HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-09-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Tonkin Government

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (10:44): I move:

That this house notes that 15 September marks the 40th anniversary of the election of the Tonkin government and pays tribute to the significant achievements of that government over its three-year term in office.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr HARVEY: It is my pleasure to move this motion, which recognises the significant achievements—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I want the member for West Torrens to hear this. Order! I would hate to eject him so early in the day.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr HARVEY: It is my pleasure to move this motion, which recognises the significant achievements of the Tonkin government in South Australia during its relatively short period of government. As I do not think it is unfair to say—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Dr HARVEY: —as one of the younger members of this place, that I do not have the benefit of being able to recall the days of the Tonkin government. I was not born until nearly the end of the first term of the Bannon government—I do remember that. To move and speak on this motion, then, I have had to brush up on my history, which has certainly been a worthwhile exercise.

As I am sure most members will agree, it is important for us to take opportunities to reflect on the efforts of previous governments to improve our state. Whilst of course the efforts and achievements of particular governments will be viewed with more or less favourability depending on which side of the house you are sitting on, it is incumbent on us as leaders to acknowledge, and in doing so appreciate, the impact that those who came before us have made.

From the perspective of a proud Liberal, it is also important that we make the effort to recognise achievements of Liberal governments. This has been a particular focus of our current Premier and something which, admittedly, those opposite do quite well for former Labor governments and figures. As a younger member, I have found reflecting on previous governments—particularly Liberal governments—incredibly valuable. Not only are we able to learn from the experiences of previous governments but there is a sort of grounding effect of looking back through history and realising that, despite the now constant media coverage and commentary of political events, the business of governments and members of parliament remains the same and that no matter how swept up we might get, it is unlikely that our circumstances are entirely unique.

The Tonkin government was elected on 15 September 1979. It lasted for only one term. In that one term, however, the Tonkin government managed to steer South Australia into the future despite difficult economic conditions, particularly in the manufacturing industry at the time. The Tonkin government had many achievements which continued to be of great benefit to our state long after its term had finished and which are continuing to be of great benefit today.

The Olympic Dam mine is an enormous economic contributor to our state, employing thousands of South Australians. Without the Tonkin government, this would not be the case. The fight to allow uranium mining at Olympic Dam was tough, but the Tonkin government, led by David Tonkin and his deputy, Roger Goldsworthy, pursued it and ultimately succeeded, knowing that the benefits to our state would be extraordinary. The Olympic Dam mine typified the forward-looking attitude of the Tonkin government, which was prepared to endure tough battles in order to implement policies it knew would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on our state.

Of a similar visionary nature was the Tonkin government's establishment of Technology Park, which was established with the full intention that it would become a hub of economic drivers for our state and today is occupied by over 100 high-tech companies that contribute much to South Australia. The fact that the Olympic Dam mine and Technology Park are both continuing to make significant contributions to our state is a testament to the foresight of the Tonkin government.

It was not only in the area of economic development that the Tonkin government left its mark. The Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Land Rights Act 1981 granted land rights to over 10 per cent of the state to its traditional owners. This was a groundbreaking agreement, the first of its kind in Australia. It demonstrates the awareness of the Tonkin government of the importance of governing for all people, of listening to legitimate concerns and acting accordingly.

It will be impossible to properly acknowledge the Tonkin government without touching on its leader, David Tonkin. Although I never had the opportunity to meet David Tonkin, in preparing for my speech today I read a number of the speeches that were given in this place following his passing in October 2000. There was a consistent theme throughout each of the contributions, that being how genuinely kind and decent David Tonkin was. It is obvious that these traits flowed through to his government and were reflected in his personal involvement during negotiations for the APY land rights agreement.

His determination to make positive changes to society existed long before he became Premier. His introduction of a private member's bill, which then became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, was historic. It made South Australia the first state to introduce legislation dealing with discrimination on the basis of sex. Spurred on by the injustices his mother experienced during his childhood, the grit and determination to stand up on matters of principle and to prevent injustice would have been on full display as David Tonkin introduced his private member's bill into the parliament the day after the passing of his mother.

A great lesson from the leadership of David Tonkin and the performance of his government is that, to be a great political leader, it is not necessary to be a conniving negotiator, an accumulator of favours or to have a sense for stunts. The ability to empathise, to see injustice and be prepared to stand against it and to persist with worthwhile reforms in the face of vocal opposition are characteristics that David Tonkin showed are crucial for great leaders to have.

The legacy of the Tonkin government is particularly strong in my electorate, with the O-Bahn bus service being the most popular public transport service in Adelaide, servicing tens of thousands of South Australians each day. The O-Bahn busway project was yet another achievement of the Tonkin government that has continued to provide significant benefits to South Australia long after it was implemented.

Shortly after my election last year, I met with the first Liberal member for Newland, Brian Billard, who represented the electorate for the length of the Tonkin government and travelled during this time with other members of the government to Essen, Germany, to study its busway. The Essen busway became the model for our O-Bahn, and Brian was kind enough to provide me with a picture from the study trip of that busway, which I have on display in the foyer of my office.

