HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-07-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Appropriation Bill 2014

Estimates Committees

Adjourned debate on motion:

That the proposed expenditures referred to Estimates Committees A and B be agreed to.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (15:59): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It is my turn to report on having served our duties over the last five days and having actually been involved in the estimates process. I do not know if I am a masochist, but I am one of these people who actually enjoys it—I really do. I love to possess information about things; it is nice to be informed about things.

While it is a long day—I do not deny that—and I only served for three days in the estimates period this year, as opposed to previous years when I have sat in or been involved in asking questions for someone else for six days, it still allows an opportunity to get the questions out there for the information to be available to the people of South Australia for scrutiny to be undertaken of the performances of those who ask the questions and, indeed, those who answer the questions and the information that is provided to them or around them to help them answer the questions.

As I have said to a lot of people in recent times, while it takes an enormous amount of work to prepare for estimates—from a ministerial perspective, there must be hundreds of hours, presumably, devoted to ensuring that the information is available to them—I think it provides the greatest possible involvement in what the budget envisages providing to South Australians in the next financial year and what it has done in the last financial year.

It is an opportunity that is presented to us, so I think we have to seize upon it and try to use it as intended, which is as a chance for scrutiny to be applied to the budget, for information to be provided and then for the people to form a judgement on its capacity to deliver the resources provided to it, the different priorities that have to be determined in setting a budget, and the great challenge of how it actually assists the South Australian economy to grow and provide services for our community.

The first session I had involvement with was the planning series of questions with minister Rau, the member for Enfield, and I enjoyed that. It is obvious to me that the minister possesses a very good grasp of planning matters—there is no doubt about it. He has held the portfolio for a little while now, but the fact that we were able to sit and have, at your chairing, I think, Deputy Speaker—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The best thing is you didn't know I was there.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Exactly.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is how it should be.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was hoping you would take me as 'ladybird Bedford'.

Mr GRIFFITHS: We were able to ask questions of each other in a way that allowed information to be relayed which, I think, was quite a revelation because it does not always occur in this place. There are a couple of little things I just wanted to highlight.

The answer to the first question I led off with, that I found rather interesting, was that the Development Assessment Commission, which is appointed by the state government to make decisions on significant planning matters and development approvals, did not actually exist for a 17-day period until that very day when the minister confirmed, in answer to my first question, that it had been gazetted on that day for the DAC to continue, with the previous members who served two-year terms having been extended for a nine-month period through to the end of March.

I thought it was interesting that the timing links into the greater review of planning that has been undertaken under the Development Act by the panel led by Mr Brian Hayes. Their report will come out soon in an interim form, and the final report will come down in December and go to the minister, in the first case, for consideration of the legislative impacts that will have and the recommendations and changes he wishes to pursue.

Interestingly, there has been a lot of debate about that. I am aware of a significant number of groups being involved in the review since a first-stage report came out some months ago. There is never going to be uniform agreement on all these areas, but I think there is a level of middle ground which should inform the consultation that occurs, once the legislation comes in, and what the final position might actually be of all these groups and individuals who have very divergent opinions.

That is a significant report. The group actually started their work in February of last year, when they were appointed, always with the intention of finalising their project by December 2014, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

It was interesting to me that, in the planning area, the Planning and Development Fund was noted as having $2.8 million transferred from it to the Vibrant Cities program. Minister Rau certainly talked in glowing terms of the activities, the infrastructure and the events that had occurred from that. The point I raise is that the funding predominantly comes from greenfield development sites which, no doubt, could be used in many different areas to provide infrastructure, but the focus of the fund, even though I think the range of revenue per year—I am trying to remember what the minister quoted—was in the $20 millions per year, is on the significant transfer to the Vibrant Cities. Minister Rau spoke quite passionately about some of the outcomes from that and the work that has been undertaken.

The 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide is one that has been with us for four or five years now, and a lot of work was done in preparing that. The minister and I have had discussions in some public forums. What was anticipated with that, which was a 70 per cent greenfield development and a 30 per cent infill development, has actually completely swapped over—nearly. I think it is 60 per cent now for infill and 40 per cent for greenfield development.

The minister certainly believes that that can continue for some time. He emphasised the reduced costs that it represents to the taxpayer by the better utilisation of infrastructure that already exists. I think it is part of the mindset challenge for people to consider what scope of house they wish to live in. Is it more of a traditional development option, no matter what the size of that is, but within their own confines and their own walls, or is it part of a much larger building where they share occupancy with others? That will be interesting. The review of the 30-year plan is to be undertaken in 2015, and I look forward to having some involvement in that and also its review.

A significant component of estimates for me, though, were the questions that I posed to minister Brock as regional development minister. The minister, in making his opening statement, as I understand it, made a suggestion of limiting it to around 10 minutes. The minister spoke for 13½ minutes, which I was not completely upset by because it did provide some information and some interesting points of reference for me, but the very first question from me was focused on what his initial impetus was in that opening statement about jobs.

I asked what I thought was a simple question of the minister which, given the large number of staff members who were either sitting next to him or behind or in the gallery behind him, he should have been able to answer. It was about what the unemployment rate was for the Barossa, Yorke and Mid North ABS data collection area for the June period. They all looked around. The minister said that he knew it but just wanted to check on it, and did not necessarily want to relay it until he was absolutely sure about what it was.

There was some discussion between them, and they still were not in a position to provide me with the details. Then I told him that it was 7.2 per cent and that the reason I posed the question was because it led into another thing that he talked about in his initial opening statement, the Job Accelerator Fund. Everyone who has listened to the minister in seemingly every interview that he has conducted since the time of agreeing with the Premier to form a minority government has been aware of the $10 million Job Accelerator Fund. I commend him on the initiative of attracting that level of financial support.

My great frustration, though, and the frustration that all South Australians should feel, is that, some four months after the agreement to create this fund, a fund that is designed to exist only for one financial year (2014-15), we still do not have an agreement on its guidelines. I have been posing this question to the minister since the budget was announced, when there was confirmation of the dollars being available but no time lines, via the media. Again, I asked the minister what I thought would be a relatively simple question in which he could outline what his vision for it was, what the guidelines for it were, and when the guidelines were going to be produced and available for people to lodge expressions of interest.

Instead, I get the answer that it is still not finalised. There is a meeting on 5 August of a subcommittee of the Economic Development Board, which Mr Rob Chapman will be chairing, as I understand it. It is post that time, some date into the future, that the guidelines will be available, and then, finally, applications can be lodged for it. In emphasising my very first question to the minister about the unemployment rate in his own patch, a patch that I share with him, I did so on the basis of where this money needs to be available now, not some time into the future.

I am so disappointed by the fact that four months after the announcement of the funding being available we still come down to a situation where I do not know when the guidelines are going to be released, I do not know when the applications and expressions of interest can be lodged, and I have absolutely no idea of when the money will be finally delivered to on-the-ground projects, and these are projects which create job opportunities and give communities a strong future. That is a disappointment that I have at a high level, and it is a frustration that all of us on the opposition benches feel. It is something that the government should be questioning their own minister about, about when this is finally going to come out and happen.

The next question area I asked minister Brock was about Regional Development Board funding. He stands up and tells me that as a result of a lot of meetings, the last one being on 17 July, there was an agreement on the guidelines for the funding. I have had a focus on core funding to be available for the RDAs. I have talked about a funding amount of $3 million.

The minister confirmed that, with a pre-existing $1.4 million and a subsequent enhancement of $1.6 million, that $3 million exists. However, the debate has been about the conditions attached to that and what level of surety of employment it provides for the RDA staff, who I believe need it desperately to ensure that they do not lose good staff. These are people in the main—certainly the ones that I have met—who have worked in the area for a good number of years. They understand the contacts and the opportunities, and they know who to talk to to hopefully make an opportunity happen. That is what I think policies need to be about, where we can ensure as much as humanly possible that visions become reality, and the loss of these staff I think will be very sadly felt.

That is why I have continued to ask questions on this topic, and other members of parliament have continued to ask questions on it. It is not because we have personal relationships with these people, it is because of what we have seen at our local level, in the communities in which we live, and the difference that they can make by making connections happen and by making opportunities a reality.

The minister told me (17 July) that there is an agreement in place. I asked him the question, 'If I was to ring each RDA CEO and conduct a straw poll, am I going to get the same sort of response?' He told me that it has been a result of negotiation, that there have been some words said and that they have reached a position on it. However, it is still so frustrating to me that it has taken this long for the RDAs—and I think such a high level of compromise that existed that I hope this funding, which is more than one year (I do respect that), allows for the RDA boards to do what they should be doing and what they have done in the past.

We also talked about Regional Impact Assessment Statements (RIAS). This is part of a cabinet approval process for legislation or decisions being made that impacts upon regional people. I quoted to the minister that there have only been 21 of those since 2003 and that there have only been five since 2010. The minister confirmed in his response to me that there have been none in 2013. The minister also notes that there is a review being undertaken of the Regional Impact Assessment Statement process. I said, 'So, minister, do you believe that there were no decisions made in 2013 by cabinet that actually impacted upon regional people?' He came up with the response that he is not responsible for that and his focus is on what the future is. I hope that the RIAS is a system that is worked extensively and used to help inform those who make the decisions, because it has to be.

