HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-05-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption resumed.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (17:01): Deputy Speaker, it is with great honour and no small amount of surprise that I rise to speak to the house today. As a young man heavily entrenched in the toils of growing the family business, I feel very privileged to have become only the second member for the seat of Schubert in the South Australian parliament. I have always been an activist, I have always been a joiner of things, but I did not think that the life of a parliamentarian was my destiny. My wonder is heightened by the fact that I stand here to represent what is inarguably one of the best electorates in this country.

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: Hear me out. Schubert takes in all of Australia's most famous wine region, the Barossa Valley, extending from Freeling in the West, Nuriootpa, Penrice and Angaston to the north, my home town of Tanunda, Kersbrook, Williamstown, Lyndoch and Sandy Creek to the south. Schubert also takes in Eden Valley and part of the flats of the Murraylands, including Mount Pleasant, Keyneton, Eden Valley, Springton, Cambrai, Sedan and across to Mannum. Perhaps, though, my favourite part of Schubert is the turn off from the Sturt Highway to Gomersal Road. When heading back home from the city, that turnoff, with its view of rolling hills, changing with the seasons from golden to green, helps to put the perceived trials and tribulations of everyday life into perspective; indeed, life makes more sense.

Schubert has been home, since its inception in 1997, to a man who most of you know very well, Ivan Venning. The only other member for Schubert was one of the real characters of the Liberal Party and of this place. He has been and will continue to be a great mentor and friend, someone whose knowledge of his constituents never ceases to amaze me. I am humble enough to know that I do not know all of the problems that Schubert people face, but I hope to emulate Ivan's tireless advocacy for his electorate, and I will use the mechanisms of this parliament to deliver the best I can for this great electorate.

An honourable member: Paint bridges?

Mr KNOLL: If need be! Schubert is best known for its wine, food and tourism. It is part of a rural South Australia that is highly productive and contributes over and above its population base to this economy. Perhaps, though, it should be better known for its sense of community. Schubert is a place of strong values, hard work, thrift, innovation and self-reliance. It is a community where people band together to get things done, where we put our hands in our own pockets first and ask for handouts last. Instead of wine, I would like to see these values become our greatest export.

Immersing myself within the local communities and experiencing the people of Schubert has solidified my understanding and, indeed, respect for the individual. To paraphrase some lines from John Howard's first speech to parliament:

The Liberal Party offers you an Australia built on deep respect for the individual, on his and her dignity and freedom, the right to succeed, to accept responsibility, to work harder if they wish and to be rewarded for it. The individual's success is the community's success.

This concept finds a very natural home in Schubert. One of the greatest proponents of these qualities was Max Schubert after whom the electorate is named. Max will deservedly take his place in our history as the inventor of Grange Hermitage, continuing to produce it against the wish of his superiors, but Max should be also known as a man whom, amongst others including the late Ray Beckwith, helped to change the face of both the Australian and global wine industries. The electorate of Schubert is certainly one of history, but it is also one of innovation, progressive thinking and a touch of irreverence.

My family and I have travelled and lived in many parts of the country, but community spirit has certainly made Schubert the easiest and indeed the best place to call home. My paternal grandparents arrived here in 1957 escaping the difficulties of post-war Germany. Being part of the incongruously named Silent Generation, they are anything but silent. Their rich memories and background have formed much of my thinking. Their self-reliance, ingenuity, strong work ethic and frugal nature have shown me the value and satisfaction of a hard day's work and taking pride in being a maker of things.

My grandfather was 14 at the end of the Second World War. As the oldest, his family was able to escape national service in the Wehrmacht, and if not for that I might not be standing here today. My grandmother Oma's family was not so lucky, suffering in many ways.

In Australia they toiled hard to put the money together to start their own business and did so in 1961. That business, Bavaria Smallgoods, grew and provided great experience to both my uncle and my father and was sold in 1987. This led to our family being uprooted and setting off on an adventure around Australia. After living in Darwin and Sydney our family came home to Adelaide in 1991 and bought a shop in the Central Market called Barossa Fine Foods. My earliest memories of the shop were standing outside the front on a Saturday morning with a card table full of smallgoods, hawking my wares to passers-by. Dad was tough on commission, but the joy of earning my own money taught me the value of it from an early age.

That business grew from three staff to a business with 15 shops, 230 staff, and national distribution. I was very fortunate to be born into this family and to be part of its journey. I was even luckier that in 2004, as a 21 year old, I had a father that would entrust the running of the family business to me. The mistakes I have made—and there have been many—and the lessons I have learnt about how to grow a business stand me in good stead here today.

As the business grew my role went from task orientated to people orientated. Indeed, what gave me the most satisfaction was the ability to give opportunities to people, and to see them grow and develop with the dignity and confidence that comes with a stable job. I have seen the effects of drug abuse, intergenerational unemployment, unstable family, and addiction. I have seen some with great talent fail and some with little overcome their shortcomings to make a better life for themselves. The only consistent indicator to success through all of this was hard work and effort, and the conscious decision to say, 'I want better for myself and I am going to take every opportunity to get it.'

I also learnt that family and business do mix. The greatest regret that I have is that I will no longer be able to sit down to breakfast and lunch with my father and my brothers, who are all here today, and talk of all things sausage, politics and everything in between. We are an intense bunch signed on to a single dream—one where we make the best product that we can and say yes to every opportunity that we are able. Indeed, there is an old saying that there are two things that you never want to see made: laws and sausages. So, as someone who has helped to make some of the best sausages in the country, I hope I can bring the same to parliament and to lawmaking.

The issues we have had as a business are the same that all small businesses go through when trying to become bigger businesses. Knowing how to overcome them is at the heart of the recovery of the South Australian economy. Schubert, and indeed South Australia, is always touted as a small to medium enterprise state. This is true and indeed very laudable. Small business is the engine room of any economy and the greatest creator of new jobs and new industries. The problem with this statement is that there are not enough of them. South Australia lags behind every other mainland state in terms of businesses per head of population. This compromises our long-term strength, resilience and diversity.

South Australia is standing on the brink. We can either foster innovation that leads to increased dynamism and jobs growth in new industries or we can continue to seek out the big wins, the headline-grabbing wins which, while they look good in newspaper copy, are not the entire story. South Australia is standing on the brink. We can either look to be more like Silicon Valley with its great influx of talent, ideas and capital or we can end up like Detroit, reliant on large players and old industries that are not nimble enough to change with new markets and technologies.

We must do more to support the creation of new small businesses. We need to support those who take the risky step of investing their own capital, their own life savings in new ventures; it is the only way that we can grow and prosper. The Liberal Party understands this explicitly, and our policy platform on promoting entrepreneurship is something I am very proud of. I will be a tireless advocate for fixing the fundamentals. Talking to local businesses, as I have over the last decade, I know that the best thing that we can do in this place to generate growth and jobs is to fix the fundamentals. Tax, utilities, workers compensation and compliance are all handbrakes on our economy that must be reformed.

We still have in South Australia the opportunity to be a low-cost place to do business, not in an absolute sense when compared to the working conditions of the second and third world, but relative to other states and relative to the industries that we can compete successfully in. I believe in my head and my heart that the best thing we can do to promote greater prosperity for the people of Schubert and indeed all South Australians is to create the settings that will breed success, independent of government welfare or interference.

Joining the Liberal Party in early 2008 in the wake of the federal election loss has helped me to solidify my thinking on this. I was inspired to join to help advocate for changes in government at both state and federal level. As a young person I joined the Young Liberal wing of the party and was fortunate enough to be its president in 2011-12. My time spent there making friends, forming opinions and gaining campaign experience was formative and invaluable. I thank the many friends I have made, in particular those here today, but I would also like to thank recent past presidents Sam Duluk, Chris Browne, Michael Van Dissel and Dan Cregan. They are men of considerable intellect and I appreciate their counsel.

I also acknowledge other former Young Liberal presidents the Hon. Michelle Lensink MLC and the member for Morialta who are currently serving in this parliament. I also acknowledge former Young Liberal presidents Dean Brown, a former premier, and Legh Davis, a former MLC. The exuberance and enthusiasm of the Young Liberals may frustrate some, but the movement gives me hope for the future of our party and, to my mind, it is the best training ground for future involvement in our political system.

