HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-02-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 11 February 2015.)

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (10:32): I rise today to give my Address in Reply, and can I welcome the new members for Fisher and Davenport. Welcome to the family here in this place, and I wish them well in their parliamentary careers. I have the utmost respect for the Hon. Hieu Van Le, the Governor of South Australia. I have known him for a long time. I first got to know him through my local Rotary club, and let me say—I know the Governor as a person—I was a little bit disappointed when I heard the words that came out of his mouth this week. They were full of motherhood statements, and I would like to draw the house's attention to some of these. Beginning—

The SPEAKER: Member for Hartley, I am not sure of the standing order, and I know the member for Hartley does not intend to reflect on His Excellency, but we are all aware of the conventions regarding the Governor's speech or The Queen's speech. Perhaps the member for Hartley's formulation of his response to that speech is somewhat inelegant.

Mr TARZIA: No problem, sir. What I would like to talk about, in that case, is the government's priorities, which I think have been perhaps called upon in the speech. As I said, it is by no means a reflection on the Governor personally, but rather on the government's priorities that I would like to draw the house's attention to.

Beginning in my own electorate, in Paradise and Glynde, what we have seen in Hartley is that this is a government that is prepared to do anything and say anything to stay in power. Within the first year of this term, we have already seen an election promise broken in Paradise, where they promised a park-and-ride facility, which they have already pulled. Secondly, in Glynde, on the eve of the last election, this government promised to find alternative land to move a substation to, which they again have failed to do. It shows that this government is prepared to literally do anything and say anything to get into power and to stay in power. It is treating the people of South Australia as if they are quite silly—but they are not. We will remember these lies that are being made, these promises that are being broken.

I want to start, firstly, on the proposed tax on the family home. In a tax review paper released just this week it was suggested that a broad-based property tax would be introduced to replace conveyance duty, costing South Australian families $1,200 every year. Let me just say that the phones are ringing absolutely hot in Hartley; people cannot fathom this, they cannot understand how a government that prides itself on governing for all South Australians can be so out of touch—especially so out of touch with low income earners, with people who own one property. I had an elderly lady, a widow, call up. She has one house and is on a pension. How the hell is she supposed to come up with $1,200 a year on her home? It is an absolute debacle.

You would think the government would stop at these massive ESL hikes but no, now it also wants to introduce a new tax on every family home. We are already the highest taxed state in the nation. Under this government, since 2002 state taxes have increased by 106 per cent, property charges have increased by 120 per cent, our electricity bills have increased by 140 per cent, gas bills have increased by 157 per cent and water bills have increased by 236 per cent whilst, at this very time, inflation was only 41 per cent. It is an absolute debacle.

The height of hypocrisy is what we saw this morning. I did not see one member of the government at the front standing with us, standing with war veterans, standing with doctors, standing with nurses out the front on this very hospital.

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Were you there?

Ms Hildyard: I didn't know about it.

Mr TARZIA: You did not know about it? You were not invited? I will tell you who was overlooking the whole thing, and there is a photo doing the rounds. One of your members is looking down at the Repat volunteers protesting against the disgraceful closure which your government wants to do against the Repat. It is an absolute disgrace. There are doctors in my electorate who are absolutely appalled about this. There are nurses in my electorate who are absolutely appalled about this. I fear for the next closure; I fear that the next closure after the Repat will be the Modbury Hospital. I really do fear that because, as the member for Waite once said, I believe, the first part in closing a hospital is to close its emergency room.

We understand that the government plans to close the Repat hospital, which is an absolute disgrace, and cut the emergency departments at The QEH, Modbury and Noarlunga. This will be subject to intense scrutiny. This is not going away. At the last count 30,000 people had signed this. Even the nurses federation is opposed to this; they have said that there is an outrageous lack of substance to support the proposals. Nurses are even saying that; there is a complete absence of detail in that blasé document. Transforming Health is completely at odds with the minister's previous commitments in this area.

There is a question that I have for all government members: are you with us? Are you with the doctors? Are you with the nurses? Are you with the volunteers? Are you with the war veterans, who have made extreme sacrifices, some of the highest sacrifices, for their country? Are you with us or are you against us? You should stand up to your government, because this is an absolute disgrace. This is more than a hospital, this is a symbolic gesture—

Mrs Vlahos: You don't even understand the terminology. They're veterans. Some of them are peacekeepers; they are not just war veterans, they are peacekeepers as well.

Mr TARZIA: Absolutely, and all the rest. Exactly right.

Mrs Vlahos: All the rest! You don't even know the terminology, you don't even know the portfolio—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I just remind members—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. That means you sit down. All members are entitled to be heard in silence, so I remind members of standing order 142. I will not hesitate to draw up the book today and start warning and calling people to order. Please do not lower the decorum of the chamber.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: All of you—and if I hear you giggle once more you will be down for 'audible giggling'.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes; not just laughter but giggling. It is a new ruling. Speaker Bishop will take note.

Mr TARZIA: There has also been commentary by several members in relation to the lack of attention given to the regions by this government. Let me just say that I reiterate the points. I also reiterate the points made by the member for Morphett in relation to the CFS. I cannot believe it: I am being approached by former members of the Labor Party who are resigning in droves because of the CFS changes and the unhappiness that they have with the union situation in that proposal. They are coming to us. Let it be a sign to this government that this is not going away.

In relation to jobs, I fear for many young professionals in this state, from what they are saying to me. It is a bit like that show The Young and the Restless: they are young and they are restless at the moment. They are wanting new opportunities to embark on. They are wanting to stay in South Australia. They want to grow up and live here—

Ms Hildyard interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Reynell is called to order.

Mr TARZIA: Thank you for your protection, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you will be, too, if you need to comment on things from the Chair.

Mr TARZIA: We saw the latest ANZ job data released just recently. There were just 151 jobs advertised in South Australia per week in January. That is a 17 per cent decline in one month and a 60 per cent fall over the last 12 months, as the member for Unley pointed out. Can you believe it? In fact, there are now fewer South Australians in jobs than when Labor promised to create 100,000 new jobs just five years ago. This is the point, Deputy Speaker: this government will do anything and say anything to get into power and stay in power. How is that 100,000 figure going? Earlier this week we heard how the 6,000 figure at Gillman could not be justified. The 100,000 figure cannot be justified. What is the point of having priorities if you cannot stick to them?

That is even before we talk about tax. We have seen, this week, a paper released by Treasury about tax reform. A state tax review discussion paper has been released, and it says that they are open to radical reform of our taxation system. Let me tell members that I think radical reform is definitely needed because, when you put all your eggs in one basket and the bet does not pay off, you have to hedge your bets.

Nothing is out of bounds, they say, be it taxes, levies or concessions. I would like to point out an article published in The Advertiser whereby Business SA and the Lord Mayor actually backed an initiative for tax-free zones for start-ups. If you are serious about bringing investment into South Australia, let us see something like this. It will bring people into South Australia. You want certain things: you have certain objectives, I understand, in your tax review, being revenue, business, households, efficiency and stability. What better way than to create economic tax-free zones in this state? It has been done in Dubai and it has been done in New York. It is a fantastic opportunity for this government to now show some vision and get on with the job, because young people are leaving the state in droves. Businesses are not setting up in droves because they cannot afford to do business in this state.

You would think that, following the announcement of a bold agenda, we actually would have had it, but what do we have? We had a time zone distraction. Give me a break: what is going to be next—an eight day week? Seriously! As Valdman pointed out in The Advertiser, I think he referred to someone as Jetson Jay. Give me a break. Again, they have failed South Australians by refusing to tackle the biggest challenges facing our state and, instead, they throw in this curve ball called a time zone distraction.

We can make all the arguments in the world about time zones and doing business with the east coast, the west coast, the north coast or the south coast, or whatever—or Antarctica, for that matter—but a point was raised with me that really touched my heart when I was walking to parliament this week. A person from the West Coast said to me, 'Vincent, my family and I live on the West Coast and lighting and darkness as to when people go to work and finish work and the amount of time that they can spend on their families is leading to such issues as it is.' We all know that mental health is such an issue in the country. I thought that was a very interesting point of view and I had to relay that to the house. It just goes to show that this government is not interested in the regions. They obviously do not care about mental health in the country. If they do, they would have at least considered something like that before they put forward a preposterous idea like proposing changing the time zone.

Where are the priorities here? Where is the evidence that change is needed? I have not seen any of it. I invite the government to present some of these facts to the house. They talk about having conversations, they talk about listening—well, where is it?

I want to also draw the house's attention to the nuclear debate. Many years ago the then premier supported and stood side by side with that great Labor luminary—which one was it?—Mark Latham, a great Labor luminary.

Members interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: How is that going for you?—and Mike Rann.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Colton. The member for Colton is called to order.

Mr TARZIA: In 2004, the Hon. Mr Rann said:

I am proud, as Premier of this state, to stand here today to put on the record for generations to come that last Wednesday 14 July 2004 the federal government abandoned its plans to establish a national radioactive waste repository in the north of South Australia. This is a great victory for the people of South Australia—

That's how he would have said it, too, 'a great victory for the state of South Australia.' Finally, the left of the Labor Party have been brought to the table kicking and screaming.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr TARZIA: They have squibbed our mining boom; the left has squibbed this boom. The Governor's speech spoke about the 25 years of uranium production. Yes, we do have the largest-known uranium reserves in the world. Amazing: who would have thought the Treasurer finally rummaged through that with his staff and has convinced the left, and they finally discovered that we have uranium in South Australia. I actually raised that in my maiden speech, Deputy Speaker, 10 or 11 months ago. I cannot believe it has taken the Premier and his Treasurer 13 years of government to understand the fact that we are sitting on minerals and potential exports of extraordinary wealth.

In fact, Andrew Bolt—my good friend—released an article. I think I have been quite fair, without referring to Andrew Bolt. Deputy Speaker, you might know of his politics—he also raised this exact thing. It is just a shame, in all fairness, that they have discovered that mining exists when global commodity prices have halved.

I was talking to the Treasurer about this recently. I understand that he is working hard in this area but the mining boom, that every state experiences, has passed us by. Western Australia's exports—have a look at them: they were $130 billion last financial year. How much was ours? It was $16 billion.

The government wants an informed debate about the nuclear industry and technology. Mike Rann led a government that included Jay Weatherill and Tom Koutsantonis and they were instrumental in shooting down, as I referred to, a proposal to have a nuclear dump in outback South Australia, spreading a climate of fear about nuclear energy and its potential in Australia. That is what the left does best, but I welcome the left to be brought to the table kicking and screaming after they have wasted years of opportunity, years of prosperity in this state, years of jobs in this state.

They have realised that we are in serous economic decline here in South Australia and they have abandoned their false idealism. Why? Because you have to be practical. They have been brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century. I welcome Labor's inquiry but it is about 20 years too late. If we had this debate 20 years ago we would be a very prosperous state today.

Ms Digance: You should have done your maiden speech 20 years ago.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order

Mr TARZIA: Twenty years ago I was eight years old. I wasn't allowed to vote. You might want to change that law; I'm not sure. What about pensioner concessions, talking about the cost of living? An absolutely disgraceful treatment by this government. Pensioner concessions still exist in every other state: why not South Australia? Because the poor economic and budgetary management of the Labor Party after 13 years has allowed them to be drawn into this situation to the point where these measures are being taken by them. The worst offenders in this whole charade are the government and the Treasurer who seek to blame everyone else for budget problems other than themselves.

I am so disappointed in David O'Loughlin who I thought was quite a reasonable chap but politically he is a failed Labor candidate. He has led, from the LGA, what has been a very disappointing campaign. I am very disappointed in David O'Loughlin. I thought he was better than that.

It is the Labor government that has scrapped the concessions. It is Labor that has spent 13 years wasting our declining revenue on projects that create little or no economic growth. After all of this it is Labor that uses your money to fund its partisan campaigns. Where was David O'Loughlin with the other partisan campaigns? Are you going to be drawn into these partisan campaigns?