Local government was the next area of questions for the minister, immediately following regional development. I listened to an opening statement on that area also; a little bit shorter than the other one—the 13½ minute one. My initial question was on a very topical issue that has consumed the minds of the people of South Australia for the last 22 days, being about the Emergency Management Council, especially as it relates to work that it should have been involved in and discussed about Clovelly Park and now Mitchell Park, and contamination concerns and the fact that we are out to potentially 1,400 homes that are involved in that.

I find it rather interesting that, in posing the question to the minister, there was a rather frustrated look on the faces of all his staff members, who thought, 'What is that question about?' The amazing part is, though, that when you look at the legislative requirements of who is actually on the Emergency Management Council, it lists him. The position that the minister holds is part of that group. We have heard in the chamber today of a meeting of the committee of the emergency management group, which is at a lower level—it is departmental CEOs, the LGA CEO and people like that—and which met on 25 June.

In asking questions to the minister about it: first, seemingly, he has no idea; no staff member around him has any idea; there were a large number of people who were there to support him who had no idea of the fact that he should have been involved in discussions from the community's perspective, as the local government minister. Then I wanted to ask the minister questions about whether he had had any contact with the City of Marion, which has responsibility for the provision of services to those communities—still none. The minister says that he has talked to the Local Government Association CEO and president, which I find interesting. I have no concern with that, but they do not live in Marion. They do not have the intimate relationship with the people of Marion council, as mayor Felicity-Ann Lewis—who the member for Bright referred to earlier on. He has only spoken to a higher level.

The minister has acknowledged it as 'not a bad suggestion, Steven' so I think his intention is now to set up a meeting and an opportunity for that to occur, but the frustration I have about the fact that either the minister has not considered the option, or the people around him who are quite often paid significant dollars, and the departmental CEOs who earn more than I ever will, have not thought of the fact that maybe we should suggest this to the boss. It comes down to that.

I do not expect every minister to know the answer to every question but they have a collection of people around them who should consider the issues, consider what the implications are, consider when they should give suggestions to their minister about where the minister should head and who he should talk to, what opportunities are presented, what are the challenges and what the outcomes need to be, and instead I got nothing. I find the fact that that occurs unbelievable.

So it is a criticism of the member for Frome, it is a criticism of the staff who support him within his own ministerial office (and I note there are nine) and it is a criticism of the departments of the government that actually support the minister to have allowed that situation to occur, that is, a person who is legislatively meant to be involved had not even given it consideration. It seems to me that he has had no briefing on it and does not understand it. He has probably heard it on radio, read it in the newspaper, heard questions in the parliament about it, but has taken no active involvement. I am not saying that I know everything but I have to tell you that that should have been something that was looked at.

In local government I also talked about the Premier's Local Government Forum which last met in October last year. After that, the Premier said that it was going to be three meetings per year. Here we are nine months after the fact, 'Hmm, don't know when the next one is.' We still do not know. In relation to the State/Local Government Relations Agreement, there was a draft of words on that in October last year. 'No, that is still not finalised; don't know when that is going to occur either because you need to do that at the forum.'

I suppose you have to question what the LGA is doing to try to make these things happen and what the minister who is responsible and who has experience in local government is actually trying to do to ensure that this occurs and to give some firm directions. I asked the minister particularly about rating and the cost to people who own property for the delivery of services and infrastructure and local government, 'What policies do you have, what initiatives do you have, what future visions do you have for local government about trying to reduce the impact of council rate increases?' The response from the minister was that he referred to 2005 financial viability reporting that was undertaken and studies and implementation of that by local government. He referred to some changes in 2010 but nothing since, absolutely nothing.

When I continued to question and asked 'Okay, in a contemporary sense, minister, what are the issues that occurred last financial year and what is your future vision for next financial year? I know you have only been there for four months, I know you were not in a position to actually determine, to a large degree, what was in the budget other than the agreement to form government issues, but regarding this one, what have you actually challenged your staff to produce?' I did not get an answer. There was no contemporary vision going forward of what local government challenges would be. The minister said to me that he intends to open up the act for review later this year. Absolutely, but he has no vision for it and I think that that is a great frustration.

Finally, I want to commend ministers who sit in this chamber during estimates and answer questions with very little reference to their staff members (or some where it is appropriate and I completely understand that), and particularly those ministers who do not have questions from their own side, even though I can accept a few because I think there are some important issues that they probably want to get out or include as part of an introductory statement. I have absolutely no time for ministers who cannot answer any questions, continually refer to staff members and seemingly show contempt for the whole process and do not ensure that information is relayed, because they have let the people down.

You are put in an amazingly influential position where you have an opportunity within the scope of the four-year term of being in government and whatever period during that four years you are a minister to make a difference. That relies upon having the capacity to do so. The capacity to do so is challenging, there is absolutely no doubt about that. One of the challenges is that you have to have the capacity to sit at those tables and answer questions and do it in a way that influences people. For those who do it well, all power to you; for those who do it poorly, you should not be in here because you are not up to it.

I commend those who have done it well, and I commend the opposition shadow ministers who asked the questions well. It is an important one for the state and I hope it continues and only gets better in future years.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:19): I too rise to express my views on the estimates process. I congratulate you. I do not think you had the bright jacket on during the course of estimates, but you were, I guess, admired because no-one actually noticed that you were there, so well done. I also congratulate the member for Little Para who chaired estimates B. I think his work was exemplary as well. As the member for Goyder has expressed—

The Hon. S.W. Key: What about his jacket? You didn’t mention his jacket.

Ms Digance: Yes, what about his jacket?

Mr WHETSTONE: Whose?

The Hon. S.W. Key: The member for Little Para.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not lending the member for Little Para my jacket.

Mr WHETSTONE: No. He wouldn’t look as good in that jacket either, let me tell you.

Ms Digance: We want some commentary on his jacket.

Mr WHETSTONE: Maybe he could wear the brooch. I am a little different to the member for Goyder; I find the estimates process a very frustrating exercise. A lot of effort goes into estimates on both sides of the house. Not only do ministers have to be briefed but they have to have their paperwork done. They have folders upon folders; their staff work many hours preparing answers, responses. The amount of time, effort and money that go into producing what is in those folders would be astronomical. On this side, too, a large amount of effort goes into preparing questions and constructing conversations, in more ways than one: the opposition questioning government ministers about exactly how they will prepare to roll out their budget and also the hidden bits and pieces in the budget, the hidden agendas behind decisions in the budget.

Well done to the members on this side of the house. In some instances, I congratulate some of the ministers on the way they conducted their answers, and I congratulate their staff because they were part of the process as well. However, there were some who did not perform so well, on both sides perhaps. It could have been a little better.

I was dismayed at some of the opening statements, the frustration with ministers. Some ministers were prepared to stand on their own with no opening statements; they did not have to take too many government-bred questions. However, some were reliant on support from their side, and that really does show that they are lacking something within to answer the questions and be able to shoulder the questioning, the scrutiny that the opposition put to them.

Again, the Dorothy Dixers were concerning. In some cases ministers spent more time reading statements and answering Dorothy Dixers than being scrutinised by the opposition. I think that was a failed exercise. Obviously ministers deflected some of the questions and just read out statements. Again, that reflects poorly on them. If they are to be remembered as credible ministers, they need to stand on their own two feet and know the brief. I think it is just as important: to know the brief and be able to answer questions. Sure, they can rely on their staff but, again, they should be remembered as good ministers and not just as freeloaders.

I will move on to some of the committees I sat in on. I will start with sport, rec and racing. Obviously one of the topical issues in that portfolio was the $50 sports voucher. I think that has created a bit of anxiety in the minister’s office. He has even put out a press release criticising me over the questions I asked him. That might tell a story. It was on 2 March this year that the Premier put out a media release with the promise of $50 vouchers to help families with the cost of kids’ sport.

It was stated that all primary school age children will receive an annual voucher for $50 towards their sports club fees under a re-elected Labor government. Well, what a fiasco. The questions went along and we gave it some scrutinising. There was no modelling. The minister did not refer to his department. The minister had no consultation. He referred to using other states' models. Some of those other states' models, if we look at the Northern Territory their sports voucher scheme is to help school age children and is for $75 and it has just gone up to $200 annually. So, it really shows that they mean business.

The 213,000 primary school aged children in South Australia, at public, private and Catholic schools, were told that they would have that $50 voucher. Of that 213,000, I do not expect that every student will take that up, but if that program is exhausted in its entirety—the budget was $7.7 million over four years. It does not take a rocket scientist to push a few buttons on a calculator and my numbers are telling me it is $42.5 million to put a budget line to that program. So, I am wondering what the Treasurer must be thinking.