Perhaps the most informative discussion amongst Young Liberals pertains to the structure of government itself. Competitive federalism is at the heart of Liberal philosophy and should be in the heart of all Liberals. Our federation, though, has many issues. With three strong levels of government we are undoubtedly overgoverned. However, the answer is not to abolish a level of government; it is electorally impossible and impractical: instead, we need to better define government.

We must understand the strength and efficiency of national government, especially in relation to tax collection, but similarly respect the superior role of the states as a deliverer of services. Only through further clarity can we hope to do more with less, avoid confusion and duplication, and deal effectively with the tensions of vertical fiscal imbalance. Even as far back as 1949 Sir Thomas Playford echoed these views, providing this cautionary opinion:

The people have decided on a Federal system, and there is no halfway course…The Commonwealth Parliament…has assumed complete sovereignty over the States…Experience has shown that unification of Government in countries like Australia is not in the interests of the people either from the point of view of effective government, the development of the country, or from the point of view of maintaining civil liberties.

Increased cooperation and clarity is something I have seen work well within my electorate. Schubert has small yet effective organisations to bring about change within the community. These organisations are efficient, work well together, have stakeholder buy-in and deliver good outcomes with strong institutional knowledge retention. I have seen countless examples of industry associations, allied health and care groups, town committees, progress associations, aged care groups and partnership brokers do so much more with so much less. I believe in this as a service delivery model for South Australia.

By contrast, too often I have seen the cost coefficient of the bureaucratic model, of a system with the best of intentions but outdated modus operandi. I see good, intelligent, committed people who came to effect change caught in an expensive system that has failed them and the people they seek to serve.

True leadership and power is having faith in letting others use it. Indeed, it is the mark of an insecure leader that seeks to centralise power for centralisation's sake. Genuine community engagement is the only hope that we have for improving the perception of our vocation.

The greatest fallacy of big government and those who support it is that it is sustainable. Indeed, big government inevitably begets smaller government. When we focus on growing the size of government, we do so at the expense of growing the economic pie. When we then try to take ever-larger slices of a smaller pie, there is less to go around. Small and efficient government begets growth and prosperity. Over time the proponents of small government will be able to do more—so much more—for understanding that the public sector relies on a strong private sector, not the other way around.

A man who understood this intrinsically and as a result kept a flat, small and efficient public service, was the great Sir Thomas Playford. There are not many advantages to sitting on this side of the house; however, being able to look up and see the great portrait of Playford here in Uncle Tom's Cabin does give me great comfort and inspiration. No politician has so affected the economic future of this state as Playford. To quote Sir Walter Crocker's biography:

He set out to bring about an economic revolution in South Australia: to industrialize it so as to end its old dependence on agriculture and sheep farming. At the same time he insisted upon, and he provided, administration which was efficient, thrifty forward-looking and conscientious. His government was quiet-spoken in tone, but its will, like its honesty, was never in doubt.

Playford's vision for South Australia has sustained this state for 50 years, and recent commentary around the current economic troubles being of his making are as offensive as they are wrong. The issue with Playford's vision is that it has not been renewed. Now is well past the time for us to renew that vision. We need to take on his honesty, his integrity, his passion for South Australia, his unrelenting focus on industrial policy as the basis for prosperity and his old-fashioned common sense.

One criticism of Playford was that he survived in this place only with the help of an electoral system weighted in favour of rural areas. There were strong cries at the time from Don Dunstan and others of 'one vote, one value'. This led to significant and justified change. One of the outcomes though has been a continual decline in the focus on regional and rural South Australia. In fact, this election was won by those opposite with an explicit Adelaide-only focus. I believe that the cries of 'one vote, one value' are now justifiably heard not only by those ignored in country areas, but also in metropolitan pockets taken for granted.

I look forward to seeing a system where all electors are valued equally, no matter where they live. Resilient against this continued neglect over the past decade though, the fact remains that over 50 per cent of our exports still come from our regions. This neglect threatens our future prosperity by ignoring the hand that feeds us. We are still in large part an agricultural state. We should not be embarrassed by this, but instead we should embrace it and value-add it.

There are many people that I need to thank who have helped me on my road to this place. I have previously said that without the thousands of hours by hundreds of people over the past few years I would not be standing here. It is to these people that I say I will devote my time, energy and passion to making you proud of your efforts.

To my wife Amy and my daughter Ruby, I have asked a lot of you and I will continue to ask. Everything I hope to do here I do for you, for making a better place for our family and to make sure that Ruby has every opportunity to stay and contribute here in South Australia . Amy, we have been together for 15 years. Back then, I was drawn by how easily and deeply we connected and to this day I am still fascinated by you. I feel so privileged to be one of the few people who truly get to know you. Amy, Ruby, you are my home; you are my heart.

To my interim staff Taryn and Natasha for the work that you have done during the transition: thank you. You have made the first two months an absolute pleasure, and I look forward to meeting the newborn Lincoln Todman-McGreen in the near future—I think he was born just yesterday. To my new staff Brendan and Courtney: I thank you for the work that you are about to do. Please note that I will not say this often enough, so at least at this time it has been recorded in Hansard.

To my grandparents, Oma and Opa, for your guidance and especially your example—thank you. To Mum and Dad, you have given my brothers and me every opportunity in the world. Instead of pocket money you gave us a job and you gave us a work ethic. Instead of possessions you gave us purpose, confidence and balance. Instead of empty words, you showed us by example and exposed us to enduring Christian values. Never could we have wanted for more.

To my boys, Andreas, Dieter and Alex, you are my best friends. With Barbara and Franz off running the family business, we were often left to fend for ourselves. Never could anyone have asked for better keepers. Only now, with distance and perspective, do I realise how lucky I was that our time spent terrorising the neighbourhood was amongst the happiest of my life. I miss working with you every day, and I will continue to miss you, but I promise that my time spent here will be worthwhile. I will make you proud.

To my mother-in-law, Cathy, who unfortunately could not be here today because trying to discuss with Ruby the Westminster conventions about non-members coming onto the floor during parliament sitting did not go down too well, I look forward to giving this speech to her in full when we get home. Cathy, thank you for showing me that family does come first. To my father-in-law, Phil, my greatest cheerleader, you have taught me how to appreciate the simple things in life and to stop and smell the roses, especially when those roses are really the homemade pies and pasties from the Barossa Farmers Market.

To the past staff and students at Christian Brothers College, as a holder of the Brother Murray scholarship for five years, I not only learnt about getting involved and giving back but I also learnt that, in the act of doing so, you always come out richer for the experience. My high school education taught me always to serve those who cannot do for themselves and stay true to my faith, lessons that I hope to take heed of in this place.

To my close confidantes and great many friends who have encouraged me to run for parliament, I am grateful and will look to repay that faith every day. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Senator Cory Bernardi, a man not without controversy but certainly one of conviction, for a conversation that sparked an idea that led me to where I stand today. To my campaign team of Susie, Steph, Peter, Christian, Tom, Michael and the members of my SEC, you have welcomed me as your new member and I thank you for all your wise counsel and support.

To the federal member for Barker (Tony Pasin), we have come into our respective parliaments together and we have plied our electoral trade together in our communal patch. Thank you for your friendship and support. To the people of Schubert, thank you for the faith that you have shown. I am your voice, your conduit, your servant. Together, we can make our community even better than it already is.

Lastly, I must speak of compassion. The left do not have a monopoly on compassion. I am here for the same purpose as they: to advance the greater prosperity and happiness of our people. But on this side of the house we understand the following: that good intentions do not create jobs, businesses do; that subsidy does not create long-term sustainability, it creates dependence; that we need to do more, so much more, for those who cannot do for themselves but ensure that we continue to encourage those who will not do for themselves to fulfil their social contract, commitment to their community and, most importantly, to themselves.

I believe that unrestrained welfare is false compassion—paternalism at its worst—and does more harm than good. True compassion comes from providing opportunity and placing in people the faith and ability to grasp those opportunities for themselves. Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

[Sitting extended beyond 18:00 on motion of Hon. J.M. Rankine]

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (17:25): I would like to begin by acknowledging the Kaurna people on whose land we do gather today and respect their spiritual relationship with their land. Given that this is the Parliament of South Australia, I do wish to also acknowledge the cultural authority of Aboriginal people across the length and breadth of this state.