The Tonkin government made a significant and long-lasting impact on our state, leading South Australia into the modern age while at the same time taking historic steps to acknowledge and deal with the legitimate grievances of our state's Indigenous peoples. It was a government which was far too short lived but which used its time to fundamentally prepare South Australia for the decades to follow. As the 40th anniversary of the election of this visionary government approaches, it is timely for this house to pay tribute to its monumental achievements. I commend this motion to the house.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (10:52): There are startling resemblances to the Tonkin government in what we see today. The Tonkin government, as I remember it as a young man, came into being after a long term of a Labor government. It came into office and then left very quickly after that, ushering in another very long term of a Labor government, and the similarities are overwhelming.

I do give credit to the Tonkin government for the work of its deputy premier, Mr Roger Goldsworthy, who I think was an exceptional individual. I have been lucky enough to strike up a friendship with Mr Goldsworthy, who I think is probably the state's best-ever mining minister. He is a man who took on the world to bring in uranium mining in South Australia, and my party at the time was wrong. We were wrong, and it is important that we acknowledge that we were wrong at the time.

Subsequently, what we have seen is Olympic Dam and its nearly 4,000 employees underpin the economy of this state. It is one of the largest customers in South Australia. It is one of the largest customers who expend money in South Australia, and Mr Goldsworthy had the foresight to do that. He deserves a big tick and a place in history for that and that alone. However, that is where the similarities end.

It is pretty ridiculous that this parliament is spending time congratulating past governments and past politicians. This is the people's house. Our time should be spent debating the people's business today. If you want to honour David Tonkin, hold a reception. If you want to honour David Tonkin, have a cocktail party. If you want to honour David Tonkin and his three years in office, hold a party somewhere in Burnside and celebrate his being the member for Bragg—the last good member for Bragg we had. Celebrate the work that he did in his community. Let's not waste the time of the parliament looking back on what happened 40 years ago because the Liberal Party wants to honour what it calls a hero. I have to say that if a one-term Premier is a hero, the bar is pretty low.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is important that we learn from history. What is it that can cause a one-term government? In Mr Tonkin's time, I understand that Australia was in the grips of a recession. If you listen to the Premier, we are in a recession right now as well. We have had two consecutive quarters of state final demand negative growth, which, under his definition, is a recession. We have the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and the government's answer to this highest unemployment rate and two negative quarters of negative growth in state final demand is to aggregate land tax to hit mum-and-dad investors with overwhelming tax bills.

Yesterday, I went and saw a constituent of mine after he was interviewed by the TV news because he talked about—I saw on Twitter—the land tax imposition being put on him by this government. He was a salaried worker who was made redundant eight years ago. Eight years ago he lost his job. He sustains himself and his family by owning four investment properties. They are not four investment properties that he inherited; they are four investment properties that he and his wife borrowed money to buy and invest in, rather than superannuation.

These people missed out on holidays. These people sacrificed and worked hard. They are not millionaires. They live in Mile End. They are humble people of humble means who aspire to be self-funded in retirement. To my great horror and shock, he has never voted for me. Living in Mile End, that is rare. But there is good news: I suspect at the next election he will.

This man is a scientist; he is a biochemist. He was born in Athens and migrated to Australia at the age of 12. He said to me that he has done the calculations on the Premier's revised plan. He goes from a land tax liability of $5,000 to a land tax liability of $19,800 under the aggregation principles. Members opposite are hitting people who would have voted for David Tonkin and would have voted for small ‘l’ liberals, and they are hitting them hard. Why? Why are they doing this?

Members opposite do understand that aggregation actually makes the tax-free threshold redundant. Members opposite do understand that. They understand what they are doing to people who own one, two or three properties. Talking about having a lower rate is irrelevant if you own multiple properties. It is only relevant if you own one very expensive investment property, such as a $5 million investment property or a commercial property. Then it is very relevant. But if you are an investor who lives in Colton, for example, in West Beach or Henley Beach South or Henley Beach, which, I am reliably informed, has the highest percentage of self-funded retirees in Australia per postcode, I bet watching your local MP cheer aggregation would horrify you.

It is important to note that the Tonkin government was carried by people such as the residents of West Beach. They have been loyal Liberals for a long time. I won the booth once in 2006 and lost it in 2010, and then it was redistributed into Colton, and I bid them farewell reluctantly. They are now in a marginal seat that will be targeted by Labor at the next election. It will not be us who will have to explain to those self-funded retirees why a Premier who came in on the promise of better services and lower costs is aggregating their properties. Premier Tonkin would not have been stupid enough to do that. Premier Tonkin lost because he could not get the economy out of a recession. The similarities are growing, and I will say to members opposite that if you do not learn the lessons of history you are going to repeat them.

