HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-05-07 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

The SPEAKER: Before I call the member for Elder, I remind the house that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask members to accord her the customary courtesies. The member for Elder.

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:02): I move:

That the following Address in Reply to His Excellency's to opening speech be adopted:

May it please Your Excellency—

1. We, the members of the House of Assembly, express our thanks for the speech with which your Excellency was pleased to open parliament.

2. We assure Your Excellency that we will give our best attention to the matters placed before us.

3. We will earnestly pray for the Divine blessing on the proceedings of the session.

It gives me great pleasure to move the motion for the Address in Reply. I congratulate His Excellency on his speech and am grateful for his words, which will guide our deliberations in this parliament.

Firstly, I acknowledge and pay tribute to the spirit, history and courage of the Kaurna people, on whose land we meet today. Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your reappointment to such an important and high office. I look forward to your guidance on all matters parliamentary, and I know that you will defend the privileges and standing orders of this house.

I also congratulate all newly elected members and re-elected members to this 53rd parliament. At this time, may our thoughts and prayers be with the Hon. Dr Bob Such and his family. It was certainly wonderful to see him here yesterday.

It is with both privilege and humility that I speak in this place today. Thank you to all my supporters who have come to witness my speech. To the electors of Elder, thank you. To those who voted for me and supported me, I am very grateful, and to those who did not, I hope that in time you will be heartened by my commitment and presence as your local member. To maintain the electorate of Elder as a Labor seat is indeed a victory. I am proud to continue to fly the flag for the party.

To the former member, Hon. Patrick Conlon, a man of quick wit and sharp mind, I am appreciative of your tireless work and excellence that you performed for this state as local member and minister. I wish you, your wife Tania and your two daughters well in the next chapter of your journey together, for a life hopefully less frantic, less public, and one of precious family time together.

I congratulate the Premier on his re-election to high office, and commend him on his resilience and courage, fortitude and conviction in fighting a fight that many had us lose before we had even begun. Premier, your commitment to the campaign and the outcome was exemplary.

I am grateful for the commitment and faith the Labor Party has bestowed upon me over the years. It is indeed a humbling experience to be supported by and believed in by so many to represent the oldest political party in Australia: a party built on the platform of fairness and a fair go for all Australians, no matter what a person's circumstances; a party that stands firm on the belief we all deserve opportunities in life to be our best. This is motivation enough to work hard for.

Some may deliberately set sail on a planned course to become a member of parliament and seek to attain this privileged post, but for me it was an aspiration that was planted as an idea many years ago. The idea began to form thanks to three people: namely, senator Don Farrell, Nimfa Farrell, and minister Tom Koutsantonis.

Many years elapsed before I committed to accept the challenge, as I saw my daughters through their formative years. To me, this was important, particularly as my eldest daughter was born requiring the constant monitoring and intervention of the world-renowned Adelaide-based Australian Craniofacial Unit, with Professor David David and Dr Michael Nugent. Her journey has shaped not just who she is but also who her two sisters are, and the values they all live by and the pathways they follow today. I am proud of them all, and of their achievements thus far.

In addition to these three people who have supported me on many occasions throughout this campaign, I would also like to thank John and Davina Quirke, Sevi Lividitis, Peter Malinauskas, Reggie Martin, Sonia Romeo, Josh Peak, Amelia Peacock, Nina McEwen, Trian Gonis, Ben Dineen, Ben Rillo, Guy Wilcock, Peter Geytenbeek, Tim Cahalan, Andrew Anson, Tony and Lyn Brooks, Marg Seager and other members of the Elder sub-branch and of course, campaign manager on more than one occasion, Tim Picton. I owe Tim, and probably his family—and brother Chris, here with us today—much gratitude as he worked tirelessly to ensure I was elected. He is representative of so many of our young Labor members; he is energetic, enthusiastic, intelligent, sharp, highly skilled and politically savvy.

There were also so many others who helped along the journey. While I may have been the brand for the seat of Elder, I was nothing without all and everyone who helped and supported me throughout the entire process. I would also like to thank Father Bob Wilkinson and Father James McEvoy for their spiritual guidance.

Core to all of this is my wonderful family, who are constant with their never-ending support. To my husband Greg and my daughters Amelia, Georgina and Emma, you are remarkable, and so inspirational and unconditional, no matter what the highs and lows of this journey. I never once felt I was alone as you were always there with me along the path, every step of the way. To my parents-in-law, Peter and Helen, thank you also for all you did. Without Peter, the A-frames and T-frames would never have come into being.

I grew up in the Mid-North of South Australia on a wheat and sheep farm, just north of a small place called Appila. This experience has given me my fundamental respect of land, nature, and value of community. If you were to visit Appila today, sadly you would pass through, as now not even the hotel is open. It is not so dissimilar to many rural towns that flourished in the early 1900s. In its heyday, it was a bustling hub for sheep shales, trotting race meets, the many local sporting and community clubs like CWA, and in its time, the Great Northern Athletic and Cycling Club meet.

My father and mother were hard-working farmers and graziers who only wanted the best for my siblings and me. My dad was a quiet, innovative man who, I think, in a different time, may have chosen to study engineering instead of carrying on the family farm. My mum was a homemaker and community-minded, being involved in many local committees. She was the first female chair of the board of our local hospital in Booleroo Centre. To both my parents I owe many of my tenacious traits and respect of community.

As events in childhood shape our lives, I believe I began to build my value base from these early days, when to see our local GP could mean many long hours' wait, as he may be called away urgently to attend an accident or deliver a baby, when to travel to school meant nearly an hour on the bus with hard seats, bumping over potholed, unsealed main roads, and to learn that water was critical as, living just below Goyder's line, rain was an intermittent event. I realised that although we may not have had the many luxuries of our city cousins, we really knew the true value and strength of community and associated friendships.

My working life began with training at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, to gain both my registered nurse and midwifery qualifications. I was so excited. I loved nursing. I was independent, and doing what I loved as well as earning a wage. In my first year of training I earned the grand sum of just over $8,000. I saw first-hand the value of our universal healthcare system, as those who may not have been able to afford the care they needed were treated with equal priority to those who could.

I went on to gain my certificate in child health nursing through what was then known as the Mothers' and Babies' Health Association. I worked in country and metropolitan areas as well as Torrens House, a brilliant facility. I worked with families and their newborn babies, whether they were at risk with health issues or simply just needed help to start with their new life. I helped to ensure that these babies had a great start in life. I realised the importance of these first five years and the value of the one-on-one intervention and support programs.

To work with parents to support them to nurture, interact, protect and care for their babies was some of the best work I did. I realised the possibilities that this type of early intervention offered, so you will understand that I was pleased to be with the Premier not so long ago as he committed $117 million for improvements at the Flinders Medical Centre, including the much-needed upgrade of the overcrowded neonatal intensive care facilities. This is recognition of the importance of this unit to the people of the south in providing care for premature and sick babies and their families.

I am also pleased with our state government's commitment to the nursing profession with a decision to support the training of more nurse practitioners. This commitment to education and professionalism will further ensure South Australians have access to quality health care. While working as an academic at the University of South Australia with final year midwives, I would have them examine and explore epidemiology and professionalism.

Also studying alongside South Australian students were students from China, Korea, Malaysia and Japan. The sharing of their home country experiences and stories would so often highlight the high quality of our healthcare system here. I also know this to be true, as my short experience in a Lagos maternity hospital in Nigeria many years ago gave me first-hand witness to one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Mothers lost babies due to preventable diseases as well as experiencing long walks during their time of labour—it sometimes took days before they got the hospital—and the lack of availability of life-saving drugs and interventions.

We know that there are many demographic groups that experience poorer health outcomes, groups whose circumstances see them experience social and economic disadvantage, disability and isolation. It is with these people's lives in mind that I am very concerned with the intent of the federal coalition government as it looks to attack Medicare with a GP tax and cuts to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. One of the architects of Medicare warned recently that such changes could take Australia back 50 years. I learnt the value of Medicare studying a Masters degree and know we must do everything possible to preserve and protect our universal healthcare system.

Now to the electorate of Elder, a district named after 19th-century businessman, philanthropist, pastoralist and politician Thomas Elder. You may also recognise his name as the Elder Conservatorium at the Adelaide University is named after him. Elder is in the south-west of Adelaide between the city and the southern suburbs. While Elder was created as a marginal Labor electorate in 1991, it was initially won by the opposition; however, this only lasted a term as the Hon. Patrick Conlon won and held it for the next 17 years.

The electorate of Elder is dynamic. It has its challenges and its triumphs. The pending closure on the Australian chapter of the car manufacturing industry brings with it challenges from many businesses in my electorate as employers and employees alike will feel the effect. There is nervousness as people become uncertain. As one business owner says, 'It is not just about my business and my income, it is about the people I have employed for so many years. It is about real people with real bills and real families. It is about South Australia and our future.'

