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

Supply Bill 2014

Supply Grievances

Adjourned debate on motion to note grievances (resumed on motion).

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (16:51): Several hours ago, before this debate was adjourned, I briefly mentioned an accident that occurred at Port Elliot some time ago now and the ongoing grief of the family insomuch as they cannot seem to get the department, the council or anybody else to listen to them about having a proper crossing put in to get across Port Elliot Road. I raise this matter here because it has been the subject of quite a bit of comment in The Times newspaper at Victor Harbor over the last couple of years.

It has raised its head again. I do not believe that it is going away, neither do I believe it should. I believe that it needs dealing with, and dealing with expeditiously. I ask, through the house, that the position is noted and picked up on by the minister and that he attempts to do something about that, to ease the minds of many people.

I intend to talk about health, but during the course of the day, when I was in my office, I happened to watch the National Press Club briefly. Former prime minister Bob Hawke was on and then former prime minister John Howard came on, but I did not catch all of that. I listened to Mr Hawke, who made a few interesting points.

One point that he reiterated several times was that, in his view, we need to get rid of the states and just have the federal institution only. I came to the view that it would probably be a good idea if he shared a bedroom with Malcolm Fraser from our side and that they both swap crazy ideas together. I think that history will judge Bob Hawke on some of his achievements, but my view is that he is significantly out of touch now, after so many years, on that particular issue.

I want to turn to health: it is a most critical issue across the nation, across the state and, more particularly, it is a critical issue in my electorate with only the two health services: the South Coast health service at Victor Harbor and the Kangaroo Island Health Service based at Kingscote. It worries me that there is a campaign of mistruths being put out by the state government. We witnessed the health minister today trying to beat his somewhat puny chest on health matters, trying to instil fear into the hearts of health workers and, more particularly, the general public.

I want to make sure that country people get everything they deserve by way of health facilities and health services. We have excellent health services at both Victor Harbor and Kingscote. I do not want to see them degraded but I do not trust this government one iota. Here is a challenge for the Minister for Regional Development. I do not know just how much power he has; it has been severely muted since last week, I would suggest—

Ms Redmond: When the quisling joined them.

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, that's right, as the member for Heysen said, 'When the quisling joined them.' The health services provide critical services to people across country South Australia, but they need to be maintained at the current levels or better. I look forward to seeing in the near future an increase in health funding to regional communities, rather than a decrease. It is about time regional communities got their fair share of the pathetically inadequate cake that has been left to the people of South Australia after 12 years of economic mismanagement by a government that is completely out of touch. With those remarks, I conclude my grieve.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (16:56): I am delighted to have a further opportunity to make some comments in response to the Supply Bill. Yesterday, of course, I really only touched on matters relating to the economy. As it happens, over the last couple of days I have spent far more time than I normally would watching a bit of daytime TV and, like the member for Finniss, I happened upon the ABC's coverage of the National Press Club address which involved a conversation, I suppose you would say, with both former prime minister Hawke and former prime minister John Howard, both of whom I have met and had pleasant conversations with and both of whom I think are fairly sensible gentlemen.

One of the interesting things that former prime minister Hawke referred to in his speech when they were talking about the need for a social safety net—and former prime minister Howard reflected on the fact that although he is a great fan of America, America tends to be a bit too one-sided and does not actually capture enough people in their safety net but, on the other end, Europeans tend to be somewhat paternalistic and maybe a bit over the top. Australia, in general terms, with successive governments of either persuasion, have got the balance pretty right most of the time.

Former prime minister Hawke commented that the important thing that he saw in all of this debate was the need for educational opportunity. He said that if you put a grid over the whole of Australia, it is pretty clear that the youngsters who came from the higher socioeconomic groups tended to stay at school and youngsters who came from lower socioeconomic areas tended not to stay at school, and various governments, state and federal, Liberal and Labor, over a period of years, have been trying to address that problem.

He made the point fundamentally that if everyone gets equality of educational opportunity then that in the long term, and even in the medium and shorter term, helps us with this social underpinning, because if people are enabled—and education is the fundamental thing that enables people to make their way in the world—by getting an education, there is less need for the safety net; fewer people will fall through the cracks needing that safety net.

It is with that background in mind that I therefore want to make some comments about education in this state. Once upon a time South Australia was looked upon as the leading light in education. Around this nation, South Australia was truly looked upon as the place to go, the place other states looked to for our education system. Where are we now after 12 years of Labor? Now we are well below the national average in 19 out of the 20 areas tested nationally on the NAPLAN test system.

In 19 out of the 20 areas we are below the national average and in six of the 20 areas we have the worst results in the nation. Now, as it happens the young lady was not from South Australia, but I am just minded of the fact that the other night I happened upon one of those quiz shows that is on television just before the news, Hot Seat. A young lady came down, a very attractive young lady, and she said she was going to be going into teaching. Well, even Eddie Everywhere was absolutely stunned when the very first question—she is the first person up, the first contestant and the first question is usually pretty easy in that show—was a bird in the hand is worth two—

An honourable member interjecting:

Ms REDMOND: Well, no, this young lady, who wants to be one of our teachers—happily not in this state—had to pass on that question, so you can see from Eddie Everywhere's response that he was a little bit worried about the education system.

I noted yesterday that, in fact, in New South Wales they have just made an announcement that they are even going to put some very stringent testing on the youngsters who are currently in training to become teachers to make sure that they can indeed teach and that, if they are going to be left with the responsibility of teaching some spelling, grammar and numeracy and literacy and so on, they might at least know some basics themselves.

I know that that is sadly not the case, because that is what we get these NAPLAN results from. We have absolutely appalling NAPLAN results in this state compared to what they once were. Of course, this government plans to cut $230 million from the education budget over the forward estimates. That is what their own budget papers tell us, that they are going to cut $230 million out of their budget.

Then we get to the fact that this government, in order to try and increase the school retention rate—what they did when I first came into this place 12 years ago, and one of the first bits of legislation I had the delight of dealing with—simply passed a law telling them they are not allowed to leave school. So, we have increased our retention rates alright, but the reality is that 31 per cent of school leavers in this state are not engaged in full-time study, work or training. The national average is 27 per cent, which is bad enough, but of course we are 4 per cent higher in this state.

What is more damning, what is the bigger indictment, is that, for our Indigenous population, who are the most in need of attention in this area, that rate is more than double. Sixty-three per cent of our indigenous school leavers are not engaged in work or training or study when they leave school and, unless we actually address that, as well as addressing, of course, the health issues and so on, we are never going to close the gap.

I actually believe that both sides of this chamber are very keen to see real outcomes in terms of closing the gap between the outcomes for the Indigenous population in this state. Whether it be offending leading to prison, whether it be education, whether it be health, whether it be infant mortality—all of those things—we all need to focus on trying to redress what has been a terrible wrong, with 63 per cent of our Indigenous youth when they leave school not engaged in work or training.

