HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Supply Bill 2014

Supply Grievances

Debate resumed.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (19:50): It is serendipity perfected that I rise at this moment, after going into the Speaker's dining room and seeing the former member for Schubert, my great friend Ivan Venning, sitting there at dinner. I said, 'Ivan, it's great that you're here, because I was about to give you a great plug in my Supply Bill grieve speech.'

What I would like to use my 10 minutes this evening to talk about is an issue that has long been held in the heart of Ivan Venning. My contribution tonight will be a bit more modest because I do not have the background the former member for Schubert has. I remember driving up and down Gomersal Road a number of times and seeing the silver Prado with the 'I support a Barossa Hospital' sticker on the back, and I would always know that it was Ivan patrolling his electorate.

As much as I want to talk up the former member's commitment to getting a new hospital for the Barossa, regardless of whether it is the former or the current member, the member for Schubert's commitment to getting a hospital for the Barossa has not waivered, has not changed. I stand here to continue the legacy, and I would like to use my contribution tonight to go through a little bit of history that for the last 20 years the people of the Barossa have been waiting patiently for a new hospital facility.

I have visited these facilities as a patient or as the father of a patient, and I have met a lot of great people—great doctors, great nurses—who do a lot for their community but, at the same time, people who are working in a very substandard facility. For the Barossa, being one of the premier regional areas in South Australia, the fact that the facilities we have are in the state they are in is a real travesty, and the people of the Barossa, the people of Schubert, deserve better.

I would like to take you back to 1910. In 1910, the population of Angaston would have been 100 or 200 people; it now has a population of 2,000. In 1910, before both world wars, before Korea, before Vietnam, before we had our adult franchise in the upper house, before we had single member electorates, the Angaston District Hospital was built.

In 1953, a little bit later, a little before my parents came to this country, though, the Tanunda Hospital was built. I would like to ask: since 1910 and 1953 and the fact that there have not been any significant improvements to either hospital 1950s, what has happened to the population of the Barossa? It has doubled, it has tripled. More than that, what is the future population growth of the Barossa, which sits at about 1.75 per cent per annum and, at 1.75 per cent per annum, sits at the top end of growth projections for population across South Australia? These two separate facilities operated as they did for a long time and, in fact, unfortunately still operate as single facilities today.

I would like to bring the house to December 1994 and refer to the Angaston and Tanunda boards—and can I say that there is feeling between Angaston and Tanunda, as two rival towns in the Barossa; like the Gawler Football League, there is angst between the two towns. In 1994, the two towns decided to work together to bring about a better health service for the Barossa.

In January 1995, the boards and the SA Health Commission agreed to undertake a joint review of future health services in the Barossa. In April 1995, KPMG Peat Marwick presented their report, and option No. 2, which is the option which the boards, as they were at that time, committed to, was the consolidation of all acute services plus community services in a new hospital and health service at Nuriootpa.

In June 1995, both boards agreed to accept the KPMG recommendations. In July 1995, the SAHC CEO agrees to accept the KPMG recommendations. In October 1995, the AGMs at both hospitals agree to dissolve and form a new organisation called the Barossa Area Health Service. There are many other milestones as we go along but I go forward to October 1997, two years after those recommendations have been adopted, and concern is expressed at the lack of progress of a new facility.

In 1999, health minister Brown—yes: under a Liberal government at that time—announces a new health facility will be built and located at Reusch Park in Nuriootpa in 1999. In February 2001, community concern is again expressed at the state of the facilities in Angaston and Tanunda because the hospital still had not been built. In June 2001, minister Brown announces that the new facility will commence in 2004-05 and $12 million is committed. I remind the house that there is seven years' lead time—seven years between 1994 and 2001—when this issue progressed to a point when, finally, the community had in their sights the new facility that they had been wanting over that seven years.

Unfortunately, there was a pesky thing called a state election and, history in this place being what it is, there was a change of government. In October 2002, minister Stevens visits the facilities and confirms that there is no money for a new hospital. The people of the Barossa at that point would have been heartbroken, absolutely heartbroken. In December 2003, minister Stevens says (and I love this) that 'the Barossa Area Health Service will continue to receive consideration in relation to a new health facility'.

Well, it is now 2014, Deputy Speaker, and we are still waiting. The people of the Barossa are still waiting. They are a beautiful, patient group of people who just get on with life, but I am afraid that their patience is starting to wear thin, and so it should. In 2008, there is a slight glimmer of hope because the SA government state budget pledges $70,000 for a business case into the new health facility. In 2008-09, the Barossa and Districts Health Advisory Council (as the name had been changed to then) was scathing of the current facilities, stating that the current facilities in the Barossa Valley lacked flexibility to meet current and future service demands.

In 2010, after lobbying by the former member for Schubert for a great many years, the Liberals committed, again, to a Barossa hospital, this time to be built on Magnolia Road in Tanunda, at an estimated cost of $35 million. The people of the Barossa rejoiced. They returned the member for Schubert in 2010 with an absolutely fantastic majority, which was due in no small part to the fact that they agreed that it was time for a new hospital in the Barossa. It was time for a new hospital in the Barossa. Here we are again, Deputy Speaker—

There being a disturbance in the Speaker's gallery:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before you continue, it has come to the chair's attention that a former member of this house is not observing what would normally be standing orders, and we are just going to give him a moment to reflect on that and allow the new member for Schubert to continue.

Mr KNOLL: He just can't help himself, Deputy Speaker. This commitment by the Liberals in 2010 was for a $35 million 55-bed hospital, with an emergency department, operating theatres and a maternity ward. It was going to be located, as I said, on Magnolia Road in Tanunda adjoining the 'Recs', which is our local recreational facility that encompasses a swimming pool and great gym facilities. When I am out in my electorate, I am there two to three times a week. It would have been fantastic as a hub for health and wellness in the Barossa. The people of Schubert rejoiced and then were very, very disappointed when the Labor government was returned

The 2010 business case that was handed down had in it some things that I think need to be stated in this house, and probably more often than just tonight, because it shows that there is a true economic basis for why we should have a new health facility in the Barossa, bar the fact that it is going to be necessary to meet the future needs of the population growth in the valley.

There is a potential benefit to offset the capital cost of a new hospital with the sale of the existing land from the two sites. It was estimated in 2010 that that could net $1.85 million and the proceeds could have been applied to the new facility. Those two facilities then could have been re-purposed as aged-care facilities or other facilities, or could have been turned into accommodation facilities, and certainly would not have stayed derelict because the industrious people of the Barossa would have found good uses for that land and those buildings.

The real kicker for me is the fact that there are and there was at that time, and inflation being what it is, I am sure well over $1 million now of annual savings that would have been gotten by the combining of the two hospitals into one facility. Over $1 million worth of savings in today's dollars would have been able to be returned on an annual basis to the state government. Here tonight I would like to say that that is my contribution to the June 19 budget: if you want to save $1 million invest in a new hospital for the Barossa and it is yours for the taking.

The risk analysis of the project has identified—and keep in mind that this is a business case that was conducted by Country Health SA themselves; this is the state government's department themselves saying this:

The Barossa Health Service will be unable to achieve its full role as a country community hospital. The cost of sustaining ageing and unsuitable health facilities in the Barossa will not be mitigated.

