HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-05-21 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption resumed.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:12): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to give my Address in Reply, and I am pleased to see you in the Deputy Speaker's chair. I can tell that you are enjoying the role, and I wish you very well in it. Of course, I am pleased for Speaker Atkinson to be re-elected as well because, while we are not always happy with every single thing he does, I think most people in this chamber would accept that he is doing a good job. So, congratulations to him as well.

The Hon. S.W. Key: You are his pet; he loves you.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Sorry, I missed that, member for Ashford.

The Hon. S.W. Key: I said, 'You are his pet; he loves you.'

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I didn't hear that, I can tell you. I also, of course, congratulate the Governor on his speech opening parliament. I am not really one for the pomp and ceremony, as probably most people here know, but there is no doubt that he does an excellent job as Governor.

As well as congratulating him on his job in opening parliament, and reading the speech on behalf of the Premier and the government, I would also like to congratulate him on his nearly seven years as Governor. He has done an outstanding job. I wish him and Liz Scarce well in their life after their current role, which I think ends in August this year. They both do a tremendous job, and I am particularly grateful for the time they spend in regional South Australia.

In regard to the election, I will start by congratulating Steven Marshall. To be really blunt, regardless of what side of the chamber you sit on or what political affiliation you might have, I do not think there is anybody who does not admire the enormous work, skill and contribution he has made to this place and to this state since becoming leader as a first-term member of parliament. Every single person here can imagine very well how hard it would be and what a gigantic job it would be. I do not think he could have done it any better and I do not think anybody else could have done it any better. Congratulations to him.

I would also like to say thank you to all the Liberal candidates who stood at the election, whether they were successful or unsuccessful. We really did have an outstanding group of candidates representing us at this election, some of whom were not successful but who would have made very good members of parliament, and I thank them enormously for their contribution to the Liberal Party and also to democracy in South Australia.

I would like to welcome all new members on both sides of the house. No doubt you will all bring talents, capacities and abilities. It will not surprise anybody to know that I think that the new members on this side will bring slightly more talent, capacity and ability, but I do genuinely and warmly welcome all of you here today. It was only four years ago that I was in your situation, and I have not forgotten exactly what a big step it is and I congratulate you on being elected. I think you have each achieved enormously by being elected.

I would also like to congratulate the new ministers as well. To be quite frank, that is not to say that I am going to agree with everything they say or everything they do but, again, that is something to be proud of. If you become a minister in parliament, you deserve to be congratulated. So, well done to those people for that.

In regard to the electorate of Stuart and the election, the candidates against whom I competed were Josh Vines from the Labor Party, Brendan Fitzgerald from The Greens, and Sylvia Holland from Family First. I am not aware of any dirty tricks and I am not aware of any skulduggery or of anything underhand that happened in our electorate, by them or me, and I thank them for the spirit in which they went about competing in that election.

I would also like to thank, enormously, the people who supported our Liberal campaign in the electorate of Stuart. I would like to highlight for this house that the vast majority of them were not Liberal members. Liberal members were certainly there, front and centre, as they have been year in and year out, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. Some of the people have been members of the Liberal Party much longer than I have, which is really not a lot more than four years. I joined the Liberal Party shortly before putting my hand up as a candidate. I had always been a Liberal voter.

People who have been committed to the Liberal cause much longer than I have been supported our effort in Stuart, but an enormous number of people who were not Liberal members did as well, and I thank them all very deeply for that. I am grateful to the electors in Stuart. I cannot pretend that I am not happy with the swing that we achieved. A 13 per cent swing is fantastic. I will not be churlish or shy about it. We worked incredibly hard, and within our electorate we achieved a very good result. I thank everybody who contributed to that.

At the top of the list are my staff members and my wife. Chris Hanna, my longest serving staff member, started with me immediately after being elected in 2010; and Sandra Spaeth, my next longest serving staff member, is an absolutely outstanding part-time staff member and really knows the electorate very well. Tracey Freeman is our senior leader within the group and came along perhaps two years and four months ago. She leads and contributes to our team within the electorate offices exceptionally well. Anyone would be glad to have her as their office manager/staff leader for all the things that I am not directly involved in.

Stacey Davidson, who works in our Kapunda office, is a recent arrival and, I have to say, has done an outstanding job with no experience in this sort of work but a lot of experience in a range of different areas throughout the electorate, and she really does an outstanding job.

And Paige Bowshire, our outstanding trainee, will come to the end of her 12-month term in June this year I think. She has faced and overcome an enormous number of challenges in her life, and that is clearly evident in the way she goes about her work and tackles the tasks that are given to her, and I am sure she has a big future in whatever she chooses to go on to when we are finished.

So, thank you to that core team of people and, of course, thank you to my wife, Rebecca. I would never have been preselected if it were not for her support. I would never have been elected and I would never have been re-elected without her support. One of the most wonderful things about Rebecca with regard to my work is that she is actually not very interested in politics.

To be quite frank, she is interested in the world, she is interested in where we live, she is interested in communities and she is interested in our home. She is interested in all of the things that are at the foundation of what we should all work towards, but she is not actually very interested in politics. That means that she supports me gigantically, but our relationship is not dragged down, if you like, by talking about the nitty-gritty of work and the sorts of things that we do in this chamber all the time, so I thank her very, very sincerely as well.

The electorate of Stuart is a pretty big place. If you look at a map of South Australia and imagine Oodnadatta to Innamincka to Cockburn to Truro, that is a big part of the state, so there are a lot of different issues. There are approximately 30 different towns, 42 schools and nine hospitals. Nine different council areas overlap with Stuart, including the Outback Communities Authority.

There is a gigantic range of issues. The issues that affect people in the Riverland part of Stuart are different to those that affect people in Port Augusta, are different to those in the Flinders Ranges or the outback, are different to those in the Mid North and are different to those at the edge of the Barossa, even.

Stuart starts 75 kilometres away from Parliament House and finishes at the Northern Territory/Queensland/New South Wales borders, so it is a large electorate. It is hard to get around, but I think the best way to go about your work, whether you have a small electorate like Morphett or a large one like Stuart or Giles, is just to be incredibly genuine about what you do. Just get out there and do everything that you possibly can to help people.

