HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-03-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Supply Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 March 2015.)

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (16:17): It is a pleasure to contribute on behalf of not just the community of Goyder but, indeed, the opposition about the Supply Bill, which I am reminded is $3.29 billion. I must admit that it intrigues me why it is necessary for an advance to be made, but when you consider the fact that the budget, while presented in June, the questioning that takes place as part of estimates occurs in July and then the finalisation of the bill going through the parliament towards the end of July does create the need, so I do now understand how the process works. I had not thought about it in the last nine years, but I have just this afternoon.

First, I want to reflect upon some words from the member for Mount Gambier when he talked about police checks. I commend him on pointing out the concern he has before the parliament because it is one that I think is felt by many members in this place. I note also that minister Bettison, and I apologise for the use of the surname but I cannot remember her electorate, and I am sorry about that.

An honourable member: Ramsay.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Ramsay; thank you. When contact is made by the Goyder electorate office to the minister's office the response is very swift; I do not question that. My frustration stems from why the need, firstly, for the community to contact a member of parliament and then the member of parliament to do that when the process should ensure that the swiftness attached to the review delivers the outcome that the people making the police check requests actually need.

I am also able to quote examples of employment opportunities that have been stifled because of delays. I had one particular instance where I spoke to the person himself (in this case an employee of a school, not a teacher but an employee) and he had been told to stay in one completely distinct room within the school area and to have no interaction with any young person for a two-week period because the clearance had not yet come through.

The minister in this chamber (within the last week, I think) referred to the fact that the expected numbers of police clearance checks for this financial year is in the range of $150,000. The minister referred to a doubling of staff members available to help the resource and I think staff are working overtime to catch up, but the situation does not appear to be improving. It creates an enormous level of frustration in the wider community where there are people who either need it for a professional reason or require it for a volunteer opportunity, as the member for Fisher just mentioned, and their chances are being stifled by not being able to get this check in place.

I completely understand why the check needs to be there—I do not disagree with that—but we have to ensure there is improvement. The member for Mount Gambier referred to the blue card system available in Queensland and it immediately made me reflect upon the fact that, 13 months ago the Liberal Party, in fighting the 2014 election, had a policy on the implementation of a card. It might have been a slightly different name, but of the same principles. My recollection is that it was a $7 million commitment to put a system in place that was designed to ensure that the one check was required for a three-year operational period to hopefully remove this backlog and to have a swiftness attached to it to allow people to have the clearances undertaken.

In the last week I have been contacted by a young lady who was applying for a job in local government in the Copper Coast area. She needed a clearance to be in place and had been told that, because she had what is termed to be 'a common name', it was going to take longer for the police clearance to come through. I shake my head in disbelief at that sort of an explanation being provided, but that is an example of the sort of feedback that is coming back to us. No doubt the minister is getting it magnified 10 times over at least with the contact that members are making with the minister's office. It is an example of where red tape reduction might be working in other areas but where it is putting a hurdle in place for other people and creating a lost opportunity. I hope that that becomes a focus, a review and an improvement opportunity.

I want to talk about pensioner concessions on council rates. That has been played out in the media at length for the last few months, and rightly so. I am pleased that the Local Government Association, in an announcement yesterday, has decided to circulate a petition amongst its 68 councils, encouraging councillors to be involved in getting as many people as possible to sign it.

From the opposition perspective, many of us have written to people who are 60 and over within our electorates and asked for support for a petition. Based on the efforts of myself and others, I have received back some 10,000 signatures, and that will be tabled in the parliament when we return. They are still being collated. I know that the member for Hartley has 2,000 signatures from his own efforts, so it shows the level of animosity, tension and frustration that exists amongst the older cohort of our community who feel quite rightly that they should continue to receive this concession which has been in existence for about 40 years. It was $150 for probably 28 of those years, it has been $190 for the last 14 years, and it was extended in 2001 to include self-funded retirees to a maximum of $100. It has been an important component.

When the Local Government Association, having done its sums, advised in the information it forwarded to people through January and February that there is up to a 20 per cent bill shock factor that pensioners will feel if it is removed from 1 July, it is completely appropriate that people express their opinion to their local members no matter what political persuasion they are and that they do their absolute best to convince government to have a change of thought and to ensure that from 1 July it continues, as it must.

I have a level of personal frustration with the member for Frome. It is my vivid recollection that, when he was sitting in that curved area on this side of the chamber, he put a motion before the parliament for a review of pensioner concessions and was advocating in the range of a $40 per year increase at that time. My sums—

Mr Gardner: Before he sold out.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Others reflect, 'Before he sold out.' In doing my sums at that time, it equated to about a $7.5 million increase to budget in funding that. The minister and the Premier signed an agreement post election, eight days after election day, to give government to the Labor Party again, and that was one of the conditions—a review of pensioner concessions. I can only assume—

Mr Gardner: They have reviewed it and slashed it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: True. I can only assume that, by virtue of the minister's own previous actions and by inclusion of that clause to the contract that the now minister signed with the continuing Premier, it was for an upward movement. The minister himself has been rather silent on this—I am not aware of public words having been said about his position on it. It is a portfolio area that he has responsibility for but, when I have contacted him, he has referred to the Minister for Finance, and that disappoints me.

Mr Gardner: You asked a question on it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I believe I have. The member for Morialta reminds me of a question that I asked—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You don't need his help.

Mr Gardner: I am whispering in his ear.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You don't need his help.

Mr GRIFFITHS: I was getting to that, Deputy Speaker. I asked a question of the minister about this. I think he was a bit tempted to stand up, but the Treasurer stood and took the answer in his place. I think the minister must be rather frustrated because, on that day of questions, other members and I asked, I think, in the range of seven questions of the minister, and my recollection is he gave answers to two. One would hope that those two answers would have been fulsome and indeed provided a lot of information, but that sadly was not the case either. Anyway, we move on.

I also want to reflect upon the fact that, while there is a lot of public debate about national partnership agreements and federal transfers through to state and local government in particular about pensioner concessions, it is also important to put on the record that, in the figures provide to me, the federal component of funding support to the operations of the South Australian state government over the four-year forward estimates will increase by 23 per cent, or fractionally under $2 billion per year, by the end of that four-year period.