I was pleased to hear on a radio on the way down here this morning that there has actually been a program running in the last little while which is expected to get a number of our Indigenous youth engaged in the military to improve the very low percentage of the Indigenous population who are engaged in military training and military service because they, first of all, had to do some literacy and numeracy and other life skills training in order to then qualify for the course. But, they have now completed the course and quite a number of them are actually seeking to enrol, so I was pleased to see that.

The commencement of apprenticeships and trainees likewise in this state fell. In the past quarter they fell by 16.1 per cent just in the last quarter, and that is the commencement of apprenticeships. The completion of apprenticeships fell by 61 per cent in the last quarter; 61 per cent is an appalling response, and this government always cites how much money they are spending. The problem is they never want to tell us about the outcomes, and I refer, for instance, to Skills for All. I made an inquiry about Skills for All because I could not figure out why we were spending all this money on setting up a big bureaucracy. I had a briefing about Skills for All, and there are basically four levels of bureaucracy which are supposedly going to identify where the needs are and train people in those particular needs.

I made a freedom of information request of the minister—the former minister; she is no longer in this house—because I wanted to know what success rate we had with this Skills for All if we were spending all this money, particularly for the Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island, which is the region in which my seat is located. What I got back had a lot of redacted information but it basically told me that they were spending $750,000 in my region for Skills for All. I then said, 'Can you tell me how many people have actually undertaken a course, how many have completed a course, how many have got a job afterwards and how many are still employed six months later and 12 months later?'

The minister's office was unable to give me any information whatsoever. They could tell me how much money their target was, they could tell me how much money they were spending on setting up these levels of bureaucracy, but there was no information whatsoever available to say, 'And this is the outcome. This is how come we have got a good result. Our $750,000 has employed 12 people,' or whatever it was going to be. Instead, they had targets, and that is the problem with this government.

It is one of the problems—there are many—but one of the problems with this government is that they keep talking about inputs instead of talking about outcomes. Governments are measured by their outcomes. As I draw my comments to a close, I apologise that I did not have time to get to the issues of health and obesity, which is an increasing problem in our community, but no doubt I will find another opportunity some time.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (17:06): I have been really interested to listen to the supply speeches that have been carried out in this house and just recently going to see the Governor to deliver those speeches to him. It would be interesting to know if he actually reads them. I am sure he does. During some of the speeches I was interested to see that there were references to New Zealand legislation and New Zealand advances. I have to say that, having a number of New Zealand friends, I have always been slightly jealous of the fact that they seem to be able to get social legislation through their parliament, albeit a conservative government at the moment, headed by Prime Minister Key—no relation of mine.

There seems to be a different approach to social legislation in New Zealand. I guess when you look back at New Zealand's history, the fact that they had a treaty with their Indigenous people very early on with regard to their colonial situation and taking over land in New Zealand really set the scene for what is now a very strong Indigenous Maori culture in New Zealand, one that seems to be accepted by everybody as being an important culture.

As much as we are very proud of the fact—and we have our tapestries in this place to commemorate women being able to vote in South Australia and South Australia being the first place in Australia for that happen—New Zealand actually beat us, which I have always found very annoying. Whenever you go to New Zealand you are very much reminded of the fact: 'We know you come from South Australia, but that we were actually the first country to recognise that women should be able to vote.'

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the advances with regard to parental leave in New Zealand and it may be of some interest to members in this house that there have been maternity, paternity and adoption leave provisions in New Zealand for quite some time. The actual funding of parental leave has been a more recent initiative, and I think the point was being made in relation to the Prime Minister's move for funded parental leave. I have some interest in this area because, as a trade union official and along with many people on this side of the house, we have campaigned for parental leave—maternity leave in the early days and paternity leave a bit later on.

We were successful in South Australia. I was the advocate for this particular case, where we recognised that there were a number of people who were adopting. Sadly, that is not really available to people these days, but we did have adoption leave provisions. Certainly, a bit later on, as the status for women minister, I was very pleased to be one of the cabinet members who pushed for 16 weeks paid parental leave for state public sector workers and also making sure that there was more flexibility for both parents with regard to a new baby in their house.

So, I think South Australia has always been campaigning for those things. Whether we could afford to fund a parental scheme Tony Abbott-style is another debate, but certainly that philosophy has always been part of South Australia and has always been part of the Labor movement's agenda.

Of course, we know that in 2003 in New Zealand the sex work industry was decriminalised. I have made many speeches about that issue in this place, but it is interesting when you actually look at the research that came out I think about eight years after that legislation was enacted. Really, the end of New Zealand did not happen because the sex work industry was decriminalised.

In fact, for the sex workers that I met, when I went on a trip to Wellington a couple of years ago with the Hon. Tammy Franks from the other place, we found that there were as a lot of cooperation between the equivalent of the department for labour or our SafeWork department here and the police. The industry was a much safer industry than it had ever been before it was decriminalised. A lot of the issues that people were frightened about seemed to be very much under control with that legislation.

Last year in particular, many of us were very, very pleased to see that New Zealand yet again had found a way to acknowledge equal marriage. On 19 August 2013, there was the proclamation of that particular legislation, and two—this is sort of sad in a way—Australian men, Paul McCarthy and Trent Kandler, were the first people to be married under that equal marriage legislation in New Zealand. It is interesting, when we talk about New Zealand, that some of the things that they seem to get under control we are still struggling with.

I was also interested in—and I think there has been a lot said about it—the federal budget and whether it is mask for what is going to happen in the state budget. That debate I am sure will go on for quite some time, particularly after the state budget is handed down. I am sure we will hear a lot of speeches and, presumably, in estimates there will be a discussion about whether the chicken or the egg came first and what the relationship is. But I think everyone would have to recognise that there is a relationship between funding in the federal budget. If services are cut, if jobs are cut, it is obviously going to have an effect on what happens in South Australia.

In my grievance today I outline some of the issues that the commonwealth public sector union have raised as concerns for their members and the fact that a number of their members basically will not have jobs and a lot of services will not exist anymore.

Obviously, one of the ones that is very dear to my heart is the Environmental Defenders Office. I understand that the funding from the federal government is not going to continue. As much as I have used the Environmental Defenders Office in my work as a local member, and had some disagreements with them about the way forward on a number of issues, I consider that to be an absolutely excellent organisation. I just hope that there will be a reconsideration about funding that particular office.

I also understand that Aboriginal Legal Services are under threat as well. Again, I have real concerns about constituents and people in South Australia generally being able to get advice without having to put up money, without having to be a rich person to get that advice.

So, I think that we really do need to look at the whole legal support system and certainly where there is funding, both on a state and federal level, make sure that those services continue and are accessible to our constituents and to particular interest groups in our community.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (17:15): This afternoon I would like to talk a little bit about the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme and just inform the house a little bit about that and talk about a couple of issues related to it. For those who are unaware, and I am sure most people are, the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme is a subsidy funded by the government of South Australia to assist people travelling more than 100 kilometres each way to receive approved medical services.

