HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-05-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Supply Bill 2015

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (15:57): I rise again to speak in support of the Supply Bill and to continue my remarks about Collective Impact and the launch of Together in the South's work last Wednesday 29 April, work that members of our southern community and, indeed, our broader South Australian community can be very proud of, work that is absolutely focused on proactively supporting and enabling our youngest and most vulnerable citizens to flourish rather than simply reacting to the worst of circumstances, work that is underpinned by the deep emotions that so many of us find invoked when we experience children not being supported in the way they should be, work that is urgent and pressing and work that is all of our responsibility.

As mentioned, this launch followed months of planning by a collective group of leaders from our community, community organisations including Junction Australia and Anglicare, City of Onkaparinga, Flinders University and government in our southern community, every one of whom was and is deeply committed and determined to work together to shift the social and emotional issues that some of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are experiencing.

Together SA is a South Australian organisation pioneering groundbreaking, Collective Impact work in South Australia and providing backbone support to collective impact initiatives. Collective impact is an extremely successful, highly collaborative, results-driven model of social change that brings together large sections of our community, business and government to work together in a focused way to achieve lasting and effective results with and for people on difficult and urgent social issues. It takes collaboration to a new level of action with constant agreement about effective, aligned and measured activities that make a real and sustained difference on issues that communities are passionate about.

Through the Promised Neighbourhoods Institute in the US, the Tamarack institute in Canada and in various states and territories of Australia, it is bringing people together to change lives and communities. A key element of the work is that it is place-based and absolutely puts people at the centre of the work in a way that engages and empowers them and develops their ability to lead in their community. The model ensures that data, measurement and strategies are developed in a manner that is accessible to all involved.

Successful Collective Impact approaches utilise certain elements, two of which I will talk about today; the first is the collaborative development of a common agenda or shared vision for social change. Typically, a community utilising Collective Impact will have a shared understanding of the specific problem or problems they wish to solve and a burning desire to do so, and they will work together with all sectors and all affected by the problem to devise and enact shared strategies for change.

This means working hard and sometimes uncomfortably together to establish agreement on what the problems are and how they will be solved, with an ongoing focus on ensuring everyone involved is on the same page. As you can imagine, this is not always an easy task, particularly when bringing together people who have been active in community service and work for many years and have done great work in that space, yet may have operated in a competitive tendering environment for a long period where results are often closely linked to numbers of interactions alone, rather than number and effectiveness of interactions.

A shared measurement system is essential for assessing the impact of collective action. Importantly, Collective Impact groups must be willing to initiate and continue with work that delivers results even if it strays away from what we have always done. Developing a single measurement system for progress that is agreed to by all players through which players share key data and which informs the actions keeps the work on track for success.

Results Based Accountability (RBA), a measurement system for results at both a program and population level, is a system which is being increasingly and successfully used as the measurement system to underpin collective impact approaches. It is also increasingly being used across local government, community organisations, and government departments in South Australia to measure success in a way which measures real results for the people for whom programs are developed. 'Put concerned people in one room, agree upon statistically definable goals, and then coordinate action and spend the dollars to hit the targets,' said journalist Peter Goodman when summarising collective impact models in Cincinnati in the US.

Importantly, Collective Impact works. It is at the cutting edge of social innovation and is the model being rolled out around the world to fix the biggest, pressing, and most difficult problems facing communities. Interestingly, what the United States' experience of collective impact shows us is that often it is not about bringing more money to fix a problem. It demonstrates that when you address service duplication and bring government, community organisations and groups, and business together with the community in the centre of the work to work on specific problems, you often find that the resources were likely already there, just not being used or mobilised in a coordinated way.

Collective Impact has had great success worldwide. It is focusing and mobilising resources well and in a highly targeted fashion, and I am very proud to be helping with bringing it to South Australia. As I said, last week I was privileged to be heavily involved in the launch of Together in the South at Wirreanda Secondary School in our beautiful southern suburbs in my electorate of Reynell. More than 130 community members, business leaders, community service workers, government department leaders, and many other dedicated people came together to talk about making Collective Impact work to address pressing early childhood issues in our southern community. Incidentally, we were incredibly well fed by the lovely catering students of Wirreanda Secondary School and had country acknowledged by outstanding year 9 student, Cheyenne.

It was a great privilege to have both the Premier and the Minister for Social Inclusion at this important event as we launched a new way of thinking about social change. Drawing on the work of brilliant Master of Social Work students, David and Miranda from Flinders University, who have broken down complex data to deliver a suburb-by-suburb analysis of how children in the south are faring, we heard about exactly how local children are doing in our community, and local residents and service providers generously and courageously led the way in sharing stories around the data.

Our focus was particularly on the social competence and emotional maturity of children, factors that are well tracked by the Australian Early Development Census and give a good indication of how children will succeed in the future. We were also pleased to welcome Dr Geoff Woolcock, from the Logan Child Friendly Community Consortium, to discuss how collective impact is working in Logan in Queensland. Logan Together is a massive undertaking by community and stakeholders, with community members and everyone from the Red Cross to Griffith University to Volunteering Queensland coming on board.

Logan Together is focused on children between the ages of zero and eight in two distinct areas of disadvantage in Logan after it was recognised that these children fell well below the Australian average for rates of healthy development. The work of Logan Together is sparking more Collective Impact work across Australia as they take the initial step forward. Dr Woolcock talked us through the progress of Logan Together and the ways they have brought the community on board. His expertise in this area is quite unparalleled, and his assistance in launching collective impact in South Australia was and will be invaluable.

Every one of us in this place and thousands of people in our communities want the very best for our youngest people. We are collectively distressed when we see children not being supported to do and be their best. I was inspired by the collective will of every person present at our southern event to together take a pledge to support our southern children. Our pledge was to ensure that 'Every child is safe, healthy, active, ready to learn, and getting along with others.'

I was incredibly inspired that together we collectively took responsibility for improving the emotional and social wellbeing and success of over 6,000 children between zero and eight years old (2,000 of whom have been identified as vulnerable) in the suburbs of Hackham West, Christie Downs, Huntfield Heights, Noarlunga Downs, O'Sullivan Beach/Lonsdale, Christies Beach, Hackham and Morphett Vale.

I urge all of my colleagues in this chamber to support the important work of Together SA and the Collective Impact approach to address areas of concern in our community. The work is steeped in our collective commitment to work together in a focused, new and aligned way to achieve real results for our youngest South Australians. It is work that can transform our communities, work that will finally shift the most difficult issues with and for our most vulnerable youngest citizens, work that is urgent, work that can and will make a real difference, and work that our southern community will take forward alongside and with these 2,000 children in our hearts and minds.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (16:05): I rise to offer my contribution to the Supply Bill. When campaigning for the seat of Fisher late last year, I was very careful not to make promises that could not be kept. My main commitments to the people of my electorate were based on providing honest representation, contributing to relevant debate that helped build a strong community, and to be a positive role model to all community members, but importantly to women and young people who, in terms of numbers, fit into groups that benefit very strongly from role models that are real, have courage, honesty and positive behaviours.

I ask the representatives in this place to ensure the swift passage of the Supply Bill as a way of supporting work in our communities that contributes to healthy citizens and informed and sound decision-making. A strong community attracts investment by private enterprise. This investment is also influenced by its public officers and how they represent and invest in their own communities. I too have spent many hours each day talking to constituents in Fisher about local issues that affect them. I am very careful not to impart any bias into the conversation, and I let them have their say in their own way. I support them to be honest with their inquiries.

Particular areas that are important for my community in relation to supply include health, education, and the built, natural and social environment. I will come to health later and briefly talk to the latter areas of education and environment. Some of the vital areas that must be invested in relate to the support of:

crime prevention programs which assist with real and perceived safety that is vital to all;

attendance and communication at school, and communication with parents;

enabling the participation in mentoring and leadership by school principals;

provision of adjunct programs that support delivery of the school curriculum in a way that is meaningful and retained by students across the lifespan; and

delivery of support services to at-risk families, such as early childhood services, therapeutic family support, and, broadly, preventative, interventional and restorative domestic violence services.