I congratulate you, Deputy Speaker, on your ascent to the Deputy Speaker's position, whilst also congratulating the Speaker, who just left the chamber, on his ascent to his position. I wish also to acknowledge His Excellency for the outstanding work that he and Mrs Scarce do in fulfilling their responsibilities as the Governor of this state. They do an outstanding job, and I have never been any more proud of the work they do. I look forward to their ongoing contribution to the people of South Australia.

Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to be back here, as you might imagine. I did not necessarily want to do an Address in Reply but, who knows, this might be my last one, so I thought I would take the opportunity—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, who knows? We are at the will of the electorate, and I am very pleased that on this occasion the electorate decided to return me to this place as the member for Colton. I intended to do an Address in Reply for that exact reason: it could be my last. I wish to congratulate all the new members from both sides of the house. I believe that the contributions we have heard from new members have been not only outstanding but probably the very best of those first speeches I have heard in my time here. Some wag said to me the other day, 'Except for yours and the class of 2002,' but I say, no, this is the best group I have seen come into parliament. I congratulate them not only on their election but on their first speeches in this place and that ongoing standard of speeches and contributions to this place.

I also recognise and acknowledge retiring members. It is not always the case that we as members of parliament get to choose the timing of our departure. I particularly recognise those retiring members and their contributions to not only the electorates but to the state as a whole: the members for Kaurna, Torrens, Reynell, Elder, Giles, Lee, Napier and, of course, Schubert as well. I acknowledge the presence of the former member for Schubert, my very, very good friend, and I look forward to that ongoing friendship as we grow older. His contribution in this place was also quite outstanding.

I also want to acknowledge those who were not re-elected—the members for Hartley, Bright, Mitchell and Mount Gambier—and again thank them for their contribution to their electorates and this place. I also want to congratulate the members for Lee, Port Adelaide and Ramsay and their ascent to the executive arm of government. I have no doubt in my mind that each has the ability to go all the way. There is no doubt in my mind that they are quality members of the executive of government, and I congratulate them on the positions they now hold. I also want to not only acknowledge but pass on my best wishes to the member for Fisher and wish him well in the fight of his life he is having at this point in time.

I wish to highlight some aspects of the Governor's speech, and I would like to start by listing or at least talking about aspects of the Address in Reply of the member for Heysen. I understand how difficult it must be to have spent 12 years in opposition with the outlook of having 16 years in opposition. I know how debilitating that must be for any member of parliament, but what I found today with respect to the member for Heysen's contribution was the negativity, the built-up anger, the pent-up anger, and the negativity of her contribution here today. As I said, 12 years in opposition is a hard task and, of course, there are four more years of that to occur.

What I would also like to say is that if you transpose that against the new members who have been elected here and the positivity they bring to this parliament on both sides of the house there is a stark difference between the contribution of the member for Heysen and the new members.

I am looking at the member for Hartley and I remember him saying in his speech—I will paraphrase him here and I might be wrong, and he can whack me behind the ear if I am. He talked about being a breath of fresh air. Indeed, the new members on both sides are a breath of fresh air; it is just better that someone else says it than yourself, but that is fine. There is no problem with that because, quite frankly, I believe they are a breath of fresh air.

I want to focus on the contribution of the member for Heysen with respect to a couple of comments she made. As I spoke about in my grievance previously, there is a little bit of distaste on that side about the fact that they are sitting over there and not here. However, for the member for Heysen to say, with respect to the Boundaries Commission and the Electoral Commission, that: 'They had a job to do and they failed to do it, as evidenced by the outcome of the election, and I think it was utterly hopeless, and that, combined with the person that I consider'—and this is very important—'to be an utterly corrupt electoral commissioner, I think is just a shame for this state.'

In listening to that today and reading that this afternoon—and I am going to talk about the perception that others have of us outside of this place and of us as politicians, but for that to be said actually perpetuates the idea that what we are is a mob of gutless wonders who are willing to say whatever we want to say here without having the guts to go and say it outside. I found that a disgrace and I think she should come into the chamber and withdraw and apologise for that particular comment. If not, go outside and say it.

Part of the Governor's speech, of course, was the recommitment to the seven strategic priorities but, just as importantly, the government's approach to making the most of the opportunities afforded our state. We will make the most of those opportunities by creating an environment where the people of South Australia have the support they need to collaborate, innovate and embrace an outward-looking approach.

When you look at South Australia—I have said this on numerous occasions—the six degrees of separation that occur elsewhere do not occur here in South Australia. There is no reason that we cannot set the appropriate standard, a standard that cannot be witnessed anywhere else and, because of our size, that business, government, academia and the broader community can collaborate and work together at a level that has never been seen in this state. I certainly welcome the government's approach to making sure that we do collaborate in such a way.

Innovation was the other pillar or plank underpinning how we will achieve and make the most of our opportunities. We have a great history of innovation in this state and, having had a crack at the member for Heysen earlier, I also acknowledge that in her contribution she highlighted some of the companies and organisations in this state that are doing an outstanding job of innovating and making this place, from a business perspective, a better place than it otherwise would be. We will continue to search for new and better ways of doing things. We will build on our strengths and we will create niche areas that distinguish South Australia from the rest of Australia and other parts of the world. That is the only way that we will go forward with confidence.

The other priority was the commitment to an outward-looking approach and finding our place in the world and our region. Of course, that will be underpinned by the South Australia-India Engagement Strategy and the South Australia-China Engagement Strategy. That is our place in the world and I have no doubt that those strategies will bear fruit.

I will touch on the Governor's comments regarding reforming our democracy. He spoke about the growing feeling of estrangement between politicians and the people they are elected to represent. He also spoke about further improving the perception of our democratic institutions and processes. I must say that my interpretation of the Governor's comments regarding the need to reform our democracy is somewhat different than the perception or the interpretation held by the member for Davenport. I spoke about it in my grieve. Unfortunately, I was unaware that I was going to have a grieve today, but I will continue that aspect of my previous grieve in more detail later, so I will not cover too much territory here.

The member for Davenport is all about reforming our electoral system and the processes within the electoral system that determine the result of the election. I believe that the Governor's comments are more about how we as politicians serve, and are perceived through that serving of our community, by those that we are elected to represent.

I have long believed and often said the political party of either persuasion that creates the new paradigm of engagement and of involving our communities, that becomes relevant to its people, and its people feel relevant to the government of the day, will hold sway for a long, long period of time. It will be the party that achieves this, in my view, that will occupy the government benches for an extended period in the future.

If we look at it this way: our democratic system, and more importantly, those occupying positions within the system (in this occasion, I refer to politicians, whilst there are many other people that occupy positions within the democratic system) here in South Australia, across Australia and the rest of the world, have not changed their modus operandi for 50 or 60 years or more, with respect to engagement, in their communication with and the relevance to or of the people they are meant to serve.

Let us just have a quick look, Deputy Speaker, if we can, at this relationship by using two examples—only two examples, whilst there will be others, I am sure—of how and why the perceptions of us and the system held by the public is either failing or has failed. If we have a look at New South Wales: the ICAC investigations exposing the depth of corruption across the political spectrum in that state.

What is mostly concerning to me is that there appears to be, in the people that I have spoken to, an acceptance that this is common practice, and it is not. It is not common practice but, of course, perception is reality. We have a prime example of why it is that we are not held in the level of esteem that we perhaps would like to be held. It is interesting, actually, because when I was a firefighter, I was held up this high—for Hansard, that is much taller than me—with regard to public perception.

Then I became a union official, and I jokingly said—and I do not have any problems with these people, so don't say that I have—that I was now down here—for Hansard, that is very low to the ground; coupled with probably dog catchers and parking inspectors—I have friends that are dog catchers and parking inspectors, but I am just using that as an example. Then I became a politician, which, from a public perception's perspective, is even lower than that—just a foot off the ground—and I do not like it. I do not like it because the significant majority of politicians that I know in this house and elsewhere are dedicated to one thing: doing their best job to serve the people that have elected them.

