HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-05-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Supply Bill 2019

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 May 2019.)

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (21:01): I rise today to place on record some remarks as a member of this house on the Supply Bill that is currently before us. I stood in this place only 12 months ago to reflect on the election that was and the opportunities and pitfalls that the next four years presented, not only to us as an opposition but to everyday South Australians.

I remarked upon my humility and gratitude first and foremost to the electors of Hurtle Vale for electing me as their local community representative in this place, as well as my appointment as the shadow minister for human services. This is a role that will forever change the way I work in parliament, through the people and organisations I meet with who are working hard to provide for the vulnerable.

The struggles and roadblocks that South Australians are forced to endure every day are inspiring. The stories of hope and perseverance in the face of unbelievable obstacles, and sometimes the bureaucracy that we in this place often put in place ourselves, are all inspiring to me when it could easily become a very overwhelming task.

I briefly take the opportunity to echo those sentiments from 12 months ago. Serving in this role has been one of the greatest honours I have had the privilege to receive. I look forward to continuing to work for the people of Hurtle Vale, and indeed for every South Australian, in particular those who are vulnerable, for the next three years and beyond.

I have to firstly say that I am extremely concerned about the availability of affordable housing in South Australia. The Marshall government has stated that, at this point, over 20,000 South Australians remain on the waiting list for state government housing. Federal Labor recently announced a plan to provide long-term affordable housing for low and middle income Australians, including in South Australia, and I hope that this has some really positive impact on our budgets moving forward.

It is disappointing that the minister in the other place in question time last week revealed that neither she nor her department has lifted a finger to model this policy or this policy announcement, or undertaken any kind of preliminary work or preparation. I would have thought it was incumbent upon ministers to begin the modelling in preparation early for federal policy announcements from either party. While our waiting lists continue to balloon out of control, Michelle Lensink in the other place revealed how out of touch and politically inflexible she is, in fact, on important issues of social policy, including housing.

I am proud of my engagement with the housing sector over these past 12 months, including community housing providers together with emergency housing providers and support organisations. I look forward to working closely with them in formulating sound housing policy tailored to those who need it most ahead of the next election.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Mr Acting Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms COOK: I would also like to touch briefly on youth, an important component of the portfolio of human services. It has been a little disappointing to note that youth has currently been somewhat of an afterthought in the Marshall Liberal government. I have a very strong personal history in supporting, and a desire to support, youth in South Australia to achieve the best they can.

I was pleased to recently attend the launch of the Youthful Cities report by the Commissioner for Children and Young People. It really does make for some interesting reading, and I have supplied copies within our party room. I hope that the government has been interested as well, although there was nobody from the government there at the launch.

I was not surprised but really interested to learn that 25 per cent of people who use the City of Adelaide are under 24 years and that this is the largest user group of the inner city. So one in four users of the CBD is under 24. It is really important to continue to renew our public spaces to maintain the vibrancy but also to invest in the programs and services so that they are attractive and available to young South Australians.

There is often a joke that for young people it is not just always about skate parks. However, they can be a good start, as we have seen with the announcement of the skate park. I would like to show my appreciation for that because I know that many young people will connect and gather at the city skate park again, once it comes to fruition. Often, an area like the skate park is a good place for other service providers to visit and support young people.

It is particularly important to put inclusivity and accessibility at the forefront of our minds with programs that are rolled out through the opportunities the government provides. I am obviously very focused on the role that youth play in our society and on providing a safe and harmonious environment for our young people to thrive in. The decisions need to be made with youth at their heart. I look forward to continuing to make youth a priority of mine as shadow minister, and I thank those youth-orientated organisations and individuals who have engaged with me in the past 12 months.

This focus obviously also extends to youth who are particularly vulnerable. Young people are disproportionately affected by crime and disproportionately subject to being victimised, so my focus extends to youth justice. I was very pleased to join the shadow minister for child protection last year to tour the Adelaide Youth Training Centre facility, which was upgraded by the previous Labor government into new facilities, which I have to say are really impressive. It was also good to see, actually, that they were not full—that there are programs that are working and keeping young people out of the training centre.

I thank the staff for their time and their generosity in answering questions. I also thank some of the young people who are currently living at the training centre and in programs because they also were very generous with their time and in sharing their stories. I am determined to ensure that young South Australians are given the tools to thrive in our community. I will be checking in with the minister through estimates, obviously, and also through the Training Centre Visitor's annual report later this year.

Concessions are a priority within Human Services, and in my role I have been checking through the plans and some of the proposals that have been made throughout the department in relation to this. I was very disappointed to discover that a $130,000 exploratory contract was delivered to review and pursue the privatisation of the delivery of energy concessions payments. I think that the quick movement of the Liberal government to privatise this is not welcome and will potentially cause harm as it goes out of government hands, with South Australians already doing it really tough when it comes to electricity.

The government's role is to try to make life easier for South Australians, and I know that most people coming into this place support and believe that, but outsourcing that role within a sector such as energy, which is already experiencing inflated prices, is something we should not feel confident about.

I would like to lend my voice to an issue that is extremely important, that is, disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), which is an incredibly socially progressive achievement, up there alongside other great achievements like Medicare. Of course, a Labor government was the initiator of the NDIS, this significant policy agenda, and recognition goes to the prime minister at the time, Julia Gillard, for being able to deliver that achievement in what was an extremely politically febrile environment.

The NDIS seeks to put choice and control back into the hands of Australians living with disability, their friends, family and carers, with individualised plans and supports to meet specific requirements. For some, this has been brilliant, a real game-changer, but for others it has just been the start of an enduring nightmare. It was a scheme with the best intentions, but it has been sadly languishing under the hands-off approach of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison trio of government leadership.

In my time as shadow minister, I have really been mortified by the sluggish rollout of NDIS throughout South Australia and also its inability to be agile. The minister in the other place has stated that she is not the minister for the NDIS, but I point out that actually she is the minister for NDIS transition; that is very much within her oversight. We have seen delay after delay concerning the full rollout of the NDIS. We have seen uncertainty around the expected end point of rollout, and really we are no closer to an answer. I believe that that there have now been five federal ministers overseeing the NDIS in the six years of the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government, and South Australians are struggling to make head or tail of what is going on.

We are flooded by vulnerable South Australians reporting issues, living with stress and anxiety because their plans have been refused, delayed, underfunded, their submissions went in eight months ago with no response, 12 months for a review—it goes on and on. The complaints are fed through to the NDIA to a specific group for MPs to contact and achieve outcomes for these people in the community. What organisation, what process, has to have its own office for members of parliament, I ask you, although Cheryl and the team look after us very well and ensure that, as much as possible, we have a positive outcome for people with NDIS issues. I know that people on both sides of parliament are really grateful for that procedure that is in place and that department to provide the help they get.

Nothing highlighted the disdain for the NDIS more than the $1.6 billion that is ostensibly a cut from the full scheme and parked in what is now estimated to be a surplus in the budget that we will see in more than a year from now. What we want to know, particularly from the minister in the other place, is how much advocacy is happening in order to find out how much of our money—our state's stakeholders' money from the NDIS—is sitting within that $1.6 billion? I would like to see that opened up, I would like to see more advocacy around that and I would like to see it used to help people get the services they need.

We are seeing a reliable pattern here regarding the cuts by the Liberal federal and state governments. This has happened before these current regimes are in place. They may be job cuts, reducing the availability and speed of service delivery; program cuts; infrastructure cuts; cuts in funding for housing, schools, hospitals; or cuts in basic government services that people rely on in their everyday lives. Each and every one of those cuts hurt in some way or another. We found many of them hidden amongst last year's budget. I worry for what we are going to find this year. We saw cuts to Service SA, which we are opposing now, and 10,000 signatures have been collected on petitions outside Service SA centres. Labor has stood and always will stand with people against cuts like this to service delivery.

The past few weeks have really highlighted the cuts and the loss of transport support, via the subsidised taxi vouchers, that we are facing in the future. This week, we saw the Queensland government announce a fully funded extension for 12 months. I call on the Minister for Transport in this place to look at that commitment and, within that, to advocate and lobby the federal government around an improvement to the transport payment that has taken the place of the previous allowances. What will the next budget show us in the state from the point of view of disability and transport?

The cuts damage not just the social fabric of our diverse and complex South Australian community; they damage our economy. Here is an example: the taxi vouchers that are used by people with a disability to go out socially with friends, to see a movie, to go out to dinner or to attend a football game. They use the vouchers to go to work, to go to school and to navigate between frequent and time-consuming medical appointments.

All these outings, their social life and, of course, their commute to work are crucial for both social and economic health. As I said, I believe that we are now the only state without a plan for those vouchers beyond the end of this year. By jeopardising this, we compromise the capacity of people living with a disability not only to better themselves and improve their positions but also to engage in recreational activities and invest their money into the economy.

It hurts the economic contribution that South Australians living with a disability can make through their participation in the local economy and their productivity in contributing to economic growth—all this in the midst of the Marshall government's consultation phase of their disability inclusion plan. If a person living with a disability cannot work, they just cannot be productive and they cannot reach optimal fulfilment. If they cannot participate at a level they want to, there is no way they can reach a level of self-actualisation in our community.

It is shameful that in the midst of continued NDIS pain these taxi vouchers cannot be guaranteed beyond this year. It is a very simple thing to do. It is something that means so much to the people we represent. It occurs in tandem with changes to bus routes, amidst the $46 million worth of cuts and also the recently announced proposal to encourage hopping on and off different transport routes or different forms of transport in order to improve the journey. While that might work for somebody who is fit, ambulant and able, I have had a great deal of feedback from people who have mobility issues or vision impairment and from parents with prams and parents of people with disability. They are saying that hopping on and off is just not an option; please reconsider.

People will take longer to get to work because of the cuts to public transport. People will be less productive. They will have less time to go out and socialise. They spend less time at work and more time waiting in line. They have less time to spend with their friends and families. Cuts to education hurt productivity through the loss of skills. Cuts to health care hurt productivity because sick people cannot work, and we have seen this with SHINE and many other services. This applies to cuts in all forms, and it is something that Liberal governments have always had trouble understanding at both a state and federal level for people who are most vulnerable in our community. They see any government spending as a cost that must be borne by the community. They see any cut that they make to government spending as a plus for the economy. It is actually not. It is just a misguided philosophy from the viewpoint of social harm and also from an economic one.

An economist will tell you that when you take money out of an economy, an economy suffers. This is most obvious when you talk about reducing the number of South Australian jobs through cuts to the Public Service. With these people cut out of the Public Service—and I know there were about 600 from Human Services alone and I am sure there are many more in other groups—these people will be unemployed. They will not have work. They will not contribute to the economy. The valuable work these people do in delivering services to the community that people rely on cannot be underestimated.

What will happen once these jobs are gone? Without a job, how do these individuals put a roof over their head? How do they independently manage to invest in their own home? How do they manage to support others to support themselves? It is not smart, methodical or purposeful public policy. When we talk about this theory around investing in the top end of town and watching the dollars shower down on people, watching the vulnerable people in our community suffer and struggle, the money does not rain down on them. This trickle-down economics just does not work. It never gets to the people who need it.

I urge the government, as they spend this money we are approving through this Supply Bill, to consider people who are most vulnerable and consider some of the small things that can be done to ensure that we invest in the future of people who need that support, people such as those I have mentioned who require the taxi vouchers to get around. It is a small investment that can make a massive difference. With that contribution, I support the bill.

Ms HILDYARD (Reynell) (21:21): In rising to speak on this Supply Bill and in reflecting on this Liberal government's cruel 2018-19 budget of cuts, closures and privatisations, I hark back to what I said in my budget reply speech last year. I am deeply disappointed and worried about the impact this government is having on South Australians in every corner of our state, particularly on those who most need kindness, compassion and support.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: Pardon? What was that? What did you say, Tim? What was your latest insult?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! The member for Reynell will direct all her comments through the Chair.

Ms HILDYARD: You might like to keep him in check.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order, member for Chaffey! The member for Chaffey will sit there in silence. If we could restart the clock as well, please, Mr Clerk. The member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I am deeply disappointed and very worried about the impact that this government is having on South Australians in every corner of our state, particularly on those who most need our kindness, compassion and support and those who most need their government to step in and ensure equality of opportunity through what and whom they prioritise in their spending.

This government handed down a heartless budget last year, a budget that was bereft of compassion, care and any sort of commitment to fairness, equality and inclusion; a budget that alongside its cuts also did not deliver a surplus; a budget that is a clear demonstration of what and whom they do not value, of what and whom they disregard.

We on this side of the house are committed to fairness, equality of opportunity and inclusion, to ensuring that those who most need our support get that support and to ensuring that all South Australians have access to decent jobs, quality services when they need them, good public education and health services and facilities, and quality public transport and infrastructure. We on this side of the house understand that our state and our nation face growing inequality, a growing gap between those who do not work or those who rely on insecure work, on their hard-earned penalty rates to make ends meet, to pay the rent and those with an abundance.