That is real dollars; that is dollars that are actually budgeted for and will appear. So, while there are many words said about previous agreements that existed with a different federal government which, as I understand it, did not have dollars in budget figures—words were said, but there were not necessarily actions—this is a deliberate action that will be there.

I understand why people are doing it, but I am disappointed about the suggestion of some sort of taxation system and, in the review of that, for up to $1,200 per the value of the average family home for South Australians. That will be another hit to the cost-of-living pressures that will impact on people enormously. It was only around a month ago some publicity was given to the fact that I believe that residents of 60,000 homes were struggling under the pressure of trying to pay electricity bills. The cost of electricity has increased, as the member for Stuart reminded me earlier, I think 156 per cent on average over the life of the government. This will be a significant one, and I truly hope that whatever comes out as part of this review, that is not a factor.

I also want to make some positive comments. Last week, I had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the City of Salisbury. We spoke about the challenges facing that community with the automotive industry transformation. The City of Salisbury (and rightly so) is focusing on ensuring, as much as humanly possible, that their community has a great future. They are working collaboratively, as I understand it, with government, and I acknowledge that.

They are also working with business leaders in their community and ensuring that, through whatever sources are available, the right processes, supports, policies and financial endeavours are available to ensure job opportunities and the growth of existing businesses, not a decline, and, in dealing with those challenges, that the outcome is a positive one.

The City of Salisbury has been very proactive, and I appreciated the fact that they contacted me to stimulate the meeting. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I have put through a request that the shadow cabinet meets at the City of Salisbury and has the opportunity to be briefed on what is occurring there, because I believe it is quite important. It is important that we know so that, from an opposition perspective, we can support the government in what it intends to actually do when it comes to supporting the community. That is how the parliament should work. So, that is a positive one, and I recognise that.

While the Minister for Transport is in the chamber, I will reflect upon a visit that he paid to the seat of Goyder probably five or six months ago. The minister was there to open a boating facility, for which I am grateful. There is some feedback about some concerns there that need to be improved. The minister made, I think, two hours of his time available to be in the car with me while I drove and showed him some of my roads. It was very generous of him to give that time up on a Sunday afternoon, and I note that since then there has been improvement in some sections. I am not sure if it is the result of—

Mr Bell: Of course it is!

Mr GRIFFITHS: It has worked. I am trying to be fair, as I drive around, and I think, 'Well, I took the minister on this road and it is better now.' The status in which you are held has risen even more in my eyes, minister.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: What you didn't notice in the rear-view mirror was that it was healing as you drove over it.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Newland comments that the sealing machine was behind us fixing it up, but I am not sure about that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, healing.

An honourable member: It follows him everywhere he goes.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, I know. I am sure the minister understands that the road network we managed to drive on in that time is but a fraction of the network that exists within the electorate. That is part of the challenge he faces when determining priorities on where expenditure should go across the whole state across the forward years. The people of Goyder certainly continually remind me about their road network, and I shall certainly speak to the minister and put issues to him as often as is necessary.

I also want to put on the record a bit of a challenge. The people of Goyder are dealing with some serious transformational issues themselves when it comes to significant development proposals. The first is the Ceres wind farm, which has 196 turbines, from memory. At the time it was proposed, it was the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere and will involve a connection system going under the gulf through to St Kilda. So, instead of the overhead line feed, it will actually go under the water. It is a $1.3 billion project, but it is not supported by all, I think it is very fair to say, and a significant number of people are involved in trying to have the concerns attached to that proposal addressed, and I commend them for that. The uncertainty about what is occurring with the RET scheme is creating a lot of doubt about what is going to happen with that project.

The more significant issue the community is dealing with at the moment is the Rex Minerals proposal for a copper, gold and iron ore mine. I can appreciate that the minister has granted an approval, subject to 99 conditions, and that post that Rex Minerals decided to pursue a smaller scale start-up, but it is the lack of information available on what the details are of the smaller scale that causes concern. There are a variety of different groups, and they have researched this to the nth degree. There are some exceptionally dedicated and clever people involved in putting the case for issues that have to be addressed as part of it, and I commend them for that.

There are sections of the community who want the mine to occur; I do not deny that, and indeed I tell everyone that that is the case. Predominantly, though, those are people who probably live outside a 20-kilometre radius around the development site. Those who are within that 20-kilometre radius have expressed and continue to express concerns about it, and I think always will. It is this smaller scale start-up and the impact upon how the site is operated and managed, and the impact upon waivers or exemptions to exist for adjoining property owners, that have created concern.

I have written to the minister for mining seeking some clarification because it is such a key issue that people want to know about. In particular, I raised one point. Department of State Development staff were good enough to address a public information forum at Ardrossan probably six weeks ago now, and I commend them for the quality of answers they provided. At that time, there was a question asked by one of the adjoining property owners who was within scope of the blast zone that required a waiver to be in place. Rex Minerals, as part of its mining lease proposal, detailed that a waiver would be in place, I believe, by July 2015, if I remember correctly the reference in the hundreds and hundreds of pages that form the mining lease proposal.

However, now, because of the smaller scale start-up, DSD staff are referring to the fact that it might not be necessary in the initial instance for a waiver to exist over this adjoining land that is part of the blast zone for the larger more largely developed site. I am quoted in the Stock Journal and in local media as saying that that concerns me enormously. It was new to me when I heard that and I had never heard it expressed before. DSD has said it is a possibility that that might be the case when it comes to the final approval of the plan for environmental protection and rehabilitation (PEPR) that is necessary within 12 months of the approval being granted by the minister.

My words upon hearing that were, 'This is coercion and not negotiation.' I do not think that is how large industry, particularly in very much a traditional agricultural area, should be engaging in the conversations that it needs to have with adjoining property owners who will be impacted by a development that takes place there. In confirming that I have written to the minister, I urge him to ensure that he provides a response that is both fulsome and soon, because it has probably been two weeks since I wrote to the minister, and that the community is advised of this because it is an important issue.

I just want to finish with a few things. The emergency services levy has been very contentious with the people of Goyder. I know that in some statements attributed to the member for Frome in The Recorder newspaper in Port Pirie, he questioned the opposition comments about a 1,223 per cent increase to a property owner for the ESL (emergency services levy). I can assure the minister that I have spoken to a property owner who has shown me their ESL bill for the 2014-15 year and it is an 1,173 per cent increase.