To add insult to injury, Labor have also written to councils across South Australia to use ratepayers' money for their campaign. And Labor and the affiliates in the LGA are using one hand to take money from pensioners and the other they are using for public money to fund their own interests. This is absolutely appalling of the Local Government Association, and I absolutely and unequivocally condemn it.

On page 12 of the speech, freedom of expression was referred to. That is why in the Liberal Party we supported shield laws on this side of the chamber. If the government is serious they will support shield laws too. On page 13 there was a reference to corporate campaign contributions and how they can be inappropriately used to influence public policy. Yet, when queried yesterday during question time, not one of the government ministers could point out evidence of this. Where is the evidence? Where is the evidence of this influence? We have an ICAC. If there is something that is alleged to be corrupt, report it.

Why do we need more red tape in this area? The government simply wants to tighten the taps. They want to tighten the taps to try to stay in power, because that is all they are interested in. They are not interested in saving money; they are only interested in staying in government. So, if there are lobbyists threatening the integrity of our political processes, again, where is the evidence and why has it not been reported to ICAC, and why has it not come out, and why have they not been put on the record? In relation to the citizens' jury that is referred to—

Mr Knoll: Which one?

Mr TARZIA: Yes exactly, which one? Well, I will tell you the best one. The best citizens' jury are the people of South Australia, 53 per cent of whom did not vote—

Mr Knoll interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: How did they vote? Fifty three per cent—did they vote for this government? No, they did not vote for this government, did they? That is the best citizens' jury. If you want to start talking about systems, if you want to start making sure that a group of peers are deeply involved in the decision-making process, well, get the electoral system right. My colleague to the right here has been on a crusade to do that for some time.

After having such disgraceful NAPLAN results, I welcome the requirement for teachers to hold a Masters level qualification. I have had an enormously positive contribution from teachers in my electorate who have had welcome things to say about that. Again, it is just a shame that it has been left this long, that these standards have been allowed to deteriorate so much.

In relation to school amalgamations, I note that it is pointed out that it needs to be explored to further amalgamate facilities. That to me is just a big red flag. I want to know from this government, and on behalf of the parents in my electorate, on behalf of the teachers in my electorate, on behalf of the students in my electorate, where the amalgamations are going to occur. They need to come forward and tell us. Where are the amalgamations going to occur? Is a broke state government going to sell off school land, just like the McNally site has been sold off, just like other schools around the state are being sold off? Shame on this government for selling off school land.

South Australia certainly has an ageing population, and it is essential to make use of the best technology and to work closely with health professionals and the community. As someone who has over 5,000 households with people over 60 in Hartley, I could not agree more. I could not agree more that more work has to be done. That is why I cannot believe that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital is going to have fewer beds; it's going to have fewer beds than the existing one. How does that even work?

Then they talk about prisons. They want to talk about prisons and how they want to look at options behind fines and behind prisons. They say that people who are not dangerous to others can be managed. Well, if you are not dangerous why are you in prison in the first place? Not only that, why are the gaols full? Former police officers would know why the gaols are full, because this government had a policy to rack 'em, pack 'em and stack 'em. And do you know what? When you do that they get full. Now that they are broke and now that the gaols are full and they have stopped building some of them, and that sort of thing, they want to look at other ways to host prisons. Where are we going to keep them?

Mr Knoll: We can bring them in here.

Mr TARZIA: We are going to bring them in here, the member for Schubert says. It was pointed out by the government that democracy should not discriminate, and I could not agree more: democracy should not discriminate. It is a wonderful thing. It is something I am very proud to represent—democracy—and yet we do not have that with our current electoral system. I encourage the government to take that up.

South Australia's exports are also setting a very concerning trend. I briefly touched on how other states have taken advantage of the mining boom and other export issues and how we have been lagging behind. We have been lagging behind for way too long. We have seen the current debacle with Gillman and other issues. The Attorney seems to be in a hurry to reform our current legal system. I would say that that is because he is about to be appointed to the bench. I welcome the Attorney's reform agenda, but let's see some reform. Let's see some courage from the government on this issue.

For far too long now South Australia has been dwindling. South Australia is falling behind compared to the rest of Australia and it is just not good enough. We need to do something. We need bold action now. There are a number of ways to boost tax revenue, if tax revenue is the concern of the government. How about trying to grow the economy? It is going to be much better than taxing yourself out of the market, just like the government has taxed itself out of the market on other issues in other areas.

What about tourism? We know that tourism businesses have been decimated under Labor. Tourism Australia research data recently showed that all 12 of South Australia's tourism regions recorded a decrease in the number of tourism businesses operating within their respective regions. These are extremely disappointing stats, confirming the loss of one million visitor nights from regional South Australia in the last two years alone. It is partly because of this toxic business environment.

You can have small bars. Do not get me wrong, small bars are great, but you need more than that. People want more of a reason to come here. I am embarrassed. I want this state to do well. If you guys come up with a good idea, I will support it, but come up with some vision, with some energy, something that is actually going to get this state moving so that young people will want to stay here, so that people will want to stay in South Australia to raise a family and retire. At the moment that is just not happening.

Tourism Australia research statistics show that, since 2010, 855 tourism businesses have disappeared from Adelaide, 74 from the Fleurieu Peninsula, 62 from Yorke Peninsula, 51 from Eyre Peninsula, 49 from the Limestone Coast, 47 from the Flinders Ranges and Outback, 41 from the Riverland, 17 from the Murraylands and five from Kangaroo Island.

It has to be apparent by now that raising taxes to unsustainable levels is not conducive to creating a productive economy which fosters small business growth. After 13 years of Labor, we have seen payroll tax almost double and the ESL skyrocket. We have the highest water and electricity prices in the country. Some of these costs are obviously passed on. It is not rocket science.

I want to see some vision from this government in relation to tourism. We have fantastic regions, they are second to none. We have many regional members here. They share my disappointment as far as this government is concerned. One thing is for sure: we will see the frequent flyer points of the Minister for Tourism go up this year, but I want to see tourism revenue also go up. I have no problem with ministers going overseas and bringing business back, but let's see some results. I pray on behalf of the people of South Australia.

In summing up, Deputy Speaker, what can I say? I am very disappointed in this government. I came to parliament as a representative of my local area with great ideals, wanting to make a difference and wanting to see the government, which has a civil duty to perform for the people of South Australia (even though it does not have a mandate to be here, having 47 per cent) make some tough decisions. These tough decisions need to be made because, with spiralling debt, increasing deficit, reducing revenues, a cost base that is not promoting the facilitation of wealth for businesses or the facilitation of jobs in South Australia, South Australia needs change. It needs to go in a different direction.

That is why I am disappointed. This government has let South Australia down, not just my local area but across the state. I want to see some change from this government. Stand up and be counted. Do what the people have elected us to do as representatives, and that is to govern well and govern properly for all South Australians. Let's get South Australia moving again.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (10:59): That is a hard act to follow, Vincent. I will not be as shouty as the previous speaker, but I do wholeheartedly support this motion. I would like to add my voice to the member for Hartley's and others who have congratulated the (now not so new) Governor Hieu Van Le on his appointment. I do not know the Governor personally, as others here do, but I have made the observation, in the short time that I have seen him at work, that he is always the best-dressed man in the room. His sartorial elegance puts the rest of us to shame and should be an inspiration to us. I am sure he has other qualities too, but—

The Hon. P. Caica: What are you saying? What about me?

Mr ODENWALDER: With the exception of the member for Colton—

The Hon. P. Caica: Thank you.

Mr ODENWALDER: —I think he is always the best-dressed man in the room. I do want to thank all the other contributors for their contributions to this Address in Reply. I particularly want to pay tribute to the new member for Fisher, and congratulate her on her election and also on her elegant, honest, passionate and brave Address in Reply yesterday; I want to particularly acknowledge her.

There were some highlights for me in the speech and I am really pleased that some areas of policy which I am particularly passionate about are forming part of the Weatherill government's agenda for the next three years and beyond, so I will go through them in turn. Firstly, I welcome the government's continued focus on making Adelaide, as our capital, more vibrant, more livable, more cycle and pedestrian friendly, and, as part of this agenda, the ambitious aim to make Adelaide the world's first carbon-neutral city.

The Governor made it clear that people, particularly young people, judge a city by the vibrancy of its capital. Over the term of this government, the city has undoubtedly become a more exciting place to live and to visit. The small bar and restaurant scene is thriving; the music scene, which was such a fixture of Adelaide in the 1970s and 1980s—and I am proud to have played a minor role in that—is coming alive again; and the Riverbank Precinct, of course, is the jewel in the crown and will only get better. I regularly walk the stretch of Linear Park which runs from the Zoo to the weir, and a more beautiful piece of urban parkland you would be hard pressed to find anywhere.

So, despite what others have said, I think there is a sense of progress and renewal everywhere. I am really excited that the government is continuing with this agenda, and indeed there will be even more of a focus on walkability, on cycling, on public transport, and on electric and even driverless vehicles. I note that the mention of driverless vehicles has been the subject of some mirth on the other side of the house, but this may prove to be the most visionary part of the agenda that the Governor outlined. There has been massive investment in driverless vehicles overseas. The technology and political will to trial and embrace this technology is evolving, and it is growing in leaps and bounds.

The US, of course, has been a leader in places like San Francisco and Los Angeles, but Germany and London both have, in the past month, announced large-scale trials with a view to making driverless vehicles part of their transit mix. So, as I said, it is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, and who knows where it will end. It is absolutely visionary for the government to move now to make sure that the regulatory and legislative frameworks are in place to embrace this technology. These are exciting times, and I hope that this agenda gets bipartisan support. There is no reason why Adelaide cannot hold its head high and stand side by side with Portland, Toronto, Copenhagen and even Melbourne, as a leader in liveability and sustainable urban development.

As a complement to all this, I am really pleased that the government has committed to renewing all of its old Housing Trust stock over the next 15 years. This is great news for communities like mine, ultimately, and I will be lobbying for the renewal of the stock, particularly in Elizabeth, as soon as is practical. This will hopefully dovetail neatly with the City of Playford's commendable goal of making Elizabeth a genuine second CBD.

It is my hope that we can create in the north—in my hometown—a community every bit as liveable, walkable and cycleable as Adelaide is becoming. I want to be part of that, and I intend to devote a lot of my own energy over my remaining time in this place to helping to make that happen. I think that the clearer and more open approach to limiting and changing the urban growth boundary is another real step in the right direction.

We do not talk about transport-oriented developments (TODs) as much as we used to, but however you describe them—TODs, hubs, urban villages—it still makes sense to concentrate medium and high-density living and mixed-use residential and commercial developments around existing transport nodes, such as Elizabeth train station and city centre. The urban village example, which I would like to explore further at another time, has already been used in places like Seattle, particularly, with quite a lot of success. I think it mirrors what councils like the City of Playford ultimately want to achieve within the state's 30-year plan.

These ideas are not particularly new: it is back to the future, really. Suburban planning over the last 30 years or so has moved away from what it used to be towards the sprawl, towards McMansions, the cul-de-sac, the enormous undercover shopping centres surrounded by oceans of car park. These are developments that are designed with the best intention—to make people feel safe—but they often isolate people, and they do not encourage a sense of community.

The urban village movement, or whatever you want to call the move towards more liveable cities, is a move back to community, a move back to the main street and to seeing many of your neighbours every day, walking, cycling, and really living with each other instead of steadfastly apart from each other. I fully intend to be part of this movement in my own community and, particularly this year, to expend a great deal of energies to that end.

But, as you know well, Deputy Speaker, our community in the north faces challenges. I never thought I would see the day when we do not make cars in Elizabeth. My dad worked there, as I have said many times, my uncles, my brothers-in-law—I have so many connections to that place that I cannot count them. I still hold out a sliver of hope that something substantial might fill that particular gap, but the slow wind down and the ultimate closure of Holden is presenting the north with a challenge that is serious but not insurmountable.