It is telling that a marginal member would move a motion in recognition of a one-term Liberal premier. It is almost like fate is calling. It is almost as if history is about to repeat itself. Premier Tonkin came in on a wave after a long-term Labor government; it was time for a change. He implemented his policies to the shock and horror of their own supporters—recession—and of course the wider public. Things are starting to feel a lot the same. Labor regenerated, rejuvenated; a new, young, energetic leader—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Cregan interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Sorry; I can't hear the noises of the fantastic supporters of land tax. Where are they?

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Kavel!

The Hon. J.A.W. Gardner interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Yes, yes—

The SPEAKER: The member for West Torrens might like to use this footage. I ask members to respect him as he respected the government's members most of the time. Thank you.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I look forward to the public meeting in the seat of Colton. I look forward to the member for Colton attending those western suburbs meetings and talking about land tax aggregation and how he is ending a rort. I also look forward to talking about why it is just and wise to put a surcharge on law-abiding citizens of established trusts; I look forward to that conversation with the member for Colton because I know he is on top of this. I know he knows every detail about land tax. I know that the member for Colton, the standard bearer of the Liberal Party in the western suburbs, like David Tonkin, will be—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: Point of order, member for West Torrens. The point of order is for—

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Relevance to the motion at hand.

The SPEAKER: In fairness to the Minister for Education, he makes a fair point. The member for West Torrens is beginning to deviate from the Tonkin government. I respectfully ask him to come back to that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The question will be: can modern-day Liberals carry the same Tonkin Liberals as they did last century and overcome the fate of history and overcome the folly of the Tonkin government? I suspect not.

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Minister for Education) (11:02): Forty years ago the Tonkin government was elected, and it was an outstanding government that extraordinarily overachieved for South Australia, in three years delivering far more than the Labor decade prior and the Labor decade that followed.

The fact that when the Labor Party representative on this motion seeks to use his entire time criticising the Tonkin government for the fact that it did not win re-election, with complete disregard for the extraordinary achievements it delivered during its three years, goes to the heart, to the core, of what is wrong with the Labor Party at its soul. They are interested in political re-election, they are interested in whether or not—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: —there are votes, and completely uninterested in achievements for the people of South Australia—which is, of course, the core of what we swore we would do when we came to this parliament.

The Tonkin government's achievements were very profound in three years, but some of them they do not get credit for; some have been wrongly ascribed to the Dunstan era or the Bannon era. The Dunstan era was a long period of time, and there were a good number achievements. Things like the Adelaide Festival and a number of arts events and infrastructure were actually started under Playford, under Steele Hall, and much of these were reinforced by the Tonkin government.

There were a number of other achievements that Tonkin himself achieved. The member for Newland talked about the Olympic Dam development, and even the member West Torrens has admitted the extraordinary importance of that achievement.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: The Adelaide International Airport and South Australia's first international-quality hotel were developed during the Tonkin government with the support of its ministers. There was the establishment of Indigenous land rights in the APY lands in the state's north-west, and the establishment of the South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission. The member for Newland also talked about the O-Bahn busway, which is important for my constituents as well as his.

David Tonkin was also personally critical as a legislator, as a member of the House of Assembly, in delivering on equal opportunity laws. He worked very closely with Don Dunstan and members of the Labor government through the seventies; indeed, he moved private members' bills of his own. From the Liberal Party's point of view, through the 1970s, after the real damage caused by the split between the Liberal Movement and the Liberal and Country League, David Tonkin demonstrated extraordinary personal capacity in bringing together the broad church of the Liberal Party.

I think a lot of that work was instrumental, and it was looked on by people like John Howard later on, in seeking to govern as a strong Liberal leader identifying the strands of conservatism, that respect for institutions that is at the core of that philosophy and the strands of liberalism, the importance and the fundamental primacy of individual freedoms, rights, responsibilities and opportunities. Those two strong philosophical traditions coalesced around a political movement that is capable not only of winning elections, particularly as we have done at a federal level and we will continue to do at a state level, but also, most importantly, delivering achievements for the people of South Australia and Australia.

This is the movement that, in that Tonkin tradition, is best able to find outcomes that will help our community to live better lives, to help people to live better lives. That is David Tonkin's tradition and that is why it is important to celebrate 40 years of it. It helps us remember the critical role that he has had in influencing South Australia's present and its future. For the last 40 years, we have been on that trajectory set by the David Tonkin government.

The member for West Torrens asks why we are spending time discussing this in the parliament. It is an interesting question the member for West Torrens has raised, looking at some of the other things we are discussing. I think it is worthy that this time be set aside each week for discussion and motions that members bring to the parliament. Later this morning we will be talking about issues, including child protection and DonateLife Week, which have been brought to the parliament. They are worthy motions brought by members of the opposition that we will get to shortly.

