HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Appropriation Bill 2015

Estimates Committees

The Legislative Council gave leave to the Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills (Hon. G.E. Gago), the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation (Hon. I.K. Hunter) and the Minister for Manufacturing and Innovation (Hon. K.J. Maher) to attend and give evidence before the estimates committees of the House of Assembly on the Appropriation Bill, if they think fit.

Appropriation Grievances

Adjourned debate on motion to note grievances.

(Continued from 1 July 2015.)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is continuing and he has five minutes to go.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (15:48): Five minutes—well, how about that. I think when I was last on my feet I was talking about some of the issues or some of the downfalls with the government's trade policies. It is great to see the minister here, and I am sure that he is working diligently, writing policy and making sure that South Australia has better trade numbers than it currently does.

South Australia is coming to rely more and more on food and fibre, beverages and wine, and less and less on resources. I think that for far too long we have watched this current government pin their hopes on what is the flavour of the moment. We have missed the mining boom, but we have not missed a renewable resource, and that is particularly our ability to be able to grow premium, blue-sky, safe food.

What I want to just touch on in the short amount of time remaining is that, obviously, on this side, we are in opposition and we do criticise the government on some of their budget priorities and their priorities in general about how the state runs. I want to touch on ways that an economic stimulus could be developed and how we could potentially grow our employment and economic base.

I want to touch on a couple of projects, which, travelling around the state, I have seen as a glaring and obvious advancement of food production, and just exactly where I think we are missing the mark. The north has obviously been highlighted with the demise of manufacturing. To be quite honest, I know that ministers and people within the government continue to blame the commonwealth government, but I think we need to look past that because the blame game needs to stop and we need to get on with growing our economy. We need to look at opportunities. As I have already said in this place a number of times, I have been in that seat: I worked for the car manufacturing sector, I was retrenched and I moved on, and that is what I think South Australia needs to do.

In the north, obviously if we are looking at economic opportunities, infrastructure is probably one of the biggest issues that is lacking there, particularly power. I am sure many people in this chamber have seen the D'Vine operation out at the Gawler Plains, and some members might have been up to Port Augusta and had a look at the Sundrop operation. They are world-class operations, they are the way of the future and they are an opportunity begging for support.

Private investors recently came to D'Vine. They are always seeking a little bit of government assistance to help them along the way, and the only thing that is stopping them from expanding and doubling their production is power. Just imagine an extra 500 jobs there. If we look at the purple pipe water from Bolivar, that is sending re-used water out north to grow food and to provide third-party access to the Clare and Gilbert valleys in order to make them viable and more profitable. There are a couple of issues.

Let's look at the south. We have a water minister who is in denial. He is in absolute denial about how precious the resource is. The minister is playing political games with basin plans and numbers and really does not give a hoot about the impacts of the basin plans, who is giving up water and what it means to our economic base. Let's look at Lake Albert as an example. Lake Albert is a large watercourse with high salinity, and we are very much unable to use a lot of that water. For the minister to use federal money to put a connector into the Coorong, it is a double win: not only does it help the environment and send a message to our Eastern States counterparts within the river system to say that we are being proactive and we are addressing our water issues down here but also it could potentially turn what is currently a $3 million economy into a $40 million economy and put some confidence back into that region.

If we look at river communities, at the moment they are giving up all their water so that South Australia can honour the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. How about we turn on the desal? At the moment, we see that the desal has been through its warranty stage of 18 months. We saw the price go up, but we have not seen the price come back down now that the desal is not operating. Let's turn on the desal, lease out some of the water and grow crops. If we grew some annual crops, that would be about negatively gearing what is a mothballed $2.3 billion or $1.8 billion piece of infrastructure doing nothing. Let's turn it into productive infrastructure. Water security in South Australia needs to be a priority.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:53): I continue my response to the Appropriation Bill, having last stood up on this issue at 10pm on Tuesday evening, so I am pleased to finally get back to it, and I thank the whip for giving me this opportunity. I had got to the point where I was discussing the emergency services levy. Of course, this issue is causing much grief within regional South Australia. I have never seen a government alienate regional communities over any particular issue as much as this one has.

With the removal of the remission last financial year, there was a significant increase in what landowners, businesses and home owners were paying around the state. For a lot of farmers, whose properties are admittedly worth a considerable amount of money in some instances, their ESL bill has gone up by some thousands of per cent.