When the quantum of dollars attached to it are on a statewide basis, $90 million a year are coming out of South Australians' pockets. This is enormous, and it impacts upon people no matter where they are, but it is particularly impacting upon our primary producers and the owners of the larger properties, those being farms, no matter what size they are.

I also want to recognise that, as part of my program to make the government aware of issues in Goyder, I have invited ministers to my electorate. Minister Mullighan has been good enough to come, and I have also had visits from minister Hamilton-Smith and minister Close, and I appreciate that. It was a chance to be with them for at least a 24-hour period, to show them issues in the electorate and to make them aware of what the opportunities are—and what the challenges are, in some other cases too—I am grateful that they took that chance to come with me and have a look.

Finally, I want to finish with regional development. It is an absolutely key issue, and it is an opportunity for a significant difference to be made to what I believe is the future of all of South Australia. I do recognise that minister Brock, by virtue of an initiative of his own as part of the agreement with the Premier, created the job creation scheme with a $10 million fund which has a one-year lifespan only, so it runs out on 30 June this year.

My frustration is that, while it was announced as part of the conditions of the contract in March, it was not until I think late November/early December that the components of that and the conditions attached to grant applications were actually given to people who therefore had a chance to apply. From briefings I have had with departmental staff, it is obvious to me that no projects will be completed by 30 June.

There will be commitments in place, yes, but the point I still make is that it was in July when I asked minister Brock questions in estimates about the timing of the job creation scheme. He referred to a meeting that was occurring on 5 August 2014 with one of the Economic Development Board chairs and part of the team that was determining the guidelines for it, but it was still another 3½ months before it became available and gave people a chance. It is important to react now and not wait for such a lengthy time, so I urge the minister and all ministers to ensure that when things are announced they are done quickly and proactively so that the community gets the chance to benefit.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:37): We have made a swap, and I appreciate the tolerance of the member for Mount Gambier. I rise to speak to the Supply Bill 2015. Obviously, this bill is needed to supply money from the Consolidated Account until the budget bill can come through. We have to put into place funding to pay the public servants—

Mr Knoll: And ourselves.

Mr PEDERICK: —and ourselves, which is absolutely true, member for Schubert—so that is why the Supply Bill has to come in until the Appropriation Bill comes through and is ratified by the Governor. This year, I am sure we will be approving the full amount of $3.291 billion in the Supply Bill. This is absolutely essential to keep the wheels of government turning and, obviously, all the public servants involved.

I guess what concerns me with all things in the budget is that we just seem to be facing cuts and more cuts, especially in regional areas, and yet we see more and more spending in the city. Yes, we have seen some shiny new things, and the Adelaide Oval is a great place to go but came at a huge cost, I believe, to this state.

The forests were sold at Mount Gambier for around $650 million, when they were really an asset worth $1 billion at least. Anyone in the field of forestry—my uncle, Uncle Oz, used to work down there for forestry many years ago—would tell you that it was sold far too cheaply, and that is the very reason that a Canadian superannuation firm got involved, because they picked up a bargain: OneFortyOne Plantations. From what I understand, not all is going well with the supply of logs to the local mills, because obviously OneFortyOne can find out when they have an opportunity and they can put logs off-shore and make more money for the company that way if they think fit.

We have had these things come to us, and a lot of people like these developments, but what they forget is the absolute cost. We have a hospital being built for well over $2 billion when I think a refit of the Royal Adelaide Hospital where it is would have well and truly done the job. There are some excellent units in the current Royal Adelaide Hospital. Yes, it has been classified as a rabbit warren at times, but there are some excellent units in there, and I speak of the burns unit for one, which has done great work for victims of burns.

Then we look at the desalination plant, another item that has cost about $2.2 billion when we put all the pipelines in place. It is idling along at about 10 per cent capacity—about 30 million litres of water a day, I think it is—and I think it will have to at least idle along in perpetuity, because from what I understand about desalination plants, if they shut them down all the materials used to get the salt out of the water dry out and you may have to replace a lot of those items. That is another expensive option that could have been half the size; it could have been 50 gigalitres a year instead of 100, but I think that is what happens when people panic.

I want to talk as well about what else has happened in the region, and certainly throughout the Hammond electorate, which is the lack of agriculture funding. We are down to about the lowest spend per annum that we have had for many years in the agriculture sector this financial year. It is down to about $59 million and, really, we should be putting so much more into agriculture and the research and development. Once, we used to be a powerhouse of research and development in agriculture in this state. We would send teams of people to the Middle East with John Shearer farming equipment and other equipment, showing people in Libya and other places in the Middle East the benefits of broadacre farming practices. South Australia really led the way, and I know we are still doing some work in those areas but it is nothing compared to what it was.

If we do not do the research, how else do we support the mainstay of the economy? Mining has fallen apart, we know the iron ore price has collapsed, gas and oil have crashed—they will all turn around, absolutely. It is what goes on in the background. We certainly saw this when the expansion of Olympic Dam did not go ahead, the government acknowledged—well, they made out—what agriculture does and that agriculture is huge for this state. There are 25,000 people at least employed right throughout the sector to do with food, from the start of the process right through to the delivery of food on the tables at restaurants or in the home. It is a huge workforce and its benefits for the economy are huge.

I certainly think, from my background as a primary producer, that a lot of primary products are undervalued and a lot of especially broadacre farmers from my background struggle to make ends meet, especially with the price of machinery, where a heavy tractor might be $300,000 plus or a harvester might be $700,000. Some people might think farmers are millionaires. Well, I can tell you there are farmers with multimillion dollar debts just to put a feed on the table. It is just the price you have to pay for keeping the operation going. There should be a lot more attention paid to our agricultural sector.