There is obviously work that we have to do to raise that image, and that could only be raised through our actions and the way we operate. So, the ICAC investigations—the worst part is that people think, as I said earlier, that that is just the customary practice; it does not surprise them, and it should surprise them that this type of activity occurs.

The second and equally important example is the recent federal budget—not criminally corrupt, of course, because it is not, as was the previous example that I gave, but it is certainly morally corrupt. I say that the Abbott government was elected on a false promise: that is, 'the economy is wrecked and we will fix it.' It has been shown that it is not wrecked. That is not to say there was not some remedial work that needed to be done, but it was not and is not wrecked.

The budget, from my perspective, provides evidence and displays the lack of truthfulness of the federal government, both prior and after the delivery of this budget. It is the most recent example, and the most glaring, of why, for many, people have lost faith in our democratic system and those who serve in it. It is the most recent example, and will stay in the minds of many, of a government and its members that do not mean what they say, nor say what they mean.

It is incumbent upon all of us here to be part of a robust process aimed at transforming and redefining our democratic system, not simply through the electoral reform that many on the opposition benches want—of course they want it because in their view that electoral reform will get them over here, something they have been unable to do for 16 years, and I do not mean that disrespectfully. However, it is not simply through electoral reform, it is more so by the way we as elected members, as elected governments, as oppositions, go about our business in serving and representing the people of our great state. I am sure there will be much more said about this in the future, not just by us here but by those who we serve as their elected representatives.

Just to finish off, there is no doubt that I would not be here without the help and assistance I have received from so many, not just at this most recent election but in all campaigns since 2002. I want to thank a lot of people but I am not going to name many because there are too many to mention and I will be here beyond the 14 minutes I have left.

I do want to thank my wife Annabel and our boys James and Simon. Annabel would have been quite happy if I was not re-elected. She tells me she voted for me, and I hope that is the case, I am pretty sure it is the case, but she would not have been unhappy. I love her dearly and I thank her for the support she has provided me over many, many years. Everyone in this parliament knows that you cannot do what you do without the support of your family, they are the most important ingredient in anyone's life.

James and Simon have left, and that brings me to another point. I hear incessantly from the opposition and others that we have a drain out of South Australia, that we are not keeping our young people here. You can come to the Henley Football Club or the Grange Cricket Club at any time and see the amount of young people who stay here. I think we should encourage our young people to explore the world. I think we should encourage our young people to take their skills elsewhere so they gain further skills in whatever area they are in. James is in Sydney, he is there for a variety of reasons and he is doing really well. What is not to like about Sydney as a 26 year old living in Bondi? It is not a bad place.

Simon is working at Yulara and he is learning more skills than he did working at the restaurant over the road in Leigh Street. So, we should encourage our young people to go away because what we do know is, and everyone in this chamber would agree with this, they will come back. The reason they will come back is they are coming back to the best city in the best state in the best country in the world. We should encourage them to go, pick up those skills and bring those skills back. I have no doubt in my mind that that will be the case.

I have deviated slightly here but it does not matter, we still have plenty of time. I will just finish off with respect to Annabel and the boys. We had a tough year in 2013, with Annabel's mum dying, my mum dying and things like that. Things are looking up in 2014. It is always hard. You only have one mother and one father.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Beg your pardon?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will get to that later—maybe. I acknowledge the member for Bragg who says she believes I should be back in cabinet. I thank her for that comment. So, 2014 is looking up. Life goes on no matter what—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: That's right—hardships you might come across from time to time. I also want to thank the Colton sub-branch, and not just the members of the sub-branch but also those members of the community who are not members of the Labor Party who selflessly helped me during this campaign, and I have many supporters in that category as well. I acknowledge their contribution and I thank them—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Beg your pardon?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I think he was working his own electorate that day. I tell you what, we were embarrassed at Fulham Gardens at one stage in the afternoon, and I thank you for allowing me to say this—whilst my opponent ran a reasonably good campaign, and I quite like the bloke, I think we had 16 or 17 people between the 2 o'clock to 4 o'clock session at the Fulham Gardens Primary School. It was an embarrassment of riches. That is the level—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No; a diverse group of people who were helping me on that particular day. I would have liked the fire trucks there actually, but I thought that might be a bridge too far.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I am not finding this difficult at all, Deputy Speaker; it's fine. I do want to thank them. I want to thank them for their doorknocking, when they assisted me, their letterboxing, their telephoning, their putting up corflutes, and all the other work that each and every one here knows needs to be done to run a successful campaign. I thank them, and I love them very much for it.

I also want to thank the unions—my union and others—for the support I was provided. I am proudly a union member and a supporter of unions and the role that unions play in our society. I thank both the executive of those unions and their members. I thank the United Firefighters Union, the SDA, the MUA, the ASU, United Voice, the CPSU and other unions that are connected with SA Unions for their assistance and support. There are many others, too many to mention by name. I also want to acknowledge the party office—Reggie Martin, Steve May and the staff there. I want to congratulate them on their campaign strategy. I also want to acknowledge that poor Steven May was run over on election day whilst discharging his responsibilities representing the party.

An honourable member: Don Farrell?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No. I understand that it might have been an older women from the Liberal Party who didn't know how to reverse. I shouldn't say that, because I don't know. But, anyway, he was run over and he broke his—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I'm not misleading the house about the fact that he got run over and broke his leg.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I withdraw that comment. It was stupid of me, and I apologise. In all seriousness, I wish Steven all the best, and I hope that he gets the total level of support of the party office in his long process of rehabilitation. That central campaign run by the party office was outstanding, and I congratulate each and every one of those people who was connected with that particular campaign.

Mr Marshall: It was grubby.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It wasn't grubby—and here we go. I shouldn't respond to interjections, but the simple fact is that it wasn't a grubby campaign.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It wasn't a grubby campaign. Stop blaming other people. Look in the mirror and say, 'Why didn't I win Colton, why didn't I win these other seats?' The nature of the game is to win the seats. So, reflect on yourself and the way you do things. You have poor people over there—not that I am that sorry for them—who will spend 16 years in opposition—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes—and will probably retire at the next election, having served only in opposition. You have to do things differently. I am going to save that for my next grieve. I have a lot more work to do. I will not focus on it now, and I apologise for being distracted by that rude interruption by the leader, who I like very much. I also want to thank Premier Weatherill.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is not in his seat.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Chaffey.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The leader.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is safe to say that I have not always agreed with all of his decisions, particularly the decision he took in January 2013, but I am not going to dwell on that. I will just let that go through to the keeper, and I won't dwell on any other decisions that, from time to time, I might disagree with. But that is the nature—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey needs to be in his seat.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —of our party. We can have a robust discussion, and ultimately we are bound by the decisions that are made. I will simply say this—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: You lose count of how many leaders and deputy leaders they have had over that period of time. Indeed, the member for Unley, earlier—what was it that he said? I wrote down something. He said that he is excited by the packed agenda. Well, the difference was that we had an agenda going in the election and they did not, and the fact is that we were elected on the agenda. The other thing I found very off-putting was the member for Unley asserting that people on this side are racist. Again, he ought to reflect and look in the window and say, 'Dodgy documents' and all those type of things.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, they cost your side stability, and it cost them Marty's job—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Notwithstanding that I am being distracted again, what I want to say about Premier Weatherill is simply this: his efforts during the campaign were outstanding. His work ethic was outstanding. I referred to him personally as 'the cork': he kept bobbing up everywhere. He was outstanding during that period of time. His ability to be able to clearly distinguish between the leadership and the values of both parties was outstanding, and all that he did was a significant contribution to the fact that we were, as a government, re-elected; I have no doubt about that. I congratulate Premier Weatherill on all he did during that period of time.

I also want to thank and acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the house, particularly our marginal seat campaigners; some of them are in the chamber at the moment. I congratulate all the members who have been re-elected, but I have this special affinity for marginal seat campaigners because that is where things happen. It does not matter how many seats you have at 76.3 per cent, or whatever the member for Flinders' margin is, or 74 point whatever it is the member for Chaffey has; it depends on what you are able to do in your marginal seats where it counts. So, the member for Ashford, the member for Florey, the member for Newland, and all those other seats, I congratulate them and thank them for their commitment and the effort they showed to be re-elected and, indeed, return Labor to government.