The federal colleagues of those opposite continuously demonstrate their lack of regard for those who need a fair go. They show this lack of regard through their repeated votes in the federal parliament against restoring penalty rates, their lack of commitment to equal pay and to decent pay increases, and their repeated opposition to the banking royal commission. Their budget showed that those opposite are lockstep with their federal colleagues in their relentless focus on ensuring those with so much are able to get even more, and showed their utter lack of understanding about what will make a difference in the lives of those who do not enjoy such privilege. Well, Mr Acting Speaker, we have been speaking up for those people and we will continue to do so.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Acting Deputy Speaker.

Ms HILDYARD: Excuse me? I don't think—

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Duluk): Order! The Minister for Transport and Infrastructure will not interject. It is completely unparliamentary. Member for Reynell.

Ms HILDYARD: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. We have been speaking up for those people and we will continue to do so. We will keep empowering them to grow their voice against that which does not serve them, against that which so blatantly disregards some. We will keep speaking up against the cuts and closures inherent in their last budget, and we will speak even louder about any deepening of those cuts, any further closures—anything that does not serve the people of South Australia nor advance their interests in this coming budget because I and all of Labor value all South Australians, and we will fight for them against any cuts that negatively impact their lives.

In this last budget, those opposite clearly and comprehensively demonstrated their lack of care for people in so many different ways through so many different cruel measures, and it is just some of those measures that I will highlight to the house tonight. I know that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure seems to relish attempting to brush off, to laugh off and to play down any criticism of his cuts. When he does so, he is attempting to belittle and unfairly disregard the voice of those who most deeply feel those cuts and whose lives are impacted by them, by his actions, on a day-to-day basis.

I speak with many people about their reliance on public transport. It might be surprising to the minister, and to the Treasurer, that people in the electorate of Reynell in the southern suburbs need public transport—sometimes because they cannot afford parking in the city, sometimes because they do not have a car and sometimes because they are not able to drive one. They use public transport to get to work, school, TAFE, university, medical appointments and to visit friends, and these cuts are hurting them.

Just a couple of months ago, I chatted with a lovely man named Elias who was waiting to catch the bus on South Road at Morphett Vale to get to his regular appointment at Flinders Medical Centre. He was alarmed to hear that the route he relies on is listed as one that will be cut. I speak with parents who are worried that when their kids finish their part-time jobs at Colonnades or when they finish at Marion and catch the train back to Colonnades there is no longer a connecting bus to the surrounding suburbs. I speak with people with limited mobility, who find it hard enough to get around on public transport as it is and who are utterly bewildered by how they will manage to do their shopping and to get to their appointments.

These people are getting active against these cruel cuts, and so are thousands of others: those who rely on public transport and those who actually care about others who do. Should this coming budget continue with his program of cuts, the voice of these people will rightly grow, and I commend every person who is speaking up against this disregard for those who need decent public transport.

I also deeply worry for those whose anxiety about any further cuts is growing. We will speak up for them because they matter, because their inability to go about the day-to-day business of their lives matters, because their journey matters. We will also speak up about this minister's increasingly disturbing record on public transport and transport infrastructure, about the removal of train carriages, changing plans for the Springbank Road/Daws Road/Goodwood Road intersection and about collapsing infrastructure.

I note that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure brushed off in question time today people's concerns about the collapse at Darlington. People are scared. It is actually frightening to be crawling along on a road surrounded by hundreds of other cars when you know that a structure has collapsed just a few metres away. I look forward to hearing more about this in the coming days, and I am intrigued about how this budget will deal with the many, many problems that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure is creating.

Those opposite do not seem to be willing to fight for anyone to help them make ends meet and access good services, facilities and support when they most need it. They have prioritised some of the wealthiest people in our community to the detriment of Housing SA tenants and to the detriment of South Australians across our community who deserve and want a fair go. The fact that their last budget, in addition to its cuts, included a rent increase for people in Housing SA homes is astounding. Access to housing, a risk of homelessness and issues with Housing SA are some of the most prevalent issues that people come into my office to talk with me about.

To target people who are living in Housing SA homes, eking out a living, is a disgrace. As I stated in my budget reply speech, I assure the many community members and friends residing in Housing SA homes in our southern community that we will fight this awful, unfair increase, that we respect you for what you do to meet the cost of living, to put food on your table and to pay your rent. I assure those committee members and friends that we will absolutely continue that fight and it will intensify should this heartless, visionless government again use another forthcoming visionless budget to reach into your pockets.

The statistics that we know about domestic violence in our community are utterly unacceptable. Together, just two weeks ago, many members of this house paid our respects and remembered those South Australian women who had been violently and tragically killed at the hands of a partner or former partner. It was so sad. It was also a reminder of what we still must do to address the gender inequality that persists in our community and is at the core of disrespect and violence towards women. It was a reminder of how tired so many women are of not feeling or being safe when we walk to our car, when we walk through a park, or for so many women, tragically, when they are at home.

It was a reminder to all of us here in this place that simply saying we will do whatever we can, whatever is within our power to prevent and end violence against women, is not enough. We must do whatever we can to prevent and end domestic violence and indeed all violence against women. Our former Labor government progressed a number of measures and I know this government has undertaken measures also, a number of which we have supported, a number of which we had also explored.

But there is something that was glaringly omitted from this government's last budget in relation to domestic violence measures. There was not one dollar allocated to prevention—not one dollar. This is not okay and I trust and I hope that this will be absolutely remedied in this forthcoming budget. I am not hopeful about this given the recent voting down of the bill by those opposite to include provisions in our Equal Opportunity Act that give those who have been discriminated against as a result of their experience of domestic violence a measure that was actually cost free to those who have to bear this unequal access to the processes of the Equal Opportunity Commission.

I am also not filled with hope given the reduction in funding to the commission and this government's lack of funding for staffing for their new crisis accommodation beds. Nor am I at all filled with hope given their appalling record on gender equality, evidenced in part by the fact that four—just four—out of 25 of the members of this house on that side are women. They have as many Davids in their caucus as they do women members of the House of Assembly. Four out of 25 are women.

Members interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: Four out of 25.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Members on my right will desist from interjecting. The member for Reynell will continue.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you will contain yourself as well. Member for Reynell, please continue.

Ms HILDYARD: I have said many, many times in this place that sport is a powerful tool for change, for bringing people together, for including people and for giving them a sense of belonging as part of the community families created and engendered in clubs in every corner of South Australia. It has the power to include all and to support many to do their best and to belong.

We are all aware of the exponential growth of girls and women participating in sport, including in sporting codes that have traditionally been dominated, in terms of participation, by men. These girls and women deserve our support and they deserve decent and appropriate facilities that enable their participation, that say to them that they are welcome and are an equal part of their sport, their club and their code.

We want to end the days of girls and women getting changed in cars, in bars or behind a towel on an oval, as young Lilly Brown articulated was her experience at one of our many recent actions against this government's appalling lack of commitment to achieving equality for girls and women in sport and indeed for equality for girls and women anywhere. Backing women and girls in sport means we do not let this happen. It means we provide them with the facilities they need.

Achieving equality in sport and anywhere else means addressing inequality. It means specifically targeting those who have been disadvantaged by putting specific measures in place for them. It means that, if you are allocating grants to clubs for facilities, you make sure that you consider and target those growing numbers of women and girls playing sport and you back them in. As I have also said, when we see girls and women play sport, when we see them play at the highest level, we see them differently.

It is transformative in terms of how the roles of girls and women are perceived, and it gives us the opportunity to challenge many other issues that our community confronts about gender inequality, including violence against women. This government has utterly failed South Australian girls and women through its cut to the $24 million former Labor government program for female facilities, through its cut to the SA Women in Sport Taskforce and its discontinuance of the female participation grants. They have shown their complete lack of regard for the achievement of equality. They want to take our quest for equality in this state backwards. Shame on them.

South Australian girls and women deserve so much better, as do all sporting codes. They now have a program that is worth far less money for facilities, but the program is only for football, cricket and netball. This government should hang its head in shame. It is clear that this government does not want to support girls and women in sport and does not support grassroots clubs, given it has reduced funding overall and it is clear that it will provide minimal support for only some codes.

This government has also clawed back $10 million from the synthetic surfaces program and $20 million in grants overall. Apparently, it is currently reviewing its Recreation and Sport Grants Program. As I understand it, this review is being internally conducted. Can we expect more cuts to sport and recreation? If you truly want to review your grants program, you need to have some level of independence.

Apparently, this government is also reviewing their Multicultural Grants Program and the functions of SAMEAC, reviews that I fervently hope do not make cuts in this area. Our cultural diversity is our greatest strength and our multicultural communities and all that they bring to our state must be celebrated and enabled to flourish wherever they can. Labor cares about our community. Through their last budget, this government demonstrated that they do not. We have a vision for our state: they do not. We will fight for our community against these past cuts and against any other cuts, closures or privatisations that come our way.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Point of order: I ask that the members for Chaffey and Adelaide cease their interjections or other attempts to interrupt the member for Reynell.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not hearing the interjections from up here, but I remind all members that interjections are out of order.

Members interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: You cannot help yourself. It is constant. It is not okay.

Members interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: His name-calling is constant. I do not call people names, Stephan.

Members interjecting:

Ms HILDYARD: I never do, but this person does constantly.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Lee, that is enough from you, too. The member for Reynell, you have four minutes to go.

Ms HILDYARD: I am finished.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (21:40): There are a couple of things: first, the Deputy Premier is out of her place and interjecting.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That is true.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before you begin, member for West Torrens, I might remind everybody again that interjections are out of order and unparliamentary.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: They're getting tired.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And emotional.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee, you are at fault here as well. The member for West Torrens has the call.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Supply is always an interesting debate. I remember in previous parliaments members opposite bemoaning supply debates and wanting to know exactly why it is that the government is procuring money without any line of sight as to exactly how that money will be spent. These concepts were often argued by members opposite—not the member for Adelaide because the capacity there to understand these issues might be wanting.

The Hon. R. Sanderson: I studied accounting. What year level did you get to in maths?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Adelaide will cease interjecting.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I know it is late in the evening, but we do not need to get ratty just because we are sitting after dinner. Member for West Torrens, you have the call.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: Stop being ratty.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, there will be no further interjections.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: That was two syllables, Tim; did you get that?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Lee!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: There is some testy, emotional and heightened sense of anger from members opposite. I know it is unprecedented for this government to sit beyond 6pm—

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: At least this year.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —at least this year, so I apologise to members opposite for having to work for a living. I want to talk about supply, especially in the portfolios that I have been asked to shadow on behalf of the opposition to the government.

Transport is always a very difficult portfolio to have coverage of because you are expending vast amounts of money on transport and infrastructure. The member for Lee knew what it was like for four years, and I was transport and infrastructure minister for 14 months. There is a very large responsibility in delivering these services to the public. Often, ministers in those portfolios are under heavy scrutiny, and rightly so. They are under heavy scrutiny because the portfolios that ministers have coverage of in these areas spend vast amounts of money. It is probably the third highest spending portfolio on average; sometimes, it is the highest, depending on what is happening that year. However, by and large, it is one of the biggest spending portfolios in government.

I think there have been a number of issues where this parliament has procured money on behalf of the government and where the minister charged with expending those moneys has been found wanting. What I thought I would do in my 17 minutes is detail where I think the minister could improve because I care about him and I want to teach the next generation of young aspirants and leaders to learn from others more experienced.

I would like the minister to reflect on some of the statements he has made. For example, one of the early errors a relatively young and inexperienced minister made was to say that you could 'take it to the bank', or it was 'a rock solid promise' that a certain tram extension would be finished on a certain date. Of course, that was not true. We were then told before the election that members opposite, through the power of their personalities, could make a tram turn right where we had failed. Of course, a relatively young and inexperienced minister fell flat on his face yet again.

We keep on going through these infrastructure spends where the minister has made statements that simply do not stack up. In the first budget released by the government the minister is attempting to sell $46 million worth of cuts to public transport. Of that $46 million, $3 million has been delivered thus far, and it has caused a great deal of angst amongst a lot of the travelling public.

I think the minister's ability to go out and sell these changes has been called into question for a couple of reasons. I think it has probably been an Achilles heel of the government that they made no mention of this rationalisation of transport services before the election. However, after the election, South Australians find themselves having been subjected to cuts of a dramatic nature around transport. The government trots out the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure to defend those cuts.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Long may he remain the transport spokesperson.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: He has nearly been there longer than you were.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Nearly; yes, that is true. I was only a minister for nine years; I am sure he will overtake me. The minister then is attempting to sell these $46 million worth of cuts and I think thus far has done a pretty poor job of it, given what we have seen in terms of the reaction back. We found out today that the minister refused to rule out a privatisation of our train and tram network. I do not remember reading anywhere before the election that the government told the people of South Australia and the travelling public of South Australia that they would see their train and tram services privatised. You have to again call into question the judgement of the minister on this issue. The minister was given an opportunity to deny this and he has not, which makes me think—

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Tom, judge us on what we do.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: So the government is now ruling it out?