With a small business background, I understand the highs and lows of what it can mean to be in business. It was pleasing to hear the Governor refer to a renewed model of how small business and government will work together to further progress our state's economy. As the local member, I will continue my conversations with businesspeople in my area to ensure that we, in Elder, play our part.

With the changes at the old Mitsubishi site, we witness an incredible example of regeneration and transformation as Tonsley emerges, a site supporting advanced manufacturing, innovation, design and engineering of high-value products. The area already demonstrates the bringing together of education and industry. Today, TAFE tertiary students occupy the site alongside industry which is co-locating in a cluster. A chief executive of a business now on location at this site excitedly told me the other day that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as it gives his business a chance to value-add through the infinite sharing of ideas and expertise. Early next year, Flinders University will welcome its first students to its new campus. The refurbished main assembly plant structure of the old car factory will be used to create the town centre with specialty retail outlets and, towards the end of this year, we expect to see the master plan for the development of about 1,000 homes set among sustainable environments.

Early on Monday morning just passed, I caught one of the first trains with local commuters as the highly anticipated Tonsley train line opened, with weekday services to begin. I am hopeful that later in the year we will see both weekend services as well as the gradual introduction of electric trains to these tracks. Commuters were very pleased to have what they referred to as 'their train' back.

Disappointingly though, we see a federal coalition government with apparent disregard for South Australia as it has cruelly withdrawn funding which would have seen upgrades of stations and the finessing of the park-and-ride facility. Other transport challenges within my electorate are the South Road corridor and the issue of the Oaklands crossing site. The transport vision for Adelaide's inner south, released late last year, makes reference to these issues, and I will continue to champion this plan.

To the many primary schools, the one secondary school, the private schools, the bowling clubs, community clubs, sporting clubs, religious communities and RSL, we are a diverse and enterprising group of people across the entire expanse of this electorate. While demography shows there is a significant Caucasian population, we also have a growing demographic of other nationalities from all over the world. The opportunity our country offers all of us is testimony to our forebears and their foresight.

On this point I would like to pause to congratulate Mr Tung Ngo, my colleague and friend. Tung, this election, has rightfully gained his seat in the Legislative Council. Tung arrived here with his family when he was a young child, as a refugee from Vietnam. Tung, congratulations: you are an inspiration to all of us, especially those whose stories may parallel yours. As an Australian Aboriginal saying goes: 'Traveller, there are no paths—paths are made by walking'. Tung, you are proof of this. I know you will be an amazing member: well done.

We can look with eyes and mindsets and see always what is wrong, and simply complain, or we can see what needs change and set about finding that solution and gathering the imaginations and energy of others. South Australia is a state of many firsts. We had the first police force in Australia, the first tram and the first female vote. We need to build on the vision and force of our past and keep this energy burning to be the first in so many areas to come. Every generation builds on every generation before.

While I believe the mantra of needing good women in pivotal positions in public life still resonates, I observe that we still have a very long way to go. I acknowledge, as a mother of three adult daughters, that it is it dear to my heart to see them achieve in their chosen professions, and also to become the self-actualising adults that they and society need them to be.

I agree with Hillary Clinton, who so aptly reflects and says, 'Women have to dare to compete.' To compete we need the support of each other and our male colleagues. I owe much to my many colleagues and mentors, both male and female. My friend, the late Hon. Frank Blevins, was one such person who, in my experience, was active in support of women's attainment.

We must be determined to continue to champion and address the equilibrium of gender in places of leadership, thus ensuring society and the economy receive balanced representation. South Australia has seen women champion many bastions, and we must continue responsibly to live up to their really good work. Commentary on the importance of gender balance on boards is well documented. The private sector cites evidence that indicates that gender balance at board level increases performance through improved governance, decision making and financial returns.

I applaud the position of building a strong South Australia on so many fronts. I am passionate to support the progress of this state and in the building of South Australia. There is so much activity already with the Adelaide Oval, the SAHMRI building and new Royal Adelaide Hospital. With these projects come excitement, anticipation and sense of achievement. As a government we need to be ever vigilant to ensure that South Australia's enthusiasm and progress are not dampened by the pending federal budget.

I do not adhere to the federal coalition government's fabricated budget emergency. Australia has a solid credit rating. With talk of a GP tax, proposed inequities in the minimum wage and a possible shortfall in GST revenue, we find ourselves in less than friendly territory with our federal friends. Economists and commentators agree that Australia is doing well, and that increased taxes and fearful talk could set us back.

I was heartened on the weekend to read about the formation of The Engine Room, a group of optimistic young business people with determination to turn around our state's negative business views and spread good news stories. Many economists also agree that key to economic growth and the quality of society is the quality of human capital. I support this view. I am passionate about our youngest and most vulnerable members of society, and know from my professional experience that the first five years of life are critical. We must support our child care workers and teachers to be their best, meaning recognition and professional rates.

I am passionate about a well-managed health care system offering universal health care for all. We have a responsibility to support the critical work of our nurses who work at the coalface every day in hospitals and the community. We must continue to care for those who care for us, and I am passionate about our education system that equips our young people for an ever-changing, competitive and exciting world.

Every day, as a member of this parliament, I will remember and act on all that has motivated me to be here. Thank you to everyone who has supported me to get to this point. I will endeavour, as the member for Elder, to represent the people of Elder and my government with enthusiasm and integrity, and in the best interests of South Australians at all times.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:26): It is my great pleasure to rise and second the motion. It is always a great occasion when His Excellency comes to the Parliament of South Australia, and it is always a great day when we open a parliament. I know that His Excellency is in the final months of his seven-year term and there will be plenty of occasions on which we can record our grateful thanks to him for his service to our state. However, I will also use this time to put on record again our very grateful thanks on behalf of the Liberal opposition for the way His Excellency has served the people of South Australia for almost seven years now. It is an enormous task and there is an enormous calendar of events each year at which the Governor represents us, the people of South Australia, and he does it with a great sense of style and, of course, a great sense of service, for which we are all very grateful.

One of his tasks, of course, is to attend the opening of parliament. Yesterday, he graced us with his presence and delivered his speech in the Legislative Council. This is a very exciting time. For my part, I even shined my shoes yesterday, because this is the moment when the Governor outlines the agenda of the government for the next session of parliament. We all came in yesterday to hear about this bold vision that the Labor Party has for our state going forward and, ladies and gentlemen, can I say: what a disappointment it was.

The SPEAKER: Leader, I am not a lady. You are addressing me. Do not address ladies and gentlemen. Your remarks are through the chair.

Mr MARSHALL: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I will, of course, refer all of my remarks to you. But what a disappointment it was, sir. It reminded me of that great T.S. Eliot line, 'not with a bang but a whimper'. We returned to the parliament to hear a big bang. The Premier was renewed and reinvigorated after his three-week overseas holiday. He needed to get into government to push forward with this agenda but he took three weeks off. He should have been here. He should have been here working on a bold agenda. At no other time in this state's history have we needed a bold reform agenda as we do right now and, unfortunately, yesterday was not one of those days.

When we look at the meagre offering that the government put up in terms of reform—I refer you to page 5 of His Excellency's speech—the first item of reform was of course the merger of DMITRE and DFEEST. As everybody would appreciate in this house, that was the Liberal Party policy, so it is interesting that the first item of reform referred to in the Governor's speech was our idea for reform. But, of course, as per usual, the government implements just part of the reform agenda and not nearly enough.

So, of course, we have DMITRE actually merging with DFEEST, which is interesting, but the dysfunction that exists around the overall mechanism of government still sits with us. The new acting chief executive will continue to report to—are you ready for this, sir?—four separate ministers of the Crown. I mean, where would anybody think that this is a logical reform, that a reform of the organisational structure of government has four ministers to whom this new poor acting chief executive of this merged department will have to report? And, of course, we still persist with the complete and utter dysfunction—14 separate government departments.

It is interesting to note that in NSW they have nine, but we have 14. We do not even have 14 ministers in South Australia, but we have 14 government departments, and of course some of those poor chief executives of those government departments do not report to four ministers, but some report to up to six separate ministers. What a chaotic mess it is under this government.

The Governor's speech went on to talk about reform of the Public Service here in South Australia and in fact it says: 'The Government must lead by example. The State's largest institution, the South Australian public sector, must be renewed.' Well, as their first act of that renewal, the government squibbed; they completely and utterly squibbed. They let down the Public Service and they let down the people of South Australia.

The second area that I wish to address is the area of the International Engagement Strategy. For some reason unbeknownst to me, the government thinks that they have done well in this area. Well, let me tell you, sir: when this government brought down its own state strategic plan with its own target for exports out of this state, they said that by the year 2013 (which, incidentally, was last year) we would have $25 billion worth of exports out of this state. Well, let me tell you, sir: they did not achieve that goal.