Finally, I want to thank the people of Colton. I want to thank the people of Colton for providing me the honour and the privilege of continuing as their local member. I am both humbled by and proud of being their local member. I will as always discharge my responsibilities and service to each and every one of them without fear or favour, irrespective of how they might have voted.

I just want to give an example of a couple of things that happened during the election campaign. I have four minutes, so I will do it easily; if I speak too quickly, just say, 'Slow down, Caica.' During telephoning, we have this system—and I am sure you have the system as well over there—that identifies whether people are soft Liberal, hard Liberal, hard Labor, soft Labor, or whatever it might be.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I won't say too much. We all have a system, and you pick up that system. It is my system that has been picked up over my years of doorknocking and people letting me know how they vote. I have this system that identifies what people's voting intentions are, so I thought, 'Well, I'm not going to just ignore that person there because he's down as a hard Liberal,' so I telephoned him, and he said, 'Well, I'm not going to vote for you.' I said, 'I know that.' 'How do you know that?' I said, 'I know that because we've had interactions before. Do you want to speak to me or not?' 'Yeah, we'll have a chat for a while.' I said, 'If I spoke to every person in my electorate that voted differently than casting a vote for me, well, I wouldn't speak to 45.7 per cent of the people in the electorate.'

You have to serve your community irrespective of what they do, and I had a really good conversation, but I said, 'Look, I know your tactics. You're going to keep me on the phone for longer than I should be so I can't get to my people or those who are undecided,' and he just had a chuckle and we left as I would not say 'friends', but we left on friendly terms.

The other issue is this: people often say to me, 'Can I come to your office? I'd like to come to your office and have a meeting.' I say, 'Well, you're not coming to my office, you're coming to your office.' It is the office of the people of the Colton electorate, and it will always be their office; I am only a custodian of that office for as long as they want. That is another issue I sometimes raise with people when they say to me, 'We want to come to your office to see you.' I say, 'You're coming to your own office but, notwithstanding that, I'll go and make you a cup of coffee.'

I look forward to working with the people of Colton, the government and the opposition in advancing the interests and the welfare of the people of Colton—indeed, all South Australians. I thank them for the privilege of being here yet again.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (17:53): This is my fourth Address in Reply. The election in 2002 was a little similar to what we are seeing now, apart from the fact that I was actually in government for two hours and 55 minutes then. We had a vote of confidence on the floor of the house, when the Liberal Party was defeated 23-22, and what do we see in 2014? It is 23-22. So, it is a bit of deja vu for me. I am working very hard for the people of Morphett no matter what side of this house I am privileged to be on, and I thank each and every elector in Morphett for having spoken to me fully and frankly and, in most cases, supported me.

Despite the Electoral Commission having rejigged the boundaries in Morphett so many times in the last four years, we ended up at 3.5 per cent after the 2006 election. Through the hard work of my campaign team—and can I just say without any tickets on myself, trying to be the best member I could possibly be—we have the margin back up so that Morphett is a 13 per cent seat. It is not quite to the 13.1 per cent we had with John Oswald in the State Bank debacle where the Liberal Party held 37 of the seats in this place, but Morphett is back to a 13 per cent seat. It is a very safe seat, and that is because you have a lot of people doing a lot of work on your behalf.

I have heard every member in this place thank their electoral teams behind them but each of us should also be thanking our electorate officers because our office staff work so hard for us. Kate Cunningham, Heidi Harris, Andrea Stylianou and Sara Tripodo, who is our latest trainee, worked their backsides off making sure that the electorate was well served while I was out campaigning. They made sure that the electorate had been looked after to the best of our ability. I say 'our ability' because we work as a team. I have had Heidi and Kate on for 12 years, Andrea has been on for four years. I have had no staff turnover which to me is one of the best indications that you are working well with your staff because the staff are happy, and that reflects in the fact that your electorate is happy.

We also run a team of JPs because we have a very busy office in Byron Street and they also help serve the constituents of Morphett because that is what it is all about. For each and every one of us in here it is about serving the constituents, whether you have been here for five minutes, five years or in my case 12 years. I am not quite the oldest person in this place, I think the member for Finniss might be a bit older than me, but I feel just as energetic now as I did on that first day I came into this place.

What I have is 12 years of experience, 12 years of wisdom, having faced some of Labor's hard men in this place—the men who have gone like Kevin Foley, Patrick Conlon and John Hill. The Speaker now is constrained in his position. The member for West Torrens is a little more muted than he used to be. I think he is a hard-working member of parliament in this place. However, to face Kevin Foley, Mike Rann and Patrick Conlon in this place was tough. It was not slings and arrows, it was verbal baseball bats and handgrenades. We have the sword line here. When we have the school kids come in we talk about the sword line and how you could not cross that line with your sword drawn in anger otherwise you lost your seat in parliament. I tell you what, the barbs and the clever wit in some cases was just as cutting as the direct derogatory comments and barbs that were being thrown in this place.

I look around this chamber today with the new members in here and I do not see those hard men in here any more. I see people who are just as determined but perhaps in a different fashion, and I look forward to a slightly more productive relationship with some of the members opposite, because certainly in those former days some of the relationships were somewhat constrained. I actually bought a book called Working with monsters: the workplace psychopath so I could understand how people in this place thought, and I must admit that I was having issues with people on both sides in those days, not now though. You could tick the boxes with some of those people.

The situation has changed, the scenery has changed, but one thing for me as the member for Morphett is that I feel extremely privileged to be one of the very few South Australians who have had the opportunity to serve in this parliament. In the 150-odd years we have been in this place, a lot of laws have been made, some have been repealed. The fact that we have an acts interpretation act always intrigues me. The fact that I stand in this place and say I am not a lawyer—and by that I am boasting not apologising—is something I do not resile from because the technical intricacies of legislation are well understood by parliamentary counsel, thank goodness, and they are able to explain it to me, a humble veterinarian, so that we achieve what we want to achieve in this place and that is the best outcome for all South Australians.

The campaign that was run in 2014 was an interesting campaign, very focused, very well resourced on behalf of the Liberal Party and led by Steven Marshall, Leader of the Opposition and member for Dunstan. He did an excellent job. He worked so hard. I know that ministers work hard, the premier works hard, I have seen their diaries. As I said, I came in under John Olsen when he was the Premier. We had breakfasts as candidates. I saw how hard the ministers worked, so I understand how hard they work.

But, let me tell you, from firsthand experience, the hardest job in this place is the Leader of the Opposition. It is relentless—24/7, 365 days a year. It is relentless, and then when you put a political election campaign in place, it is relentlessness on steroids. You have no rest whatsoever. To see the performance of the member for Dunstan, Steven Marshall, I was not only inspired but given a huge amount of confidence in the future of the Liberal Party.

To see the new crop of members of parliament in this place, I am further inspired. Every time we have the Address in Reply—and when I say 'every time', this is my fourth time—I am somewhat disappointed to hear new Labor members rattle off a whole grocery list of the unions and union affiliates they have been working with. Good on them! If that is how they want to get here, be here and do their job, well, that is their philosophy, their background. But, when you look at the crop of candidates, the crop of new members we have in this place—the member for Mount Gambier, the member for Mitchell, the member for Hartley and the member for Bright in this place and the Hon. Andrew McLachlan in the other place—you cannot help being inspired.

Listening to their maiden speeches, the emotion they showed when they spoke about their families is something all of us understand, because we know that without our families we just would not have the ability to do the job we want to do in this place. To see that emotion and passion, to listen to those words, to the experience we were able to hear from members on this side, I was once again given great courage and great comfort in knowing that not only the Liberal Party but the people of this state will be well served by these members in parliament for a very long time.

They are the sort of members who get out there and talk to people. Some people in this place actually think they are important people. Go out on to North Terrace and think you are an important person: you are just an ordinary person with a very important job. That is what it is all about, and the moment we forget that we should be thinking about what we are doing in this place. We have a very important job: to serve each and every one of our electors.

You see an interesting situation when it comes to conscience votes in this place, particularly on things like voluntary euthanasia and issues like that, where some members tend to run their own agenda and not, in my opinion, represent their constituents. I have an issue with that, but in this place we see, particularly with new members, enthusiasm and passion and it is fantastic. Our democratic system in South Australia encourages that.