Today in question time I noted a Dorothy Dixer from the other side about what the government is doing for pensioners. I do not think they are doing much. They are withholding pensioner concessions. They have made no statement, at this stage, about whether they will pay pensioner concessions on council rates from 1 July. This state government does not admit the fact that they pay 90 per cent of pensioner concessions, and that it is a state issue; the state needs to pick that up. The emergency services levy has increased to take in $90 million extra from right across the state, and it is really hurting people. The sad thing about the emergency services levy increase, after they take away the rebates, is that it does not add one extra dollar to emergency services.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: It is; it is a real shame. It would not be so bad if we could see some more upgrades, if we saw places like Rockleigh get their CFS shed, or if we saw more training and more equipment for our 13,000 volunteers. As I indicated in a speech yesterday, they have been taken for granted by this government, especially in regard to cancer compensation. The government had to be pulled kicking and screaming through a select committee to finally award potential compensation for the 12 types of cancer, and they deserved to get that compensation, just like the Metropolitan Fire Service firefighters.

I also want to speak about the Murray-Darling Basin diversification fund. At the moment, I am supposed to be at a meeting about this fund with the Treasurer and his staff—I think they are having a preliminary meeting instead. I got in touch with Jamie Briggs' office this morning, the assistant minister, and he rang me back later and said—and I will put it out there for public knowledge—that, if the state does not allocate this money by 12 May, by federal budget day, he is going to pull it. That is what he is saying. And there is my phone call reminding me to go to the meeting, but I will be 10 minutes late, if that is alright.

It is just a disgrace that politics is being played with this $25 million, when all communities from the Victorian border right down to the mouth are reliant on the money that was allocated several years ago under the former federal Labor government. When that money was initially allocated, it was stated that the horizontal fiscal equalisation was going to be taken into account in regard to GST payments to South Australia, and it was all going to happen. However, all of a sudden, politics has to be made out of this money, because we have a state Labor government that does not truly believe in the regions. I would like to see the regional development minister stand up and make sure this money is delivered. If it is pulled, it will mean that all those jobs, all that employment, will be pulled out of the Murray-Darling Basin in South Australia, when Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have already got that money on the table and are putting it into programs. It is an absolute disgrace.

It is a bit like this government talking about land tax. You would not talk about it if you were not thinking about doing it—to think they can tax people every year for owning their home. Everyone pays stamp duty, pays heavily on stamp duty, when they transfer a property. Do they think people can be hoodwinked into thinking that with an annual land tax rate they will be better off? The average rate would be something like $1,200 a year. It would be a lot more than that for houses that are worth over $500,000, and rising, and many houses are worth a lot more than that. I think people are smarter than the government thinks they are, if they think they are going to agree to an annual land tax.

We heard the Premier talk today about marine parks and the so-called benefit to this state. All it has done is shift the effort. People from Kangaroo Island have just moved off into other fishing zones, further down Yorke Peninsula in some cases. I believe some have even gone interstate because it has just blocked them out of access to fishing. It has also caused a lot of distress to people in the industry, and I am aware of at least one suicide in regard to marine parks. The way the government supposedly consulted was really flawed. They got people to say where they were fishing, and then the easy answer was, 'Well, that's where we'll put the marine park.' It is just ridiculous.

The car park tax, or the transport development levy, has been talked about today. You can take a lot of those letters out and just call it the car park tax—it is a lot simpler. This has a real impact on regional people who do not have the access to public transport that people have in the city. I note the transport minister is here today, and I had a meeting with him yesterday about public transport in my electorate. I can only hope we will have some improvements into the future. The reality of life is that people from the outer regions drive their cars here. The former lord mayor of Adelaide wanted to have bikes running everywhere. I do not know what he thought we would do—park our vehicles on the edge of the city and then get on a bike and ride in. That is fairytale stuff.

There are a lot of issues around the River Murray and Lake Albert. I have already talked about the diversification fund. There are issues with Lake Albert and salinity, and the government will not even look at the possibility of a connector through to the Coorong. There should be an environmental impact statement taken on what the effect would be if we opened up a connector from Lake Albert to the Coorong so that people could make an informed decision, but the government always comes back and says, 'Any work that's been done has only been done on the Lake Albert side and not on the Coorong side.'

I acknowledge that there are three new ferries under construction. That is a good thing, but it has taken years because the government was trying to fob this cost off onto local government. Now we see that at least two new ferries have more weight restrictions—at Tailem Bend and upstream at Mannum—and it is just not good enough. We need to get on with the job of building two more ferries for $3 million each. We need to get Bowhill Engineering to get those extra two on the books. They are a great engineering company in my electorate and they will do the job, as they are doing with the first three ferries.

On health, and the Repat closure, this is a real vote turner that even the health minister has not looked at appropriately. My wife came from the western suburbs from Labor voting stock—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Shame!

Mr PEDERICK: Shame, yes. She's learnt the error of her ways.

Mr Picton: That's what she tells you.

Mr PEDERICK: Let me say that she does a lot of work to get me re-elected. I must say that it has given me a whole new wave of friends in the western suburbs, as if I did not have any before because I am a Port supporter. I know a doctor who works at the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital and some of the health workers are thinking for the first time in their lives that they will be voting Liberal because they are so ashamed.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: A doctor?

Mr PEDERICK: Absolutely.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: First time ever!

Mr PEDERICK: No, she's a Labor-voting doctor to my knowledge. They are outraged. I talk to people out there and they ask, 'What is going on?' It is the health minister's dream of centralising the Repat. The Repat, where it is, could not be any more central for the rest of the people in the state who do not come from urban areas. It is a great spot, and I think it is more about real estate than health.

An honourable member: That's just not right.

Mr PEDERICK: It is right. He wants to get it closer to the military base at Edinburgh. Military people live all over the place, and it does not take into account that this was put up for veterans. This comes from a government that said in its pre-election material it would never ever sell the Repatriation Hospital at Daw Park.

An honourable member: Never ever.

Mr PEDERICK: Never ever. We did not hear that today when the Premier got up and talked about his so-called achievements since the election a year ago—and I do not think we will hear anything about it either. However, it impacts down the chain. All this centralisation of health impacts on the good people of Hammond especially, as we have seen already, those who live in Goolwa and just outside of Hammond in Yankalilla and Finniss for people to access the health services they had before they were centralised. The people of Goolwa cannot get triage at Goolwa Medical Centre anymore; they have to get to Victor Harbor, which could take up to a half-hour ride, and I think that could result in some very unfortunate outcomes. There are all these impacts right down the line, and it also affects issues around the downgrading of the Noarlunga Hospital.