There are a number of criteria around the PAT Scheme—and I will refer to it as the PAT Scheme as it is commonly known—but it is really important that people from metropolitan areas understand and value the importance of this scheme. It provides a minimal type of reimbursement. In fact, I ended up doing a graph comparing South Australia to the rest of Australia and where we sit in terms of reimbursements for patient assistance transport.

It might surprise some to know that we actually rank last, not just in mainland Australia but in all of Australia. No. 1 is Queensland, and the subsidies are normally broken down into three or four categories, that being cents per kilometre for travel, reimbursement for a car (normally), nights accommodation in terms of reimbursement, and the distance that you need to travel before the scheme will even come into play.

It might surprise some to know that Queensland is by far the most generous, and when I say 'most generous', I do that a bit tongue-in-cheek, because the reimbursement goes nowhere near covering even basic costs. Queensland, for instance, gives 30¢ to the kilometre as a reimbursement. Compare that to South Australia, ranked last: 16¢ per kilometre. Nights accommodation—$60 a night in Queensland, and no surprise where South Australia ranks: last, at $30 a night. Distance before it comes into play—in Queensland it is 50 kilometres and in South Australia it is 100 kilometres each way.

The Patient Assistance Transport Scheme is not designed to fully reimburse patients who need to travel for treatment, but we need to go a lot further than what we are. You need to realise that the people who access the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme are normally our most vulnerable. It is designed to provide some assistance where medical treatments at a base location, such as Mount Gambier or other country and rural areas, are not provided. So, nobody is choosing to use the PATS scheme to make money or to travel just for the sake of travelling. They are normally travelling for major medical treatments, such as cancer treatments, specialist appointments and treatments where those facilities (in some instances quite rightly) cannot be offered in rural and regional areas.

But what we are finding is a number of people who are either refusing treatment or the out-of-pocket expense is so great that they cannot take up treatments in a metropolitan area. That is something that is close to my heart and we need to look at. I have had an 80-year-old lady come into my office. Her husband is dying of cancer and they just cannot make the trip up to Adelaide from Mount Gambier due to out-of-pocket expenses (they are both on the pension). They are not progressing with that treatment so unfortunately he will die sooner rather than if he was living in the metropolitan area where he could access those treatments a lot quicker and a lot easier.

I will commend the government, and this might surprise some. During the election campaign, the government committed $2.5 million extra to the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme and that is something that needs to be commended. I will be making sure that that extra money will remain in the budget which will be handed down on the 19th because that $2.5 million extra will still take us from being ranked last in Australia to sixth in Australia.

The only state that we will surpass in only two of those categories will be Victoria. The cents per kilometre will stay the same but the government has made some improvements through the Dr David Filby review and implemented a couple of improvements. The two that I would like to point out (and these are probably the two important ones) are the $30 per night reimbursement for accommodation that will be increased to $40 per night and the $30 co-contribution, which is also in play at the moment, will be removed.

I commend the government on those two improvements; however, I think we can go further. The cents per kilometre certainly needs to be increased. I do not know which car you could ever run for 16 cents per kilometre, when even the ATO's own estimates are around 70 cents per kilometre. We are a long way off the pace there.

I would like to talk about two cases which have come to me quite recently and which I will be endeavouring to sort out. One is a single mother. Her name is Tammy Gale. She came to me because her three-year-old son needed all his teeth removed. That procedure could not be done in Mount Gambier and he was required, through the local doctor, to be recommended to a specialist in Adelaide. The specialist wrote on the form that this procedure needed to occur at the Women's and Children's Hospital and could not be offered in Mount Gambier.

So, a single mother with three young children, and one of them needed major dental work under an anaesthetic to have their teeth removed. PATS will not cover any travel and will not cover any accommodation reimbursement because, under the very strict guidelines of the Patient Assistance Transport Scheme, dental is not included. I find it unbelievable that, in a situation where a young child needed to go under anaesthetic for a major operation which could only be done in the Women's and Children's Hospital, some compassion could not be shown to a single mother who is at least $700 out of pocket and very stressed about that situation.

The second one relates to a lady who came into my office just last week. Her husband is dying of cancer and needed to come to Adelaide for chemotherapy. Unfortunately, even though the husband is in hospital, the PATS will not allocate that $30 reimbursement to this lady who is on a pension and, under the guidelines of the PATS, would expect that she would drop him off at the hospital, turn around and drive back to Mount Gambier only to return in three or four days' time to pick him up.

What the system fails to realise is that it is at least a five-hour journey from Mount Gambier to Adelaide. By the time you have done the admission into hospital and all the rest of the procedures, it would total six or seven hours. Under both of those circumstances I find it displeasing that there can be no flexibility. We are talking about people who are travelling for a genuine reason and who are on an extremely limited income, yet the system allows absolutely no compassion whatsoever.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:25): The issue of WorkCover has been raised in this house for many years. I remember moving a vote of no confidence in 2007 about the appalling performance of WorkCover then. Of course it has worsened since then and there is no more important matter for the small business community than proper WorkCover reform.

The government went to the election with a workers compensation plan that it claimed would save employers around $180 million a year in premium savings. If you look at that figure and times it by the 12 years that the government has been in power, they are effectively admitting that the WorkCover scheme and the way it has been structured for the last 12 years has cost the South Australian business community over $2 billion in premiums they never needed to pay. That is because they have been held to ransom internally by the strength of the union movement that has opposed changes to the scheme for many years.

I remember when the last range of WorkCover reforms were put through that were going to fix the problem, there was all sorts of skulduggery out of cabinet to try to make the left wing members of the government look good and the right wing members of the government look awful in regard to WorkCover reform and the reality is those changes did not fix the scheme.

What we have now is a small business community in South Australia that is suffering not only under the highest taxes but also the highest WorkCover premium in Australia. It has the worst return-to-work rate for employees—so it is bad for employers and employees—and the government has basically sat on its hands for many years letting it just drift along. According to the minister's various media statements, the government is proposing to throw everyone off the scheme as at 1 July 2017 who has been on the scheme for more than two years.

The new scheme will start on 1 July 2015. They will have two years maximum on the scheme and everyone who has been on the scheme for a two-year period from 1 July 2017 is going to be taken off the scheme unless of course they are catastrophically injured with quadriplegia or paraplegia. There will be a mechanism and a scheme to protect those people with that level of injury.

It is interesting that that dynamic is coming from a Labor government and I will be interested to consult with the unions in due course about how they see that particular principle. I sense that if a Liberal government had suggested such an idea there might have been more than 200 people out the front of parliament house. In fact, I remember in the early 1990s, there were a lot of people trying to protest about WorkCover, but of course, under that scheme, when it finally went through in the amended form under the former Liberal government, it drove the premium down and it was a well-funded scheme. From memory, it was unfunded to the tune of about $63 million when we left government in 2002. The scheme is now unfunded to something like $1,300 million.

This is a scheme that has cost the South Australian business community billions of dollars it should not have. It is a scheme that has been poor for employees, because once injured they have had an appalling return-to-work rate. It will be interesting to finally see exactly what the government's proposals are in regards to WorkCover.