What we have seen, of course, is a backlash. This is a developing story, because those very landowners and those very farmers are also the volunteers who man the CFS trucks. The Treasurer has built into this coming year's budget another 9 per cent increase in the cost of the emergency services levy. It is nothing more than a land tax. It is a triple hit on volunteers; not only do they pay the levy but they also volunteer their time, service and skills to what are essential services. They also lose time from their own businesses and jobs. They are really feeling like they are being double-dipped or triple-dipped on this issue.

It involves the CFS, the SES, ambulance volunteers and even the MFS, because while they are not all paid employees, there are some volunteers involved in that service as well. I would suggest that the government really have not yet felt the full force of the response to this action from people right around South Australia, and particularly around regional South Australia.

I make the point that the state government is responsible for some 20 per cent of the land area of South Australia. It is a significant portion of this state. There are now a number of CFS brigades on Eyre Peninsula who have indicated that they are not prepared to volunteer and fight fires should they occur on government land. Given that 20 per cent of this state is under government control—particularly in the seat of Flinders, on Eyre Peninsula, there are large areas of national parks, and there is also a large portion of land held in the south of the peninsula and controlled by SA Water—I wonder how the government is prepared to manage this issue and respond to fires, should they occur in those areas on land that they control. It is a question we will no doubt be exploring during estimates.

Another thing I think we need to explore during estimates is that the reason that was given for the increase in the emergency services levy was the cost of the recent Sampson Flat bushfire. That was put at around $9.8 million—let's round it to 10; it cost around $10 million, and that brought about this year's increase in the emergency services levy.

I guess my question, and the question that a lot of people have on their lips, is: what is going to happen next year? If there is another fire of a similar size, will it go up by a similar amount? If there is a bigger fire, will it go up by more than what it has gone up by this year? Conversely, should there not be a significant fire anywhere in South Australia (which is quite possible) will the emergency services levy go down? I wonder; let's wait and see. I would suggest it is not over yet; in fact, there are meetings occurring in the coming weeks as a response to this latest increase.

The other issue that came to the fore particularly, which snuck under the radar for a little while but obviously has been getting some airplay in recent times, is the fact that the government now intend to charge mining royalties on rubble that has been raised by local government around the state for the use of sheeting roads. This is quite extraordinary. I know industry have a slightly different view of this, but what I am going to suggest is that this is yet another revenue stream that the Treasurer has identified and that he is about to tap into to bolster the government's coffers. The estimation is that it will increase revenue by around $1 million, but there are also some suggestions that it may be significantly more than this.

I will give some background. Regional councils throughout the state have historically sought rubble (often limestone, but sometimes quartz, and sometimes ironstone rubble) with which to resheet and upgrade the extensive dirt road network that exists throughout this state. Councils have been able to do this using their own equipment, and ultimately they provide resheeting at a very reasonable cost to ratepayers. Now, if they are required to pay a mining royalty on the rubble that they use, of course, estimations are that, for an average council, this will mean around about $30,000—anywhere between $20,000 and $40,000, but around about $30,000 for a lot of councils—will be paid direct to the state government for something they are already doing.

There are two things that could happen as a result of this, either the road resurfacing will not occur, and that would be a shame because ultimately roads are our most important infrastructure, particularly in the country. The other thing that could happen, of course, is that—and this is more likely, I would suggest—ratepayers will pay. The cost of the rubble, the cost of that mining royalty will be passed on to the ratepayer. I think it is just yet another example of a tax grab by this government for people who ultimately have very little ability to respond other than pass it on to the long-suffering taxpayer or ratepayer.

To say that councils are gobsmacked, to say that ratepayers are gobsmacked at the audacity of this move would be an understatement. It demonstrates once again how arrogant and out of touch this government is. Of course, councils at this time of the year have already done their budgets. The budgets are already in place for next year, so it is going to be very difficult to incorporate a mining tax, which is about 55¢ a tonne on rubble and approximately two-thirds of that will go to the state government—a revenue grab, as I said. It is delusional, it is nonsensical.

The other few things that I will mention briefly, and hopefully I get another opportunity to expand on these in the future, of course, is the reduction once again of the investment into agriculture. We have said for a long time, and everyone in this house on both sides understands that agriculture, primary production and seafood is the cornerstone of this state's economy now more than ever, can I suggest. More than ever before it is the cornerstone of this state's economy; and, sadly, funding into research has been dropped once again.

It is a sad tale because for 150 years this state was a leader in dryland agriculture and developed technology and equipment and systems that we exported to the world. I just fear that, without that ongoing investment, that we are going to lose our advantage, particularly with regard to agriculture. Water security to my mind has not been addressed. Water prices have not been addressed. We are suggesting that third party access be given. That will give the opportunity to bring some competition into the water market. Our water prices are higher in this state than they are anywhere else in the country, almost anywhere else in the world. And, of course, who pays? The largest users, those who actually use water in a productive way to provide exports for this state.