We must ensure the passage of support from this house is done in a way that is useful and honest. Berating, personal attacks and general undermining of the good people that work in our public services should not occur. It is not useful to tar all good people that operate in these services with a negative brush.

In terms of pensioner concessions, it has been a major issue in my area, related to the number of people who have to rely on our goodwill and good governance to ensure that their incomes are not affected. Many people who live in my area are on fixed incomes. What they have been experiencing in the last few months has been an ongoing attack on them from all areas of government that is inconsistent and oftentimes untrue. I would urge all members of government and the opposition to ensure that the information they provide to pensioners within their electorates is honest.

In health, we must work across the health continuum in a coordinated and best practice fashion. Fear and false information is causing enormous anxiety and, in turn, leading to potentially poor health outcomes. I also attended the Channel 7 forum on Monday night referred to by the member for Kaurna. There were other members from this house in the audience as well and I too was surprised at the misinformation that was occurring and has clearly occurred previous to that forum.

In terms of health, we must ensure that we attack several areas to ensure best outcome. We must stop entry to our hospitals that is unnecessary. Every day our hospitals receive hundreds of people from nursing homes who could receive good quality care within their own environment, the environment that they live in and have invested in. Nursing home patients are extremely vulnerable and this entry to hospital must be addressed.

I am keen to see us invest better in health promotion programs. Access to primary health is also vital. In terms of Transforming Health, it is important that we focus our attention on the areas that would most benefit from health reform, and we have done so with our reform of the emergency departments, day surgery procedures and service delivery at particular sites within Adelaide. Some of the key areas also for prevention of negative health outcomes include areas such as: road safety and other trauma, drugs and alcohol, heart and other cardiovascular diseases. I would particularly like to talk to cancer and preventative and research-driven evidence-based public health policy.

In a cash-strapped environment, South Australia needs to get all it can from the health dollar. How best to do that requires evidence. Health is just too complex to make decisions by winging it on the run. The evidence needs to come from local data holdings on population service needs and performance and from applied research. This includes behavioural research, as exemplified for tobacco control, for instance. Relevant data holdings and research exist across government, non-government organisations, universities, the private sector and SAHMRI.

A strong collaboration is needed across the health sector to provide the required evidence. A competitive environment is counterproductive. The collaboration is needed fast to tackle large and pressing budgetary pressures. The new SA NHMRC Advanced Health Research and Research Translation Centre should get behind the Transforming Health initiative by forging the statewide collaboration required between all components of the health sector to harness and bring together the evidence and give direction to the Transforming Health initiative to achieve the outcome of: best care, first time, every time.

Without this evidence, efforts are in danger of being misdirected and missing the mark. Continued strategic investment in epidemiological, behavioural and policy research and evaluation is critical to achieving this by addressing the risk factors for optimising health outcomes and reducing disparities. We must have equity. The National Preventative Health Research Strategy 2013-18 states:

An effective national effort to build health and prevent illness must be based on sound evidence of what needs to be addressed and what approaches are likely to be effective, the key to the success of this work is through government and non-government support.

The research base for promoting wellness and preventing illness should be as broad as possible. It should include not only health and social sciences, but also areas such as economics and finance, law, environmental sciences, transport and urban design. This will support healthy public policy, features of which include whole-of-government approaches to coordinate appropriate policy.

Public policy and research need to support problem-based approaches as a strategic priority to reduce disparities. Research needs to focus on tracking the effects of policy implementation and interventions to ensure a diligent health system into the future.

Research that informs strategies to promote health intervention, reduce health disparities and drive public policy is vital within the state. This is driven through scientific and behavioural research. Currently, we have some highly beneficial units across the state, at both government and non-government levels, that need support and need to be encouraged to improve the health of all South Australians. After all, healthy and informed Australians make good choices and ensure a positive future.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:15): It is always a sort of surreal experience speaking on the Supply Bill which, as other members have identified, is an opportunity for us to give the government a cheque for $3 billion without actually having any understanding of what they are going to spend it on other than that some of the things are going to presumably be similar to things they have been spending money on up until now.

When approaching the bill, you consider: should I support this bill or should I not? Of course, the opposition is supporting the bill because that is what we do. We do not have any alternative because the consequences of not supporting the bill would be that the public servants would not get paid between 1 July and whenever what is sure to be another miserable government budget is passed through the parliament. The appropriation I am sure will be considered in due time, but the Supply Bill gives them some pocket money to keep going until they feel the need to put forward their budget and get it through the parliament.

So, what should they spend their money on? What programs would it be useful to spend the money on? In my portfolio areas, the thing that immediately occurs to me that would be useful for the government to allocate some of this money to that we are granting them—this $3 billion—is maybe meeting or keeping some of their election promises which, it is quite apparent on current trajectory, are unlikely to be achieved.

The one immediately at front of mind of course this week is in relation to police stations. We understand that the commissioner has a desire to review the operation of the eight metropolitan satellite police stations. Indeed, there has been, of sorts, a form of community consultation. The consultation closed a couple of weeks ago and now, two weeks later, remarkably, in a very short space of time, the government's proposition that was put to the community to consider and come back with—that these eight police stations should, in fact, close—has been unmoved by the results of that community consultation, and this is disappointing. It is disappointing for a range of reasons but primarily because—I want to keep to this track—the government is failing once again to meet what would be considered to be election commitments.

Not all of these eight police stations came about as a direct result of government election commitments in marginal seats, but a number of them certainly did. In my electorate, back in the days when the Labor Party was interested in the seat of Morialta, they committed to a new police station at Newton, which was eventually delivered. On 30 June, it is going to be shut down.

Back when the Labor Party cared about the seat of Bright and was trying to give a parliamentary career to their bright, young star Chloe Fox, they promised a police station would be built at Hallett Cove. Eventually, two years after the election in 2008, lo and behold, the police station was delivered. Now, six years later, it is going. It is going to be closed on 30 June—next month.

In fact, that one may even be closing before then because, while most of these police stations are subject to leases, the lease of the one at Hallett Cove expired on 31 July last year, and it is had a month-by-month contract ever since. I ask members of the house: if the government knew on 31 July last year that their lease was expiring at the Hallett Cove Police Station and they really were committed to its future, would you not have had somebody in Treasury thinking, 'Why are we paying a month-by-month lease on this piece of government infrastructure? Why don't we get a proper new lease and see what sort of good deal we can get?'

I am concerned that the police station at Firle also has been on month-by-month renewals since 7 December 2013. The rest of these stations are certainly closing on 30 June this year, and some of them have leases extending. Newton is on 8 May 2017; North Adelaide, 30 June 2016; Blakeview, 30 May 2017; Pooraka, 30 June 2015—that one closes on the date that the police station is set to close, so that one is good at least—Tea Tree Gully, 28 February 2017; and Malvern, 31 January 2016.

To use Newton as my case study, because that is in my electorate so it is the one that I know reasonably well, I would like some indication from the minister about what will happen to that shopfront. The station is closing on 30 June. Firstly, how much are we going to spend on fulfilling our commitments on that lease, which is not due to expire until 8 May 2017? Will it be an empty shopfront, a Le Cornu's North Adelaide-style, in the Mercury Plaza at Newton dissuading people from going to the pizza shop or the Chinese restaurant next door? Will it be used for other purposes? I would be interested to know, and certainly—

Mr Duluk: Put a big fence around it.

Mr GARDNER: And put a big fence around it, like North Adelaide, is the suggestion that has come forward. One would hope not. One would hope that common sense will prevail, but there is likely to be a cost in giving up that lease.

More to the point, though, just eight years ago this was an election promise from a government, which at the time and since was proud of its record on law and order, which talked loudly about how it was the one out there fighting for new police stations and opening new police stations. The Labor Party criticised the former Liberal government which, having had to contend with the extraordinary economic and fiscal ruin of the State Bank, had to make some tough decisions, and the commissioner at the time had to make some tough decisions as a few of those stations closed. It is the Labor Party that now has that incredible record of rhetoric on law and order that is now closing police stations that were opened just five or six years ago: Newton, Hallett Cove.