I just want to touch a little bit on the broad dynamic of the state of the budget. The government, particularly the Premier, have been running the line that the AAA credit rating does not matter; we can trash the AAA and it has no effect. But, in actual fact, it has a significant effect, because once you lose the financial discipline required to maintain or achieve a AAA credit rating, then spending becomes less disciplined within the whole network of government.

The CEOs are not held to account as much and the cabinet is not held to account as much, because you have already lost the AAA credit rating, so what does it matter? What it matters is this: in South Australia, we are now faced with a government that is laying the groundwork to make massive cuts in its budget: over $1,000 million in health, $230 million to $250 million in education, and around $150 million in police.

The reality is that having gone out and continued to spend, losing the AAA credit rating and running deficits, the budget really has no capacity to cater for shocks, whether that be on the expenditure side or the revenue side. So, what you actually have is a budget that has less capacity to cater for shocks. The government should have been aware of this. The Auditor-General has been warning them time and time again that their expenses were too high and were based on revenue streams that might have been unsustainable.

We heard today about the state final demand being 0.4 per cent when they budgeted in the Mid-Year Budget Review, or the budget update, for 2.25 per cent. We heard from the Treasurer I think in a media statement that the revenues from state-sourced revenue were down to around $300 million across the forward estimates; that is land tax, payroll tax, etc. That is a sign the economy is not going as well as predicted. What the government did in previous budgets was to budget for very high revenue growth figures—something like 7 per cent for some tax streams up to a 12 per cent increase for some tax streams—then after the election, of course, those revenues are not being sourced. So, there is an adjustment to the budget, and that will feed into lower surpluses or bigger deficits in the budget.

The point I simply make is this: by going out and trashing the AAA credit rating and not having the financial discipline to make tough decisions back in past budgets, the government has slowly but surely walked itself into a corner so that, if it got any sort of shock to its budget, it had nowhere to go to make further cuts because it had built up no surplus capacity. It has already run up the biggest debt in the state's history—it has already done that. It has already run up the biggest deficit in the state's history—we are already in that position. We have already got the highest taxes in Australia—we are in that position. If you get a shock at that point, where does the government go?

Where this government is going is to cut health by $1,000 million, and cut education and police, and they are going to try and lay as much blame as they can on the federal government. The reality is that the state government will be cutting more out of the health budget than any other impact on the health budget.

Even if you take the health minister's figure as accurate—$600 million over the forward estimates through Abbott government decisions—the state government announced before the elections a $1,000 million cut to health before the federal budget was even brought down. So, you have federal decisions impacting $600 million and state government decisions impacting $1,000 million.

Out there this afternoon, there was a protest about health cuts. Was there a banner saying, 'Shame on Labor for cutting $1,000 million out of health'? No; it was all just focused ultimately at the federal government. I think people can see through the issue that, if there was to be a protest, it could at least have been even-handed and complain about the level that the state government are going to cut, because in actual fact they are cutting significantly more out of health than what is being suggested is the impact of the federal government. With those few comments, I conclude my grieve.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (17:35): I would like to put on the record some of the testimonials that I have been receiving from residents, business owners and people throughout the city who are affected by the proposed car parking tax. The first resident lives at the UNO apartments and does not have a car. The UNO apartments were approved and built with only 36 car parks for 146 apartments. As she does not have street frontage, she is not entitled to a parking permit from council.

This lady requires a car due to her disability, which makes walking difficult. Public transport is not available on her street and she needs a car to get to appointments. Due to her only income being the disability pension, she is already having difficulty paying for parking in the city and feels the extra $750 will make it impossible, and thus make her feel even more isolated. We have another city resident who has lived in apartments on North Terrace for some 10 years who writes:

…please oppose the car park tax legislation.

As my apartment does not have a designated car park I have to lease on adjacent in the Terrace Car Park with monthly rate.

Why should I be subject to the tax when I live here and furthermore when friends come to visit and they park in the adjacent multilevel car park they will also be subject to pay extra for the privilege of visiting me.

City businesses will also suffer.

Another female resident, also on North Terrace:

Hi Rachel…I'm very concerned about the proposed new car park taxes. I am a city resident, and I have heard that residents could be exempt, however my permanent carpark for which I already pay $270.00 a month is in a public carpark adjacent to my building (when I bought my apartment there was no carpark with it).

Another letter that came through today:

I am both a CBD resident and run a retail luggage business…in the CBD.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Car Parking Tax proposed by the Labour Government. This bizarre tax will make it more expensive to live, to work, to shop and to experience the night-life in the CBD.

It is a nonsense, illogical, for government to be claiming that it is trying to revitalise the CBD and, at the same time, making it more expensive to participate in the life of the city.

The Labour Government cannot claim that it has a mandate for this tax because it is a minority government and it is only propped up by two independents. One is a genuine…Independent and another…was elected as a Liberal. It has been Liberal Policy from prior to the election that the Car Parking Tax would not be introduced. Hamilton-Smith, if he has even a faint wisp of integrity left in his bones, could not support such a tax.

If it is a constitutional crisis that is the outcome of the Liberal Party standing its ground on this issue, then so be it. Stand firm, be strong.

Kind regards.

A CBD supermarket owner, an owner of a family-run small business that has leased parking spaces outside of his shop so that customers can park there for free, states that the business will have the $750 per annum levy passed onto it by the owner of the car parks for every one of those spaces. The owner explained that the levy will be added to the cost to his business and will ultimately mean that he will have to work longer hours or probably not employ at least one other staff member. Another CBD business owner states:

Dear Rachel,

We are small building commercial property owners in the city that contain small basement car parks that are used by our tenants.

We oppose the introduction of the proposed car parking tax on the following basis:

1) We offer affordable office space to small businesses which includes basement car parks. The Levy will greatly affect small business and encourage them to move out of the city. We may then be faced with higher vacancy rates in the city.

2) Carparks that form part of an existing office space lease are locked in for years and there is no avenue to recover the Levy from the tenant (small tenants generally do not pay outgoings as part of their lease). Basically the Land lord is stuck with paying the Levy with no avenue for recovery. This is unfair.

3) Some of our car parks are tandem, that is two parks one behind the other. These are hard to lease. We discount the inferior park 50% in these circumstance. It would be unfair for the levy to apply equally to both parks.

4) Some of our car parks are inferior, that is, small parks that fits small cars only, [or are] difficult to get into due to column, wall and height restrictions. Again we discount these parks up to 50% to accommodate the inconvenience as they are difficult to lease. It would be unfair for the levy to apply in full to these parks.

5) Some of our properties are heritage listed and therefore we cannot change the layout of the building and no opportunity to change the car parking layout to minimise the levy.

6) Where possible we will convert the basement car parks into storage areas to avoid the tax. This will deny the government of the tax and decrease the parks in the city and monopolise parking to the major car parking stations. If many other property owners do the same the impact could be dramatic.