I can say that, occasionally, I feel a little bit embarrassed that I do not know all of the political history that has gone on in this place or with the different political parties. People talk about things or people that I do not really know much about. Occasionally, there are terms and phrases I do not understand. The member for Light, a few minutes ago, was talking about neoliberalism and natural socialism and a whole range of different things.

To be quite honest, I have got a bit of an idea, but I do not know exactly where the borders start and stop. To be honest, I do not actually care too much about that stuff. What I care about is doing the very best I can for my electorate. Whether people vote for me or do not vote for me, whether they are going to be Greens voters for the rest of their life or they are rusted on Liberal voters, they get the very best that I and my staff can possibly do for them.

I think that that is probably one of the reasons why we have had such a good swing, because we largely take the politics out of the work that we do in the electorate of Stuart. We certainly cannot take it out of the work that we do in this chamber, we cannot take it out of all of the media that we do but, when it comes to actually helping people, there is not a lot politics in what we do in Stuart, and I would recommend that approach to any colleagues here.

Turning to the outcome of the election, much has been said about that. I am disappointed we did not win. Flat out, there is no reason to say it any other way. I am disappointed that we did not win the election. It could actually be said that, really, no-one won. No party won the election. There was not a good enough outcome either way, so the government that was here before is still here, and that is largely because of the good work of many incumbent members who, I think, do the sorts of things that I was talking about just a few minutes ago.

For example, we had an excellent candidate in the electorate of Ashford. Terina Monteagle would make a wonderful member of parliament, but the current member of Ashford did not give up, works hard, has a foundation in the electorate and was, on this occasion, not able to be beaten.

I think that is the sort of thing that has actually created the outcome of the election. We can go through all of what both teams would have considered to be the marginal seats and, by and large, it actually came down to the local members who really did the work and had been working hard throughout the whole term.

There are, of course, some other things that led to the outcome. I will not dwell on the electoral boundaries issue or the need for electoral reform. Many of my colleagues have spoken about that, and I agree with what they say. I will not go back over all of that, but you cannot have a situation where 53 per cent of the vote is won by one party but they do not form government. At the same time, 54 per cent of the vote was won federally at the last election and that was considered a landslide. That in itself says that something needs to be done. I will not go over all of that, but I do encourage people to consider what the member for MacKillop and the member for Davenport have put forward in their contributions, because they have done a lot of homework, seen a lot of things, and I think they have a lot to offer.

I would like to touch on something that the Deputy Premier, the member for Enfield, said in his contribution earlier this morning, which I think included some mistakes. He made the point: why would the Liberal Party put any effort into supporting the member for Flinders when he is, according to the Deputy Premier, a laydown misère? Well, I can tell you, the member for Flinders works his guts out; he absolutely works his guts out. That is why he has been so successful. Sure, it is traditionally a good, strong Liberal voting area, but it was once a National seat. It is not a place that he takes for granted.

For the Deputy Premier to ask why the Liberal Party would waste money in that seat I think is misguided too. I do not know what the Flinders election budget was but I will bet you it was absolutely minimum. The member for Flinders increased his margin in an extremely safe seat because of all of the work that he has done over the last four years. The Deputy Premier also spoke about his own seat of Enfield which would be considered a very safe Labor seat. He said: why would you waste any time, why would you spend any money attacking him in that seat?

I think what he does not understand is that Scott Roberts worked his guts out, was an excellent candidate, but he raised that money almost exclusively of his own back. He rallied supporters, he brought people together, he did everything that was necessary to encourage people to contribute to his campaign. It was not as if some central fund just said, 'Oh well, take X dollars out of the bank and we'll just throw it away in Enfield.' It was nothing like that whatsoever, and to try and paint it that way is very, very misguided. Scott Roberts threw absolutely everything he possibly could at that campaign, and he did the legwork and he did the grunt work to do the fund raising.

It is not the Liberal way to say to somebody, 'You don't have a chance', or 'Just go easy,' or 'Don't try hard'. Scott Roberts was an excellent candidate who made a significant dent, who did have a real chance, and he gave it everything he had. So I think that the Deputy Premier has missed the point when it comes to where we put our resources. It is not as if we have spent oodles of money to make safe seats safer, and it is not as if we wasted money. We did actually fight very hard in a very genuine and concerted way in those marginal seats. Some we won and some we did not win, and it really is as simple as that. Of course, I wish we had won more, but to attack the party and say it is a waste of resources, time, effort or strategy is incorrect.

What really happened, what really made the difference, of course, was what happened with the two Independents. I will not dwell on this issue particularly because I know that for everybody in this house it is a fairly emotional issue. Dr Bob Such's illness is something that everyone here is incredibly unhappy about. Everybody is very sad, and everybody, myself included, wish him well and a speedy and healthy recovery and the best possible outcome that anybody could ever have with the illness that he faces.

Of course, once that was known, it fell onto the shoulders of the member for Frome to decide what he wanted to do. I consider the member for Frome to be a friend. We knew each other before we were in politics. He is a good and decent person with genuine morals. He decided to support the government. I say very clearly, and I have said it to him, 'I think you made a mistake.' I am disappointed in his decision. We remain friends, we work well together.

He said, when he found himself unexpectedly in the position of having to make difficult choices, that he would do what was best for his electorate, what the majority of second preferences said (did most of the people who voted for him choose Liberal or Labor second?), what was best for regional South Australia and what his counsels thought was the best thing to do. By any of those standards, he has made the wrong decision.

I do understand that he felt he was in a predicament with regard to numbers in the house. I do understand that he felt that, with the member for Fisher being on leave due to illness, he had to go the only way that would give an immediate answer for the people of South Australia. But I do think he jumped to that decision far too quickly; I think he jumped to it before even knowing what was actually really wrong with the member for Fisher. I think he jumped to that because the Premier and the Labor Party led him to believe that that would give stability for our state. Unfortunately, we know in the very short life of this returned government that that is not the case. We know that there is no stability within the government in South Australia at the moment.

We also know that, if you wanted to bring the discussion just down to pure dollars, the member for Frome managed to get $116 million over four years through negotiation with the government, which is $29 million per year specifically for regional South Australia. The Liberal Party's election commitment before negotiating anything extra was $139 million over three years, so $46 million per year dedicated to regional South Australia compared to $29 million per year dedicated to regional South Australia. He had to actually drag the Premier kicking and screaming for the $29 million; the $46 million was already on the table for us. I think he really did jump too soon, but as I said, he has made his decision and we will do everything that we possibly can to work with him.