I think if that is not an indictment on where the current facilities are at the moment, then I do not know what is. This is an issue that has sat and been talked about in this parliament for way too long and, again, it is an another example of regional South Australia being ignored by this state government and I ask the state government to please deliver after 20 years for the people of Schubert.

Time expired.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (20:00): I too rise to talk just a little bit about power prices and, in particular, what the electorate of Chaffey is going through at the moment being quite high power users. Irrigation, pumping water, pressurising water, and lifting water from the river into properties are very expensive exercises, particularly pressurising water. In my electorate I have two large irrigation trusts that are really feeling the power pinch at the moment.

The Central Irrigation Trust in particular has 12 districts that it supplies water to, and of those districts there are about 15,500 hectares of irrigated horticulture, and it also supplies nearly 3,000 households with domestic water. In most of the areas it is high pressure water that is delivered to those properties, but in a lot of the other areas it is low pressure, so the multiplier is that the irrigation trust is taking water out of the river, lifting it up onto properties, and then it has to be repressurised into the pipes.

Sadly, South Australia has claimed to be the leader in efficiencies when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin and we are now paying the price for those water efficiencies. Once upon a time we would throw sticks and rocks at our Eastern State counterparts saying that they have open channels, they have flood irrigation and they are inefficient, but today they are looking at us and they are laughing, because they are using that gravity free of charge. They are putting water down those channels through gravity feed free of charge, and they are not paying the exorbitant power prices that are now threatening the viability of a lot of businesses.

I did meet with the CEO of the Central Irrigation Trust on a number of occasions about his concern with the increased power cost, and he tells me that over the last year his power bills have increased from $2 million to $4 million; they have doubled, and they are having a lot of trouble passing that cost on to growers that are dealing with the Australian dollar and commodity prices. Again, it is something that needs to be looked at.

I am calling on this government to look at whether ESCOSA or some other regulatory body can actually put a cap on these spiralling out of control power prices that are crippling the viability that we once enjoyed with our water efficiencies that we are now losing, because we had the water efficiency, but we are high power users.

In saying that, we deal with the Central Irrigation Trust (CIT), and we deal with the Renmark Irrigation Trust. Just as a note, the Renmark Irrigation Trust is the oldest large irrigation trust in Australia, and it has a proud history, but at the moment it is under siege with these crippling power prices as well.

Again, what I am told is that in South Australia usage is down, particularly in the Riverland. We are now exporting power out of the state into Victoria, but we are exporting the power at the Riverland's cost because the transmission losses through the wires and the poles is about 5.2 per cent. The forecast power cost increase is about 11 per cent but with that loss factor it is about a 16 per cent increase in power forecast for the upcoming year, let alone the doubling in the costs of power.

A lot of those increased costs have come about because power is now on standby. When an irrigator or a trust decides that they need to irrigate their crops, they need that power to be there when they start up their pumps. They have spent in excess of $5 million in upgrading the drives in their pump motors, but still that is not delivering the efficiencies they need to run an efficient water delivery operation that has real impact.

There is a Riverland Energy Association made up of 14 large power consumers in the Riverland, chaired by wine group director, Trevor Davidson. Their charter is to cooperatively work together, reduce energy costs and improve the business sustainability. Sadly, these businesses have all invested heavily in the power users, the motors that they use to drive their pumps, and they have got to a point now where those power prices are driving that business out of viability

Passing on power costs is becoming almost unsustainable. Ironically, when South Australians lose their water as a contribution to the sustainable diversion limits in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, those efficiencies that we have gained over time to give water back to the environment are now being eaten up by the cost of their power. It is an ongoing concern. I call on the energy minister to look at ways that we can regulate or cap these spiralling power costs.

Now that we are exporting power, there must be a mechanism that we can use that is not going to encumber power users in the Riverland in particular with the cost of exporting power through transmission losses. Again, that consultation needs to be had. I know that business leaders in the region are meeting with power providers, and there does not seem to be any answer or any willingness, particularly with the power providers. I think there needs to be some form of a heavy hand with recommendations from government to cap or regulate these power prices that continue to spiral out of control.

I also want to talk about the government having said that they are now going to support regions. They have imported an Independent member of this place to be their regional voice for South Australia. I really think it is about priorities that the government ironically are saying, 'Now we are going to give the regions some notice or some priority.' Well, we are waiting.

I note with interest that the government is coming up to the Riverland on the 22nd to the 24th with their country cabinet, so my invitation is open far and wide to all the ministers. If there is something they would like to see, I would be more than happy to show them, knowing that most of the ministers I can trust. There are some I do not trust, in particular one of their new ministers, because he has shown that his trustworthiness has been left wanting, particularly with the way he has undermined and moved across to the other side, to the government.

It is not about him going over there for the greatness of South Australia. It is about him going over there and fulfilling his wish, that he is going to make a difference for South Australia. I think it is a sad day for people who judge their politicians, who reflect on their politicians. The way the media reflect on our behaviour, the way we conduct ourselves, is making people lose their faith and trust in the political process. It is a sad indictment on politics. Again I digress.

Regarding regional South Australia, when ministers do come up to Chaffey what they will look at is something that is sustainable. Agriculture has been sustainable forever. We continue to plant our crops. We grow our crops in the land that we look after, that we mentor, that we manage, unlike manufacturing. I have worked in the manufacturing sector, as I have said in this place many times, working at GM Holden and, sadly, the day has come when we are not competitive any more, so we have to look at better ways. Look at mining. Mining is not sustainable. Once you dig the resource out of the ground and that resource is exhausted, that resource is gone, that resource is not to be put back there. So, again, when we look at the sustainable economy here in South Australia, it is agriculture, horticulture, food production. It is what my electorate represents to this state's economy.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (20:11): I rise to speak this evening on my beautiful electorate of Bragg and some of the issues that will be important to it that I would ask the government to consider in the forthcoming budget. My electorate comprises of the vast area of the eastern suburbs, which is largely residential retail, and what I call the three Rs. Repromed is probably our biggest industry on the plains for the production of healthy babies in South Australia. Going further east, to the horticultural and viticultural areas of Uraidla, Summertown and the whole of the Piccadilly Valley, it is a beautiful electorate to represent.

As far as state services go, we do not have many. We pretty much look after ourselves. We have five public schools; four Country Fire Services; one Metropolitan Fire Service, which very much is responsible for looking after the freeway; and a number of major parks, including the world renowned Cleland Park, which has recently donated eight koalas to Hong Kong. We have no SES services, no public hospitals, no police stations and we have the Britannia roundabout, the beautiful Britannia roundabout.

I just want to put on the record that I appreciate what the government did a year or so ago to upgrade the Britannia roundabout. The problem was not the design or anything else, because I think the Hon. Trish White, the former transport minister, had come up with a pretty good design a few years ago, until minister Conlon axed it. However, as an interim measure it is not a bad idea. I travel through it three or four times a day and it is quite a good improvement. The problem is, as has been acknowledged by the Department of Transport, that it cannot accommodate future growth.

Minister Rau's plan is that we have five or six-storey buildings all the way along Fullarton Road and that we increase the inner metropolitan growth area with the intensification of urban infill. I do not even have a problem with that. The problem is that we do not have the infrastructure to go with it. So we do have some major concerns as to how we are going to deal with road and energy, that is, the power requirements and so on with the government's urban infill agenda. Without that infrastructure, including public transport and other things, we are going to have some difficulties.

