HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-02-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 19 February 2020.)

Mr MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Leader of the Opposition) (11:12): I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address the people of South Australia—

The SPEAKER: Are you are the lead speaker, leader?

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Yes.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I take the opportunity to be able to address the people of South Australia through this all-important forum of the Address in Reply. It is an opportunity to put on the record a number of thoughts that I have as the leader of the Australian Labor Party in South Australia and, accordingly, the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to start by passing on my best wishes to all members in this place in this new parliamentary year, including you, sir. Politics is a tough business. It can be uncompromising and rather gruelling for all concerned, particularly members of one's family. At the beginning of this new parliamentary year, I wish members all the very best throughout the course of parliamentary year 2020.

It is also an opportunity to be able to address the people of South Australia after what has undoubtedly been a very difficult summer. We have seen our nation gripped by the circumstances around bushfire, and South Australia was not immune to this incredible challenge. Commencing primarily on 20 December last year, we saw two particularly horrific bushfires start, in Cudlee Creek and Kangaroo Island, and that really set the tone of the Christmas and summer period.

Many Australians and South Australians have been affected by those events, but what has made us all so proud is the response that we have seen from so many people: everyone from our emergency services in particular, particularly those people who are unpaid volunteer emergency service workers, right through the rest of government bureaucracy at a number of different levels—local government, state government, federal government—everyone from the Army at the commonwealth level, everyone in state government whether it be in SA Water or other relevant government departments who had to be thrust on the front line in ways that would have been unexpected otherwise during the Christmas period, and also a contribution from local government should be acknowledged.

I think we have seen our leadership come to the fore in a number of different areas throughout the bushfire crisis. I acknowledge other contributions from a number of local MPs in this place, on both sides of the aisle, who have represented their communities with gusto. We saw local MPs from the government doing their bit for their local constituencies, principally around the Cudlee Creek bushfire, and on this side of the aisle I think we have seen outstanding leadership from the member for Mawson in representing his affected community on Kangaroo Island.

The bushfire crisis, in terms of the immediate threat of the fire itself, has clearly passed for the time being, but that is where recovery now must be the focus, and that is where the decisions at the political level of government—namely, around the cabinet table—are just so fundamentally critical. The cabinet has an immediate role to play right now to make sure that those people, those communities, those industries and those individuals who have been affected by these bushfires have every last one of their needs met.

I am very proud of the fact that the opposition has been able to play, I think, a relatively constructive role in that effort by putting on the record, publicly and privately to the government, suggestions that it could take up to address those recovery needs. We in opposition do not have our hands on the levers of executive power, which should respond quickly in these circumstances, but we can make suggestions to the government and we welcome the fact that a number of those suggestions have been taken up thus far.

However, we are undoubtedly of the view that there are still urgent needs out in the community, urgent needs that sometimes the government cannot meet, but often can. Where they can be met, they must be met, and this must be done quickly with immediacy and purpose. Sometimes the only way to be able to achieve that through the Public Service is through leadership at the cabinet level, at the Premier level, and that is something that we will continue to advocate for on this side of the chamber, to ensure that those people in those affected communities have their needs met.

At the heart of that effort, of course, is this issue of leadership. I would like to reflect on why we are giving an Address in Reply in the first instance. It is unusual, on one interpretation, to have a reset of a government agenda only two years after government is elected. That in and of itself is, I think most would accept, slightly peculiar. What underpins the need for a reset from this government is this question of leadership. Do we see leadership being provided for this state government and vis-a-vis the state of South Australia? I think that is a live question that I intend to critique, having the opportunity to make some remarks during this Address in Reply this morning.

The bushfire crisis rounded out a tough year. It started on 20 December but, when you look at the course of 2019 and what our state generally had to deal with, it was an extraordinarily difficult calendar year. Throughout the course of last year, we saw challenges right throughout our state. Challenges are presented sometimes that are not necessarily of the government's making. I think that is obvious, and the bushfires are an example of that. No-one in their own right can individually take responsibility for the bushfires occurring. I think there are a number of factors that potentially exacerbated the bushfires themselves, but clearly government is not responsible for starting bushfires per se.

However, there are other events throughout the course of 2020 for which the government must take responsibility. A true sign of leadership is taking responsibility for those things to which you actively made a contribution. The responsibility for a number of things that occurred throughout the course of last year falls fairly and squarely at the feet of this government and its leader, namely the Premier, the member for Dunstan.

Let's work through what some of those things are. I think what is most important ultimately to South Australians, particularly those who are struggling to get by, day by day, is their relative living standard that is informed by the South Australian economy, and I think 2019 for the South Australian economy can be described as a bad year. One might say it was a bit of a stinker year, but it was certainly a very bad year. I think the most elementary representation of this is what was going on within the labour market in South Australia throughout the course of last year, because on any interpretation, on any objective analysis of the facts, 2019 in South Australia within the labour market was a disaster.