I have spoken to some crossbenchers and they tell me that they have met with the Treasurer over this scheme, one in particular put this scheme to the then sports minister some time ago, back in 2012, and the idea was given the boohoo because it cost too much money. Speaking to another crossbencher, they questioned the Treasurer and the Under Treasurer about who would be eligible for this scheme and they could not tell her. They could not tell her what sports were in and what sports were out.

So, I think it was policy on the run. There was little thought given to this election promise or this election sweetener and I must say that I am very disappointed with how the minister responded to questioning. I think the $7.7 million over four years will not stretch far enough. Let us face it, we are less than six months away from implementing that model and they still have not worked out exactly what the rules are and how they will implement that funding.

The minister has said that families will not fill out the forms. I find that hard to believe. Any family would know how high the cost of living is for them at the moment: $50 per year over a four-year period, I think every family would be silly not to fill out the form and be eligible for that funding. I was very critical of, particularly, that initiative and how the government made an election promise with no consideration of how it was going to be implemented and what the budget bottom line could mean to the state. That is a $35 million need for the budget bottom line. So, again, boohoo to that one.

I will not reflect too much on some of the other states. What I will say is that Western Australia and the Northern Territory have implemented these programs and they have done them on different bases: disadvantaged children, school cards, they have specifically targeted students and families that need that funding. I think it is a great initiative but the way this policy was rolled out it was just a sweetener for the election.

Moving on, we did talk about the SASI (South Australian Sports Institute) relocation. There was a feasibility study conducted two years ago. When I asked how long will that feasibility remain relevant, no-one knew. I think it was all about: we have an expectation of our elite sportsmen to go to the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games and perform and bring home medals. We need that in South Australia.

We need role models, we need something that our young children can stand up for and cherish their sports heroes, and yet we see an uncertain future for SASI because we are not getting any certainty of just exactly whether the existing facilities will be upgraded or whether SASI will move to a new facility. I think that high performance program needs to have more focus put on it because we need role models here in South Australia. There are not enough of them. The sports heroes we have I congratulate, but we need the continuing rolling of better sports people achieving at a high level.

Again, we heard that a small portion of the Community Recreation and Sport Facilities Program fund is indexed but the rest of the grants in the department are not. That means there is less money available for sporting clubs when one normally expects grants to rise with inflation. That is something I am hoping the minister will take away with him and look at how we can index that grant program to inflation. Let's face it, as every mother and father here knows, sports attire is not cheap and it is ongoing. If children are lucky enough to play more than one code of sport, you cannot go running in your footy boots and you need a different top when you play cricket from when you play football. It is a drain on the budget.

We touched on Coopers Stadium at Hindmarsh and noted that it will be hosting the lingerie football via the legends league. I asked the minister about that and he said he knew nothing about it. The minister knows everything about sport, but he knew nothing of the lingerie league. I will be waiting with interest to see what Petra Starke writes in her column and says about that.

Without further ado, we will have a bit of a look at VACSWIM's structure. It was noted that there were about 13,500 participants in 2012-13 but, sadly, that is dropping away. That is something that is critically important, particularly in regional South Australia. It is critical in all parts of South Australia, but in my electorate we do not have a lot of big swimming facilities—we do have some town pools—but we have the river, and you cannot see to the bottom of the river. Kids swimming in the river are at risk if they sink, so we need to have our kids swimming. When we go to the beaches, we need to have our kids competent in the water. I think the minister needs to do a little bit of rejigging of some of his ideas and he needs to come out with a much clearer long-term vision for sport in South Australia.

Touching on investment and trade, we talked about the South-East Asia strategy funding of $1.1 million over four years. I asked the minister whether he thought that was enough, and it is clearly not enough. I am sure that the previous minister for industry and trade would agree with me that a strategy that could mean so much to the state's economy having a measly $1.1 million over four years will not span far enough. I think both the then minister and the now minister will agree with me that it is a very modest amount of money for a very important strategy that this state will rely on more and more as time goes by.

The government seeks art, education and cultural outcomes from that program as well, and I think it is not just about exporting our commodities and agricultural products, our food, our wine, but it is about the investment we need in bringing in international students, particularly with arts and cultural outcomes. I think it is critically important for this state. It is not just about generating money, but it is important for the culture of this state. In spreading the message, the tourism dollars will come back to South Australia because South Australia is a great place to visit. Many of my former employees on the farm tell their relatives in faraway places that it is a beautiful place to visit and a great place to work. It is a land of opportunity.

It also appears that travel costs for trade missions to South-East Asia will come from this budget. Again, I feel there is too much pressure being put on the SMEs when they are trying to develop products and markets. They do need government assistance when it comes to developing relationships with their international trade partners. Again, we need to look at that and work further on it. The gateway budget to assist those SMEs has been slashed. As I have just said, those SMEs need support. They are doing what they can to produce food and wine. They are producing commodities and producing, to a lesser degree, the higher end manufactured products. I think that the government will have to refocus where they are going to put an important amount of money into generating an economy that is growing at the moment but is sadly not growing quickly enough.

One thing that came out of the conversation I had with the minister is that I think he agrees that we need more effort and support to take businesses overseas to create opportunities. So, I am relying on him to lobby his colleagues, the Premier and the Treasurer to do more to help the people who are generating the state's economy.

Travel protocols certainly need to be reviewed. It was revealed that, in recent trips overseas, we had ministers, their advisers and their takeaways travelling first class. How does that work? Where is the protocol there? I cannot agree with ministers taking first class tickets anywhere in the world. Business class, yes, but I think that first-class tickets is an extremity of indulgence.

The government continues to fall short on its Strategic Plan target of 45,000 international students. This year it is 15,000 short. I think we need to have a look at exactly why it is 15,000 short. Are other states taking our international students from us? I suspect so. I know that Victoria is working very hard on attracting international students. They have a long-term vision, and that is something we are lacking here in South Australia, particularly with enticing those students to come here to study.

The minister seemed clueless about the need for South Australia to be recognised in China as a fruit fly-free area. China is about to sign a free trade agreement with Australia, and South Australia will benefit in many areas, particularly wine and food. Having been a citrus grower and a wine producer, I know that a fruit fly-free status is critically important for a relationship-building exercise, particularly in China, that they know that they have a pest-free piece of fruit, and, at the moment, China does not recognise that area of freedom. That is something the minister has said he will go away and concentrate on. I will be very interested to see how much concentration he puts into that.

Just quickly, I want to refer to the environment, water and natural resources. There has been a continual reduction in the number of park rangers. In my electorate, I have some of the bigger parks in the state, particularly in the Riverland and the Mallee. We have 4.2 full-time equivalent rangers to look after a huge amount of land. As some people in this house might understand, just recently we have had significant bushfires in this state. So, the fewer rangers we have, the fewer people we have on the ground, the fewer staff we have to address the issues of the need for cold burns, prescription burns, managing the parks, managing these conservation areas.

One thing that really does bother me is that a lot of the time these fires are starting in parks, but then they are coming out of the parks and then start to burn private properties, and then we see loss of income for people, loss of fencing and loss of equipment. It is very lucky that we did not have any loss of life in these last couple of major bushfires.

Obviously, we had the EPA, and the Leader of the Opposition (the member for Dunstan) came in and, I think rightfully so, asked the right questions of the minister. Sadly, the minister took an extended toilet break. He read out an opening statement, by the time he had finished it was 14 minutes in, and I think that was outrageous. I will note that the member for Little Para did give a time extension; that will not be denied. But for the minister to give opening statements like he did, I think he is hiding. Like I said to him, 'Minister, you can run, but you can't hide.' Obviously I am going to run out of time, but I will speak about some of the water issues at another time. The desal plant and what happens when we have another drought are issues that the minister will need to address in the future.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (16:40): Sorry, member for Ashford. I think last time you jumped up in front of me to continue your remarks, so I call this getting one back—although I would much prefer to hear your remarks. As one of the new kids in this place, estimates is something that I have looked forward to with great relish. Having seen some of the great battles that happen in the federal parliament that are televised, with the great debates and the incisive questioning that lead to probity and independence and transparency of government, I was all set and looking forward to a very fun and fruitful estimates season.

I was so keen that I put my hand up to be involved in about 50 per cent of the estimates process. I understand, Deputy Speaker, that you and the member for Little Para would have had to be in here for quite an extended period of time but, as somebody who has choice in these matters, I was quite keen and jumped on board with as much as I could get involved with, to learn. Alas, towards the end of this process, I do feel a bit browbeaten, a little bit downtrodden and a little bit cynical and I would have hoped it would take a little bit longer than it has to arrive at this point.

I shared a level of cynicism with those opposite, in that they were rating the questioners on their questions throughout the day and those who did not have government questions had a little bit more time on their hands. Certainly, on this side of the fence, I did take note of the many ministers whose portfolios I was fortunate enough to sit in on, and I would like to give a short and brief summary of that to begin with.