However, the most important, significant and pressing issue for my electorate as we speak is water. There are two problems. If I go to Uraidla—this is a township of about 800—they are provided water by a private bore from a local family who provide water pretty much at cost, otherwise they have the natural catchment, which they drink. Piccadilly water is abundant in the whole valley and it is even provided as bottled water to be sold. So, they are doing okay.

However, when the family who had the bore decided that they wanted to close down, I put to the government that they should think about getting SA Water to buy the property, buy the water system, to provide security of water and ensure that we had safe water access when fires came, particularly as it was an important location for people to congregate in the event of a major fire in the hills, but there was no help whatsoever. More recently the area of Skye, where there are about 120 houses, came back into my electorate.

This is a geographical area that was well looked after for the previous four years by the member for Morialta. However, members might be aware that Skye sits in an area along the Hills Face Zone where Thomas Playford (God rest his soul), when he was premier in this place, actually made provision for water and power services for the urbanisation of Adelaide, and he did a great job. What he said was 'I'm not going to send water uphill; it's too expensive. If you want to build up on the hill you have to pay for your own water and provide for your own water services.' This was not uncommon in those days, and it was accepted by those who developed and put their family homes up there.

There are about 120 dwellings in this particular location, and they rely on a combination of services from about five private company operators. Some of them are a bit of a cooperative, and they work on a cost basis for the providing of service. They occasionally have to pump up the hill from the supply that comes via SA Water, under mains supply, as it is known, but largely they look after themselves. One of the entities has given notice that as of August it will close down; it will no longer make provision for that service.

The infrastructure that goes with this is tired—I think that is the best description of it—and clearly we need to consider what is going to happen. This is an area in residential Adelaide that is less than 10 kilometres from the GPO. There are areas nearby—for example, in Teringie—that have had connections to mains water supply at a reasonable cost, to make it affordable and accessible for a reliable water supply, to ensure that they have safe, clean and reliable water. Further out, way further out, they have provided sewerage and water up in Waterfall Gully, which happens to have some very important Labor leaders, I note, up that street. However, the people of Skye are left alone.

I called a public meeting recently after the election, when this area came back into my electorate. I would say that about 200 people turned up, more than the number of dwellings in the subject area that is adversely affected, and they called upon me to write to the minister and try to get this issue sorted out. In 2008, when I last had responsibility for this area, I wrote to the then minister and SA Water came out and said 'Look, we can provide a service to here. It will cost about $4 million, and that's about $26,000 per household, to be connected up. But at a capital cost contribution of that order we will put provision in.'

Not everybody wanted it, and that often happens in an existing township. They say 'We're not keen to line up. We've got adequate other services and we do not need to have it.' However, if you have a family, in fact if you have human habitation generally, a clean, reliable water supply is critical to live in a civilised manner in a household. So it is important for the safety and well being of our children, for safety and well being with fire protection, that we have a good water supply. It is not unreasonable for these people to accept that, at a reasonable cost, they be connected.

It is weeks ago now that I wrote to the minister, and I am disappointed to note that I have not had any response. This is pressing. This water supply will be cut off, and it will be a dangerous situation at a health level to have stagnant water, to be in a situation where households do not have access to a reliable water supply. Some will be able to afford to truck in water and fill up rainwater tanks, even install rainwater tanks. Burnside council has agreed to do whatever it can to abridge the times for applications to enable bigger tanks to be brought into these properties so that we might facilitate them having at least some interim supply.

This is unacceptable. We are in 2014, and we have people living within kilometres of the GPO who have no access to mains water. It is a disgrace. SA Water saw fit to pay for a $403 million pipeline connection system through a north-eastern connector to ensure that the Happy Valley and Hope Reservoir areas and pumping stations in between could be imposed. They said that was necessary because we were going to have a desal plant, we were going to have a doubling of the provision of water, we were going to need to be able to connect north with south, we were going to have all this development in the north. Most of that has evaporated. Nevertheless, in the meantime they have put this expensive pipeline system in.

It is magnificent infrastructure, I might say. Whether we need it or not is another matter, but we have got it now. Our local people have had the inconvenience of having their streets dug up, their trees chopped down, and all sorts of other interruptions to their normal living and business operations; nevertheless, it has happened.

I ask the government to consider a reasonable price—we are not expecting something to be given free—and listen to the fact that we now have a critical situation and we need some assistance here. The monopoly instrumentality in charge of water in South Australia is SA Water. It is, of course, a nonsense to say that you can bring in other private operators. The regulatory regime that we have is quite prohibitive, I think, for any other smaller traders coming in. Some of the bigger councils may take up that option to provide water supplies and ultimately come into that market, but at the moment SA Water is the monopoly in charge. It earns hundreds of millions of dollars that it provides interstate revenue. I am not even asking them to interrupt that, but I am asking them to at least answer my letters and let these people have a fair go.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (20:21): I rise this evening to continue my remarks from late last night; at twenty past eleven, in fact, I rose to speak. I will take note from the member for Bragg and talk a little bit about my electorate. She and I have one thing in common: we both have wonderful electorates and we know that.

Mr Gardner: You have many things in common.

Mr TRELOAR: We have many things in common, true, member for Morialta. Before I get back to my notes, I will talk a little bit about the electorate of Flinders. It is quite the opposite to Bragg in that it is has an area of around about 58,000 square kilometres. We have nine district councils, a city council, an out of districts area, some 24 schools (at my best reckoning at least), and nine hospitals, and half the population of the entire electorate is contained within the town of Port Lincoln. There are other smaller service centres scattered throughout. Our single biggest challenge in the years ahead is, as it is in Bragg, the supply of water. It is something that I will get back to a little bit later in this contribution.

I was highlighting the shortcomings of the current government's economic settings when my time expired last night. I would just like to get back to those points and continue. In fact, we are coming up to the budget; 19 June is budget day for the Labor government in South Australia. Sadly for them—and the people of South Australia I am sure recognise this—they have managed to deliver six deficits in the last seven years, which is a sad indictment of their fiscal management and fiscal responsibility. Of course the promise always is far better than what is delivered.

From time to time they have forecast a surplus; it never arrives. From time to time they have forecast a small deficit, and invariably it is a large one. The interesting thing about all of this, of course, is that governments talk about surpluses and deficits, and we hear those words a lot in this place. Businesses and households talk about profit and loss. They are in essence the same thing; in fact you cannot as a business continue to run at a loss because your debt will climb and eventually you will become unsustainable.

In the sphere of government, you cannot continue to run deficits because your debt will climb and in the end it will become unsustainable. We have not quite reached that point in South Australia but, of course, we have lost our AAA credit rating. If we continue to run our deficits then we are in serious risk of getting into an economic situation from where it will be hard to claw back. A lot of the problem results from the fact this government has borrowed money to spend money. To keep the population happy they have been quite intent on borrowing and giving it away.

Certainly there have been some big infrastructure spends, but I have to say all of this has been undertaken with borrowed money. They are not insignificant infrastructure projects—granted. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital is about to cost about $2.8 billion plus the interest on that. The footbridge, the much talked about footbridge, that was placed across the Torrens in between two other bridges: I went to walk across it one night and could not get across it, so I walked down King William Street and crossed the Torrens there. It cost $40 million—it is extraordinary. We could build two Barossa hospitals, member for Schubert, for that money!