On the subject of road funding, I want to talk today about safety fencing. We see so much safety fencing going up that next thing they will be putting safety fencing around the safety fences so we do not hit the safety fences. I am nearly over it. Truck drivers have said to me, 'Where are we going to pull off our trucks because we can't get off the road easily enough. If something is wrong and we have to change a tyre, we have fencing.' There is also concern for motorists bouncing off the fencing and back into the traffic. I see where they should be in some places, but now it just seems ludicrous. Every tree is getting fenced off. Do we have to be such a nanny state? Do we have to legislate for the stupidity of people?

There was a recent accident at Coomandook the other day where a lady from Geelong had been driving all over the road at Keith and they had been trying to get on to the services to pull her up. Finally, she went to sleep and flipped it, and thankfully she did not hit anyone else. When they found her she was standing upright in an upside-down car, but she was all right. So, I think there really needs to be a good look at this work.

In regard to the safety fencing that is going on, why is so much of this work being allocated to Victorian contractors? That is my question. We have perfectly good contractors here in South Australia, like Mike Mason, and I know he is getting some of the work. I have to wonder when this government talks about its so-called achievements, why it does not give more work to state-based contractors instead of funnelling the work interstate and overseas. I would love to say a lot more but I am running out of time, so I commend the Supply Bill to the house.

Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. S.C. Mullighan.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (16:57): The role of opposition is to hold the government to account, and today in the house we hear the Premier stand up and spruik the advancements and the achievements of what the government has achieved in the first 12 months. One sits here with all the eloquent words and the spin and thinks, 'Jeez, we must be heading in the right direction. You beauty! We've finally got this state back on track, and it's going to be great.' The kids will have a future; they will at least have a job here; they can go to university here; and I will one day be able to see my grandkids here.

I want to be a believer. I actually want to believe in the words that the Premier is espousing. In holding the government to account, instead of me getting up and rabbiting on about my thoughts and beliefs, I thought I would go and do a bit of research: just how is South Australia travelling compared to the rest of the country? Just as the Reserve Bank uses long-term averages to determine the level of normal interest rates, the Commonwealth Bank does pretty much the same thing with economic indicators. They do this for every state and territory, and the key indicators are compared with decade averages that are against the normal performance. Each quarter, CommSec attempts to find out by analysing eight key indicators: economic growth, retail spending, equipment investment, unemployment, construction work done, population growth, housing finance and dwelling commencements.

I will ask the house: where do people think we stand as a state compared to everyone else in Australia? We are seventh; we are ranked seventh on economic performance. In fact, there is only one state worse than us, and no chocolates for getting that answer right; it is Tasmania. The state is ranked third on population growth but seventh overall. That takes into account economic growth, dwelling starts, housing finance and construction work.

It is with great sadness that the Weatherill Labor government has effectively abandoned its pledge to create 100,000 jobs by 2016 in the state budget. The state budget forecasts the creation of just 15,000 jobs over the next two years, with employment growth of 1 per cent in 2014-15 and 1.25 per cent in 2015-16. On Treasurer Koutsantonis's own budget figures, South Australia will be 85,000 jobs short of his government's target in 2016.

To bring this to a local level, I inform the house that the South-East is in a jobs crisis. The latest Department of Employment job figures show the unemployment situation is particularly bad in the South-East, with unemployment running at 9.4 per cent and youth unemployment at 18.3 per cent. When I compared this with the north of Adelaide, which sometimes cops a bit of a bad rap, their unemployment was 8.6 per cent and 17.4 per cent respectively on that same data.

The real concern for me is the last 12 months. The number of unemployed in the South-East grew by 2,400 people in 12 months, so 2,400 more people are unemployed now than they were 12 months ago. So, that figure has gone from 6,000 people to 8,400 in total. We are in a jobs crisis down at the South-East. I was going to ask the Minister for Forests to rule out in this house whether any of those job losses were attributed to the forward sale of the forests, but I did not get a chance to get that question up this week. We need to be working in a bipartisan way to look at jobs and jobs growth in the South-East.

The other figure I find pretty amazing when you start looking at it is that the government spent $160 million on targeted voluntary separation packages, yet the number of public servants is going up. You have to wonder what the hell were we doing spending $162.6 million last year to reduce the number of public servants. Mr Koutsantonis continually tries to blame the federal government and everyone else for the financial mismanagement and incompetence but sooner or later he will have to admit his responsibility for the financial mess his government has created.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about something dear to my heart; that is, the South East Drainage Network. I am imploring the government to take this into consideration in the next budget. What happened is the government appointed an organisation called newDemocracy. They come from Sydney, or have representatives from Sydney, and they came down to Mount Gambier and the South-East and held a range of forums, talking to the local community about how the drains are going to be funded. The government is reported to have paid $200,000 for this from the NRM levy.

I want to spend a bit of time going through each and every one of the seven recommendations this newDemocracy came out with because I think it is pertinent to the future of suitable drain maintenance in the South-East. At present, the state government commits $2.2 million to maintain the drains. The actual figure needed is closer to $8 million to do the job properly. The government engages this group, newDemocracy, to come down, work with locals and say, 'How are we going to find the $6.8 million shortfall?' These are the recommendations from this committee back to the government, and I want them inserted in Hansard so they are there for all time.

Recommendation No. 1 is that the community panel recommends that the state government should pay for the ongoing maintenance of the South East Drainage Network from state appropriation. The panel specifically opposes the introduction of a regional-based levy. I will repeat that last sentence because it is very important: the panel specifically opposes the introduction of a regional-based levy. The fear was that the government wanted to levy residents of the South-East as an isolated group to pay for this work.

There are many examples of where the state government is spending funds subsidised by the people of South Australia. These include, obviously, the Adelaide Oval upgrade, the Torrens Footbridge, extension of tramways, O-Bahn extensions, redevelopment of Torrens art precincts, Casino upgrades, Torrens Riverfront upgrades and a shift of OZ Minerals office from Melbourne to Adelaide; and the panel saw no difference in the maintenance of the South-East drains.

Recommendation No. 2 is that the community panel recommends that $2.2 million is not enough for acceptable maintenance of the South East Drainage Network. The panel recommends funding be set at the OECD industry standard, which is 3 per cent of capital value.