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Judge us on what we do. I reckon I heard that a hundred times from the former government.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I hope so.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: Maybe 200.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Maybe 200 times, yes. I will judge the government on what it does and I will divert back again to the minister's carriage of this portfolio. Earlier today, I asked him some questions in question time about the two T-junctions the minister was championing for four weeks, saying that this was the right solution, that he had done his homework and that this was the best outcome for the people of Boothby and for that intersection, only to come out publicly and say he was wrong. He claims new evidence has come to light but has not provided what that new evidence is, and he has now adopted Labor's plan of one intersection.

I congratulate him on that, but what I am concerned about are the statements this minister made leading up to it, assuring South Australians that he had done his homework and that he was assured that the numbers do not lie. These are direct quotes from the minister. Indeed, these are statements made to the parliament. In here, the Crown told the parliament, 'No, Labor was wrong: the two T-junctions had better outcomes than one four-way intersection,' because the minister had done his homework. That was wrong. The minister had not done his homework and had it wrong.

What focused the attention of the minister and the government was the upcoming election on 18 May, this Saturday, and the very real prospect of a revolt within two seats held by the Liberal Party: a state seat and a commonwealth seat. So the minister backflipped, and the justification for that backflip was that more information had come to light, despite the minister having assured this house and us that he had done his homework.

It builds a pattern of behaviour by the minister where he says, with the Darlington embankment collapses, that he did not attend those Darlington embankment collapses but instead went to a fundraiser for the Liberal Party in Mount Gambier because he is not an engineer, yet he tells us the reason he was in the South-East was that he was inspecting roads.

The idea that he cannot inspect the Darlington project because he is not qualified to give advice on the works but is qualified to give advice on blackspots is contradictory, and the media pulled him up on it. But again the government keeps on putting out these contradictory lines by a relatively inexperienced minister, who in 14 months already is being called 'embattled' in the media, and one of the most senior journalists in the media pack has openly questioned whether or not the Premier will remove him from this portfolio altogether.

That in itself might give concern to some members, but such senior members of the press and a week from hell have not even bothered the government. It makes you wonder: what is the internal decision-making process that is going on here? Privatising trams and trains, no problem; backflipping on the Goodwood interchange because we got it wrong—well, why did you get it wrong in the first place if you had done your homework? Promising to turn a tram right when you know it cannot be done; making a public statement that the tram extension will be completed on this date, saying it was set in stone, and then later being embarrassed—these are constant reminders to the public of: 'Do we have a minister who is out of his depth in one of the most important portfolios?'

Yet, here we are with the government asking us again to procure more money for this minister without a budget. There is no budget alongside this Supply Bill. This is simply that the government needs more money and it is passing a Supply Bill. Members opposite used to complain regularly about supply bills without a corresponding budget or a budget line to match the spending to. So we are confronted with this. We are confronted with what could potentially be a minister who is tragically out of his depth, and we are procuring billions of dollars for this minister to perhaps then again bungle.

With the Darlington situation, the minister is overseeing a road that cannot cope with rain. I think it is fair to say that most South Australians are horrified with what has occurred: $620 million from our Treasury being spent on a road where, the moment it rained, the embankments at not one but two locations collapsed. On the day the first embankment collapsed, the minister's department assured South Australians and the assembled media that it was an isolated incident that only applied to that one area that had collapsed. A day later, a second area collapsed.

The department in the media attempted to tell the public that they had always meant that entire section, and of course we saw the exchange between one of the most experienced political veterans in journalism, Mike Smithson, and the minister, which I thought was humiliating for the government and the minister because that exchange, I think, showed every South Australian the immaturity of the minister and the level that he was out of his depth.

Then we find out that he drives to the South-East to inspect roads, despite his own statement that he is not qualified to make these inspections, and then attends a $250 a head Liberal Party fundraiser. How do I know? Because Liberals from the South-East called me and told me that he was there. That is how I know. Apparently, the member for Schubert says, 'Look, I just attended a function organised by the local Liberal MP in the area.' No, it was a fundraiser to raise funds for the Liberal Party and the guest was the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. It was a planned event.

Then we hear the following day that he had not yet attended the site, that he would not agree to a public inquiry by the Public Works Committee and that there was no independent audit being conducted as yet. We had to wait until Saturday, after the two embankments collapsed. Mind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, these embankments are alongside the north-south corridor, which cars are currently using as we speak, and embankments are subsiding metres from those cars. Because we dared to ask the question of whether the integrity of this road is okay—I did not say that it was not safe; I asked the question—the minister says we are scaremongering. That is our job, to ask these questions of the government: is this road safe, can it be used by the motoring public?

We had the minister not attend the site, not give us briefings, and we still have not heard from the chief executive of the department. He has made no public statements, as far as I am aware, about what has occurred. We have also heard two contradictory statements by the minister: one, that no taxpayers' money will be used to remediate this site, to fix it. Then we hear, in the same interview by the minister, that all repairs will be done within the budget of $620 million for the Darlington project. That means we are using taxpayers' funds to repair this. No budget or contingency should be used to repair this road. No budgeted money should be used for any independent audit; that should also be at the cost of the consortium.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: Yes, but this consortium is using taxpayers' money.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Well, they should not be for this. They should be using their own resources to conduct the audits. But now we have had confirmed that they are using taxpayers' money. They are using the budgeted allocation of $620 million to conduct an audit into their own shoddy work. How is that fair to the taxpayer? It is another thing the minister has just let out through an interjection and laughing about it. We were assured that no taxpayers' money would be used to remedy this site or to audit this site, and now we are being told they are.

I think that this minister is out of his depth and that senior members of the press gallery in this state are right. How long will the Premier put up with this? How long will the Premier put up with a junior minister getting it relatively wrong almost every single time? He got it wrong on the tram. He got wrong on Springbank Road and Daws Road intersections. He has got it wrong on Darlington. He got it wrong and showed poor judgement by attending a Liberal Party fundraiser rather than being here to answer questions of the media. He got it wrong when the consortium, every time the media attempted to film the collapsing embankments, were pushed away. He got it wrong when he did not visit the site immediately. Every single time this minister is tested he gets it wrong.

There is an old saying that anyone can put up with adversity but if you want to test someone give them power. Looking at the authority given to the minister, I think he fails that test. Now we are being asked to procure more money, to be given to the minister, in his portfolio, and we do not know how he is going to spend it. The Darlington project is just scratching the surface. Regency to Pym has not started construction yet. The minister thinks construction is compulsorily acquiring homes.

This minister has been charged by the Premier to conduct a great deal for the state, yet everything he has touched has somehow ended in controversy. You have to start asking yourself some other questions about the competency of the front bench when you look at the quality of the backbench.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The mining minister interjecting has had one bill with resources to pass in this parliament and could not do it, despite that very same bill passing this parliament 15 months ago unopposed. That takes a unique talent. That takes a unique quality. I cannot think of anyone who is able to stuff that up any further.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a point of order, member for West Torrens. Could you take a seat, please.

The Hon. S.K. KNOLL: The member is now reflecting on a bill that is currently before the house.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for West Torrens, will you come back to the Supply Bill for the remaining 50 seconds.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I will, sir. I think the quality of the backbench watching the quality of the front bench must make many members on the backbench pause for a moment and think, 'Why are we putting up with this type of incompetence?' Why are they having to go out and sell and mop up the mess of junior ministers who are getting it wrong constantly, with members on the backbench being blamed by their constituents for ministers who are arrogant, out of touch and show poor judgement at nearly every opportunity?

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (22:00): At the last state election, we saw a very clear mantra being espoused by the then leader of the opposition and now Premier of the state, the member for Dunstan. The whole underpinning ethos of the election campaign of this government was supposedly a commitment to more jobs, lower costs and better services. I take this opportunity within the house to scrutinise whether or not the government has indeed met its own test of providing those three keys things.

More jobs is clear. Right now, according to the Bureau of Statistics, in the state of South Australia we have more people unemployed than was the case at the last state election. It is a damning indictment of this government that we now have more people in this state without the means to support themselves and their families through having a job. We know that in this state the unemployment rate, as distinct from the number of employed people, is higher today than it was over 12 months ago around the election of the Marshall Liberal government—a higher unemployment rate.

We know that underneath that there are some other statistics, and one I would like to draw the house's attention to is youth unemployment. We have seen youth unemployment in this state hover around, but more recently we have seen it go up quite dramatically. Right now, the youth unemployment rate in the state of South Australia is substantially higher than it was around the election of the Marshall Liberal government. There are more unemployed people and there is a higher unemployment rate and a higher youth unemployment rate.

Right now, we have the government running around trumpeting a tone of success, a tone of triumphalism regarding the way they have conducted themselves thus far. When you actually look at the raw statistics, as independently measured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this government have failed on the core question of providing more jobs. What underpins that most concerningly is that there are some policy decisions that have been made by this government, including by the Premier himself, that have contributed to this problem.

We on this side of the house do not accept that governments do not have responsibility when it comes to providing jobs in our economy. We do not accept that governments should just take their hands off the wheel and seek to let the market determine whether or not job creation activity occurs within the labour market here in South Australia. The state government have decided, quite deliberately, to abolish agencies within the government that had a strong track record of delivering real jobs in South Australia.

The investment attraction agency comes to mind, an agency that delivered real jobs to this state's economy, particularly in the private sector, for the betterment of all concerned. Then there are over a dozen other job creation activities which the previous state government had in place and which this government have abolished. It is little wonder that we have seen the scourge of unemployment come back to the forefront under the life of this government.

It is worthwhile reflecting on what this means in human terms. Often in this place we talk about statistics, we talk about numbers, we talk about facts, but there is actually a genuine, human element to this. There is nothing more tragic than a working woman or man seeking to put themselves out on the labour market to earn an income for themselves and their families and not being able to get a job. There is nothing more tragic than an employed person losing the dignity that work provides after a lack of action in the economy that provides jobs. That is what is occurring under this government's watch.

We have not really seen a response to these concerning numbers from this government thus far. Instead we have seen a doubling down on what they believe is a brilliant strategy. We have not seen a serious effort at economic reform. We have seen not a serious effort to provide stimulus into the economy but a winding back of infrastructure. We have seen promises of infrastructure out in the never-never, in 10 years' time and the like, but nothing immediate. We think that is highly problematic and does not bode well, particularly for young people in this state.

At the same time, we are seeing a state government committing itself to a DAMA. They had a whole range of secret details that were kept away from the eyes of South Australians, including putting downward pressure on wages in the economy through a 10 per cent reduction in the TSMIT. That is an inexplicable policy to have. If the objective is to fill gaps in the labour market, I find it hard to understand how people who believe in the power of markets rationalise that you fix that problem by reducing the cost or by reducing the wages. You do not solve shortages in the labour market by paying people less. It is an absurd proposition.

It is also important to understand what the TSMIT is there for. The TSMIT is a minimum migrant wage to reflect the fact that temporary migrants to this country—people who are not permanent residents, people who are not citizens—do not get access to basic services that are provided by the government. Chief amongst those is Medicare. If you are a temporary migrant to this country, you do not get access to Medicare, and therefore it is necessary that you earn a decent wage to ensure you can provide for and cover the cost of health insurance.

If you reduce the amount a migrant worker earns by 10 per cent, where is the 10 per cent reduction to the cost, where is the 10 per cent reduction to super, where is the 10 per cent reduction to the cost—

The Hon. R. Sanderson interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The member for Adelaide is making an insightful contribution, Mr Speaker.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: She's yelling out words at random: tax, super.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: That's right. A 10 per cent reduction in the amount that a migrant worker earns does not reflect a 10 per cent reduction in the relevant health costs that are incurred by that employee. It is a silly policy. It is not thought through, which is probably why the Premier was not across it when we were asking him about it in question time, and it is probably why the government is seeking to keep it a secret until it is exposed at an Economic and Finance Committee with the shadow treasurer. These are concerning policies when we start to contemplate the idea of more jobs in our economy.

Then we look at lower costs. Concerningly, what we have seen in recent weeks is the Treasurer of this state trying to lay down the political foundations for what would be an appalling decision to dramatically increase costs for South Australian taxpayers by increasing fees and charges at a rate that is potentially far higher than the rate of inflation. Let's just think that through. We have a state government making a deliberate policy decision to reduce the wages of people coming to our country to work at the same time as increasing fees and charges to South Australian taxpayers.

On what planet are people operating when they think it is a good idea to improve people's standard of living by reducing wages on one hand and increasing their costs on the other? It simply does not make sense, apart from the fact that it is patently unfair. If you go to an election promising lower costs, you had better deliver lower costs, and we have not seen any decisions from this government thus far that demonstrate a serious willingness to reduce costs but rather to increase them.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The member for Colton pipes up at an opportune time, because he needs to ask himself how he is going to justify to his constituents higher fees and charges that may yet amount to a scale that exceeds any reductions that some people have—not all people, but some people—in their emergency services levy.