The desalination plant is the biggest white elephant of all, in my opinion: $1.7 billion to build, plus the interconnector, comes to a total figure of $2.2 billion. Do you know what? It has not been used yet! It is extraordinary. That amount of money for nothing!

Members interjecting:

Mr TRELOAR: I do not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is too much information floating backwards and forwards across the chamber.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will invoke those numbers—142, 131. I ask members to not interject and not respond to interjections. Back on topic, member for Flinders.

Mr TRELOAR: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The list goes on and on: we sold the forests, as has been talked about today; and $650 million for the Adelaide Oval. It is lovely, of course, but most people in South Australia never get the chance to go there and watch either cricket or football. So we have seen from this a $14 billion debt—$2 million a day in interest—and an extraordinary burden on the people of South Australia. The litany is long. We are the highest taxed state in the nation. We have the highest capital city water charges in the nation, in no small regard as a result of the desal plant that I was talking about.

Water is an ongoing issue. We have high water charges in the country too. We have sheep producers and wine producers who are battling with the price of water and struggling to stay viable, just for the fact that this government has chosen—not needed to, but chosen—to put up the price of water to a point where it is almost unaffordable. Education is shown to be below average in all of the NAPLAN results, and the list goes on and on.

There was a demonstration out the front of Parliament House today against the budget cuts by the Abbott government, to health in particular. Let us wait and see what this government delivers in the way of health cuts on 19 June. I suggest that it will be rather scary. Primary health care is something on which we will have to concentrate, and that is a solution to much of our health costs blowing out.

We need to concentrate on what we are good at as a state. We have to work out what our assets are. We have to ensure the government actually gets out of the way of business. Unfortunately, the tentacles of government have extended right throughout our everyday life. Good government is like a good umpire in a football match: you do not notice they are there. Unfortunately, with this government, they are everywhere.

Like most local members I find that a big part of my day is assisting constituents, dealing with government departments. It would seem to be a simple task to go to a government department and seek assistance with whatever problem they have, but this government has made their departmental assistance so difficult that the general population simply cannot manage it.

In my closing minutes I wish to talk about an issue that has arisen in Port Lincoln in recent weeks and months, namely, the issue of treating wastewater. SA Water has a responsibility to treat the wastewater in Port Lincoln. It is not just household waste or run-off from the streets and rainfall but also the outflow from the seafood processors in Port Lincoln. The seafood processors in Port Lincoln have approached us and indicated that they could face financial ruin in some cases under new requirements imposed on them by SA Water. It is in relation to saline waste.

It has been alleged by these processors that SA Water does not have the capacity to treat saline water at the treatment plant in Port Lincoln, and as such effectively has asked the industry to foot the bill for this activity. This is a cost and a burden to these processors many of whom have been in business for 20 years or more. They are simply going about doing what they have always done. It is a fishing town, for goodness sake. Of course they are going to process fish; of course there is going to be saline water in the system.

It is really beholden on SA Water and the government to not stand in the way of these businesses but actually accommodate them. Surely that is a responsibility of a government department. Surely it is a responsibility of SA Water to accommodate and understand its obligations with regard to service and the need to support industry in this state. If they do not then, once again, some of these businesses are going to close down and jobs are going to be lost.

Sadly, if a solution is not found very soon—in the next few weeks in fact—some of these businesses are going to be up for costs in the vicinity of $30,000 to $100,000 to install monitoring equipment which really, in turn, gives SA Water information which ultimately, if they breach their discharge requirements, could mean that these businesses are charged extra costs. It is a serious situation. As the local member I have been working with the government to try to seek a solution but we have not managed to do that yet.

Time expired.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (20:31): I rise to make comments regarding the Supply Bill response grievance debate and talk about some of the local issues affecting my electorate and surrounding areas. I share some of the concerns of the member for Finniss regarding crime on the Fleurieu Peninsula as we obviously share the area. It was a disgraceful thing to see today that two police were injured by a letter sent to the Victor Harbor station.

On my side of the Fleurieu, regarding crime in the local area, the local police have managed to get three extra police officers working out of the Goolwa station. This support has been long overdue. I know that they have been trying to work out ways internally to manage situations in the area and I congratulate the local police for taking this initiative. It has also given the ability for more accessibility for the station at Goolwa.

With regard to policing I also want to talk about what I think is revenue raising. There are a couple of fixed-speed cameras on the South Eastern Freeway and they have been budgeted to generate almost $3 million a year in fines, according to the government's own documents. One camera is adjacent to the Crafers on-ramp at Crafers West and the second is at the Mount Osmond overpass. I am getting more and more complaints from heavy vehicle owners. I have taken up the issue with the Minister for Road Safety.

The truck drivers are telling me that the issue with the Crafers camera is that the truck drivers thought it was a point-to-point camera between there and Mount Osmond and because it is part way up the slope they are still accelerating to get to the top of the rise before they take their trucks back to about 35 or 40 km/h to go down the hill into Adelaide, so obviously some of them have strayed over the 60 km/h.

Because of the slowness in getting the fines out, before they know it they have four fines and there are drivers or owners who cannot drive. I have had a chat to the road safety minister to see what signage can be better put and whether the camera can be moved to the top of the hill because it does affect a lot of freight coming in from my area.

I also want to talk about regional education. Recently I received a response from the Minister for Education about requests to assist the Coomandook Area School. The minister's response was quite scathing about my intent to assist the Coomandook Area School and she labelled my intent to help as scaremongering and labelled my efforts as far from constructive. If I had not made those efforts the minister and the Department for Education and Child Development would have continued to ignore the needs and requests of this school. I first raised this issue in this place in November 2013, and I believe that DECD was made aware of the issue long before that. However, it took the minister six months to provide a response to these concerns.

We have also had the state government bang on in here about federal budget savings measures. They will not tell us about the good things in the federal budget, but they forget to back up comments with their own plans to cut $230 million from education over the forward estimates, as well as $1,000 million out of health, I should say. What I will say about regional education, not just in my electorate but right across the state, is that it must become a priority of the state government, and I will continue to raise concerns in this house without fear or concern of how my intentions are perceived or how it reflects on the minister responsible for this important portfolio.

I also welcome news today that South Australia will receive $5.8 million worth of federal blackspot funding. A number of the projects are in and around the Hammond electorate, definitely providing safety and benefit to my constituents. Projects include upgrades to the Mount Compass and Goolwa Road, which will receive $345,000; the Callington to Goolwa Road, $630,000; the Mannum Road, Pallamana, $427,000; and safety upgrades on the South-East Freeway at Callington, $530,000.

Some of these upgrades are wire rope barriers, a bit of delineation, some tree removal I note on one road (that will get the Native Vegetation Council rocking and rolling), but I think there needs to be some serious work on the Callington to Goolwa Road and certainly on the section between Strathalbyn and Goolwa. It is a road I actually try to avoid and go other ways to get to Goolwa, because you get a lot of people (and I cannot blame them) who want to do a bit of sightseeing on this road and might get down to 60 km/h or 80 km/h, and it causes a lot of stress for people who want to get somewhere in a hurry. So, I think there needs to be some straightening out of this road and also some overtaking lanes put in in either direction.