The local community and this government have responded by assisting workers to assess their own skills and to retrain and move into other industries through the Workers' in Transition Program which is getting up and running, and also by helping automotive component manufacturers to diversify, to transition and be sustainable and retain their workforce. I particularly want to pay tribute to the former minister for automotive transformation (member for Port Adelaide). I was lucky enough to visit some supply chain industries both large and small, and I saw how her passion and her dedication made a difference to the attitudes of both the workers and the employers she spoke to.

There is more work to do, obviously, and I offer the new Minster for Automotive Transformation, along with the task force led by Greg Combet but also extremely ably served by, among others, my predecessor, the Hon. Lea Stevens, and AMWU secretary, John Camillo, my full support in the hope of making the closure of Holden as painless as possible.

Moving on, I also wholeheartedly support this government's intention to set up a royal commission into the nuclear industry. I note that those opposite support that and I think we will get a good, strong, bipartisan position on at least exploring these issues and investigating what role South Australia can and should play in the nuclear fuel cycle, because this is an idea whose time has well and truly come. We are obviously in a unique position here in South Australia. We are home to the world's largest uranium mine, with prospective potential for far more. We are politically stable. We are, for the most part, geologically stable. We are extremely well regulated with highly-developed environmental safeguards.

It may well be that nuclear power generation proves uneconomic and, of course, we do have abundant opportunities for renewable energy development, but we should certainly investigate it, and we should most certainly investigate the opportunities for value-adding in the form of uranium enrichment. Above all, we should support this royal commission and let it gather its evidence and then make policy based on that evidence.

With the time left available to me, very close to the top of the list for me on this government's agenda is the growing recognition of the scale and seriousness of domestic violence or family violence. I know there are different problems with using different terms, but I will use the terms interchangeably today, and I hope I do not unduly offend anyone in doing so. The Governor said that his government will continue to strengthen responses to violence against women, and he outlined some of the new initiatives, particularly a court assistant service and an early warning system to provide an escalation point if there have been flaws in the responses of a government agency to reports of violence.

These are all commendable developments and perhaps long overdue but they do come on top of this government's and the Premier's real commitment to tackling the epidemic of family violence and, particularly, to treat the causes of this violence by reaching out to men, both to change their own behaviour and, importantly, to clearly and openly challenge the behaviour of other men. As the Governor said, this approach will ultimately improve the lives and relationships of men as well as women. As I said, the Premier has shown a real and genuine commitment to tackling family violence and to making it a priority. We know it is a priority; indeed, the Premier has called it an emergency. Already this year, six people have actually died as a result of domestic violence and that is in addition to the many instances of violence.

On 1 January, Sydney hairdresser Leila Alavi was stabbed to death allegedly by her estranged husband. Her body was found in a car in an underground car park near her workplace. On 20 January, Renee Carter and Corey Croft were stabbed to death at their Gold Coast home, allegedly by Ms Carter's former partner. The couple's five-year-old son was home when the killings took place and he told neighbours that he found the bodies.

On 25 January, a 50-year-old woman was murdered by her partner in Perth's northern suburbs. Police say the man killed the woman before taking his own life. On 2 February, a pregnant Gold Coast woman, Fabiana Palhares, died from massive head injuries after she was allegedly attacked by her former partner, who has been charged with murder. She was reportedly attacked with a small axe. On 7 February, a mother of two, Adelle Collins, was found stabbed to death at her home in Ningi, near Bribie Island, north of Brisbane. Her former partner was charged with murder.

Here in South Australia, in the wake of the coronial inquiry into the death of Zahra Abrahimzadeh we had to come to terms with some serious flaws in our overall responses to reporting, investigation and prosecution of family violence matters. The Premier and the government moved quickly to announce new measures to tackle this problem and also, importantly, to commit the government to an open-ended search for real long-term solutions.

One of the most important initiatives, and one which can, in my view, form the basis of many future improvements to the system, is the establishment of the multiagency protection service, bringing together staff and experts from SAPOL, Families SA, Housing SA, health and education in order to share information and provide well-coordinated responses and early intervention in cases of domestic violence.

As I said at the outset, I am passionate about this issue. I am lucky enough—indeed, looking at the stats, I am unusually lucky—never to have been personally touched by family violence, but I did work for several years as a police officer attached to Elizabeth patrols and Elizabeth CIB inquiry section. It is difficult to quantify now, but an enormous amount of our work was dealing with what we would call then 'domestics'. It is a notoriously difficult area to police, for cultural and structural reasons, and one of our challenges is to make systemic and legislative change which would lead to better outcomes for investigators and for prosecutors of these crimes. This is easier said than done, of course, and the sheer size and complexity of the problem means that any increase in convictions of family violence offenders throws up further social problems as unintended consequences.

However, these are problems we need to grapple with, and we should not be deterred from treating these crimes as crimes, crimes which ruin lives, crimes which irreparably damage children and by extension damage our society. I am certain that there will be more reform on the way and I personally will be doing all I can to ensure that all options are explored. I know that following a motion from the member for Reynell, who I know is deeply committed to this area of policy, the Social Development Committee will soon be examining some of these issues. I will be following this inquiry with great interest.

Towards the end of last year, I became aware of some work that was being done by the UK Law Reform Commission in relation to offences against the person, or assaults, in order to simplify and modernise the UK's sprawling offences against the person statutes. Part of the consultation focused on whether domestic violence offences should be designated as stand-alone offences rather than simply classed as assaults.

The Law Reform Commission is due to bring down its recommendations later this year (in fact, submissions closed yesterday), but the UK government is already moving on this. In particular, they are moving to criminalise nonviolent domestic abuse, controlling and coercive behaviour, financial abuse and the like, which already constitute grounds for intervention orders but are not criminal behaviour. I think there are good arguments for making specific offences related to domestic violence. The law already acknowledges intimate relationships of trust as aggravating factors, but I think—and this is my opinion—clearly labelling them would have some real benefits.

I do not want to comment particularly on police operations. I will note that the Coroner's report into Zahra Abrahimzadeh's death made it clear that there were some serious deficiencies. I think they were broadly canvassed at the time and I think SAPOL responded to them quickly and thoroughly and is still responding to them. I think that some of these deficiencies could perhaps be explained by broader society attitudes towards domestic violence as a private domestic matter and often not as a serious crime.

In 2013, the UK home secretary commissioned her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to review police responses to domestic violence. In their subsequent report, the HMIC made it clear that police, at least in the UK context, did not always see domestic violence as a serious crime, particularly when it is seen as nonviolent.

I do not want to give the impression that I think police do not take domestic violence seriously, because I know for a fact that they do. I am also not denying for a second that there are complex social issues behind these crimes, but our society's attitude to domestic violence—that it is essentially a private matter—and a sometimes understandable reluctance to break up families, may impact on police actions, so I think that creating specific offences within or without the CLCA for violent and nonviolent domestic abuse may send a clear and consistent message to police and to other front-line agencies that these acts are crimes. They are not just grounds for intervention orders; they are actual crimes. They are serious crimes and they should be prosecuted. Offenders should be arrested. They should be charged and they should be prosecuted.

The Home Office consultation paper into offences against the person notes that explicitly capturing this in legislation may also help victims identify the behaviour they are suffering as wrong and encourage them to report it and cause perpetrators to rethink their behaviour.

I think there will be other advantages in specifically labelling these offences, whether or not they attracted different penalties. The first is it may help in the collection of data and provide clearer statistics for use in further evidence based responses. Secondly, it may help people who need this information get easier access to it and to know that the people they are dealing with are a certain type of criminal. Frontline police officers will know when they read an offender's history on their PIMS system. Courts will know when they read antecedent reports and consider past behaviour and even employers will know when they look at potential employees' clearance certificates.

I hasten to add again, this is not government policy and I am happy to be proved wrong about any of these matters, but I think we should be considering all avenues to address domestic violence. In that vein, another idea which I have flagged the government might consider is a domestic violence disclosure scheme such as that recently trialled and rolled out across the UK. In the UK it is known as Clare's Law after a woman called Clare Wood who was murdered in 2009 by a man she met on the internet and who had a long history of domestic violence. She approached police time and time again and for various reasons her pleas were ignored.

The scheme basically provides a framework whereby police working with other agencies can disclose details about an offender's history of domestic violence to potential victims and to others who might be in a position to prevent future violence. The scheme, as it operates in the UK, has two components for the disclosure of information—the right to ask and the right to know.

The first, the right to ask, gives people, whether they are a potential victim or someone concerned for another person's safety, the right to ask police about a partner's previous history of domestic violence or violent acts. The second, the right to know, means that police can proactively disclose information in certain circumstances. For both of these requests police perform a series of checks and risk assessments to build up a picture of the potential victim and their partner. If concerns are raised, police obviously go through a rigorous process of checking facts with all their relevant agencies.

As I mentioned before, our new multi agency protection service in the South Australian context would be ideally placed to facilitate this process and decide which agency, if any, would be the best to disclose the information to the applicant. Obviously, if there is an imminent danger identified, police will either disclose immediately or act in some other appropriate way. Conversely, they may decide not to disclose for one reason or another, and obviously there are many privacy issues attached to this.

It is early days and the scheme is not without its critics, obviously, but it appears that the scheme has been very successful in the UK. Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Paddy Tipping, talks about the protection of vulnerable people to prevent them from entering a violent relationship, and he notes research that it is much harder to reach a victim once they have committed themselves to an abusive partner. So these measures will be about prevention, labelling these people as criminals and then giving potential victims the information to make informed choices about their and their children's safety.

I say again that this is only my opinion, obviously not government policy, but we should be examining every option. I think the Governor's speech made it clear that we will be doing all we can to tackle domestic violence, and I will follow the inquiry in the Social Development Committee with great interest.

So, as I said at the outset, the Governor's speech was bold. It was visionary despite what we may have heard from the other side. It foreshadowed major changes to our approach to education, to the tax system, to the criminal justice system and, of course, to the health system, and I commend the motion.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:18): I am pleased to make a contribution to the Address in Reply and I would like to thank His Excellency the Governor, Hieu Van Le, for presiding over the opening of the Second Session of the Fifty-Third Parliament.

I would like to congratulate the newly elected members to this place that we saw sworn in on the first day of sitting on the Tuesday of this week. The newly elected member for Fisher—may her career be rewarding and her time here in the parliament be rewarding, not necessarily long, while she is here. In particular, my hearty congratulations to the newly elected member for Davenport. Congratulations to him. I am confident that the newly elected member for Davenport's career and performance will be at least that of his predecessor. Congratulations to both the members for Davenport and Fisher.

I want to spend some time raising issues in relation to the recent emergency that part of the state was confronted with being the Sampson Flat bushfire, and I understand there is a motion before the house to be debated in relation to issues concerning the fire. That fire was of significance, particularly to me personally, my family and a section of my electorate. It covered the electorates of Schubert, Morialta, Newland, and I think it may have even crept into Little Para into the north.

Mr Knoll: Maybe Playford as well.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: And Playford into the north-east. It was a significant emergency that the state faced. In relation to my own experience, my home property was directly in the line of the fire front at a number of stages in the course of that fire over the five days that it was burning in what was regarded as an uncontained manner. Thank goodness, due to the direction of the wind, the fire front did not progress any closer than two kilometres to our home property. I was very thankful.

I woke up on that Saturday morning very early at 4.45am with the whole district surrounded in a shroud of smoke and listening to the radio warnings in the morning. We were facing a very precarious and threatening environment on that Saturday morning, something that conjured memories of Ash Wednesday, with the forecast of 110km/h winds coming from the north which would have blown the fire straight onto our property and the surrounding districts. Thank the Lord that did not occur. We were fortunate, not like many property owners who lost a significant amount of property and their homes.

I want to make this observation, and I probably will not get time today to cover all the issues coming out of this fire event, and we will look to cover that perhaps when we get to debate the motion before the house. The emergency part of it lasts for about two or three days and that is a very anxious period for many people. You have to experience it firsthand to understand the level of anxiety that an individual experiences, and I can tell you that I and my family were experiencing significant levels of anxiety on that Saturday morning when we were looking at the fire blowing onto our property.

