HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-08-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Regional Impact Assessment Statements

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:03): I move:

That this house—

(a) supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact assessment statements, with the ability to call witnesses, and

(b) urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(i) guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(ii) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

This is an important one, actually. It is a real issue of principle, for the reason I actually sought the opportunity to be in parliament, namely, to represent regional communities, and also to ensure that information flows, which has to be a prime focus when decisions are made.

In doing some research on the regional impact assessment statements, I am, at some level, impressed by the fact that a policy has been in place since 2003 that applies to all state governments, agencies and statutory authorities. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that the state government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions—that is a clear issue for me here—which significantly impact upon community services and standards are implemented.

Part of the reason why I have moved this is because of the fact that I have asked the Minister for Regional Development questions in the chamber, and it was not apparent to me that the minister understood this process. I recognise, though, that the minister has, as part of estimates, talked quite strongly about a review that is being undertaken of the regional impact assessment statement process, but my desire here is to ensure that it goes beyond what is currently the case where it is part of a cabinet consideration, and is referred to the Economic and Finance Committee of the parliament—a standing committee of the parliament—which has the ability to call witnesses and, therefore, review information and make that information part of the public knowledge.

There will be some who will probably argue that there is a need to not necessarily fully disclose all information to the community. I come from the belief that communities need to be engaged. They need to be aware of reasons for actions to potentially be taken and the reasons as to why an eventual decision has been made. This is an important measure, I believe, in allowing the disclosure to occur within a standing committee of the parliament and for the review to be undertaken.

The guidelines for the regional impact assessment statement reflect that the implementing agency's assessment and consultation with the affected community in relation to the planned changes is to be completed before implementation of that change. There have been, I believe, five examples on the website of post-2010 areas in which a regional impact assessment statement has been undertaken, and I might just list those: Berri General Hospital, ForestrySA in the South-East region of South Australia, the Whyalla Cancer Centre redevelopment project, the Poochera police station and the Narrung police station.

I think it is fair to say that, from our side of the chamber, there would be many instances of decisions where either proposals have been made for significant changes in regional communities, or actions have been taken to implement changes in regional communities, and a regional impact assessment statement has not been undertaken. I am flabbergasted that, while a policy has been in place since 2003, and the government, in its form since 2002, has had a Minister for Regional Development in all that time, from the variety of people who have held those ministerial positions for regional development there has not been a demand to ensure that, in the examples I am about to quote—and they are just some of them—a regional impact assessment statement has been undertaken.

A great example was when the state government announced its decision to cut the Cadell ferry service in 2012. There was a significant backlash, public meetings involving hundreds and hundreds of people from that area who were impacted by that, and a change in policy.

There was the closure of the centre for community and business services in Berri, and the restructure of country courts and the regional court circuit. I believe, Mr Speaker, you were the Attorney at the time of that being implemented, when decisions were made to reduce the hours of operation and the available public hours of access to those facilities across four centres in South Australia, with one in Kadina being in my own electorate.

There were the speed limit reductions on regional roads. This is subject to another motion and has been talked about regularly. There were significant changes in 2005 and significant changes from late 2011, so there have been two stages of this process where it would appear as though a regional impact assessment statement has not been undertaken.

Again, something that is very close and dear to my heart are the funding cuts to the Moonta, Keith and Ardrossan hospitals from several years ago. These are community-based, admittedly private hospitals, but they are driven solely by the need to service the community. The withdrawal of the funding decision—about $1.08 million, I believe—placed an enormous pressure on the future of those facilities, that have done some great work, in association with support provided by SA Health, to actually give themselves a business plan.

The concern it created in the community continues to this day—I myself spoke at a rally in Moonta on Friday afternoon that included a thousand people—and goes to show that there needs to be accurate information. We cannot afford to just make decisions in isolation; we need to ensure that consideration is given to the impact upon regional communities and that a level of discussion and dialogue is occurring.

There is a great concern that the regional impact assessment statements have not been undertaken as they should have been. Since 2003 I think it is a grand total of 21. Beyond the ones that are publicly available on the website post 2010, and based on a freedom of information request that I lodged, there are none; there are no others that actually exist. Yet we know that decisions have been made.