First was the Treasurer (member for West Torrens) who I thought actually came to estimates in the right spirit. He is certainly somebody who feels confident in his portfolio. He did not have government questions asked of him and he at least tried, in the spirit of estimates, to give fruitful answers. Certainly, the Treasurer's style was at times combative, but there was a genuine flow of information and I did feel confident that he knew a lot of the basic numbers.

I then moved on to the Attorney-General's evidence about WorkCover and occupational health and safety issues. Certainly, the session with the CEO of WorkCover, Greg McCarthy, was again in the right spirit. As somebody who sits on the occupational safety, rehabilitation and compensation committee, it was great to hear from Greg McCarthy. A lot of what he said gives me hope that we will start to see strong improvement in the management of the WorkCover scheme, especially in relation to the questions around early intervention and trying to create a more simplified system that stands true to what the WorkCover system was designed to be about. I was quite encouraged by that.

Certainly, minister Rau definitely came to estimates with the right intentions and he enjoys his own contributions as much as I think we do, although I do think the highlight of the evening was the member for Ashford's taken-as-a-comment question about the good work of the occupational health and safety, rehabilitation and compensation committee and I did echo those sentiments.

The Hon. S.W. Key: It needs to be renamed.

Mr KNOLL: I am getting tongue-tied just saying it. I then moved on to an estimates about the Office of the Status for Women with minister Gago, from the other place, in the other place. It is interesting that we had a whole hour for a program with a budget of $1.98 million. It was a whole hour for a program that is only $1.98 million. I am not discussing whether or not that figure should be more or less but am merely saying that it seems quite disproportionate. As the previous speaker in this debate, the member for Chaffey, pointed out, for minister Hunter's 30-minute period of questioning around the Environmental Protection Agency, 14 minutes was spent on an opening statement, and then there were government members' questions of which 'Dorothy' would have been proud.

The other thing I found quite interesting was that when I read through the program for the Office for Women I noted there were 16.6 full-time equivalent staff assigned to this office. It seemed to me that at least nine of them were sitting in estimates with us, and that makes me wonder why there were so many. If over 50 per cent of a department can be sitting there in estimates, it begs the question if the remaining 7.6, or indeed less than that, were the ones having to pick up the workload for the day. It just struck me as quite odd to have so many people there for a department that is quite small.

I had the great pleasure of sitting in on estimates dealing with many aspects of education, and to watch the Minister for Education spar with the member for Unley. I think all those present would have enjoyed the back and forth, and I would like to congratulate the member for Little Para on his efforts to restore order and sanity to the process.

The member for Wright has been in this place for some time, and it did seem to me a little bit underwhelming that she would use the processes of estimates and government questions to her advantage. In fact, I think she seemed quite keen in her government questions, and in the answers to those questions, to talk more about opposition policy rather than trumpeting the reforms of her own government.

Indeed I watched with startled interest, and chuckled to myself, as the member for Napier turned the pages on answers to questions he had asked at the same rate as the minister answered those questions, with what I assume to be the same folder. It was quite a farce, and something that really disappointed me. However, I must admit that the two government members sitting next to him did not turn the pages in unison as well, so there was no seconding of my theory.

I managed to sit in on Minister Bettison, the member for Ramsay, again, someone who—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister for Social Inclusion.

Mr KNOLL: Sorry, the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not going to take offence.

Mr KNOLL: —needed to be protected in the extreme. It was, again, quite underwhelming that a minister of the government required so much insulation from opposition questions when the member for Adelaide's questioning on topics was, I thought, quite reasonable and balanced, and certainly aimed in the right spirit. Even though questioning was done in that light, the minister still saw fit to use the processes of estimates to her advantage.

I was also fortunate enough to sit in on the Minister for Manufacturing during her question time with the member for Stuart. I must admit that was done in a very collegiate manner, and I think a lot of good information came out of it. The questioning was respectful and the answers were quite respectful, and I do believe that the minister was endeavouring, quite strongly, to answer the questions. I suppose in the topsy turvy and ups and downs of the emotional rollercoaster I went on, with the estimates season, that was rather a highlight, so I would like to thank and congratulate her for that.

Lastly, the member for Lee, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, came in. He had no opening statement, there were no government questions, and I thought 'This is a man on top of his brief. Here is a man who is willing to use estimates in the right light.' Whilst he certainly did not waste any of estimates time using government questions or opening statements, he certainly was not of a mind to answer any questions either.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: There were 46 noes, was that? No matter how the member for Bragg tried to probe, his answers were frustratingly acute and brief. He certainly was not going to give us anything above the absolute minimum—and I believe less than the absolute minimum—that he could. Nevertheless, it was what it was. As a backbench MP, I watched a lot of that. My highlight was being able to enter the omnibus questions. I think I got them in in about 90 seconds. I think the member for Morphett and I are going to have a bit of a race about who can—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are the heir apparent.

Mr KNOLL: —talk the quickest; we will see. I was fortunate enough, given that we do not allow upper house shadow ministers to participate in the estimates process—and I have my own views on the Legislative Council—to be given the opportunity to ask a number of questions of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests and Minister for Tourism and Recreation and Sport. It was most enlightening.

The minister is one to trumpet bipartisanship in all he does, but I believe that he is, to a certain degree, disingenuous in this. In the spirit of bipartisanship, he could have been a lot more open and frank if, indeed, that is a mantra that he holds to himself. I will make some remarks in a moment in regard to some of the questions I was fortunate enough to ask him.

In my last budget measures speech that I gave a couple of weeks ago, I was on the verge of discussing budget blowouts and the $331 million that this government overspent well and beyond its own budget. So, this is not a standard that we set for the government: it is a standard it sets for itself and has failed to meet, time and time again. In the spirit of ranking ministers, I have broken down by portfolio and department those who have overspent and by what percentages. It is quite instructive to see those who are on top of the money within their portfolios and departments and those who are not.

The minister in charge of Defence SA has only been in charge for a short period of time, although his ministerial statements in this place suggest that he believes he has made a solid contribution in that short period of time, was 67 per cent over budget for this last financial year. I think that is something that he definitely needs to address. Next cab off the rank is the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy. There are a number of ministers in charge of that but, together, they can accept collective responsibility for the 17 per cent overspend on their budget.

Next cab off the rank and quite close behind—and this has quite startling implications for the coming budget cuts this year—is Primary Industries and Regions. The Minister for Agriculture was 15 per cent over budget. Given the huge amount of cuts he needs to initiate in this current 2014-15 budget, he has not been able to get his spending under control in previous budgets, so I wonder how he is going to be able to institute the cuts that he has been given.

Mr Whetstone: It is all on travel.

Mr KNOLL: The minister for trips to China! The embattled minister for environment, water and natural resources, and in charge of the Environment Protection Authority—minister Hunter, in the other place—was 14 per cent over budget for the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

The EPA is 10 per cent over budget, although I give them a bit of leeway given the fact that they make a profit that gets returned to general revenue. I feel that they are certainly more than pulling their weight in that department. In fact, we may even suggest that some of that $8 million profit that I think is projected for this year could be sent back to the EPA for them to do more with their work.

The last one I will talk about today is the Department of Treasury and Finance. I would have thought that the bean counters in Treasury and Finance, who I have quite a soft spot for, have to say no so very often. In their estimates questioning, they discussed the fact that, following the overspend on the RISTEC IT project, they did not go back to the general government revenue to seek more money. Indeed, they found savings within their department to pay for it.

However, even they were 14 per cent over budget in the 2013-14 year. If Treasury and Finance cannot manage their own budget, what hope is there for their ability to try to help other ministers manage their own budgets across the government's portfolios? It really does speak, I think, to a lack of discipline.

The member for Davenport talked earlier of that fateful day on 31 May 2012 when the South Australian state government lost their AAA credit rating and, with it, their ability to control their own spending with what little restraint they had.

We asked a large number of questions of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and the first cab off the rank was: 'Will the minister confirm in the 2014-15 budget that $59.8 million is the lowest budget for 12 years?' The minister said, 'No, no, no, if you go to the budget papers it says that total expenses are $221 million.' We thought, 'Wow, okay, that is much higher figure than the $59 million.'

We went back and looked at the budget papers and thought that that was a bit rough. Given how many members opposite have spent so much of this chamber's time bagging the federal budget cuts, here is a minister who is not admitting to his own state government's cut, yet he is taking credit for the $60 million increase that the commonwealth government has given to his department, the $60 million increase that he has received from the federal government—no mention of that, no mention whatsoever.

He was certainly having a bit of a dig at the feds about anything they have sought to do, but when the feds put an extra $60 million into his department he is all too quick to take responsibility and to take credit for that good work. No, their PIRSA budget is going up, not down. I found that quite disingenuous. You cannot have it both ways: either you are going to be transparent about the ups and downs of federal government spending in regard to the state budget or you are not. The idea that you can have it both ways simply does not work.