I will have a bit more to say about the fourth estate later, bearing in mind that I remember the words of John Howard: 'Never start a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel', but I will say something about it a bit later on because the effect of the media, the media cycle and social media, in my 12 years in here have really had a phenomenal impact on the way this place runs and on the way our lives run, which is just as important as the way this place runs.

I will quickly go through the new members. The member for Bright is a very young Scotsman; I understand him perfectly. I was with him last night at a public meeting, and to hear him speak to the residents association—it was really lovely to hear somebody speak fluently and knowledgeably, as the does the member for Bright. The member for Mitchell I am extremely pleased to see here. I am looking at Hansard now—he probably speaks more quickly than I did when I made my maiden speech. I have tried to slow down for Hansard—they do tell me I speak quickly, but I have tried to slow down and I will do my earnest best to slow down in this term of parliament. I have so much to say, so much to do and so little time.

The member for Mitchell, with his background and his experience, I look forward to seeing go on and have a long parliamentary career. The youngest member in this place, the member for Hartley, listening to him, having spoken to him outside and having worked with him in the election campaign, boy was he relentless with our office. With my social housing portfolios he was relentless—he was there every day and on the phone—'We have this issue, Duncan, we have that issue, Duncan'—and we did our best to help him. No wonder he is here today, and I guarantee he will be here for a long time.

We had the lion of Hartley, Joe Scalzi, in here for a number of years. The marginal seat campaigning that he went through was terrific, but I guarantee that the tiger of Hartley now will be here for a long time, because he is just as passionate, just as driven; he has that youth, enthusiasm and drive that we all admire and that we know he will channel into making sure he is an excellent representative for Hartley.

Going up against independents is always hard and I was a bit concerned about Don Pegler in Mount Gambier, a popular local bloke, but the moment I met Troy Bell I thought, 'We've got this seat,' because Troy Bell was a down-to-earth guy who was in touch, and he knew the people of Mount Gambier. He knew how to talk to them and how to communicate with them, and that is what it is all about. It is not like the Cool Hand Luke film where we have a failure to communicate and you have to beat up people to get them to listen to you, or cajole and coerce them. This guy, the member for Mount Gambier, knows how to communicate with people, and we saw that in his maiden speech today.

I have a huge respect for the former member for Schubert. I got to know him and his family personally. Having been in this place, he gave me a lot of advice and a lot of help. I guarantee that his replacement, the new member for Schubert, will be an equally good, if not better, representative for the seat of Schubert. I do not know whether the current member for Schubert has a drink or two but I know the former member for Schubert was a teetotaller when he came into this place, and he left last year as a baron of the Barossa. This place does have some effects on you, but I think that was part of his duty.

I should say one more thing about what the member for Mitchell said. He has one pub and a couple of schools in his electorate. That contrasts with Morphett. There are 106 restaurants and cafes within walking distance of my office. It is a tough job. Somebody said to me I have put on weight but I said, 'No, that's just a thicker skin so I can cope with the trials and tribulations of politics.' The member for Mitchell and I will continue to work on the Oaklands Crossing. It was one of the first things I campaigned on when I had that in my electorate, on the boundary.

I have videos on my website of the traffic congestion down there. It is an absolute traffic nightmare, and the sooner we get it sorted out, the better. My first meeting was in 2001 down there. I think the first costings 27 years ago were $1 million and I think the latest costings are $130 million for Oaklands Crossing, so it is going to be a real issue for us in South Australia. South Road is very important but bottlenecks like the Oaklands Crossing are just as important.

The thing that I should do, though, at this stage in my speech, is certainly congratulate the Speaker and you, Deputy Speaker, on your being promoted to this very worthy position. The history of the Speaker's job is one that is worth exploring, and I recommend the history of Westminster for members to read. The library has lots of books on the history of parliament and I recommend that the new members here acquaint themselves with the history so that not only can they have their own understanding of the traditions and worth of the system we work in but, also, when they have visitors here they can give them a comprehensive understanding of why this chamber is modelled on St Stephen's Chapel in the Palace of Westminster and why it is laid out the way it is. We do not have dispatch boxes here, which were the hymn boxes in the original chapel, but we need to know some history like that, and to not observe the history of this place is something that I think would be remiss of us.

I know His Excellency the Governor of this state, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, very well. I have known him privately. I will tell you a little story. I took him sailing. We did the Adelaide to Lincoln yacht race. He is a sailor and did the Sydney to Hobart years ago but then he confessed it was on an old naval clunker which took seven days to get down there, but on his bucket list was the Adelaide to Lincoln yacht race. I have done a lot of offshore sailing but I have been getting more and more seasick as I get older. Unfortunately, a sou-wester came in and I got belted and decided to go below. I did come back up again as we were getting into Lincoln and His Excellency, with his normal dry sense of humour, said to me, 'Duncan, you should do this race one day.'

That, to me, just shows that this guy is a real person. He is a northern suburbs guy, like me. I moved from Gepps Cross hostel out to Elizabeth South. The Governor is an Elizabeth boy as well: I went to Salisbury High School, the Governor went to Elizabeth High School. We understand the trials and tribulations of the whole spectrum of the society we have in South Australia.

I lived in a tin shed for 14 months. When we first came back to South Australia from Perth, we had no money. We were paying 17 per cent on the mortgage and 23 per cent on the overdraft, but now I am in a very comfortable position, with a family farm and a wonderful wife and family. His Excellency also understands that: he is now the Governor of this state, but he has come from very humble beginnings in Elizabeth. We should all appreciate that. We should never forget who we are and where we are from. As I said before, if you start thinking you are an important person, you had better go and have a good look in the mirror and just see what you are doing in this place.

Just as our partners are very important to us, so Liz Scarce is to the Governor. Elizabeth Taylor was her maiden name; she is now Elizabeth Scarce, and she is the patron of many societies and many organisations and works just as hard as His Excellency. I congratulate them both on the job they have done and how they have been able to put South Australia on the map through their overseas tours and also hosting everybody, including royalty and other dignitaries.

I will quote from the Proclamation Day Ceremony speech made by His Excellency last year in my electorate of Morphett, where we have the Old Gum Tree and where every year, on 28 December, we celebrate Proclamation Day. In his speech (and I did seek the permission of the Governor to quote him, and he said that he said it, so I can quote him), the Governor said:

One of the key design features of our democratic process is a framework which ensures that power is not unduly concentrated in one place. Rather, power is distributed amongst a number of individuals and institutions, each exercising a restraining influence on the others.

In Australia today, I think that system of mutual constraints is being eroded, principally in three areas:

by an increase in the power and influence of the executive arm of government and a corresponding reduction in the power and influence of Parliament as a distinct institution,

by a diminution in the strength of the conventions governing ministerial accountability and their responsibility to Parliament, and finally

by the politicisation of the public service.

From a man of his position and his background, to me, that is something that we should all in this place be very, very aware of. We should think about it very carefully. We should think about what we are doing with our democratic framework in South Australia. The Governor made those comments in all sincerity. He was not being judgemental—they were observations—and he certainly was not in any way indicating that his position should be changed or his influence increased.

The opening day speech, we know, is written for the Governor on behalf of the government. I will not go into that now. I will say a bit more about that on perhaps the Supply Bill, but there are issues in there that involve my portfolios and the general running of this state.

We have heard a lot about the federal budget, but the state budget coming up is another one that is going to be just as interesting for us. The feds are paying $30 million a day in interest; in South Australia, I understand that we are paying about $3 million a day in interest—not to the Belgian dentists, as it was in 1993. I do not know who we pay it to now.

I do not shy away from having a debt. I have had huge mortgages. Trust me, I have had seriously huge mortgages where you are just battling all the time. You bite off big chunks and chew like hell, but you have got to have the income and you have got to have a plan to make sure that, if you are paying off your debt, you are doing it with real money, not borrowing more to pay off your debt and, worse still, not borrowing money to pay recurrent expenditure, such as wages.