I note in the member for Frome and the Minister for Regional Development's regional development fund announcement just yesterday that there will supposedly be $150,000 spent yearly on projects associated with regional areas that host the country cabinet meetings. From what the government is telling us, there will be three country cabinet meetings per year, and if the government sticks to that proposal that equates to $50,000 for a regional project in the area being visited by the Premier. I believe this is nothing more than a headline grabber and something that allows the Premier to walk into a regional community—and these regional communities have been neglected for the last 12 years—and say, 'Hey, look: here's $50,000 for having me. Thank you very much.' It is almost tokenistic if it wasn't so laughable. So, I hope that this money—if it goes into regional communities—does go to good projects that are worthwhile, but we will have to wait and see.

I also note in The Advertiser today reports about the member for Frome, in making his announcement yesterday for the copied Liberal policy of $15 million per year in a regional development fund—

Mr Gardner: A pale imitation.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes—the minister admitted that the Liberals offered more for the regions before the election. As I have stated previously in this place, the Minister for Regional Development, the member for Frome, could have gotten whatever he wanted in the deal from the Premier, and he has fallen outrageously short in his quest to be the regions' saviour. Including in this he could have won support for our CFS and his beloved recommendations made by the Select Committee on the Grain Handling Industry, and they were excellent recommendations because I was part of that committee.

All of these issues impact regional South Australia and regional South Australians. The Minister for Regional Development has made comments in the past regarding many of these issues; however, he now chooses to refrain from comment, especially when asked questions in this house. It seems the Minister for Regional Development is willing to say anything and do anything to further his political career.

Just in closing, this is just like his new friend the member for Waite. I have had a lot of things said to me in the last eight days about the actions of the member for Waite, so I have not had to say these things. It has been the people involved, the returned men, the RSL, the returned soldiers who have served this country, as the member for Waite has. I will not decry his service to this country; 23 years he was in the SAS, a lieutenant colonel. He knows all about honour and integrity and loyalty because that is what you expect in the military, and it is at the highest level. My brother, who also served for 23 years, but not in the SAS, says they are the 'SAS cats', they are the hot guys, they know what is going on.

Sadly, the member for Waite has crossed the floor so that he can take the 30 pieces of silver, and these are some of the reactions from people in the community I have talked to. One returned man said, 'I was going to send Martin,' the member for Waite, 'a white feather, but, no, I will send him the whole chicken'. Another said, 'We should invoke rule .303.' At another RSL function I attended recently, in the apologies announcement it was mentioned that the member for Waite, Martin Hamilton-Smith, would not be attending because he is not going to blue ribbon seats.

I hope the member for Waite has thought hard about the decisions he has made in this last week or so because they are going to tarnish his memory, and for his good name of all those soldiering years this will be his epitaph.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (20:41): I rise today to speak about a number of key issues in the electorate of Mitchell. We have talked recently about all the facts. We know the facts, and we know the numbers associated with the state's economy. We know the state's debt has grown from just over $3 billion 12 years ago to almost $14 billion now—a blowout of $12 million. Of the past seven budgets, six were in deficit and only one was in surplus. Surplus budgets were promised at every one of those.

I preface the next comments with that because in that time nothing has been done about the Oaklands crossing, a piece of infrastructure very dear to my heart and very dear to the hearts of the people of Mitchell. I mentioned the $11 billion of debt that has been racked up in that 12 years. I understand you have to spend money at times to make things happen, but with that $11 billion debt (not the $100 million or thereabouts, as is claimed by the previous transport minister) about $100 million, maybe $120 million, is needed for this project. Of that $11 billion debt, that figure could not be put aside, and I find that very discouraging.

A total of $6.8 million was spent on upgrading the station, and $12.6 million was promised but pulled out back in 2001 in the 2001 state budget because of another blowout. It cost $6.8 million to move the station, and $12.6 million was promised to help renovate the area but was then pulled out of the budget. More recently, $2 million was spent on a study. So, in 12 years $11 billion has been spent in excess by this government and they could not find the money to fix this very important piece of infrastructure. I hope the Premier and Treasurer are away planning as we speak to make this happen. There was $2 million dollars spent on the study; perhaps that will come to fruition when the budget is handed down. Here's hoping for a very key piece of infrastructure for the electorate of Mitchell.

This takes me to the car park tax, which has been talked about as well, I know, and again the people of Mitchell have raised this with me. They see it as a very slippery slope. We talk about having a car park tax in the city, and that has been the suggestion to date. Again, we wait for the budget to be handed down. As the Treasurer keeps telling us, that is where the facts and figures will be, but the people of Mitchell see this as a very slippery slope. We have it starting in the city, but where it will end is their concern.

I have had residents come and talk to me and they are very concerned. We have the biggest shopping precinct in the state in the electorate of Mitchell, the Westfield shopping precinct. It is getting bigger, it seems, by the minute. The Westfield Marion shopping complex has a lot of car parks, and I fear, and the residents of Mitchell fear, if we have a car park tax in the city, how long will it take before it evolves to the regions, before it evolves to Westfield Marion, before it perhaps heads down to the Hallett Cove shopping centre? Will it make its way to Colonnades? Will it make its way to the SA Aquatic Centre, the local library, maybe parks and even the beach? Who knows where this car park tax will end? That is the concern of a lot of people in the electorate of Mitchell.

I cannot speak on behalf of the mayor of the City of Marion or the mayor of the Onkaparinga council (both fit into my electorate), but I would be flabbergasted if they would condone a car park tax that could make its way into the suburbs and into shopping centres, as I said, like the Marion shopping centre and Colonnades. That is a great fear of the people of Mitchell. So, I suggest to the Treasurer: remove the car park tax altogether and allay the fears of the people of South Australia. It is a grave concern, and it is one that sits with the people in my electorate, and they are very worried about it.

There are a couple of other things that had been promised during the election. I really hope we can get these locked away and, again, I hope the Treasurer and the Premier are away considering these right at the minute. Both sides of this house committed at the election to providing a toilet block at the Southbank reserve in Sheidow Park. I did a lot of doorknocking in this area, and I met a lot of people in Sheidow Park. It is a wonderful suburb. Perhaps, when you come for a schnitzel with me at the Crown Inn—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am waiting for the invite.

Mr WINGARD: It is still coming, I know. The invite is coming. We will pick a night that suits us both. When we go up to Reynella, we can cut through Sheidow Park because there is a little back way through, and it is a nice little journey, too. It is a great suburban part of Adelaide. There are a lot of houses there and a lot of supermarkets, as I talked about in my maiden speech. A lot of facilities and supermarkets fall out of that region.

The suburban homes have a very nice park there. Again, both sides of the house promised at the last election that they would get a toilet block for that reserve. It is very difficult when a lot of families come to this venue where there are parks, as I say, playgrounds and the like. They come to meet at this venue and, as you would imagine with children under the age of four or five, if you have a little walk to get to this park from the moment you get there, if you take two or three kids with you, Murphy's Law says that as soon as you get there one of them has to go to the toilet.

There is no toilet block there. It is something that this area, this region of the state, this great suburb, has called for for a long, long time. It was with great pleasure that we committed to it. I know that it was committed to on the other side as well, so I really look forward to having the Premier and also the Treasurer let us know when it will go ahead and when it will be happening because the people of Sheidow Park are really looking forward to that commitment which was made, as I said, by both sides.

There was another amenity around Sheidow Park, in the adjacent suburb of Trott Park. We will do a tour, you and I. We are going to have a great time, I tell you. We will just travel around and check it out, Deputy Speaker. I can take you to Trott Park as well because there they promised a dog—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sounds like a week of my life!