We asked questions about the Loxton Research Centre in the member for Chaffey's electorate. The member for Chaffey is very keen to get this project up and running as quickly as possible because of the jobs it will create in his region. In the 2013-14 year, $150,000 was spent on consultation for this project. I find that an extraordinary figure, and I would love to know the breakdown of it. The idea that $150,000 needs to be spent on having conversations with the public, who I am very, very certain have not been paid, is over the top.

A thought bubble that has existed within the department or the minister is the 'new initiative funding for a new regulatory standard for premium South Australian food'. When I asked questions about what that meant, I was not given a satisfactory answer. I said, 'Surely this is more regulation,' and the minister said, 'No, no, no, this is not a new regulatory standard.'

In the budget papers, it clearly says 'initiative funding for a new regulatory standard'—not my words, his words. I did not put these words on a piece of paper. I was merely trying to hold the minister to account for his own words. He said, 'No, no, it's not a new regulatory standard and it will sit within existing regulations.' Well, if it sits within existing regulations, I am really not sure about the need for it.

I am really not sure about that government's track record when it comes to previous initiatives in this area and, more specifically, taking down the Buy SA website over concerns about being unable to manage and verify the veracity of people using the Buy SA logo. I do wonder about what sort of liability the government is willing to accept on these issues.

There is another thought bubble somewhere within primary industries. We asked: what is the High Value Food Manufacturing Centre and what is the Food Innovation Hub? They are listed separately in the budget, yet it turns out that they are the same thing. I would have thought that if they were the same thing that we could call them the same thing but, no, the Food Innovation Hub and the High Value Food Manufacturing Centre need to be two different things for some reason unbeknown to the merely simple members opposite here.

I do think that we need to rename the primary industries department 'the department for brands'. It seems that the minister, and his department, is very keen to create as many brands as he can. I see on the lapels of members opposite the Brand SA logo, and I think that is fantastic. Investing in one brand is a very smart solution for a small state, but in addition to this brand we have the Food Innovation Hub brand and we have the premium food from our clean, green environment brand.

We have a new brand for the Barossa region, the trust mark, which is a fantastic initiative, but we are now going to have trust marks for a number of regions. It seems that this minister is very keen to create many brands, including his premium food regulatory brand and his free-range food premium brand, which we could not get to the bottom of. It seems that this minister for brands loves signing off on a new logo and being able to host fabulous dinners for it.

With the last 45, 35 seconds I would like to give the government a bit of a tick. After three or four weeks of scouring since the budget was handed down I have found a mention of the electorate of Schubert. I was glad that the minister confirmed that over this next financial year they are going to commit a further $2.7 million for the Barossa Be Consumed campaign, which was rated as the best tourism ad in the world at a French awards ceremony and is a fantastic initiative for my region. I do congratulate the minister on that extra $2.7 million and I do thank him for that and the people of Schubert also thank him.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. S.E. Close.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (17:00): I have to say that I found this to be the most interesting estimates that I have been involved in, except when I was a minister. I have to say that certainly topped it; being the minister and getting the questions is a little bit different. I also enjoyed estimates as a shadow minister, particularly in the industrial relations area. That was a fascinating experience.

The reason I appreciated this particular estimates process is, I guess, the committees that I was on. I would have to say the majority of the committees that I was part of did not have government questions and I actually think that adds to the whole debate. There are a number of comments that have been made about government questions, but part of the strategy of estimates is for the government to be able to showcase the important initiatives that have been made with regard to the budget. I think if we are going to reform estimates, we need to make sure that there is not only an examination of the budget and an opportunity for the opposition in particular to ask those questions, but we need to find a way of making sure that the highlights are also emphasised.

One of the areas that I did not sit in on but was very keen to find out what had been discussed was in the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Youth and Minister for Volunteers. I was particularly interested to see what sort of questions would be asked in that area, and I guess this is an example of where I think government questions were really important, because it did not seem as if the opposition wanted to emphasise some of the more positive things of the budget.

I understand that the minister was asked about us protecting South Australian pensioners and low income earners from some of the cuts that have been announced with regard to the federal government's concessions, and I am very proud of the fact that our government has made sure that pensioners will have some support, at least in the next financial year, with regard to concession entitlements.

As members would probably know, the National Partnership Agreement on Certain Concessions for Pensioner Concession Card and Seniors Card Holders has been cut, and so South Australia will not receive almost $30 million to support those pensioner concession cards and seniors card holders. Certainly in Ashford, and I am sure other members will have constituents who really rely on these concessions, this is most concerning. I think there is an opportunity here to congratulate the government, and it certainly did not come through opposition questioning. It was actually a government question that gave us this information and made it clear that not only will the election commitment by Labor be honoured—this is the increase of the energy concession from 1 July, which raises the maximum annual rate from $165 per annum to $215 per annum.

Also, something that I was involved in campaigning for and I am very pleased that the government accepted, along with a number of members in here on both sides of parliament—and I am pleased to see the Minister for Regional Affairs here, because he was one of the people who campaigned for a concession for South Australians who have chronic medical conditions, as did the Hon. Kelly Vincent in the other place. This was one of the areas where we raised the issues on behalf of our collective constituents and some of the organisations that represent people with varying abilities and disabilities. I am very pleased that this will continue.

I am told that over 2,000 South Australians currently receive medical heating and cooling concessions, and there will also be a $50 increase which has the potential, I am advised, of a $100 per annum increase should constituents be eligible for the normal energy concession. This is a really important thing for people in our community and the people that we represent. I do not think that that good news would have come out if we had just stuck to opposition questions on that particular portfolio.

Having been in opposition—albeit briefly, I am pleased to say—I do understand why the opposition would ask questions that are difficult, and interrogate the ministers with regard to their budget lines. But, I think we also need to have an opportunity, if we are going to reform estimates, to make sure that we also hear the good news. As far as I can work out, because the interrogation was not as good as it could have been, some of the more negative things that are associated with the budget—

Mr Picton: It's just like them complaining about the election result.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Yes, let’s not go there, member for Kaurna; I don't think I could stand that debate going any further. One of the things that was very dear to my heart, and has been for quite some time, is the provision of services to people in our community, particularly vulnerable people, people who are escaping domestic violence, and also the issue of homelessness. I know that, again, I probably share these concerns with everybody in this chamber.

But you do have to make the connection, because a lot of our funding, particularly in those service areas, is connected to commonwealth-state agreements, that the fact that there has been a cutback announced by the federal government in their federal budget means there will be a lot of cutbacks in services in South Australia, because there is just not the ability for the state government to match those areas.

I was very honoured on Tuesday to represent the Minister for the Status of Women at a day of action that had been organised by the various domestic violence organisations in South Australia. It was really important that we acknowledged that, while these workers provide an amazing service, a lot of it out of their own work time, there is going to be a serious problem with the cutbacks to these organisations.

A majority of the providers, as people in here would know, are not-for-profit organisations, and their role is to help homeless people and people at risk of homelessness. There are also, as I said, vulnerable people that have a whole lot of other complex problems that make it difficult for them to access stable and secure accommodation.

In South Australia, I am advised that the clients are predominantly female (59 per cent) and there are many clients in the demographic of 18 to 44 years. So, we have particular people who are suffering or will be suffering from chronic homelessness. Also, one in three people who approach specialist homeless services are escaping domestic violence. I am pleased to say the state government has consistently—certainly, since 2002—had a commitment to trying to assist people in these situations.

When South Australia's Strategic Plan was adopted, target 18 aims to see significant and sustained reduction in violence against women through to 2022. The problem is that we seem to have failed quite dismally. The need for support for people escaping domestic violence—not only women but particularly women and children—has increased, so I think it is even more important that we make sure that those services that are available are not only continued but enhanced. With the cuts from the federal budget, I am not quite sure how that is going to happen, but the commitment is obviously still there.

Unfortunately, I did not notice in the estimates committee for the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion that there were any questions about this area, so I would like to bring to the attention, particularly of members opposite, that this is something that we really do need to speak to federal representatives about, because there will be dire consequences for people: more and more people being homeless and more and more people escaping domestic violence.

As I said, the numbers are going up rather than down. There have been a number of strategies put in place. My view is that we need to also address a cultural campaign. If people are still thinking that violence is acceptable then we have serious problems on our hands with upcoming generations, because this will be seen as an ongoing acceptable way to behave.

As I said, I quite enjoyed this lot of estimates. While I said that I found some of the questions asked by the opposition underwhelming, I thought that a lot of them showed that they had done a fair bit of work in their particular areas of interest. I do compliment particularly the new members for the role that they played and the enthusiasm that they showed for the process. I hope—unlike the member for Schubert's comments—that this enthusiasm continues, because it is really important that we do understand our state budget and it is really important that we also celebrate the positive things that are being put through the different portfolios.

I am very impressed that the presiding members managed to come through all those days chairing, and I thank them very much. I had the benefit of being in both estimates A and estimates B for different committees and I think the presiding members did a splendid job, so thank you very much; I think it added to the atmosphere in the particular estimates committee.