There are also some specific issues that merit consideration in relation to some of the stations. In terms of the public consultation process, the government commented yesterday that only 40 submissions were received. I will accept also that some of these police station shopfronts will have had more submissions than others; indeed, some of these shopfronts have more merit than others. The Malvern one for example, I am aware, was not one that had just two or three people come in each day. The Malvern one, we are aware, had in the order of 10 times that number coming in every day to report, and there was a lot of proactive work being done there. I know that the community in Unley is very disappointed at the announcement that their police station will be closed. The member for Unley has been a firm advocate, and will continue to be so, for its retention, although with seven weeks before its closure date it appears that that may be difficult at this stage.

The member for Adelaide is another member of parliament who put in a submission in relation to North Adelaide; it was one of 40. It was a submission on behalf of over 1,000 residents who signed the petitions, over 1,000 residents who have invested in the fight to keep the North Adelaide Police Station open. In relation to the North Adelaide Police Station, I identify some of the concerns that I am aware the member for Adelaide, Rachel Sanderson, raised in support of her local community and her constituents.

There were concerns that a number of members of that community feel disconnected from government services, and the loss of another face-to-face option will just exaggerate this. She identified that, whilst online options are fine for many people who might wish to report offences, older people often do not wish to or cannot use those facilities. It is identified also, from the member for Adelaide's perspective, that the closest stations, if the North Adelaide station is to close, as it appears it will be, is Hindley Street or Angas Street.

Many older and younger people who have been at these public meetings with the member for Adelaide identified that that is not suitable for them; in fact, the ease of parking around the current North Adelaide station was an incentive for people to engage with that service. Local residents also reported concerns about safety in the area and the proactive, positive engagement that the North Adelaide uniformed officers in that station had with traders and members of the general public.

I make some further comments, particularly in relation to the Newton station. Newton and Firle both service a significant number of ageing residents in the eastern suburbs from non-English-speaking background. A very high proportion of the Morialta and Hartley communities are ageing migrants.

One of the things that we understand as members of parliament is that one of the first things that you lose as you are ageing is your second and subsequent languages. A number of people find it harder and harder to express themselves over the telephone, the use of the internet for this cohort is particularly challenging, and a face-to-face meeting is what they expect and deserve. The point that I made to the commissioner is that, for this section of the community who often are reliant on public transport, these sorts of stations are particularly useful and important, and for both of them to go is deeply disappointing.

Further, the other point which is worth making and which I made to the public consultation as I had made it to the police commissioner, is that a number of these stations are there as a result of election promises by the government. Having been established to fulfil those election commitments, it strikes me that those communities who were promised those local stations, received them for a period of time—five, six or seven years—might have every justification to be deeply upset that those stations are now to be taken away again.

The transient nature of the promise that these stations are to be closed, as it appears that they will be on 30 June, calls into question whether any promise by the Labor Party in the area of policing in the lead-up to an election can be trusted. It was only one year and a couple of months ago that Labor's policy documents were bragging about their 24 new police stations—new police headquarters, new police academy, that is terrific, 24 new police stations—that is on page 85 of Labor's big document that the Premier was carrying around everywhere he went, but what does that document stand for?

It might have been a weighty document but it clearly did not mean anything if the government is then going to consequently ignore the very key parts of it that were in there. The 24 new police stations, something to brag about—and get this, under a paragraph saying 'Liberal' with a big cross next to it signifying 'bad': 'Eight police stations closed.' That is what the Labor Party said last year about what the Liberal government had done after the State Bank debacle.

Is the Labor Party saying that they have delivered without a State Bank, the same economic conditions that previously they had only managed to achieve with the State Bank? Or is it in fact that they have so little interest, that they have lost their moral compass to such an extent that they are not only no longer interested in the policy outcomes that they used to care about but they now do not even need a State Bank to deliver the economic and fiscal problems that mean that they have to shut these stations.

The saving is $500,000 a year; that is $500,000 out of an annual $80 million saving that the commissioner is expected to meet, to meet Labor's budget cuts in the policing area. It is a very hard job for him to do that because more and more is expected of our police and, at the same time, they are being asked to do things with new laws and increasing challenges.

The scourge of ice is creating a level of challenge for our police force that is different from those drug epidemics that we have had before, because when we have people who are addicted to ice, the purest form of crystal methamphetamine, we have an arrangement when not only do people often commit crimes to be able to pay for their $100-a-day-hit but the very act of taking the drug itself causes chemical reactions in the body that incite criminal behaviour in a chemical sense. There is a loss of risk aversion in the brain, a loss of consequence-related thinking, an energy level that is extraordinary and accesses the adrenaline and other chemicals that give the body a great deal of energy.

We have this double effect of the scourge of ice and police are reporting incredible challenges in meeting it. We have expectations, as they should be, that are high in the area of meeting challenges posed by domestic and family violence. Frankly, it is disappointing that our community in previous generations may not have had these same expectations. We now have expectations on police that are important, but the police now have to have the resources to meet those expectations.

Much is being asked of police officers and they are being trained more than before. We have just doubled the length of the training course and a significant section of the new training time is going to be dedicated to dealing with domestic and family violence-related responses—as it should be—but it is important to recognise that that does impose significant extra demands on police but, at the same time, police are having $80 million stripped out of their budget by the government.

How does that meet with election commitments? Well, the government's election commitment at 2010, members may remember, was that 300 new police would be recruited. That 2010 election promise was supposed to be delivered by 2013. The promise was there were going to be 1,000 more police than there had been in 2002. They were going to go from 2,400 to 2,700 sworn officers on the beat, on the streets. That was the wording that was in the Labor Party election documentation, and members opposite would remember, because each one of them was elected (with the exception of the member for Fisher who is since the time when Labor used to care about law and order) with these promises, that there would be 300 extra sworn officers on the beat, on the streets.

When it was clear that they were not going to meet that promise by 2013, they extended the deadline a bit. It was 313 by this stage, because there were 13 transit police as well. The member for Stuart will correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was extended first to 2016, and then when they were not going to meet that, it was extended to 2018, and that is the current situation. In Labor's election documents, the promise was that the extra 180 or so recruits who would be needed to meet that promise were going to be recruited and that the 300 target would be met.

So, where are we? We learnt at the Budget and Finance Committee just a couple of weeks ago that, from 2,400 to 2,700, police gave us the number of where they will be in 2017-18: 4,421 sworn officers plus 36 community constables. So, rather than from 4,400 to 4,700, we are going to go from 4,400 sworn officers to 4,457, including the community constables—a total increase, members of the house will be disappointed to hear, given that Labor members were elected promising 300 more officers, of 54.

The recruitment is part of the issue. Recruitment is going slower, so last year the government changed the goalposts to include cadets in the count. The member for Stuart, when he was shadow police minister, kept saying this to the minister in this chamber: 'You are including cadets to meet that target.' The minister said, 'No, we're all good, we're going to meet 300 extra police.'

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

Mr GARDNER: Indeed, he did confirm at estimates last year that the original promise excluded cadets. About three or four months after I became the shadow police minister, we finally got the answer to a question taken on notice that the member for Stuart had asked months and months before about cadets, saying, 'Actually yes, cadets are going to be included in the count.' That was the first thing: the shifting of the goalposts of the years.

The second thing is they shifted goalposts to include cadets in their numbers, and now we have the numbers that they are not even going to get anywhere near the target of 300 extra police because, just as the recruits come in, there are going to be sworn officers whose roles are going to rephased into unsworn roles. We are not just talking about a handful of police prosecutors being transferred to private solicitors. There are dozens and dozens of other officers and roles that have been identified that are no longer going to be sworn officers' roles.

Custodial management is one that the Budget and Finance Committee identified, but clearly there are going to be dozens more that have not yet been identified, because otherwise the evidence given to the Budget and Finance Committee by the Director of Finance at SAPOL, Denis Patriarca, that there was only going to be a net increase of 54 sworn officers from 2010 to 2018 cannot be met. There is more coming from the police minister. They are closing stations when not only did they say that they would not, they actually introduced them just a couple of years ago. They are not meeting their recruitment targets. These were promises; these were matters of faith for the Labor Party with the community.