Of course, if we get through those quickly, we will get to the member for West Torrens' motions. The member for West Torrens criticises us for talking about past political achievements. He might like to have a word to the member for Giles because further down the list we have an acknowledgement that it has been five years since the former Labor government established country cabinet meetings.

The member for West Torrens himself seeks to bring to the chamber—and it is on the list—a motion about the time passed since the launch of the world's largest lithium-ion battery at Hornsdale wind farm near Jamestown. Indeed, motion No. 12 from the member for West Torrens talks about the 20th anniversary of the privatisation of ETSA. It is an extraordinary point to be raised by a fellow who is clearly making smart-arsed political commentary rather than actually considering the motion at hand.

I encourage all members to take the time to learn a bit about what happened during the Tonkin era. It was a one-term government. I think a significant amount of the political commentary would suggest the difficulties of the Tonkin government. It was elected with a one seat majority and then faced the people again in 1982 at a time when, if it had been after the election of the Hawke Labor government federally, there may well have been a different time; a four-year term may well have seen a different result. However, that is actually less important than what was done, the reasons why things were done and the courage shown by the Tonkin ministers in standing up to vested interests and traditional points of view. Things like the Olympic Dam achievement were profound.

I never had the opportunity to meet David Tonkin, which is something that I regret. I was in the fortunate position after his passing to be vice-president of the South Australian Young Liberal Movement. In that role, I reached out to Prue Tonkin, his widow, and asked if we could have the honour of establishing a memorial dinner in his honour; indeed, I note the member for Bragg established a scholarship as well.

The Tonkin family has supported that dinner, which has now been going for 19 years since his passing, in my recollection, in the year 2000. It is the 19th this year or possibly the 20th. People, including former premiers and former prime ministers, have spoken at that dinner and reflected on the points of view in the Liberal philosophical tradition that can encourage our party to offer the best philosophical and practical approaches to help our community in the future.

The first speaker was Jennifer Cashmore, former member for Coles, the seat that I now have the honour to hold. She was able to offer personal reflections on her time as a minister in that government, as indeed have other ministers been able to do: people like Dean Brown, John Olsen and other luminaries, including Nick Minchin, Malcolm Turnbull, Jeff Kennett, Nick Greiner, Baden Teague, the member for Bragg and others who knew David Tonkin or who are familiar with his tradition.

That has been something that I am really pleased the Young Liberal Movement continues to do. I am very pleased that the Tonkin family, and in particular Prue, is able to continue their involvement in that because it is important, as we seek to find new ways to deliver for our communities, that we reflect on the achievements of those who have passed.

It is really important that, as members of parliament, we focus our energies on the people living in our communities: how we can best help them to live happy lives; how we can help our children to be successful. By success I mean, as I always do, the opportunity for a child to know that they are going to grow up into a life where they can look forward to each day being able to pursue an activity, whether a career or other engagements, that they are going to look forward to as they wake up, knowing that their day will be better. The sorts of policies that David Tonkin pursued when in government and that his government pursued were to that mind. They sought to make their community better and stronger and they succeeded in doing so.

They sought to establish strong foundations upon which the state could thrive and prosper and they succeeded in doing so. The legacy that they have left has been with us for 40 years. The best of what South Australia, has to offer going forward is based, in my view, on what we have been given by our predecessors, and that was given to us by the Tonkin government. David Tonkin's legacy is misunderstood or not sufficiently understood, in my view, and that is something that this motion provides us the opportunity to start redressing.

I will finish my contribution by commending the member for Newland for bringing this to the house and by encouraging all members to reflect on the legacy that David Tonkin and indeed his family have offered through his service to community, his focus on community and his focus on what the people of South Australia want and need. Finally, I also reflect, as others may or may not do, that David Tonkin, when he was no longer in politics, continued to give his life as a life of service to the community, to the state, to the nation and indeed to the entire commonwealth through a range of roles that he was able to fulfil post politics. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:12): I rise to make a few comments about the debate we are having on the member for Newland's motion to remember and celebrate the brief life of the Tonkin Liberal government. Although I usually, almost without exception—almost—hold the member for Morialta in high esteem and put great faith in what he advises the chamber, I do think we have to take with a grain or two of salt his assurances that it is proper and appropriate to be debating this motion, particularly at this time, given that we are debating a private member's motion.

The Notice Paper sets down the time from 10.30 to 11.30 in the morning for private members' bills, all of which were adjourned off by the majority numbers of the government, preventing their discussion and debate. These important matters include trying to ban the outrageous, sexist and misogynist advertising which occurs on Wicked campervans, trying to prevent that from being extolled out in the community, as well as making sure that we have some debate on the South Australian Public Health (Immunisation and Early Childhood Services) Bill, the Road Traffic (Drug Testing) Amendment Bill and so on. These are all important matters which need to be dealt with in this place and which have been deliberately parked, deliberately adjourned off so that we can celebrate the brief life of the Tonkin government.