My final words are that I really hope that we do try to reform the estimates process for the better. I have certainly been complaining about it (and I am one of the more positive people about estimates) since I have been here. Certainly the previous Liberal government did not want to move on it, although they agreed at the time that it was a flawed process, and I think our Labor government needs to take some responsibility for the fact that we have not sought to enhance the process. I hope that there will be some reform in that area.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (17:13): I would like to sum up this latest estimates process in one word, and that would be 'anticlimax'. I was quite excited about engaging in the estimates process, having scrutinised and analysed the budget papers for a couple of weeks, running through line by line the numbers that affect the good people of South Australia. I have to say that it was very much an anticlimax to see—

The Hon. P. Caica: They should have let you ask more questions; they never let you ask any questions.

Mr TARZIA: I agree, member for Colton. This is the good thing about being in opposition, member for Colton: you get to learn the ropes back here, but maybe one day. It is disappointing to see that the government could not better discharge their duty to act as a responsible government for the good people of South Australia. However, in saying that, I do want to say a big thank you to all the public servants.

I was quite surprised that the process was somewhat adversarial. It was very much us versus them, but I do not want it to be that way with the Public Service, and I want to thank them for the contribution they made across the board. I certainly do not blame the good public servants for their work, but I do blame the government ministers. There were some great Dorothy Dixers, and I would probably go so far as to say that there would be a couple of nominations for the Logie Awards coming up for some of the best acting I saw during that process, but here we are.

They promised a surplus; obviously, we saw over a billion-dollar deficit. This year we are also promised a smaller deficit. I am hoping that this government will not be trying to break the record-setting deficit again this year. The major concern for me was cuts to programs that help to stimulate our economy. We certainly need to support our businesses especially and not abandon them, and I will go into a couple of measures that just astonished me.

For some reason, there seems to be an idea that businesses should not be making a profit, that we should be taxing businesses to patch up the budget deficit. What the government obviously has not understood is that if South Australia does not prosper and grow and these businesses do not grow, these businesses will pack up and move interstate.

We have seen it time and time again, and the government refuses to take responsibility for it. We have seen that unemployment in this state is actually the highest in the nation at the moment, at 7.4 per cent, and it is time that we stopped the blame game and started looking for solutions.

In estimates, there was mention of the Olympic Dam proposal, which would have represented a project of tens of billions of dollars of investment in this state, but it was certainly stifled by the Labor mentality of taxing and taxing the economy into prosperity. I can tell you that the idea of taxing economy into prosperity and taxing our way out of this rut is simply not going to work.

I was especially astonished to see that the royalty rate on extractive minerals will be increased from 35¢ a tonne to 55¢ a tonne. That is absolutely remarkable. This is an increase in this cost alone of over 50 per cent—and it is not an increase in cost of over 50 per cent with consultation with the industry, it is an increase in cost which has been quick, fast and without consultation and it is going to hurt mining in this state.

To hear the minister—a minister who is well skilled in the area who says that he wants to promote mining, who says that he wants to promote energy in this state—say that the royalty rate on extractive minerals is going to be bumped up by so much with so little notice to business was terrible. How is a business supposed to budget for that sort of incremental increase with contracts for pricing locked in, with employee contracts locked in and with equipment prices locked in? Anyone who knows anything about the industry knows that most of these contracts are set for 12 to 18 months at least, so to have this atrocious extraction rate increased so dramatically is absolutely absurd and, quite frankly, it needs to be fixed.

I think we need to be proactive in thinking about the future. We need to deal with problems as and when they arise, and Clovelly Park is one such example of the government burying its head in the sand. The management of this issue has been appalling, and we have seen more events in the other house today in regard to this. At least the government's management style is consistent, and we know what to expect with this government: we know that it will react when something goes wrong—that is, to try to cover it up and pretend that it is not a problem—and then, when the truth comes out, blame everyone else for their failure, whether that be the federal government, to echo the words of my earlier colleague, or the higher currency rate.

The state is being struck down by the red tape that continues to be rolled out by the government. I just gave a perfect example that is affecting the mining industry, and we have heard the recent words of BHP. What you have there is a classic South Australian Labor mentality—an increase in costs so dramatic that it is no wonder that businesses are packing up and moving interstate and overseas.

The question is also: what will the government do about our current brain drain? What will they be doing to encourage our businesses to invest and expand in South Australia? There has been some thought that remaining positive is the key to creating confidence; I disagree. I think what you have to do is make South Australia an attractive place for businesses to come to, to invest and to want to value-add and to create, and the example I gave of the mining industry is exactly the opposite of what the government should be doing. They should be creating a much better economic environment for businesses to come here and thrive.

In relation to the 'fun tax', in estimates I could not believe that departmental officials were not able to rule out the tax being applied to certain multicultural events that could be classified as not community events, which was absolutely absurd. The government talks about providing free public transport for the football season but then they talk about charging the Stadium Management Authority $2.5 million for the service. So, obviously what we have here is a clear contradiction. Look, it is creative accounting, it is certainly creative accounting by this government but, let's face it, people in South Australia going to the footy are going to be slugged extra for their football tickets.

South Australia is certainly trailing behind on key economic indicators. Their plan so far is to introduce a car park tax, cut funding for small business, and cut funding for programs which support state productivity for science technology and information technology. I am not an economist but putting local business in a headlock is not the way to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.

There are many economic reports out there at the moment that predict a very bad improvement in economic growth for South Australia. Of all states South Australia currently has the poorest result in retail spending, and the policies implemented and adopted, you would think, would encourage business confidence and should encourage investment but instead what they have done is quite the opposite.

Our state's output as a percentage share of the national economy will continue to fall from its current level of just over 6 per cent and our growth is expected to be at 2 per cent per year over the next 10 years, down from 3 per cent in the previous 20 years. I think it is time that the government takes an honest approach to our economic position. Stop blaming everyone else. You have had the reins here for over 12 years. It is time to get this place moving. Let's address the economy, let's address this brain drain.

Our jobless rate is up 24.2 per cent over the decade in the area that I represent and I see them every day, young people walking in off the street from the east and from the north-east of Adelaide; it is quite bad out there at the moment.

The government also seems oblivious to the rising cost of living. We saw that ESCOSA has completed an 18-month investigation into water pricing and the government has finally admitted that SA Water's income or dividends are actually used to bolster the bottom line of the budget and that stinks, quite frankly. Whilst on that topic, what about the sewerage charge? We see here that the sewerage charge has nothing to do with sewerage. It is a land tax and all it is is a transfer of revenue. What we see here are miners and businesses subsidising household water use which means that the cost of operating a business in South Australia goes up.

One has to really ask the question: does the government not realise who employs people in the state? Ultimately, it is not the government, it is business, and to increase employment you need to support business because they are the ones who actually employ the people, they are the ones with their mortgages on the line trying to value-add, trying to get this place moving. They are the ones that we need to support and you would have thought that this budget and this process would have highlighted that that was the priority and the agenda of the government, and it is simply not.

ESCOSA has also said that a very messy web of cross-charges and cross-subsidies that ultimately result in a net payment to the government is not the way to fund this state. Sewerage charges are a tax on the capital value of houses and have no relationship to water use at all. The government simply should not be revenue raising through our water usage. Let's face it, it is a tax—it is a hidden tax that the government is not being transparent about.

With regard to contamination, the government has shown its incompetence time and time again and just like the record budget blowout last year it has broken yet another record. The absolute incompetence over Clovelly Park, with ministers deflecting and dodging more than dodge ball, is absolutely unprecedented. I am actually embarrassed on behalf of the people of South Australia that this has happened. The government said there is no evidence of any adverse health effects for Mitchell Park because it had not even tested the area. Well, go and do the testing that needs to be done. This government should put the safety of residents over their own political interests.

We saw a great example where they put their political interests aside recently in regard to the issue at Families SA. They got on the front foot and they should have done exactly the same thing with this contamination issue, but no, they have not. They only acted when the opposition brought them to account. I am glad the Premier has finally apologised, but now he needs to do something to solve the problem.

We finally saw a backflip from the Premier on providing free health checks to people in the surrounding area, but we need to know more detail. In my opinion, the government needs to be proactive in making sure that testing is done and anticipate the homes which may be, and will be, affected in the future. I am certainly interested to see what this new engagement paradigm will consist of. Apparently 'new engagement paradigm' means they will talk clearly to residents. I am glad to see that we are off to a good start, but I am hoping that dodging half of the allocated questions is not a feature of this new paradigm.

In regard to naval shipbuilding, a Labor government again seems to be very quick to pass the buck to the feds, yet what has been done to support investment in this state over the 12 years they have been in government? That question seriously needs to be asked. South Australia is set to lose multiple jobs directly, indirectly maybe thousands, in the shipbuilding industry and several more related to it. What people do not understand, and they need to, is that what this government has done is create a hostile environment for investment in this state. It has created a high cost environment for businesses to do business in this state. It is called sovereign risk.

Companies, be they interstate or overseas, look at these things. They look at who is in charge. They think, 'Can I get on with these people? Can I have some certainty when I am going into debt, when I am investing in the future? When I am looking on a world map, do I invest in South Australia?'