It does go to show that, regarding the words of the Minister for Regional Development in estimates when he talked about a review of that process, one would hope that, coming from a regional community, he would ensure it would be a very strident review that ensures the policy in place since 2002 is abided by, and that this work is undertaken and will flow through to a level of support for our proposal for it to be referred to the Economic and Finance Committee of the parliament.

All of us—and there will be other members in this chamber who will stand up and talk about this—do so not (from my point of view anyway, I don't know from the others) from a political pointscoring opportunity but to ensure that information flow is there and that people's concerns are being addressed. As a member of this house, every day people are contacting us either personally or through our electorate offices, and we are being involved in issues where there is an impact upon the community. It is suburban, outer metropolitan, CBD, and regional.

That is where government information flow, and ensuring that the policy, which is quite often determined at a higher level by the government but fully implemented by the bureaucracy, is fully understood in terms of what the implications of it are. It is only through that actual planning process that you can give consideration to the practical aspects of its implementation, be it positive or negative, and what the impacts of it will actually be.

It is for that reason we have submitted this. I hope that the member for Frome, the Minister for Regional Development, on the basis of this going to a vote, will indicate his support for it. I believe it is an extension of what his statements have been. To me it enforces the frustration of having a Minister for Regional Development for so long that there has been a failing of the system; for a minister to hold such a responsible position for the over 300,000 people who live in regional South Australia not to have ensured that some of the decisions made in recent years have considered this process. It is a valid process and one which, if we ever get to sit on the other side in my time in this place, I will ensure is used as stridently and as often as humanly possible, because the information flow is there. It does need to occur.

I think it was in mid June that I asked the Minister for Regional Development a question about it. I was not trying to be smart; I was trying to find out what knowledge he had, after being in that role for about three months, what he understood of the process. The question was posed quite seriously, and I do not believe I am misrepresenting the minister when I say that he had a bit of a shocked look on his face regarding what I was actually talking about. In that time frame he has certainly upskilled himself; he has expanded upon it during the estimates period, the intention for the review to be undertaken.

However, it was emphasised to me, when I asked the question in mid June, that the minister himself did not answer it. It was specifically directed to him because of the key input that he will have and the opportunity for it to work properly. It was the Treasurer who actually answered it—and I do not believe he gave a very successful attempt to answer that—but the member for Frome looked at me and, if I remember correctly, I think there was a little shake of the head as if to indicate 'I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about.'

This is an opportunity for all of us to move forward. It is an opportunity for, firstly, the bureaucracy to do the work to ensure the information is there for those who make the decisions, and there is an opportunity for a good committee of the parliament of seven members, made up of both sides of the chamber, to review this and look at it, I think, in a very bipartisan way to ensure that the review they undertake has an opportunity also to guide.

There is a collection of good minds associated with the Economic and Finance Committee. I have confidence in the way that it is run, based on my own personal experience of sitting on that committee several times, and in the fact that they do look at what is the greater good for the community; there is absolutely no doubt about that.

I think this is a great chance for the referral to take place, for that committee to have the authority to consider the issues associated with it, within fairly tight time frames, though, and to have the opportunity to call witnesses who can be relied upon to expand upon some comments that might be included in the regional impact assessment statement and to ensure that outcomes come from it.

There will be a feedback opportunity and there will be a chance for that committee to determine a report, which will have to go back via the minister and then back into the cabinet process but which is available for public scrutiny because there will be a record of it, and even those not on the committee will be able to review the issues. Those not on the committee will have the opportunity to feed in issues and, if it is localised to their electorate or to the region, suburb or metropolitan electorate they come from, to feed issues through to one of its members to ensure that the appropriate questions are asked, and when good questions are asked I think you get better outcomes.

This is a positive step forward. I know that the Liberal Party will be supporting it, and I hope that the government sees this as a step forward and as an opportunity to improve a process to ensure public scrutiny, and that we get the outcomes we are all here for, that is, positive outcomes for the wider community at large. I hope that the house decides to support this motion for referral.