Then there is the question of better services. This is the big one because this government had an unequivocal commitment to better services. Let's just start looking down the line to which ministers thus far have actually delivered higher or better services. Let's start with the two key elements of responsibility within the state government: health and education.

In regard to health, where have we seen better services? What we have seen are policies such as these. Firstly, they have brought in the corporate liquidators to run the Central Adelaide Local Health Network. If you want to deliver better services, let me give you a hot tip: corporate liquidators are not necessarily the go-to consultants that you want to engage to deliver better services. Yet, that is exactly what this government has done.

We have seen a closure of beds already take place within the system, and we know that KordaMentha, under their own plans, have put together a proposition to have further bed closures within CALHN. You will not deliver a better service in our health system at a time of increasing demand by closing beds. Surely members opposite understand that rising demand will not be addressed by closing beds in our public hospital network. It is an absurd proposition, and it is hardly surprising that we are seeing ambulance ramping at levels that are worse now than they were at any other point in the past. Ramping has got worse in the last 12 months, not better. That hardly looks like better services.

Furthermore, we have started to see in SALHN recently, particularly at Flinders Medical Centre, as a result of the government procurement decision around what can sometimes be referred to in the health system as hospital services—things like cleaning and food—some appalling service delivery when it comes to food, raising very real questions about whether or not this government is serious about delivering better services in our health system.

Then there is the flu. It is clear that we have an extraordinary flu season on our hands as a nation. This will represent a major challenge. Twelve months ago, last winter, we had the government trying to explain its worsening ramping situation on the flu. Fast-forward 12 months and we are now approaching a winter with a flu season that by some accounts is up to 10 times worse than last year's—10 times as many cases, an extraordinarily daunting proposition.

The question then becomes: what is the government doing to mitigate this substantial risk? They had a plan. They came out and announced that they want to bring forward our flu shots. They want to bring forward our flu vaccinations. 'Let's make sure that we get the South Australian community immunised against flu sooner and with a high degree of uptake.'

What we saw immediately following that announcement was a complete botching of a rollout by this state government in regard to the flu. Of course, that has culminated in report after report of not just any members of our community but particularly vulnerable members of our community, the elderly in particular, not getting access to their flu shot, all at a time when we understand over 100,000 flu shots are sitting somewhere in a warehouse.

What is the Premier's response thus far? What is the health minister's response thus far? 'Send out the bureaucrats. It has nothing to do with us. We're not going to respond to these questions. We're not going to respond to these media inquiries.' That begs the question: who is running the show? At what point in time do the government start accepting responsibility for their own actions?

Where is there a minister, where is there a premier saying, 'What's the action plan? What are the deliberate decisions that we are taking as elected representatives and people in charge of the show to actually start delivering these flu shots?' Instead we have complete silence, a sending out of health officials to face the scrutiny of the media. It is a desperate sign of weakness on behalf of this government. What we need right now in our health system is action. We need deliberate decisions being taken by ministers and the Premier to make sure that literally everything is being done to ensure that the upcoming flu season does not contribute to a greater burden on our public health system.

Then there is education. The movement of year 7s into high school was an unfunded and ill thought-through promise at the last election. How do we know that? We know that because recently we have seen broken promises being rolled out. There is the changing of school zones. People making lifelong decisions about where they are going to live, what houses they are going to buy and the size of their mortgages are being completely upended because the government decided to break a promise because they did not think through an election policy. It is an appalling proposition.

Meanwhile, money that was allocated to schools on the basis of need is being wound back and not being expended on the things that principals and teachers say those public schools need. Instead, that money is being rolled out on their policy for putting year 7s into high school. There are no additional funds and there is no thought-through mechanism about how to roll that policy out. The people who are paying the price are kids in schools, who need to rely upon additional funds the most, and parents who make lifelong decisions about which school they are going to send their children to. It is an absolute farce.

Today, of course, we have seen a botched rollout of online NAPLAN tests, with reports of students running out of classrooms in tears because they have not been able to get access to their NAPLAN test online. This is hardly consistent with the idea of better services.

Then, when we move down the line of ministers, let's go to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Better services? What a joke! You cannot think of a more atypical idea for providing better services than closing down Service SA centres, yet that is exactly what they are doing. They are closing down not just low-use Service SA centres but some of the most highly used Service SA centres in the state. The Enfield Service SA centre in the member for Adelaide's electorate, the Prospect Service SA centre, the Mitcham Service SA centre and the Modbury Service SA centre are all being closed down, and they are highly used.

The Hon. R. Sanderson interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Minister for Child Protection says, 'It's still there.' Well, not because of you. The reason those Service SA centres are still there is that we are there, applying the pressure. Of course, if the Minister for Child Protection, the member for Adelaide, wanted to announce a backflip, I would congratulate her because she would be showing the sort of leadership that this state needs and is not getting from her Premier. You cannot be committed to better services and close down Service SA centres.

To make matters worse, the minister has for months been promising an imminent release of details about how these services are going to be replicated by some other provider—an imminent plan that we have been hearing about for months—and to date we have heard nothing. We have heard reports about potentially using Australia Post, but there is going to be a fee associated with that, which might actually supersede the savings we are seeking to make. We know that there is mass confusion amongst the landlords of these Service SA centres, who are trying to work out what is happening next. This is a farce of a policy. These Service SA centres are having higher levels of patronage, not less, yet they are closing them down.

Then we have public transport. I know that the shadow minister for transport and infrastructure has already covered this subject, but this is now a situation where policy is well and truly on the run. The government's proposition at the election was that they were going to set up a public transport authority to have a long-term strategic focus on how they were going to deliver better public transport services. Yet, before that body is even formed, they have decided to cut $46 million out of public transport. Before that body is even fully constituted, they have decided that they are going to start completely changing the network. Why? Because we now understand that their intention may well be to privatise the train and tram network. Better services through privatisation? I do not think so.

We have seen this movie before. The last time those opposite were in charge, they privatised the bus network and we saw a debacle: hundreds of bus drivers losing their jobs, routes being cut and fares going up. I suspect that is exactly what people who use trains and trams to be able to move their families around, to be able to get to school and to be able to arrive at work on time are now facing as a result of this government's on-the-run policy when it comes to public transport. It is a farce.

Then there are buses. We heard the government talk about cutting ghost buses but it turned out through FOI efforts on the opposition's behalf that they are not ghost buses at all. Some bus services have been cut with over 20 patrons who used to consistently rely on those services—20 people, real people, people who relied upon that service to be able to get to work, often early in the morning and late at night. Do you know who those workers are? Those people who are working early morning and late at night are often low-paid workers getting to jobs to service high-income earners like those people in this chamber, and they are the ones they are going after. The calculated decision from this government is to cut services, mainly to the vulnerable, because they are largely voiceless.

Early on as Leader of the Opposition, I said to them from the get-go, 'If they've got ideas, we'll work with them on it,' and there have been examples of that. But we said, 'If it hurts working people, if it hurts families or if it hurts small business, we are going to give them one hell of a fight,' and that is exactly what we will continue to do.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (22:20): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill. Last year, I was proud to be appointed by the member for Croydon as shadow minister for police, corrections and emergency services, and I see myself—

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: Don't forget health.

Mr ODENWALDER: No, I am talking about me. Pay attention.

The Hon. T.J. Whetstone: No, you said 'member for Croydon'.

Mr ODENWALDER: Pay attention. I will speak more slowly—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Elizabeth, I am paying attention. Please continue.

Mr ODENWALDER: —for the minister for agriculture.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister for agriculture and the member for Lee are called to order. Member for Elizabeth, continue.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you, sir. I need protection from the member for Lee.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader!

Mr ODENWALDER: As such, I see myself as part of a continuing tradition on this side of politics of being strong on law and order where it needs to be strong and of protecting our community where it needs to be protected. What we saw in the lead-up to the last election was a concerted attempt by the then opposition to hijack this agenda, to try to focus on law and order in a way that they knew the Labor Party had done for the last 16 years. It was a core strength of ours and I am proud to be a part of that tradition. It was a core strength of ours throughout the whole of the Rann era, then with the former member for Enfield as the attorney-general and through the member for Cheltenham as the premier, and we saw a concerted effort on the part of those opposite to hijack that agenda to make it their own.

We heard a lot in the lead-up to the election. We heard a lot of promises. We heard a lot about terrorism, for example. They brought in a fairly good terrorism bill which was based on the work we were doing following the Lindt cafe siege, and at the time we supported that work. They talked a lot about domestic violence. Again, that was a commendable effort by the Attorney-General in a lot of ways, but measure that effort against the cuts that are being mooted for the court system—the $7 million and climbing that the Chief Justice has to find within his court system.

If you talk to any prosecutor and any prosecution service across South Australia, particularly in regional areas, they will tell you that their workload has increased exponentially as a result of these very good law changes made by our previous government and the Liberal government in terms of domestic violence. They are good changes, but they need the support of the courts, and we have seen cuts to the courts. The Chief Justice is at a loss to find where to make those savings. It remains to be seen if there will be more cuts in the budgets to come but the Chief Justice is already struggling and, as a result, domestic violence victims are suffering and will continue to suffer.

We also heard a lot of talk by the then shadow minister for police, now Minister for Transport, about the war on drugs. There was a lot of talk in the lead-up to the election about the war on drugs including, it has to be said, a bizarre plan to give police powers they already have to enter schools to search for drugs.

We heard a lot of talk about drugs in and around prisons. We did see some action against some of these things. As I have said before in this place, the opposition and I have supported every sensible law and order measure that this government has introduced. In fact, as I have said before in this place, the only law and order measure that we have not supported has been the misguided attempt to put dope smokers in gaol for two years. We were never going to support that. The public were never going to support that. It was a crazy idea by the Attorney-General. Other than that, we have supported every sensible measure that the government has brought into this place.

But we have brought in measures of our own, measures that have been met with inexplicable opposition from those opposite, measures like ensuring that child sex offenders never get out—unrepentant child sex offenders who cannot or will not control their despicable behaviour, never allowed back in the community. We were struggling to get that through this house. We brought in measures to give police the capacity to search vehicles for drugs when they stopped at a roadside drug test. Again, it was rejected by the government.

Allowing police to search people coming and going from known drug houses again was rejected by the government. Doubling the punishment for endangering life by incredibly stupid acts like throwing rocks off bridges onto moving traffic again was inexplicably opposed by this government. Removing from our roads and from our kids' sight revolting and offensive messages and slogans on campervans again was rejected by this government. Measures to allow greater capacity to punish drug possession around prisons and to remove automatic parole for serious drug offenders—these two measures, again, only six months ago were opposed by this government.

I note that in the last month or so the Minister for Correctional Services made noises about those two measures finally being accepted by this government, which raises the question of why they were not accepted six months ago. What has changed? Why not vote yes then instead of no? I think we even divided on it. The minister is on record as voting against it. These are measures that could have been enacted six months ago when the Correctional Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018 went through this house, and the minister is only talking publicly about them now.

On top of all this failure, we have seen cuts. We have seen cuts to law and order—$38 million of savings that SAPOL need to find over the next four years. We have seen cuts to crime prevention grants. As I have said, we have seen cuts to the courts. The Chief Justice has said that $7 million was the initial target, but this is climbing exponentially. No-one seems to know the figure of where these savings will end for the court system, which again is putting at jeopardy things like the country courts, which particularly Aboriginal people are so dependent on for their access to justice. It also affects domestic violence victims across South Australia.

We are seeing vastly increased rates of reporting and also the creation of new offences, which is putting extra pressure on prosecution services. That pressure is not being met by the court system currently, let alone after finding more than $7 million worth of cuts. We have seen cuts to Crime Stoppers and cuts to road safety and road maintenance. We have seen cuts to road safety on its own and also as a result of the decision to close the Motor Accident Commission.

Of course, on top of all this we have seen the wholesale privatisation of a complex maximum security prison. Not only that, it is a privatisation of the prison to a company so discredited in other jurisdictions that the Queensland government has, only in recent months, cancelled their contracts and essentially bought the prison management back from that company. I am referring to the Southern Queensland Correctional Centre. All of these cuts add up to making the community less safe, which is precisely what the government were not saying in their election promises.

I will speak a little bit about Crime Stoppers. I have spoken about this before, as has the member for King in some interesting contributions to this place. I will just go over a little bit of the history again. This is an organisation that now remains the only Crime Stoppers organisation in South Australia not to be centrally funded by a state government. Indeed, for its most recent campaign it has been forced to go to the public in a GoFundMe campaign in order to raise money to raise awareness about particular rural crimes and the reporting of crimes.

It has been shown time and time again that whenever Crime Stoppers in any state focuses on a particular issue in their promotional material, there is an exponential increase in the number of reports to police, the number of arrests, the number of reports and eventual prosecutions in the particular area where they are focusing.