I understand the former member for Napier, in a moment of unbridled honesty—and he was a very honest man—told an audience in Mount Gambier that, if this government—the Labor government—were a company, they would be trading insolvent, or words to that effect, and that they were borrowing to pay recurrent expenditure, borrowing to pay wages. That is an atrocious situation for any business to be in.

I have had two sayings in businesses I have been involved with: turnover is vanity, profit is sanity; the other one is: it is not what it costs you, it is what it makes you or saves you. I have had big mortgages, I have had big debts, I have had big overdrafts, but you make sure that you build the business and expand the business, and you make sure that your employees are able to come to work each day and know that they are going to be appreciated.

This is where this state is really suffering. We have heard members on the other side in WorkCover debates before speak in support of not reducing workers compensation benefits, not changing workers compensation so that is going to adversely affect workers, but then they have to vote along the party lines, and I appreciate that, but let's just be honest about where we want to go. Whether it is WorkCover, whether it is land tax, whether it is all the other add-ons that this state is having to work with, it is a real state of desperation when you are borrowing to pay your recurrent expenditure.

The portfolios that I have got now I think are some of the biggest portfolios in this state. When you are managing millions or billions of dollars worth of assets in the community for social housing, when you are dealing with volunteers who return $5 billion in worth to the state every year, when you are dealing with an Aboriginal community that has $1.3 billion spent on it every year, these are very, very important portfolios. I have had just about every portfolio in this place other than finance and agriculture. Having a vet science degree and an ag science degree, that is something that I thought I might get a bit of a go at at some stage; but every portfolio I have had I have got into. You have to understand and it is very, very complex in many cases, but that is what we need to do, that is what we are paid to do as members of parliament, and that is what I enjoy doing.

Having social housing, disabilities, community and social inclusion, volunteers and Aboriginal affairs are a delight for me. It is a privilege to me to be serving on the front bench even in the role as a shadow minister where I would have loved to have been minister; and I am still working on that. When the Governor does ask me how I am, I say I am doing the work of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in trying to bring the government down, and I will continue to do that.

The election outcome is something that I will briefly talk about. I mentioned in the opening remarks the 2002 deja vu. I will just go back to 5 March 2002, when the then deputy premier Dean Brown was making some remarks about the then speaker-elect Peter Lewis, the former member for Hammond. The comments that were being made before the election were very, very interesting. Dean Brown said in his address to the parliament in 2002, when he was talking about electoral fairness, and what the then Independent member for Hammond had said before the election, and then what actually happened after the election:

…the principle of electoral fairness is unique to South Australia. No other Constitution Act has it, to my knowledge, but it exists in South Australia and should be the basis of forming government under the Westminster system here in South Australia.

Dean Brown went on to say to Peter Lewis:

I quote from The Advertiser printed on 8 February, and I add that have spoken to Kim Wheatley, the journalist who reported the statement and who assures me that the quote that I give is a word for word quote. The report says:

But yesterday Mr Lewis denied his statement meant that he would help Labor form government.

Then the journalist quotes, and I read that quote, as follows:

'You can quote me' [said Mr Lewis]. 'That's bull.…,' he said. 'Clear, unequivocal, hot, green, sloppy, fresh bull.…. I'm not into forming government with Labor.

What did we see? We saw, after a vote of no confidence here that we lost 23 to 22, that a Labor government was formed with the support of the member for Hammond, Independent Peter Lewis. The hypocrisy of that position is something that I just cannot understand. You go out and say one thing, and you then come in here and just completely lose all of your principles. Graham Richardson said in his book, didn't he, that when principles and politics conflict politics always wins. Well, not in my case, because I can tell this house there have been offers made to me that would be very, very lucrative if I was to support a Labor government, but I am not going to betray my principles.

I sat down with one of my friends the other day and said, 'This has probably cost me close to $1 million with the increased wages and superannuation, but I am going to keep my principles.' I do not know whether any other members on this side have had offers made to them, but if that is the case I am proud that they have not accepted those 30 pieces of silver.

Let us just move on to 2014 and the member for Frome. The member for Frome in a newspaper interview said on 20 March, when he was asked by a reporter from the Port Pirie Recorder:

Frome independent Geoff Brock has denied media reports that he might be leaning towards a Labor minority government.

It is my understanding that the member for Frome had actually spoken to the Leader of the Opposition a number of times on the Saturday morning—the Saturday that the Premier had pizza with him—saying that he was not going to make an announcement; he was not going to make a decision. So it was a complete surprise to all of us, particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, when Mr Brock had that sudden change of heart—particularly when you go back to the member for Frome's maiden speech on 3 March 2009. The member for Frome said, in that speech:

I know that every member here will put their constituents and South Australia at the top of their priorities and always place them ahead of politics and self.

Now I know the member for Frome well, and I quite like the guy, but I do struggle with his particular position. I also put him on warning—not in an aggressive way—to be aware of who you get into bed with. Back in February 2005 the then minister for families and communities, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, made the following comments about Independents in a speech about a bill to amend the Constitution Act brought in by the then member for Stuart, highlighting the fact that Labor Party members were compelled to vote in particular ways. The current Premier said:

Not all Independents go to their electorate with a clear platform of what they choose to do in the next election. Indeed, it is an exception, rather than the rule.

Premier Weatherill then went on to say:

Democracy is not served by having a representative for whom their electorate will not know where they are to vote on a particular issue.

So I tell the member for Frome to be very, very careful of the way he deals with members on that side, because it is my sad experience that you cannot always rely on what they say. There are many good people on that side, and there are lots of fresh faces, but you cannot always rely on what they say.

In the couple of minutes left to me I will quickly say something about the fourth estate. The media cycle is becoming more and more intense; in fact, there was an article in The Australian yesterday saying that politics is now a spectator sport. We have a lot of commentators and we have a lot of spectators, but let me tell those commentators and spectators: unless you come into the arena you really do not know what is going on—and 10 minutes in the arena is better than a lifetime in the stands. I am in the arena, I am playing this game for keeps, and I am playing it hard, but I know that the commentators and the spectators out there will keep up with their commentary, with their heckling and their conjecturing. That will not put off members of the Liberal Party.

Spectator sport is something for the football field, not for this place, so when you are making comments about members in this place, realise what effect it has on them and realise what effect it has on their families. I have given up my Twitter account. I did notice that Twitter shares went down 15 per cent, but I do not think it was because of that. Be aware of the effects of social media.

In the last few seconds left to me I want to thank the most important people in my life. They are my wife, Johanna, my daughter, Sahra and my son, Lachlan. Those three people, along with Lachlan's wife Sonny, and my grandkids of course, are my rock and my stability. They are the people I live for, I love for, and I will keep coming back to this place for.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development) (18:23): I am very proud to rise and speak in reply to the Governor's speech today. In March this year I faced my fifth election, and I am very proud that the people of Wright have continued to show their faith in me. I appreciate that very much.

I think the reason Labor was returned to government in March was our clear and coherent plan to continue to build South Australia, to strengthen our communities, to provide opportunity, to stand up for our state, and the passion and commitment of our Labor team, led by Premier Weatherill. He knew why he wanted to be Premier, and he knew why he wanted to be in this place.

One of the important reasons I think we were re-elected was our clear and coherent plan to continue to improve educational outcomes for South Australian students. The South Australian electorate voted to continue our modernisation of the state's education system. We are currently investing something like $310 million on our schools and preschools across the state, and that includes six new schools for children with disabilities.

They voted for our election commitments: to upskill our teachers and principals; to build a new city high school in addition to our expansion of Adelaide High, which is well underway, so that more inner suburb students can attend a city school. They voted for our commitments to provide additional supports to students by expanding counselling services to every single primary school in the state; to transform three more of our high schools into specialist schools, providing more opportunities for students to excel in their area of interest; and to expand services in our children's centres.

South Australians voted for building a stronger public education system, which is seeing record numbers of students stay on to year 12—91.9 per cent in 2013—and not a return to the bad old days under a Liberal government when almost a third of students did not complete their final year. In 2002, just 69.5 per cent of students stayed on to year 12. South Australians voted for an education system that recognises the importance of education from birth to 18 and that understands the importance of early childhood development.