I think that it was probably a bit akin to a shotgun wedding, that he really felt he had no choice, but I think, as is often the case, a lot of other people looking in from the outside thought actually that he did have a choice. So, that is what we have got, and that is what we will work with. He has made his decision, and I will do everything that I possibly can to work with him to advantage regional South Australia. The electorate of Stuart and all of the rest of regional South Australia deserve to see very quick benefits from his decision which must outweigh the benefits they would have got if he had decided to join the Liberals.

With regard to the portfolios that I represent as a shadow minister—police, corrections, emergency services, road safety, recreation and sport, and racing—I am privileged to represent people who work in those areas and people who depend upon those areas for the services that they provide. I think most people here would know that I am very happy to work collaboratively with the government when that is possible, when that is appropriate and when the government is on the right track, but when they are not I will certainly say so, as well. If you give credit where credit is due, when you have a different opinion, it is far more likely that people are going to listen to you.

There are certainly issues with regard to all of those portfolios where the government needs to lift its game significantly. With regard to police, less than 50 per cent of the government's 2010 election promises—less than half—were fulfilled by 2014, and that is a pretty poor track record. With regard to corrections, our prisons are bursting at the seams. The Minister for Correctional Services told ABC regional radio in the South-East that, yes, our prisons are operating over capacity. Good on him for having the courage to say it. The former minister and the Attorney-General have certainly never admitted to that before, but good on the current minister for saying: it is a fact. He agrees with the opposition that they are bursting at the seams and they are operating over capacity. I also do not think the government gives nearly enough focus or credence to the people who work in the community corrections side of the Department for Correctional Services.

With emergency services, it might interest you to know that, while funding over the last decade or so has increased to the emergency services sector, it has increased less quickly than the additional costs that the government has put onto the emergency services sector, so the money that the emergency services workers—whether they be professionals or volunteers—get to access to do their job has actually decreased under this government.

Regarding road safety, two weeks ago we had a pretty significant debate in this place about quotas and benchmarks. It is a fact, and police officers tell people, myself included, that they have quotas and benchmarks. The police commissioner said to the Budget and Finance Committee last year that, yes, nothing has changed, the policy is the same, we have benchmarks. The government can continue to try to publicly deny it, but the public knows better. What is so wrong about that is that it takes the focus off genuine road safety where police want it to be, and puts it onto revenue raising.

It is a great shame to see that the government has reduced funding in recreation and sport, and it is interesting to see the article in today's Advertiser about, very sadly, reduced levels of fitness among our youth. Recreation and sport are vitally important for many reasons but, if nothing else, because they contribute to the future health of our community through the current health and fitness of our younger generation.

Regarding racing, and this is quite curious, the government shamelessly contributes nothing to the racing industry and does not even pretend to do otherwise—and it never, ever even looks like it is trying to pretend that it does otherwise, and I think that is a great shame. The racing industry is second only to Australian Rules football with regard to spectator numbers in our state—an incredibly popular industry.

It is a gigantic employer, and it is something that people can enjoy—whether they are seriously interested in racing, whether that be in thoroughbreds, harness racing or greyhounds or whether they would just like to have a good social occasion, whether they want to bet, do not want to bet, they are old or young, they get dressed up, do not get dressed up, want to drink alcohol, do not want to drink alcohol, male, female, Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal—anybody can enjoy the racing industry, and that creates employment, so I think the government should contribute to it and should make a very significant contribution to that industry.

Much has been said this week about the federal budget, and there are things in the federal budget which the state opposition finds difficult because they are not moving forward in the way we would like. We would all love to see extra spending everywhere, but the reality is that the federal government has had to make some exceptionally hard decisions, and it would not matter where they made those decisions; it would be difficult, it would be unpopular, and the government would try to say that all Liberals are terrible because that is what they have done.

But the state government understands, and the Labor Party, state and federal, understands that the federal government had no choice. Ten years ago our national income through all sources was much higher than it is today. The national income—the revenue to the federal government—has dropped significantly, but the spending of the federal government under Labor did not drop significantly. It has to be corrected, and the current federal Liberal government are the ones having to make the hard decisions.

What I really want to say on that issue is that we refuse as state Liberals, and we refuse as the South Australian opposition to allow the state government to use the federal budget as an excuse for its own problems. Before the federal government handed down its budget, the state government had already announced that it was going to take a billion dollars out of health spending, had already announced that it was going to take $230 million out of education spending, had already announced that it was going to take $150 million out of police spending, and there were many other cuts. So, when we come around to our state budget in June, it will not be true for the government to say that the difficult decisions they have made at a state level are all the federal Liberal government's fault. It will just not be true.

The things the state government was going to do are well and truly on the record; the public will not buy it, and the media will not buy it. Everybody knows the position of the South Australian state budget and it cannot be blamed on the federal government. They will not fool anybody if they try to do that. Those problems already existed in South Australia after 12 years of Labor government.

After 12 years of Labor government, we are dealing with rising unemployment, rising cost of living, and deterioration of our state's finances and economy. We are dealing with more and more red tape—the highest taxed state in the nation. We are dealing with an interstate drift of people which takes knowledge, money, opportunity and many other strengths out of our state and into other states.

What the government does not understand is that it is vitally important to support small business to turn our state around. Big government departments and big Labor bureaucracy will not be the trick that turns our state around. Small and medium-sized business is the largest employer in our state and our nation by miles, and we support policies that support small and medium business to be successful—not because we want those business owners to be rich fat cats, or any crazy idea like that. It is nothing like that whatsoever; that is ridiculous. If they are successful in business and they earn well, good luck to them—that is fine and there is nothing wrong with that. We support small business first and foremost because small business and medium-sized businesses employ people.

We want people to have secure employment. You do not have secure employment if you work for a marginally successful business; you have secure employment if you work for a genuinely successful business. We want businesses to be successful. We want businesses to grow so that they can employ more people, so that regular mums and dads, married, unmarried, younger and older people can have secure income and secure employment so that they can pay their mortgages, so that they can pay their car loans, and so that they can get ahead in life.

We need businesses to succeed so that average, everyday South Australians can have successful, meaningful, productive lives, and that is the stark contrast between the state Liberal opposition and the state Labor government.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (16:42): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Congratulations on your election to Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees. It is well deserved and comes not a moment too soon. I would also like to—

Mr Gardner: Try and keep a straight face, Tom.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: It is very straight. I am very happy for her, and that is why I am smiling; I am very pleased to see her there. Ma'am, I have no doubt whatsoever that you will be an excellent fill-in for the Speaker at the appropriate times.