In the first instance, they pushed the timeframe for that from 2013 out to 2014, but—you know what I am going to say next, sir—they knew they were not going to achieve that new target. So what did they do? They pushed it out to 2020; 2020 is when this government thinks it will be able to fulfil the target that it itself set back in 2004—2020, my goodness gracious me, sir. I hope that you will of course still be serving the people of Croydon right through to that point in time.

I was hoping that the government would fulfil the promise that the Premier made during the election campaign, and that was to adopt more of our strategies, and in particular the strategy that the member for Waite and I put forward regarding massively expanding our support of exporters here in South Australia—having an expanded focus, not just on India and China, but indeed on seven different identified regions throughout the world. The Premier said during the campaign that he would adopt our strategy for a special focus on South-East Asia, neglected by this government over an extended period of time. But was there any mention in this document? I am very sorry to say that there was nothing. It was completely silent on the matter and we are all the poorer for it. I think we are all the poorer for it.

Of course, in the speech that was made yesterday, there was reference made to the agreement between the Premier and the member for Frome for stable government and effective government here in South Australia. Yesterday the Premier came into the house, and I think in a moment where he wanted to convince us all that it was going to be open and transparent, the total agreement between the member for Frome and the government, he tabled the document—often referred to by people as the 'Brockument'—and it is a good document. However, yesterday in the parliament we heard, within minutes of the tabling of that document, that indeed it was not the total agreement between the two parties.

The Premier cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, 'We want to be totally open, totally transparent with the people of South Australia and yet we are not going to tell you all of the agreement.' We need to know what the totality of that agreement was or is and, in particular, we need to know what happened with regard to the Premier's commitments in terms of Nyrstar. What we knew before the election was that the government, supported by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, was more than happy to provide an underwriting for this important project for South Australia to $100 million. What we do not know is what that is going forward. We hope that the Premier will keep us informed as to what our liability for this important project is going to be.

Payroll tax: His Excellency the Governor outlined to the house that there was some temporary payroll tax relief provided by this government—not nearly enough. It is not nearly enough and we will be holding the government to account on that matter. There was a small ray of sunshine in this document and that was the government's commitment to fixing the WorkCover system. This is a system which has been in complete and utter disarray over an extended period of time. Let me remind the house just how bad this system is for the employers and, importantly, the employees here in South Australia. It is not only the case that we have the highest rate in the country, almost double the national average—certainly more than double the rate that is paid by employers in Victoria—but, as if that is not enough, we also have the worst WorkCover scheme for employers and employees, with the lowest return-to-work statistics in the entire nation. It is completely and utterly broken.

When we look at the liability of this scheme it is almost impossible to believe. South Australia's scheme is only 67 per cent funded against a national comparison of schemes like this where they are 112 per cent funded. South Australia is 67 per cent funded, with the liability to the scheme currently sitting at $1.23 million. It is broken and it has been presided over by a negligent government over an extended period of time. We say that we will work cooperatively with the government regarding reforms to the WorkCover scheme but they are reforms to a scheme which have been institutionalised by this negligent government over an extended period of time.

The government also says that it is going to reduce red tape. This is definitely something on which we will be holding the government to account. Business is struggling. Do not forget that in the last session of this parliament the government introduced the work health and safety legislation. This was meant to be a national, harmonised arrangement for workers compensation across the nation. Let me tell you that it is not national, it is not harmonised and it is a massive burden on each and every business here in South Australia.

The government would do well to take a look at its own work health and safety legislation before it makes these new claims that it is going to start looking at reducing red tape. I know where they should start: they should start with that act. It is a complete and utter disgrace and it hurts every single business here in South Australia.

I am very pleased to thank the member for Frome for really making the government focus on the regions. They have been neglected for a long period of time. I appreciate that the government does not have many seats in the regions here in South Australia but that is not important. The issue is: how do we get our entire state moving in the right direction? How do we start growing our state? How do we start creating jobs in this state?

Let me tell you: the regions are a powerhouse of opportunity for our entire state, and they have been neglected for too long. I was very pleased to hear in the Governor's speech yesterday that acknowledgement that, although only 20 per cent of our state's population rests in regional South Australia, they account for in excess of 50 per cent of the state's exports and, I would say, a huge majority of our state's opportunities going forward. So, I thank very much the member for Frome for turning the government's hand to this important task. Of course, what the government does will be interesting. We will be watching it with a great deal of focus.

Yesterday, in the parliament, the Premier himself gave a ministerial statement. He is going to come up with a charter for 'stronger regional policy' but, more than that, it is not just going to be a charter, there is going to be one of those famous organisations: a ministerial task force. Now we know they are really going to get stuck in! There is going to be a ministerial task force.

I ask you perhaps just to turn your mind back to that great forceful task force—the task force that the Premier established to support our manufacturing sector. That was a beauty! I just remind the house of the composition of this task force. Of course, we had that great manufacturing advocate the Treasurer of South Australia—he was on it—the Minister for Health was on it, as was the member for Newland and, of course, the former member for Hartley. I do not know about the rest of you, but I cannot remember one single, solitary outcome of this task force.

I hope, unequivocally and genuinely, and we all hope that this ministerial task force, this cabinet task force, will be far more effective for our regions than any of these task forces set up by this government in the past. Why? Because we know that it is important.

As part of our contribution to this, we have set up a regional committee on our side of this parliament because we know that regions are important. It is, of course, under the expert chairmanship of the member for Hammond, who is a great advocate for the regions and a great regional man. I know that he will work with the new Minister for Regional Development and with the Premier and, let me tell you, with this regional task force. If it takes that, we will work with the regional task force of the government because we know that this is important for the people of South Australia.

I was pleased, although a little bit confused, when the Governor announced yesterday that the government would be focusing on a renewal of the education sector. Now, look, we have had lots of chief executives, we have had lots of ministers, we have had lots of reports, but, apparently now, we are going to amend the Education Act to ensure that it better meets the needs of our children, our schools and our communities. Quite frankly, I would have thought that would have gone without saying but, nevertheless, that is what the act is going to be doing, and that is wonderful.

But, most importantly, again, the government has taken up an excellent Liberal suggestion. Can I commend the member for Unley, who has been the shadow minister for education for an extended period of time.

Mr Pisoni: Five ministers.

Mr MARSHALL: Five separate ministers he has had to break in—five separate ministers. I must say that he and his office have done an exceptional job understanding the complexities of our education system here in South Australia.

Let's face it, it is not an education system which is working well. When we look at the results, like the PISA results and the NAPLAN results, I know this is not the be all and end all and I know many people will say there are other things to consider and there are, but it is a benchmark. It is a benchmark right across the nation. In fact, my daughter will be sitting her NAPLAN test very soon, so I will keep you informed how she goes, but we are looking forward to it in our household.

When we look at those results, we are not performing well, and that is why I am pleased that the government will be taking up the Liberal Party's suggestion; that is, for greater school autonomy because this is the secret to improved results here in South Australia. For governing councils, for teachers, for principals, for communities to have a greater say in what happens at their school and how their expenditure is organised, this is extraordinarily important, and we applaud any moves to increase autonomy at the individual school level.

We believe also that the government needs to do more in terms of its reform agenda in this area. It is disappointing for many of us that the government is not going to proceed with the very logical policy of making the school research project non-compulsory or optional. This is something that I think the vast majority of people in South Australia think is a logical thing to happen, and the fact that it has been ignored by this government shows how completely and utterly out of date the government is with the people of South Australia

I also think that we remain completely out of step with the rest of the nation with our year 7 staying in the primary years. This really deprives our students from benefiting from smaller class sizes, specialist classes and many of the other advantages of moving year 7 to secondary school, as has happened in every other state in Australia. Every other state in Australia has made that decision to move, and most either have moved or are in the process of moving. It is an important reform; it is a difficult reform. It will cost money—it will cost money in terms of recurrent funding, it will cost money in terms of capital—to bring the schools up to speed, but it is a really important reform for our future.

I was pleased to see mentioned in the Governor's speech reference to mental health. The government often stands up and says, 'We've done really well in this area,' but, quite frankly, we have not. Any independent person who takes a look at the Social Inclusion Board's report into this issue, entitled 'Stepping Up: A Social Inclusion Action Plan for Mental Health Reform 2007-2012', will appreciate almost instantaneously how far behind we have slipped here in South Australia, and this is very sad because, if you go back to the time that the report was originally written, South Australia had a very good performance in this area. In fact, we had the highest number of acute inpatient mental health beds per head of population in the country; we are now at the bottom of the table.

It is great that the government says that it wants to have a renewed focus on this, but we need to see new money going into this area—it is absolutely critical for South Australia—and the government was completely and utterly silent on this all the way through the election process.