When Mike Rann was premier, this would never have happened. There were plenty of things we disagreed on with Mike Rann. It was all rhetoric and bluster and everything else, but can anybody in the South Australian parliament or in the media imagine for one second that when Mike Rann was premier he would have allowed his police minister to bring forward a plan that was going to mean that they were not going to meet that election promise of 300 by only having 54 extra police? He at least would have come up with a reasonable excuse, but this government now is just walking around pretending that all of these promises are on track when they are not.

This is a government that has lost its moral compass because it has missed that connection with the community. The community expects their government to deliver on law and order, and it expects a government to be concerned about their safety and their community, on their streets and in their houses.

When a promise is made of 300 extra police or when a promise is made that we are going to deliver a police station, the expectation is that that promise should last past Christmas. The expectation is that that promise should go through to the next election and then we should be looking at what else we can do for the community. I fear that when we get to the next election, all that will be left is for us to clean up Labor's mess and to clean up the broken promises and shattered election commitments that this government has left in its wake.

Bill read a second time.

Supply Grievances

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:35): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (16:35): I appreciate this opportunity to say a few more words in conjunction with the Supply Bill. I would like to speak about infrastructure, and I am prompted to do this because of the government's announcement this morning that they are going to start to develop a strategy for the support of greater copper production and the copper industry in this state. Of course, my colleagues and I warmly welcome that, but what I would really like to say is that, after 13 years in government, it comes as a great disappointment that this government is now announcing that they are supportive of and are going to start to develop a strategy to look after the production of copper. It is a section of our overall mineral resources industry in this state, and they are just starting to get around to developing a strategy and they are going to put a very serious plan in place.

Of course, that is good, but after 13 years we actually need things to be done. We actually need some action. Do you know what we need for our mineral resources industry? We need some productive infrastructure to be built so that the private players in this industry can have the support they need to get on and do the work they do. Please remember that the government does not create any jobs in the mineral resources and energy sector: private industry does that. The government does not create many jobs in any sector, apart from the Public Service: the private sector does that.

The private sector is incredibly important, whether it is small businesses. We have 140,000 small businesses in our state who deserve support so that they can employ people, and they deserve support so that they have every opportunity to be successful, not because we want the businesses themselves to be successful as the end goal but because we want them to be able to provide secure employment. Secure employment is what allows people to get mortgages, to feel comfortable that they will be able to afford to look after their family, and to grow and prosper. Businesses need support so that they can offer secure employment to people.

It might be small business or all the way through to the extraordinarily large multinationals such as BHP or some other company like that. Rio Tinto is a very proud Australian company that is a multinational: it does not operate in South Australia. All the way through, we need to provide productive infrastructure so that those companies can get on and do their business. For the government to announce that they are going to create 5,000 extra jobs in mining is absolutely ridiculous because, first, the government does not produce those jobs (private industry does) and, secondly, since that announcement has been made we have lost over 4,000 jobs in the mining industry. It is absolutely preposterous.

Deputy Speaker, it might interest you to know that I was at the SACOME awards night a few weeks ago. It was a fantastic night which supported and gave credibility and respect to an enormous number of key players, including, I might add, SACOME's very strong focus on enhancing the career opportunities of women within the mining industry. I notice that BHP has announced that their new head of Olympic Dam in South Australia, to succeed Darryl Cuzzubbo, is a woman. Her name is Jacqui. I read it in the paper this morning, but I apologise to the house that I have forgotten her last name; however, I congratulate her and BHP. At this dinner, the Premier said:

We've set an ambitious target [for jobs growth in the mining and resources industry] and it's up to all of you to deliver.

That is what he said to the dinner. I do not know how many people were there—probably 1,000 people. It was a packed event. It was quite extraordinary but, really, that does explain exactly where the government's head is at with this. The government is saying now, 'We're going to produce a plan and we're going to develop a strategy for copper,' when what they should have been doing over the last 13 years was start to put an investment plan in place and create and actually undertake investment to put in place productive infrastructure; if they had started that on day one, we would have lots of that in place at the moment.

That is exactly what they should be doing and there is no shortage of much-needed examples. Every member of this house would be aware of the fact that quite a few industries have been calling out for a new deep sea port in South Australia so that we can export. The grain industry and various resources industries are very interested in that, but the government has not progressed it at all. The government has not gone on with that at all.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I thank the member for Davenport for just reminding me that the new head of Olympic Dam for BHP is going to be Jacqui McGill. Thank you, member for Davenport. The new deep sea port in South Australia is absolutely critically important so that the private sector can get on and do its job. That is what the government should be doing.

Another very important piece of infrastructure for our state is the Strzelecki Track, which runs from Lyndhurst to Moomba. We have all heard the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy quite rightly extolling how fortunate we are to have very good, very capable, strong companies working in the Cooper Basin trying to create wealth. I accept that those companies are really facing an uphill battle at the moment because of the decline in prices—largely oil prices, but gas is not going great either.

Nonetheless, if 13 years ago the government had started a plan to seal the Strzelecki Track, which is, in my opinion, the single most important piece of infrastructure for our state, the minute the sealing was done and it could take double and triple road trains up and down the road, all of a sudden overnight we would attract a whole swathe of business back into our state from Queensland. The Cooper Basin is supported and serviced from South Australia and from Queensland, and what we have had over the last decade or so is the South Australian road getting worse and worse and the Queensland roads and, in fact, the New South Wales roads as well, getting better and better, so much so that there is now bitumen to the border from Brisbane.

All the way from Brisbane to the South Australian border to the Cooper Basin there is bitumen, so Adelaide-based transport companies are deliberately driving via Broken Hill to get to the Cooper Basin—an extra 1,000 kilometres approximately—just to avoid driving on our road. On the one hand, that explains how dreadfully bad the situation is at the moment, but on the other hand the upside is that, as soon as that road is upgraded, business starts to flow back into South Australia. All of a sudden, servicing the Cooper Basin from South Australia and from Adelaide and from other regional centres becomes economic again for those companies and they do not do it out of Queensland or they do not lose business to Queensland companies who have the advantage that their government in Queensland has sealed their roads.

It is important that I put on the record that I have been advised by the Minister for Transport that South Australia has put an application to Infrastructure Australia for funding. The estimated cost of that project is about $450 million, but what I have not been told so far is what share of that $450 million the state government has offered to contribute. If it were 10 per cent, quite understandably the federal government would probably say, 'No, go away, we've got better opportunities.' If it were 50 per cent, the federal government would probably say, 'Yes, that's a very good opportunity.' If SA puts up 50 per cent, and the federal government puts up 50 per cent, that would make great sense.

I am obviously not in a position to make commitments or promises on behalf of anybody, but that is where my head is at. I fear that the reason the state government will not divulge what share of the $450 million they have offered to contribute is that it is probably too low. They probably know it is too low and, even though they know it is too low, they will probably try to blame the federal government if their application is knocked back.

There are many opportunities. I am sure most members of this house would have seen an article in The Advertiser newspaper yesterday about infrastructure. Very interestingly, there were a dozen examples in that article written by Paul Starick and Peter Jean yesterday and, let me tell you, Deputy Speaker, half of those examples have a direct impact upon the electorate of Stuart, so I am incredibly passionate about this topic. We need to get our skates on as a state with regard to developing infrastructure. The government has got to stop talking about it and actually get on and do it.

Let me just add that the bridge over the gulf in Port Augusta needs to be duplicated. I accept that would be a project of hundreds of millions of dollars and it would take a while to get that money, but in the meantime sealing Yorkeys Crossing around Port Augusta would be tens of millions of dollars and the government must get on and do it. It says it does not meet their priorities. It says the cost-benefit analysis does not add up but, let me tell you, if they were to consider the potential impact of the freight being stopped between Sydney and Perth and between Adelaide and Darwin, if our bridge was out for a significant amount of time, they would then all of a sudden realise that $20 million or $30 million to seal Yorkeys Crossing would be an extremely good investment, not only for Port Augusta, but for our state and our nation.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (16:46): I rise also to say a few words about the Supply Bill in my grievance. I probably do not have enough time to get through everything, but I would like to talk about a few things that are at the heart of the constituents in my electorate. The first one I want to talk about, because I have had a lot of correspondence to my office about this, is pensioner concessions and putting it on the table and being clear, as opposed to some of the rhetoric that is coming from the other side about this issue.