I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his election and continuation in the office of Speaker after coming into that position last term. I very much enjoy his mix of good humour, knowledge of standing orders, and determination to see the house function, and function effectively, especially during the ritual battle that we go through every sitting day that is question time. It is a very great pleasure to see him there. He has certainly been a good friend to me over a long period of time, so it is well deserved, I think, for him to have been there after his service to this parliament and to the state for a very long period of time.

I would also like to congratulate the Premier on his continuation in that role. It is not an easy job being Premier—that is my observation. I obviously cannot talk from experience, but my observation, having worked with a couple of premiers of the last few years, is that the demands on them are quite high, and the level of public scrutiny and media scrutiny is very, very hard. It takes a toll on members, and on the Premier in particular, that is not seen by a lot of people. In the lead-up to an election that is particularly true.

What I admire about the Premier is the way he just continued to believe in himself and in the government and campaigned unstintingly over a long period of time for re-election. I think he was rewarded appropriately. I certainly would thank him for his contribution to my retaining my seat of Newland. He never once shirked anything I asked of him. If I needed him to come out and doorknock with me, he did. If I needed him to come out and make phone calls with me, he did. If I wanted him to visit a school, he would do that. He never once turned down an opportunity to campaign in Newland, and I am very grateful for that.

We have a number of new members in the parliament. I would like to congratulate them. If you go into the members' lounge and look around the walls at the photos of various members of parliament over the history of this place, at the moment there are almost exactly 700, and I think about another eight new members will have their photos up there in very short order.

For every one of those members of parliament who have their photo in that lounge, there are perhaps four, maybe five, candidates who stood over that period of time. That represents 708 people over more than 100 years of the parliament in South Australia. Just for the ease of calculation, say that 2,800 people in the history of South Australia have stood as a candidate in the lower house and only 700-odd people have been selected by the people of South Australia to come and stand in here, it is a rare honour to be a member of this place.

I am particularly impressed by the quality of the new members we have on both sides—particularly on our side, I do not think anyone will be surprised to hear me say. We have a number of really outstanding members of parliament who have come into this place, and their electorates and the state will be better for it. Congratulations to them. I really look forward to working with them over the course of the next four years.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate my chief rival candidate, though of course there were three other candidates apart from me in my seat of Newland. Chief amongst them was Mr Glenn Docherty, who is the Mayor of the City of Playford but who was the Liberal Party candidate. I have to say Glenn worked hard—very hard.

Members might have noted that after the election there was some suggestion that I was the hardest working candidate in the Labor Party; I will leave it to others to judge. I certainly will not suggest that to the Deputy Speaker; that would be asking for an argument. However, there was some suggestion that I worked very hard in the last election, and I did.

I certainly did work very hard, and the reason I had to work so hard was that the Liberal Party candidate, Mr Docherty, was working particularly hard in my electorate. I think he gave himself every chance and did all the right things that you could do as a candidate. In that case, he was relying on the larger, broader statewide campaign to get him over the line.

It is not easy to come up against an incumbent member, especially one who is relatively well dug in, and he certainly gave himself every opportunity and he is to be congratulated for that, not just for working hard. I think people who just stand should be congratulated for giving voters a choice and for participating in our democracy in a more fulsome way. I think he should be congratulated for the effort he put in.

I would like to congratulate also the state secretary of the Labor Party, Reggie Martin, who I think made some really brave decisions from quite an early moment in the campaign. They paid off, but I suspect he was under quite a bit of pressure about some of those decisions for a long period of time. He was resolute in his determination on how to run the campaign, and that proved ultimately successful.

When I was researching my maiden speech, I read a number of maiden speeches, and someone said in theirs (I wish I could remember who it was), 'No-one gets here alone.' That was true for my first election, it was true for my second election, and it was more true of my third election than for any of the others.

The team of people who contributed to my re-election was large and they put in an enormous amount of effort. I would particularly like to single out a few people—and I am going to miss some, because you always do—but Michael Iammarrone and Matthew Marozzi are two of the best campaigners in the country, not just because of their incredible capacity for hard work—you do not have a successful campaign without hard work—but more than that: you need to be smart about how you go about doing that.

These guys are top-shelf campaigners and incredibly motivated; they are very smart campaigners as well who not only used some of the latest techniques, but actually developed some of the latest campaign techniques which will be used by the Labor Party right across the country and they should be commended for that. They are also incredibly committed people and I cannot thank them enough for the work that they did in Newland.

I thank my office staff as well: Michael Bombardieri and a trainee, Sharee, who put in an enormous amount of hours and were mostly around on their own time—in fact, they came in a lot after hours. There are a number of volunteers from my sub-branch who I would also like to thank: Jordan Bahr, Rob Close, David Binns, Lucas Jones, Sam Runnel, Hannah Russell, Daniella Ratteni, and a number of volunteers who came from interstate.

It is one of the great traditions of the Labor Party that you volunteer to go to interstate campaigns. Last time around we had some people from Victoria come and help and one from Western Australia. This time around we had some people from New South Wales who basically came and camped at someone's house and volunteered their time over a number of weeks to assist in my campaign, and I am very grateful that they would choose to do that.

I would also take this opportunity to thank my family: my sister Ruth and her husband Doug, and my father and his wife Janine for a lot of babysitting, particularly once I became a minister—they really stepped up and assisted with that. I should also thank my wife Tina for her patience and assistance, who for the three years that I was a minister, made that possible and continues to provide a serious amount of support, and I really appreciate that.

I would also like to thank my former ministerial staff: Brigid, Michael, Richard, Corey, Melissa and Rosa, as well as the innumerable public servants with whom I worked whilst I was a minister. The commitment of public servants in this state is very strong and there are a number of really outstanding public servants, and I had the great privilege of working with some of them to further the interests of this state. I thank them for their commitment and for their assistance. When you come into a new ministry there is an enormous amount to take on board, to learn and to try and get your head around, and their patience in training up a new minister is very much appreciated by me.