The Liberal Party, by contrast, said that it would permanently reopen 10 additional beds at the Margaret Tobin Centre, that it would put additional money into additional acute inpatient mental health beds, both north and south, in South Australia, and, most importantly, that it would put additional money into the issue of eating disorders here in South Australia. These are issues where we lag well behind best practice; in fact, we are at the bottom of the table. I think that governments should be held accountable, that they should be judged by the way in which they treat the most vulnerable in their society and, quite frankly, people living with mental illness in South Australia have been left out for a long period of time.

We understand, of course, that the government will be setting up a commission. Well, to be quite honest, we had the Stepping Up report 2007-12; there was no flow-on from that report. You would think that, in 2011, you would start thinking about, 'What is our next iteration?' Well, let me tell you that, in 2014, the government is going to start thinking about it; in 2015, we might get a recommendation. This hiatus of support for those people living with a mental illness in South Australia is completely unacceptable and it is something that we do not believe we should be tolerating whatsoever. It is interesting also that, on the top of page 16, the government makes this statement:

My government will protect those who dedicate their lives to community safety…

Well, hear, hear! But where is the government on the matter of equity between our professional firefighters and our volunteer firefighters on the issue of cancer compensation? Let me read it again:

My government will protect those who dedicate their lives to community safety…

I say that our CFS volunteers put their lives on the line to protect our safety and our property, to protect our life, and they deserve nothing less—not a jot less—than full equity with the professional firefighters. The Liberal Party, those people on this side of the house, took this issue to the election, and we will continue to fight for it, and we hope to have the fulsome support from the member for Frome on this issue because we know how important this issue is to him. In fact, I was very privileged to visit his electorate and to visit the CFS staging area for the Bangor fires.

One amazing thing that occurred to me, was that there were not only CFS volunteers from the local area, there were CFS volunteers from throughout the state camped on that oval in Clare, and many of them for an extended period of time in incredible conditions. Let me tell you if you ever want to lose weight I think one of those tents on a 43 degree day would be quite a good option. They were very difficult conditions yet they were there, and I hope that the government can be held to account on this promise that they re-made yesterday to protect those who dedicate their lives to community safety.

Almost finally, the Governor's speech referred to an urgent need to reform our democracy and I will be making further comments about that in a couple of minutes time but I appreciate that the government has put the reform of our democracy and our electoral system into the Governor's speech because, quite frankly, this is a very important issue for the people of South Australia and one that we certainly must pursue.

As I said, it was a disappointing but not unexpected speech that outlined the next four years from a lacklustre, tired government, a government that has been in power for 12 years, and if they haven't implemented their reform agenda now, when are they going to do it? The Premier, as I said, had pretty much lost interest himself, taking three weeks holiday since the election. He needed time to renew himself I suppose. It says on the final page:

My government will deliver a bold agenda that puts people first and creates sustainable jobs for the future.

I hope they do. I genuinely hope they do because South Australia is in a complete and utter mess after 12 years of Labor government. Let's take a look at unemployment. If you recall, this was the big issue of the election. Our unemployment rate in South Australia is the highest it has been for 12 years. Our regional unemployment rate in South Australia is the highest it has been for 14 years. In the March statistics (the month in which we held the election) we lost 9,000 full-time jobs in South Australia. It is an enormous figure and at the same time that the overall unemployment rate in Australia fell. We went up and the rest of Australia went down. There are 61,000 people who are jobless in South Australia at the moment, and we were the only state which reported a decline in employment for last year. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable.

Mr Treloar interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: No, a decline in employment but thank you anyway—99 times you are helpful! Young people are completely and utterly giving up on our state. If we look at the net interstate migration figures out of South Australia at the moment they are appalling. We have had in excess of 33,000 net interstate migrants over the life of this government—this is the difference between those people who are leaving and those people who are coming back in. The majority are young people who are leaving South Australia, not because they do not love this state, but because they just cannot find meaningful employment in South Australia.

The business sector, of course, is struggling. We have the highest business taxes in Australia. We have had that situation for five long years in South Australia. We have increasing red tape, increasing fees and charges under Labor and, quite frankly, the business sector is giving up. When we look at business creation in South Australia, this is really worrying. In fact we have the lowest rate of business start-up on mainland Australia. So, people are leaving and we are not even starting the new businesses up, and this is a real problem for us. If we do not focus on this issue, and there is no mention of this in the Governor's speech, where are we going to be down the track?

In South Australia we have a situation where a flood of young people and capital are moving across our borders into those states with Liberal reformist governments, governments which are focused on growing their economies, growing jobs and keeping young people in their states.

More than ever, we need bold ideas; more than ever, we need a government that is focused on reform. South Australia needs a government that is going to facilitate growing our economy. State final demand last year contracted. We need a government that is going to be focused on growing our economy. We need to have a government that is going to be focused on growing employment and keeping our young people here in South Australia.

The Liberal Party of course took a bold jobs plan to the election. In fact, that plan consisted of in excess of $250 million worth of initiatives over the next three years. By contrast, the Labor Party took a $393 million jobs plan to the election. People will recall this. Unfortunately, $333 million of their $393 million was dependent on federal government funding. Let me tell you what happened. That federal government funding did not come, so yesterday in the house we find out that the government has finally signed up to the manufacturing growth program put forward by the federal government.

During the election, of course, they said it was pathetic and inadequate and was not going to help anybody. Yesterday, without fanfare, without a ministerial statement, without a press conference, without even a press release, they said: 'This is a good program; we're going to sign up to it.' Wait on! What happened to the $393 million? Well, that is gone. The $393 million program is completely and utterly gone.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: A 'mirage in the desert'.

Mr MARSHALL: As the member for Waite said, it was a 'mirage in the desert'. It was something that you put forward to have a look at before an election. Days after the election, without any ministerial statement, it just goes. What is going to happen to our economy without a workable jobs plan? Sure, you have the federal government's plan—in excess of $150 million to help transition our economy in 2017 and beyond when Holden exits South Australia—but what about now? We are in the midst of a dangerous jobs crisis right now.

We might be in an even worse situation in 2017. I do not want to speculate on that, but right now, our employment here in South Australia is heading in the wrong direction and we need a plan. That is why we went to the election saying that we needed to have a bold plan. We talked about the need for cutting payroll tax, and I was very pleased when Peter Malinauskas came out and supported this position, and he supported it because he knows that it is good policy, because payroll tax is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on jobs and it is one that really needs reform.

We talked about land tax reform. Importantly, and I have already mentioned this, we talked about the need to grow our economy by increasing exports out of this state. We are putting in almost $20 million worth of new money. By contrast the government has been cutting money out of export assistance over an extended period of time. We are putting in $20 million worth of new money to assist and help our exporters identify overseas markets. Why? We want to grow the size of our economy and grow our exports, because we know that when we sell our goods and services interstate and overseas, we are bringing somebody else's money into our state to grow our economy.

Importantly, in our jobs plan, in our jobs action agenda, we did talk about the importance of the regions before the election and we were very proud on this side of the house to talk about that before the election, which is so crucial. We talked about the regional development fund. It absolutely wound down to virtually nothing under Labor; in fact, it was down to $1.6 million per year. What can you do with $1.6 million for the entire state in terms of regional development?

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

Mr MARSHALL: It was completely and utterly unacceptable, and as the shadow treasurer points out, it pays about half a day's interest, so that is the situation. That is how much the government cared about the regions before the election. We talked about the regional development fund. We talked about the Murray Bridge rejuvenation project—an excellent project, which we hope the government will look at very seriously.

We talked in particular about opening up the northern Adelaide plains to make them more productive for our intense horticulture sector by expanding the irrigation scheme there—an excellent scheme and not one that was designed around a marginal seat. In fact I think it is in the member for Taylor's electorate and I trust that she will be out there advocating for this excellent program. We were out there doing the things that were important to grow our state and to grow jobs and we will stand by those projects that we put forward.

We also, of course, talked about the importance of innovation and commercialisation, huge slabs of new money into creating the sectors of the future, the jobs of the future, money into start-ups here in South Australia. I was also very proud that we on this side of the house identified the financial services sector as a great growth opportunity for our state. Many of the people working in this sector nationwide come from South Australia. We want to repatriate them back to South Australia, want them working in sustainable jobs here in South Australia.

We need a jobs action plan in South Australia. The government's admission yesterday is that with the lack of funding coming from the federal government there is no jobs program under Labor—there is no jobs program under Labor whatsoever—and this is really worrying. You would think that if the government did hear the message from this election they would be focused unequivocally on coming up with a program which is going to improve our young people's prospects in South Australia.

We took our agenda to the election, and I think it is fair to say that we did have extraordinarily strong support from the electorate. The Liberal Party had endorsement from the electorate, with 45 per cent of South Australian voters giving the primary vote to the Liberal Party. In fact, we ended up with 92,000 more votes than the Labor Party. Nevertheless, the Liberal—

Mr Pederick: 92,000.