Mr WINGARD: You are looking forward to that, aren't you? I can see.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a week of my life!

Mr WINGARD: A dog-friendly park was promised as well, and that is something the people of Trott Park have been looking for. They do not ask for a lot, but that is something they are after. Again, both sides of the house promised it at the last election.

It is a great facility. They do not call them dog parks anymore, I am told. They are called 'dog-friendly' parks because they are open to everyone, but there are facilities there for dogs to run around and do their bits and pieces without getting in anyone's way. They are very popular right throughout my electorate, where there are a number of them, and people love them dearly; up in Trott Park I am sure they will really appreciate this. Again, it was committed to by both sides, so I look forward to hearing when we will get that done.

I did talk about the infrastructure at Oaklands Park train station, and it was remiss of me not to say that we have put a request in to speak to and speak with the transport minister. We are just waiting for the transport minister to get back to us to find out more about what is happening and when it will happen, so we look forward to hearing from the transport minister as far as the Oaklands Park station and crossover are concerned, at the intersection there.

The other one that was spoken about very much in my electorate is in Reynella, too, not far from the Crown Inn hotel—that is, the sporting complex there. It is a great community complex that houses a number of different sporting teams who all work very well together. It was a great experience during the election campaign to work with so many of these organisations. The bowls club does a marvellous job, as do the tennis club, the cricket club and the football club.

There is also a pistol and rifle shooting club there which, incidentally, has a couple of young athletes, who I will talk about later in this house when I have the time, who are off to the Commonwealth Games. They are a couple of young stars in the making from down Reynella way, and they will be people to watch out for when the Commonwealth Games roll around in Glasgow a little later this year.

The facility is down there as well. They are a great group of people who go about doing their own thing and do not create much of a fuss, but they did look at and did ask for bituminising around the edge of their facility. As I said, it takes in all those clubs that I just mentioned. In the summertime, when you go there and play cricket, people drive around the edge of the oval to get to their different venues. Dust blows up and blows right across the oval. You end up choking, and it makes the sausages taste terrible. The dust that blows through is quite confronting.

Likewise, in the wintertime, as the winter sports are played—I did not mention the netball club that is down there as well—they drive around to get to the netball club and they drive through mud and slush. You get out of your car and you are stepping in mud. It is a dust bowl in the summertime, it is mud and slush in the wintertime, and we are looking at getting some bituminising around there.

That was something that we did commit to during the election campaign. The other side did not commit to that, unfortunately, but we are hoping that in the spirit of goodwill they will come and have a look at this project. We will invite the Minister for Transport to come and have a look as well, and perhaps while we are doing the Southern Expressway we could get around to getting a little bit of that extra bitumen that might be left over at some stage and getting it around the edge of this great community facility.

It has got a lot of sporting clubs, as I mentioned, but there are also other community facilities that it is used for. There is a good community club there, and it is used by the seniors as well. It is a great area and a great part of the electorate of Mitchell, which hopefully, as they sit down and do the budget, the Premier and Treasurer will be able to find some money in their budget to make that happen.

They are a couple of the things that are important to the people of Mitchell—just a couple of small projects. There are some bigger projects that we can talk about later, such as the Southern Expressway that has been done. The people of Sheidow Park and Trott Park have had that go through their backyard during the months that it has taken to build—just over 12 months, I think, heading towards 18 months.

It has been a long project, and runs right through the heartland of Sheidow Park and Trott Park, but unfortunately for them they were ignored in the duplication and there is no on-off ramp at this part of the Southern Expressway. They have had all the building go on, and they have had it go through their backyard—the dust storms—and they have lived through the mess, but they will get no benefit from it.

That is another issue that I would like to take up with the transport minister when we do get that opportunity, because the Southern Expressway is great for the people of my region, but not being able to access it or use it is a great concern. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, again I invite you down to the electorate of Mitchell. We will take you on a wonderful tour; the $7 schnitzel is coming your way, and I look forward to it.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. The only sport he did not mention during his contribution was calisthenics and, if he does not know, he should know that will be the lure to get me to Mitchell.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (20:51): I rise to continue my remarks on the Supply Bill, which is currently before the house. In particular, I would like to draw the house's attention to the comments that have been made in the media today by both the Treasurer and I regarding the car park tax, which the government continues to call a transport development levy, but we all know exactly and precisely what this transport development levy is: it is a tax. It is all designed to raise money for this cash-strapped government which has led our state into this desperate position in terms of the budget.

We have been out there for an extended period of time—in fact, ever since the government raised the prospect of this hideous additional tax here in South Australia—on the record, saying that we do not support a car park tax. You will recall, Deputy Speaker, that the first person to speak about this was three treasurers ago. When the member for Playford was the treasurer, he announced in the Mid-Year Budget Review in December that they would be introducing a transport development levy (or a car park tax) to hit the people of South Australia. This was continued by the next treasurer of South Australia, the Premier (the member for Cheltenham).

All the way through last year, it was the Liberal Party, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, which was asking important questions in this house about the implementation of this new tax. Right from day one, we have been asking questions about the implementation of this new tax. Well, guess what? We have actually got a new Treasurer, so this is the third treasurer (currently the member for West Torrens) that we have been asking questions about this implementation. Guess what? Still no answers.

Let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, this new car park tax comes into account in a few days time. It comes into effect on 1 July, yet today in the house, when we were asking questions of the Treasurer, of the previous treasurer (the now Premier) and of the treasurer before that (the Minister for Health), asking about what the GST implications of this new car park tax would be, none of them had any idea.

I asked this question of the Premier in November last year, and he said, 'I'll take that question on notice.' Well, call me crazy, but I would have expected—and I think most reasonable people would have expected—that the treasurer taking a question on notice about a tax which is going to come into effect by 1 July, would have got around to it some time before that tax was implemented. We know that we are now only days away from the implementation of this tax and there are no answers whatsoever from those opposite because they are not taking this seriously. They are not dealing with the parliament in a respectful way and they are not dealing with the public in a respectful way.

Well, let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever—and I think you would appreciate this—that the government's transport levy can be in place by 1 July, yet people in South Australia have been told that this tax will come into effect on 1 July, but no enabling legislation has been presented to this house to date. Even if the Treasurer came into this place tomorrow and put the draft bill on the table and he started the negotiations, there is no chance that it would be in place before 1 July.

What are people who have a car park meant to be doing on 1 July? Are they meant to be putting up their prices to accommodate this car park tax? How is it going to be levied? Is GST payable on this? Is this what they are to do? Let's say that they put that in place and the car park tax does not get through, do they have to refund that money to the people they have inadvertently charged a tax that never came into law? Or, alternatively, if they leave the rate at the current level, they do not charge the levy, what happens if the law comes in to place and it is retrospective to 1 July, what are they meant to do—pay it out of their own pocket? It is a mess, and it has been a mess for an extended period time, and that is why those people on this side of the house have been making it very clear that we need some answers.

Last night, in frustration, I announced in this house that, regardless of what happens with the introduction of this car park tax, the Liberal Party will not be supporting it, and I outlined the reasons to this house why we will not be supporting the car park tax. So, it was to my shock and amazement today that the Treasurer went on radio and started to say, 'This is disgraceful! We can't believe the Liberal Party would be doing this. This is a break of convention.' In fact, yesterday in the house—and I have been handed this document from our very efficient whip on this side of the house—he said:

The Transport Development Levy will be a budget measure and I expect, in the traditions of this house, that it will be a bipartisan measure.