Let's start with seasonally adjusted unemployment. Last year, the unemployment rate in this state finished at 6.2 per cent. That represents largely the worst unemployment rate in the federation, something that was not the case at the election of this government in 2018. This government inherited a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 5.6 per cent and, by the end of last year, they managed to take it right up to 6.2 per cent—more South Australians unemployed as a result of this government's policies, as a result of a lack of leadership.

We have seen jobs growth throughout the course of calendar year 2019 collapse. Jobs growth inherited by this government at the point of the last election was at 2.3 per cent. Jobs were growing in South Australia at 2.3 per cent before this Premier became in charge. At the end of last year, jobs growth was sitting at 0.1 per cent.

Mr Speaker, do you know what has occurred in relation to the full-time employment rate in South Australia throughout the course of 2019? You will be surprised to learn, because we constantly hear the Premier trying to tell South Australians that everything is going well, that full-time jobs in the calendar year 2019, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, went backwards—fewer full-time employed people at the end of last year than at the beginning. That number went backwards to the tune of 9,000 South Australians—9,000 fewer South Australians in full-time work at the end of last year in comparison to 12 months earlier.

What does this Premier say to those 9,000 people who no longer have a full-time job? What does the Premier have to say about the fact that jobs growth has collapsed under his leadership? What does the Premier have to say about the fact that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in this state has gone up quite dramatically throughout the course of last year? Under questioning from a journalist, he said there was no problem whatsoever. The very opposite of leadership is denying a problem exists when there are people who are suffering—people who are incapable of providing for themselves and, more importantly, for their families.

I speak to these South Australians. Over the course of the summer I had more than one conversation while out and about, talking to people, hearing of their firsthand experience about how this economy is struggling and how that is compromising their ability to enjoy a standard of living that they had otherwise become accustomed to. And what is this Premier saying? That there is no problem whatsoever—a violent act of denial of reality, one that is starting to come through in people's perceptions of this Premier because all of that is inconsistent with what the Premier said before the election. He gave a crystal-clear promise to improve the South Australian economy. He promised more jobs. Well, the number of jobs that he is delivering is substantially less on a number of measures than was the case before he became Premier.

Let's take youth unemployment. We all care about future generations. All in this place have a mandate and a desire to genuinely hand over to a future generation of South Australians a better world than the one they inherited, a better state than the one their parents had. Yet what we had in this state was youth unemployment going up throughout the course of last year. Again, the youth unemployment rate inherited by this government was 11.5 per cent. At the end of last year, it had become 14.3 per cent. It had gone up by three percentage points. That is more young South Australians not in work.

Now, 14.3 per cent sounds like a stat, but let's actually drill down to what it means in the number of people that we are talking about: 22,000. There are 22,000 young South Australians who currently do not have a job, who were actively looking for one at the end of last year. They are real, young people who live in all our electorates, young people who want to do everything we tell them to do: go to work, start to earn a living, start to save, be a productive member of the economy, enjoy all the dignity that work provides—and yet they cannot find a job.

And what does the Premier say to them? 'No problem whatsoever.' Well, I think it is a problem, and the mums and dads of those kids think it is a problem, and I think we would do well to have the Premier acknowledge that that problem exists. A failure to acknowledge that the problem even exists inevitably means a failure to address it, and that is something we would all collectively be concerned about.

The Premier and his government would say, 'Well, there are other factors here at play beyond the government's control.' Yes, occasionally it is true that there are a number of global factors that will inform the performance of any economy. The question is not: what excuse are you running towards to address it? The question is: what policies are you instituting to address the problem? And what is the answer from this government? Let's start to analyse what the government's policy was throughout the course of 2019 when it comes to economic policy.

On the back of the previous year, they decided to cut 29 job-creating programs. They came into government and within months they could not help themselves, so they cut 29 programs that were creating jobs in South Australia, with effect. Who would be surprised that if you cut 29 job-creating programs you might end up with fewer jobs and a higher unemployment rate? It is hardly surprising. It seems like a logical consequence of such a decision.

However, the problem is that it actually was a lot worse than that. What we saw in terms of the other major economic policy settings throughout the course of last year was an absolute disaster. Some of those that surprised us most on this side of the chamber, and I think surprised South Australians more generally, was this government's tax policy. This is a government that went to the election offering a pretty orthodox—

Mr Pederick: And lowered payroll tax.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —conservative agenda of trying to lower taxes, yet last year they did the exact opposite. The member for Hammond interjects suggesting that there are tax cuts that the government have delivered. Yes, they delivered a payroll tax cut, but that is nothing new. They did not think of that. Labor in government did that seven times, so come up with something new, I would say to the member for Hammond.