Mr MARSHALL: Did I say 92? Ninety-two thousand; it's even larger. Nevertheless, the Liberal Party has been unable to form government after this election. The Labor Party has formed a minority government with the support of the member for Frome.

So what will this parliament look like? How will it operate? From the Liberal Party's perspective, we will work diligently in this house and in our electorates, and on behalf of the people of South Australia, every single day. We will hold this government to account every single day. We will relentlessly pursue and hold this government to account for every single one of the promises that they made to the people of South Australia before the election.

Of course, one of the most important promises that was made by the Premier was regarding returning our budget to surplus. This is an important commitment that the government has made, and we will be holding them to account on this issue. We will work with the government to advance that legislation which is a benefit to the people of South Australia.

I have already spoken about WorkCover, but it is very important that we do work with the government to advance this state, because never before in the history of this state have we needed a government and a parliament which operates effectively. In addition to this, we will continue to pursue the agenda which we took to the election. It was an agenda for change, it was an agenda for jobs, it was an agenda for growth, and it was an agenda which was supported by the majority of South Australians.

We ended up with 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. The people of South Australia voted for change, they voted for our agenda, and we will not be dropping it. We will not be dropping it because we know it is the will of the people of South Australia for us to continue to pursue that. So whichever way you look at it, democracy was not served with the outcome of the 2014 election result. The party which clearly received the majority of the votes in this election has not been in a position to form government, and this has happened far too often in recent years in this place. The people of South Australia wish to live in a democracy. Now, I know those opposite are making all sorts of bleatings at the moment—

The Hon. P. Caica: You can talk, you're the one bleating.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, actually, I'm the one making the speech. I think you'll get your turn.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The leader shouldn't be taken away by those remarks. The leader has the floor.

Mr MARSHALL: Thank you very much.

Mr Gardner: Throw him out, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not in my first moment.

Mr MARSHALL: Well, the government did say this was going to be a bold government; but, anyway.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe in my second moment.

Mr MARSHALL: Let's look at the facts. It is the people of South Australia who have been denied the government of their choice. The people of South Australia voted for change; in fact 92,000 more people voted for the Liberal Party than for the Labor Party; so unequivocally the people of South Australia have not been given a democracy. People in South Australia want to live in a democracy. I think this is a fundamental responsibility of our parliament.

We should not be in a position where we deny the people of South Australia what they actually voted for. Fifty-three per cent of people wanted a Liberal Party to govern this state. I accept that the system has delivered a Labor Party to form minority government, but this indicates, quite frankly, that this parliament needs to allocate resources and time to look at our system and to reform our system before the 2018 election. If we squib on this, we are not doing our job. This will be a primary objective of the Liberal Party in this parliament going forward. Madam Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't call me Madam. Deputy Speaker; don't call me Madam, please.

Mr MARSHALL: Is this a new ruling? I'd like to see that one in writing. I would like to conclude my remarks by thanking the electors of Dunstan. I love Dunstan; it is a great electorate. I know every person in this place thinks that their electorate is the best. You all have claim to that, but I have the floor, so I can say that I love the electorate of Dunstan. I thank them very much for returning me, in fact as the first member for Dunstan, because of course we changed our electorate's name at this election. Diversity is the key in Norwood; you can never be bored in Norwood. There is always something new; there is always something happening and there is a huge amount of diversity. I love serving that and I will continue to represent not just those people who voted for me, of course, but the entire electorate, who have been absolutely wonderful to me.

I would like to congratulate other members of this house who were re-elected at the election and I would also like to welcome the new members. In particular I would like to welcome the new members on our side. It is fantastic to see so many people on our side of the house. I know that I cannot mention them by name, but I would like to acknowledge the new member for Mount Gambier, the new member for Schubert—big boots to fill there—the member for Hartley, the member for Bright and the member for Mitchell. Of course, we are very pleased also to have an additional legislative councillor in the other place. We look forward to working with him as well.

It was also wonderful yesterday to see the member for Fisher come into the parliament. He has a battle on his hands. I know only too well the brutal nature of chemotherapy and ray treatment. I think everybody in this house wishes him all the very best for a speedy and full recovery and we look forward to that time when he can return to the house. We look forward to the start of question time, when he can move multiple notices of motion. It was just not the same without him moving those yesterday at the start of question time.

I hope that this parliament will be characterised as a hardworking, diligent, reformist and progressive parliament here in South Australia. There is enormous work to be done; we are in a mess. We are in a mess in South Australia and it is incumbent upon all people right across the political spectrum, on all sides of politics, to do everything that we possibly can to advance the cause of this state. On behalf of everybody in Her Majesty's loyal opposition, the Liberal Party in South Australia, I know that we stand ready to fulfil our obligation under the constitution and to do everything that we possibly can to get this great state of South Australia back on track.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lee. I remind the house that this is the member's inaugural speech. I ask members to accord him the customary courtesies. The member for Lee.

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) (12:09): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. As I commence, I would like to acknowledge that we meet here today on the traditional lands of the Kaurna people and I acknowledge and respect their relationship with this land. Can I also acknowledge my fellow members on both sides of the house. I am grateful and humbled that so many would be present today to hear our contributions and I congratulate them for their elections to the house. Can I also congratulate you, Deputy Speaker, on your role as Deputy Speaker of the house.

I am deeply honoured to be standing here today as the member for Lee. Our community is one of the best in Adelaide and not just because of its beautiful beaches, proud industrial and maritime heritage, tourism attractions and successful sporting clubs. Our community is such a great part of South Australia because of its people. Residents of the Lefevre Peninsula and the western suburbs truly are the best going around: neighbourly, compassionate, proud of their heritage and always looking out for those in our community who need a hand. To be considered a worthy representative to this place is a great honour, indeed. Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that I will be working conscientiously to do my best on their behalf.

As I am sure all other honourable members would know, delivering a maiden speech to the house on behalf of your constituency is the culmination of a long, arduous and testing journey, and all of our paths here are different. Perhaps I can begin by telling the house a little about mine.

I come from a large, close-knit and loving family. I am the youngest of five boys and we had a fun and very fortunate upbringing. Mum stopped working when she had my eldest brother and stayed at home to raise us all and manage a very busy and demanding household. My father worked very long hours, but always made a point to take us to school every morning and to set aside time at weekends to spend with mum and us boys. As a result, we had a very happy childhood and I know that this has given me the confidence and fortitude I enjoy today.

Both of my parents were similarly proud of their upbringing. Dad was raised first at Semaphore, then at Largs Bay. His father, Fred, worked nearby at the old Osborne power station. Dad played junior footy for the Port Magpies, and he was the local postie while putting himself through university. When my brothers and I were growing up he would take us to Alberton Oval to watch the 'Pies', to visit the beach at Largs, or go fishing off North Haven. As it is now, in those days it was a tight-knit community on the Lefevre Peninsula.

My great uncle was Sir Cecil Hincks, a veteran of both Gallipoli and Western Front campaigns, and was a minister in the Playford government until his death in 1963. He would spend time at Largs visiting his sister, my grandmother, Emily.

When we were growing up, dad would take us to Largs or North Haven and show us where he grew up; where his uncle Cecil lived; the houses of the families he knew; and the shops, warehouses and factories in and around The Port that provided for so many livelihoods in the 1940s and 50s. Though I did not realise it at the time, these experiences as a young boy—of being driven around by my father and shown the community that meant so much to him—left a deep impression on me.

When it came time for me to buy a home, I bought in Largs. Though it had never been home for me, nonetheless it felt like it. Today I live on the same street on which dad was raised. This was only a small part of his influence on me and my brothers. Dad's Lefevre upbringing gave him a strong sense of justice, a cynicism towards privilege and establishment and a deep compassion for those less fortunate in our community. He sought out opportunities to help people. He worked incredibly hard, but always made room in his life for family, cricket and football (particularly the Port Adelaide Football Club) and for cooking and gardening. All attributes left deep impressions on me and my brothers, and these are qualities we seek to emulate today—except, perhaps, the gardening! Working hard and finding ways to help those less fortunate, particularly if we should be in a position to do so, was infused into all of us.

Unfortunately, I never met my maternal grandfather, Ray 'Jimmy' Campbell, a wing commander in the then Royal Air Force, who passed away before I was born. Instead, my brothers and I spent much time growing up with his wife Rita, our nanna. Born in England, she lived through The Great Depression and, as a result, knew the value of a dollar. Like so many who had lived through the period of rationing she had an outstanding appetite for butter and being so thrifty we would joke that she would wash Glad Wrap for reuse.

Like nanna, my mother is not only very caring, but very astute—a font of wisdom and advice on anything we might seek her counsel on. It was often surprising and embarrassing what mum knew about us as we grew up, but she always had the right words and heartfelt concern for us. We were very lucky indeed to have the upbringing we did.