Now they are forced to go to the public for a GoFundMe campaign in order to fund a rural campaign into rural property crime. They had a very successful campaign last year around ice, with many more reports than usual for ice production. Over the past few decades, in fact, Crime Stoppers have helped to solve almost 30,000 crimes. Crime Stoppers themselves are confused and appalled at this decision. I will quote what Crime Stoppers had to say in relation to the government's inexplicable refusal to fund them:

The lack of budget allocation comes despite a public commitment by the previous government and a number of subsequent briefings with the Minister for Police and his advisers, who have acknowledged the efforts of the highly effective crime-fighting program but do not follow up accolades with action….That lack of support now forces Crime Stoppers SA to consider cost-cutting measures and other ways to fund its campaigns and operations—which also includes costs associated with hosting the 1800 333 000 hotline, website, and its Rewards Program.

Crime Stoppers have been unquestionably successful. I will go through some of their results. More than $220,000 in rewards have been paid to members of the community. More than 32,000 have been solved; 21,141 persons have been apprehended; about $9.4 million worth of property has been recovered as a direct result of Crime Stoppers campaigns; nearly 2,000 charges have been laid for drug dealing, firearms, robberies, serious assaults and child pornography offences; 79 firearms have been seized, including ammunition and a range of illegal accessories; and 12 clandestine labs have been shut down and 1.3 million kilograms of amphetamines seized, which equates to 16,920 street deals, I am advised.

For a government claiming to be prosecuting a war on drugs, they do not seem to be doing a very good job. It is bizarre that they would cut funding for a program which self-evidently does so much towards detecting drugs in our community. In the Attorney-General's portfolio last year we also saw many cuts, not just the cuts to the courts but also cuts which were in many ways trifling cuts, which seemed unnecessary and cruel considering their impact. They included cuts to crime prevention grants which will save $3.9 million over four years.

These were grants which provided communities across the metropolitan area and across regional areas, local councils and community groups with grants to provide crime prevention initiatives within their own communities. Whether that is CCTV or better lighting at a train station or a road safety initiative that keeps people safe, all of these things cost $3.9 million over four years and have been inexplicably and cruelly cut.

The safe city grants were trifling cuts as well in many ways in terms of costs but their value to the community was huge. What the safe city grants did was to make sure that the CCTVs were set up within the City of Adelaide across places like Hindley Street, Hutt Street, Victoria Square and Pulteney Street to make sure that the CCTV cameras are not only renewed and replaced but the software which runs them, which has a shelf life of about five years as I understand it, is constantly replaced and renewed. Again, it is an inexplicable cut to a very successful and useful program to the police.

Finally, the cut to the managed taxi ranks was in that same suite of small cuts which make such a big difference to the safety of people in the community. The managed taxi ranks have an added dimension because people from the Lord Mayor down have informed me that these were extremely valuable services. They were provided on Friday and Saturday nights so that many people, including young people, women in particular, knew where to go to feel safe, how to get a taxi in a safe environment and, not even to get a taxi, just to attend a safe environment when they didn't feel safe at times in the city. In fact, Adelaide city council made some effort to pick up the shortfall in the very short term when that funding was pulled. But, again, that was another small, inexplicable cut that had such a big impact.

On top of all this, the police commissioner needs to find $38 million worth of savings over the next four years, with $7 million this year rising to $11 million in 2021-22 for efficiencies in so-called back-office activities at SAPOL. Again, I ask the Minister for Police, the Premier and the Treasurer: in a period of rising crime in certain areas—certainly very static crime—and rising reports of domestic violence against a backdrop of cuts to the courts: where will the police commissioner find these savings?

I am sure he is not happy about having to find the savings, and I predict that there will be considerable bunfights over the next four years as the commissioner tries to find them; but we all await what the next budget will bring. The Treasurer and the Minister for Police have assured us many times that front-line police services will not be directly impacted, but that simply cannot be the case. If you attack back-office activities in SAPOL, it will have a direct impact on front-line activities.

Finally, I refer to the Motor Accident Commission, which has again become topical this week, and the inexplicable decision to close the Motor Accident Commission—a very successful organisation. There is not a great deal of savings, it has to be said. The Treasurer has committed to provide the funding of $11 million over the next year to road safety initiatives. He has made noises about committing to the funding well into the future, but that is not what the budget papers, as far as I read them, reflect.

It is not just the promotional and research activities of the Motor Accident Commission that are at risk. As the member for Lee has pointed out, there are also numerous smaller grants or areas of funding that come through the Motor Accident Commission to various organisations, particularly sports clubs and sports organisations, to fund sporting activities. As part of that, it promotes road safety initiatives and road safety messages to what, it has to be said, is largely a young male audience that needs to hear these messages.

The Tour Down Under and Adelaide United Football Club receive about $50,000 a year, I am advised, from the Motor Accident Commission, and the Motorcycle Riders Association's Toy Run and the RAA, through their Street Smart Primary program, run funding directly through the Motor Accident Commission. Also, the MFS run a road awareness program for kids. I noticed that the Minister for Emergency Services was at a session of that this week extolling its virtues, meanwhile cutting its funding by closing the Motor Accident Commission.

All these things add up to a whole series of what are sometimes small cuts and sometimes large cuts, but all inexplicable and inexcusable cuts that add up to a decrease in community safety, putting our community at further risk in order to save a few dollars. Like most South Australians, I fear what is in the next budget. We have heard a lot about public transport today. My dad was a bus driver for the STA back in the 1990s. He was a victim of the Treasurer's last foray into the privatisation of public transport services in the state and, like most South Australians, I fear the next step.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (22:40): I rise to support the second reading of the Supply Bill 2019, which, approved by the parliament, will supply the government with sufficient funds to carry on the business of government in the lead-up to the budget being passed. It is not unusual that there is no detail, no budget breakdown, on how these dollars will be spent.

Since the March election, residents have been speaking to me about issues that negatively impact on them, issues that were not flagged as part of the Marshall Liberal government's plans in the lead-up to the state election. There continues to be a feeling of trepidation about the government's plans. 'What's next?' they are asking. It is easy to understand why they are asking what is next when you look at what is going on under this Liberal government.

You only have to look at the job creation support and other programs cut by the government, including the economic investment fund, the northern and southern connections, the very popular Fund My Neighbourhood program, the Small Business Development Fund, the South Australian Early Commercialisation Fund, the renewable technology industry development program, the Automotive Supplier Diversification Program, the Advanced Food Manufacturing program, the SA Premium Food and Wine Credentials Grant Program, the Future Jobs Fund, the career services program and the Retrenched Workers Program. The list goes on and on.

There have been cuts of more than 800 workers in SA Health, the closure of TAFE campuses, the closure of the two SHINE South Australia clinics and the Service SA centres at Modbury, Prospect and Mitcham. I have already spoken in this place about the impact this will have, particularly in the north-eastern suburbs and in relation to the more senior members of our community who do not actually have access to computers to proceed with the work required to complete their forms. But it does not end there.

There is the privatisation of SA Pathology, the Adelaide Remand Centre, the Modbury Hospital patient transfers, and there are rent increases in Housing SA homes. From the budget, we learnt that $46 million was to be cut from bus and train services, and we are already seeing the impact of this on cuts to our bus routes and services. I have had many residents raise issues about this. Then there is the uncertainty about ongoing funding for so many of our wonderful hardworking community organisations. It is no wonder that residents are asking, 'What's next?'

The member for Ramsay spoke in this place about the impact of $11 million being cut from the tourism budget, pointing out that international visitors are down 3.2 per cent, international visitor spending is down 3.5 per cent and international visitor nights are down 9 per cent. In government, Labor delivered the biggest ever investment in public transport, upgraded every major hospital and developed a state-of-the-art health and biomedical precinct, with the iconic SAHMRI and the world-class new Royal Adelaide Hospital as its centre.

We delivered record investment in infrastructure for the revitalisation of our CBD, with the redevelopment of the Riverbank Precinct, the Adelaide Convention Centre, the Festival Plaza and, of course, the iconic Adelaide Oval, with the nearby footbridge over the Torrens. Under our government, there was investment in major infrastructure projects, including the extension of the O-Bahn into the Adelaide CBD, with improved travel times and reliability for thousands of public transport users, reducing traffic congestion and delays for motorists on the inner ring route.

For all the criticism that we had from the Liberal opposition over the years for investing in this infrastructure, I have heard nothing but praise from commuters about the upgrade of the O-Bahn and the investment in the park-and-rides and parking facilities under our watch. Klemzig residents and commuters in my electorate of Torrens were looking forward to the additional car parks Labor had planned and budgeted for at the Klemzig O-Bahn Interchange. Unfortunately, following the election, the Liberal government made a decision to take that away and, to date, we see no evidence of it being reinstated.

Klemzig residents are particularly keen for these works to progress because their streets are congested throughout the working day with the cars of O-Bahn commuters who park not only on OG Road but in the side streets of Klemzig. I often speak to residents who have their driveways blocked by these cars or find it difficult to enter or exit the driveway of their home because of this congestion. Labor's investment to increase the number of these car parks would have seen that congestion on the roads removed, along with an increased use of the O-Bahn, which is good for commuters all-round and beneficial for the environment, too, so I will continue to speak out until the Klemzig park-and-ride facilities are delivered.

I have spoken in this place on numerous occasions about the Strathmont swimming pool at Oakden. This was closed by the Marshall Liberal government on 31 January this year. There was no mention of this happening during the election campaign. This pool was used extensively by 1,500 children and adults for swimming lessons and water therapy, including children with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual and physical disabilities; new migrants from landlocked states, often challenged by a fear of water; young babies; and senior members of our community.

We need additional swimming pools, not a reduction. Labor committed to a new swimming pool in the lead-up to the election. The Liberals were silent and then, when elected, closed the Strathmont swimming pool. This was indeed a budget measure, as clearly stated in a document accessed under FOI that states the Strathmont swimming pool is 'a budget pressure for DHS' and that 'there will be recurrent savings if the pool is closed'.

Many in our community are feeling despondent about these cuts, closures and privatisations that the government has already announced or actioned. While most were not flagged by the Marshall Liberal opposition in the lead-up to the March 2018 election, there were a number of promises made that are yet to come to fruition. I have been listening to speeches by government members opposite, joyfully saying that projects in their areas are being funded—and there are some smiles over there.

There are two important projects in my electorate that were promised in the lead-up to the state election. The Liberal candidate for Torrens made promises that, if a Liberal government was elected, they would deliver these promises. Unfortunately, that eventuated and those opposite are now in government. While I often hear ministers saying they are delivering on election promises, what has not eventuated, what they have been silent on, is the delivery of these two projects in Torrens.

The first was $500,000 towards the construction of female change facilities at the Gaza Sports and Community Club in Klemzig. Recent years have seen great progress with women and girls playing football at the club. The Gaza women's football team players list is rapidly growing, with the vision of adding another women's football team. It is a club that is encouraging and has seen a number of its players go on to play for the SANFL.

Having female change rooms and other facilities at our sporting clubs sends a very important message to women and girls that they are welcome in sport and that their club's culture is one that will facilitate this participation. As I said previously, the Liberal candidate for Torrens met with Gaza's committee and made a commitment that a Liberal government would match Labor's commitment for women's change facilities at the Gaza Sports and Community Club, and I have a statutory declaration from committee members to this effect.

Along with Gaza club players and members, I am still waiting for the Minister for Sport to respond to my question asked in question time: when will the commitment made by the Liberal candidate to the Gaza football club be honoured? Addressing inequality for girls and women in sport is important. The government cut the girls and women in sport facilities program. Only last Saturday I was at MetroStars Soccer Club where there was a double-header and Metro United women played the second game. The club had to bring in a transportable facility so that the women could change. That is outrageous.

Another commitment by the Liberal candidate was to fix Fosters Road, including putting in lights at the North East Road and Fosters Road junction. I understand now that this promise will not be kept. In the lead-up to the election the Liberal Party put jobs as a priority—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Torrens, a moment, please. The interjections between the two frontbenchers will cease. You have been heard in silence up until now. Member for Torrens, continue.

Ms WORTLEY: Another commitment by the Liberal candidate was to fix Fosters Road, including putting lights at the North East Road and Fosters Road junction. I understand now that this promise will not be kept. It is interesting that now we are coming up to a federal election, they have adopted the same policy of using signs saying they are going to fix something. The state Liberal Party did not keep their promise then, so I cannot imagine that federally those promises are going to be kept. Putting signs up along the road saying that these things will happen is just for show.

In the lead-up to the election the Liberal Party also put jobs as a priority. The ABS now reveals that there are more unemployed in South Australia than at the time of the state election in March 2018, that the unemployment rate is higher today than it was 12 months ago, and the youth unemployment rate is higher than what it was at the election. We are only just into the second year of the Marshall Liberal government and we have cuts, closures, privatisation, job losses and broken promises. It is no wonder that residents are asking, 'What's next?'