Why are we giving up the precious hour that we have once a week to discuss private members' bills for this? I agree with the member for Morialta that there were some significant achievements during the time of the Tonkin government. He made reference to Aboriginal land rights and the passage of the APY Land Rights Act, and I completely agree that was in fact a monumental piece of legislation for this parliament to pass—not that we did not have form as a parliament for passing monumental pieces of legislation, but that certainly is up there with one of them.

We have been national, if not global, leaders in many areas. To my mind, that is certainly one of those areas. Although there continues to be, decades on, a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the livelihoods of those who reside in the APY lands, certainly the passage of that act at that time under the Tonkin government was extremely important and it should be congratulated on it. However, there is some revisionism which goes on when it comes to people, usually members of the Liberal Party, in recounting the achievements of the Tonkin Liberal government.

Of course, people are quick to say that the O-Bahn was a wonderful achievement of the Tonkin government. It is true that the transport minister under the Tonkin government did come into office and cancel the rail line, which was to be delivered out to the north-eastern suburbs, and had to scramble around for another project to put up in its place and so took a number of trips to Germany to investigate a guided busway system in use in West Germany.

The purpose of that guided busway was to run along a shared path where buses could share the same corridor as rail vehicles. Of course, for a partisan Liberal politician that still would not put enough distance between a former Labor plan for a rail project and a different public transport plan under a new Liberal government. So the shared running concept of the West German system was binned as well and the O-Bahn project was announced, not delivered but announced. The O-Bahn first started its operations in 1986, not by 1982 when the Tonkin government was turfed from office.

What did happen during 1980, 1981 and 1982, were the very loud bleatings and complaints—and I have experienced some of this—from residents of Hackney about an O-Bahn project. How history does repeat to reinforce the point that the member for West Torrens makes! There seems to be an unfortunate cohort and demographic of people who do not like supporting public transport projects and, unfortunately, it was just as true for the Tonkin Liberal government as it was for the former Labor government.

Unlike the former Tonkin government, we successfully delivered a public transport project rather than just talked about it, and that is a substantial difference between saying and doing when it comes to the performance of former governments. Maybe that is a good point at which to remember the rather rocky start that the Tonkin government commenced under, because there was an extraordinary election victory with 55 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, the best performance by a Liberal or Liberal and Country League, or whatever iteration of the Liberal Party in the second half of the 20th century we were confronted with at the time. But remarkably, only 25 seats were won.

In fact, I said 25 seats were won. That would be misleading; 25 seats were initially thought to have been won, but that was reduced to 24 seats after the first successful appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns by the Hon. Greg Crafter, who was contesting the seat of Norwood after the retirement of the former premier the Hon. Don Dunstan. He was contesting the seat against a Liberal Party candidate whose name I have forgotten.

The Hon. A. Piccolo: Webster.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: That is remarkable. Someone remembers the person who was found guilty of an offence under the Electoral Act by the Court of Disputed Returns, and that was for distributing misleading material in Italian to residents of the electorate of Norwood which claimed that that Liberal Party candidate was in fact the sitting member, rather than just a Liberal candidate in what had been held for quite some time as a Labor seat. The Court of Disputed Returns found that to be so misleading that there needed to be a fresh election. Once the electorate of Norwood was not misled at an election, they of course elected a Labor member of parliament, the Hon. Greg Crafter—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: And they continued to do so.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: —and they continued to do so time after time, as they had done throughout the 1970s.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Now we have an even better one.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: The member for Bragg interjects to say that the 1980s were a wonderful time for the South Australian Liberals, when they lost election after election after election. Unfortunately, that start to the Tonkin government did not bode well, neither in the transport policy that I just mentioned nor in the very germane contribution made by the member for West Torrens.

The Tonkin Liberal government was responsible for the superintendence of the Land Tax Act in that act's 94th, 95th and 96th years of operation. As I understand it, the Tonkin government sought to introduce changes to that act—although perhaps ran out of time, given the brief period of their government—to ensure that land tax could not be passed on to residential tenants.

This approach was very different from the approach of the subsequent Brown and Olsen governments, which sought, in an effort to raise additional revenue—is this sounding familiar, about the superintendence of the Land Tax Act?—to lower the tax-free threshold from $90,000 a year to $50,000 a year, capturing thousands of additional landowners into the tax net. Subsequent Labor governments successively reformed the Land Tax Act to lift the then treasurer Rob Lucas' tax-free threshold of $50,000 to over $360,000. This meant that over 200,000 landowners were no longer liable for land tax.

I do not want to talk about a former Liberal administration for much longer, as I feel I have exhausted all there is to say about the Tonkin government. I will however say that by the end of that government—which had won in a 55 per cent two-party preferred majority—when they lost the 1982 election, they lost the seat of Newland, they lost the seat of Henley Beach (or Colton as it is now known), they lost the seat of Brighton (or Gibson as it is now known) and they lost the seat of Mawson. We cannot draw a direct parallel there because the honourable member for Mawson sits on this side of the chamber. I think the warning from the member for West Torrens is correct: bode history well.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (11:22): I rise to speak in support of the motion presented by the member for Newland and thank him for reminding us, with this motion, of the importance of the Tonkin government, which served from 1979 to 1982. I also recognise that Dr Tonkin came into parliament in 1970 in the newly formed seat of Bragg. He was the first member for Bragg and I am proud to be the third.