The SPEAKER: The member for Goyder is still a young man. He may be on the government benches sometime soon.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:17): Mr Speaker, you grace us this morning with your presence, not that you do not often. I want to say first of all that as much as I believe the Adelaide Crows are the team for all South Australians, indeed I believe that the state government of South Australia should be the government for all South Australians.

I think those two things hold true and I think those two things hold together but, alas, in this state Labor government's case I believe that there is some serious deficiency. The regional impact assessment statement policy that was put in place by this Labor government is a recognition of the fact that they have failed to do that on many levels when it comes to looking after the interests of regional South Australia.

This is a government that has on so many occasions shown itself up to be a very city-centric, very North Terrace-focused government; indeed, they implemented this policy as a direct acknowledgement of their own failure to think beyond the city mile. Can I say from the outset that I applaud them for bringing in this policy. It is good honest government, and this policy, as it was intended, is a great way for the government to be able to consider the needs of all South Australia.

It is very important that this state Labor government implements this policy because they do not have the level of regional representation that we on this side of the house have. I think that that is a fact, and it has been a fact for a long period of time and, again, I think that this policy acknowledges that fact. What I find as a country member, and what many of my side who share regional South Australia as part of their electorates would find quite amusing, is that as a local member I live the regional impact assessment statement policy every single day. I deal with the impacts of government policy on regional South Australia every single day, and this policy would be a great way, if implemented properly, for us to have our voices heard.

On the point of this Labor government being city-centric, it was extremely explicit in the 2014 election campaign and confirmed as much during the Address in Reply speeches given by members opposite following the 2014 election. I refer quite specifically to the speeches by the member for Newland and the member for Colton, who in this place, in response to speeches by members on this side of the house in regard to this government having failed regional South Australia, laughed at an election strategy that tried to win votes across this entire state. In fact, they were quite joyful and delighted by the fact that we chose, as a mainstream political party, to try to govern and put together a policy for all South Australians.

Indeed, they were quite happy and delighted to tell us that they had a strategy that focused on 10 marginal seats—no more, no less—and that because those marginal seats did not fall within regional South Australia those votes did not matter. I find that disgusting, I find it deplorable. For a government that seeks to be all things to all people, it is a frank admission of the fact that they simply are not, and this policy is another reminder and an acknowledgement by them of that fact.

When I go to the content of the RIAS policy, there are four guiding principles. The first principle is 'community and stakeholder consultation for open, accountable and responsible decision-making'. That sounds pretty good. The second is 'transparency of administration'. I do enjoy the member for Bright's contributions in this place, and I think he has talked a lot about this government's transparency of administration, although I understand it is selective transparency based on your first and last name and where you may work.

The third principle—and this is the one I find the most interesting—is 'reasonable equity in accessing government services and facilities', and I would like to explore that more deeply in a moment. The fourth principle is the 'degree of impact being relative to the population and size of the service delivery area concerned'.

When it comes to principle 3, 'reasonable equity in accessing government services and facilities', I have a number of issues where there is inequity in access to government services, and the first of those is public transport. There was debate in this place yesterday about public transport, and there were some interjections, which I understand are out of order and that it is out of order to respond, Deputy Speaker. But there was an interjection on the other side, 'Instead of driving a car into the city and having to pay the car park tax, why not catch public transport?' Well, in my electorate of Schubert it is extremely difficult to catch decent public transport.

Some officers within my local council did a case study on accessing public transport services from the Barossa to Adelaide. The detail of their experience was that, because of the way the timetable works, a 'day trip' was about an eight-hour round trip. They missed the connection to Gawler and had to wait about an extra 15 to 20 minutes to catch a connecting service. When they got to Adelaide, they were stuck here until the early afternoon before they could catch the first available service back.

They tell me that service cost them around the $30 to $35 mark for the round trip, and all in all they discussed the extreme difficulty that people living in my electorate have when it comes to accessing public transport. This to me seems a clear example of where regional impact assessment statements could give an understanding to this government of some of the difficulties which exist within my electorate.