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Giles.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (22:51): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I also rise, as we all have, in support of the Supply Bill. I would just like to say before I start that I am sure you are more than pleased with the rain that has recently fallen on Eyre Peninsula. Let's hope that it continues for the rest of the season and for the rest of the state. We could do with more, though, in the Far North as there are still some quite desperate circumstances up there.

The incoming Liberal government gave the impression that it was going to be absolutely fantastic news for regional South Australia. That would have to go beyond the #RegionsMatter repeated again and again. I suspect that a lot of people in regional South Australia have been somewhat underwhelmed by the initiatives of those opposite. You would think that after 16 years in opposition you would have been chomping at the bit to come in here with a well thought-through reform agenda to implement those things that you held us to account for, often more on the basis of perception than anything else but you held us to account. In your first budget, there was hardly any indication that the regions matter or matter in a way that was fundamentally different from when we were in power.

There has been a whole series of cutbacks when it comes to regional South Australia. A lot has been said over the years about our road network in country South Australia. Clearly, there is a lot of work to be done and there has always been a lot of work to be done. It has never been helped by the federal government when it comes to its spend in South Australia and its constant dudding of South Australia regarding our fair share of road funding. There were big commitments made about improving roads in regional South Australia, and what did we get with the first budget? We got a $26 million cut to regional road funding. There is nothing that is going to set the world alight out there in regional South Australia.

We have fantasy projects like GlobeLink. Why not concentrate on something really decent like getting the duplication of the road between Port Wakefield and Port Augusta underway? The Freight Council has described this road as a death corridor. The number of people who have died and been seriously injured on that road over recent years is something I believe both sides of the house would not accept. We need to start making a solid commitment.

I notice that the member for Grey came out today or yesterday with $60 million, but that is not a $60 million project; that is an incredibly tiny start. Depending on which figures you use, it is anywhere between $1.2 billion and $2 billion. It is national Highway 1 and it is the federal government that should be coming to the party in a serious fashion, given the usual formula is 80 per cent federal and 20 per cent state, but we should be doing more as a state to really push that important project. It is a project that should take a precedence over what I have described as the fantasy project of GlobeLink, which I bet will never happen.

Mr Cowdrey interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: Let us hope there is going to be a change of government at a federal level and we will be in like Flynn, getting the federal government to come to the party. One of the simple things that you promised when elected was, for some of those roads where we reduced speed limits to 100 km/h, to pop those back up to 110 km/h. Well, it still has not happened. This is not complicated stuff. I can stand up here as someone with a foot in both camps when it comes to this one, and not just because of a recent speeding fine.

I did see some recommendations from the bureaucracy about being far more extensive when it came to cutting road speeds on country roads in South Australia. That did not happen, but some roads of late were cut. I did not think there was any justification for some of those in my electorate when it came to the accident history and the nature of those particular roads.

The SPEAKER: Member for Giles, there is a point of order.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I am very apologetic to my colleague but, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr HUGHES: I think I was just on a roll then; unfortunately, I will almost have to start from the beginning again to get that roll going. I was talking about road speeds. It is a very simple and a very straightforward task. Have you delivered on that one year into your term? No, you have not. You have not delivered on something as simple as that, so God help us when it comes to the more complicated stuff.

You thought, 'Country cabinet is a really bad idea and we are not going to do that.' You said all sorts of strange things about country cabinets—

Ms STINSON: I draw your attention to the state of the house, sir.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr HUGHES: I was about to wax lyrical about country cabinets and the lack of support by those opposite for country cabinets.

Members interjecting:

Mr HUGHES: I know how much, at 11 o'clock at night, you want to listen to me. I am sure there is a vast audience out there listening to this stream now, at 11 o'clock at night.

One of the fundamental things about country cabinets was that act of getting all the ministers, senior bureaucrats and others out into country communities but out into country communities in totally uncontrolled forums. Anybody could turn up; anybody could ask questions. There were no gatekeepers there, no having to go through a whole layer of people to get in to see a minister.

In fact, they were incredibly well attended. I attended a number of them myself. There were 6,200 people who attended these forums. The member for Stuart is not here, but he will testify to the fact that in Port Augusta there was a big turnout to that country cabinet meeting. In Whyalla there was a good turnout, and there were good turnouts in other communities as well.

They were something that was accepted. It is interesting that the two Independents, both from regional South Australia, have spoken recently on the value of country cabinets. But no, not good enough for the current government. They prefer to have gatekeepers in place so there is control, so there is real control about who gets to see visiting ministers.

One of the most miserly things that was done—and I will cut across a few portfolios here—was in regional South Australia and communities like mine of Whyalla, but also in Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, Murray Bridge, Mount Gambier and in some of the smaller communities, is that there is a significant number of Housing SA properties. For instance, in a place like Whyalla it would be close to one-quarter of the housing properties.

The most miserly thing that was done was the attack on some of the most vulnerable people in our state who lived in the single-bed bedsitters—Housing SA properties in regional communities and also in the metropolitan area—with the rent increases for those particular individuals. That was not going to generate much in the way of income; these were one-bedroom bedsitters. These were not the three-bedroom houses on the traditional quarter-acre block Housing SA properties.

Now these people are going to be paying the same percentage of their income when it comes to renting a Housing SA property. I went out and checked the make-up of the people in those one-bedroom properties. I know that in my community they were nearly all frail, elderly people. It epitomises the approach in a number of ways that that particular section of our population, those people who are low-income earners, who depend upon the pension and who have a one-bedroom bedsitter, were to be hit by this increase in rent. It was just one of those things that sums up those opposite in a number of respects.

There were a number of cuts to TAFE facilities. Roxby Downs was cut—and there was an interesting conversation in Roxby Downs about that cut—as was the TAFE facility at Coober Pedy. Coober Pedy is the opal capital of the world. I say that we should have done more when we were in power. At times, there were opal-cutting classes that attracted people from all around the place. I believe that we could have done more. There is now no TAFE facility in the whole of the far north of South Australia. The nearest TAFE facility is in now in Port Augusta, so no TAFE facility in Roxby Downs and no TAFE facility in Coober Pedy.

One of the most disturbing losses was the Plan for Accelerating Exploration program. I think it was one of the most valuable programs that the previous government introduced way back in 2004. Through the good times and the bad times in the mining industry, we continued to fund that particular program, and it was incredibly successful. The South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy have stated that over the life of that program it generated an additional $2.4 billion in mining revenue to the state. That was an incredibly significant return on the investment undertaken.

From memory, I read somewhere that for each dollar invested there was an $18 to $20 return. So it is incredibly short-sighted that that program was cut, and it is incredibly short-sighted when it comes to backing regional South Australia's economic opportunity. I have mentioned before, I will mention again and I will keep mentioning until this program is reinstated, that the Carrapateena deposit would not have been discovered without PACE. The PACE program contributed 50 per cent to that particular drilling campaign, and that drilling campaign led to a $900-odd million investment in the Carrapateena mine, and now we have OZ Minerals flagging that there is going to be an additional $1 billion investment in Carrapateena, which is incredibly good news for the state.

For regional South Australia, for the state as a whole, that represents 500 long-lived jobs as a result of that mine, that is, the direct jobs not counting the indirect employment. When you add the additional billion dollars that they are talking about, out of outsourced minerals, how many additional jobs that is going to represent in the long-term, they were not in a position to say, but you can bet it is going to be a significant increase in employment. That will benefit Port Pirie, that will benefit Port Augusta, that will benefit Whyalla, and will benefit places further afield, where people do drive-in drive-out or fly-in fly-out from the airport, the runway that has been set up at Carrapateena. I would implore those opposite to lobby the Minister for Energy and Mining and to get behind the reintroduction of this incredibly valuable program.

I am proud of the Labor government's history when it comes to the support of the mining industry in this state. Nearly all the feedback that I used to get from the mining industry—and I have the biggest mines in my electorate—was always very positive about the former state government. However, at the end of the day that sort of investment in the PACE program means jobs for regional communities. It is one of the things that has been cut, and I think it is a disgrace.

There is a range of other things that are going to have a negative impact on country South Australia. The next budget I am sure will put enormous pressure on the court system. Whyalla and Port Pirie are being lined up to lose their courts, and that will have a whole range of consequences for our communities and the social justice system. It is going to put additional stress on our police. It is probably going to lead to the loss of lawyers in Whyalla and Port Augusta, if you do not have courts in your community. That has a cascading series of impacts in a whole range of other areas. So, once again, it is going to be harder for people in country communities to access some of the services they need.

One of the good things about the previous state government was that it totally ruled out the privatisation of SA Pathology. The potential privatisation of SA Pathology once again disproportionately impacts upon regional communities because SA Pathology has an extensive integrated network in regional South Australia and a network that is integrated with what it does in the metropolitan area. It carries out a whole range of services that the private sector will not carry out. They are very important public services for public health.

At present, we have SA Pathology in Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Augusta, Victor Harbor, Mount Gambier, Wallaroo, Berri and Port Lincoln. The privatisation of that particular service will see the loss of specialist jobs in regional South Australia. In the community of Whyalla, there are approximately 20 people employed at SA Pathology, and I think the number is similar in Mount Gambier. In Port Pirie, around 10 people are employed at SA Pathology. This will have an impact employment-wise and, once again, an impact in terms of the services available in country South Australia.

SA Pathology, and pathology in general, is involved in about 70 per cent of medical treatment decisions. Sometimes, time is of the essence. We know what the private sector does: it cuts corners. It is all about the bottom line. Work will be sent interstate, work that was formerly being done in the regions will come to Adelaide or possibly go interstate. That all adds time and complexity, which ultimately has an impact on patient outcomes.

I have mentioned the duplication of the road between Port Augusta and Port Wakefield. I think it is something that has to be done. It is part of our national infrastructure and it does need urgent attention.

In relation to SA Pathology, I could talk a bit more about health services in country South Australia. I am not going to have a go at those opposite when it comes to health services because it is a mix, and some of the issues we face in the delivery of primary health care services are predominantly federal issues, with the incentives that are available and the way that Medicare operates in general.

When it comes to wellbeing associated with health, as a nation we are one of the highest ranking countries in the world. The latest index puts us at around No. 7 in the world, which is interesting because we have dropped two positions in the last two years. In country South Australia, we have some real issues in relation to timely access to primary health services, especially in relation to GPs. There have been a couple of initiatives by the current government in this space that I think are worthwhile, but they are just touching the periphery because it is a deep systemic issue.

It is going to have to change, and it requires changes at a federal level, especially in relation to Medicare provider numbers. At the moment, we have an inverse relationship between where the medical professions are and where the greatest need is. The greatest need is out in the country and in some of our poorest suburbs in the metropolitan area. Part of the explanation in the country relates to access in a timely fashion, availability and distance, but that is only part of the story because we know that socio-economic factors are incredibly important in health outcomes.

The general picture, and it is not true in all cases, is that the further away you get from the core of the major metropolitan areas the lower the income, and that has a direct impact on health outcomes. It is not just a case of access and remoteness, even though that is one of the factors at play.

We do need to get GPs out into country South Australia, and that is going to require not just initiatives on the part of the state government but also serious lobbying of the federal government to change the mix of incentives, how we allocate Medicare provider numbers and a move away from the overabundance of doctors in some of the more salubrious suburbs in our metropolitan areas, whether that be in Adelaide or the other states. I was going to talk about energy, but it looks like I have run out of time.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (23:15): Every new government needs to carve out an identity for itself. Will it be a reforming government, a progressive government, a government with a bold agenda, big dreams? This government has clearly decided it wants to be known as a cuts government. Cuts, closures and privatisations; that is what defines this Marshall Liberal government.

It is a far cry from the slogan it adopted prior to the election, a slogan many South Australians now probably strain to recall, so remote are its ideas from what is actually being delivered. To remind the house, this slogan was 'More jobs, lower costs, better services'. Let us look at that in relation to the child protection portfolio, a portfolio that was the focus of this government when it was in opposition before the election, a portfolio that, just a few months in, has slid right off the agenda. It is barely spoken of now, and the minister is barely heard from.

More jobs: what we have seen in child protection is fewer jobs in key areas. We have seen jobs slashed. Let us take the financial counselling service. This program employed 59 full-time equivalents, and more than $4.4 million was invested in delivering this service each year. Over many years that skilled team of financial counsellors played a pivotal role in early intervention and prevention as well as family reunification and capacity building and in the very important task of assisting young people to develop the skills to transition out of care and into independent living. That is a vital role, because no-one wants to see the cycle of disadvantage spin another revolution and carve into the fortunes of another generation.

Slashing this service has some pretty severe consequences. Not only does the sacking of 59, or even more, child protection financial counsellors breach the Liberals' much repeated slogan of creating more jobs but it also breaches recommendations 158 and 159 of the child protection system's royal commission, better known to most as the Nyland royal commission.

Those recommendations state, firstly, that the Children's Protection Act 1993 be amended to require the minister to provide or arrange assistance to care leavers aged between 18 and 25 years. Assistance should specifically include the provision of information about services and resources, financial and other support to obtain housing, education, training and employment, and access to legal advice and health care.