Recognition of David Tonkin has been comprehensive in our own area, not only for his community service but also for his political life and his work as an eye specialist. Dr Tonkin was a family man with many children. In his honour, upon becoming the member for Bragg I established the Tonkin Room, which is the meeting room at the Bragg electorate office. It was opened by the then Liberal leader, Mr Rob Kerin.

As has been expressed, we have continued to support the Tonkin Scholarship, which is available to students who either live or go to school in the Bragg electorate. It is supported annually by his widow, Mrs Prue Tonkin, who most graciously attends and provides a personal gift (often a book from Dr Tonkin's collection) during that time. The scholarship recognises outstanding service, including community service, and it is a tradition that we are proud to continue.

As has also been mentioned, the Minister for Education, during his time with the Young Liberal Movement and when he worked at my office, established the David Tonkin annual address. He and I also appreciate the Young Liberal Movement's continued recognition of this fine tradition. I have kept a number of the speeches of that time, including my own and that of the member for Heysen's father—that was a very long speech, unsurprisingly, but it was an excellent one.

It was established with the first address by Jennifer Cashmore, who was a member of the Tonkin government. Her summary of the pioneering work of David Tonkin as a new member and of a number of his government's initiatives was outstanding. It has also really been a forerunner to the establishment of a scholarship in Bragg in recognition of Jessie Cooper and Joyce Steele, who were, of course, the first women elected. The 125-year celebration this year of women's suffrage and the right to stand for parliament is the type of tradition we want to continue to employ.

Often, I have recognised Dr Tonkin as a pioneer in the Lions association in our electorate, with the establishment of a now international program to support those with eyesight deficiencies. Even today, projects such as the preparation of very large crosswords for people who are sight challenged all emanate from an era in which Dr Tonkin was a pioneering member.

My father, Ted Chapman, was the minister for agriculture in the government that we today recognise, but he was also a good friend of Dr Tonkin, who gave my father significant advice on the subject of girls' education and the opportunity to have that. I do not think that I would have had an opportunity to come to Adelaide and undertake matriculation—year 12, as it now is—had it not been for the advice of Dr Tonkin. He also suggested that I attend what was to be the newly formed Pembroke School in the 1970s, and I have regularly credited him for having that opportunity.

Today, I have one of his sons, Peter Tonkin, as the leading counsel and adviser in the division of the Crown Solicitor's Office that deals with native title matters. I frequently rely on his advice, and through him South Australia continues to benefit from the service of the Tonkin family. I thank him for that.

Given that one of the most outstanding achievements of that government related to the forming of the APY act, I always like to give credit to the Hon. Graham Gunn, who was a long-term member of this parliament as well. He added a clause into that bill at the time to ensure that members of parliament, along with police, would have the right to enter property that was to become part of the APY lands jurisdiction, but otherwise respect needed to be maintained with the permit system to be able to enter.

I encourage members to understand that, although members of parliament do not require a permit, as a matter of courtesy I think it is appropriate that a permit is always sought before entering into the APY lands. As a general custom, that has been supported, so I would urge members to maintain that.

Finally, can I say that, yes, the Tonkin government did come in in 1979, and much has been said about that, but let me tell you something else that happened. There was a longstanding government, the leader of which, Don Dunstan, had retired earlier in that year. There was a big press conference and he was in a wheelchair in his pyjamas, vacating the space. The Corcoran government came in short term, of course, because the election washed him from office. I remind members to look at that time.

The meat scandal alone that was exposed at the Royal Adelaide Hospital was a huge issue at that time. It involved Samcor trucks loading up carcasses to the hospital for the purposes of providing meals for patients, which was done on site in those days—they were not done externally—and a number of these carcasses being stolen and onsold by operators at that time. That is the type of government that operated prior to that change of government. That meat scandal was exposed, and there were other serious failings in relation to the previous government, which deservedly swept it from office.

Members ought to remember, if we are going to have these types of motions in recognition of governments, that they should not just come to the parliament with one side of the position in relation to that. For the member for Lee's benefit, Frank Webster was the member of parliament against whom a challenge was made to his election for the seat of Norwood, and the Court Of Disputed Returns under Roma Mitchell declared that there was to be a by-election. We of course now have our Premier of South Australia who is the member for that electorate and we are proud to say has been a welcome addition.