It has been made abundantly clear by the federal government that they are cutting some of the pensioner concessions for local government rates. They have conceded they are cutting it by 10 per cent. I would love it not to be the case and would love to try to get that money back for pensioners in my electorate, so I will do everything in my power, although it is a federal matter. They are taking 10 per cent.

The rhetoric coming from Treasurer Koutsantonis though is implausible and also too hard to stomach because he wants to cut all of the money from pensioners. Let's just have a look at the maths. Pensioners get a $190 concession on their council rates. The feds, as I said, are taking $19 of that away which leaves $171, and that is what Treasurer Koutsantonis is taking back. He wants to claw that back and we know why. It is because of years of mismanagement of this state's economy. He cannot afford to pay it anymore and he wants that money in his coffers to pay back the debt and deficit that he has built up over the journey. We need to be clear on this.

The pensioner concessions are valued at $190. The feds are taking back $19, but Treasurer Koutsantonis and this state Labor government are taking back $171, and I will do everything in my power to prevent that and make sure it does not happen because I think it is very unfair and unjust to the pensioners in our community.

There are other things as well. Speaking of wanting to claw back money, the Treasurer is seriously looking at proposing a land tax on all South Australian family homes. He is looking at getting $1,200 a year on average from land tax from South Australian family homes which, again, is unconscionable. None of this, I might add, was proposed before the state election. None of this was put forward before the state election; this has all come after. No-one knew this was the plan and in the thoughts of the Treasurer at the time, and it really is quite hard to deal with.

Speaking of things that the Treasurer did not bring forward and put on the table before the state election in 2014, I refer to the closing of the Repat. Again, a lot of people in my community are coming to me aggrieved about this, and the big concern is where all these facilities that are at the Repat are going. A few of them have been spotted and dotted around, but the health professionals within the Repat and the people who go there are very confused, and they do not know where all these things are going. Some great work is done by urologists at the Repat and by all the other professions, and they have not been told exactly how this is going to be absorbed into the system, so it is of great concern. People in the system have every right to be concerned with the way this has played out.

I was at the forum that has already been mentioned here today which Channel 7 put on down at Morphett Vale the other night. It was great to be at the bowling club, listening to what the local community had to say about the massive downgrading of the emergency department at Noarlunga. Whilst some on the other side want to say, 'No, it is going to be okay; this is fine,' there is a clear downgrading of the Noarlunga emergency department. They are not going to be taking all emergency cases; in fact, if it is a life-threatening case, you will be shipped off to Flinders.

We know Flinders has a history of ramping ambulances and emergency vehicles, and they are often full to overflowing in their emergency department. Rightly, people of the south are concerned that in emergency situations they are going to be bypassed at Noarlunga, because they cannot deal with them due to the downgrade there, and they are going to be sent to Flinders. Just because the minister says, 'Somehow, the ramping is going to end; we are going increase the volume of work that is going to happen at Flinders but the number of patients ramping on the ambulance emergency entry will decrease,' it does not make sense.

People are not that silly; they know if you increase the volume of patients at Flinders, which is already full to overflowing, they are going to have more problems, especially in their emergency department. Also, before the election, $31 million was promised to the Noarlunga Hospital. Now, after the election, the Treasurer comes clean and says that in fact they are only getting $7 million. That is another great concern for the people of my electorate.

The member for Morialta mentioned police stations. Again, this is something that was not mentioned before the election, but a pen goes through the police station in Hallett Cove and it is being closed. That police station services a large part of the community in my electorate (being Sheidow Park and Trott Park). People who need to get to a police station find it very convenient to get across to that neck of the woods, especially if they travel by public transport. They can get a bus across to the Hallett Cove shopping centre and be served at the police station. It is a very good facility for those people.

The point is that the closing of the police station—and you will hear reasons why from the other side—was not mentioned before the election. It is funny how these things happen. Pensioner concessions—they did not mention that before the election. The closing of the Repat and the downgrading of the Noarlunga Hospital—they did not mention that before the election. Cutting eight police stations, including the one at Hallett Cove, was not mentioned before the election. This is really intriguing. And, as I pointed out, the proposal that the Treasurer was looking at to put a $1,200 land tax on the family home—none of this was mentioned before the election, and it is no coincidence.

We have to look at the reason this is happening. As we come up to the budget for this year, we can look at last year's budget. The budget that Treasurer Koutsantonis returned was a $1.2 billion deficit—that's right, $1.2 billion in deficit, and the state is heading towards a $14 billion debt. Last year, they budgeted for a $900 million deficit and then they had an additional $300 million overspend, blowing the deficit out to $1.2 billion. There was an overspend of $300 million in a year—unbudgeted spending, just money out the window.

What could you do with that $300 million? You could do a lot for the Repat, you could do a lot for pensioner concessions, you could do a lot for the Noarlunga emergency department, and you could do a lot for police stations and the like. You could also stop wanting to put a land tax on the family home, as is being proposed by the Treasurer. You can see why taxation is the answer for this government: that $300 million overspend in one year.

We are looking at the figures for this year as well. Originally, the government projected a $479 million deficit this time last year. They then updated and said, 'We are bringing it back to $185 million; aren't we going well? That is a $294 million improvement.' Do not be fooled, Deputy Speaker. This is all because they are having a fire sale of a very valuable asset in the Motor Accident Commission (MAC). They have found that it is working quite well, they have built up a bit of equity in the MAC, and they think, 'You know what? We need to get our hands on this.'

The Treasurer cannot believe his luck. As well as taxing everyone as much as he can to try to claw back money, he is going to get rid of the MAC and bring some more money into his coffers. When the budget comes down, remember that this government would have ripped out of the MAC over $800 million, which they took just to improve their bottom line.

We need to be aware that the Motor Accident Commission does some wonderful work in this community and in our society across the state. They do great work in sponsoring and supporting local country communities through sport in particular. I know they sponsor the country football association in a number of ways and they actually have a road safety round this year to make country people aware of the importance of road safety, which I think is a great initiative, but that money will be ripped out when the MAC is sold or closed down. However the Treasurer plans to do it—he still has not let us know—that money is going to come out of those sorts of sporting operations.

They also heavily fund Schoolies Week, which we know is really important for our young children, to keep them safe. A lot of money comes from MAC to help run that and without that money it would be hard to see how Schoolies will go ahead, which is a big concern for the state. We need the Treasurer to explain how those things are going to stay in place and where the money is going to come from. My concern is that the only way the Treasurer can get money back, once he has sold off the MAC and spent all the money to cover the debt that he has built up with the deficit budgets that he keeps rolling out, once he has used that money to prop up his mismanagement of so many years of this state, the money out of MAC will not be there anymore.

How are they going to get it back? I fear they are going to add another tax to our car registration. When we get our CTP, another tax will have to be put on top to make sure that they can get the money back to keep funding this. So, there are two options. One is that there will be no more money for sports, for Schoolies and all the great work that MAC does as far as making road safety awareness a highlight of our community. That is one option. The other option is another tax from this government, and I fear which way it is going to go. It is a big concern.

South Australians have had enough. They were not told about it before the election. They were not told about any of these extra taxes and charges that were being put down before the election and, lo and behold, as we roll around to another budget, let us see how many more taxes and charges are increased.

Ms SANDERSON (Adelaide) (16:56): I also rise to speak on the Supply Bill. Just to set the scene: our debt levels are expected to rise to $13.2 billion in the 2016-17 financial year, which is the highest level in this state's history. We are borrowing an estimated $95 million this year just to pay for general government operations, so that is our overheads. There is an expected interest payment this year of $527 million on borrowings and South Australia has the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 6.7 per cent. So, it is a bleak picture that we have under this 13-year Labor government.

I would like to talk about the O-Bahn proposal and the effects it will have on Rymill Park and my residents and business owners in the city. I am going to quote directly from information they have emailed to me. So, from the East End Coordination Group submission regarding the project, I quote:

The project will shift 31 service routes directly on to Grenfell Street, a street which is struggling to cope…access for residents, business users, those wishing to use the car park on Union Street becomes a nightmare and genuine safety issues for residents in particular are already present. There are at least 10 ingress/egress points in that short section of Grenfell Street which are grossly impacted already in peak time. The project will double the number of buses using this section. There will be at least 80 O-Bahn peak hour buses now travelling between East Terrace and Frome Street each morning and afternoon, on top of the regular services, and the impact therefore on Grenfell Street seems not to have been considered at all.