It is interesting to note that it is not actually the cost of the water that is the big part of the bill but it is the built-in costs that government charges—the service charges in the water bill make up a big part of the bill. I can also see that there is nothing to add to the water security of Eyre Peninsula. We have discussed many times in this place the issue on the sustainability of the resource on Eyre Peninsula. We have had a parliamentary inquiry. There is no long-term plan yet to address the long-term sustainability of that supply or the provision for any growth in the future.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon) (16:03): Madam Deputy Speaker, I continue my remarks from the adjournment debate of 4 June this year where I was surveying the Charles Sturt Council election results and, in particular, I was drawing something of a comparison between on the one side—

Mr Whetstone: Not that old chestnut.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —David Winderlich and Kirsten Alexander and on the other Titus Oates—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader will come to order.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader is reminded that she is on her second warning.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —a comparison with the Ukrainian denunciatrix of Stalin's great purges Polia Nikolaenko, and to make a comparison with parliamentarians, I was comparing David Winderlich and Kirsten Alexander with Franca Arena and Bill Heffernan, although Senator Heffernan did have the decency to apologise to Justice Michael Kirby. Of course, I was making a comparison then with a more recent purveyor of false information, Godwin Grech.

In Woodville Ward, my own ward, 19-year old William Lehman polled 15.8 per cent of the vote on a platform of keeping rate increases below inflation, deterring hoon driving with CCTV micro-cameras in hoon driving hotspots, and punishing Coles and Woolworths for allowing their shopping trolleys to litter our neighbourhood. He vividly contrasted the cost of living in Woodville Ward with the neighbouring City of Port Adelaide Enfield. He, nevertheless, was narrowly defeated by Councillor Bob Grant, who has been on council for 27 years and saw his vote reduced from 1,097 votes in 2010 to 591 at this election.

As the St Clair housing development continues to grow, Councillor Robert Grant is unlikely to find much support from residents whose presence in the neighbourhood he opposed. If Bob Grant had prevailed, there would be no suburb of St Clair (indeed, they would not have been allowed to call a suburb St Clair), there would be no St Clair Railway Station and no St Clair shops.

Save St Clair candidates leafleted and canvassed in Woodville, Woodville Park (where I live) and Cheltenham, but anything north of Torrens Road, where the bulk of the voters live, was foreign territory for them. Pennington, the ward's biggest suburb, with many residents from a non-English speaking background, may as well have been Xanadu as far as the Save St Clair camp was concerned.

In the ward in which I used to live, Hindmarsh, Paul Alexandrides was re-elected with 38.1 per cent of the vote in a seven-candidate field, topping the poll for the second election in a row. His candidacy was strongly opposed by Aldinga resident Kevin Hamilton, a former state MP, who issued flyers across the entire City of Charles Sturt in support of Team Kirsten. Kevin Hamilton had been promoted into office at the Australian Railways Union in the 1970s by Paul's late father Nick, and obtained preselection owing to Nick Alexandrides senior for what was a safe Labor seat when Kevin Hamilton first won it.

Paul Alexandrides stood on his record and illustrated it with photos of works that had occurred in the Renown Park area, the Ovingham-Bowden-Brompton area, the Ridleyton area, the Croydon-West Croydon area and the Kilkenny area. He strongly supported the Kilkenny Transit Village proposal, which Mayor Alexander and her caucus opposed on council.

Neither of Mayor Alexander's candidates lived in the ward, or anywhere near it. In fact, one of them appeared to be under a mistake of fact as to where the ward was located, and they polled 9.4 per cent and 4.5 per cent. Kirsten Alexander dumped the Ridleyton woman (whom I referred to earlier in my adjournment speech) and her mother from her ticket because some types of craziness are too much even for Mayor Kirsten. The Ridleyton woman's online support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with other Save St Clair activists, such as Richard Tonkin and Chris Mueller, was not good for business in an election year.

It was a very disappointing result for Team Kirsten's prominent Serbian-Australian candidate to poll only 110 votes in such a strongly Serbian ward. Kevin Hamilton's endorsement of one of Team Kirsten's candidates did not assist him, which is not surprising, since Kevin Hamilton never represented any suburb in the Hindmarsh Ward and was defeated in the 1993 state election 21 years ago when he lost to Joe Rossi in the seat Nick Alexandrides senior vouchsafed him.