Though I was a good student at school, I never had a clear idea of what I wanted to do and like many who were uncertain about their future I commenced a Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Adelaide in 1996. As I now realise, this was a turning point for me. Until then, from the age of five to the age of 18, I had grown up in a country governed by Labor, first under Bob Hawke and then under Paul Keating. While my family never really discussed politics—I still do not know how my parents voted—we would watch the news and current affairs programs. While we were not political, I guess I had become politically aware and I was shocked when Paul Keating lost government just as I was starting university. Instead, the country had a new conservative prime minister, John Howard. Immediately he and the new treasurer, Peter Costello, established a commission of audit foreshadowing savage cuts across a range of areas. How history repeats.

That year massive cuts were made to the higher education sector meaning, among other things, undergraduates like me were suddenly paying much more for our degrees and for other day-to-day costs. This sparked what was the last wave of student activism across the country. Our generation had always been led to believe that education is the key to a successful future and here was a government doing its best to make it harder to get a degree. We marched in our thousands through Adelaide, echoing other rallies around the country. These were my first weeks and months at university and for me they were heady times. My disappointment at Labor losing government turned to anger at the new Coalition government. Strangely enough, John Howard had activated a nascent Labor career.

In response to ongoing national protests and because the conservatives do not like collectivism, the Howard government had two attempts at introducing voluntary student unionism. It knew that if it could succeed in effectively defunding student organisations, it would undermine the organising capacity of future generations of activists and go a long way to silencing dissent against right-wing policies into the future. The Howard government eventually won that battle in the early 2000s and as a result students are now more poorly represented and denied much of the activities and experiences that used to make attending university such a rewarding and life enriching experience.

Of course, perhaps emboldened by this early success, Howard then attacked the union movement and the entitlements and representation of working Australians in his WorkChoices policies, which were fortunately defeated at the federal election in 2007.

I became involved in student representation and, through it, the Labor Party. As president of the students' association I learned about advocacy, about helping students, and about defending institutions. It was a time when the university was considering closing the Elder Conservatorium, restructuring its law school, and drastically cutting staff and services, and we managed to prevent the worst of these measures.

When I left university I was grateful to accept an offer from the member for Enfield, now Deputy Premier, to work part-time in his electorate office. Back then he had a regular spot on talkback radio and he took great delight in directing callers, regardless of their electorate, to the office for assistance. The office was—as all good electorate offices are—a de facto community legal centre, dispensing advice, assistance and, from time to time, advocacy to those who could not get help elsewhere.

For me it was another chance to help people regardless of how small or large their problem might be. We felt we were giving people someone to turn to or a voice when they felt neglected or disenfranchised, particularly given the social issues in the Parks and in Kilburn.

I also spent some years working for the then Treasurer, first as an adviser, then as chief of staff. It was a very productive period for the government. Bold initiatives to create the Economic Development Board, to develop and release a strategic plan for the state, and the pursuit of industry development in both defence manufacturing and mining were undertaken, with significant successes. As the state economy rebounded after the 1990s, revenues increased and government debt was reduced, taxes were cut significantly, investments were made in infrastructure, and better services in health, education and social welfare were delivered. For me, it was a great time participating in the efforts to grow our economy and also to improve services to the community. This was a new and vastly more challenging way to help people.

The strategy for the government to invest in industry development policies and take an active role in facilitating the growth of the economy was a clear strategy. Further, it ensured that there was a clear social dividend from these investments through better services and infrastructure; that one followed the other and that a government has responsibilities in delivering both was a valuable lesson in the role of government. It was a hard, busy and rewarding time and I know that over the period the state has advanced significantly, socially and economically.

Nonetheless, I wanted to broaden my experience and I left for a role at Deloitte Access Economics, developing its South Australian business. The experience of being responsible for my own business unit, for recruiting and managing a team, for being accountable for budget targets, utilisation rates, industry strategies and marketing plans was very fulfilling. Being part of a national economic team was also a terrific experience. Working alongside some of the leading economists in the country, I saw government from the other perspective, where decisions, investments and programs are judged from a drier, more rationalist perspective.

Predominantly, government expenditures are assessed on whether they are the most efficient allocation of resources for a given outcome—the economist's bread and butter. In an environment of fiscal constraint, this is a valuable skill to apply to public policy. However, I also learnt that, while this perspective is important in assessing public sector expenditures, it is only one of many important considerations. Just as social groups should have a mind to the cost and financial implications of their priorities, so should economists and business groups have a mind to broader social objectives. It was gratifying to know that some of Australia's most well known and respected economists had a balanced view of their role in the public policy debate.

It is an important lesson, because much of the national debate at present seems to miss this balance. The pursuit of fiscal outcomes is certainly important, but is it a government's sole or even primary responsibility, and should the pursuit of these outcomes prevent investments in projects and programs that generate ongoing economic returns, such as secure employment? I felt we also missed a more balanced debate on this point regarding assistance for the automotive manufacturing industry. Government investments to secure industry development and jobs in the long term pay significant social dividends.

The state government's investment in the Techport Australia precinct is a case in point: it was central in winning the air warfare destroyer contract and thousands of jobs, and it has established Osborne as the premier shipbuilding location in Australia. It provided significant benefits for the local communities, particularly those of the northern and western suburbs, many of which fall into the electorate of Lee. With the neighbouring electorate of Port Adelaide, Lee shares the port and the Lefevre Peninsula. Ours are communities that have historically been central to much of South Australia's economic prosperity: the export and stevedoring operations, the warehousing and distribution, and the maintenance and construction of shipping.

As time and technology have moved on over the decades, so have many of the jobs. Government investments to secure industries into the future through major contracts, such as that air warfare destroyer contract, the relocation of the 7RAR Battalion to Edinburgh and the next generation submarine contract are critical. They underpin employment and economic opportunities in communities like Lee and more broadly throughout South Australia.

Over the past year I doorknocked many people who work at Techport. They were thankful that the government had the foresight to invest in such a facility, securing jobs and prosperity. On a side note, I am also very pleased to see how shipbuilding is providing wider benefits to the community. The Lefevre High School has been investing in programs to assist students to learn about shipbuilding, engineering, advanced manufacturing techniques and the trades, and they are already having success in placing graduates into jobs in related industries on the peninsula. This is a model now being pursued by another peninsula school, Ocean View College, in the member for Port Adelaide's electorate, in the transport and logistics industries.

I also doorknocked many Holden workers and automotive component workers. They were less thankful for the decisions their national government has recently made. The commonwealth government saving $500 million in automotive assistance might seem prudent to some, but if the forecasts are correct and tens of thousands of workers lose their jobs over the next three years, what will be the saving to government? We know that there is likely to be vast economic and social dislocation unless a well-funded and cleverly implemented adjustment package is rolled out by all levels of government. It beggars belief that the full costs of additional government efforts will not significantly exceed the dollars saved in industry assistance. I am not convinced that we were given the full cost-benefit analysis by the commonwealth in this respect.

The decision to withdraw support from the automotive sector is a good example of how the economic rationalists have dominated the national debate and won. We should be careful to balance these debates in the future because the impacts of these decisions have significant and lasting impacts through our communities.

My next-door neighbour is a Holden worker, and the challenge that he and his family faces in the coming years is disheartening, particularly when it was avoidable. His experience, and those of tens of thousands who will be similarly affected, convince me even further of the role the government has in facilitating economic growth and prosperity.

Our community in Lee has a very keen interest in the redevelopment of the Port. I am glad that the government has stepped in to take control of the future development of the inner harbor. Good development is exactly what the Port needs. It is rare to have a second chance at such significant developments, but we are lucky enough to have this in Port Adelaide.

Many residents, stakeholders and community groups felt disenfranchised at what occurred over the last 15 years. The first attempt by the previous developer has not delivered the benefits that the community anticipated. However, there is a tentative sense of momentum in the Port now. We are starting to feel proud of it again. We are starting to picture what it could look like and how good it could be, instead of just lamenting its current state. Those who have worked so tirelessly, and mostly thanklessly, sustaining our maritime heritage, a built heritage and the renowned Port Adelaide art scene, are feeling some optimism. I look forward to working hard to help the Port reach its considerable potential.

I am very proud that the consistent investment by this government in the Port and the Lefevre Peninsula has underpinned economic opportunities. The next step is to encourage more people to live in and around the Port and help it become the premier tourist destination it deserves to be.

Elsewhere, South Australians are waking up to the fact that we in fact have Adelaide's best beaches. Semaphore and Largs are beautiful places, so far unspoilt and not losing their character. It will be a challenge supporting the continued growth of Semaphore Road and Jetty Road at Largs without losing the country town atmosphere and the heritage that makes it such a unique part of Adelaide.