Finally, can I say that if ever there is to be a time for land tax reform it is now, in recognition of the Tonkin administration, who were, as has been mentioned, clear in ensuring that land tax was not to be passed on to tenants but, most importantly, was not to apply to people in their principal place of residence. These are the sorts of gifts that came from a Tonkin administration. He did care about the people of South Australia, he did do what he said he would do and he did serve us well.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (11:30): I would like to make a small contribution to this debate. I thank the member for moving the motion. As the member for Bragg has said, it is important for these motions to come forward and it is a time to reflect on previous occasions. It is interesting to point out that the member for Bragg said, when we reflect on the history of these previous governments, that we should look at both sides of the argument. I think her speech would indicate that it was a case of do as I say rather than do as I do, because I do not recall any critique of the government but, rather, all the wonderful things the government did. She then went on to besmirch the previous Dunstan government, which led this state nationally in terms of a whole range of reforms.

One contribution I would like to make in terms of this debate, which I think is relevant and I do not think has been mentioned by previous speakers, and certainly not by Liberal Party members who have spoken today that I am aware of, is that the Tonkin government was elected in September 1979. I remember the year well. I am actually old enough to remember that year. It was the year I joined the Labor Party, so 40 years ago in July this year I joined the Labor Party. That was motivated in part by Don Dunstan's period and also a growing awareness that I needed to act rather than just talk about things, so I joined the party then.

I remember the election. It was the first election I was involved in and, sadly, it was an election that we lost. Mind you, since that date we have not lost many. Since 1968, I think the Liberal Party has won only three elections. I think there was a one-term government, which was the Tonkin era, and I understand from what Liberal Party members have said so far, being a one term government, it was very successful. Hopefully, we will hold you to that at the next election because you will consider yourselves successful if you only serve one term.

You do not judge re-election as a barometer of what the people think of you and what the electorate thinks of you, because that is not important. The fact the Tonkin government survived only one term and was booted out after one term is not an important point apparently to current members of the Liberal Party, so I look forward to their shifting sides of the parliament after the next election, because they do not consider winning again as important. I think some may disagree with that but certainly not the ones who have spoken.

The House of Assembly first sat on Thursday 11 October that year with the opening of parliament. The other reason I remember the election quite well is because of the opening of parliament. In fact, on that occasion the Tonkin government lost the very first vote on the floor of this house. It is interesting that this successful government lost its very first vote. It is a bit like Boris Johnson is doing at the moment in the House of Commons, where he cannot quite get his numbers together to win votes.

Even though Dr Tonkin enjoyed a majority in this chamber, he lost the very first vote on the election of a Speaker. I mention that because the winner of the vote was my previous local member, the member for Light, Dr Bruce Eastick. The person who lost it was the member for Goyder, which is now the electorate of Narungga.

Over the years, I have heard many stories about the intrigues behind that election ballot, why it happened, etc. I will not go into those details; they were private conversations. Suffice to say that Dr Tonkin nominated Mr E. Russack, the member for Goyder, and it was seconded by Mr Roger Goldsworthy, then a member for a Hills seat. Then Mr Blacker, the member for Flinders, nominated Dr Bruce Eastick, who was a former leader of the Liberal Party.

In fact, Dr Eastick had a very difficult time as leader of the Liberal Party, not because of his own expertise. I have high regard for Dr Eastick. He was the member for Light for many years, over 23 years from memory, and served that electorate extremely well. He is highly regarded by people on both sides of politics and has continued to serve the community since his retirement from parliament back in the early nineties.

Mr Blacker nominated Dr Bruce Eastick. That was seconded by John Bannon, then leader of the opposition, who would become Premier of South Australia three years later. When it went to a ballot, Dr Eastick won 24 votes to 22 votes. So the Liberal Party, under the new premier Dr Tonkin, lost the very first vote of parliament. That is a historical fact that I think I should perhaps remind the parliament about. There was a whole range of speeches congratulating Dr Eastick, which is appropriate. It was perhaps a more civil time in this chamber because they were very civil and polite speeches, even from the people who lost the ballot.

It set in train a whole range of political machinations in northern Adelaide, particularly my area of Light and those general areas. The Russack forces and the Eastick forces have been at some sort of unholy civil war since that day. Certain parties who supported the election of Russack, the member for Goyder, were very displeased that one of their own members would put himself forward against the party wishes. I think this government has lost a few votes from time to time, but Dr Tonkin also lost their very first vote.

I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the service that Dr Eastick gave to this parliament, particularly as Speaker. He gave outstanding service to this chamber and the parliament, and that was recognised quite appropriately later on. Ever since he left this house, Dr Eastick has continued to serve the community. In fact, I do not think a day goes by when he is not spending time out at some community event. He is still involved in Rotary, where he was a foundation or charter member. He is involved in a whole range of other community organisations and is still a patron of a whole list of organisations; that is the regard he is held in.