Another CBD business owner writes:

Dear Rachel,

I am writing to you re the parking tax that the Labor government is intending to introduce…in July of this year. We have been established in the city for over 30 years and have parking on our premises. We are in a group of five and our levy alone will be over $3,000 per year. It's challenging enough running a small business today in this state without adding extra fees on top. As a business we see this as a deterrent for the following reasons:

-Retail traders are going to see a decrease in business as shoppers will object to paying higher parking fees and therefore will lose revenue as these clients will go to suburban shopping centres

-Reduced business growth as businesses will not want to move in to the City of Adelaide as rents will increase due to parking levy

-Business owners who own their own buildings will see a decrease in the value of their buildings

-Investment in our state will deteriorate as this will deter new growth in our state which we desperately need.

Another business owner writes:

I feel [motivated] to write to you to express my concerns with regard to the introduction of a parking tax for the City of Adelaide. My objections lie in the effect it will have on my business.

For 8 years I have run a small business in the City of Adelaide. We specifically chose this location to be amongst the vibe of the city, experience its colour and energy and connect with the people who will be on the receiving end of our marketing efforts.

Over the years we've been here I've seen gradual change in the energy of Rundle Street. And that change is downward. It is hard to get people to come to the city to shop. The redevelopment of the Rundle Mall is one factor. But the cost of parking is always cited as a major drawback. And this tax will be passed on by car park owners to the end user. The cost of parking will go up! Less people will come. That is a fact you can't get around. And less people shopping will see more businesses go broke. We have recently returned from 5 weeks absence and came back to 3 more businesses closing down in this area. This tax will be the death of more.

It is also a crucial factor in my business attracting staff to work in the CBD. Public transport is irregular and unreliable. My staff try and find alternatives but most, for convenience, choose to park in the city. This tax WILL add to their cost and make working here far less attractive. If I can't get good staff, for the sake of my business I would be forced to move to the near suburbs.

We as a business provide some parking for senior staff. As a business we are already taxed at one of the highest rates in Australia. And frankly at times struggle to see the benefit in the efforts we go to when confronted with an outrageous tax burden. This tax is just another weight small business will have to contend with. Some won't survive. Currently the city seems to be doing its best to kill itself off as a destination.

I will leave that one there. Another business owner says:

Tell them to go away or I will move my business away from the CBD go to the burbs and if this is still a problem I will move offshore away from penny-pinching inefficient parasitical local government agencies looking for a bailout!

I am no longer keen on funding lazy self entitled public servants. I am happy to be quoted publicly that I am not a leaner but a serious lifter for this state, until it offends me with such menial policy decisions which are personally offensive to every working member of the community.

There are loads and loads of very angry people in the city and I do not have time to actually read all their letters out. Here is another one:

This insidious tax will only HARM the city—I have tenants who run businesses in the city and MUST park nearby so they can service the shop or business…Customers complain now at the cost of parking; the loss of on-street parking… Surely if we had a world-class transport system then this tax…[would not be needed] as a deterrent to come to town in your vehicle...[Perhaps it will] in 30-50 years…[but] not now.

Residents have been encouraged by the Labor government to move into the city and are rightly angry that they are now going to be hit by this $750 tax per year, which could even have GST included on top; that we could not identify. While the Weatherill government is spruiking a vibrant city on the one hand, it is introducing a toxic car park tax which will have the exact opposite effect. South Australians are already struggling under ever increasing cost-of-living pressures and the highest taxes in the nation. The last thing businesses and households need in this state is another tax. I call on the new members to prove that they really have South Australia's best interests at heart and block Jay Weatherill's car parking tax.

Ms BEDFORD (Florey) (17:45): I have listened carefully to the contributions on the Supply Bill and believe many to be examples of the old saying that the first casualty is usually the truth. It is up to each and every person here to work on building confidence in this state and its future and working to deliver what can surely be a period of stability and growth.

Despite difficult times, Australia is in an enviable position and South Australia, under careful stewardship, can share in a prosperous future. As the member for Ashford noted in her excellent contribution, federal and state government budgets are inextricably linked. No matter your position on the political spectrum, it is beholden on all of us to give our best to make parliament's time productive.

Employment rates are a concern to all, but if the federal government is to be believed people just have to try a little bit harder to find a job. To that end, they are going to pull the safety net out from under the very people seeking work, often way beyond their home areas, keen to work at anything but not able to find a job, who will be forced to move to other parts of the state or nation. For that is the key difference between this state government and the federal government—we want everyone to come with us.

For instance, we would have pursued keeping Holden's as an operational concern to ensure an orderly transition, not to dare them to leave the state and then stand by as a closure was announced, and now a scaling down that may well see a closure date sooner rather than later. The Holden announcement allowed a flow-on, seeing other major manufacturers restructure or downsize or worse. This means the period of time we have to reorganise manufacturing in this state has retracted and will feed into the situation that we are now facing.

There can be no doubt that when the language of the federal budget is translated it means that a shift is now on in both our education and health systems and how they are funded, and therefore how their services are going to be delivered. No-one expected such great changes. Indeed, we were actually told at the federal election that there would be no surprises and this has deeply offended many electors in Florey and all over Australia. It has actually scared people, and I find that really unforgiveable. It has united state premiers and territory ministers because they know the difficulties that they will be facing with their own budgets, and needing to rework them at such short notice will be a great problem for all of them.

Language is a very important and essential part of what we do, just as there was no budget emergency federally demanding what seems major ideologically driven and fundamental changes, particularly to vital institutions such as Medicare.

Here in South Australia, while much more will always need to be done I, for one, still choose to see the glass half full. This does not mean I am ready to throw up my hands and say things are all too hard and stand by and do nothing but carp or complain. Just as the rust bucket state was a tag that South Australia had for many years, and shook, so too now will the negative comparisons I have heard also in the chamber in the past few days.

All of us find other states and commentators slinging off about us in Adelaide quite offensive, or is it just that some here see it as a cynical way to gain some sort of ground and take pleasure and delight in seeing the moral confidence and the downturn that this leads to in our state. We have much to work for and much to work with and while many young people try their luck in other states and travel the world, their experiences and networks are valuable. In the end their international connections pay off and the things they bring back to South Australia are just as valuable.

One of the other things that has bothered me most about the contributions is the way we have been speaking negatively about Tasmania. Tasmania is a beautiful state and has much going for it as well, and its economic position has been fed into by many more things than having a Labor government. Again, in another contribution the way the member was talking about Kangaroo Island was as though there was nothing happening on the island and everyone was planning to leave it. I do not believe that to be the case at all. Kangaroo Island is world renowned as a tourist attraction and I think there are many good reasons to be talking up the economy of Kangaroo Island rather than down.

The other thing that has been very difficult to listen to over and over again has been the election result. I do not know how people can keep thinking that if the people of South Australia wanted such a change that there were not convinced to vote emphatically Liberal everywhere. I think it is something that we need to move on from and as quickly as possible. I do not want to blame the electors and I do not want to blame the Electoral Commissioner and I do not want anyone to blame the Boundaries Reform Commission. Just as they cannot predict how people are going to vote in four years at the next election, they are not responsible for the policies or the campaigns that are either run by the government or the opposition.