Let us look at some of the Liberal election policies. Let us consider their flexible apprentice policy, for example. Not only did it fail to recognise that students could already learn at school as well as undertake an apprenticeship but it did not recognise that intensive support for students would need to be drawn up, that subjects may need to be tailored and changed, that off-campus classes would need to be resourced and that they would need to fund their vocational vouchers to make sure that kids could still achieve their SACE. Those opposite thought it was as simple as fewer kids going to school and scooping the cream off the top. There was no talk on whether that money would be re-invested in education. It was simply a saving, not an investment.

The Liberals also committed to introducing entrepreneurial curriculum. This is an admirable concept, but it is a pity they did not realise it already existed. Business and enterprise was actually introduced as part of the new SACE in 2011, and in 2013 1,504 students studied it. Students can also study business fundamentals, such as accounting and economics; undertake entrepreneurial projects through the research project, which the Liberal opposition said they would make optional; and study business through vocational education and training courses, including Certificate I and Certificate II in Business, which can count towards students' year 11 stage 1 SACE studies.

Of more concern was their proposal to introduce independent public schools by stealth through their entrepreneur high schools. The Liberals wanted to create an unfair two-tiered public education system. This model does not work and the public have clearly rejected it.

The Liberal's mechanism to allow more students to study in the city was to build a second Adelaide High School campus, boosting the school's capacity by 1,000 students to 2,450. This would make Adelaide High one of the biggest schools in Australia. This is astounding hypocrisy, given the Liberal's large school bias when we opened the Mark Oliphant College. Additionally, there was confusion about which suburbs would be in the catchment of the new Adelaide High School, with a Liberal policy document clearly excluding Thorngate, Collinswood, Medindie, Medindie Gardens and Nailsworth, despite the fact that the member for Adelaide letterboxed her constituents with propaganda that said they were in. Were they in zone or were they being duped?

In contrast, this government will build a new city high school catering for 1,000 students which will become part of and benefit from the educational and cultural precinct on North Terrace, sitting alongside Adelaide University, the Museum and the Art Gallery. Additionally, work is well underway on Adelaide High School to boost capacity by 250 students, bringing it up to 1,450.

There was no policy on child protection released by the Liberal Party as far as I could see. Labor, however, continues to make child protection its priority. We have committed to a commissioner for children and young people, and we now fund around $8 million in family support services to prevent children from entering care, and returning children to their families when safe to do so. We announced a new multi-agency protection service to bring elements of SAPOL, education, health, housing and Families SA staff together to provide another mechanism to better support and protect vulnerable South Australians. We are expanding our innovative Strong Start program into the southern suburbs which supports first-time mums to learn to care for their newborn.

The member for Unley has much to say about child protection; indeed, he described our commitment to child protection staff as 'unsustainable', leaving the public—in the absence of any policies and costings—to assume that a Liberal government would cut the number of front-line staff who work tirelessly day in, day out, to keep our children safe.

I also note that the opposition was critical of the government for placing the employment portfolio under a minister in another place. If the opposition believes that portfolios in the other place are not a high priority, why has child protection been given to a spokesperson in that other place? The Liberal education policy, what there was of it, was skewed towards senior school, showing just how out of step they are on child development.

For years now, early childhood has been recognised world over as a critical development period, yet the Liberals fail to formulate even one early childhood policy. They fail to realise that every student, especially budding entrepreneurs, need a solid foundation to build on. They did not have the bottle to turn up to a public forum on early childhood—my apologies, the member for Adelaide did attend that public forum but declined the invitation to speak on behalf on her party.

In contrast, early childhood has been a dedicated area of focus for Labor. We have pledged to expand services in our wonderful children's centres across the state, and we will establish preschool outdoor learning centres, including funding the Botanic Gardens to expand the kitchen garden program.

One of the few policies the Liberals did put to the electorate was to move year 7 into high school. This policy was claimed by the Liberal Party to cost $29 million a year. This would only cover the cost of teachers and staff. It seems, however, someone forgot to include the hundreds of millions of dollars that were required for infrastructure costs. How embarrassing! In Western Australia, the move was estimated to cost $835 million, over a six-year period, followed by an annual recurrent cost of $122 million. In Queensland, it was estimated to cost more than $600 million, with $300 million alone on capital works.

The research project is one of the most important subjects in the SACE. It helps students hone their ability to be self-motivated, to question and plan, to evaluate and make judgements, and to innovate and solve problems—skills all vital for every student to succeed in school and in life. Liberal education policy was to make the research project optional for year 12 students.

This type of learning is at the forefront of educational practice in leading jurisdictions around the world. For example, the Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board requires all year 12 students to undertake project work, a full-year subject similar to the research project. The International Baccalaureate Organisation requires its students to complete the extended essay as part of its diploma program. Cambridge International Examinations offers global perspectives as part of the International General Certificate of Secondary Education. The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority recently piloted the introduction of a full-year extended investigation for study at year 12 level.

Our SACE, complete with the research project, continues to be embraced internationally as preferred curriculum. 2014 marks a decade of the SACE International program being taught in China, as well as several colleges in Malaysia. Last year, we achieved the best school retention rates in a decade, with almost 92 per cent of public school students staying on to year 12, compared to a disgraceful, as I said, 69.5 per cent when the Liberals were last in power. That is almost 9,000 extra young people staying on to year 12 compared to 2002.

However, all of this is now at risk. The federal budget has ripped hundreds of millions of dollars from schools, children's services and essential programs for young people and families. The federal government has shredded the Gonski agreement; they will be withdrawing $320 million in funding promised to South Australian schools, and scrap the skills national partnership (the VET partnership) after 2016-17, worth $38 million—the equivalent of 2.6 million training hours for 12,000 students.

The cuts to our education system equate to approximate $1,200 per student across 2018-19, or nearly 3,000 teachers. Funds that support high-quality childcare and family day care programs are also going to be cut. The Child Care Accessibility Fund has been terminated, and the Liberals have ruled out building any more children and family centres for Aboriginal families. Despite interfering in so many aspects of school life, the federal government is withdrawing funding for school education. You simply cannot have it both ways.

The Liberal premiers across the country are up in arms about this budget. The Premier met with them on the weekend to discuss a campaign against these cuts, and what have we heard from our state's Liberal opposition? Hardly a peep. They continue to stand by while their federal colleagues slash vital funding from our public, private and Catholic schools. The Liberals failed to stand up for South Australian schools, students and parents. The Liberal Party made no substantial commitment to improving our schools, and no doubt they would have been fodder for their inevitable Audit Commission.

Last sitting week, the opposition leader referred to the member for Unley's extensive time as opposition education spokesperson. Can I offer my congratulations to him; it is a sad case, however, of always the bridesmaid and never the bride. I want to congratulate all members who have been elected to this parliament, and those who have been re-elected.

In this last election—the 'election that we shouldn't have won', the 'election that should have been a gift for the opposition'—the member for Unley actually achieved a swing away from him. It was a 2.2 per cent swing away from a sitting opposition frontbench spokesperson. Meanwhile, the member for Ashford picked up a swing of 1.3 per cent in her seat, despite a redistribution reducing her margin to 0.6 per cent. The seat was practically gifted to the campaign team running against her, and I understand the member for Unley was heavily involved in that campaign. In fact, I saw him side by side, function after function, with the Liberal candidate. And all this, in an election, as I said, widely tipped to be a landslide for the Liberals. I guess we on this side can thank the member for Unley and his razor-sharp campaign strategy for helping us to retain government.

It is clear the member for Unley's campaign failed to capture their attention—or maybe it did and they just did not like what they saw. Perhaps it was his negativity, his carping, his constant running down of public education and the schools to which many of these voters send their children. Indeed, Labor's candidate in Unley was Lara Golding, a young female public school teacher, the very antithesis of the member for Unley. His form on public education is well known, so too his track record in relation to females—and I refer of course to the 'leather skirtgate'.

The response Ms Golding received from the electors of Unley speaks volumes about the value they place on our public education system; or perhaps it was the obvious inability of the Liberal Party, of the opposition's education spokesperson to stand up to their federal counterparts, hell-bent on clawing back hundreds of millions of dollars in funding promised for all South Australian schools both under the Gonski and the Trade Training Centres agreement. They lost the unlosable election. Perhaps it was the Liberal's small target strategy and lack of policies which delivered their downfall.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.

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