explanation as to how an 'abuse confirmed' notification remained on the departmental files. However, as a result of my letter, the response from the minister simply set out the history of the events but did not explain how an 'abuse confirmed' notification was in the file when the department had agreed eight years ago and the minister agreed seven years ago that it would be removed.

The question I would like the minister to respond to is: will the minister explain why the constituent of mine had a confirmed abuse notification against her name in the departmental file when the department had given a written undertaking in 2004 and then minister Weatherill had agreed at a meeting in 2005 that all departmental records would be changed to record 'abuse not confirmed' for matters relating to her and her husband?

I will be writing to the minister asking that exact same question, because it is simply unacceptable for a family to be falsely accused for three years. Credit to the two ministers concerned at the time—credit to them; and the agreement was that we would not raise it publicly at the time if the minister agreed to get an independent person to look at the evidence. The government to its credit did it. The independent person comes back and says, 'Well, guess what? There's no evidence.' So, having put this family through hell for three years, there is then an agreement that the records will being changed to reflect the truth.

Roll forward to now. My constituent's sister has some issues, and we do not deny that for a minute. Then the department does the search and what comes up is that the abuse is confirmed. How can you have faith in the agency when a new minister in a meeting agrees that the records will be changed, and when the department writes to the family and says, 'Don't worry, the records are going to being changed,' but when, clearly, the records have not been changed? The only way an 'abuse confirmed' notification can come up is if the records have not been changed. My constituent was very, very upset when they contacted me because it brought back all the emotion and stress that they were under for three years when the allegations were first made and always denied.

I am hoping that the minister will not this time write back a cute, historical summary of the events about which we already know, but simply answer the very simple question which goes to the principle: when the government said that the matters were going to be changed both at the ministerial and the departmental level, why weren't they? We wrote to the minister and all we got back essentially was a historical list of events that had occurred.

I hope the minister will now do the right thing and explain to my constituent why that has not occurred. Ultimately, if she does not, we will seek yet another meeting with yet another minister on behalf of this poor family to try to get their record corrected, because no family should have to go through false allegations twice. No family should have to go through false allegations twice, but that is exactly what the government and the department have managed to do with this particular family. They did it years ago for three years.

Having admitted that they were wrong, they still could not go in and change the file to get it right. Essentially, she was re-accused when a person rang and said, 'Well, I'm sorry, you've got an "abuse confirmed" notification against you.' That is just simply wrong. So, I hope the minister will do the right thing and finally provide us with an answer as to what exactly the department did and what exactly it intends to do.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (18:36): I confirm that I will be the last speaker from the opposition. I wish to briefly bring up a couple of issues that relate to some budget cuts and the impact they will have on some community organisations that I am aware of.

One is a $25,000 cut which has been imposed upon Women in Agriculture and Business. Many Liberal MPs have received alarming letters quite recently about the impact of these cuts. I have attended a few Women in Agriculture and Business functions within my electorate, as I have a couple of branches that operate within the electorate or close by. Indeed, one was a conference at which I spoke. They are great organisations. I am aware that they get a relatively minimal level of support: some financial, I think, and some physical, where a staff person may assist for at least a couple of days a week. That $25,000 cut will make a serious difference to the capacity of these organisations to continue.

There has been a bit of a resurgence in recent years, with a younger and newer generation of ladies coming on board who are involved in agriculture and want to be involved in business development opportunities within that. So it is a great shame that this money will be lost, and I am very fearful of the impact that that will have upon the future of the organisation. It has a proud history. Its success is a great story, as are the mentoring opportunities that it has provided to many ladies in regional areas. I hope that that decision is reviewed.

Another budget cut that concerns me is a $30,000 cut to the University of the Third Age. Again, I am lucky enough to have a branch of the University of the Third Age within my electorate, in the Yorke Peninsula. I support the university in one small way: by photocopying the newsletter that goes out to all its members on a regular basis, and I am very pleased to do so.