When it comes to health services, a number of constituents have come to me talking about the difficulty they have in accessing dialysis services. I do applaud the fact that Gawler has received an extra four chairs, and they are to be built in this coming year to service the regional area. I would contend that they would be much better placed by putting those chairs into the Barossa to service a wider country area. Having said that, I think that fight has been had and lost. There is a number of other services, such as chemotherapy and surgery, where the electorate of Schubert simply does not have reasonable equity and access to government services.

The last point I would like to make on that is I have been interacting quite a lot more with my Medicare Local. It covers quite a broad area across the north of the state, and they say most of the time they have spent is setting up Adelaide health services in regional areas where they do not exist. The city region has access to all of these services and the work they have put in has been to create those services because none exists currently. I think that, again, speaks to the inequality in reasonable access to government services.

I believe the RIAS policy is very worthwhile and that it will help this government to see beyond North Terrace. We are going to have a debate maybe later this week in regard to a commissioner for Kangaroo Island, and I believe the proper implementation of this policy would negate the need for a KI commissioner. There is already a policy in place and a framework in place. There is a beautiful flow chart that exists within the policy. It is very straightforward. I think members of the cabinet, when making a cabinet submission, could quite simply read this. It would take maybe 30 seconds to a minute or two minutes, depending on the reading skill.

It is a very simple way to include regional South Australia in this government's decision-making. It is already there and it is already set up. There is no need for extra bureaucracy. Simply implement the policy that you have now and use it to its full extent, and you will actually see the outcomes and understand the issues without having to create more and more government.

I believe that in my community there is a number of sensitive issues, whether it be a proposed dolomite mine at Nain or wind farms at Palmer and Keyneton (one of which is approved and one of which is going through the process), where my community is divided and do not always have access to the best information. The implementation of this policy, in a proper sense, would help to give comfort and information to my community and help this government understand the issues that exist on these topics instead of making blind statements from North Terrace whilst realising they are never going to have to come out and deal with the fallout that their decisions create. With that, I support this motion.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:27): It is my pleasure to strongly support the member for Goyder's motion that he has put to parliament today:

That this house—

(a) supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact assessment statements, with the ability to call witnesses, and

(b) urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(i) guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(ii) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

I strongly support this motion on behalf of the people of Stuart, both as a regional MP and as somebody who is proudly fighting for the best results that I can get from the government for the people I represent and also as a member of the Economic and Finance Committee—albeit a new member of the committee. I think this is a very important and worthy suggestion.

It is a tremendous parallel to the fact that significant public works with a value over, I think, $5 million have to be referred to the Public Works Committee, and there is a very important principle there. The work that the government is doing is on behalf of all South Australians, so while, of course, it consults and deals internally with its own departments and makes decisions that go through cabinet, etc., there is a very important principle that when they are going to spend a significant amount of taxpayers' money on significant projects it gives a parliamentary committee the opportunity to oversee that decision and call witnesses to discuss the recommendation that the government has made.

I think that it would show the state government in exceptionally poor light if it were not to apply exactly the same principle to regional impact assessment statements, because that would be saying, ‘If we’re going to spend $5 million, $10 million, $50 million or $100 million on a project, which would typically be in the metropolitan area, we’ll let parliament have a look at it. But if we’re going to do it in a regional area we’re not going to let the parliament look at it.’ I think any fair-minded person would consider that to be quite untenable and indefensible. To me, that is the foundation of my support for the member for Goyder’s very positive motion.

Let me also just share some information that the member for Goyder has provided. The state government’s regional impact assessment policy came into operation on 1 July 2003 and it applies to all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities. However, only five regional impact assessment statements have been completed since 2010 by all government departments, agencies and statutory authorities, and no regional impact assessment statements were prepared during the 2013-14 financial year.

What that says to me is that there is a rule in place that the government has set for itself. The government said that it would follow this process, but in fact it is actually not following the process, or it is not undertaking any projects in regional South Australia which should fall under the process. It must be one or the other. Either the government is not pursuing projects, which we would all hope would benefit regional South Australia, or, if it is actually going to be a detriment, it has thoroughly considered what that detriment might be.

Or, if that is not the case, then the government is just not bringing the statements forward. It is not doing the statements as it said it would and it is not providing the thorough analysis of the impact, which the government said it would actually do.