I was fortunate enough to be able to attend Dr Eastick's 90th birthday party. Irrespective of his age, he continues to serve the community accordingly with a great sense of pride. As the member for Bragg has said, when we look back, we should remember the good, the bad and the ugly of all governments because all governments have them. The challenge now is for the Liberal Party to acknowledge and learn from that government to make sure that they do not repeat history and become a one-term government. I am happy for them to become a one-term government, quite clearly. That said, there are certainly a number of parallels between that government and this government that indicate that history may indeed repeat itself in 2022.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:38): I rise to support the motion of the member for Newland. It is a truly appropriate motion to bring to this house to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the election of the Tonkin government. A lot has been said about the reforming steps taken by the Tonkin government in its albeit too brief period in power in this state between 1979 and 1982.

What I would like to reflect upon in the few short minutes available to me today is the shift in the electoral context of the Liberal Party that took place in the context of the Tonkin period. Dr David Tonkin was a true Liberal, a reforming Liberal, a thinking person and, very significantly, a unifier, someone who demonstrated the capacity to unite and in many respects to modernise and bring the Liberal Party into the form that it now takes.

In being elected in 1979 to government, Dr Tonkin led a party that achieved 55 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. It was the first time since 1959 that the Liberal Party had achieved a majority of the statewide vote and therefore the first time that the Liberal Party had achieved such a statewide majority in the post-Playford era. It was a whacking majority: 55 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. It signified the result of unification and tremendous leadership by Dr Tonkin.

What bears reflecting upon is that, notwithstanding the substantial endorsement of the people of South Australia with that 55 per cent two-party preferred result for the Tonkin government, that result garnered just 25 seats in the 47-member House of Assembly in what was to become a familiar refrain. The election of the Tonkin Liberal government in 1979 really set the tone for the following 40 years, in terms of the new norm being that the Liberal Party would routinely receive a majority of the statewide vote in this state—routinely. In fact, it is so much so that it has been a rare event when the Liberal Party has achieved the majority of the statewide vote since.

It really does bear reflecting on because the election of the Tonkin government in 1979 followed on from a decade or so of reforms to the electoral process that had been begun by Steele Hall in 1968 and continued by Dunstan, and had resulted steadily in the end of what has been colloquially described as the Playmander, the era of malapportionment that had been prosecuted for all sorts of good reasons over that period of time.

We had come to a point where both sides of politics recognised that it was electors and not geography who were at the core and that there should be reform in relation to that era of malapportionment. That had resulted in the establishment of the independent commission, the introduction of part 5 of the Constitution Act and the era that we are now well familiar with, that has evolved over that 40 years now to involve a review and redistribution of boundaries after each election according to those principles.

Tonkin led a government that was elected on that basis by a whacking majority. He did not get the seat return that that whacking majority deserved. It was not until post 1989 that the parliament took the necessary further step in reforming that process to ensure that the statewide vote was more faithfully reflected in the result on the floor of the house. It is important to reflect on that 40-year period from that point of view. It signalled the beginning of the new norm—that is, the Liberal Party garners the majority of the statewide vote—and, secondly, the beginning of a new era in which there was, rightfully, reflection on the importance of the statewide vote as an indicator, indeed an imperative, as to which side of politics should form government.

I reflect on the issue—perhaps the signal issue—that brought Dr Tonkin to prominence in the mid-seventies. He was elected as the member for Bragg, as the current member for Bragg reflected on just now, in 1970. In 1974, Dr Tonkin made a stand to outlaw sex discrimination in this state. Indeed, he was the first to take such a stand in Australia. It signalled his intent as a reformer and brought him to significant prominence and eventually led to his leadership and taking of government in 1979. That was but one of many social and economic reforms that Dr Tonkin was able to lead in the reforming era that his period in government brought about.

There can be no disputing that this was a period in which there was considerable reform coupled with unification. It has left the Liberal Party with a tradition of unity and a tradition of garnering the majority of the statewide vote. I can think of no better indicator of one's electoral compass being appropriately calibrated than by that measure, and although that period in government was, as it turned out, relatively brief, it set the tone and laid the groundwork for a period of growth and success in South Australia that we do well to remember and celebrate.

To Dr Tonkin's widow, his children and all of his family, I hope that they have a chance to reflect at this time on this motion and to appreciate that the work of Dr Tonkin is so very much appreciated by this parliament 40 years down the track. I hope that we all, as legislators 40 years down the track, reflect on the tremendous achievements that Dr Tonkin brought 40 years ago. With those words, I commend the motion.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (11:48): Firstly, I would like to thank all members for their contributions on this motion, particularly the member for Morialta, the member for Bragg, the member for Heysen and also the members for West Torrens, Lee and Light. I do think it is important that we look back and reflect on what our predecessors in this place have achieved and particularly reflect on those achievements that continue to have a benefit for South Australia today. I think this is important because it helps us do our job to the best of our ability and ensure that we are improving the lives of those we have been elected to serve.

The Tonkin government made a very significant contribution to our state, albeit in a short period of time, and many of those benefits are very much still felt today. I would like to commend the Tonkin government for that contribution to South Australia and commend the motion to the house.

Motion carried.

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