In Florey we have local issues that were campaigned on in the election, things like public transport, with the O-Bahn park-and-ride. We campaigned for many years, the member for Newland and I, to get this park-and-ride built. It has been an absolute success.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Hear, hear!

Ms BEDFORD: We couldn't have done it without the then transport minister who, as I recall on the day of announcing the funding, remembered that I was actually happy that day, until I pointed out that we needed more seats on the concourse, but he has made sure that was looked after.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: It was a brief moment of happiness.

Ms BEDFORD: That was a brief moment of happiness. Another thing is that we are beholden to the Minister for Health who put in such a huge effort to make sure that the emergency department of the Modbury Hospital was reformed. Admittedly, we had to see changes made, the rationalisation of how services were provided, but we have been really thrilled with the results. The community has been thrilled, the staff up there are saying it is working really, really well. There is much to be said about the good things that are going on, particularly in our schools where lots has been done.

I omitted to say that the Minister for Health has ensured that we will have a Parkinson's nurse in the north-east, and that will bring up to three in this state. Obviously we want as many as we can have, but three is much better than the one we had to start with. Even in these difficult economic times he has given us the undertaking that that will happen.

Based on the cost of running our hospitals, I understand that the cut of $600 million that is going to come from the federal budget is like closing Modbury Hospital for almost four years, or you could say closing Modbury Hospital and the Women's and Children's Hospital for two years apiece.

The cuts to health also extend to making medicines cost more and increasing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) co-payments by $5 and the concession payments by 80¢. In 2015 the PBS safety net thresholds will also increase by 10 per cent a year, and this is going to impact a great deal on our older citizens who are taking large amounts of medication for all sorts of conditions. They are actually worried, afraid and scared, and I do not see why we should be enforcing this sort of scare campaign on them which has been brought about by this sudden announcement about what is going to happen at the federal end.

The South Australian government has worked very hard to make South Australia's health system the best in the nation. The waiting times in accident and emergency, particularly in the Modbury Hospital, we know have been reduced. I commend the doctors and nurses for all their work. I notice that we have more doctors and nurses per head of population than any other state. Clearly that is going to have to change.

The cuts to health funding threaten all the gains we have made here in the South Australian system and the quality of care will also be threatened. The cuts will mean fewer nurses, fewer doctors and fewer hospital beds, and I think that is a real tragedy.

The other thing I would like to speak about is goodwill. Goodwill is a really important part of what goes on in the state and how the house operates, how the government works with the opposition, how businesses work with the government. Without goodwill the chances we have of delivering good results are really reduced. As I said earlier, the onus is on all of us to work with goodwill together to make sure that we go forward in the best possible way. We could spend all of our time in here saying that things aren't working, don't work and why they don't work, but let's be more positive and work on the better outcomes that we can achieve for South Australia.

This state is a great state. Our people are our greatest assets. It is our job to look after our people, and I know that the people in Florey expect us to do that here, and I will be working as hard as I possibly can with the government in the difficult times that are no doubt ahead of us in the next budgetary period. But we will come through all of this, and I want to be part of the 53rd Parliament that sees us through that and coming out the other side with a better South Australia.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (17:54): I would like to use this grievance debate to put on record the saga of the Labor Party election promises to open Millswood station in my electorate. I will start with a letter that was sent to my constituents in Millswood from the former transport minister, the member for West Torrens, who referred to an email that was sent to the Hon. Chloe Fox, minister for transport services, about reopening the Millswood Railway Station. He is responding to it, he explains in the letter, because it falls within his portfolio responsibilities and not the minister for transport services' portfolio. He goes on to explain:

The Department for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure advised in 1995 that one track of the double main line from Adelaide to Belair was converted from broad to standard gauge as part of the standardisation of the Australian Rail Track Corporation Adelaide to Melbourne line. This resulted in the broad gauge passenger service being restricted to a single track with crossing loops located at Mitcham station, Blackwood station, Eden Hills, and Sleeps Hill. Standardisation also considerably reduced the operational capacity of the Belair passenger line. As a result, the three stations at Millswood, Hawthorn and Clapham had the lowest patronage and they were closed.

Of course, that is the truth, we know that that is exactly what happened. Of course, in 1995, when the station was closed, the member for Croydon was the then opposition transport spokesperson. He put out a media release and said that Labor would promise, if they were returned to office, to reopen the three stations. He then went on to say that the closure of the stations had nothing to do with the conversion of the standard gauge western track. It was in complete contrast, of course, to what the member for West Torrens, the then transport minister, told constituents in my electorate just in June 2013. That was 18 years ago.

We then also received a press release from the minister for transport services, Chloe Fox, but the transport minister just a few months earlier said the opening of the Millswood station was his responsibility. She went on to say that the Belair rail services would return to Millswood station from 1 July 2014 for a 12-month trial. She then went on to say that the Millswood station was closed by the former Liberal government as part of rationalisation of services, not the standardisation of the track, which reduced the capacity of the rail service. However, the standardisation was part of a national program, federally funded by Labor and the Keating government because it was a nation building project to standardise all the interconnecting railways between cities.

The minister got it right when he wrote to people on 7 June 2013, but then the transport services minister said that for different purposes it was closed. She then went on to say that the Belair timetable, which was being revised to schedule the recently completed showground station, would be upgraded from July to take into account departures from Millswood. However, what did the new transport minister write to me and tell me was happening with the station? He said:

The safety of rail customers, staff and the public is the highest priority and this important work must be undertaken prior to commencement of regular rail services from Millswood station.

He was referring to feasibility studies that were required before the station could open. He goes on:

It will take time to scope the necessary works and to ensure the station is fit for use again. This commencement date of the trial will be determined by the commencement of these works.

So, there you are. There is a quick summary of Labor's broken promises.

[Sitting suspended from 18.00 to 19.30]

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (19:30): I am very pleased to be able to identify in this grievance debate the winners of the 2013 Morialta Citizenship Awards. The Morialta Citizenship Award is a prize that I have been sponsoring since I was elected to the parliament in 2010. I think the first one was awarded in 2011—the first one to all schools was in 2011. Previously, members for Morialta had identified the two local public high schools in which one award was made of $100 each or a book voucher for a student who had demonstrated above and beyond citizenship behaviours, setting an example to their peers through works that were assisting others, whether in their school community, their local community or the broader community. I thought this was the sort of good behaviour role-modelling that was worth spreading throughout all of the local schools: primary, independent and Catholic as well.