It is like everything. You have to experience it firsthand to understand what it is like. However, the emergency passes in two or three days but then we move to what we call the recovery period. While the emergency is up to about four days, the recovery period is two to four months, two to four years, two to four decades. I know some folks perhaps have not recovered fully from the Ash Wednesday fire in 1983, which was 32 years ago.

We need to be very mindful of the recovery process and the recovery period as a consequence of an emergency. I know there are quite a number of community meetings being held in the Hills and surrounding districts, and the member for Morialta and I attended one of those meetings in the Cudlee Creek hall. It was a very good meeting run by the CFS and SAPOL, and they had some other government officers from DPTI. The town hall was to capacity.

These community-held meetings are a very important—I want to emphasise that—a very important part of the recovery process. There was a meeting held at Gumeracha last night that was encouraging to a lot of the people and property owners in and around Gumeracha, because that township and surrounding areas was directly affected by the fire. I have some meetings with some constituents tomorrow at Gumeracha in relation to that.

The government has done an excellent job with the recovery. Obviously at this time I want to acknowledge and sincerely thank the magnificent effort particularly of our CFS volunteers, all the other emergency service people involved and also SAPOL. Our police obviously played a very significant role in managing part of the emergency where we saw no life lost. It was a crucially important part of the whole process that we did not see one life lost, compared to many, many lives lost in Ash Wednesday. So I want to acknowledge and sincerely thank our CFS volunteers for doing a magnificent job. If I have time I will get onto other issues relating to the CFS and the appalling treatment that the government is showing to our CFS volunteers at the moment.

It is very important to acknowledge the contribution that the New South Wales Rural Fire Service played in assisting in our emergency. On the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the fire, I went to my local CFS brigade station at Paracombe and offered my assistance. I helped a friend of mine who provided his water tanker truck to go out and supply homes that had been affected by the fire and had run out of water. They were not on mains water and had run out of water by them fighting the fire. We were refilling rainwater tanks and also some CFS appliances. Obviously we were not on the fireground, but it saved them a trip back to the fire hydrant by the station. On the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of that week I assisted in that role, and I was very pleased to do that, in a small way assisting the local community.

A local recovery centre has been established at Gumeracha. I called at the centre a number of weeks ago and met the Hon. Karlene Maywald, who has been tasked with the job as the coordinator of the recovery. She has a big job to coordinate the recovery process. My meeting with her went for about half an hour. I just called in. I did not actually know she would be there. I called in to say hello, introduce myself and greet the people in the centre. I met some Red Cross ladies who were there and introduced myself, with my big booming voice in this small area. Obviously, it got the attention of Ms Maywald and she appeared at the door of an office, so we had quite a worthwhile meeting that morning.

It is very important that the house and members who have not experienced a fire emergency such as we have just seen are very aware of the recovery process. It is an enormously important part of the whole thing. As I said, the fire burnt in a number of electorates and consumed over 10,000 hectares—a significant area of land—and was actually comprised of two fires. When the member for Morialta and I attended that meeting, the regional commander involved in it—region 1 I think it was, wasn't it, John?

Mr Gardner: Think so.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Region 1.

Mr Gardner: The one north of the river.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, the one north of the river. The regional commander gave us a time line of the progress of the fires and when the responses were made. That was a very informative part of the meeting, I thought. There were actually two fires. The Sampson Flat bushfire was comprised of two separate fires. I have taken some notes. At 13:46, the first fire was contained. So, at 1.46pm in the afternoon, the first fire was contained, and then, at 14:14—14 minutes past 2pm—the second fire was reported, and that was the fire that blew up and started to just compound in its ferocity through the land and the area it consumed.

I know the police are continuing their investigations in relation to the causes of the fire. We would be very interested to have the reports of the investigation, once they are completed, because there are a lot of rumours flying around in the local district in relation to the cause of the fires, but it is not for me to speculate about that. At the community meeting that both the member for Morialta and I attended, there was obviously the information part that ran for about three-quarters of an hour. CFS officers spoke, the local inspector for the LSA from SAPOL spoke and representatives from DPTI spoke, and then they took questions. There was a range of questions, but one of the key issues that has come from these community meetings and the feedback to Ms Maywald, which she raised with me and which local people raised with me as well, is the issue of return to home.

Understandably, roadblocks were put in place by SAPOL for the safety of people, but there were sections of the area that were not affected directly by the fire front. As a consequence, those roads were open. They were not obstructed by falling trees or the like. The member for Morphett is a member of the CFS and he was on a fire truck. He was taking a unit, I think, up to Williamstown, and he told me that some of those roads through the Hills were obstructed. You can see now where the trees have fallen over the road and smashed down onto the guard rail, because some sections of the guard rail have been destroyed and have had to be replaced.

So, I fully understand why those roadblocks were in place, but some of the locals who knew their area had not been affected to that extent were frustrated that they could not return to their home. They were concerned that the fire front had moved through, but there were still pieces of timber burning around their place. They knew that the CFS were tasked to different areas where the priorities were higher, and they were very keen to be able to return home and implement their fire action plan by dampening down burning logs and material such as that.

What we know can happen is that the fire front moves through, but the remaining material that is just smouldering away, if you get a strong enough wind, will reignite and start another localised fire. The CFS senior officers were concerned about that, that there were pockets within the vast area of country burn. There were islands they referred to that had not been burnt—that the fire had gone around, jumped over the top or whatever—and they were concerned that those islands or pockets of unburnt country would ignite from flare-ups. I know the return-to-home issue is something that the government and the recovery coordinator Ms Maywald are seriously considering, and I think it is a very good thing to look at.

The recovery process, as I said, can last for weeks, months, years. It is a long, difficult, arduous, distressing and anxious time. I know, having experienced it firsthand in the west as a consequence of the Ash Wednesday fires. That did come through and consume our home property but, as I said, thank God we were spared this time, as the fire front came within two kilometres and then burned away in a different direction from our home. We were very fortunate. I will conclude my remarks in relation to the Sampson Flat fires there, because I want to get onto some other issues in the time remaining.

I want to turn my remarks to this issue of the Gillman land and the absolute debacle that the government has exhibited in their handling of this issue. We have had a number of condemning reports, absolutely damning reports, in relation to the way the government has managed the sale of a portion of this Gillman land. We have had a court case, we have had the Auditor-General's Report, we have had witnesses come to the Budget and Finance Committee, and we have had past board members raise concerns about the government's handling of this. What is the government's response? 'Oh well, too bad. It's our call. We don't care. We'll just push all this through. We don't agree with what the judge said. The Auditor-General can say what he likes, but bad luck.' Well, I think that is an absolutely appalling attitude to this issue.

We have seen questions asked in the house. The deputy leader over the last two days has been asking the Deputy Premier and, to me, he seems quite flippant about it—really 'What's the big deal?' This is public property that has not been put out to a proper tender process. How do we know what the true value of that land is unless it has been put out to public tender? I know and everybody knows that the value of something is only what you can sell it for, but how do you know what you can sell it for if you do not ask around and you only give one proponent the opportunity to purchase this land?

Where do we want to be with this? The government is completely nebulous, to my way of thinking, on what the endgame will be and what the outcome will be of the sale of this land. The other day, the Deputy Premier was not making a joke of it but being a bit, to me, flippant about what the Treasurer had outlined were to be the benefits from the sale of this land. I think it is all a bit nebulous. We know that land had been identified for the now completely defunct, out-the-window and gone MFP. That was all pie-in-the-sky stuff. Some of us are old enough to remember the MFP. I think that was proposed in the Bannon government back in the 1980s. That was all pie-in-the-sky, airy-fairy, nebulous sort of stuff.

Mr Pengilly: A bit like time zones.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That is right, and, to me, this proposal that the government has for the future of this land that it has sold is pretty much the same. It cannot really guarantee what the outcome or the benefit will be from the sale of the land.

I have been down there. If my memory serves me correctly, back before the 2010 election there were proponents of establishing a motor sport facility there. I think I was the shadow minister for road safety at the time, and they were keen for me to come and inspect the site. It was just off the North Arm there. So I am sort of familiar with parts of that area of the north-western section of Adelaide suburbia—although it is not suburbia because it is sort of open land, but I think the house understands what I am saying. I understand what is down there.

How can anyone know what the true value of the land is without asking more than one entity? You cannot, and the government has been caught out. It has been caught red-handed in relation to this Gillman land issue. They seem to be recidivists in this type of dealing. We saw the fiasco with the rezoning of the land at Mount Barker, and that was subject to an investigation by the Ombudsman with a less than satisfactory report handed down by him in relation to the rezoning of the land at Mount Barker. I know that they are not exactly the same, but it goes to the point.

I remember at the time that the now Deputy Premier, who was then the planning minister, was saying, 'There'll be no more Mount Barkers on my watch.' Well, what are we faced with here with the Gillman land? The government is running roughshod over the proper process. It ran roughshod over the process at Mount Barker and Buckland Park was similar, and now we see the same process, running roughshod over a proper process in relation to the Gillman land sale. It is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace, and the government should own up to its mistakes and not just try to spin it, obfuscate, sweep it under the carpet, whatever description you want to put on it, in relation to this mess. I can tell you that it will not go away. I can tell the house that we will be hounding the government to the end of the earth in relation to the absolutely disgraceful way it has dealt with this.

I also want to make some comments in relation to the future of the Repatriation General Hospital. There was a rally held on the steps of Parliament House this morning, and I estimate there were at least 300 people attending that rally.

An honourable member: Were there any members of the government there, though?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: No. It was after church, because I went to church myself. Church was at 8 o'clock and finished at quarter to nine. The rally was at 10 o'clock, and I attended both. So you cannot use the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship Ecumenical service as the reason why there were no government members at the rally. As I look around the house there were a number of members here from the opposition who attended, and the feeling on the steps was palpable.

The emotion of those people who attended the rally was extreme, and for a very good reason. The Daw Park Repatriation Hospital is not just a place where there are buildings where people go for treatment. It has a soul, if I can use that description. Veterans and other people go there. They view it as a place of sanctuary, as a place of solitude, as a place for respite. I have been to the hospital myself, during my days as shadow minister for veterans' affairs. The chapel there is iconic. It provides, as I said, solace, and it is a sanctuary, and it is a quiet, calming place for people who have issues, who have problems, who have worries, that they can go to for help. You jam all that into the Flinders Medical Centre or other places, and you will destroy that; there is nothing surer than that.

During my term as shadow minister for veterans' affairs I got to understand to some degree what makes the veteran community operate. Everybody knows a veteran. The member for Finniss's father was a World War II veteran. The member for Hammond's brother was a veteran. Our family bought our farm from a World War I and a World War II veteran—a father and son. The father was a World War I veteran and the son was a World War II veteran. Everybody knows a veteran, whether it is a family member, a friend of the family, an acquaintance, or somebody like that. It is a vast community, and for the government again to run roughshod over this community is an absolute disgrace. The veteran community and those people who are supporting that community will not tolerate it. They will not tolerate it, and there was clear evidence of this on the steps of Parliament House this morning in relation to that.

A contract was signed by the government a number of years ago in relation to the Repatriation General Hospital, and the government is looking to break that contract. Again, that is an absolute disgrace—an absolute disgrace. I will talk about Ward 17. That is a unique facility, as I said, where troubled souls can go to have treatment. They know they are secure in that facility, they know they are safe, and that is a very important part of treating people with those types of afflictions. I think it is abhorrent that the government is looking to close that facility forever.

In closing and in the very short period of time I have got left, I want to raise the issue of the Mount Barker freeway interchange, what is regarded as the Bald Hills Road interchange. I attended the Public Works Committee meeting this morning where that project came before the committee. I was pleased to be invited to attend. I am absolutely delighted that, after 10 years of heavy lobbying, we are going to see that project progress.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:49): I would like to rise today to thank the Governor for his speech and to acknowledge his passionate and dedicated service to the people of South Australia, and also the support of his wife and two sons. They are great ambassadors for our state and are passionate in their new roles. I also welcome the new members for Fisher and Davenport and look forward to working side-by-side with them on many issues in this house, as I am sure we have common ground, even though we sit on different sides of chamber.