Recommendation No. 3 is that the community panel recommends that the state government credits the value of South-East water which will be delivered to the Coorong via the South East Flows Restoration project in line with the market value of the Murray River water market prices and allocates the savings/funds directly for the maintenance of the South East Drainage Network. Basically, we have flows going into the Coorong not being valued as of any benefit to the wetlands and the areas down there; yet, as we quite rightly agree, flows through the River Murray attract that recognition.

Recommendation No. 4 is that the community panel recommends that the South East Water board must maintain all its water management works in a good state of safety, cleanliness and repair and in an efficient working order as prescribed by the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act 1992. If anybody travels down to the South-East, you will see that that act of 1992 has not been adhered to.

Recommendation No. 5 is that the community panel recommends that the government source sufficient annual funding for the drains from better planned budgeting and fairer apportionment of annual budgets without adding levies or increasing existing taxes. Currently, the South East ratepayers contribute $4.9 million through water and land-based levies annually to the South East Natural Resources Management Board which is spent on managing land and water resources in the South-East.

Recommendation No. 6 is that the panel recommends that the state government should only accept funding for future capital drainage works with a provision to adequately fund the maintenance. This government has in the past accepted money for drainage works which is adding more drains to the area with no thought for how it was going to be maintained into the future.

Recommendation No. 7 is that the community panel recommends that, in consultation with affected stakeholders, the existing drainage network be scrutinised/assessed in order that drain maintenance is appropriately prioritised. I hope that the minister looks at those recommendations and addresses them properly with the Treasurer to fund the South East Drainage Network efficiently.

The last thing I want to talk about is the scourge of pokies. I am getting this in because there are a number of people in our community suffering due to pokie addiction. In the last 20 years of South Australian pokies, $12 billion has been lost. That was in a report commissioned in July last year. In actual fact, South Australians have lost over $12.2 billion in pokies since they were introduced into hotels and clubs on 25 July 1994. Unfortunately, of the $12.2 billion lost on pokies, $5 billion has come from people with gambling problems. An average South Australian pokies loss is $72,000 per hour for every hour of the year. I will say that again: $72,000 per hour for every hour of the year.

I will give credit to one suggestion which I promised I would get into parliament, and that is the suggestion of Mulga Button who is one of my local residents. He wants to see above every pokie establishment the average payout for the poker machines of that day. He argues that it is no different to driving past a petrol station, looking at the price of petrol and deciding that you will go to the next petrol station or wait until tomorrow to fill up. So, above every premises that has pokies, it would be mandated that they indicate the payout rate as an average for all the machines in that venue and then that would be known to the consumer who could then make an informed decision as to whether or not they will frequent that establishment or move onto another one. With that, I conclude my remarks and commend this to the house.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (17:11): I too rise to speak in support of the Supply Bill. Of course, without any finances the government will not be able to go forward, so we want to see South Australia at least ticking over whilst they are in charge.

I want to speak about a couple of things today and, in fact, the member for Mount Gambier obviously has similar issues in his electorate as in mine. I am not talking about his issue with the flood plains; I am talking more about the overarching issues that we are having problems with in South Australia. He mentioned the State of the States report that CommSec puts out, and where South Australia sits in the whole scheme of things. Again, I look over the same reports that he does and I have the same concerns he has as to where South Australia sits in the rankings.

I know I have talked about this and I like to use football terms to explain my position, and I do not apologise for that because I think people understand that very clearly. If there was a premiership table, we are sitting second to last on the premiership table when it comes to economic growth. We sit seventh out of all the states on economic growth; only Tasmania is below us, and they are making a bit of a charge, too, so we need to be very careful. That is of great concern, in my opinion, because South Australia is just going backwards. When you are sitting in that position on a premiership table, you want to do a fair bit of work to get yourself back up and you need to get your team moving.

I fear that this government has not been doing that and, after 13 years, we are really starting to see why South Australia is sitting so far down the ladder. I remember when we used to be up in the top two or three and be hunting around the leading packs, able to fight for top billing with the likes of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. As I said, sadly, we are sitting second to bottom on the table when it comes to economic growth.

It is similar with unemployment and all other key economic indicators. South Australia really is languishing way down the list. The Treasurer can sit there and make excuses for what is going on and blame everyone else as he does, but it is time for us as a state to roll up our sleeves and the Treasurer needs to start focusing on what we are doing here in South Australia and not pushing the blame on everyone else.

Last year, he ran a $1.2 billion deficit budget; $300 million of that was unbudgeted spending which is phenomenal. That is $300 million of unbudgeted spending in a 12-month period, and that is how this Treasurer seems to operate South Australia. If you keep running budgets like that, you will keep slipping further down that premiership table, and it is very alarming.

The Treasurer was also caught out when the government formed again after the last election and they had to find a way to claw back some money—to make some more money, if you like—and they started with some new taxes. They increased the emergency services levy on all South Australians. They made everyone pay more. They took away the concessions and they made people pay a massive amount. In some cases, more than 1,000 times was the increase on some people's emergency services levy. Everyone in South Australia is paying more. The reason for that is the mismanagement of the budget by this current government and the Treasurer needs to take some responsibility for that and stop passing the blame.

The ESL has gone up considerably and, as I said, in some cases it was 1,000 per cent, yet not one cent more is going to the emergency services—that is the irony of this. Not one cent more is going to emergency services. We see the great work throughout the summer that the CFS does, and the SES—we know they do marvellous work—yet this government is taking more money from South Australians under the guise of the emergency services levy but they are not giving any of it back.

They also ran a big campaign and spent $1.1 million on advertising to push their propaganda that the federal government is taking away some concessions from pensioners. Whilst they concede that they are taking 10 per cent of the $190 that pensioners get in concessions for their council rates—that is, $19 is going back to the federal government—$171, or 90 per cent of this figure, is what our state Treasurer, Treasurer Koutsantonis, is clawing back from South Australian pensioners. That is a shame.

As I said, they want to sit there and run an advertising campaign for another $1.1 million, which is money that could be going to pensioners or other people in need. They run an advertising campaign on television, blaming the federal government, when the facts are that 90 per cent of the claw back, $171 out of the $190, is what Treasurer Koutsantonis is clawing back from pensioners—and we think that is wrong.