The East End Coordination Group agrees with the basic principles for improved, faster and especially more environmentally friendly public transport.

The principle of a major super highway, or re-aligned Rundle Road, is an anathema to our community. The residents are very outspoken about the environmental vandalism to one of the best of Adelaide's parks, the sanctity of Rymill Park being lost, the destruction to the parks, and especially safety issues of pedestrians crossing this major road particularly with children, interference with access to the lake and the children's park. The park lands are a major feature for Adelaide which all visitors remember. The park lands are parks which host events; they are not an event space which is a part-time park. The park lands were purchased in perpetuity, in fee simple, by the people of Adelaide for the people of Adelaide. They belong to the people of Adelaide.

Traders are especially concerned at the huge net loss of car parking.

There has been no modelling on the economic impact to the East End traders who believe that there will be a negative impact associated with both of these government initiated projects…

There is no indication that this project is part of a well considered guiding plan for transport to and from the East and North East Suburbs.

The community as a whole does not like, or want, the project in its current form…However this project appears to be a 'done deal', on the 'announce and defend' policy, rather than a true consultation process with the community who are generally outraged.

The community consultation period of 30 days is completely inadequate for such a major proposal that will have a huge permanent impact which in all probability cannot be reversed should the solution to the perceived problem not be found in practice to be appropriate.

We request a full and open consultation based on proper evidence that there is a problem to the East End because of O-Bahn traffic.

That is, the East End coordination. Now, from a resident:

Dear Rachel

I have been following the O-Bahn project and attended the Bowling club meeting. The information put out was a disgrace. It contained typos and was full of technical jargon and misleading/erroneous statements. After a half hour discussion with the Civil Engineer leading the project he agreed it needed serious amendment.

An eight lane highway—1 tram, 1 bus and 2 general lanes in each direction through Rymill Park, adjacent to the lake, children's playground and BBQ area is stupid and unacceptable. I also believe that no responsible government who treated all citizens equitably could justify this expenditure now in light of the high rate of homelessness, the reduction of medical services, especially in rural areas and the very serious inadequacy of all services and general well-being in the Aboriginal communities.

That was from a resident. Another resident brought up a few different issues. With the tunnel, there is no mention of emergency rescue, firefighting provisions, breakdown recovery, etc., in the proposal. Will there be separate tunnels for each direction? What happens if the tunnel is blocked? Will the proposed new roads be able to cope without the tunnel?

With the further increase in O-Bahn bus services, one of the implied benefits is the ability to run more O-Bahn bus services, but there is no mention of the intention to improve parking at the three O-Bahn stations and (to quote the member for Hartley) there will probably be a three-minute extra walk to get to the bus stop to save 2½ minutes on the bus. It is just ridiculous.

On the government's core argument, the government took a proposal to the last election for an O-Bahn tunnel that saves four minutes and had no impact on the Parklands. This new proposal saves seven minutes but involves wholesale change to the East End Parklands. Saving three extra minutes for 31,000 O-Bahn commuters does not justify the destruction of Rymill Park. The government has no mandate to redevelop the Parklands.

On events more generally, events in the east Parklands that may be negatively affected by this project include the Tour Down Under sprint race along Rundle Road, given that it is closed and will not be there; the 3 Day Event showjumping, as a new road through Rymill Park cuts right through their circuit; and the Spirit Festival next to Tandanya, as the realigned East Terrace will also now cut through that park.

So, the main arguments, and this is now my summary of the points: the destruction of one of Adelaide's most beautiful and much loved parks, Rymill Park, by a six-lane highway right through the middle. There will be a loss of 160 car parks with the closure of Rundle Road, which will have a devastating effect on businesses, workers, visitors to the city and patrons of the very Fringe Festival the government seeks to expand by closing the road.

Currently, the O-Bahn buses are spread out using East Terrace, Frome Road or Pulteney Street to get to Grenfell Street. This shares the load of traffic and allows for road closures, accidents, broken water mains, etc. The government's plan will now funnel all buses through the residential part of Grenfell Street between East Terrace and Frome Road where hundreds of people live in Garden East and there are 10 access driveways that will become incredibly dangerous and difficult to access. There does not seem to be any citywide plan for transport, particularly given the very tram line the government is preserving space for in Rymill Park, between the car and bus lanes, would best suit going along Grenfell Street which, with the extra buses, could not possibly use the same road.

On other issues that concern residents in my electorate, pensioner concessions would be the top one. Pensioner concessions are available on all kinds of different things such as council rates, gas, electricity, water, emergency services levies and public transport, and total in the vicinity of $230 million per year. Since 1993, a federal contribution to this collective concession fund has been made of about $28 million (10 per cent) up until this year.

The provision of concessional payments is a responsibility of the state government, with the proposal to remove the concession payments purely a Weatherill and Koutsantonis decision. This reduction in federal funding towards concessions, which is only 10 per cent of the payment, did not have to result in the complete removal of the council rate concession—state Labor has chosen to do this. This will have a significant impact on approximately 160,000 pensioners and self-funded retiree home owners in South Australia who receive either $190 or $100 respectively in assistance per year on their council rates.

Yesterday in parliament, the state Liberals tabled a petition with over 13,000 signatures of South Australians who are opposed to this cut. The state Liberals have committed to move to block any regulation aimed at removing pensioner concession payments on local government rates, ensuring that all of the 160,000 people who currently are entitled will not be affected. The Weatherill Labor government has tried to claim that this is due to the federal budget, but no other state in the country has abolished the concession despite all facing the same circumstances. It is inexcusable to keep jacking up taxes and ripping away concession payments from pensioners all because Labor are running a record budget deficit and cannot manage the state's finances.

Mr Weatherill wasted $1.1 million of taxpayers' money on a politically motivated ad campaign which would have paid for the $190 concession for over 5,700 people. This government has never had its priorities right, and that is why I came into parliament. There are a lot of other issues in my electorate, such as the North Adelaide Police Station closing, the closing of the Repat and the proposed $1,200 land tax on the family home, which were not mentioned prior to the election.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (17:06): I am pleased to continue to make some additional remarks in relation to the Supply Bill process through the house. Yesterday, I talked about some transport-related issues, transport infrastructure roads, road safety, and those very important matters that we all need to be mindful of in this place. That is absolutely a key area of importance and passion of mine.

Another area of importance, and something that I have spoken about at length and will continue to talk about, is the water prescription process in the western Mount Lofty Ranges. That process has been running probably for over a decade, at least 10 years, probably closer to 12 years. I would have to look it up in my diary, but I clearly remember going to the first meetings held at the Lenswood research centre, where government officials came out and started raising the issue of water prescription in the western Mount Lofty Ranges. I probably had been elected for only a year or two, so it has been running for over a decade, maybe 12 years.

I have to say that it has been an absolute shambles. The way the government has handled this matter has been an absolute shambles. The process has run for over a decade and not been finalised: it has been a mess. The department initially got the science wrong. It did not understand the perplexities of the resource. It had to go back and rework a whole lot of technical information and form smaller community committee groups to work through each of the individual regions within the Greater Western Mount Lofty Ranges region. We are at the point where allocations have been made to each individual farmer, but we are getting to the pointy end of the process where the water levy amount is being pitched by the local NRM board.

Irrigators received a letter three or four months ago saying that the water levy was going to be $7 per kilolitre. That raised the ire of local farming industry groups, and then they received another letter saying that the NRM board decided to reduce it to $6. We are still not tremendously happy with that.

I have spoken to my colleagues and talked to the member for Ashford, who is Chair of the Natural Resources Committee in the parliament, and it is my understanding that the Natural Resources Committee, which has some oversight of these matters, particularly the natural resources management levies they charge each and every landholder in the region, and also some oversight in relation to water allocation levies, is working through that process, looking to take some evidence on it and make some recommendations.