I would also like to acknowledge the service and commitment of the member for Wright and the work that she did on the front bench for many years. She was always dignified in the way in which she conducted herself in very difficult portfolios, and showed tenacity in trying to solve and address some of the problems she faced with those portfolios. I would also like to thank Uncle Lewis O'Brien elder of the Kaurna people for his Welcome to Country. Uncle Lewis always provides a dignified but also humorous start to any event that we are privileged to represent the government in, and his work is tireless as well.

The Governor's speech outlined a broad raft of reforms that this government is undertaking to improve the lives and livelihoods of all South Australians. Our state has many examples of the potential for growth and expertise in our local economy and this government is committing to fully realising the potential of our state's economy by supporting local industries, and I will touch on that in this speech.

Nuclear fuel is one of the areas that I am particularly passionate about and have been a long time advocate for. When I first went to an ALP national conference, I voted on these issues and I have continued to vote for the peaceful use of nuclear fuel. I highly commend the Premier's recent announcement to establish a royal commission to allow South Australians to have a mature debate and consider the role our state can and should play in the fuel cycle for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Many community members and business leaders have discussed this with me over many years.

The commission—to be headed by former governor, Kevin Scarce, a better appointment I could not think of—is a watershed moment where we can really look closely at how our state can leverage nuclear energy and our natural resources. I am also keen for us to add and further discuss the use of thorium, something that not many people seem to be aware of in this state. There is a great appetite for a mature discussion in this area from all sectors of the political circus. In fact, I have met members of the Greens, who have mature discussions about this. It is not just an emotional tirade; it is time we talked about facts and evidence, and I welcome this.

I would also like to talk about the future of submarines. The government has been highly committed to our local defence industry and the approximately 26,500 men and women who work and are employed in this sector. We have taken a very strong stance against the federal government which has tried locking us out of the Future Submarines Program. We have world-class technology and expertise on our doorstep and our industry and contractors deserve better and deserve our support.

It is shameful that the federal government is equivocal about whether our shipbuilders and maritime people should have the opportunity to have a look in and build our own submarines. It is also a sovereignty issue. The fact that the Prime Minister used the threats of Russia and North Korea yesterday in the debate is laughable and is not worthy of the position he holds.

Land 400 is similarly an important project that this state needs, and South Australia is well placed to play a major role in Defence's expenditure of roughly $10 billion in a land combat vehicle system procurement program with the Land 400. This is one of the largest, active armoured fighting vehicle programs in the world and is the army's equivalent to the Navy's future submarines and the Air Force joint strike fighters, which I had the pleasure of seeing in Fort Worth with the then minister for defence in 2013.

We are engaged with potential bidders from around the world promoting the state's credentials and exploring how we can best support their bids. I commend how the South Australian government is prepared to make significant investments in strategic infrastructure to ensure that South Australia is the home for the Land 400 project. I also note that the government recently launched a vision for a purpose-built Land Combat System Precinct, something I am very passionate about, seeing land combat vehicles regularly at the Edinburgh base in my electorate.

Something in my electorate that I am equally passionate about, apart from the Edinburgh base and the defence of our nation and the men and women who serve there, is the horticulture industry. Horticulture is a major economic contributor to my electorate and the state's economy. In fact, the industry contributes more than $1 billion to the state's economy. This government has been tremendously supportive in working with the industry to see that investment and trade continues to create more opportunities.

Late last year I hosted a round table to discuss how we can reform existing fire codes and building regulations, that were postponing more than $50 million worth of investments in the Northern Adelaide Plains. With the key support of cabinet ministers, key departmental staff and industry bodies we are now working closer together and this has allowed for trade and investment to flow into our area and to our state.

The minister's specification review, that was triggered as a result of the round table discussions for building codes, is progressively working very well. This will equate to more jobs and more investment. This will mean that more modern high-tech polyhouses are constructed and at a greater rate.

The Northern Adelaide Plains currently has around 1,300 glasshouse/polyhouse growers, but this will rise, as a result of the cutting of red tape, to around 1,800. The Northern Adelaide Plains region is being viewed as a good place to set up business. This is part of the $50 million in developments that was being delayed before the roundtable that are now coming to pass. The word has spread amongst the Vietnamese community predominantly that we are open for business and they are voting with their feet and wallets from Sydney and Melbourne. This is a great outcome.

Vietnamese polyhouse growers currently represent over half the polyhouse businesses in my electorate: 650 of the 1,300. I look forward to continuing to work with Hortex alliance and local growers to support them in building the horticulture industry. It is truly a growing sector and a green, prosperous sector that has many sustainability things, with the transition to the GMH plant's closure.

I would also like to mention a few things that I am passionate about in my private life that I welcomed in the speech of the Governor, representing the government's priorities. The renewal of public housing stock, as the member for Little Para mentioned, affects the northern suburbs. Having held the suburb of Elizabeth South for my first term, I am very passionate that that area eventually receives the attention and renewal it deserves. I know that the member will do a good job in representing them and I was happy to hand them over and know that they were in safe hands.

I am also passionate about transforming health, as a former health administrator, and veterans' affairs and I know this government will not do anything to harm the veterans community and will only build to substantially improve the conditions of all veterans communities of all age groups, particularly focusing on the returned veterans who are coming back from their recent service and peacekeeping operations abroad.

Tax reform is needed and is being welcomed by the business community and I look forward to that discussion. The paper on reforming our justice system is equally important. Proposals for time change: I have been listening to people from the West Coast as well as the edges near Mount Gambier in our state, and it is time we had these discussions in a mature way. I think it is important that a government leads and shows vision and depth and foresight and I am proud that the Premier and our cabinet are taking steps to advance these.

Family violence, as a former secretary of a domestic violence service in the southern suburbs, is something I am very passionate about and I work alongside the Northern Domestic Violence Service whenever I can to support these people. In fact, I get cases that come to my office that are truly tragic, and I think the reforms in this area are just as important.

In closing, I would also like to say that, being someone who likes fashion, I am very happy that Fashion Icons at the South Australian Art Gallery has received such a positive reception. As someone who might travel to arts events from time to time on behalf of the minister in that portfolio, moving the Adelaide Fashion Festival and expanding it into the CBD is a tremendous thing and I am very pleased that the government is supporting that. It is a dynamic and unique sector in South Australia that we should be growing, and it adds to the dynamism and vibrancy of our state. Thank you.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (11:58): I rise today to thank the Governor, Hieu Van Le AO, for delivering the Premier's speech. I have had the pleasure of spending some time listening to and watching the Governor carry out his duties since his appointment, and beforehand, and can I say that he and his wife are doing an exemplary job. The work they do is outstanding and of great service to the people of South Australia.

As a relatively new member of this house, I find it amazing that a 13-year-old Labor government is relaunching its agenda. You would think a government that has been in power for that long would know what is going on, but it now appears that the Weatherill Labor government is totally out of touch and has lost its way and is having to relaunch and reset. But the people have caught on to what is going on. For the first 12 months of government there has been no plan, there was nothing, and now the government is building its strategy on distractions.

Last year's Premier's speech, given by the Governor at the opening of parliament, featured making South Australia an affordable place to live—number one on the Weatherill Labor government's seven strategic priorities. So, after 12 months of nothing what do we see the government doing, or what has the government done, I should say? Well, our state debt just continues to grow. Last financial year, it ran up a $1.2 billion deficit. That is reckless and irresponsible. There is no fiscal discipline within this government.

So, after 12 months, and all that the government has delivered is more debt, it then prorogues parliament; in other words, it wipes the slate clean and starts again—a restart, a relaunch. I ask: what has been happening for the past 13 years? The Premier and his cabinet sit down at the relaunch and think, 'Well, we have got through the last 12 months without doing anything', and they decide what to do: let us have a bold new plan. That is right—another one!

First, they try a transforming health plan. After countless overspends on the new RAH project they have to find some savings, so they look for cuts. They label these cuts as a transforming health plan, and they cut the emergency centres at Noarlunga, Modbury and The Queen Elizabeth. That is right: they cut the emergency centres at three of our major city hospitals. Then they axe the Repat Hospital, thumbing their nose at veterans who have served our country with such distinction.

Well, that did not work. That was a great failure for the government, and the people of South Australia have been up in arms. There is a 24-day consultation process on this new bold plan—less than a month to decide which hospitals will be closed. It has been covered in the media and South Australians deserve more respect than this government is showing them. The backlash is great; people are up in arms.

This is added to the fact that South Australians have also realised that Treasurer Koutsantonis and the Premier have not been honest about the cuts to council rate pensioner concessions. The Treasurer has constantly blamed the federal government for the removal of these concessions, but the truth has come out: the federal government is responsible for just 10 per cent of the concessions, and the state government and Treasurer Koutsantonis is responsible for 90 per cent of these concessions. So that means that with the $190 concession for pensioners the federal government has removed $19—and, like everyone, we wish the federal government was not in a place where it had to tighten its national belt.

But the fact is that it is tightening by 10 per cent, while Treasurer Koutsantonis and Premier Weatherill have strangled the state's waste by 90 per cent. They have tightened the belt by 90 per cent, while the feds have by 10 per cent. Treasurer Koutsantonis and Premier Weatherill are taking $171—that is right, $171—from pensioners, and we oppose that attack on pensioners by this state Labor government.

There has also been the removal of the ESL rebates, with not one extra dollar going into emergency services. So, constant mismanagement has forced this state Labor government to cut, and it is cutting at a very big rate, hurting pensioners, as I have mentioned. So the news is not good. The Premier and health minister Snelling are attacking hospitals across the state, and Premier Weatherill and Treasurer Koutsantonis are attacking pensioners through removing 90 per cent of the pensioner concessions for council rates. Bear in mind that no other state has made this attack on pensioners. I mentioned last year's out-of-control spending, with the $1.2 billion deficit, $300 million of which was unbudgeted spending—a $300 million overspend that is out of control by this state Labor government.

Then there is an ICAC inquiry into the sale of Gillman land. This government is hiding, dodging and spinning any story it can because it cannot explain why it gave away land at a bargain basement price without following proper process. When a Supreme Court judge has questions about the government's processes, South Australians should be concerned.

So, with all this pressure coming to bear, and this going on in the media and South Australians up in arms, as they should be, what does this government do? It digs deep into its book of tricks and goes for distractions. It turns to the page headed 'distractions'. I have worked in the media for a while and I know how this distractions game works—I have seen it tried many a time. One of the old ones that is very popular: the AFL will always put out its distractions on Melbourne Cup day. It puts out its bad news on Melbourne Cup day and hopes that no-one is paying attention.

The state Labor government has gone for the same little track, the same spin: it has gone for distractions. All of these problems, with all the cuts it is making in health, what it is doing to the pensioners, the removal of the ESL rebates, is going for distractions. First, let us go for time zones: that is right, no agenda, no plan, let us just start a talkfest, let us start some distraction.

They say it is supported by Business SA, but I have never been approached by Business SA with this as an issue. I think it was an issue a decade or so ago but, with the evolving electronic age, it is much less a concern. Again, no-one in my electorate has ever come to me talking about time zones, and Business SA has never raised this with me. This is strategy No. 1, distraction No. 1.

Next, let's talk nuclear. Before the election, the Premier said: not on his watch. There was no way he was going to have nuclear power or the nuclear conversation in South Australia. But South Australians are still up in arms about the health cuts, about the cuts to pensioner concessions to council rates and about the removal of ESL rebates, so they need distraction No. 2. They go to the book and here it is. Distraction No. 2 is easy to roll out: let's start the nuclear conversation.

By all means, let's have the conversation but, if you are going to start this sort of debate, surely the state Labor government, after 13 years of being in power, if they were showing any sort of leadership, would start the debate with an agenda for discussion. They would have a scope for their royal commission. But, no: they deliver nothing. They must have given it some consideration. They must have had some ideas if this is what they have been working on for the last 13 years, or this is something that they think is important and they want to take it to the state and show some direction. But they have no direction at all. They just use it as a distraction, as I said, to hide behind the health cuts they are inflicting on South Australians and the cuts they are inflicting on pensioners.