As mentioned earlier with the ESL, the Liberal team recognises that the tax increases are an unreasonable burden to people and we think that is not on, with the pensioner concessions as well. We are going to do everything we can to stop the Treasurer from getting that through. We do not think pensioners should be hit this way. It is very, very unfair and it is something we will not stand for, so we are fighting very hard to stop Treasurer Koutsantonis from doing that.

That is the sort of thing he does, that governments and treasurers do, when they want to claw back money because they have spent willy-nilly. I mentioned the deficit before, last year's budget, and we talked about the whole state debt pushing upwards of $13 million towards $14 million. It really is getting out of control, and these are the things that governments will do.

Then we look at the health minister, who is doing anything he can to save costs, cut costs, closing the Repat. This Labor government said that it would never close the Repat, that the Repat would not close under the Labor government. They went out to community consultation and got tens of thousands of people writing in and putting in submissions saying they did not want the Repat to close, that they could not afford for the Repat to close. These are veterans, these are people who have served our country, and as we head towards ANZAC Day you will hear more from these people. They are people who have served our country and they spoke out in their tens of thousands, as I said, with their submissions, but this government just did not listen to what they had to say. It is closing the Repat and giving them no consideration whatsoever.

We also talked about the other facilities around the place. A lot of noise was made about the Flinders Medical Centre neonatal intensive care unit. That is in my electorate, and I very much supported the push to try to keep that up and running. The good news there is that the health minister did listen to a point; he has brought some of the things back that he was going to slice and slash, but he has taken control away. We are keeping an eye on that, because he has taken control away and put it with a centralised body.

I have personally had some involvement with the unit up there. My daughter went through there when she was born, and I am forever grateful for the great work those people did to keep my daughter alive. She is now a lovely 12-year-old girl who is growing into beautiful woman. Those people are absolutely outstanding, and I would hate for people in the south, in particular, not to get that great support from that unit. I will be keeping a check on it, because whilst it looks positive, the government has taken away that control and it is centralising that control and allowing the Flinders Medical Centre neonatal intensive care unit people to run their own show. So there are a couple of concerns, and we will find out more about that in the coming weeks and months and make sure that it still operates as it should.

There is plenty of talk as well about closing emergency departments. This government said that it was going to close the Noarlunga emergency department, and then it said that it was going to keep it open. However, what it did not say—and this is something that people of the South need to be very careful of—is that this is an emergency department that will not take emergencies that need to be admitted to hospital. That is right: it is going to keep an emergency department at Noarlunga that will not take patients that need to be admitted to hospital. So ambulances will get backed up and that will increase the flow into Flinders, which we know already has ramping issues.

People get themselves to hospital, not everyone takes an ambulance. In fact, the health minister has said himself that about 30 per cent of people get to hospital via ambulance, so if you are taking yourself or if someone is taking a friend or family member to hospital and they do not know if they will or will not need to be admitted to hospital, it will be very, very confusing. This whole emergency department shake-up is very, very confusing—and it is happening because this government is trying to claw back money and save money. So people of the South, with the Noarlunga emergency department, are none the wiser as to what is going on. This government really needs to come clean. I just do not know if it is an emergency department if they will not admit people into hospital if they go there. The people down there and the people I speak to in my electorate are very confused.

There are a couple of other issues I would like to talk about that have been brought up in relation to finances. I know this has been raised by members before me, but I refer to the DCSI checks. I have a number of people contacting me, and I am doing everything I can to help out everyone in my community. I understand that we need to have DCSI checks and that we need to make sure that people, including children and the most vulnerable in our community, are kept safe in this manner, but it is getting convoluted and drawn out. It is a great example of red tape at its absolute best.

I know a lot of taxi drivers have contacted me, saying, 'We get our notice to renew our licence and our details, and that is going to take a couple of months, and at the same time we get a notice that we must get our DCSI check updated, and that is going to take three months.' A lot of them are forced to sit out of work for a while, waiting for the DCSI check to come back. They have their licence renewed and they are all ready to go, but they are forced to sit out and be without work for a number of months while they wait for these clearances to come through.

Bus drivers are in a similar position. In fact, one gentleman in my local area drives underprivileged children around in a bus, and he is going to have to say that he cannot take them around because he does not have his DCSI check back yet. He has been waiting for months to get this returned so that he can go out into the community and drive underprivileged kids around. It really is causing a great concern for people in my electorate.

I have previously talked about where South Australia sits on the premiership table. I have talked about economic growth and about unemployment being another concern in relation to where South Australia sits on the national scale. South Australia is very much at the bottom of the table and one of the poorer performers as far as unemployment is concerned. The government goes very quiet when I talk about their 100,000 job pledge, which was supposed to be in place in the next 12 months or so. Again, if you look at the budget papers, according to Treasurer Koutsantonis' own figures he is going to fall 85,000 short of his 100,000 job pledge.

That is the sort of thing we keep seeing from this government: false hopes and false offers to South Australians. This government is not delivering, then saying, 'Oh, it's okay,' and invariably blaming someone else. That is a real concern. Quite frankly, I think South Australians are getting sick of it; they want a government that is going to roll up its sleeves and get on with the job, and that is what we need to be doing. Jobs and opportunities are very dear to the heart of people in my electorate.

I have mentioned the emergency services levy, and I have mentioned other pension concession and council concession cuts. The government is talking about the proposal of a new land tax on the family home. They want to impose a $1,200 land tax on the family home that everyone will pay every year instead of stamp duty. It just another way to claw back money. It is a lot of money for your average home, with people who own a $400,000 home paying $1,200 year. This is another new tax this government wants to come up with. That is Treasurer Koutsantonis' plan, that is what he is talking about and that is what he has out there in the marketplace.

He will not let this $1,200 land tax rest. Treasurer Koutsantonis is desperate to bring it in and start slugging people even more. Families just cannot afford it. Right across the state, from the member for Mount Gambier's electorate through to my electorate, running from the Oaklands Park and Warradale area, right down through Sheidow Park and Trott Park, and into Reynella and Old Reynella, people cannot afford to pay another $1,200 a year for a land tax that Treasurer Koutsantonis wants to put in place.