When you have a government that just does not understand business, when you have a government that does things like increase that mining extraction royalty rate, it just goes to show that they have not learnt their lesson. You would think that after the mothballed Olympic Dam expansion they would have learnt their lesson, but no. They have not learnt their lesson. Unfortunately, this is the way it is at the moment and it needs to change.

Then we go to police. In relation to police, we know that the government is cutting multiple full-time jobs from the prison system down the track. We also heard from the relevant minister that we may not even have enough beds in our prison system in years to come. Peter Christopher from the Public Service Association is saying that the correctional services department is having to use cells in police stations which were never intended for long-term use.

This has massive implications across the state, and the government needs to take this on board and do something about it because it is related to our law enforcement and our courts. What are we going to do with these people? These issues are quite serious. The government needs to stop having a look, stop just making plans about plans, and get additional beds in our prison system. They need to do something in this regard.

We know, we have been told now, and the government has been told that they will not have enough beds, so the time for procrastinating and time-wasting is over. The government needs a solution now so that we do not have prisoners incarcerated for long periods of time at police stations. We have already heard about the toil and the pressures that these good police officers already have. Building in existing prisons is certainly not something you can do overnight and it is certainly something that the government tends to shy away from because it is expensive. Planning for these major building programs needs to begin immediately.

The biggest problem that came out during estimates, and the government shows it time and time again, was that they are not proactive but reactive. What I would like to see from this government in future estimates is to see that they are getting on the front foot, to see that they are not using estimates as a way—and we all saw examples of it—to shy away from accountability. Government ministers are here to do a job. They are here to provide responsible government to the good people of South Australia. We saw the better ministers do that, but some need to have a good hard look at themselves, let's face it.

I draw the attention of the house to one tick of approval, and that is in regard to multicultural grants. I am pleased to say that in 2014-15 Multicultural SA will allocate approximately $1.274 million in grants and contributions, which I am led to believe represents an increase in the amount of grant funding allocated as a result of commitment by the government to provide that extra $350,000 during the election to our multicultural communities.

I represent the electorate of Hartley, and we have an array of multicultural communities, specifically but not limited to the Italian community, the Greek community, the Chinese community and the Indian community. I talk to these community groups regularly, and I am pleased that they will be allocated this extra grant money. These groups, and the various community organisations they are part of, will certainly be pitching for this funding.

It is good to see in particular that Italian community groups and Italian festas are being supported by the government in this multicultural funding this year. I represent many Italian constituents in the area—about 18 per cent of my constituents—and I am delighted to see that extra funding. I can say that these community groups will certainly be applying for this funding, and I would like to see funding in this area maintained and supported.

These community groups do fantastic work for the local community through passing on language skills. There is also a cultural element, and any community group that supports the family unit is also commendable, and many of these do that. You often see many hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people attending these community groups in the electorate, so I am very happy to see the support in Multicultural SA's funding and its commitment there.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (17:31): I was to hear the words of the member for Ashford. She obviously had a different experience than I had during the estimates. Having been in this place for a considerable time—in fact, the same amount of time as the member for Ashford—I can say that the experience has not improved. To my mind it is high time parliament took action to change the estimates system. We should be asking ourselves what is the purpose of the estimates. Whatever the answer to that question might be, I am absolutely certain that the estimates process does not fulfil that purpose. I cannot imagine what purpose it fulfils, to be quite honest.

The member for Ashford suggested that it is important for government backbenchers and members to be able to ask Dorothy Dixers to give the government an opportunity to showcase what it is doing. I would argue that the government has ample opportunity at other times to do that, and the one that obviously comes to mind is the opportunity for ministerial statements in the house every day that the house sits. The government does make extensive use of ministerial statements, and I again argue that most of the Dorothy Dixers that I heard asked (and have heard asked traditionally) and the answers to them could be made as ministerial statements, and that would be a better use of the parliament's time to put that information on the public record in that way.

I do not think that having government-sponsored Dorothy Dixers fulfils any purpose whatsoever, and that is one of the first reforms we should make. I was delighted that the member for Ashford, notwithstanding that statement, did say that she hopes we will try to reform the process: I totally agree with her there.

I think it is a nonsense that shadow ministers who sit in the other place are unable to come and ask questions of ministers. For goodness sake, we have ministers in the other place who come into the committees of the House of Assembly and take questions in those areas of their responsibility, yet we do not allow shadow ministers, who obviously are the members of the opposition who are most across the relevant issues. I think we should very quickly overcome that anomaly and allow shadow ministers in the other place to participate in the estimates process.

One of the big failures of the estimates process is the fact that, just like question time, it is question time, it is never answer time. Notwithstanding that the ministers bring in a huge team of advisers and departmental officers to help them, ministers by and large seek to answer the questions themselves. There are two problems with this, to my mind. Firstly, a number of ministers, in my experience, obviously do not know the answer to the question.

They sit there and ask the adviser or the departmental officer, whether it be the head of the department or the chief financial officer or whatever, get an answer whispered to them and then relay the answer to the committee. To be quite honest, I think the committee would serve a much better purpose if ministers were not even there, if the members of the house—including ministers, if they wanted to participate—were able to ask the bureaucrats the meaning of the lines in the budget.

This brings me to another issue that has concerned me for some considerable time, and that is the amount of secrecy that occurs within government in this state. I say this has concerned me for a considerable time. I was at a conference in New Zealand a few years ago and a paper was presented to the conference about the Official Information Act and the way that they handle what we call freedom of information in this jurisdiction. They have a completely different system and a completely different culture to what we have here in South Australia.

I was in New Zealand last week and I had a meeting with their ombudsman and got a briefing on the way that their system works. Basically, when somebody applies under their Official Information Act for access to a government document, if the agency chooses not to release the document they then have the right of appeal to the ombudsman. The simple rule that the ombudsman runs over that request is: what harm would be caused if the document were released? By and large, if it is simply a political harm to the government of the day or an embarrassment to the minister, that is not considered reason enough not to release the document.

It works in practice to such an extent that when ministers take submissions to cabinet, by and large by the time the cabinet meeting is completed the submission in many cases has already been put on the agency's website or the minister's website. Not just the supporting reports, etc. that sit behind the submission, but the submission itself and the recommendations are published. We asked in the house in the last sitting week of one of the ministers whether they had taken a submission on a particular matter to cabinet on a particular date. Obviously, the opposition was aware that this had happened and wanted a confirmation of it.

The response from the government was, 'We are not going to discuss the deliberations of cabinet.' The reality is that that is not a deliberation of the cabinet. A deliberation of the cabinet is just that: it is how they deliberate on the information they have in front of them. The information that is presented to cabinet is not a deliberation of cabinet.

We have this incredible culture here in South Australia where it has become our culture that the ability to hide behind cabinet secrecy has been extended to the nth degree. I was delighted with the information that I gleaned at the meeting I had with the ombudsman in New Zealand, because I think it is a much more open system and a much more open process than what we have here in South Australia.

Getting back to the estimates process, one of the things that disturbs me about the process is simply the cost to the taxpayer of the estimates process. I have no idea what it is but I know that many bureaucrats spend many hours preparing briefing notes for ministers and preparing lengthy statements for some ministers to read out so as to shut down the amount of time available for the opposition to question them. It is just an absolute outrage that taxpayers' money is spent for those activities.

Just across the ditch in New Zealand, I spoke to one of the ministers there and said that we were about to go through the estimates process and lamented what an awful process it is and how ineffectual it is. She said, 'But you've got all the documentation behind the budget so you can see all the detail of what sits behind the budget.' I said, 'No, we don't get any of that. We never see that.'

She said that in New Zealand not only do shadow ministers and the opposition get hold of just the basic budget papers but they get all of the documentation that sits behind it, so they have access to all of that documentation created during the bilaterals process. So, the examination of the budget is actually a proper and true examination because the opposition has access to the information that allows them to ask sensible questions.

At the moment—and I have been involved in the process for a number of years—you are flying by the seat of your pants pretty regularly and making lots of assumptions and you are out on a fishing exercise most of the time. I think we have a cultural problem here in South Australia and it comes to the fore during the estimates committees.

One of the reforms, as well as allowing members in the other place if they are shadow ministers to participate, is that I think we should open up the whole of government here in South Australia. I think we need to seriously reform our freedom of information law. We need to make documents that are prepared for government available for everybody to see. It is the government of the people. The government is not there just for the executive; it is not a plaything of the executive.

That is why I suspect governments, on a fairly regular basis, get themselves into trouble, because they are working in this silo of secrecy and they spend half their time and half their energy protecting themselves. It seems that in New Zealand that has never occurred, it has never been part of their culture and their government seems to operate fairly well and fairly effectively so I think it is something that we should look at and certainly it is something that I intend to do a fair bit more work on.

I have a lot of information that was provided to me by the ombudsman over there, which I have not had a chance to read yet, but she gave me a little stick that I can put into my computer. I am not quite sure how many nights it is going to keep me awake but it is going to be more than a couple of weeks, I imagine.