We have had some tremendous awardees of the Morialta Citizenship Award over the last few years. The students are presented with a certificate. Their works are acknowledged in front of their school communities and I am very pleased to always be able to identify those students in the parliament so that their achievements and their endeavour may be recorded in the permanent Hansard record. The winners in 2013:

Athelstone Schools—Isabelle Bury

Charles Campbell College (Senior)—Claire Coleman

Charles Campbell College (Middle)—Tayla Skipworth

Charles Campbell College (Junior)—Jasmin Wurfel

Norwood Morialta High School—Gianluca Noble

Norwood Morialta Middle School—Quang-Huy Nguyen

Paradise Primary School had joint winners—Blake Rander and Jazmine Dawson

Rostrevor College—Hamish Massie

St Francis of Assisi school at Newton—Kate Roocke

St Ignatius—Jack Gransbury

Stradbroke Christian School again had joint winners—Marcello Morena, Charlotte Noll and Bethany Jackel

Sunrise Christian School (Paradise campus)—Valeria Flores Farrera

Thorndon Park Primary School—Kayla Haack and Alexander Dichiera

I will just touch briefly on the achievements of each of these individual students. Isabelle Bury from the Athelstone School: Isabelle was heavily involved with extracurricular activities in 2013. She was elected house captain, she was a member of the inaugural school climate leadership team, which was elected by her peers. She performed flute and piano and she was involved in the school choir and band, performing at the Festival Theatre and Gala night. She represented her school in a number of SAPSASA teams, including tennis, rugby, netball and indoor volleyball, and while maintaining that incredible extracurricular load, Isabelle also experienced excellent academic results.

Charles Campbell College is a very large school in the Morialta electorate. It used to be the Charles Campbell Secondary School and Campbelltown Primary School, which have now merged, and they have the senior, middle and junior campuses, so we had one prize for each. Claire Coleman from the senior campus, the winner, was a year 11 student last year, so in year 12 this year. She was part of the student leadership team and is this year a school captain. She is an active member of the Youth Advisory Committee, has fantastic grades and is respected by her peers and staff alike.

Tayla Skipworth was a year 9 student last year. She was an international buddy—Charles Campbell College is an international college with a significant multicultural community, and that is a very prestigious role. She was involved in sports, has excellent grades and is active in all aspects of school life.

Charles Campbell College junior campus, which would have formerly been the Campbelltown Primary School, was won by Jasmin Wurfel. She was a year 6 student, so she has gone up to the year 7 campus this year. She represented the school in a number of extracurricular activities, including performing at the Adelaide Fringe Festival, the Come Out Festival, SAPSASA, primary school choir and she is also an older buddy in the school with a strong sense of community and is very much appreciated by her peers in the school.

Gianluca Noble is from the Norwood Morialta High School. The last time I saw Gianluca I think he was sitting in front in the Leader of the Opposition's seat at one of the various mock parliaments that take place in this building, when the school students set a good example for all of us to follow. I heard the Deputy Speaker's words before dinner, calling on all of us to set a better example, and I think at those mock parliaments that some of these students have won they do set such an example. I am sure the Deputy Speaker would have been proud of the way Gianluca conducted himself on that occasion.

He was an active member of the student representative council on both the middle and senior campuses, elected in 2012 and 2013 to be a male vice-president. He was also dedicated to all the school musicals, roles that my wife and I have seen him in. Last year, Gianluca was nominated for the Order of Australia Student Citizenship Award and Student Citizen of the Year. He was one of 10 state winners and was awarded his prize by the Governor at Government House.

Quang-Huy Nguyen was a year 10 student at Norwood Morialta middle school last year. He was involved in a range of extracurricular activities, including embarking on the World Challenge trip with a group of year 9 and 10 students from the school. He supports his peers whenever required. He is always very supportive of them academically and he has been an active contributor to all parts of the school community.

At Paradise Primary School there were two winners. Blake Rander was a year 7 student who organised and helped prepare school sports teams for sports day and SAPSASA inter-school competitions. He trained as a media operator so that he could operate the audiovisual system at assemblies and events. He is a member of the band and the representative council, and is a very worthy winner.

Jazmine Dawson, whose mother I ran into the other day, was a year 7 last year and is now, I think, at Kildare College. She was a leader of the energy student action team, often giving up time to assist in organising activities and events, particularly for younger students. She represented the school in sporting activities, and has been an ambassador for the school on a number of occasions by welcoming parents and showing people around the school. I remember the Paradise Primary School carols service, at which these were awarded, was a tremendous night indeed, with the principal leading the school band in some fantastic carols.

Rostrevor College has a fantastic awards ceremony every year and I am very pleased that the Morialta Citizenship Award has been allowed to become part of that presentation. Hamish Massie was a year 12 last year. He was a college prefect and also a representative on the Campbelltown council.

Kate Roocke was a year 6 student at the St Francis of Assisi school. She raised over $800 to enable the purchase of desks and uniforms for a school in Cambodia and continues to do more to raise money to build accommodation so students are safer from slavery.

Jack Gransbury from St Ignatius' College was a year 8 student who participated in sport, music, debating and Tournament of Minds. He was involved in Live Below the Line, living on $2 for five days, and the 40 Hour Famine, raising a total of $300. He was also a volunteer collector for the National Heart Foundation and performed community service at an old folks' home.

Stradbroke Primary School always has a fantastic year 7 presentation. The three awardees included Marcello Morena, who has written for the children's section of the Sunday Mail, devoted time to the year 7 stall for the Stradbroke 50th birthday celebration, and assisted with monitor jobs, traffic crossings, sports shed, canteen and library.

Charlotte Noll was a Joey at the Magill Scout Club for five years. After graduating from Joeys, she joined the Stradbroke Scout group and has been committed to being an outstanding volunteer in her community there for the last two years. She raised money for the Scouts through sausage sizzles and mentors younger children at camps, developing skills for use in the community.

Bethany Jackel was the other awardee from Stradbroke. She was house captain and a sound engineer at junior primary assemblies. She assisted in the library and the canteen, as a traffic and sports monitor, and was an active contributor to the community.

There are three to go. Valeria Flores Farrera was a year 7 student last year at Sunrise Christian School. She was awarded the Morialta Citizenship Award for exhibiting to all her peacemaking skills and her initiative in the schoolyard, and for setting a good example for others.

At Thorndon Park Primary School we awarded two last year. Kayla Haack led by example and has always demonstrated consistently responsible behaviour. She is considerate towards others, a peer mediator, and very well known at the school for helping those in need and as a leader in school activities.

Finally, Alexander Dichiera, from the Thorndon Park Primary School, was, again, a peer mediator. He volunteered for far more than his fair share of traffic duties, which at Thorndon Park Primary School can be a challenging and sometimes life-threatening experience, so I commend him for that work. It is very important, and I hope the government is going to do something about that school crossing. Alexander regularly volunteered for roles which enabled events to run smoothly.

Presenting these events at all my local schools is one of my favourite parts of this job. It is a privilege to meet these fine young men and women, and I look forward to seeing them progress in the years ahead to be significant leaders in our communities as they continue to be excellent role models for their peers. I commend their efforts to the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (19:40): Timed beautifully, member for Morialta—well done. I might talk about responsibility tonight, and I have three different areas that I want to focus on. I am grateful that the member for Waite is in the chamber because I think I will talk about the actions of the last eight days.