In West Lakes, the move of AFL football to Adelaide Oval and the planned redevelopment of the land surrounding AAMI Stadium are key concerns for residents. I campaigned with residents to scale back the SANFL's plans for the precinct to something a little more reasonable. West Lakes is one of the first and most successful broadscale housing developments in metropolitan Adelaide. Ensuring that the community has adequate input into how land is developed and ensuring that development is in keeping with the surrounding areas will be important, and I look forward to continuing to assist residents in this respect.

Before I finish, there are some people I would like to thank for their role in helping me here today. First, my family: to my mother Jan and my late father Ted, I can never adequately express how much your unfailing love and support has enabled me to pursue all that I have in life. either have ever sought to influence or dissuade me in the decisions I have made, but instead you have armed me with the wisdom and guidance that has enabled me to traverse the paths that I have today.

To my wife Antonia, thank you for your steadfast love, as well as patiently and generously accepting all the time, effort and energy that has gone into me arriving here. It has been a difficult and challenging road, especially as newlyweds, and I am in awe of your reserves of love and encouragement.

To my brothers James, Charles, Paul and David, thank you for your encouragement and the confidence you give me, and your incredible support. I am so glad that no matter how old we get, we still enjoy chasing each other around mum's kitchen, whipping each other with her tea towels.

Thank you also to my wife's parents, Lefky and the late Ben, and their families as well, the Iannunzios and the Hizartdzidises, who were so generous with their support and efforts in helping me: Liz and Gio, Desi and Stellio, Jenny and Mick. Thank you also to George Mazarakos and his family, and the team at Sotos.

Thank you to my friends for the support and encouragement: Matt and Kirsten Hawthorn, Alex Dighton and Claire Jarratt, Tom and Carrie Radzevicius, Aaron and Tanya Witthoeft, Matt and Nicky Sykes, Paul and Jane Sykes, Simon and Allison Dawe, Frances Dreyer, Sarah and Tim Goodchild, Chris and Penny Gent, Kelly Ansell, Annabel and Will Haslam, Sam Tomich, Rosslyn Cox, Victoria and Michael Brown, Nick Champion, John Bistrovic, Rik Morris, Caroline Rhodes, Aaron Hill, Rob Malinauskas, Mel Cocking, Jarrad Pilkington and Lucy Hood, Reggie Martin and Shannon Sampson, and Kim Eldridge.

I also want to thank those friends of mine who have been particularly supportive who are also in the Labor Party, especially Peter and Annabel Malinauskas; the member for West Torrens and his wife Anthea Koutsantonis; Don and Nimfa Farrell; Alex and Paola Gallacher; Aemon and Emily Bourke; the member for Enfield and Deputy Premier; Kevin Foley; Mike Rann; the member for Playford; the member for Little Para; the member for Newland; the Speaker; the member for Kaurna, the Hon. Tung Ngo; the member for Ramsay; the member for Port Adelaide; Jason Hall, the secretary of my union (the Finance Sector Union); John Bistrovic; Dan and Sonia Romeo; our Premier and member for Cheltenham, also for the fantastic campaign that he tirelessly led; the federal member for Port Adelaide (Mark Butler); Nick Bolkus; the former member for Lee (Hon. Michael Wright); and the former member for Semaphore (Hon. Norm Peterson) who joins us today.

I would also like to take some time to thank those who have spent a lot of time and effort to help, guide and mentor me, including Adrian O'Dea, Nick Alexandrides, Peter Bicknell, Adrian Tisato, Jeff Mills, Simon Blewett, and John Hood. And to my campaign team, thank you for working so tirelessly: Peter Gonis, Liam Golding, Dave Kirner, Warwick Norman and Kay Ronai, Jono Schomburgk, Lachlan McInnes, Pat and Donna Hansen, Brad Green, Daniela Rattenni, Shaylee Leach, Suzie Trifunic, Wasim Saeed, Julie MacDonald, Scott Freer, Eric and Jill Lavender, Kyall Smith, Damian Allison, David Wilkins, Hannah MacLeod, Amy Ware, and of course, the wonderful Karen Abineri.

I also thank all the others I may have neglected to mention who supported me, who bought raffle tickets, attended barbeques, made phone calls, letterboxed, handed out on polling day, or just offered me moral support.

I want to make mention of the way in which we chose to campaign for the electorate of Lee. I am a significant believer in the capacity of local MPs to be agents for positive change in their communities. In my campaign, we concentrated on helping groups with issues that were important to them. One I would like to make mention of, an issue of considerable community concern, is a development on a local park.

The campaign to prevent this continues, and it is being led by a group of residents, including Catherine McMahon, Pat Netschitowsky, Maureen Jones, Jane Edwards, Fiona McConchie, Alan O'Connor, Alison Hastings and Tim Walsh, and supported by South Australian Neighbour of the Year, Len Scott of Peterhead. Over time, as more and more people have become involved in this issue, and they have taken a more active interest in local clubs, community groups and other issues. This is one example of local capacity building, involving more and more people in what is happening in their communities, and the more it occurs the more inclusive and active our society will be. It also invariably leads to better decision-making. It has been a privilege to work with them, and with other groups, on the campaigns over the last 12 months.

I mentioned earlier how deeply honoured I am to be the representative for my community in this place. I have also mentioned a few of the challenges and the opportunities that await. My greatest thank you goes to the electors of Lee, who have placed such faith in me.

I am convinced that we all put our hands up to run for parliament because we genuinely want to do the best for our communities. In previous roles I have been fortunate to witness many members, from all sides, who, to me, exemplify what it is to be a good MP. There are also those who conduct themselves with an added air of integrity, of authenticity, and a willingness to put politics aside and work to deliver outcomes for the benefit of our state. I am pleased to say that there are a lot of those on both sides of this chamber today. At times they appear to be a diminishing breed, but I will do my best to learn from and to emulate them.

In finishing, I am very conscious that while we have what seems a long period in four years, it is merely a brief moment in the life of our respective communities and also of this house. All of us, quite frankly, do not have a moment to lose. While the challenges confronting us seem numerous, so are the opportunities. We should not hesitate to work tirelessly in moving our communities and our state forward, and always be mindful of the impact of the decisions we make on the people we represent.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:37): I rise in response to the Governor's speech yesterday in what is the Address in Reply debate, and I congratulate His Excellency and Lady Scarce on the wonderful job they do in their positions and the way they carry themselves throughout South Australia representing those positions.

Part of the Governor's speech yesterday dealt with the government's view that there appears to be a growing feeling of estrangement between politicians and the people they are elected to represent, and this suggests an urgent need to reform our democracy. I wish to spend my time in the Address in Reply debate talking about the need for electoral reform.

Electoral reform is not new to South Australia. It started, in most recent times, in 1968, after a significant campaign by the Labour Party—over a number of elections—about alleged bias and gerrymander within the then South Australian electoral system. In 1968 the Hall government started electoral reform.

This was continued, of course, in 1976 by the Dunstan government, and there was a redistribution of electoral boundaries in 1976. It is interesting that in this 1976 redistribution Dean Jaensch was reported as saying that he thought the Liberal Party would need to win 50.1 per cent of the vote and would only then receive 21 seats. In other words, they would be three short of a majority. The Advertiser wrote that the Liberal Party would have needed something like 54 per cent of the vote to achieve government.

The next significant area of electoral reform happened after the 1989 election—and I will come to that in a second—but in the lead up to the 1989 election, the Hon. Trevor Griffin in another place argued that under the way the boundaries had been constructed that in 1975 the Liberal Party would have had to win 55 per cent of the vote; in the 1977 election, 55.3 per cent of the vote; in the 1979 election, 54.8 per cent of the vote; in the 1982 election, 51.9 per cent of the vote; and in the 1985 election, 51.1 per cent of the vote. He argued that to win the 1989 election, the Liberal Party would have to win at least 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.

In fairness, the calculation of the two-party preferred vote did not actually take place in a formal sense by the Electoral Commission until about 1985 or 1989, so the two-party preferred votes as reported are a reconstruction based on the best methodology. People such as Jaensch and Forbes argue that in 1977 the Liberal Party would not have had to receive 55 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to form government, but at least prior to the 1989 election that was the argument put forward by the Hon. Trevor Griffin from another place.

Interestingly, his prediction that the Liberal Party would have to win more than 52 per cent of the vote in the 1989 election to win government came true. In that election the Liberal Party won essentially 52 per cent of the two-party preferred vote and failed to form government. Such was the community outrage in 1989 that ultimately there was a select committee of the parliament to look into electoral reform matters. As a result of that select committee a referendum was held to the question of whether a fairness clause should be inserted into the state's constitution. The fairness clause in principle was about saying that of the group of candidates, which we would call parties, the party that received the statewide two-party preferred vote of more than 50 per cent should form government; that was the principle of the referendum.