I hark back to what we started with, that is, the mismanagement of this budget over many years, and, more recently, last year, with the $1.2 billion deficit and a $300 million overspend of unbudgeted spending. That is why the Treasurer wants to bring in these new land taxes and tax the family home another $1,200 a year. I must say that it is just not on.

We then look at waste, which is another thing that this government is famous for. It is very disheartening when you look at these issues and see some of the waste that has happened in a number of projects, including one I have looked at recently—the tramline project, which was really disappointing. I know the Minister for Transport was not the minister at the time, but I have seen the GHD report the government commissioned in 2010. There were over 1,000 faults in this $20 million tramline project.

The report says that if you want to restore the tramline, the electrification and all the works that have been done to what was scoped, what was asked for, and what was ordered in the first place, the whole of the tramline, from Victoria Square to the Morphett Street Bridge, needs to be dug up and the cables need to be relaid. I have seen this report. It shows the conduit that has been laid in the ground and the poor job that was done. A rush job was done. No bedding was laid down. I have run pipes at my place for stormwater and things like that and, from the pictures I have seen—and I am not a very handy person—I think I have done a better job than what has been returned in this project. And this government let that happen.

The report says that it needs to be dug up. So, in effect, $20 million needs to be spent to redo this project to get the standard that was requested. The government is just tinkering around the edges and we are waiting to see what needs to get done for this to be remedied. Again, this is a $20 million project and this report was hidden away, under the covers, under the table. No-one was meant to know about it, but it did come out and it shows that another $20 million has been wasted. It is just not good enough.

Likewise with the review into the electrification of the rail line; again, we have mentioned the electrification to Seaford before. It is a lovely project and it has been fantastic. Sadly, though, after half a billion dollars has been spent on the rail revitalisation program, the head of the department came out the other day and said, 'Still more works need to be done. This is not right; it's not safe and we still have to shut the line down again to get this going.' No-one really knows when it is going to be finished.

After the government's mismanagement of this project—after a long period of time, when it should have been electrifying all the lines that were outlined right from the start—it decided in May 2012 that it would not electrify Gawler. The government had blown the budget, it had run out of cash and could not go ahead with that project. It was very disappointing for the people of the north. Thankfully, for the people of the South and through my electorate, we got lucky and that project got done first.

The report showed that there was more value in the project running out to Gawler. It still is a valuable project, but the government has again just parked that to one side and forgotten about it. It has moved on with other projects and has forgotten the projects that it started. The government is happy to do the glossy things but it does not finish the job that it starts.

Then there is the $50 million that has been written off on the Gawler line project by the Auditor-General. This is the sort of thing that typifies the waste by this government, the money that just gets thrown out the door. As a state that is sitting down at the bottom of the ladder, second to last in so many of those key economic indicators, to be throwing away $50 million on projects like this and just shrugging our shoulders and saying, 'Oh well, too bad, too sad' is not good enough. But that is what this government does. That is what the Treasurer on the other side does. He does not care: $50 million is a sneeze to him and he lets it go. I think South Australians are getting sick of that. That is the sort of waste that we want to stop in order to get our state going forward.

As I said—and I stress it again—we need to roll up our sleeves, get dirty and start getting these things done and not wasting money. The government has thrown $50 million out the window and who knows when this project is going to start up again. The minister has already indicated that he cannot really commit to this project picking up again in 2017-18, as has been promised in the forward estimates. We will keep a very close eye on that. It worries me that he says that because it starts you thinking that maybe there are more problems with the budget than the government lets on and there just isn't money there to play with.

They are great concerns. However, I will give credit where credit is due. We have lobbied hard with the government. I know it is working very closely with the federal government for a big slice of money for the Darlington project in my electorate. I think over $600 million is coming from the feds. In fact, it might be more. I will need to check that figure and come back to the house with the exact number. But 80 per cent plus of the Darlington interchange project—and it could even be more—is coming from the federal government. We thank them for that money because it is going to be a great project. I know they have been out to consultation.

Regarding my electorate, again, we have talked a number of times in this chamber about the Southern Expressway that was built running south. Sadly, at the time—and it was before my time here in parliament—there was no on/off ramp put at Majors Road for the people of Sheidow Park and Trott Park, who would really have benefited from that infrastructure spend. They were just overlooked. It really benefited the people further south—and good luck to them—but it was disappointing for the people of my electorate.

I have watched this new project that is going on through Darlington very closely. We have had a number of community meetings. We have lobbied and spoken to the department and we have made submissions about what we think, how it should work and how it could work better. The initial plans were again going to exclude people coming from Sheidow Park and Trott Park, O'Halloran Hill and Darlington. People who got onto South Road from there were going to be overlooked and they were not going to get any expressway benefit from the new Darlington project. That was extremely disappointing.

Our community has worked really hard. We have rallied hard and we have spoken to the department. As I said, the minister—I will give him credit—has listened as well. The community has come out in force and we have engaged the community. They have bought into this and they have had their say about what they would like to see and how they would like to get some benefits out of this new project.

When this new Darlington project comes on board, we are hoping that the work that has been done by our community to raise this issue, after being left out with the Southern Expressway—we really hope with the new Darlington interchange that the people of Sheidow Park, Trott Park, Darlington and O'Halloran Hill will be considered favourably and will get some benefits out of all this investment that is coming from the federal government. They are investing in roads and we need everyone to benefit from that. It is a big investment from the federal government and we appreciate that.

There is a subsequent investment from the state government as well, and I acknowledge that, but the significant funds are coming from the federal government. To get that flow through for the people of my area and to be able to access the freeway-type effect and miss those sets of lights as they head towards town will be a great benefit for them. We hope that is what will happen. As I said, the people have worked hard. I have listened to the community and I have talked with the community. I have taken their thoughts on board. I have fought very hard for them and we hope when this project is announced—and we hope it is not too far away—that the government will say they have listened and they will give something back to the people of Sheidow Park and Trott Park. They deserve it. They have fought hard and worked very hard.

In summary, we do need to keep taking South Australia forward. We need to get off the bottom of the ladder and there is no doubt about that. If we roll our sleeves up and get working, I hope we can do it. I support this bill and hope South Australia can move forward.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Digance.

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