I have to say that this whole process has been running for more than a decade in an important part of the state and, as I said, the government has made a complete hash of this, a complete mess of this process. It is really an illustration of how the government has managed things overall in the past 13 years since it has been in government: it has made a hash and a mess of pretty well everything it has touched over that period of time.

If we look at the different situations that each one of the ministers has facing them at the moment—each one of the ministers along the front bench—it is like a fire burning on all fronts. They have bushfires burning on all fronts in government. The Deputy Premier would be interested in this metaphor or this comparison because he likes talking about television shows here in the house. Some of us are old enough to remember the show Bonanza, and there have been reruns recently, but I cannot remember on which channel. In the opening scenes of Bonanza they have a map, and the map starts burning from the middle and then burns outwards. I think about that map, and to me it illustrates how this government has been handling the very important issues of state: it is a small fire starting in the middle and it is just expanding and burning on all fronts.

As I said, if we look at the different areas of responsibility that ministers have—the Deputy Premier, the Attorney-General—the leader highlighted in his Supply Bill speech the absolute shambles that the court buildings are in. It was only a year or two ago that we went for a tour through the Supreme Court buildings, and the conditions that the judiciary and their staff have to work in are appalling up there on Victoria Square. There is salt damp, and the big cream brick building at the back that was probably built back in the sixties should be pulled down and a more modern facility built. As the member for Morialta pointed out, it is something that the government talked about before the election.

Then we come to the Minister for Health. He is in more trouble than the early settlers with the transition to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, and the EPAS system that has been costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars is still not working properly. I do not think it has worked properly in any hospital. He talks about it being in Noarlunga Hospital, but I think the staff are having issues with it.

Then we go next door to the Treasurer. Well, we do not really have to talk about the world of trouble that the Treasurer is in. This state has never had a problem with the income it has received. It is never had a problem with income—$16 billion—but it is the inability of this government to control its spending. This Labor government, for 13 and a bit years, have never been able to manage or control their spending. The only thing that kept them out of trouble in the early years was windfall revenue from the GST coming in well and truly in excess of the budgeted figures. But we still see this government push on with an old, outdated, failed economic model of tax, borrow and spend.

Mr Duluk: They're socialists.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: They are absolute socialists.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not interject or listen to interjections.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I remember reading a quote—I think it was from Winston Churchill—that no Western country will tax itself to prosperity. He said that trying to tax yourself into prosperity is like standing in a bucket, holding onto the handles of the bucket and trying to lift yourself up off the ground. That is the illustration I think Winston Churchill gave. In a modern, 21st century economic environment, no government will tax itself into prosperity.

You see the actual model that should be adopted, and that is the New Zealand model by Prime Minister Key in New Zealand, and the leader has travelled to New Zealand and spoken to him firsthand. They actually lowered their taxation rates in an endeavour to stimulate some economic activity and spend money in the right areas of government to stimulate economic activity. That is what the government always talks about, wanting to stimulate economic activity, but they have the wrong model in place.

People have talked at length about the land tax on people's homes, averaging out at $1,200 a year. That is just the thin end of the wedge; if they bring that in, they will start hammering away and it will be $2,000 or $2,500, and it will be never ending. This government has the wrong economic model in place—all Labor governments have since the Whitlam years, as I pointed out in my earlier contribution.

Time expired.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (17:16): I also rise to speak on the grievance debate as part of the Supply Bill. I will probably not be using references to Churchill or the early settlers, as my colleague the member for Kavel did, but—

Mr Gardner: Too late.

Mr DULUK: It is too late—he has beaten me to it. But, like many on this side of the house have already done this afternoon, I would touch on infrastructure and road funding, and I did this yesterday in my main contribution on the debate.

I would like to mention specifically the Darlington South Road project, which is a project that is having a big effect on my electorate. As the house knows, this major road infrastructure project will shortly commence, being the Darlington project. The project will involve a 2.3-kilometre section of Main South Road between the Southern Expressway and Ayliffes Road being upgraded, and it represents one of the largest current infrastructure projects in this state. I must say that this is a long-awaited project and is an 80:20 funding project between the commonwealth and the state. It is a welcome relief for commuters, especially commuters of the southern suburbs, to see this project finally underway after many years of discussion.

My electorate takes in many suburbs, including, particularly in terms of this project, Darlington and Bedford Park, and these two suburbs will be substantially affected by the upgrade. My office has been approached by residents, residents' groups, businesses and community and sporting clubs who are concerned, and they are well-founded concerns, in relation to certain aspects of the project. Those concerns are that many of their concerns are not being taken into account by the planning and development team, because it is the residents, communities and interest groups of Bedford Park and Darlington who will be most severely or adversely affected by what overall is a very good project.

On behalf of the residents who have contacted me in relation to the Darlington upgrade, I would like to put their concerns on the record to the house. In no particular order, these are just some of the concerns that have been raised with me: a dedicated dual lane for peak afternoon traffic from the university, being Flinders University, entering Sturt Road and turning right onto South Road—unfortunately, the current design concept does not consider this a necessity, as it currently does exist, as we have at the moment people turning right onto South Road from Sturt Road.

The concept plan indicates that all Flinders University traffic, including that from the Flinders Medical Centre, will now only be able to exit onto South Road heading north via the Sturt Road slip lane and onto Shepherds Hill Road. Many residents have contacted me about the importance of retaining the current turn right option onto South Road from Sturt Road, and I support this concern of the residents.

The Bedford Park residents triangle, which is bordered by Sturt, South and Shepherds Hill roads, has essentially become a permanent car park area for both university and medical centre users alike, namely, staff and students respectively. Mainly, this is because on-site car parking at both Flinders Medical Centre and the university is vastly inadequate. I believe due consideration needs to be applied to additional parking and this should be managed with the project team along with Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre. This is certainly required for residents who live in that Bedford Park triangle. Under the current concept plan, the residents on Shepherds Hill Road will need to contend with increased peak hour traffic flow with cars passing their property at a rate of about every two seconds, creating an impossible task when reversing out of or entering a driveway, as one can imagine.

Collaboration and research on Flinders University car parking and exit points does not seem to be part of the project team, and it is a shame it is not, as the current concept really is just looking for one solution, having all those cars exit onto Shepherds Hill Road, and this is vastly inadequate. The major changes proposed for Shepherds Hill Road will also create a ripple effect as traffic using the Women's Memorial Playing Fields need to enter and leave via Shepherds Hill Road, as do hundreds of residents in Eden Hills, who can only enter or leave their part of Eden Hills via Mill Terrace.

Another key concern for residents and businesses of South Road, Brookside Road and Watervale Court at Darlington is the loss of the ability under the current concept to turn right onto South Road for northbound traffic. In addition to penalising these residents, the Sturt River Caravan Park, Lucas Earthmovers and McDonald's at Darlington will be particularly impacted by the loss of the ability to make a right-hand turn.

For local McDonald's franchise operator Mr Alan Brodie, who employs over 120 permanent and part-time staff at the McDonald's at Darlington, the consequence of the current Brookside Road proposal will mean that, potentially, all northbound traffic that currently turns onto Brookside Road to enter the Darlington McDonald's will cease, as vehicles no longer will be able to re-enter northbound lanes and, instead, must turn left, southbound. Essentially, in the morning if you go and get your coffee from McDonald's and you are heading into the city for your commute, you will go into the drive through and will have to turn left, head back to where you came from, and somewhere find a place to do a U-turn to get back onto the expressway to go to work. I am sure the member for Kaurna can sympathise with his constituents who may use the McDonald's at Darlington.

Mr Picton: I think they want the upgrade, not the McDonald's coffee.

Mr DULUK: As they come off the upgrade, they might want to use the McDonald's.

Mr Picton: They'll use McDonald's at Seaford.

Mr DULUK: Maybe they may want an additional coffee by the time they get to Darlington.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr DULUK: This change will have a large and detrimental effect on businesses that rely on the current turn right option. We are talking about over 1,000 vehicles each day that use Brookside Road. Mr Alan Brodie has collected over 500 signatures on a petition calling for a turn right option to remain as part of the concept plan, and I support his position and know he has submitted this to the project team.