The next step in the Weatherill Labor government's bold new plan is driverless cars. Do not get me wrong: I am all for us being a smart state. The idea is thrown out there, but where is the plan? Where is the agenda? This is just another distraction. If this was not a distraction, if this were not a tactic to draw people's attention away from the health cuts, pensioner council concession cuts and closing of the Repat hospital, if this were really a bold new reform, we would have legislation before this house as soon as we came back to parliament.

We would have detail about what and when we will have driverless cars on our roads. When is it going to happen? How will safety issues be covered? Who will be liable for accidents if cars are driverless? Will people in a driverless car be able to interact on their mobile phone? What is the detail? If this government were serious about driverless cars, we would have information on the table, but they just want another distraction. They want people talking about it in the media. This government wants to talk about driverless cars; the next thing you know they will want to talk about space ships. Let's get the detail on the table.

They want to do this because they want to distract people from the real public transport issues, too. I will just take some time to outline a couple of those because people are still talking about the Gawler rail line electrification. On one hand, they want to get the conversation going towards driverless cars but they do not want to talk about the Gawler rail line electrification. The Auditor-General's Report recently outlined $46.6 million that is written off in this program—wasted. Nearly $50 million is out the window, the Auditor-General says, because of mismanagement of this process.

There is too much waste by this government. They do not want to talk about it. They are not readdressing it. They are not going back to this situation. They are just going on and causing distractions, talking about pie-in-the-sky driverless cars without giving any detail to the people of South Australia or the parliament. Let's bring it on, I say. Let's go.

There is also the tramline down King William Street and the $20 million that has been wasted there—a $20 million spend on laying conduit to run the tramline from Victoria Square down to the Morphett Street Bridge. This is quite astonishing. It was in the media I think early in the new year: a report was released where there are over 1,000 defects in this tramline, a job that was rushed to be ready before the election and there was money wasted.

Plumber friends of mine have looked at the scope of this report and some of the faults that have happened in this project and they say that, in their plumbing jobs, If they had returned the same sort of workmanship, they would be sacked. There is no bedding sand laid down in the conduit pipes, the conduit pipes are running in the wrong direction, and water is leaking into the pits. We paid $20 million.

The government have legal action pending over this and we do not know what action is being taken. South Australians have paid $20 million for this upgrade, for workmanship that is not up to standard and does not meet specification. A report tabled and issued by the government shows that this is not what they paid for: it is below-standard workmanship. To get what they paid for and to get the scope of the project that they ordered, we have to dig up King William Street and re-lay this conduit down there, otherwise we are coming up short on what we have paid for.

This state needs to know this and these are the sort of issues that the government does not want out there. It wants to keep throwing distractions at you. We will need to find out more about what is happening with that conduit and the cable that has been laid down King William Street that does have water leaking into it. It has had some repairs already and $20 million has been spent. How much needs to be returned? How about getting the project that we scoped for and paid for? This government is not seeming to address that issue. The government does not want to talk about that. It wants to talk about things with no substance; things that it has not laid on the table.

The other one, of course, is the tax reform and the land tax that is being proposed. Here is another one they are trying to slide thorough. Quite frankly, South Australians have had enough. They want to talk about adding a $1,200 a year land tax to the average home. That is for a home valued at $400,000. Who knows where it is going to stop if your home is valued at a little bit more than that. South Australians do not know. They make it sound good on one hand by saying, 'We're taking away stamp duty,' but then they will add this new tax on again. This is a government that has mismanaged for 13 years and now they are trying to claw back cash any way they can. South Australians do not want another tax, especially a land tax. This government is just clawing back money, trying to take it back from South Australians any which way they can.

We also talk about the hospital and millions of dollars wasted there. Whilst we are on the topic of automatic or driverless cars, we can bring up the EPAS system, the driverless delivery system, the robotic transport system that is supposed to be rolling out in our hospitals. That is having all sorts of problems and even the government will concede that it is not on track and it is way over budget. On the one hand, we are talking about driverless cars but we cannot get the projects that this government has already started—they cannot get them operating efficiently and effectively. The EPAS system, again, is another one of them. They do not want to talk about that; they would rather have distractions and talk about things that are off into the future, that they are not putting on the table, they are not putting a process forward for, they are not putting an agenda forward for, they are not putting a scope forward for. We have nuclear, we have time zones, we have robotic cars or driverless cars. This government really is all about distractions and not about substance.

This government cannot understand that working with the people of South Australia and taking them on the journey is what this is all about. You cannot just keep throwing curveballs at people and asking them to front up and bat up every time. Remember that we are not 12 months into a first-term government—let's get this right: this is a 13-year-old, tired state Labor government. It has been 13 years and all it can offer up are distractions with no substance. South Australians deserve better and they want better, so I say let's get on with it.

The distractions in the media and on talkback radio—time zones, the nuclear debate, driverless cars—with no direction, no agenda, no scope from this government—they are just thought bubbles. It is a government of thought bubbles: it is all it can offer. Again, let's stop the thought bubbles and let's call on the government to stop the thought bubbles. Let's get into action; let's get on with running the state and stop the distractions. I call on this government to quickly start delivering.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (12:13): Congratulations and thank you to His Excellency the Governor for his speech on Tuesday. Thank you also to Uncle Lewis O'Brien for his welcome to country on Tuesday. We also thank him for his enduring leadership in our community on a range of issues impacting our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, and South Australia as a whole.

As I said in my inaugural speech, I remain committed to working alongside our Aboriginal community and our community at large towards constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people. I remain hopeful that it is in this term of federal government that it will finally occur. I look forward to what we can do here in this place to strengthen our community's understanding and progression of this issue which goes to the heart of what we value as Australians.

It is a pleasure to give this Address in Reply and it remains an incredible privilege to represent the people of Reynell in this place. It was also a privilege to be here in this place yesterday to hear my dear friend and now colleague, the member for Fisher, give her inaugural speech as part of this Address in Reply. It was a beautiful speech underpinned by her beautiful values, and it was a speech throughout which her integrity and determination to represent people well shone. It is an honour to call Nat Cook (member for Fisher) a friend, and I look forward to everything we will do together with and for our southern community and for all South Australians. Although he has not yet had the opportunity to give his inaugural speech, I also congratulate the new member for Davenport on his election, and wish him the very best for his time here.

It is just over nine months since I had the opportunity to give my inaugural speech. Every moment in every day of the almost a year since I was elected to represent the strong, community-minded, resilient, hardworking and kind people of Reynell, I am grateful for the privilege of doing so. It is an honour to do so, and I remain committed to working as hard as I possibly can to ensure that every member of our community is treated fairly, is able to live their life with dignity and respect, is able to access great services and support when they need them, is able to access quality health care and the best possible education, can be supported in pathways to decent and secure jobs, and is able to be included in every aspect of community life no matter what their circumstance.

My motivation to work with others to create a fair community remains, and indeed is strengthened by the unique perspective that we have as elected members of parliament: a perspective where I get to see, know, support and empower so many people in our community who are committed to supporting others and seeing them flourish, and where I witness on a daily basis the web of this selfless generosity that is the soul of our community. It is also a year where I have witnessed, in my own community, a great resilience and camaraderie when times are tough, and that is both a great privilege and a source of continual inspiration.

It is the year where I have had the privilege of seeing this web of generosity and resilience at the heart of my community, but I have also witnessed it across our great state. Our Governor spoke about the spirit of community and cooperation he witnessed during our recent fires, and also spoke about the extraordinary capacity of South Australians to overcome adversity and emerge stronger. I could not agree with him more.

I could not sleep during that first Friday night of those terrible fires—unfortunately, sleep is rarely my companion, but that is another story—and as I watched news services and social media for hour after hour, I was unbelievably moved by two stories unfolding before my wide-awake eyes: a story of frightening fire burning into people's lives and devastatingly sending them fleeing from their homes; and a story of inspiring courage displayed by those fleeing and those who helped them in so many ways.

I visited our local Morphett Vale CFS station as soon as I could, to see if the hardworking volunteers needed anything at all. I was moved by their tireless work, their humour amidst their weariness, and their incredibly well-organised operation. I pay tribute to every one of our emergency service volunteers who worked around the clock in the days, weeks and months that followed, and who continue to do so, week in and week out, to keep our community safe.

As the days and weeks following the fires unfolded, our community's story of generosity and resilience continued to be written. Community organisations, churches, sporting clubs, service organisations, and individuals who simply made a decision to lead, to give, and to do something, emerged from every corner of our state. Our community's determination, sense of common purpose, resilience and generosity made a real difference to people's lives. As our Governor said, it is that determination, sense of common purpose and resilience that will enable us to also successfully meet the economic challenges that confront us.

Having proudly spent many years in the union movement, representing workers and bringing them together during the toughest of times, I feel deeply for those workers at Holden and in the car components industry, including a number in Reynell, who are currently uncertain about their future job security. Equally, I feel for those workers at ASC who, due to our federal government's failure to recognise their skills and careless disregard for the need for local jobs, also face an uncertain future.

As the federal government's cruel budget cuts reach deep into the community sector, whose workers support and empower our most vulnerable citizens, I am outraged by the fact that these workers, and those whom they look after, are also feeling uncertainty about their jobs and their capacity to keep supporting our community as the impact of these cuts looms.

These workers work in one of the fastest growing industries in our country. Amongst them, they have the highest number of multiple tertiary degree holders. Eighty-five per cent of them are women, and daily they support people at the coalface of need in our community, which has an ageing population and a growing complexity of community need. It is imperative that we work together as a state to support all these workers and their industries. As our Governor said, we need to throw open our doors to new opportunities for our priority sectors.

I welcomed the Governor's comments about the need for a more open planning system, but one which includes everyone in the process of improvement and renewal. Good planning is planning which incorporates the community's voice and engenders the principles around development that community identifies. Healthy communities are communities in which everyone has a say about what makes their community strong and vibrant and what could be improved. Community members must be at the centre of envisaging what their suburbs will look and feel like in the long term.

As mentioned in my inaugural speech, I am committed to ensuring the community's voice is heard in the contemplation of the renewal of Christie Downs and the renewal of people's Housing Trust SA homes in that suburb. It was lovely to hear about our Governor's passion for promoting South Australia to South-East Asia and beyond and how South-East Asia remains close to his heart.

Since having the privilege of hearing our Governor's speech when he first became our Governor, his words about his and his wife Lan's journey to Australia have stayed with me, particularly his words about arriving with nothing but a 'suitcase of dreams'. I wholeheartedly support his words about the beautiful diversity of our community and also wholeheartedly support the need to move away from simply accepting new people into our community to a community which understands and welcomes.

We have a long history of leading the way in relation to multiculturalism, and I look forward to our state leading further national discussion about how we can become a community that truly understands, welcomes and accepts people from every corner of the globe. I share his passion for attracting new jobs, investors and tourists to our great state and welcome the establishment of the body focused on this.

Our Governor spoke at length about how our exchange and engagement with community is integral to our state's character. I could not agree more. I am proud that in relation to key issues in our community, health reform, the nuclear industry and taxation reform, our government has invited South Australians to express their views and to participate in the debate. Change can be difficult, but it is effectively made and/or tempered when the people whom a proposed change affects are engaged, are enabled to have a strong voice and are encouraged to traverse the journey together with their representatives.

Our Governor also spoke about the renewal of the Department for Education and Child Development and its services. It is beyond question that the education, development, wellbeing and support of our young citizens is the highest and most important responsibility for all of us in this place, and indeed for the entirety of our broader community. I know from my own experience that, no matter what difficulties a child faces, they are helped to flourish with the right kind of care, attention and support at school and in the broader community.