When you are a minister especially in a marginal seat, you essentially have two jobs: you have your job as a local member of parliament, and then you have your job as a minister serving the entire state and that can be a very demanding thing. So, having stepped back from being a minister I am able to spend more time in my electorate in Newland and that is something I am really looking forward to—being able to spend more time in Newland with a bunch of people who are good fun to be around—wonderful people and who, if the truth be told, probably teach me more than I could ever hope to teach them or anything like that.

It seems a perverse way to say it but it is a privilege to serve them and I certainly get more from them than they get from me. I think that the individuals you get to meet as a local member of parliament and the people that you assist, is a really personally rewarding opportunity and I really thank them for that. I thank them for their trust and confidence as a result of the election, and I guarantee them—as I did after my first election—that I will work as hard for them every day as I possibly can until they decide they don't want me to do that anymore.

Some comments have been made about the electoral system and there will be some discussion about it in the near future, I suspect, and the Attorney-General today talked about a standing committee. However, I will point out some interesting numbers and we can go through them. There are 47 seats in the House of Assembly. All things being equal, each seat would represent about 2.1 per cent of the vote, or each seat represents 2.1 per cent of the seats is probably a more accurate way of putting it. To win 24 seats, the majority in your own right, you need 51.1 per cent of the total vote then.

Mr Gardner: Based on what?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Well, 2.1 per cent of the vote, allocating one vote, one value. It is a rough and ready calculation, but if you say that each of the 47 seats represents 2.1 per cent of the entire state vote, allocated one vote, one value, 51.1 per cent is—

Ms Sanderson: You only got 23 seats.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: That is why we are in minority government, because we needed the Independent to help us to get to that. It is just not possible for a party—any one particular party, us or the Liberal Party—to win 50 per cent plus one of the vote and win government. You just cannot do it. It happens, but what happens is that natural variation that you get between seats. Every party in this parliament and every member in this parliament knows that you need to win your seat, and every member knows that that means you need to campaign and allocate your resources on an as-needs basis: those seats that are more marginal you allocate more resources to.

The ALP's vote across the state is affected by running, very rationally, or not running, as the case may be, very strong campaigns at all, or spending very much in the way of resources at all, in Liberal Party seats in country areas, because we know that the best result we could possibly get is maybe 35 or 40 per cent of the 2PP vote. Does that affect the number of seats that we hold? No. Some may say that we would be better off running campaigns in those seats just to boost our 2PP vote, but that is not the point. The very rational decision made by the Labor Party is that we will allocate our resources to those seats that can deliver us government. The Liberal Party may not choose to do that.

I was speaking to voters in the member for Flinders' electorate and they were surprised by the amount of money that was spent in that electorate. They were surprised by the number of brochures they got. They were surprised by the number of posters that went up around the place. One rough calculation—and who knows? I do not reside over there and I cannot say I was concentrating much on any other seat other than Newland in the lead-up to the election. I was not travelling widely, but one voter over in Flinders suggested to me that somewhere in the order of $80,000 had been spent—

Mr Picton: $80,000.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: $80,000.

Mr Gardner: Stop making things up.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: No, that was suggested to me. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of their figures but, to be honest, anything more than $1,000 or whatever the nomination fee is—

Mr Gardner: $2,000.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Okay. So, anything more than $2,000—

Mrs Vlahos: $3,000.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: —or $3,000, which is your nomination fee, I think is an overallocation of resources by the Liberal Party in that seat of Flinders.

Mr Gardner: It would have been.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: It would have been. Spending any money at all—

Mr Whetstone: How much did you spend in Adelaide? How much did you spend in Newland?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Adelaide is a seat in play and Newland is a seat in play.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Newland was a seat in play. That is a seat you do spend money in because it is a seat in play. However—

Mr Whetstone: There were four candidates in Flinders.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: You see, this is why I am a good marginal seat campaigner and you are in a safe seat. The Liberal Party may choose to go and review their campaign and their allocation of resources, but they may not. Quite frankly, if they do not choose to review their campaign I will be quite happy, and I think most members on this side of the house would be very happy with that result, if they choose not to review their campaign. A number of members opposite have brought up the example of Don Dunstan and how the Liberal Party was magnanimous and came in here and changed the laws, which they did, and that has to be acknowledged.

However, let us remember that, at that point, there was a genuine malapportionment—not a gerrymander, because they are separate. A malapportionment and a gerrymander are two separate things. There was a genuine malapportionment, and my memory of the situation—I may be wrong—is that the Labor Party was, in fact, winning a majority of the primary vote and still not winning government.

Mr Treloar: So, what's happening now?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: You are winning a majority of the two-party preferred vote. The primary vote is different. You are winning more than 50 per cent of the primary vote and not winning government. There is no point coming in here and whingeing about it and pretending that there needs to be some sort of magnanimity. There needs to be some sort of review of the Liberal Party campaign because, quite frankly, they ran a poor campaign. In fact, personally, I think they ran a rerun of the 2010 election campaign, which was, as we all know, not an entirely successful campaign.

There is no point in whingeing, there is no point in complaining about the rules, and there is no point getting upset because things are not working or because the Electoral Commission did not rig the result enough. The right result is to go and review the campaign and come back and have another crack, which they have got four years to do.

If you look at the Liberal Party in the last few weeks, all we have seen is a repeat of the previous four years, which is outlining in great detail the faults of the government. There is no doubt that the role of the opposition is to point out the faults of the government and hold it to account—I agree with that—but, when you attempt to seek the leadership of the state (which is what we do when we seek government), it is leadership by concession. The people agree to give you the leadership of the state, which means you need to convince them about why you should do that.

That means involving yourself in a policy debate, more than just complaint. It means providing solutions to well-known problems. Step one, outline the problem. Step two, outline a solution. Step three, take that solution to the people and campaign on it. We never got past step one from the Liberal Party, which was outlining the faults of the government—supposed faults of the government, in some cases.

Mr Gardner: Sixty-six per cent of South Australians didn't vote for you.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: How come you are so successful, then? Seriously. You can pull out any statistic that you like, but the fact is the opposition did not win enough seats and they remain in opposition. Any amount of complaining about statistics or the primary vote or the two-party preferred vote cannot hide that fact when we have a one-vote, one-value system and where the number of electors in each electorate is roughly equal, give or take.

I think the margin of error is 10 per cent on each one, but that is 22,000 or 24,000 people. These are words of wisdom and I do not want to give them too much detail because they have to find out these things for themselves, but I think the interests of the state are not served by an opposition questioning the ground rules of the game instead of undertaking a serious self-examination about their campaigning in particular.