Secondly, commissioner Nyland recommended an expansion—an expansion—of financial counselling services to manage access to post care financial support from the agency provided in accordance with the previous recommendation. Nowhere does it say that the existing service should be dismantled or defunded, or that the jobs of those 59 financial counsellors should be slashed. In fact, it indicates that the royal commissioner valued financial counselling services and wanted to see them expanded.

I can see why a cuts government would target this service. It has shaved almost $14 million off the child protection budget by doing it, but the real cost will be paid by families and young people who can ill afford to be sacrificed for this government's cuts agenda. In fact, the costs of intergenerational disadvantage far, far outweigh the almost $14 million the government might hope to save with this measure.

Ripping out this $4.4 million a year service—that is $13½ million over just three years—is being replaced with what? If only we knew. If only the minister knew. As usual, questions about this area were met with the vagueness and confusion that we have come to expect from the Minister for Child Protection. The minister gave not one, not two, but three different accounts of how the financial wellbeing service would be replaced, and that was all in one estimates hearing.

The first account was that $1 million had already been allocated to Relationships Australia for post-care services. However, in the list of post-care services to be provided, financial counselling was not one that the minister listed. The second account was that $1 million would be allocated for a range of different initiatives by NGOs and an app, though the chief executive later corrected that and confirmed that those initiatives listed by the minister were actually part of the previous government's response to the Nyland royal commission and were already funded, and indeed many were already implemented, including the app.

The third account was that a tender for the $1 million new service would go out within the next nine months. That was stated in September/October, though this minister has in that period been very quiet about this tender. In fact, there has been no such tender for any such financial counselling service released at all. In any case, the deputy chief executive pointed out that such a tendered service would not be like for like, indicating that it would not be a dedicated financial counselling service at all.

It is all very confusing, and there has been no clarity in the public sphere since and, I understand, quite a lot of confusion in the NGO sector about how these financial wellbeing services will be replaced, if at all. Just weeks out from the financial wellbeing service being disintegrated, on 30 June, it leaves some really big questions. Where are these 59 staff going? Where will families and young people get financial counselling after 30 June? And, of course, how does this constitute more jobs, as promised by the Liberal government?

These jobs, these financial counsellors, are needed now more than ever. In fact, they are needed more than when this government came to power. The number of children in state care is growing under this government, and not just the number but the annual rate of increase. That is despite the now minister's assertions that this government would decrease the number of children coming into care.

Since this government took office, since this minister took the portfolio, there has been a 9.1 per cent increase in the number of children in care in 12 months. That is a significant jump compared with the previous financial year's figures. In the previous financial year, the rate of increase was 6.1 per cent. I note that in estimates the minister stated that she had would arrest the rate of increase and limit it to around 3 per cent.

I say 'around' because, as usual, the minister was pretty vague about that, too. She also inaccurately relied on some figures when making her assertions about her own self-imposed KPIs. Based on the varying statements that she gave, she could have meant anywhere between 2.5 per cent and 3.3 per cent, so I have been pretty generous in my interpretation. Despite that generosity, she has obviously failed to reach that self-set target. Instead, the rate of increase has been three times her stated goal. Shame!

With so many more children and families now coming into contact with the child protection agency under this government, now more than ever support for families and those additional children coming into state care is needed, and that includes financial counselling services. We have seen a rise in the number of children in state care, yet we have seen cuts left, right and centre to support families, carers, relatives and children, and the staff who support them all.

Back to that Liberal slogan, 'More jobs, lower costs, better services'. Lower costs for whom? Certainly not kinship carers. Under this minister, kinship carers only narrowly escaped footing the bill for the Christmas lunch last year. The cuts have been so brutal in the Department for Child Protection that they have even extended to the point where staff were concerned that Christmas lunches for kinship carers might be cancelled this year.

We know that because concerned people told us about it, despite the minister's vehement denials. We know that the minister's denials were false and misleading because FOI documents revealed the chatter and concern of staff, particularly in regional DCP offices, that they would have to cancel the lunches because the money had not been found for a cheap Chrissie lunch for regional kinship carers who do so much for so little.

I am glad the money has been found—after it was raised by Labor publicly; nevertheless, it has been found. It is a sign of how miserly this government is, the level of penny pinching that it will sink to and that it prioritises bottom lines over respecting kinship carers. In fact, the minister persists with the penny pinching, unable even to reveal the costs of these lunches, even as a per head allocation, and blanking that information out in the FOI documents. That speaks to someone who knows that she has made a poor decision and is petrified of scrutiny.

Lower costs: this government is happy to pass costs for a basic lunch on to kinship carers, and that is just one of many charges being passed on to foster and kinship carers. As the member for Wright pointed out in January, foster and kinship carers are increasingly reporting that their applications for the facilities they need to support children in their care or to take on additional children are being rejected. These carers have been told that the department has been instructed to shave back the budget and disallow requests for fit-for-purpose vehicles, household appliances or accommodation in all but the most extreme circumstances.

If we look at the most recent Report on Government Services, we can see that caring for a child in residential care costs state taxpayers an average of some $540,000. That is 10 times more than the cost of providing foster care for a single child. It does not make sense to knock back applications for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars and risk children going into much more expensive forms of care that arguably produce much worse outcomes for young people.

Then we have the claim of better services. There are certainly not better services when it comes to financial counselling and providing for the children most in need of the state's care and protection. Last year's budget saw $3.9 million axed—money that was slated for new residential care facilities. I understand that the minister, and indeed some in this sector, had concerns about particular housing configurations, but the decision was made to axe this funding altogether—not to reconfigure it, not to come up with a different design but to axe it entirely.

The explanation given was that this housing was not needed because of an expected drop in the number of children in care, and in particular in residential care. That has simply not transpired. As I stated earlier, there has been a 9.1 per cent rise in the number of children in care under this minister's watch. In residential care we have seen a rise of 7.3 per cent in the number of children in this form of care in the first 12 months under this government and this minister.

You have to wonder if axing $3.9 million for additional residential care was such a smart idea. You have to wonder if the minister really understood the portfolio. You have to wonder if the minister had some rather lofty ideas about her own capacities. That $3.9 million was not just bricks and mortar. Once again, it was people: much-needed staff in child protection, front-line workers. There were 12 full-time staff associated with this budget measure, that is, 12 full-time staff who were axed under this budget measure.

It is hard to justify that decision in light of the acceleration of children coming into care under this government. There is less housing, there are fewer staff and there are worse services. This promise of more jobs, lower costs and better services is a joke and, when it comes to child protection, it is not a very funny one.

Mr GEE (Taylor) (23:29): I rise today to support the Supply Bill. It is essential that we ensure that the state government can continue to operate while they prepare what we expect will be a high taxing budget. Where to start? It is difficult to see the vision of this government. I have heard the Premier say, 'We're a government for all South Australians.' I have heard various ministers say the same thing. We will have a look at that. On this side of the house, we believe in investing in quality education, quality health care and in our community. We take our responsibility for our environment very seriously.

On the government side of the house, the evidence shows that they support ongoing cuts, closures and privatisations and have failed to support South Australians when it comes to the River Murray—the River Murray that is so important to all South Australians; I just cannot figure how this government could be so out of touch with the rest of us—and I must now add breaking election promises to that list. It is this difference in values that saw the state Liberal government cut funding to critical health services in the most disadvantaged areas of Adelaide, including Davoren Park in my electorate.

The government's cuts, closures and privatisation are hitting vulnerable people across the state, but are these cuts affecting all South Australians the same? Yes and no. In my electorate, young people and women are affected by the closure of the SHINE SA clinic at Davoren Park, and it is the same for those people living south of the city following the closure of the Noarlunga centre, another example of this state government's funding cuts. When meeting with councillors and mayors from the Adelaide Plains, City of Playford and Salisbury councils, even local government is saying that the Liberals are out of touch with the community in relation to this issue.

This government argues that only a small amount of funding was cut and that SHINE should be receiving more via Medicare, but the loss of $547,000 of funding has led to these closures as the state government possibly does not realise or just does not care that SHINE SA is already maximising the funding it can receive from Medicare. Doctors have advised that there will likely be more unplanned pregnancies, an increase in the rate of sexually transmitted diseases, longer waiting times in local hospitals, more cost-of-living pressures for those who can least afford them and that the cuts will affect the mental health of those who need this service.

Despite all this, the state government went ahead and cut funding. I am proud of everyone across South Australia who fought hard to oppose this cut—community organisations, residents, local councils and the Australian Medical Association. Over 400 doctors wrote letters, signed petitions and rallied against this short-sighted cut. Members of the house may not be aware that SHINE SA Davoren Park serviced not only people from northern Adelaide but also clients from across regional South Australia. It is not easy to visit a doctor's surgery in a small town to get advice for an unplanned pregnancy, when young people are questioning their sexuality or for advice regarding contraception and protection from sexually transmitted diseases.

There is no anonymity at these doctors' rooms. In small towns, everyone knows each other. SHINE was seeing 9,000 people annually between the two clinics that are being closed. These women and young people are most likely to now attend the Lyell McEwin and Flinders Medical Centre. What will the cost of this be compared to the small $547,000 funding cut? As we are coming up to budget time, I call upon the members for Frome, King, Narungga and Schubert, and the Premier's suicide prevention advocate from the other place to join Labor and call upon the Treasurer to reverse the funding cuts to SHINE SA.

Another area where the state Liberal Party is out of touch with community expectations is in relation to bus and other public transport cuts. Public transport should be accessible for all, not just those travelling at peak times. The community want to see more services and cheaper fares for those who sometimes cannot afford it. The state government said it is listening to the community. The Premier is not listening to the residents that I spoke to on buses and at interchanges and bus stops across my electorate and in the city.

We are already seeing overcrowding across the rail network, and we have seen carriages removed from the Belair, Grange and Outer Harbor lines. The community are upset that they are losing their services and getting angry with the Liberal government over the millions of dollars worth of cuts still to come. Who is affected by this? The first cuts mostly affected cleaners and nurses and other shiftworkers, along with students travelling to or from university or TAFE. Will the next round of cuts have a greater impact on seniors and families with children, and people with a disability travelling during the day or on weekends? We do not know.

The government recently had a bit of a thought bubble. They think it is a good idea to force commuters to use a mix of buses, trains and trams or multiple buses to get from A to B. This will just lead to fewer people using public transport and make it more expensive for those who still do. Nobody I have spoken to thinks that this makes any sense at all.

On this side, we believe that everyone has to have access to shelter or accommodation, but this is becoming increasingly difficult as housing becomes less affordable in South Australia. A study by Anglicare released recently found that 98 per cent of rental properties are unaffordable for minimum wage workers. Further, there is a huge shortage of secure, affordable rentals. I know from families coming into my electorate office and speaking with me at the local shops that they are struggling with their rent, their utility bills and even to put food on the kitchen table. We are dealing with some locals who are sleeping in their cars. What is the government doing about this? This Liberal government is just hopeless.

At the same time that we have people who cannot get somewhere to live, the government has huge tracts of land that remain vacant in my electorate, as the Playford Alive urban renewal project seems to have just stopped. These vacant blocks should be used to provide affordable housing to young families, seniors and people who need access to the housing market, either to purchase a home or to be housed in a Housing Authority property.

Shame on this government for increasing Housing SA rents. I call upon them to act now to increase the supply of affordable housing in the state and reduce rents for those who cannot afford to pay. The state government also seems to have cut the funding to last year's Playford Alive fun day. It may not be important to the government, but it is a great event that the local community feels has been taken away by this Liberal government.

Our team values education and its importance in ensuring our children and grandchildren can succeed whether they choose university, TAFE or a trade to start their career. The possibilities are endless if they receive a quality education from the age of three. There is some positive news in education because of Labor's investment in schools. The shadow education minister and I visited the Swallowcliffe Primary School to see the impact of the school's redevelopment. The difference is clear to see, with students in modern classrooms that meet their needs and facilities for teachers to deliver world-class education.

When it comes to schools being able to grow, this government has its foot on the brake and is going backwards. One example is the Elizabeth North Primary School. Promised funding for a badly needed upgrade, now under the Marshall Liberal government it will have to wait up to six years to receive quality facilities for their growing number of students. While this government uses the funds for its year 7 transition to high school, parents want to see funding invested in their kids' education now.

It is pleasing that there is some positive economic news in South Australia, but it is thanks to the work of the former Labor government and the private sector. Recently, I attended a business breakfast at Dublin Clean Grain, which was organised by the Adelaide Plains Council and supported by Regional Development Australia for the Barossa, Gawler Light and Adelaide Plains groups. The meeting was the third that the council has held so far. The first was in Mallala, then Two Wells and now in Dublin to engage with local businesses and consider the development of an Adelaide Plains business council. The local member for Narungga, Fraser Ellis, was one of the speakers at the meeting, along with a social media expert and representative from the council, outlining the economic benefits of the region's current expansion.