Other concerns of Bedford Park residents include lack of residential car parking within the suburb. Given the proximity of the suburb of Bedford Park to both Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre, parking in and around the streets of Bedford Park is always at a premium. Under the construction of the project, the current car park on the west side of South Road used by staff at Flinders Medical Centre will be converted into the project's site office. The reduction in parking areas will increase demand for parking in local residential streets and, of course, this is going to impact on the development of the site.

Access and egress for residents, especially those who rely on Flinders Drive, has been a hot topic of concern for many residents. Current access issues include restricted egress and access to the local area known as Bedford Park South, lack of turn right options onto South Road from Bedford Park South, and reliance on a new access point under the proposal to Flinders Drive over the Francis Street reserve (a local reserve and park used by families and local residents). Under the current concept, to leave Bedford Park South, it is proposed that a road goes through an existing reserve onto Flinders Drive, and to me and to the residents of Bedford Park South, this is completely unacceptable.

Access over Flinders Drive at peak times will be slow. The current plans allow for non-residents to cut through the residential streets and do not allow for easier parking for the existing residents of Bedford Park South. Other issues are how the new concept plan will integrate with public transport services and there is a lack of detail surrounding sound walls and revegetation of the project site.

The existing service road for Bedford Park South is critical to local traffic movements, especially when there is banked-up traffic at the Flagstaff Road intersection and this also needs to be considered. The current concept also sees a loss of amenities for residents of Bedford Park South, including a doctors and dental surgery, and food and restaurant outlets that are going to be compulsorily acquired under the project. For many long-term residents of Bedford Park, losing these services will be a shame. The project team must also ensure that public transport services are maintained.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Warriparinga reserve and being shown around the significant Indigenous, cultural, environmental and educational site formerly known as Laffer's Triangle by the friends of Warriparinga reserve. The friends of the reserve have raised their concerns with the current concept plan, namely further erosion of their open space, the impact it will have on native vegetation and further noise in what used to be a peaceful haven, including open space, the Living Kaurna Cultural Centre and Fairford House.

As I put on the record from the outset, I do support this project, but bear in mind that, like any large infrastructure project, consideration of that project needs to be weighed up against those who will most be impacted by it and, in this case, it is those residents of Darlington and Bedford Park.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (17:26): In a few short minutes, I would like to touch on a couple of subjects in relation to my electorate. I would like to talk about the extension of SA Water services, particularly down the Western Fleurieu. I would particularly like to talk about extending the water as far as Wirrina, as a minimum but, more than that, I believe it is past time that a plan was developed to take it the whole way through to Cape Jervis, including Second Valley and Rapid Bay.

I say this because these are areas of considerable growth. The government is looking to extend economic growth, of course, but SA Water seems reluctant or tardy in dealing with this matter. On the Southern Fleurieu Peninsula, the towns of Yankalilla and, from the east, Victor Harbor, Port Elliot, Middleton and Goolwa are all serviced by Myponga reservoir, which is a considerable reservoir. Many of you, if not all of you, have been through there on South Road, on the way down south. I am of the opinion that Myponga reservoir has adequate capacity. Indeed, it has the capacity to shift water back and forward between reservoirs to the south of Adelaide and, if necessary, back to Myponga, I am told. Of course, with the desalination plant effectively mothballed, there is always the capacity to produce more water if needed.

Wirrina residents comprise a considerable number of permanent residents but also a large number of absentee ratepayers who have holiday homes down there. You have the marina, the resort and the list goes on. The resort and Wirrina are currently serviced by their own dam and their own treatment plant which has been taken over by the Yankalilla district council. We arrived at this solution several years ago when the whole Wirrina group—houses, resort and the rest—were all looking like they were going to have no water.

Much to the credit of the District Council of Yankalilla, they took this on and it was a good outcome; however, it is proving to be extraordinarily expensive for those residents. The scheme is billed out to the Wirrina community through the council and it has proven to be an absolute nightmare. There are a number of people down there who are not on high incomes, and the high cost of this current process is driving many of them to worry about whether they can stay there.

My answer is simple. Whilst SA Water has a huge network of water supply across South Australia, and by and large does a pretty good job in supplying water needs, in my view, it needs to think outside the square and look at extending that water service down the Fleurieu to provide the good people and the good businesses, in the Wirrina community particularly, with a steady supply of mains water.

It is going to cost money—of course it is going to cost money; it costs money to do everything—but it is a long-term investment for considerable growth in that area, and I hope that they would give consideration to doing that. I am being lobbied very regularly by residents down there who wish to have that water extension put on, so I ask members of the house to think about what I have said and I ask the government, through SA Water, to put forward a plan to do something similar to what I am talking about.

Distributing and reticulating water on Kangaroo Island, I also believe, could also boost economic activity and investment considerably if the water system were expanded. A few short years ago, SA Water had a plan to put in additional storage by the town of Kingscote. I objected strongly to that plan—not that I object strongly to putting in increased storage, but that plan was, in my view, foolhardy and in the wrong place—and they did not go on with it.

I understand that there are plans drawn up to put in a thing called a 'turkey nest' dam east of Parndana to provide additional water. I am also advised that there is, as part of the super-duper golf course on Dudley Peninsula, a plan to put a pipe through to that golf course. I am hopeful that it would also service properties and whatnot in between where the line would come through—probably from the airport corner—and I am very much of the view that that water supply should be made available to American River and the water supply should be extended to Emu Bay. Both of these small places have huge potential for growth and huge potential for more residential capacity and it would, indeed, lift things extraordinarily well if that were to be put into place.

Once again, it is in SA Water's charter, as I understand, to look at the potential for future growth in their market, and it is simply no good, when they are paying hundreds of millions of dollars into the government treasury every year, not to be putting investment even more into rural areas. I acknowledge that they do expand their network but, in my view, there needs to be substantial investment in extending the water reticulation in those areas I have mentioned today on the western Fleurieu and on Kangaroo Island. I look forward to having some discussions with people over where we might go with that but, as I indicated, I am being lobbied extensively in relation to the western Fleurieu and I await the outcome of the major project status on Kangaroo Island with the golf course and potentially the water going through to the proposed golf course. I support strongly that, and I think it would be a great thing.

This government has not done much right in that area on the island, but they just might be able to get this going. In fact, the one I take my hat off to over the past few years as part of the current state government is former minister Conlon, who was successful in putting a couple of million dollars a year into roads. It has been going on for a number of years, but since he finished in his capacity as minister for infrastructure, little or nothing has happened apart from a few fluffy glossy documents and a few other foolish things, in my view, and they really cannot hang their hat on anything whatsoever.

The other thing I would like to briefly pick up on in the time I have left is the proposal that has been put in for an operation to swim with the tuna—or tuna feeding—down off Victor Harbor, to be run by Oceanic Victor. I am greatly in support of this. It will be a terrific thing for the region, and indeed it will be terrific for those people visiting down there to be able to do what is proposed. I hope it is successful. We had a proposal like this a few years ago in another part of the electorate which fell over.

I am actually attending a lunch on the 27th, I think, in Victor Harbor, which is almost booked out already, where the proponents will speak to the local business community and others, including the mayor. There will be a number of us involved in that on the day. I have spoken with agents for the proponents, and I met with them in Adelaide last week and discussed it. I think it is a great thing. Granite Island is really struggling, with the demise of the penguins, the lack of a cafe and general down-and-out syndrome. This could be the saviour of the island, if the cafe is put into a very professional situation again and the people who go out there on the only horse tram in the Southern Hemisphere have something to do.

It is family entertainment. It will be moored out to sea somewhat, by necessity, and people will be able to go out on boats, go out to the platform, have a look at what is going on and feed the fish, etc. I make the point that this would be a highly professional outfit. Victor Harbor's waters are not known for their kindness in getting on and off boats. That is something they will have to deal with around the Screw Pile Jetty, as a lot of surge comes in there. I talked earlier about the platform being out to sea somewhat. With something like that, you simply have to have the platform (such as they do with the tuna pens at Port Lincoln) out to sea so that the currents go through and things are dispersed, so to speak. I look forward to that project, and with those few words I conclude my remarks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Digance.


At 17:39 the house adjourned until Thursday 7 May 2015 at 10:30.


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