Well, let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, it will not be a bipartisan measure. We spoke about this all the way through the election campaign. The people of South Australia do not want another tax here in South Australia. We are already the highest business taxed state in the nation. Our economy in South Australia has ground to a halt, and we do not believe that we are gong to have a taxation-led recovery in South Australia. New taxes are not going to grow the prosperity of our state, and that is why we say that it is not going to happen.

The Treasurer says, 'This is going to cause a constitutional crisis.' Well, it is not, and I will explain to the house, and I will lay it down so that it is permanently in Hansard, why it is not going to cause a constitutional crisis. We are going to pass the Supply Bill. The bill that is currently before the house to guarantee the supply will be passed. I am the lead speaker on this bill, and I have already indicated to the house that we will be passing it.

The Appropriation Bill is normally in the same format as the Supply Bill, Yes, there can be some budget measure bills which sit alongside this Appropriation Bill, and we will vote against it. I believe that we will have the numbers in the Legislative Council to block that tax because the Hon. John Darley and also the Family First Party have said that they will vote against the car park tax. If it is introduced as a separate budget measures bill, it can be voted down without in any way touching the appropriation or the supply of money to keep our state operating.

So, why is the Treasurer so concerned? I put it to you that he wants to create a sense of crisis regarding this. He wants to see the Liberal Party back down from its position. Well, we will not; I can guarantee you that we will not. The only possible way he believes he will force us to back down is if he imbeds the transport development levy into the Appropriation Bill. This is completely unorthodox.

I say to the Treasurer: do not call our bluff, because we are not deviating. We are not changing our position. We are going to hold fast to the position that we took to the election—the position which is good for the people of South Australia and small businesses, the people who shop in the CBD, the people who live in the CBD and the people who work in the CBD. They do not want this tax. It is quite clear they do not want this tax, and that is our position.

There is no crisis whatsoever. Introduce it as a budget measures bill. We will defeat it. We will see what happens on the vote on the day, but we will certainly be voting against it and we have every indication others in the Legislative Council will be voting with the Liberal Party to defeat this tax, because we do not need it here in South Australia.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (21:00): Can I firstly begin by also echoing the sentiments of our leader that we in Hartley, representing many people who travel to the city for work, education and recreational activities, are also against this toxic car park tax, and we will certainly be opposing this tax when it is voted on.

Tonight, I wish to allude to three community projects. There is an array of projects that I could draw the attention of the house to, some of which I have touched on in previous speeches, but tonight I wish to speak on three community projects in the Hartley area, and I implore and ask the government to support these. The three projects are, first, the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, secondly, the Hectorville Sports and Community Club upgrade and, thirdly, the Felixstow master plan.

Beginning with the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, the centre is a fantastic facility. However, it requires substantial upgrade and there are, currently, plans to redevelop it. For those in the house who are unaware, it is actually the signature sporting and community redevelopment project being undertaken in the north-eastern suburbs. Both sides of politics had the opportunity before the March state election to put their case forward for an upgrade. Unlike those opposite me, it was only the Liberal Party that had the courage and the conviction to commit more funds to this project to ensure that an eight-lane FINA-qualified swimming pool would be featured in this upgrade.

As well, we are going to make sure there is a cafe in the upgraded leisure centre. We are going to make sure that children in Hartley will have the opportunity to learn to swim in the heart of Hartley, in Campbelltown. When the local government, the Campbelltown City Council, went to those opposite a second time and asked them to provide some money, the previous member for Hartley was unable to deliver that.

But I am here and I am proud to say that, because of the state Liberals' lobbying, there will be an upgrade of the Campbelltown Leisure Centre. It is going to be over $22 million. It will include $7.5 million being contributed by the local federal member for Sturt's government and $3.6 million contributed by the state government, and the rest will be contributed by local government and organisations.

It is, obviously, a facility that is used by thousands of visitors, sporting users and recreational users every month, and I am proud to say, Deputy Speaker, that calisthenics will be conducted at the centre and you are more than welcome. Once the ribbon is cut and it is opened, I will buy the Deputy Speaker a coffee and I will take you through the—

Mr Gardner: A cup of tea.

Mr TARZIA: Yes, a cup of tea, perhaps. I will take you through the facility, and let's work out a way that calisthenics can play a major part in the north-eastern suburbs. We would be happy to accommodate that in Hartley.

Obviously, there are a number of benefits of this leisure centre. There are the recreational and amenities aspects and, also, the fact that it will employ dozens of local people in the area. Obviously, there are many benefits in sport. Sport teaches you how to win, which is what we did in Hartley—we won. It teaches you how to lose as well, which sometimes is part of life, as we all know. It teaches you about being disciplined and being healthy.

I would certainly encourage the Treasurer, if he is listening at home (and I know he listens at home at times to these debates), since he does write the cheques, to please dig deep and put some money aside for the Campbelltown Leisure Centre, the Hectorville Sports and Community Club and the Felixstow master plan.

This leads on to my second project, the Hectorville Sports and Community Club, a fantastic local sporting club; a club which has over 700 members, I am led to believe, and it features many sports. It is actually in its 50th year, and what better way to help that club than by providing some funds to this great organisation? Of course, again, both sides of politics had the opportunity to make a pledge to this sports and community club. The Liberal candidate for Hartley—who is now myself as the member—pledged $57,000 to the Hectorville Sports and Community Club. Unfortunately, the previous member for Hartley short-changed the club and only committed $43,000. What an absolute shame that was.

The club is a great club, but the facilities are quite ageing in some areas, and I would encourage the current government and the Treasurer, if he is listening, to help these people out at the Hectorville Sports and Community Club. It is a fantastic club. Hundreds of volunteers go week in and week out. They cook the sausages at the sausage sizzles; they sell the scones during the week; they do all kinds of things to make this club run financially.

They have a big wish list that they wish to expand on, including greater disability access in terms of a ramp, an extended balcony, a new members area, a general clubroom upgrade, as well as a kitchen and bar area refurbishment, and improved lightning. It is a great club, but it could be much better, and I would encourage the current government to dig deep and help the Hectorville Sports and Community Club in the upcoming budget.

I want to talk a little bit about the notable recent achievements of the club. Firstly, in 2009 Hectorville were premiers in division 6 A grade premiers; in cricket most recently they were the B grade premiers of the B3 competition in 2002 and 2003; in netball they have also a wide range of achievements, including in 2013 being the sub 4 junior premiers; and in tennis, they were division 3 girls winter premiers in 2013. It is a fantastic club, but it could be much better if this government took them seriously and gave them a bit more money than $43,000.

My final point, because I know it is getting late at night, is the Felixstow Reserve Master Plan. This is a great example of different tiers of government working together for a great cause. We all know that water is a very scarce resource, especially in the north-eastern and eastern suburbs. We have had some dry spells over the years, and what is a more precious resource than our water?

I am pleased to say that the Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council, the council that I was a part of for almost four years as a local councillor, has taken the lead role, and it is a commendable role, to make sure that they develop the Felixstow Reserve Master Plan. It is about 1.5 hectares to two hectares and it is likely to be turned into a wetland as part of a $28 million Waterproofing the East project which was announced last year. I am proud to say as a local councillor I was part of the council which approved the planning process for this.