I have attended the university's functions and have looked with envy at the wide variety of courses provided. One important lesson that I learned early on from talking to these wonderful people was that learning is a lifelong experience. That is how the university defines itself: providing a forum so that learning continues to be an opportunity no matter what your age.

The third age is defined as those older members in our community who keep their minds and their bodies active, doing a wide variety of things, which not only provides them with a lot of pleasure but also enforces their education opportunities. In turn, they then have a chance to talk to other people in the community about the things that they have learned to stimulate that interest in learning. For that to potentially be lost because of a $30,000 funding cut is a great frustration to me.

I have also had some contact in recent weeks from a council in my area that coordinates a community bus, and it is very frustrated by the need for police checks. They understand it is important to have checks undertaken preliminary and the accreditation to exist, but given that, in the main, they use older members of the community to be the volunteer drivers and these people are now being told when they contact the department that they need to put a request for a police check in online, and that is a bit of a challenge for some members of the community, they are finding that there are a lot of drivers that are being lost. They are coming back to their coordinators saying, 'This is all too hard. Yes, we would like to help, but we don't want to have to do this. We ring people, hoping to organise it, and they tell us to go on the web,' and the comment given was, 'Suck it up and go on the internet and make it happen.' So, that is frustrating people and they are being lost.

We would all have had contact from people concerned about the police check criterion and how often it needs to be done, especially if you are a volunteer in multiple organisations, as I understand you need one done for each one and they are done on a regular basis. So, there is the time impost and the cost impost.

South Australia is very lucky that it has a high volunteer rate, but I am fearful that is going to be lost unless some review takes place. I would urge the minister to please look at that to ensure that the culture of volunteerism is allowed to foster in South Australia because we face a bit of a challenge with younger people, who so often now are involved in double income families and there is no spare time. Whereas once there was an attitude to assist within the community and individual families used to volunteer for a lot of different things, we have become a bit more of an insular society that does not get out and do things for other people as much. So, where volunteers are needed I think they should be assisted in every way and the process upon which police checks are required, especially those that work within areas where it is necessary (for youth and older people it is important), let us make it a little bit easier.

The Keith hospital has had a lot of contact with the public of South Australia about funding cuts. Members in the chamber would recollect that when the decision was made to de-fund Keith it also impacted upon the Moonta and Ardrossan community hospitals, which exist within Goyder. I use the term 'community' very purposely because even though they are private organisations they operate for the benefit of the community. They are not there to turn a profit, they are not there to make money for anybody else, they are there to service those communities' needs.

The funding loss has had an impact. The boards of the Moonta and Ardrossan hospitals have been very proactive, with the assistance (admittedly) of Country Health, which has supported them in developing revised business plans. The Ardrossan Hospital decided quite early on to move on with life and make sure it got the most it could from its aged care services, and it has had some help from Country Health to achieve that. The Ardrossan Hospital has been in financial difficulty for 50 years, so it is not new for the community. With the Moonta Hospital, it has come as a bit of a shock to the community. In January of last year, there were about 1,000 people at a rally at which I spoke, member for Mawson, so I can assure you they were actually there, and these people were very concerned about it.

They are good communities and they want to support their hospitals. The Moonta situation frustrated the life out of me because, I think, bed space was available to help out when Wallaroo was busy, or people had to reside in Moonta, at about $105 per night. It was the cheapest public hospital bed you would ever find (nearly) and it was occupied, on average, I think, of the 14 beds potentially, at about seven of those each night. The loss of that has created a serious drain. They have had some management issues with a doctor's surgery they bought a few years ago. They are back on track, but they are going to require continual support from the community.

So, I pay tribute to those members in the community who have raised a lot of money to support those community hospitals. In some cases it has been for decades. It is in the traditional stuff like op shops, but there are also performing groups that put on regular shows to entertain people and raise money for the hospitals. They show a spirit that every member of this chamber should be proud of because they get out there and make a difference.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Recreation and Sport) (18:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 18:45 the house adjourned until Thursday 3 May 2012 at 10:30.


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