It was good to catch up with APC's CEO, mayor and other local councils and to hear from several farmers about their life on the land, successes and challenges, plus the need for significant rain. It has been good to see some rain falling in the rural areas, but plenty more is needed. But the main issue raised with me on that day was in relation to the mining bill. On this issue, the government is completely out of touch with farmers. The Dublin meeting voted to further develop the case for a business council—

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: A point of order, Mr Speaker: it is not often from my vantage point that I can see the seat of Chaffey, yet now I can, and I am wondering if it is appropriate that I am able to do so, sir.

The SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, member for Lee. Yes, I ask the minister if he is going to get up and walk around, he can sit on another chair. Let's lift the standard for the remaining 20 minutes.

Mr GEE: I appreciate the support from the member for Lee in pointing that out.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Let's give the member for Taylor the respect he deserves.

Mr GEE: The Dublin meeting voted to further develop the case for a business council for the region and subsequently the council has agreed to set up an independent business council. I believe this will bring positive benefits to this region. The Adelaide Plains Council area has seen huge growth through four new residential developments, plus new jobs at Dublin Clean Grain, Perfection and other local businesses, including new retail jobs.

I want to speak about other new opportunities in the north. The former Labor government negotiated the establishment of the Sonnen operation on the former Holden site at Elizabeth South. I recall the then premier Jay Weatherill welcoming the announcement. He called it a coup and said Sonnen would be 'leading the jobs of the future'. It now seems to me that the Liberals have embraced Labor's renewable vision, and this is when South Australians could really benefit.

Sonnen is leading the way in home battery systems in South Australia and is providing an exciting opportunity for the north, along with VeroGuard and La Casa Del Formaggio, developments located in Edinburgh Parks which were also assisted by the former Labor government. Sonnen is already employing many local staff, including contractors, and that number will continue to grow.

I visited Sonnen earlier this year when the operation was still gearing up, but they will be in full production soon. They are currently going through a quality assurance process with possible local suppliers and they are trying to maximise the opportunities for local South Australian businesses. It was good to see the former Holden site being used and more pleasing still to meet with ex-Holden workers who are now at the forefront of the renewable energy industry in South Australia.

I mentioned VeroGuard earlier. Again, it is good to see the ongoing construction of their new facility in Edinburgh Parks. This will create more local jobs for those currently looking for work and opportunities for our kids and grandkids in the future—another Labor project. There are also developments occurring at the RAAF Edinburgh, as it develops into one of three superbases across Australia. I encourage members and their families to visit the base for the air show later this year.

Another area that will hopefully experience an economic turnaround is the Port Pirie area. I had the opportunity during March this year to visit Port Pirie with Labor leader Peter Malinauskas. We visited the Port Pirie smelter, met with residents at the Ellen Centre, and the Mayor and CEO of the Port Pirie Regional Council. I know all members of this house are aware of the Nyrstar smelter at Port Pirie, but many members would not have been able to visit it to see how important and complex this plant is. It was good to be joined at the smelter by the member for Frome, Geoff Brock, a former smelter worker and regular visitor to the site.

The Port Pirie smelter is the largest lead smelter in the world and will hopefully have a bright future. I thank Mark Zaborowski, vice president of the Australian operations, and his team at the smelter, for their briefing and tour of the facility. It was valuable to hear about the challenges and opportunities for the local community from Leon Stephens, Port Pirie Regional Council Mayor, and CEO Peter Ackland. The area has a positive future ahead, but they are currently struggling with high unemployment and a shortage of doctors and carers.

It was also good to hear the recent announcement by Pirie Meats, which is expected to create up to 350 direct and indirect jobs. The new Watertown abattoir will become South Australia's only multispecies dedicated service processing centre for domestic and export products. This announcement, which comes at a critical time, will hopefully boost confidence in the local community. Unfortunately #RegionsMatter has not had an impact in that local area at all.

My local community can sympathise with the Port Pirie community, as the Adelaide Plains in my electorate is another area that does not seem to matter to this government. I hope that the local state and federal governments, along with the private sector, will assist Port Pirie to realise its full potential. Closer to home—

Mr Pederick: Just talk about Nyrstar, comrade.

Mr GEE: I appreciate the member for Hammond's support. Closer to home, residents have given up on this government. In Virginia, there is a need for a street upgrade to cope with the expected growth, yet there is no support from this government for the Virginia Main Street upgrade. Support for local growers is almost non-existent and, following campaigns, petitions, public meetings and meetings with the minister, we still have no funding for the Curtis Road and Heaslip Road intersection.

One of the worst social issues we must face in northern Adelaide and across the state is crystal methamphetamine (or ice). It is destroying lives. Unfortunately, this is not news to anybody in this place, but it is shocking to see the damage ice is causing in our communities. I recently attended a public forum run by the Australian Anti Ice Campaign (AAIC) and supported by the Northern Carers Network. Around 100 local residents, AAIC volunteers (who are mostly ex-users of the drug) and community leaders attended. The forum heard from the CEO of AAIC, Andrea Simmons, who informed attendees about the drug, and her experience of taking the drug once, and then the downward spiral from being a successful businesswoman to living in a unit with blacked-out windows, believing the government was watching her and doing whatever she had to do to survive.

Local families and AAIC volunteers shared their confronting experiences. Imagine a mum facing her son who comes home high and trashes her home, or while under the influence you drive the wrong way on the Northern Expressway, or you now have lifelong medical effects from using ice. It is unthinkable that ice is affecting every community. As elected officials, we need to do all we can to fight the spread of ice and other drugs in our community through greater budget funding for prevention, education and rehabilitation. We need to acknowledge the work of family members, often grandparents, who provide support in these very difficult circumstances. The message is clear: it is not safe to take ice, not even once.

In recent years, we have seen penalty rates reduced, the government wanting to axe labour hire protections, and safety at work is under threat. The attack on workers' rights must stop. In fact, I believe that this Saturday's election will take care of penalty rates. I have always believed that workers have a right to a safe workplace and to return home safely each night. I am sure everyone in this place feels the same way. Every worker also has the right to receive fair and equal remuneration for their work. Unfortunately, these basic principles are not always true—whether it is workers building our city, or doctors and nurses caring for our families.

In regard to labour hire, we are aware that the laws introduced by the Weatherill government to protect workers will not be enforced as was intended. We are just awaiting a decision from the other place. The protection of wages and conditions for labour hire workers is essential. Labour hire was very rare in 1990, but by 1995 several thousand labour hire companies were operating around Australia and affecting millions of workers. Labour hire has only ever delivered insecurity for workers and their families. I think I will leave it there and bring the rest up in my grieve.

Bill read a second time.

Supply Grievances

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (23:50): I move:

That the house note grievances.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (23:50): I will not be lead speaker for the opposition. I welcome the opportunity to discuss a number of local, state and national issues in my grievance on this debate tonight; the first is in relation to the Mental Health Commission. The Mental Health Commission has been an important part of our health system since it was created a couple years ago by the previous government. Unfortunately, what we have seen in recent weeks is that the government have hired interstate consultants who have given them a recommendation to abolish the Mental Health Commission.

The Mental Health Commission have been advising on mental health policy for our state. They have been consulting across the state, and the commissioner, Chris Burns, has been doing an excellent job. The recommendation to abolish the commission has not been supported by any stakeholders, and it has not been supported by any clinical groups; they were not talked to as part of the review.

This is a retrograde step for mental health care in this state. It is something that we will be fighting. The government made a big mistake in the way they have gone about this review in not talking to consumers and in not talking to clinicians. There is a lot of anger about this, so we will continue to fight to keep the Mental Health Commission and to keep it providing leadership for this very important area of public policy in this state.

In recent weeks, we have seen the devastating impact of flu, and it has been a horrid start to the flu season in this state. We have seen over 12,000 cases and 17 deaths in this state and, unfortunately, we have seen a very bungled response by the state government. We had doctors and nurses who could not access vaccines to protect themselves. We had Flinders Medical Centre running out of vaccines; at the same time, vaccinations had not even started at other hospitals.

At the same time, politicians were able to access vaccines, as were health departments, and GPs were having their vaccines rationed. We have seen that the result has been a huge number of cases of flu but, unfortunately, we do not have any winter demand management plan put in place by the state government to deal with it. We are calling on them to put that plan in place now, make sure those winter beds are available now and learn the lessons of their bungled rollout of the flu vaccine so that this issue does not happen again.

I want to raise a local issue in terms of green waste in the Onkaparinga city council. The City of Onkaparinga has been the only city council in Adelaide that has not had a fortnightly green waste collection. This is an issue that I and other members of parliament from the south have been raising continually. We have been fighting for this, and we have had petitions, letters and campaigns on this for many years. The previous council did not support it, and I am very glad that the new council, led by new mayor, Erin Thompson, has now supported fortnightly green waste collection and that it is going to start at the beginning of next year.

It is going to be excellent for reducing our waste to landfill. It is going to be an excellent additional service for people in Onkaparinga. It is going to help in terms of reducing kitchen waste because people will be able to put it in the green waste. It turns it did not cost very much money: about 0.2 per cent of the council's budget, despite the previous council saying that it was going to cost millions of dollars. So, congratulations Onkaparinga council. Thank you for listening to the community and thank you to the community for raising their concerns and supporting our campaigns to get this to happen.

Over the past weeks, some serious issues have been happening in our hospitals in terms of catering. At the Lyell McEwin, we had the case of Patricia Smith, who ingested glass in her meal. Luckily, she was able to spit it out, but it was a very significant safety risk that happened at the Lyell McEwin in terms of catering services there.

At the same time, we have had a new contract, signed by the state government, come into operation at the Flinders Medical Centre that has delivered some absolutely ghastly meals for patients at that hospital. At the same time, the government is booking in savings of $4½ million a year—a $4½ million cut to catering and cleaning services at hospitals, including the Lyell McEwin and the Flinders Medical Centre. We are particularly worried that this is going to lead to further downgrades in services for patients at those hospitals when patients in public hospitals deserve to get safe, nutritious and appropriate food. Clearly, that has not been happening at these hospitals.

A local issue is the Old Noarlunga bridge. People will remember that a few years ago we had devastating floods that hit Old Noarlunga and took out the old swing bridge that was there. This was heartbreaking to many people in the community. It also broke the connection between Old Noarlunga and the Onkaparinga River Recreation Park and National Park, which are great places to go for a walk, to take the dog or go for a cycle.

The community has been very passionate about this and I congratulate them on advocating to replace the swing bridge. The previous government allocated the funding for it, and I am glad that that is being continued and is now under construction. I am very excited that we are going to have the opening of that with a big community day on 2 June. I encourage as many community members as possible to get along to Old Noarlunga for the opening of the bridge. Hopefully, it will be completed by then and we can all enjoy that new swing bridge, which will provide access to the recreation park once again.

People in the south know all about the Springbank Road/Daws Road/Goodwood Road intersection, otherwise known as the Peter Van The Party Man intersection. Peter Van The Party Man has been an icon of the south for a long time and we have come to enjoy it while stuck in traffic there. This is a dogleg intersection. The previous government, under the then minister for transport, the member for Lee, finally said, 'We are going to fix this issue once and for all and put in a proper intersection and do the requisite property acquisitions to do that.'

Unfortunately, we heard the new government, under the current minister, say, 'We don't want to do that. We are going to keep the dogleg. We are going to keep this crazy proposition.' He said it was the best solution. Well, the community disagreed. Everybody who knew that area disagreed, led by our excellent candidate for Boothby, Nadia Clancy, who has been doing great work in the community and has been advocating particularly strongly on this issue. Because of her leadership and her campaigning on this issue, we have won this fight. We have convinced the government to back down from their crazy plan to continue the dogleg there and Labor's plan of fixing that intersection once and for all will finally come to pass.

There is a similar issue where we have campaigning, amazing well led by the Labor Party, in the southern suburbs. Amanda Rishworth is a force of nature in terms of campaigning on issues. She has been campaigning very hard for a long time to fix the Witton Bluff issue for the coastal path gap between Port Noarlunga and Christies Beach. This is a missing link in our coastal path trail, which has been sitting there as a problem for many decades. Amanda has been campaigning hard on this, working with me and the member for Reynell.

There is a lot of community support for fixing this, and I am delighted that Amanda has a commitment from the federal Labor Party that, if elected on Saturday, we will see funding going in to fix that coastal path and get the Witton Bluff trail delivered once and for all. That is going to be great news for residents in the area. It is going to be great news for businesses and getting more tourists into the area. We have a beautiful coastline in the south and I am delighted that Amanda has worked so hard in delivering this project for our area.

Unfortunately, we have seen a significant issue in terms of the loss of maternity services recently announced at Flinders Private Hospital. People in the south have relied on Flinders Private for private hospital maternity services. It is the only private hospital in the southern suburbs and we want to make sure that those services continue. Sadly, I believe I need to seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


At 23:59 the house adjourned until Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 10:30.

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