In my maiden speech, I quoted Jack Lang, who gave the following advice to Paul Keating. He said, 'When you get into parliament, don't think you've got a lot of time, because you don't.' I think that is very good advice, and it is certainly advice that I have taken to heart and continue to take to heart, and I will always be conscious of the fact that I do not have a lot of time. I am in a marginal seat and I remain in a marginal seat.

I do not expect it to ever be a safe seat, although that would not be such a bad result but, given that there is a limited lifetime to my political career, I intend, very definitely, to use that time to the benefit of my electors (my constituents) and also the people of South Australia, and I am looking forward to continuing that work and working exceedingly hard on behalf of my electors and the people of South Australia, and I am looking forward to working with all members of this house to further the interests of this wonderful state that we live in.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:04): I may well be the last up to acknowledge the address from the Governor, so I thank him very much for taking the opportunity to address the joint sitting of the parliament and acknowledge his significant contribution to South Australia over a number of years, along with that of his wife Liz. When I was the shadow minister for disabilities and families and communities, not too many weeks went by without my attending a number of events also attended by the Governor and his wife. Between them, they are patrons of hundreds of significant charities, welfare providers and other services in South Australia.

I think they have undertaken those roles with distinction for the people of South Australia and for the communities that they have served. They have carried out the job, as I say, with distinction. I look forward to the Governor continuing to undertake that role for the remainder of his term and wish them well as, I know, a number of other members of the opposition have done.

I acknowledge the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker and congratulate them on those roles. The opposition, as I have said previously, will endeavour to work with them for the maintenance of good order in this house. We seek little more than fair treatment and, preferably, an answer or two from the government when we ask a question, and I look forward to a day when maybe that will happen at some stage.

I acknowledge the Leader of Government Business continuing in that role and look forward to continuing to work with him. I thank his staff for taking our calls when we have questions about the government's program and hope that the person in that role, along with the Leader of Government Business and the Government Whip, will continue playing a cooperative role for the good functioning of the house.

I note that, having spent the last couple of weeks trying to work with the Government Whip and the Leader of Government Business on how we can manage to get the Supply Bill through in good time—in time for it to go to the other place before the end of the financial year so that, indeed, the business of government does not shut down on 30 June—it seems that the Premier has put something else on our agenda. So, we have attempted to work with the government to get Address in Reply speeches done quickly. The Governor, who I know reads all of these, will note that some opposition members have been briefer than in previous years.

We will, of course, work with the Government Whip to try to get the Supply Bill through in good time as well but, much as we might be happy to let the government have the Supply Bill introduced one day and debate commence the next, and much as our other members are attempting to assist the government in getting it through in time, I should note that, if the usual practices of any bill were applied to the Supply Bill—that is, that it be introduced and laid on the table for a week, then transmitted to another place upon passing and laid on the table for a week—the government, having introduced the bill only yesterday, would have no chance of getting that bill through before the end of June.

The government actually depends upon the goodwill and a good working relationship with the opposition. When it is going to pull stunts that use the time of the house in a way such as appears to be taking place tomorrow, then it tests us. We shall see how much time the Premier wants to take up with other matters that are not related to the Supply Bill tomorrow.

I acknowledge the service of those former members who either retired or were unsuccessful in holding their seats at the election. On the Liberal side, of course, that is Mr Ivan Venning—as I can call him in this chamber now—the former member for Schubert. I acknowledge the service of those former Labor members who retired or were unsuccessful in holding their seats as well.

I think, for the most part certainly, people run for parliament with an idea of doing service for their communities and their state and, when the majority of the people in their electorates choose not to continue supporting them, it can sometimes reflect on the political philosophies they take into it. Which party the electorate chooses would be preferable to form government does not necessarily reflect poorly on the character of those who no longer serve in this place. I thank them for their service and, along with other members, I am very hopeful that the member for Fisher will be rejoining us in this house again soon. We wish him all the best for a full recovery.

I thank the leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Dunstan, for the fantastic job he did during the campaign. He has a monumental work ethic. I think one other member earlier described him as the hardest working person they have ever met. He served the party well. He continues to serve the party well as Leader of the Opposition. I look forward to the day, as do 53 per cent of the South Australian people, when he is able to serve as Premier of this state in this place. He will do a tremendous job then. He has the right ideas to get South Australia back on track, and the people of South Australia yearn for such an occasion. I give thanks to my constituents in Morialta for returning me. When I was first chosen as a candidate in the seat—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: With a 7 per cent swing.

Mr GARDNER: Thank you, sir. The Speaker identifies a 7 per cent swing. Yes, that is true. When I was first the candidate for Morialta I was in fact facing a seat that was 42 per cent Liberal. We now have 60 per cent of the people of Morialta voting for the Liberal Party, which I think is a significant vote of confidence for the Liberal Party. I acknowledge that the extraordinary resources devoted by the Australian Labor Party in the seats of Adelaide and Dunstan were not present in Morialta, and I think that that determines probably the difference in the margin between Morialta, Adelaide and Dunstan as of 15 March.

Nevertheless, I am very appreciative of the vote of confidence; it was significant. I think that this is the first time that I have been able to track down, since 1993, that the Liberal Party was successful in winning all booths in the seat of Morialta, and booths such as Newton and Paradise, where at some stage fewer than 30 per cent of electors had chosen the Liberal Party over the Labor Party, are now majority Liberal. It is reassuring. These are communities with whom I have worked so hard to become friends, and to hear their issues and to bring them to this place is very reassuring and I am grateful to those communities for their continued vote of support.

As the member for Newland just identified—and he read it in a maiden speech, and I think we have probably heard it in a few maiden speeches—none of us gets here by ourselves. I particularly want to pay tribute to my wife, Chelsey Gardner, who I met through the Liberal Party. She got engaged to me when I was a candidate. I was an unemployed candidate for the Liberal Party at the time, with questionable prospects if I was to be unsuccessful, perhaps. Nevertheless, she was willing to marry me. Then, as a member of parliament, with the significant effects that can have on family life, she was willing to say yes at the end of the altar, and that was the most wonderful thing she could have done to make my life better. I hope that she understands the gratitude I have for her, and I know that I would not do was well without the support she gives me.