I recall the hurt and indignation Kevin Hamilton suffered when, during the 1992 debate on poker machines, the late Clyde Cameron accused him, at a Port Adelaide federal electorate council meeting, of voting for the introduction of poker machines to obtain a personal benefit. It is a paradox that Kevin Hamilton, having been the target of this baseless and malicious imputation, should so freely accuse any elected representative who disagrees with him about St Clair as deserving of investigation by ICAC. He does this without the slightest substratum of fact.

The member for Adelaide's success in convincing Mayor Kirsten Alexander to back the continued closure of Barton Road, North Adelaide, showed up in massive defeats for the incumbent mayor in both Hindmarsh and Beverley wards. Although Mayor Alexander lost all eight wards to her challenger, including her home ward, Woodville, the mayor's losses were heaviest in the two wards closest to the closure. Anne Wheaton's Charles Sturt election photography for Mayor Kirsten's campaign, in particular her production of the corflute photo which she celebrates on her Facebook site, did Mayor Alexander no favours, as radio FIVEaa broadcaster Andrew Reimer has pointed out.

In Semaphore Park ward, Barbara Wasylenko, although she did not live in the ward, emphasised her opposition to high-rise construction on the Football Park site and to the past four years of rate rises ahead of the consumer price index. She finished 300 votes ahead of sitting Councillor Juliann Andriani. Veteran Councillor Stuart Ghent was re-elected with a reduced vote.

In West Woodville ward, veteran Councillor Tolley Wasylenko, struggling with cancer, also struggled to get to quota. Save St Clair's Kelly Thomas, though she did not live in the ward, patiently doorknocked over many weeks and managed to avoid the pitfalls of fellow Save St Clair candidate, Carlo Meschino, turning his yard in a residential area of Albert Park into a junkyard.

Young Serbian-Australian Zorica Kresovic campaigned on open space in Albert Park and Hendon, sharp rate increases and a back-to-basics platform. She issued letters in the Serbian language, both Cyrillic and Latinica. She polled 575 votes, but Save St Clair was clever enough to run another Serbian candidate against her and though his campaign was weak and he attracted only 150 votes, the strategy of directing his preferences away from his fellow Serbian-Australian to Kelly Thomas ensured that Serbian-Australians would not have one of their number on the Charles Sturt council.

As one who has run many election campaigns for the past 30 years, I reluctantly salute Mayor Kirsten Alexander on her cunning in the West Woodville campaign and Serbs are left to rue the outcome of this old, old tactic that has been used to such devastating effect against them over the centuries. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are more instalments and I will be pleased to share them with the house on another occasion.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:12): As people in this place know, I am a proud life member of the Country Fire Service. My father, Malcolm, was in the Metropolitan Fire Service, both as a firefighter and then as a senior officer (acting chief), for going on 30 years. I am very proud of being a part of the CFS and I am very proud that former chief Lupton described me as being a part of the MFS family because the MFS is a family, it is a very strong family, in fact one of my nephews is a Metropolitan Fire Service firefighter, and I am very proud of the service that the men and women of both our Country Fire Service and the Metropolitan Fire Service provide for the citizens of South Australia. My father was also, as a firefighter and then later as an officer, heavily involved in forming what is now the United Firefighters Union. There was the officers association, I think it was called the Fire Brigades Union then, now the UFU, a very strong, very powerful union, affiliated with the ALP.

Because I am concerned about the future of the MFS and the direction the UFU has been taking, particularly with the proposed restructures and the proposals for a one fire service, I have made comments about that and I have encouraged members of the MFS to get out there and become involved in the union, the United Firefighters Union. I make no apologies for that whatsoever, but I was surprised yesterday when the former minister for emergency services, the member for Colton, used the grievance debate to launch a personal attack on me, my integrity, my honesty and my motives.

I have put on a little bit of weight, but that is really just getting a thicker skin, and you need to have a thick skin in this place. I can live with this. I am disappointed that the level of debate got down to insinuating that I was not telling the truth, that I was making things up. It is all in the grievance debate, and I will be going through that line by line in a moment to just illustrate what was wrong with what the former minister, the member for Colton, said. In his grievance speech yesterday, the member for Colton said:

…the member for Morphett's blatant attempts to interfere in a union election…nothing less than to influence the outcome of the democratic process…

What the member for Colton has not told the house is that, in his time in the Metropolitan Fire Service, he was a senior officer in the United Firefighters Union. He is a life member of the UFU. I would have thought that, if you are going to stand up in here and talk about the UFU, you would be proud to say that you are a life member of the UFU. If I can just go back to the UFU's publication called WordBack on 20 February 2014, it talks about Paul Caica's re-election. Greg Northcott, the union secretary, says:

I would like to thank the 16 members who volunteered their time to hang over 400 corfluts for Paul Caica in his Colton electorate. Paul was most grateful that this important and time consuming task was managed by the Union and our members.