I will give you a very well known and very important example, and that is of the government’s intention to remove the Cadell Ferry. The government said that it would remove the Cadell Ferry; it just made an announcement one day. It did not consult locally, it did not consult with the community that relies on the ferry. It did not consult with anybody. It did not do a regional impact statement and, very unfortunately for the government, this decision was made near estimates. I asked minister after minister, ‘Will you consider it?’ And the answers were continually no. So not only did the government not undertake a regional impact assessment study, it had not even consulted internally, because each minister, one after the other, said, ‘Well, actually, no, nobody spoke to me,’ etc.

I am not sure whether this is to the government’s credit or whether the government thought it had absolutely no choice, but let me be as kind as possible: to the government’s credit, the government reversed that decision. However, I know, without any shadow of doubt whatsoever, that if the local community at Cadell and the communities up and down the Murray River that supported them and the communities even in Adelaide had not stood up so strongly and so sternly and made it so clear what a dreadful decision the government had made, the government would not have reversed its decision.

This is a shining example of why the member for Goyder’s motion is so positive. If the government had followed its own rules, the rules it had set for itself, and if the government had undertaken a regional impact assessment statement, it could have avoided all of that pain. The government could have avoided all of the pain and angst that it brought upon itself and, even more importantly, on the local communities: the local CFS, the local Meals on Wheels people, the local families who used the ferry to get their kids to school, the local growers who used the ferry to get their agricultural machinery back and forth across the river. All of the supportive communities would not have had to go through the angst and the heartache and the effort that they went through to force the government to change its mind if the government had just followed its own rules.

The member for Goyder's suggestion is very sensible: every time the government wants to undertake a project like this, or any project that would have an impact on regional South Australia, it must complete a regional impact assessment statement, and the very important part of this proposal is that it must give the parliament's Economic and Finance Committee the opportunity to review that study.

This motion does two things: first, it strongly encourages the government to actually do the study because it knows it is going to be asked some questions; and, secondly, it gives a bipartisan cross-chamber economic and finance standing committee the opportunity to review that study. Let me hope that that would encourage the government—perhaps force the government—to follow their own rules properly and to do a thorough and valid regional impact assessment statement, and to know that it is going to be looked at seriously by good people from both sides of this chamber on the Economic and Finance Committee.

The government will know that the project is going to be investigated and that witnesses could be called, so hopefully then the work is done properly from the ground up. The government could avoid an enormous amount of angst for itself, because if you know the scrutiny is coming then you do the job properly to start with. That is what is behind the member for Goyder's very positive suggestion and that is why I support it so wholeheartedly.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:36): I rise to support the motion by the member for Goyder:

That this house—

(a) supports the referral to the Economic and Finance Committee of all regional impact assessment statements, with the ability to call witnesses, and

(b) urges the Minister for Regional Development to ensure the state government—

(i) guarantees full compliance by all state government departments, agencies and statutory authorities of the regional impact assessment statement policy and process to ensure the government undertakes effective consultation with regional communities before decisions which impact community services and standards are implemented; and

(ii) makes public the results of all regional impact assessment statements undertaken prior to any change to a service or services in regional South Australia.

I commend all members who have spoken before me regarding this motion. Obviously on this side of the house we have a very deep feel for the regions. The regions are the core of our state and the production hub for a lot of our exports, and a production hub for a lot of the materials that are used internally in this state. However, sadly, the Labor government continues to neglect the regions.

I have mentioned in this house before how the new regional development minister, minister Brock, only asked the Premier for $39 million in his trade-off for giving Labor government. I am sure that he could have asked for the $139 million of regional development policies that we had in our policies coming into the 2014 state election this year, that he would have been made that promise as well and our regions would have been far better off. However, sadly, the member for Frome was too focused on his own electorate and his own desire to be a minister that he did not even return the phone calls to our leader, the member for Dunstan.

I will give a little bit of history of where things have been neglected regarding consultation. I think the biggest one for me was, in the year I was elected in 2006, in regard to the budget that was announced that year. On the front page of The Advertiser on budget day there was a big story about a proposed major expansion at the Mobilong Prison just on the outskirts of Murray Bridge. It was going to be a $411 million expansion: a 760-cell men's prison and a 150-cell women's prison.