It is imperative for the future of South Australia that as a community we look after our children and young people, prioritise ensuring that they have access to the highest quality education and the attention they deserve in our schools and see every one of our children and young people nurtured, treated with compassion and respect, safe and supported to reach their full potential. We can only achieve this through working together with compassion, with kindness, with the use of our best possible collective thinking, through rigorously putting the needs of our children and young people first and through educating, empowering and protecting our children and ensuring our schools, as our Governor said, remain first and foremost focused on students and their families.

I come from a family filled with teachers and I know from what I hear from the many people that I encounter who have been taught by one of my family members that they, like many teachers, are dedicated to the students they teach and work tirelessly to ensure the students in their care flourish. I look forward to our debate about teaching qualifications.

I also look forward to our work to continue to prioritise early childhood development. Rightly, our government sees an investment in early childhood development as the single most important way to alleviate poverty and disadvantage, particularly for Aboriginal people. I am motivated by a strong belief that through bringing every energy in a community together around the goal of alleviating poverty that we will make a difference with and for our younger South Australians and, in doing so, with and for every South Australian community. Together we can make a difference for our most vulnerable citizens. Together we must make a difference and together and only together we will.

We can also make a difference together in eliminating discrimination across our community and ensuring every South Australian has equal access to every service and institution in our community. I wholeheartedly support our government's intention to invite the South Australian Law Reform Institute to review every avenue of discrimination against South Australians on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or intersex status to ensure that every aspect of our democracy is inclusive.

I was heartened by our Governor's affirmation in relation to the strengthening of responses to violence against women and reassured that the connection between gender inequality and discrimination and violence against women was recognised. Shockingly, six women have already died this year as a result of intimate partner violence. Domestic violence is now the leading cause of death and illness amongst women aged 15 to 44. More than one woman is killed in Australia every single week as a result of domestic violence. Every statistic about domestic violence is worse if you are young, if you are Aboriginal or if you have a disability.

Ending violence against women is one of the greatest challenges our generation faces across the globe. It continues to stem from gender inequality which remains in our community in so many different areas. The fact that gender inequality continues to reinforce to some of our young men that it is okay to control a women through physical, emotional or psychological violence just because they have been in or are in a relationship with them is unacceptable. It is up to every one of us in this place and every one in our community to reinforce using every means and forum that we can that violence is never an option.

I will not and cannot rest until we end violence against women and I will be relentless in doing whatever I can as a member of government to progress the strategies outlined in the Governor's speech and every other measure that we can. I know that there are many others in this place who have a similar resolve, and on that note I thank the members for Little Para and Taylor for sharing their passions in this regard in their Addresses in Reply this morning.

I will relentlessly fight the federal Liberal government's $44 million cuts to homelessness services which will devastate those services that support women and children escaping domestic violence, and I invite every member of parliament to join this fight and every community member who wants violence against women to stop to join also.

It is too important for us not to fight this cut together or for it to be caught up in party politics. I will continue to work to ensure that the recommendations that arise from the Social Development Committee's inquiry into domestic violence that I moved to establish are fully considered and enacted and, again, I invite every member to work together towards the full consideration and enactment of those recommendations.

In thousands of communities in more than 200 nations around the globe this Saturday, Valentine's Day, community members will participate in a global action against violence against women called One Billion Rising, named so because devastatingly now more than one billion women and girls around the world experience violence at some time in their lifetime. If anybody is interested we will be gathering at Rotary Park in Christies Beach at 10.30am to join this action and I invite all members to be part of it.

Mr Knoll: It's a bit of a drive.

Ms HILDYARD: It is a lovely drive. Come to the great part of town. Again, only together with one strong voice can we end violence against women. In closing, I draw on our Governor's closing words and reiterate them. We must keep our hearts and minds open. We must continue to work together and insist on fairness and integrity if South Australia is to be a place known around the world as the place where people and business thrive. I look forward to bringing those values to life and working together for South Australia throughout this current session of parliament.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:29): It was wonderful to hear the new Governor speak on Tuesday. He is an impressive man and one I have now had the pleasure of meeting a number of times, even this morning as we sat at the ecumenical service to mark the opening of parliament. All parliamentarians need to use opportunities for reflection and potentially for trying to save our souls from the often difficult decisions we make in our parliamentary careers. I am very much looking forward to the prayers of the combined clergy who were there today as they help us in our deliberations.

It has been a restful time in the electorate of Schubert. I have managed to get around to quite a number of events locally over the Christmas break and a lot of events in response to the Sampson Flat bushfire. I want to leave my broader remarks on that score to the motion that has been put forward in relation to that so as to deal with that topic more fulsomely.

I would like to welcome everyone back to this place. We have all very much assumed our places again. The clerks and the house staff are ready, attentive and eager to continue the high standard of service to the parliament that we have come to expect. The government backbenchers have already slumped into their seats, looking disinterested, but I expect them occasionally to stir from their torpor to interject with what they believe to be witty observations—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are reflecting on members.

Mr KNOLL: —that for the rest of us only serve to make us realise that they have forgotten that they are part of the government, and from time to time they might like to take responsibility for that fact. We, on this side, stand ready to play our part, to hold this hapless government to account and to offer an alternative vision to the people of South Australia.

I am pleased to welcome the new members to this place: the member for Fisher gave her Address in Reply speech the other day, and my great friend, Sam Duluk, member for Davenport, I have no doubt will leave his mark on this place as he gets more involved in the workings of parliament. He is a man of great values and a man of deep thinking who will add much to the parliamentary deliberations.

I would like, for a moment, to reflect on the year that was, 2014, especially as we consider the opening of parliament that happened in December. At a time when we can least afford it, and in light of the fact that just 11 months after an election we need a bold new agenda, we can only see 2014 as an abject failure for the government, a year when the government had been in charge of the state for 12 years—a Labor Party that went to the election with a booklet that was always safely nestled into the bosom of the Premier. I wonder where that manifesto has been for the past year. I genuinely do. I understand the half with the glossy pictures but I figured the other half would have had something worth legislating in it. It makes me realise that they have had no agenda for South Australia for the past 12 months.

Without the Attorney-General, who I have quietly coined the Quiet Reformer—and I know that he is quite chuffed when I mention that—we could have put this parliament into extended recess for all the legislation that was brought to the house. This proroguing, and the speech by the Governor, is a clear signal that even after 12 years in office this government needed its gap year. It needed a gap year to go and find itself, to get its head straight. This is the clearest signal to the people of South Australia that we have had 12 months of wasted government and wasted opportunity at a time when our state can least afford it. When I joined the Liberal Party, I was young and ebullient and sometimes a little bit obtuse—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What? You are not anymore?

Mr KNOLL: —and had discussions with other precocious young Liberals about the nature of power as we sat there dreaming of our potential future careers. Through the course of our discussions we came to the idea that before you seek power you must understand what it is that you want to do with it. Before you seek power, you must understand what it is that you want to do with it. It is clear from the process that we are currently undertaking here today that the Labor Party does not understand that. They went to the election with the sole aim of winning that election, and they will figure out what they are going to do with the governing part afterwards.

Can I say that I do not blame solely the state Labor Party. I will give them some latitude. I believe it is something that befalls all centre left governments and parties around the world. Since the Labor Party split over communism, the Labor Party struggled to understand who it truly is, from the Whitlam 'spend it like there's no tomorrow' era, to the Keating-Hawke microeconomic reform agenda of the eighties, to the dour sensible management approach of the Bannon government.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! All members are entitled to be heard in silence. I remind members of standing order 142 and ask the member for Schubert to continue his remarks.

Mr Picton: Because the member for Schubert always does that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr KNOLL: I say this quite cynically, to the dour sensible management approach of the Bannon government, but I suppose that is a bloke whom we do not talk about too much anymore, and probably because there is a $3½ billion hole to his credibility. I will genuinely enjoy pointing out that fact in future private members' motions.

Mr Gardner: That was just two years of time as treasurer.

Mr KNOLL: That is right. There was only a $1.2 billion deficit this year, but it is okay because I have made the books look like we are going to turn it around this year. We move on to the spin, spin and keep spinning approach of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd and Rann eras. It is true that Labor cannot articulate what it stands for anymore. The loose term of social democracy and a fair go is hollow and it has been manipulated. It is code for, 'Spend until you run out of other people's money. Whack it all on the credit card and pray for a fiscally responsible Liberal government to clean up the mess and make the hard choices later.'

The Labor experiment has failed and 53 per cent of South Australia's population at the last election agreed—53 per cent of the population, a two-party preferred vote that in any other jurisdiction in the country would have delivered a resounding Liberal majority government. As I said in speeches last year, I admit that the Labor Party won the election based on the system and the boundaries that we have.

The Hon. A. Piccolo interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I draw your attention to my previous ruling and I will have to call you to order if you continue in this frame of mind.

Mr Gardner: He's obstructing you, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will obstruct all of you in a sec!

Mr KNOLL: What I will not accept is whether this system delivers the government that the people of South Australia want, or indeed whether this system delivers the best for the people of South Australia. Electoral reform is essential and I have come into this place as a 32 year old who has nowhere else to go, and this is a cause that I will continue to champion. I would love to have met Adam Slobodian, the Labor candidate for the seat of Schubert, but I understand that his campaigning activities may have been a little bit more limited than my own.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You devastated him.

Mr KNOLL: I was waiting for my great debate. Alas, it did not come. Electoral reform is essential, not so that the Liberal Party can win elections—and I am cuing scoffing from the other side—but because a reformed system can lead to better decision-making across the state by removing a degree of politics from economic decision-making. We had much discussion last year around alternative models and I am a great advocate (as was the previous member for Davenport) of the top-up system, because what it does is it removes marginal seat politicking from having primacy in our electoral cycle. It will actually remove that by allowing the two-party preferred vote to have primacy and therefore valuing the entire state equally. As Don Dunstan used to love to talk about one vote, one value, I would love to see a vote in Taylor or a vote in Little Para be just as important as a vote in Newland or a vote in Florey.

Since 1965, South Australia has been on a slow and steady decline. In fact, I think the Premier referred to it as a genteel decline. Whether it has been population growth, share of the national economy, household prosperity or any number of measures, we have seen this great state slide. We are a great state that has been let down by a government with no credible plan to advance our economy. This government reminds me of a child at high school who consistently comes home with a subpar report card and comments from teachers saying, 'Johnny has a lot of potential but fails to do the work. Unless he changes his attitude he will never amount to much.'

We in SA have so much potential, from our strong agricultural economy and downstream food manufacturing to our strong services and education sector or our world-class tourism sector, especially that which is based in our regions—in the beautiful region of the Barossa Valley and the Murraylands—to our mining sector. It is only the Liberal Party that has the underpinning values to see our state prosper. Our understanding is that we need a strong economy to create jobs and, in order for this to happen, we need to have strong fundamentals, and by that I mean competitive taxation and a taxation review that does not say from its outset, 'Hang on, we are not going to lower taxes. Everything we are talking about here has to be revenue neutral.'

Any hope that the community has out there for tax relief has been dashed in the first blow by this current taxation discussion paper. We need competitive taxation, a lean, efficient and dynamic public sector, infrastructure investment in our productive capacity and a culture that breeds and rewards entrepreneurialism, risk-taking and aspiration. Fifty-three per cent of the state agreed with our values and have given us the mandate to do what we can from opposition to advance this.

Speaking of the sense of déjà vu that many of us would be feeling at the moment, thinking, 'Hang on, didn't we go through this exact process nine months ago?', I took a look back and took some time to see what the Labor government told us they stood for last year. I came across this quote from the Treasurer soon after his appointment as the Treasurer, and I believe it needs repeating today. He said it in an Advertiser article, and I would like to quote this quite clearly: 'I very much don't believe in high taxation.' The Treasurer said, less than 12 months ago: 'I very much don't believe in high taxation.'

I believe that the people of South Australia deserve an apology. If the Treasurer so very much does not believe in high taxation, what is the attempted introduction of the new car park tax? What were the emergency services levy increases? What were the pension concession council rate increases? What are the water price increases with the overinflated valuation of the regulated asset base? This government has done nothing over the past 12 months if not prosecute a high-taxing agenda.