That is my contribution. It is probably the 16th or 17th contribution I have made about the appalling state of the estimates process. I am not the first one and I will not be the last one from either side of the house who has made an impassioned plea for us to seriously reform the estimates process. One of the problems we have is that the process is time-limited and so ministers who have a problem within their agency or within their administrative unit want to get the process out of the way with as little damage to themselves and their government as possible.

So they will read out a lengthy opening statement, which is an absolute nonsense. There is no new information there. Then again, if there was, they could utilise a ministerial statement on any day that the house sits to get that information out. It should not be used as a way of cutting down questions from the opposition.

As I have said, if the questions were able to be directed to the people, the bureaucrats who actually know the answers and know what they are talking about, it would be a much better process. The time restriction on each section of the budget, again, is a nonsense. I think we would get a lot more openness and honesty and a lot better governance of the state if we were to remove that restriction and make it more open-ended in a time sense. These are just a couple of things, and I have probably mentioned them previously, but I think it is well worth mentioning them again.

There are a couple of things that have come to my attention—I told my whip that I might not use my 20 minutes; I could do with another half hour or so—that I want to bring up in this debate. Whilst I was in New Zealand I was horrified to get a couple of emails from my electorate office saying that the department of education was preventing children in a number of my schools from drinking water from the rainwater tanks at the schools.

We have this absurdity where they are removing taps from rainwater tanks and issuing an edict that the rainwater cannot be drunk. It is happening at Lucindale and at Bordertown, and apparently there is a policy within the department which says that where there is a town water supply children should not be allowed to drink water from a rainwater tank, notwithstanding the fact that on the department of water website there is a fact sheet about rainwater tanks which says that there is no real health risk in drinking rainwater. It says that if the roof is maintained and the tank is kept relatively clean and the water does not smell, by and large you can drink it.

Interestingly—and I need to do a bit more research into this—I have discovered that there are a number of schools in my electorate that have a mains water supply, yet the schools are being exempted from this policy and they will continue to allow the children to drink the rainwater, notwithstanding there being an SA Water supply. There are three schools and a kindergarten in the town of Naracoorte, where the use of rainwater for drinking purposes will continue, notwithstanding a town water supply.

I think I know the reason; in fact, I am sure I know reason, and I will come to that at a later date. It just points out the nonsense: that in schools such as the Lucindale Area School children are prevented from drinking rainwater, whereas in schools in Naracoorte, just up the road, children are allowed to continue to drink the rainwater. I can tell you that I am getting letters every day from constituents concerned about this and wanting me to do something about it, and I certainly intend to do something about it.

Another issue that has been brought to my attention—and I will probably take the rest of my four minutes on this—is infrastructure in South Australia. The opposition has complained many times about the way we procure infrastructure contracts in South Australia. It came to my attention a little while ago that a person I knew—he was not a constituent but a subcontractor in the civil construction area—was subcontracting to a major contractor who had the head contract on a number of major works here in South Australia.

I have to tell you that the way the subcontractors were treated by this major contractor was outrageous, absolutely outrageous. When variations occurred, the subcontractor was obliged to vary the contract and do the work subject to the variation, but then when the subcontractor put in the invoice for payment, it created an argument.

We are not talking about a few dollars, we are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes millions of dollars. This person put to me that this is common practice across the industry and some of these major companies which have major contracts with the state brag that they spend most of their money employing lawyers and accountants so they can screw over the subcontractors.

I raised this matter with the Treasurer and, to his credit, in regard to the particular incident I raised with him he had the matter resolved. I thank him and congratulate him for doing that. Notwithstanding that, even though the matter was resolved and he was happy to finish the whole matter, the subcontractor was still out of pocket for a substantial amount of money.

I just bring that to the attention of the house because for a long time I have been concerned about procurement in this state. We often argue that we issue contracts to major companies from outside South Australia. I think one of the things we need to ensure when we are issuing major contracts is that we can break them up, and the only way these people can continue to work is by being subcontractors so they have a head contract with maybe the department of infrastructure, or DPTI, or whatever they call themselves these days. There certainly is a problem where subcontractors are being done over in this state on major projects.

I have not mentioned that I believe that we are getting poor value for money, too, on a number of these contracts, as well as seeing many of the subcontractors being dealt a very bad blow. I will conclude my remarks there but there are many other things that I would like to say about the estimates process.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (17:52): Unlike the member for MacKillop, this is my first budget estimates reply speech, and it was an interesting experience for me as well. There were, as a few members have pointed out today, a number of longwinded speeches setting the scene for some of the questions, and some of the replies were very interesting as well and quite longwinded.

Perhaps the journalist in me was a little bit frustrated at times when the answers that were forthcoming did not perhaps answer the questions as such but were rather just a blurb or a statement related to the question. I know the member for Colton was a bit unhappy as I pursued a couple of questions when I thought the answers were not acceptable. I think in a perfect world answers fitting the question would be the ideal scenario.

I commend the Minister for Transport for not giving a longwinded speech before he started, but he is a very smooth professional who is very skilled in giving a longwinded answer without perhaps answering the question. One of those questions I found most interesting was about the new 'fun tax', as it has been labelled in public land, and that is the transport levy on events happening in and around Adelaide with over 5,000 people in attendance.

He was asked to list the events that this would be associated with, and his answer I think went for two to three minutes, maybe a little bit longer, potentially four minutes. It was very articulate but it did not actually list for the people of South Australia which events were going to be hit by this tax. I found that a little disappointing and I think the people of South Australia deserve better, and they deserve to know which events are going to be hit with this tax. The government has brought it in and it is in the forward estimates raising $1.7 million, from memory, over the next 12 months, and then upwards of $3.89 million and up to $4 million, I think, in the last year of forward estimates.

The figure is there. The government clearly knows what events it is going to hit and how it is going to raise its capital—it has budgeted for that—but they would not come forward and tell the people of South Australia where this tax is going to be applied, to which events it is going to be applied, and how they will be paying for it. I was a bit disappointed that the minister suggested that it was not a tax, and I find that a little bit offensive to the people of South Australia. He specifically said that it was not a tax or a levy, but I think the people of South Australia are smarter than that and they understand what a tax or a levy is and that, when you put a fee onto something, it will come back and people will have to pay for it.

Cleverly, he did make mention that this fee was going to go to the Stadium Management Authority in the case of football at AAMI Stadium. He said, 'We're going to put the fee onto the Stadium Management Authority', passing the buck to them. Of course, we all know that the Stadium Management Authority will have to pass it on to the people who use the Oval, be it the Crows or the Power or whoever using the stadium, and then they will have to pass it on to the football fans. It is very clear how it is going to happen. It is a tax, it is a levy, and it is getting passed down the line.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr WINGARD: Sorry, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Keep going. It is you we want to listen to.

Mr WINGARD: Sorry?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is you we cannot hear.

Mr WINGARD: Thank you. As I was saying, we know that it is a tax and a levy, and it is going to get passed down the line. It is very clear how that is going to go. It was a shame that the minister would not tell us which events it was going on. He did mention the football, and we know that it is going to start there, so all football fans will have to pay this fun tax or fun levy. It is not directed at the Stadium Management Authority.

It will have to be passed down to the football fans at the end of the line. That was one of my experiences throughout estimates. Again, it was the question that was asked. If the people of South Australia could know which events are going to be hit by this tax or levy, they would be greatly appreciative to receive that piece of information.

Some other stuff came out of estimates which I thought was very interesting as far as answering questions were concerned. We did have a chat with the road safety minister, and it was great to have the police here and to have them answering questions, and they were most informative in their answers. There were a number of questions that were asked of the Minister for Road Safety about the Motor Accident Commission, and he was point blank in his refusal to answer those questions.

There are a number of key issues because of the change in the MAC funding, which was outlined in the budget. It was raised that the MAC was going to be disbanded, sold off or shut down and that the money would be taken out and put back into revenue and other projects. There were some questions asked about how the future funding would happen for MAC projects. I think $12 million a year is currently spent on the Motor Accident Commission in advertising and also education programs and community programs.

The state rescue helicopter is sponsored to the tune of around $200,000 to $250,000 a year, from what I am led to believe. There is great sponsorship in community football as well in the country regions of South Australia. I think that is to the tune of $200,000 as well. Where is that money going to come from and is it guaranteed in the future now that MAC is being shut down?

Schoolies is another one. I really wanted to ask the road safety minister about that one because I think that it is vitally important. Schoolies do a marvellous job, in conjunction with a number of charities that help put that on. That is funded to the tune of $400,000 a year. There is also the education the young people are given down there at Schoolies Weekend. I must say that I have a boy in year 12 this year, so he is going to be part of it. I have watched it unfold over the past couple of years with my children, and the job they do, and the safety element that is put into Schoolies, is absolutely outstanding. So, I am really keen to make sure that, with the sale of MAC, that funding can continue to that program. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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