From what I understand, this was to replace Yatala, which is obviously ageing. I would be interested to visit Yatala one day, voluntarily of course. I have been through Mobilong several times as a medium security prison, voluntarily of course.

Mr Pengilly: At this stage.

Mr PEDERICK: At this stage—enough of you!

From what I am told by people who have been out there on parliamentary business, it probably has not got that much of a life left, and I am assuming that is why the government came up with this idea of building a high-security prison complex at Mobilong. The sad thing is the first time my community heard about this project was when the paper came out that morning. I was on my way in here to sit for budget day and I get a call from the local mayor, Mayor Allan Arbon, and he is wondering what was going on. I said, 'Well, you tell me. All I know is what's in the paper.' That was the level of consultation.

The day of the budget announcement, we get an article in The Advertiser about an infrastructure issue that was going to have a huge impact on my community in Murray Bridge and surrounding districts. It is not just Murray Bridge that is being impacted; it would be the surrounding districts and it certainly impacted on the union members of the Public Service Association. I went to several meetings that they had down there. They obviously had not been consulted before it had been put in the budget. They did not want to work at a prison at Murray Bridge, so they had not been consulted.

Sadly, the local council had not been consulted and the local community had not been consulted about the various needs of transport and the various health requirements that would have been needed in the area. I have talked in this place many times about the lack of Metro-ticketed public transport to Murray Bridge. If this ever came up again in negotiations—and I am a realist and I know the land is still there, so I know that one day a government may put up this proposal again—we do need full Metro-ticketed public transport to Murray Bridge and we do need infrastructure upgrades on the road, like Bremer Road, to access Mobilong Prison if ever this idea was mooted again.

We also need an upgrade to our local health facilities, because as we know, prisoners in our prisons are getting older and older and prisons are essentially having to have their own aged-care facilities. I appreciate that, potentially, with this building that was proposed in 2006, there would have been an infirmary, but it would not have been enough. It would not have been enough. This was going to be a massive influx of population of nearly 1,000 people—by the time you take the staff into account, it would have been over 1,000 people—to a rural city that only has a population of about 20,000.

This is one of the stumbling blocks, and it is not just this project, but I am highlighting this project today that this government has. It has been an 'announce and defend' policy and let's see how we go with this one. It is just a matter of seeing who can stand up and fight for their community to get the best outcome. As with all things, because there was not an appropriate consultation done and the work was not done before we had an announcement on budget day, the whole thing fell over. The whole project fell over, and I am not too unhappy about that, I must say.

Sadly, because of the lack of business acumen by the Labor government of this state, it cost this state $10 million in taxpayer money, and it is taxpayer money, not government money; it is money that everyone who pays taxes in this state has to come up with—

Mr Griffiths: From people's pockets.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. It was paid to the three consortiums that put in bids. This is just really poor planning—well, it is no planning—and it is just crazy stuff when projects are not taken out to the community so that people can see how they will affect them. I refer to the comments by the member for Stuart about the Cadell ferry. A proposal has been spinning around local government circles for a while about the replacement of five ageing ferries right up and down the river. This is vital infrastructure that the government should just be funding—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: We are.

Mr PEDERICK: —because these are roads. Not all of them; you are doing three. So, the councils are put under all this pressure with all this consultation because the government, again, want to get away from their responsibilities in regards to funding the road work, which is a vital service in all our regional communities. What the government does not realise, and they soon learnt with the Cadell ferry debacle, is that not just regional people use these ferries.

I look at the Wellington ferry on a public holiday. I know that, on certain days and at certain times, there is no point. I am better off heading to Murray Bridge and going across the Swanport Bridge because of the amount of people using that ferry.

I would love to know the amount of money that the government transport department has spent on all this discussion they forced on the local government sector in regards to them finding a way to fund these ferries. It is just disgraceful. It should be par for the course for a government to fund our road network. It is certainly a lot cheaper than building bridges and, at most of these crossings, bridges would be impossible anyway.