The Premier says, and he states it often: 'When we are looking at whether or not we are going to try to increase revenue or cut spending, we will always err on the side of increasing revenue.' He talks about it in terms of protecting jobs, but it is a dog whistle that is there all the same to say that he is a man who is all in favour of increased taxation.

There are a great many ideas that we could be discussing in this place rather than the blunt, simplistic and failed high-tax model that the Labor Party has put forth. We could be talking about, for instance, community-based service delivery that connects our most vulnerable people with the government around them. We could be discussing public sector reform to unlock the potential of our dedicated people in our government departments. We could be talking about asset recycling so that we can afford to build new productive infrastructure instead of just whacking it all on the credit card.

We could be talking about taxation reform, and I mean real taxation reform, instead of just where else it is that we can find money within the state to prop up the failing budget—reform that helps to grow our economy and not stifle it. We could be talking about strong industry policy that enables our secondary and tertiary economies to grow and is committed to removing roadblocks to job creation. We could be talking about education reform—a platform which the Liberal Party can be quite proud of having taken to the last election. This is a real reform agenda for our education sector that does not accept the current mediocre performance of our system.

But we talked about none of these things. Indeed, we talk about not much except for the latest measure that the government takes in hitting the household budget. It has been a theme over the past 12 months, and we have seen it with the Governor's speech a couple of days ago. Indeed, we saw it with the taxation discussion paper that was released yesterday. What we are going to see going forward is increasing taxes, more increasing taxes and further hits to the household budget.

I would like to turn my attention to the beautiful electorate of Schubert. Out in my neck of the woods, the people of the Barossa and the Murraylands have been getting on with the job despite what is happening here on North Terrace. Can I say that, since the late nineties and early 2000s, since the boom within the wine industry and the associated tourism boom that went with it in my area, we have seen a stagnation in the wine economy in South Australia and around the country, and that has been largely due to increased plantings and increases in the dollar, and there have been market fluctuations in the demand for Australian wine. It has been due to a whole heap of factors, but we have seen a really negative, pessimistic mood in the wine economy basically over the past decade. But can I say that, in the Barossa at least, we are starting to see the green shoots of recovery and the green shoots of optimism. Certainly, the drop in the dollar by 20¢ has helped largely in that regard.

What excites me about the wine industry is that it is an industry that invests for the long-term. In fact, In Germany, in Bavaria, they have a term for long-term businesses that reinvest in their assets and also take a longer-term view of their lifecycle, and it is called Mittelstand. There are businesses that are Mittelstand businesses that everybody would know about. Audi, for instance, is a Mittelstand business. Siemens is often referred to as a Mittelstand business.

There are bootmakers to semiconductor manufacturers to all types of industries where there are family-owned, intergenerational businesses that realise that you cannot move beyond your means, that if there are bad times now you need to reinvest to wait for the good times to turn around the corner. Can I say that, if South Australia had more of a Mittelstand culture, our economy may not be as dynamic or as exciting, but it would be stable, it would be growing and it would be much more resilient to deal with the hard times.

I have seen a lot of that in the Barossa, because even though the wine economy has been stagnant, we have seen investment and we have seen a strong confidence that goes against the prevailing economic mood over the past decade. We have seen the approval now of a new shopping centre complex to be built at Nuriootpa by the co-op. Can I say for a moment that the co-op is a fantastic local institution. It is a cooperative model that I think we need to encourage and roll out across the country. It has 17,000 members, which according to them says that about 90 to 95 per cent of the people who live in the Barossa are members of the co-op.

That co-op has turned around and is looking to reinvest in its infrastructure and bring more services and more products to the people of the Barossa Valley. I look forward to that, because I think it will help to keep people in our region as opposed to them having to go down to neighbouring towns such as Gawler to do other types of shopping. No offence intended to the beautiful electorate of Light.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: They still do come.

Mr KNOLL: They do, indeed. We are working on it as we speak. We have seen the completion of the Jam Factory and Fino restaurants at Seppeltsfield and the millions of dollars that have been poured into bringing what was an iconic South Australian business back to life. Can I thank Warren Randall and everyone else around him for that work, because it is a real shot in the arm for the Barossa and, especially with the opening of the Fino restaurant, helps to develop a culture of fine dining in the Barossa that will help to attract a new breed of visitor to our region.

We have seen approval and demolition work start on a new St Hugo cellar door at Jacob's Creek. I was lucky enough to tour the future facility a few weeks ago and to look at the amount of money that an international business such as Pernod Ricard is investing in South Australia, which really underlies the resilience of the wine industry in the Barossa. We have seen investment in Barossa Valley Estate and a new-look cellar door that is on its way to being opened, and that is again a great investment in a business that was otherwise on its knees.

We have seen the expansion of storage capacity at Vinpac. In fact, if I go for a jog, it takes me about 500 metres until I look at the beautiful new sheds that are being finished off at Vinpac there in response to the demand for wine and wine storage that that business has undertaken. It really is a great business to have in the Barossa, because it does underpin manufacturing jobs that we are seeing being lost around other parts of the state.

We are also seeing, and it is a few doors up from my house, the long-awaited extension to the Barossa Valley Cheese Company. It is great to see Victoria McClurg and the fantastic people and products that they produce expanding. They have knocked down the old baker's cottage that was there and have levelled it off. I know that work is going to begin very soon on putting down the foundations. Again, it is a fantastic investment in the Barossa. It will help to diversify our food production and economy up there and is really exciting.

We have seen new dealerships being built in Tanunda and the shift of Jarvis Subaru from Angaston to Tanunda. All of these investments which would add up to many tens of millions of dollars show a real confidence in the local economy that really quite excites me.

One project, though, that is not on the list—and, again, this is another perennial that the members for Schubert deal with—is a new health facility for the Barossa. Transforming Health was seen, especially by the government, as a genuine chance to look at the needs of all communities in relation to health but, unfortunately, the Transforming Health document does nothing for regional and rural service provision across our state. Certainly, one could argue about regional people accessing city-based hospitals, and I accept that argument, but I do not accept that we should have substandard health care in the regions.

It is interesting to note that some of the arguments put forward about the Repat and the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre concern the age of their facilities. Well, I have a hospital in Angaston that was built in 1910—and if that is not a facility that is due for an upgrade, I do not know what is. I have another facility in Tanunda that was built in the 1950s and has not seen any real money invested in it since that time.

The Barossa is crying out for a new health facility if for no other reason than the Barossa Council is the tenth fastest growing council in this state. Population growth will demand increased and better service provision in the Barossa, and the sooner the government comes to that realisation, the sooner we can get on and start delivering a project the people of the Barossa have been talking about and, indeed, fundraising for since about 1992.

Can I say again on that score that, as a 32-year-old man with nowhere else to go, this is a project I will not let go of. I will be speaking about this until the day it is delivered—and, indeed, if it is delivered by a Labor government, I will be more than happy to give credit where credit is due and would be more than happy to sing the praises of what would be a very visionary and very bold announcement.

I am looking forward to this parliamentary year. It is not in my nature to be pessimistic, it is not in my nature to be relentlessly negative; unfortunately, when I am delivered so much fodder, it is too easy. But I remain optimistic for the coming year, Deputy Speaker. Indeed, it may not be rational but, as a politician, I need to have hope, especially sitting on this side of the chamber because, without hope, how am I ever to deal with the disappointments to come? It is extremely timely that, once again, the members of Schubert, in the plural sense, are here to continue fighting for a new health facility in the Barossa. I would like to acknowledge in the gallery—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's my job.

Mr KNOLL: Oh, I'm sorry. I wouldn't want to take that pleasure—

Mr Griffiths: You can do that too.

Mr KNOLL: Well, if we both do it, he will feel more important. Can I acknowledge the current President of the Parliamentary Wine Association, and I look forward to continuing that service after the AGM today. I also congratulate him on his elevation to the position of Chair of RDA Barossa, and I look forward to working with him closely, so that he can continue his legacy and I can continue my legacy in delivering for the people of Schubert.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:52): I too would like to rise and make a small contribution. First of all, I welcome our two new members to the chamber. One thing I have noticed is that, on this side, we have welcomed both new members into the chamber, but I have seen a lack of support from the government side of the chamber in welcoming our new member for Davenport.

An honourable member: It was done earlier.

Mr WHETSTONE: I am not talking about the new member for Fisher; I am talking about the rest of the members in the chamber with their speeches.

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Maybe Eddie did; maybe John did.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Confine your remarks not to a reflection on other members' speeches but to your own, sir.

Mr WHETSTONE: Perhaps the minister needs to concentrate on his portfolio with the CFS. I would like to welcome the two new members into the chamber. I am sure that they will make a fine contribution. I know that the new member for Davenport will make a good contribution. With his financial background, I am sure that he will be able to point the government in the right direction about how they can pick up the mess they have got this state into over 13½ years. What we do need to reflect on is having good people in the parliament and making sure that they can make a contribution, that they can represent their electorate.

What I would like to do is to kick off quickly with the elephant in the room that I do not think too many people would want to talk about, and that is the remuneration for the members in this place. We always seem to dodge and weave that issue, because the media seem to pick up on it and give us a belting, saying we have a big fat salary and large retirement packages. Well, let me tell you: we don't.

I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone here that all MPs work extremely hard. They have to be resilient, they have to be on notice 24/7, their work is 24/7. For those who aren't, they probably do not deserve to be here. But I do speak on behalf of everyone in this chamber when I say that the remuneration package is not what the fluff implies, when people say that we have a fat retirement package on its way and an exorbitant salary. So, I welcome the announcement that we will look at a remuneration package. Having been here for five years and coming off the land, it has been quite an adjustment, financially, but it has been very rewarding in many other ways.

I will move on now and talk about the Governor's speech, prepared by the government. I think the Governor has great talent. He has a strong background in South Australia, he has great knowledge of his roots and South Australia's needs, and I would like to have thought that he could have written the speech on his own. But I am sure that he was directed by the Premier and the government to come out and say what he had to say.

I do congratulate His Excellency Hieu Van Le on the great job he is doing. I have known him for a number of years, and I think his appointment to the role is most welcome. I think he will do a great job in his term, as did Kevin and Liz Scarce, the previous governor of the state and his wife. And I congratulate the great work that he has done and will continue to do for the state.

There are a few things that I noted in the Governor's speech. One has been noted a couple of times on this side of the house, namely, that there was very little acknowledgement of regional South Australia and even less acknowledgement of the economy driver in this state that has been around for 120 years and will continue to be around for 120 years—it is a sustainable economy—and that is agriculture. It is farming, which produces our food, produces a majority of our exports, produces 45 per cent of tourism in this state and also employs a lot of people.

While we see the mining resources come and go, we note that the government continues to pin its hopes on what the mining sector will offer this state as it continues to slide out of our grip. It is becoming a factor when it comes not only to the economy today but the economy of the future. We are seeing the mining sector having to reform, and we look at a lot of the big miners at the moment laying off jobs, positions, restructuring and looking at better ways they can extract ores out of the ground and have them processed. But what we continue to see is a sustainable agriculture sector that is a renewable.

We continue to get better every year. We do not dig a hole in the ground and all of a sudden we have less in the ground. We grow, and we are growing more and more within a certain designated area. We are growing more with less water. We are growing better production with some of the technologies, but with a decreasing amount of R&D going into the sectors. The government is continually walking away from its responsibility with funding SARDI. I see PIRSA is almost a basket case when it comes to the funding and support the government is giving that department. That is a real concern when we know we have a Premier who continues to bang on about food, wine, safe, clean and green, and yet we are being lent on, if you like, when it comes to R&D.

We see many of the sectors having decreased support around their R&D, but still having to work out how they are going to access markets, about how they are going into some of these new export markets. And I see there is a lot of pomp and ceremony about what the current government is doing with its new trade and investment minister at the helm. However all we are seeing is a lot of ministers travelling overseas without businesses. Instead we should be setting up how we can better trade with our new free trade agreement partners and how we can better trade with our neighbours. We have, for instance, the Gateway Program. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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