I thank my campaign manager Scott Kennedy, my SEC President Howard Jacob, and my SEC secretary Richard Harvey, all of whom have more than full-time jobs, knowing them all, and who contributed an immense number of hours of their own time in volunteering on the campaign executive to help us retain Morialta. I thank my booth captains, George Hallwood, Kelly Ansell, Samantha Mitchell, Priya Pavri, Richard Harvey, Michael Potter, Scott Kennedy, Callum di Sario, Giuseppe Canala and Kahlia Smith. I thank my parents and all the other members of my family, members of the SEC committee and the many supporters and friends who assisted in so many ways.

I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of the Labor candidate, Clare Scriven. Clare and her family spent a great deal of time getting involved in the Morialta community in the months leading up to the election. Although they may not have achieved the result they sought, as I said at the declaration of the polls, Clare's delightful children can be very proud of their mother's campaign to which they contributed so very much. I trust that she may have another chance when her local seat of Cheltenham becomes vacant in due course, hopefully sooner rather than later, and I wish her well in that preselection for the good of South Australia. May there be a reason for such a preselection at the earliest possible opportunity.

I also pay tribute to the efforts of the Greens' candidate and the Family First candidate, Sue Neal. The Greens' candidate, Scott Andrews, was also the Greens' candidate at the 2010 election. Sue and Scott are terrific members of the local community and they did their parties proud. I note that Scott comes to some of my events and forums. He is a significant supporter of the local community. I know that Sue is very highly regarded by her church and by all who come into contact with her. I thank them for offering their service to our local community.

I offer my congratulations to the new Liberal members of parliament. The member for Schubert I have known for a number of years, and he is indeed, as I am, a former president of the South Australian Young Liberal Movement. The member for Mitchell, I have to say, pulled one out of the fire. He was not expected by many in the commentariat (certainly I think by those in the Labor Party I spoke to) to win the seat of Mitchell, and yet he never gave up. He just kept working and kept focusing on getting to know his constituents, a community he was already a part of and became even more a part of, and he offered them an alternative that they grasped and enjoyed. I have every confidence that the member for Mitchell will serve in this place for many years to come, and we look forward to that service.

The member for Bright in his second week in the parliament got a question from question time on the TV news demonstrating the failures of the Labor government in his community, and that is a tribute to him as a new member. I know that he also will be here for a long time to come, and we thank him for offering himself to the Liberal Party, and he will do very well indeed. The member for Mount Gambier, who I am hoping has a chance to speak on the Supply Bill tonight because, in the brief time I have known him (I did not a chance to go down to Mount Gambier during the campaign, I am afraid), has impressed me as somebody who will serve that community extremely well. I enjoyed his maiden speech, and I enjoy the contributions he makes to our party room; he will do a great job.

The member for Hartley, finally, I have spent a lot of time with over the last couple of years. The constituencies of Morialta and Hartley are conjoining. They are the two electorates that take in the Campbelltown City Council, and so consequently the former member for Hartley and the new member for Hartley and I spent a lot of time together over the last couple of years, and I am very pleased that the member for Hartley is joining us. He has grown up in our area; he was a school captain and dux at Rostrevor College. He has been a terrific young lawyer, and he has a huge amount to offer to this house, his electorate and the people of South Australia and I see big things in his future.

I acknowledge the candidates for the Liberal Party who were unsuccessful in some of the marginal seats. I think the member for Newland also articulated quite well that those who put themselves forward for seats are to be commended. You are not thanked very often, so I will thank in particular those I had something to do with and worked with: Michael Manetta, the candidate for Torrens; Lyn Petrie, the candidate for Wright; Terina Monteagle, the candidate for Ashford; Carolyn Habib, the candidate for Elder; Glenn Docherty, the candidate for Newland; Damian Wyld in Florey; and Nicola Centofanti and Louise Mathwin in the Legislative Council. I pay tribute to all the other Liberal candidates, but in particular those I spent some time helping, giving advice to or whatever else it might have been. I know that, given other opportunities in the future, they are all significant people of merit with a great deal to offer.

In relation to some of the Labor Party contributions to this debate, a number of people have suggested that the Liberal Party wasted energy, resources and time in safe seats. I know that the Labor Party tends to have a lot of candidates who are enthusiastic but preselected late, maybe not of the communities they seek to serve, and that is fine. I particularly pay tribute to those Liberal candidates, people like Michael Santagata and Scott Roberts (I will not go into any others because I am sure I will leave somebody out), who were seeking to serve their local communities and who did a great job during the campaign when they were perhaps not given much chance. I commend them for putting themselves forward and the efforts they made, and I hope that they will find other outlets to serve their communities in the future, either in this place or through some other means.

Can I say a couple of words about Senator Don Farrell. Senator Don Farrell was elected to the federal parliament on 1 July 2008, he was unsuccessful at the 2013 federal election, and he is due to conclude his term on 30 June this year. I think everybody recognises that Senator Farrell has played a significant role in the formation of current and former Labor caucuses as demonstrated by the significant gratitude for his support acknowledged in so many Labor members' maiden speeches.

Many recent former members, people such as Lindsay Simmons, the former member for Morialta, Chloe Fox in Bright, Vini Ciccarello, the former member for Norwood, the Hon. Carmel Zollo, the Hon. Lynn Breuer, Alan Sibbons, former member for Mitchell and the Hon. Bernard Finnegan MLC, as a former member of the Labor Party who is still a member in the parliament, acknowledged Senator Farrell's help in getting them elected.

The Hon. Michael O'Brien's regard for Senator Farrell is a matter of obvious record. The Minister for Health, the Treasurer, the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, all acknowledged Senator Farrell's contribution and help in getting elected to this place and, of course, there were particularly strong endorsements for Senator Farrell in their maiden speeches by a couple of ongoing members, the members for Little Para and Taylor, and the Government Whip. In the Government Whip's maiden speech, I had cause to look up earlier today—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: You don't need to make a personal explanation; I can help out the house. The Government Whip identified:

Also, I thank Don Farrell who has shown a lot of faith in me, sometimes more than I have in myself. Don has provided me with numerous opportunities; I hope that I have used them as he has expected I would. Certainly, I have enjoyed and appreciated them.

Very gracious words, sir. The member for Taylor on 11 May 2010 identified:

Big thanks go to Senator Don Farrell for his steady support over time; his judgement of people and politics is truly inspiring.