That referendum was supported by the South Australian public, it was then supported by the South Australian parliament, and that principle was put into the South Australian Constitution Act. Since 1989 we have had a fairness clause in the Electoral Act and a requirement for redistributions after every election to try to achieve the outcome that the party that receives 50 per cent or more of the two-party preferred vote forms government.

What has happened since the 1989 election, since the installation of the fairness clause? What has happened is that in half of the elections held since 1989 the party that has received more than 50 per cent of the vote has not formed government. In 2002 the Liberal Party received 50.9 per cent of the vote, in 2010 the Liberal Party received 51.6 per cent of the vote and in 2014, the most recent election, the Liberal Party received 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.

What is staggering, to my mind, is that having been outraged by a party receiving 52 per cent of the vote and not forming government, there has been a system put in place to try to ensure fairness and a 53 per cent vote cannot get a party into government. There was outrage at 52 per cent, a select committee, a referendum, a change to the constitution, and now the system has delivered a 53 per cent outcome where the party that has received 53 per cent of the two-party preferred vote does not form government. It was actually a worse result than when the fairness test was introduced.

To my mind, if a 53 to 47 per cent vote cannot guarantee government to the party that receives 53 per cent of the vote, then we need to start debating electoral reform in South Australia. The real question is: can we and should we design a system that guarantees that the majority of voters get what they vote for? Put aside for a minute the issue of whether a new system favours Labor or Liberal—that is quite irrelevant to me—and put aside whether the current system favours Labor or Liberal. I think the parliament has a duty to ask a very simple question: how does the voting system serve the voter? After all, in a democracy, the voting system should be about delivering a vote, delivering to the majority of the state the government that they vote for.

What we have had in South Australia on a repeated basis over many decades, over many elections, is a system where the majority of voters are being outvoted by the minority of voters. Now, for a state that prides itself on its democratic principles, its democratic reforms, the women's vote, the secret ballot, the vote for Aboriginal men early in the piece and ultimately Aboriginal women later in the piece, as I understand it, why would we accept a system going forward that continually delivers a result where the minority of the state can outvote the majority of the state?

My mind turns to the question: how does the current system serve the voter? Members opposite will come in—and you will hear them in the press as well—and say that the simple fact is that the Labor Party ran a better campaign in marginal seats. I will not dispute the argument—they have won the election, that is obvious. It appears to me that I am still on this side of the chamber, which indicates that we are still in opposition. So, lots of experts will talk about what happened at the 2014 or 2010 elections. But at the 2010 election, having won 52 per cent of the vote, we had a redistribution to try to ensure that the party that won 50 per cent of the vote would win government. So, having won 52 per cent in 2010 and then 53 per cent in 2014, the Liberal Party still finds itself in opposition.

How is the voter served by the current system when 92,000 more South Australians wanted a change of government than those who wanted to keep the government—92,000? If you look at it on a two-party preferred basis, about 60,000 people wanted a change of government. On the first preference it is about 92,000. So, on what basis will the parliament sit here and say that we will not engage in the debate to ask whether we should change the system, not to try to help one party or another but in fact to deliver the system that will give the voter the government they vote for?

The purists will say that the way the parliament works is this: that 47 electorates, all on the same day at a general election, vote for their representative. Their representative is voted into the parliament, and then the parliament decides who is the government. The parliament decides who is the government. That would be the purist's argument. There is some validity in that argument, certainly in the process.

There was certainly some validity in the argument 200 years ago, when there was no electronic communications, internet, mobile phones, cars and all those sorts of new transport and communications, where communities were more isolated and when parties did not exist. However, in modern politics, where parties have existed since the early 1900s, I think the public has moved past the system. I think the public has moved to a point where, when they go in to vote in the ballot, they are going in to vote either to keep a government or to change the government. They do that through voting for Fred or Mary from party A or party B who happens to be their local representative.

I have lost count of the number of people who have walked up to me and said, 'I just do not understand how 53 per cent of the state—92,000 more people in this state—can vote for a party and they do not win.' I think the public would support a change to the system that says if the majority of the state votes for a particular party, they should form government. That was the principle, after all, that the 1989 select committee dealt with and agreed to, that was the principle the parliament signed off on when it put it to the referendum of the people, that was the principle that the people voted for in the 1989 referendum and it is a principle that the current system has failed to deliver on a consistent basis.

It is clear to me that the interface between the system with a fairness clause that uses a two-party preferred vote and a system that uses a 47-seat single-member electorate system is simply not working, and we are getting the results we see. I think it is time to debate changes to the electoral system so that the party that wins the two-party preferred vote is guaranteed government.

You could achieve this through simply asking a different question based on the same ballot we use now. Without changing the ballot, instead of saying, 'Whichever party wins the majority of the 47 seats forms government,' the question you could ask, using exactly the same ballot, is, 'Which party has won the two-party preferred vote statewide?' If you ask that question and that party forms government, then you ask the second question, which is the question we ask now, which is, 'Party A, having won more than 50 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, therefore will be the government: can they control the house?' In other words, do they have 24 seats, or 24 votes, in the house? If they do not have 24 votes in the house, then you need a mechanism to give them 24 votes in the house.

The reason I have this debate is this. The current system requires a redistribution after every election every four years. The redistribution is a difficult process. The law requires the Electoral Commission to look four years ahead at the demographic and population changes, then look at the most recent vote in the election and try to redraw boundaries in four years' time so that if everyone who votes in four years' time votes exactly the same way as the election just passed, the party that gets 50 per cent-plus-one of the two-party preferred vote has the best chance of forming government. That is a most difficult task for a whole range of reasons—population movements, the political issues are different, the economic issues are different and there is a 10 to 15 per cent change in the personalities of voters in electorates through job shift and employment shift and families moving out. There is a whole range of changes. That system is open to error and misjudgement.

What boundary is not open to error or misjudgement? That boundary is the state boundary. The state boundary never changes. There is no calculation needed for population. There is no calculation needed for how people voted last time. All you need to say is, 'We will take the vote on the two-party preferred statewide, and whoever wins that two-party preferred vote wins government.'

The other advantage of this system, and I will come to some more technical issues in a minute, is that governments would govern differently because no longer would the government be concentrated on six or eight marginal seats which they need to win at the election so they pork barrel infrastructure and spending into those seats. Now you would have to win the vote statewide. You would actually have to go out and campaign statewide. So, the cabinet and the government would have a different focus on the way it spent money. There would be more spent on the economic and social benefit rather than the political merit of the decision.

It would also go to campaigning: political parties would campaign significantly differently because, again, you would not concentrate on the marginal seats as much as the statewide vote. What it means is that a Labor vote in Port Adelaide is worth as much as a Labor vote in Burnside or a Labor vote in a marginal seat; a Liberal vote in Burnside is worth as much as a Liberal vote in Port Adelaide or a Liberal vote in a marginal seat. It would enliven the whole campaign, because political parties could lift their vote in areas in which they tend to either run little or no campaigns at the moment. So, I see that advantage: it changes government expenditure, it changes the way political parties campaign and, more importantly, it gives the majority of voters the government they vote for.

So, coming to the question, having decided that a party has won 50 per cent plus one of the two-party preferred vote statewide and therefore that party would be the government, how then can you guarantee that they will form government in the house if it does not have a majority? Well, the way you can guarantee that is with a number of options. They essentially revolve around a top-up system, whether that be top-up members or top-up votes, and I will just walk through those two or three options.

The first one is you could have top-up members. So, at the point of the election, when all the candidates are nominated, the political parties could nominate a top-up list of somewhere between six and 10 members—pick a figure, it does not really matter—let's say it is 10 members. That list is used if, after the election, the government that wins 50 per cent plus one of the two-party preferred vote and therefore would be the government does not have a majority in the house. They would be entitled to bring people off the list into the chamber as MPs so that they do have a majority of one in the house. What that does is guarantee the public that when the majority of people vote for a party on a statewide basis, that party forms government.

There are options as to how those people could become members of parliament. Should they be elected? Well, you could quite easily put an extension to the existing House of Assembly ballot and simply have a ballot for the top-up members, like you do for the Senate, above the line or below the line. You could even have a separate ballot paper if you wished. Some people argue that is too complicated and people would not understand it.

An option that has been talked about previously is not having them elected but rather simply nominated by the state executive of the particular party and then brought in off the list if they are used. Regardless of the system that is chosen, the ills of that system are less, in my view, than the ills of having a system that allows 92,000 more people to vote for a government and not get the government that they voted for.

Another option is not to have top-up members, but to have top-up votes. That is, rather than saying, 'You need two or three more members of a top-up list to form a majority in the house,' what you say is simply, 'The government that has been elected needs two more votes,' and you simply give the leader of the house or a nominee of the government extra votes so that there are no extra politicians but the public get the government they voted for. Another option that has been put to me is you simply take the number of extra votes that the party got (so 92,000)—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member, you might wish to seek leave to continue your remarks.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]

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