The member for Waite and I are friends, and I do not retract from that. Indeed, I have said that to my colleagues and the people I have spoken to over the last eight days. I am grateful for the closeness the member for Waite and I have shared in past years, and I am also grateful for the fact that the member for Waite rang me to talk about the actions of the last week. We have talked about futures, frustrations, anger and all the emotions that are actually involved in the decision that was made.

I can understand why he as a person has made the decision that he has. Am I accepting of it? No, I am not. Do I wish it had never occurred? Yes. Would I have tried to talk him out of it? Absolutely. Would I have been successful? No. Am I grateful, indeed, that the member for Waite did not speak to me about it beforehand? Yes, because then it would have put me in a very difficult situation between the personal friendship and a responsibility that I feel.

The member for Waite will, I think, improve the government by virtue of being associated with you as a minister. I think the capacity he brings is immense, and that is why I have been a friend for a long time of the member for Waite. I wish the portfolio responsibilities that he holds well because they are key ones, and there is absolutely no doubt about that. The relationships he has will be of assistance, most certainly.

The challenges that the actions of last week represent will be there also, and there have been some words said by those in other places and federally about what the treatment of them might be. I am very disappointed, personally. I am saddened that the relationship we have had for probably 7½ years will not be there anymore because of the inability to see each other in the same sort of way and to speak to each other in the same way.

I will pay him a level of respect, as I do any member of parliament. Indeed, I always refer to the Premier as the Premier. I do not agree with the principles and decisions made all the time, or very often, but I respect the position that is held. The member for Waite will face a very serious challenge over the next three years and 9½ months as a minister of the Crown. I wish he had not done it. I hope he succeeds from the personal level because the state needs him to be successful, but I feel exceptionally disappointed by it, and I thought it was appropriate that I actually take the time in this chamber to express some of the thoughts and emotions I have gone through.

Others were approached in a variety of different ways about an opportunity to do some things, and there might be questions put about the validity of some of those approaches. I know the way in which suggestions were made that came to me, based on the person who said them, in my mind offers significant validity to the approach having been made, because of the involvement that person had in another movement that occurred two years ago.

These are interesting times for the state to see the member for Waite as an Independent Liberal in a Labor ministry and how it will go, but I can give an absolute assurance that there will be a very significant effort to hold the minister to account and to ensure that the actions and the outcomes are what South Australians need. From an opposition perspective, it is not necessarily an easy ride. There will be some challenging times. There will be some times when some people might say things that, in the fullness of time, they might choose to regret having said, but I have no doubt they will be said.

There have been a lot of words said in some confidence, I think, by members on this side about what they felt about the decision, and I completely understand the emotion attached to that, absolutely, because the actions have created an opportunity for the member for Waite but have severely dented any opportunity that would have presented itself either in the short term or the medium term to the Liberal Party, so it will be interesting to see how things go on.

For the remainder of my contribution, I also wish to talk about responsibility, but as I feel it represented in the hands of ministers. I have been a person who has lived where there are budget controls in place, particularly where the public purse provides those funds to actually undertake that expenditure, with the necessity for controls to be there to ensure budget responsibilities, which are very hard choices to actually make.

I have dealt in lesser sums than the Treasurer does in my life before I came into this place, but the principles are still the same: priority choices, responsibility within departments, personal accountability, ensuring that the budget is the tightest process it can be, about revenues and expenditure, and delivering upon the outcomes that are set. I think it is fair to say that what frustrated the life out of me, in the eight and a bit years that I have been here, is the inability to actually ensure that a budget, when in place, is met.

I can think of so many instances. Indeed, if I go back five or six years ago when, as part of a Mid-Year Budget Review, across the forward estimates (so, there were 3½ years left) there was a revision of, for example, wage costs. The total addition additional liability attached across the forward estimates for wage costs was $500 million. I am flabbergasted that within a six-month period, post the budget being declared, that in such a short time in a projection for the next 3½ years, an additional $500 million that had to be found in the forward estimates to fund all those additional costs.

I offer no criticism at all of the people who are employed in these projects or these programs; they are deemed to be important at the time, there is no doubt about that. But, to me, it comes down to a level of individual control that rests with ministers and, via them, their chiefs of staff, chief executives and senior managers, to ensure that they actually deliver upon budgets.

I have been around here long enough to see an enormous number of reviews that have taken place—efficiency dividend requirements, productivity improvements, all level of saving costs—but they still failed to deliver efficiency in budgeting and efficiency in committing and then adhering to budgets that are actually put in place. It has disappointed me immensely. There are some people who stand up here and talk about that with absolute sincerity about the frustrations that they feel.

The people who come into this place from a private enterprise background know that success for their personal business, their family business, or the business they worked for, depends on adhering to the budgets that are in place and trying not only to maximise revenue opportunities—absolutely no doubt about that—but also to ensure that expenditure, which is an absolute key area, is kept to what is agreed upon, either in its original form or revised, but where informed decisions are made.

I have seen so many examples in this place where hundreds of millions of dollars suddenly accrue into costs, with seemingly no responsibility being tied back to the person in charge. In my eyes, under the Westminster system it clearly sits with ministers; they are 13, 14, 15 people, or whatever number it is, but they are the ones chosen by the people of South Australia, put in place (albeit in a minority situation this year) and who have the responsibility to adhere to it, to stick to it, to deliver upon it, and to ensure that the financial situation of the state does not suffer from it.

I think the member for Davenport, in his previous contribution, talked about where the difference between projected surpluses and delivered deficits over a six or seven-year period was actually $5.5 billion—a frightening figure, absolutely frightening. To me, it signifies, more than just about anything I have ever heard, a long-term, systemic inability to actually deliver upon commitments that they put in place, and I think that is a disgrace.

Any person who aspires to come into this place—yes, they want to achieve great things in their community; yes, they want to have the opportunity to serve as a minister—has to deliver upon the commitments they make. It is not just a policy direction, and it is not just the words they say to people; it is about the budgets they are involved in setting with the Treasurer (and we are going to hear the next one on 19 June) that are so key to the future of this state, but they have to be kept, and my frustration is that they have not been. I have not seen a demonstration of that in my time in this place, for eight years, and that is the absolute frustration the whole of society should actually feel about trying to improve it because, under the Westminster system, it comes down to the responsibility of the ministers and, indeed, of the parliament holding them into account.

Some will argue that the estimates process is a bit of a waste of time. For me, I think it is great. It provides an opportunity for not only the minister to know probably more about their budget lines, their staff and the policies they are going roll out but from an opposition perspective to be able to scrutinise it, understand it, question it and put it out in the public space. There might be a lot people who might not read it, understand it or even try to, but the fact is that politics impacts every person in South Australia in some way every day of their life. What we talk about in this place is not just rhetoric; it is gospel truth that has to be adhered to.

I look forward to the contributions by other members. I know that my frustrations are causing my blood pressure to rise a little bit. All of us in this place get a bit like that, although not as much as the previous member for Elder, who used to get very red in the face when he fired up a little bit. We are a special place, and we have to ensure that we work as diligently as we can, and that means members from both sides of the house.

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