It did not just used to be the Government Whip and the member for Taylor who were happy to be so forthright in standing up for Senator Farrell, but I note that they have been consistent supporters and, in recent times, defenders of Senator Farrell. When the Premier decided to publicly savage Senator Farrell and diminish his reputation in the most humiliating manner that he could in January, it appears that the whip and the member for Taylor—who at the time were a senior minister and a rising star—were left high and dry, and one can only imagine they were seen as being too close to Senator Farrell.

I note that a number of new members have also paid tribute to Senator Farrell in their maiden speeches—the member for Elder, the member for Lee, the member for Napier and the member for Kaurna join the long list who have done so—and, given Senator Farrell's significant contribution to their careers along with so many others before, I can only hope that in the coming years they will not forget their benefactor nor the wrongs done to him. Given the failure of any of these members to publicly defend Senator Farrell's position since the Premier declared him persona non grata, and now that Senator Farrell has declared that he will seek no further roles in public life, I would like to acknowledge his significant contribution.

This side of the house may often have disagreed with Senator Farrell as a union leader, as a senator and a minister but we acknowledge that he has sought to serve his party, his state and his nation with honour according to the views that he has genuinely held. Perhaps if more people like Senator Farrell were here on the Labor side or, if, indeed, some who used to consider him a leader in their group were more like him, we would not have had so many displays of arrogant hubris such as we have seen today and in the last couple of weeks.

I will turn briefly (and I will not use up the full time I expect) to the commentary on the election result that has been offered by some during the Address in Reply. There are a number who have taken the opportunity to spend 30 minutes talking about the Liberal campaign being lacking, and I direct them to the member for Newland's address a moment ago, or at least the first half before in the second half he then joined their number.

The nature of our democracy is that people vote for a member not for a political party. As the Deputy Premier said, the two-party preferred vote is a construct, it is not a separate box on the ballot paper that people choose, yet it is significant and the Deputy Premier ignored this. It is significant because our constitution identifies that it is desirable for the Electoral Commission to redraw the boundaries in such a way that the party who won the two-party preferred vote at the previous election is able to form government if, presumably, everyone votes the same way. So, construct it may be, but it is a significant one.

It is desirable that the party that gets the vote of more than 50 per cent of people in an election is able to form government. It should stand for itself. This parliament and the party of government should both be an expression of the will of the majority of the South Australian people.

There are two things to say about this: firstly, 53 per cent of people not getting their party of choice is not an expression of will of the South Australian people; secondly, it does not serve the South Australian people for all of the efforts of the campaign and the policy direction to be focused on the preferences of those dozen marginal seats.

Whichever party forms government, whichever party is able to attain a majority, when all of the efforts of the campaign—as I think the member identified in his contribution, and, indeed, most of the Labor members, decrying the Liberal campaign, have identified—should be directed towards those marginal seats, how does that suit the South Australian people's needs? How does that serve the South Australian people's needs? It cannot be seen to be a good in and of itself.

It has been remarkable—sorry, can I just identify, the member for Newland in fact brought it down to saying the interests of the state are not served by questioning the rules of the game, but that is an extraordinary thing to say. I am not suggesting that the rules of the game have been breached in this way; they are the rules of the game, and we accept that the government has formed government. They have the confidence of 24 members of the house, for the moment, and so they can form government. But it is hardly in the interest of the state (or, as I would prefer to say, in the interest of the South Australian people) to ignore the rules of the game when the rules of the game do not lead to the best outcomes for the South Australian people.

As the member for Davenport said, wouldn't it be better for the vote of somebody in Port Adelaide to be the same as somebody in Kimba, to be the same in Wallaroo, to be the same as somebody as Ardrossan, in determining who forms government? Irrespective of where the boundaries are, would it not be preferable if the needs of everybody, wherever they are located in whichever electorate they live, are going to have the same impact on who forms government, and their desires? It would, as the member for Davenport identified, change way that we campaign, and it would have a positive impact, I think, on the way that we are governed.

The very concept of a specific geographic area having its needs more important to the outcome of government than another geographic area would cease to be important, and so the primary consideration for parties seeking election would necessarily be: 'What is going to convince the majority of the South Australian people that we will make a better job of being in government than the other side?'

There are a number of different ways that this can be identified. I hope that Labor ministers, the Premier, the Deputy Premier, and others who have waxed lyrical on this topic will at least be open enough to consider the fact that going into a discussion about electoral reform is not necessarily a matter of whingeing; it can also be a matter of seeking the best outcome for the people of South Australia. The people of South Australia are not served by the system as it stands, as we would like them to be, and as I think they would like to be.

When 53 per cent vote in a way which does not get their government, when four out of six elections produce an outcome that is not desired by those who framed the constitution in the way that it was, when it was addressed in a way such as to fix this very problem that we are talking about, clearly the current system has not worked, clearly the fix has not worked, so let us address it. Let us talk as a parliament and as a community about how to improve it.

The fact is the government sits with the support and the confidence of 47 per cent of the South Australian people; about a third of South Australians gave them their primary vote. It is not a huge mandate for a forward program based on what they took to the election. In fact, they did not win the election so much as they formed government.

We, as Her Majesty's loyal opposition, will fulfil our duties to the parliament and to the South Australian people. We will seek to achieve the best possible outcomes to the government's legislation, and, where that means supporting the government in expediting debate and where that will assist in the people of South Australia's best interests, then we will do so. The Supply Bill is a case in point: we had hoped, when we said that we would support the speedy passage of the Supply Bill through before 30 June, that the government would take that seriously and treat the parliament in a serious way. It remains to be seen how much time the government will choose to take up with its special new motion tomorrow afternoon, but, otherwise, we will help the government with the Supply Bill.

We will help the government will all of its sensible legislation, we will seek to amend that which needs amending, and we will introduce legislation where the government is clearly lacking, but we will fulfil the duties of the opposition so long a Her Majesty wishes us to. I recommend to the members of the government that they take into account the fact that they actually only got a third of the vote—only 47 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. They do not have the overwhelming confidence of the people of South Australia, whose needs they should serve, and therefore they should take into account their bests interests as their first and primary duty in the years ahead.

Put the hubris to one side, put the arrogance to one side, put the grandstanding and boasting about the election to one side and let's move on and focus on the needs of the South Australian people. With that I commend the Governor on his speech.

Motion carried.

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