As most of you are aware Paul Caica was a Senior Firefighter before he entered Parliament and for the past 12 years has remained a loyal friend of the United Firefighters Union and a proud Life Member.

Paul has asked the Union for assistance on Election Day (Saturday 15th March) to hand out his 'How to Vote' card…I have attached the Booth Rosters for the 8 Booths...

Our assistance is vital to ensure Paul's re-election.

Signed, Greg Northcott, Secretary. If the member for Colton is going to come in here and have a go at me about what I am saying about the UFU, he should talk about his affiliations and associations with the UFU. It is okay for the union to back the member for Colton in his re-election and influence the outcome of the democratic process but not for me to speak about the issues that are being debated in the rough-and-tumble of industrial relations in the Metropolitan Fire Service.

The member for Colton continued on to say that he had been reliably informed that what I had said about the UFU not responding to my letters to them for over nine months is simply not true. Let me tell the house that I wrote to the United Firefighters Union on two occasions: one was on 3 December 2013, and then on 7 July 2014.

The first letter, which I will read a bit later on, was about my outrage over comments made in Word Back 14/2013 dated 29 November 2013 about presumptive cancer cover. On 7 July 2014, I wrote to Mr Greg Northcott, Secretary of the United Firefighters Union. I said:

Dear Greg

Not aggressive, no; quite friendly.

Dear Greg

With the Government examining the Holloway Review of Emergency Service Delivery in South Australia, I am interested in seeking all stakeholders' input to assist me in working with the Government on a long-term future for emergency services in South Australia.

I understand that you are proposing a one fire service model for South Australia and while I am yet to be convinced that this is a viable future for fire services in South Australia, I am always open to advice from interested parties.

I would be very interested to see the details of your proposal and any projected budgetary implications for the delivery of this particular model.

I have never had a response to either of those two letters—never. I did get one letter back from the UFU. Remember, these two letters were written in December 2013 and July 2014. I got one letter from the UFU on 6 February 2015 in regard to some FOIs I had requested about the information that I had written to the UFU about in July 2014 because nothing had been coming.

The letter said that they were happy for me to come along to their office and basically trawl through their information there. I was not going to do that. I wanted them to give me the information under their statutory obligations and to reveal what their comments, their brief, whatever it was, to the minister were, and I did not ever get that.

For the minister to say that that was blatantly untrue is completely untrue. It is not true. I did not ever get a response, in fact. It was not nine months. In fact, to the actual substance of my letters, I never received a response. The member should be asking the people who are telling him these lies to make sure they know what they are talking about. You do know though that, when you are getting vitriol from former union leaders and now members of parliament, you are actually hitting a raw nerve.

The member for Colton said about my contribution on the subject of the former chief officer that Greg Northcott had no idea about this. There was another edition of Word Back that was put out by the UFU that attacks former chief Lupton and it insinuated that he was not doing his job and incapable of doing his job. However, chief Lupton was selected from over 90 fire chiefs from around the world to run the civil defence services in the UAE. With seven million people, the tallest buildings in the world and the largest oil repositories in the world, this guy knows what he is doing. He ran volunteer and paid fire services in Canada for many years, and he did an exceptional job in South Australia as the longest serving MFS chief.

The member for Colton said I should immediately apologise to MFS firefighters. Let me tell the member for Colton, the MFS firefighters know my motives, they know where I am from and they know I am one of the family. I support them very strongly in what they are doing, what they are trying to achieve and also in achieving fair outcomes for their working conditions and their pay. I have no problem with that. I used to go and help my father on his days off with his second job. We have always supported the fact that Metropolitan Fire Service firefighters have their second job.

I am very concerned that the member for Colton is insinuating that I should apologise to MFS firefighters. They know me better than that and it is the member for Colton who should remember, as a senior firefighter, as a union representative and now as a member of this place, not to come in here and cast aspersions on a member's motives and their integrity.

The member for Colton then went on and talked about a conversation I had with him in 2004 about an incident at Camden Park. We all know that sometimes we get information that we need to check on and sometimes unfortunately we have to come back and correct things, but be very careful what you say about private conversations in this place because it will come back to bite you.

I am not going to say anything more about the member for Colton. I thought he had matured more in this place than that. I am happy to take this on the chin. It is just one of those things in this place, but just be sure of your facts. Do not impugn my integrity and my motives in this place, particularly when it comes to the Metropolitan Fire Service because, I can tell you, I am one of the family there and they will always regard me as one of their strong supporters.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.

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