In the broader sphere, whether it affects our education facilities, our health facilities, our corrections facilities, our ferries or our roads, we should have the opportunity for the regional impact assessment statement to be taken to the Economic and Finance Committee, so that people can ask questions, locals can ask questions and we can get the right outcomes for our regional communities.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (11:46): It is my privilege to stand here and support the motion by the member for Goyder. It is such a novel idea, I just cannot even believe we are discussing it: to engage with the community. Unbelievable! They said it would be groundbreaking stuff in here, and I am a new MP, so I guess I am learning as I go that engaging with the community is certainly something we should be doing.

I will give the government credit for their new-found philosophy of embracing the regions—what a wonderful policy adjustment that has been. I feel a bit sorry for the member for Giles being one of the only regional MPs sitting on the Labor benches, and I would encourage the government to find his way into cabinet as soon as possible so that this state has a regional voice that can be heard.

In terms of engaging with the community, I did a little bit of research and will just give a brief rundown of why engagement is so important. I think that, as I read these out, you will see the reverse in terms of lack of consultation and perhaps some of the issues that the government finds itself in and certainly complains to me in this chamber and privately that they feel from some of the members on this bench over here.

If you consult properly, these are the positive things that will come out. It will guard against less than desired outcomes—yes, that is a very good point. It will reduce confrontation. It decreases the likelihood of opposition. It prevents animosity, mistrust and tension, and also prevents—and this is the clincher—wasted effort and resources.

If that took me two minutes to do a bit of research on, then I am sure the government, who have been there for 12 long years, may have discovered it a little bit earlier in their tenure over this state. Those side-effects, those outcomes, are exactly what have happened to many who live in regional areas. There is mistrust of the government in our community.

There has been wasted effort and taxpayer money in our state and, of course, there has been opposition and confrontation in terms of things that are felt to have been imposed or taken away from regional South Australia, and that is why this motion is so important. In my opinion, it is something that should be just a fait accompli. Anybody on the opposite side who votes against this, if it comes down to a vote, should hang their head in shame because proper consultation for all of South Australia is all that we ask for.

I want to give a few examples from my area where this has not happened, and the result that has occurred. A few years ago we had a potato factory being built by the state government which was to directly duplicate McCains; we had scrimber, which was a $10 million operation to take woodchips and bind them together. Both those projects failed. Each of them cost between $10 million and $15 million. The equipment was sold off and the infrastructure was sold off for around $1 million each. So any way you try to do it, it is not good value for money.

Of course, I do not need to go into reasonable equity in access to government services too much, but the member for Schubert certainly pointed out public transport and the lack of health services. In terms of moving forward with this, I encourage those on the opposite benches, those in government, to support this novel idea of consulting and communicating with regional South Australia.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister Assisting the Minister for Planning, Minister Assisting the Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:51): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

An honourable member: No!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can only go with what I have got. He stood up. I cannot help you. He stood up and he is on my right.

Mr GARDNER: We are entitled to vote against the motion.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay; you are doing that. The question is that the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 21

Noes 18

Majority 3

AYES
Bedford, F.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K.
Brock, G.G. Caica, P. Close, S.E.
Gee, J.P. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J. Hildyard, K.
Kenyon, T.R. (teller) Key, S.W. Koutsantonis, A.
Mullighan, S.C. Odenwalder, L.K. Piccolo, A.
Picton, C.J. Rankine, J.M. Rau, J.R.
Snelling, J.J. Weatherill, J.W. Wortley, D.
NOES
Bell, T.S. Gardner, J.A.W. (teller) Goldsworthy, R.M.
Griffiths, S.P. Knoll, S.K. Marshall, S.S.
McFetridge, D. Pederick, A.S. Pengilly, M.R.
Pisoni, D.G. Redmond, I.M. Sanderson, R.
Speirs, D. Tarzia, V.A. Treloar, P.A.
van Holst Pellekaan, D.C. Whetstone, T.J. Wingard, C.
PAIRS
Digance, A.F.C. Chapman, V.A. Hughes, E.J.
Evans, I.F. Vlahos, L.A. Williams, M.R.


Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.

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