The council has currently pledged to spend $85,000 developing a master plan for the Langman Grove Reserve in conjunction with plans to harvest stormwater at the reserve. Now, this is obviously in addition to the $9.5 million promised by the federal government. It is a great example, I am led to believe through speaking to His Worship the Mayor this morning, of five council areas working together for a fantastic cause.

Other works suggested for part of the reserve include viewing platforms for the wetland, some artwork, some walkways, and other new and exciting facilities for the whole community to enjoy. I am certainly looking forward to updating the house over the coming months and the coming years as to how this development has affected and improved the local area.

I am hopeful that this is a successful project, unlike the Rann government project in Lochiel Park which to this day continues to have a failed gross pollutant trap (GPT), and those poor residents in Lochiel Park in Campbelltown have not been able to access recycled water since the inception of the development. Shame on this government. While I am at it, I also implore the government to dedicate funds to make sure that the GPT in Lochiel Park in Campbelltown is fixed.

This is a great sustainable project. It is a fantastic opportunity. It will allow people and our local council area to be self-sufficient, you could say. I call on the government to contribute not only to this project but the three projects that I have mentioned tonight. As I said, I hope the Treasurer is listening and writes these projects, with due respect, with some money in the upcoming budget.

Mr SPEIRS (Bright) (21:10): Tonight I rise to speak about a couple of projects that are very important to my community that I represent in the electorate of Bright. First up, I want to talk about the Brighton Rugby Union Football Club. This is a really interesting and important club in the community of Bright, one of the most successful rugby clubs in South Australia, and in fact in Australia's history with many back-to-back championships to its name.

I have a bit of a story here, Deputy Speaker, so please humour me. I was called to a meeting two days before the state election at the Brighton Rugby Union Football Club and at that meeting I found my main opponent in that election, the former member for Bright (Hon. Chloe Fox), with whom, as I have mentioned, I have had a very good relationship over the years and a very amiable election campaign. She was in attendance and it was an opportunity for the club to show us their very downtrodden facilities that had not been invested in since the 1970s. It has fallen short of disability access requirements and really did not meet the needs of a rapidly expanding club like the rugby club is.

I sympathised with the club but obviously two days before the state election I was not in a position to make any commitment to help that club apart from promising to form a strong relationship with them and to advocate on their behalf no matter what the outcome of the election would be two days later. The election came and went and I was obviously successfully elected to represent that area, and a great privilege that is. What subsequently turned up, though, was a letter which was presented to me by the Brighton Rugby Union Football Club board. They presented me with the letter because a Labor government unfortunately had been re-elected and they were in possession of a promise—something I see as a contract between a Labor government and that club—a funding promise. I quote one of the paragraphs in that letter, written by the former member for Bright to the rugby club, and remember that this was hand delivered to them the day before the election:

Upon careful examination of your community facilities upgrade proposal, I would like to propose that a Labor government would commit to a funding model wherein $1 million would be provided by a combination of the club and the council (according to a ratio to be decided by those parties). That sum would then be matched by the State Government.

Clearly this pledge was made in contemplation that not only the local member would be defeated the following day but also that the Labor government would be defeated the following day because, when asked in this house about this matter, the Minister for Recreation and Sport threw his hands up in the air and knew nothing of it. He claimed that the government would not be providing any funds towards Brighton Rugby Union Football Club and instead this club would be left high and dry.

But they have a letter. This is in writing, a promise that a state Labor government will commit $1 million if elected, and they were, sad to say in some places but not sad for Brighton Rugby Union Football Club, re-elected.

This leaves us with a tricky situation. However, I was heartened when the Treasurer stepped in to save the Minister for Recreation and Sport saying, 'We're going to look at and consider every promise that was made as we move towards the budget.' So really what I am saying tonight is that there is an opportunity for the Treasurer and the state government, as they formulate the state budget to be handed down later this month, to restore faith in our democratic system and among the good members of the Brighton Rugby Union Football Club and to actually commit and fulfil that promise of $1 million as proposed and promised by the previous member for Bright.

I guess the disappointment and disbelief that this club is experiencing leaves me to worry about another promise that was made by the government, a matched promise in the lead-up to the state election. Back in November 2013 the member for Mitchell and myself, when we were candidates for neighbouring seats down in the south, made a pledge that, if elected, we would provide $500,000 to another great club down in the southern suburbs, and that is the Cove Sports and Community Club.

Mr Gardner: If a Liberal government was elected.

Mr SPEIRS: If a Liberal government was elected. The Cove Sports and Community Club is right down in the south of my electorate. It is pretty much at the most southerly point. They actually had not been blessed with the presence of either the former member for Bright or the former member for Mitchell for many, many years. In fact, they did not even know who the former member for Mitchell was. As soon as the current member for Mitchell and myself made this promise I had this picture in my head of phone calls between the former members, 'Where's the Cove Sports and Community Club?' and then getting out a GPS, plugging it into their car and making their way down to Oval Road at Hallett Cove and finding this place in their electorate that they had never been to before. It is a sure way to lose votes—you could actually hear the votes tumbling into the ballot box for the current member for Mitchell and myself.

Turning up at a club that you have not been to during your entire term in office and making a pledge plays directly into the cynicism. That is why people in South Australia are so sick of politics—politicians only turn up at election time and wave their hands and say, 'I'll get you something because it's election time and I want your vote.' Well, that does not work. In the Cove Sports and Community Club they have a corner with a varnished wooden sign which says 'Grumpy Old Men's Corner'. That corner is where the gospel is laid out in that club. They told the former member for Bright and the former member for Mitchell where to go with their promised $453,000 grant.

However, we have a situation where the Labor government has made this promise and a club that is crying out for the investment which will provide new change rooms and new lighting, support the BMX club and the soccer club and provide other benefits for the netball club, the cricket club and the football club. Sorry, no calisthenics though at that site, but I do have calisthenics at the Seacliff Calisthenics Club just down the road, so we are catering for it in the wider community.

The Cove Sports and Community Club led by Keith Noble as the manager—and Keith is a fellow Scotsman—is in a fabulous financial situation. I cannot help but wonder whether that is because they have a Scot in charge of their finances and how the state government might benefit from more Scots involved in their fiscal ways.

Keith Noble is someone who is to be hugely applauded for the way he has managed that club and been able to create a surplus in that club's finances—something that not a lot of community clubs can actually say they have—to be able to contribute towards this upgrade, which includes money from the City of Marion council and also a state government pledge, and we hope it is a pledge. We know it is in writing, not that that seems to make a great deal of difference in my community with this government.

However, we are really hopeful that the government, when it comes to providing the funds that have been promised to the Cove Sports and Community Club, does follow through with that and is able to create an improved suite of facilities in one of the key clubs in my community, the largest club in the community and a club that has a huge benefit for the member for Mitchell's electorate as well.

It is a club that was long ignored by the state government, but I am glad that we have been able to bring the government along on the journey with the Cove Sports and Community Club. Hopefully this will lead to an honouring of the funding that was pledged by the government, and it will be provided in the new financial year. I, along with Keith Noble, the manager, and Andy Fry, the head of the soccer club there, will be greatly encouraged by the state government's support.

Motion carried.

Third Reading

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (21:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.


At 21:22 the house adjourned until Thursday 5 June 2014 at 10:30.


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