They cut ESL in their first budget and ever since then they have been trying to claw that money back from the hip pockets of South Australians in the form of other taxes. The member for Hammond might have heard of the bin tax. That has been rolled out progressively. He might be aware of the fact that fees and charges in South Australia have come from a long-held formula that connected the increase in fees and charges to the rate of inflation and other considerations like public sector wages growth. This government, this Premier and this Treasurer decided to break that nexus for the first time in decades.

Why did they break that nexus? Why do they want to cancel that formula? Because they wanted to increase fees and charges for all South Australians to the tune of over $500 million in last year's budget. So the member for Hammond and the Premier and everybody else on this side may well espouse the virtue of lowering taxes, but if you lower taxes on one hand and then jack them up by even more on the other, that represents an economic policy that puts a burden on South Australian households and families.

The pièce de résistance of the government's tax policy last year, of course, was their land tax policy. The member for Hammond is fumbling around pretending to read something, and I do not blame him. I can tell you what he is not reading, Mr Speaker: it is report after report after report on the land tax.

Mr Pederick: Ask the member for Taylor how well he got on.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pederick: Ask him!

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Hammond! I might have to chuck him out today.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The land tax policy from this government throughout the course of last year was an unmitigated disaster. We all know it, and I dare say those members opposite desperately know it, because what we saw was a policy that was made up on the run. The person who you would think would be most interested in such an event is the Premier himself. He went to the people of South Australia at an election saying he was going to take an axe to land tax.

I would have thought that, when the time came to sit around the cabinet table or at the budget cabinet committee meetings where the Premier would be scrutinising the detail of this central policy of government in the form of the budget, particularly economic policy, and flicking through the papers before those meetings and stumbled across the page that said 'big land tax increase', that might have grabbed the attention of this Premier. It might have jumped out off the page at him, and he might have said, 'Hang on! That's not consistent with what I am supposed to be about. That's not consistent with what I promised at election time.'

Apparently, the Premier did one of three things: he looked at it and said, 'No problem, sounds good to me,' or he looked at it and said nothing, or maybe of course he did not look at it at all. Maybe it was one of those meetings that this Premier neglected to turn up to. Maybe he was doing something else more important than paying attention to the creation of the government's central policy, the budget, and decided either not to pay attention or to consciously break a promise. Either way, we ended up with a land tax policy that was a disaster.

The Premier went on leave last year; I think it was in July. That is utterly reasonable, and there is no objection from this side of the house. It is perfectly reasonable that members—all of us hopefully are hardworking—take leave from time to time. But during the course of the Premier's absence in July last year the land tax policy debacle went from being a little bit warm to hot to eventually reaching boiling point.

I think we all reasonably anticipated that the Premier would come back from his overseas holiday and say, 'Time for me to exercise the function of leadership; that is what premiers are meant to do,' and then respond accordingly to the hundreds upon thousands of South Australians who were crying out against the land tax disaster, everyone from senior business leaders in this state to those people who have a reputation that precedes them in advocating for the property industry, the Premier's own colleagues, his own former political staff and of course, most importantly, thousands upon thousands of South Australian middle-class families who have been nothing but aspirational and worked hard and played by the rules.

All these people were telling the Premier it was time to act and time to show some leadership. He came home, got on the radio and I think all of us expected the Premier to show some leadership and say, 'Enough of this land tax shemozzle. I have to kill it now. I am going to institute some sort of independent review and put on ice this policy that is already not just overtaking the life of the government but actually having a material impact on the South Australian economy.'

Instead, what did the Premier do? He doubled-down. He doubled-down and told everyone that he was sticking to the policy in its current form. He was going to get it done because he thought it was right. If he thought it was so right, it begs the question: why did the policy end up changing after that point something like seven more times? Why did the policy that ended up passing through this parliament, unfortunately, end up being fundamentally different to what the stated objectives were at the beginning of that exercise? I will tell you why: because they are making it up as they go along. They are making it up as they go along.

There is no thought-through policy here. There is no economic objective. There is no recognition of the calamity over which they are presiding in the form of the South Australian economy and there is certainly no leadership, and that is at the heart of South Australia's economic malaise that we are currently experiencing—a lack of leadership.

There are other variables that must inform the South Australian economy though beyond this government's shambolic tax policy. They cannot work out if they are tax cutters or tax increasers. There is no coherence and no consistency, but there are other issues and one is infrastructure. We on this side of the chamber have long believed that during difficult times state governments have a role to play in stimulating the economy in the form of infrastructure policy. Building productive infrastructure does not just deliver a good end product that assists the economy in the long run; it creates jobs during the life of the construction phase.

This party does not just talk a good game when it comes to infrastructure: it actually delivers. Our record throughout the life of the Labor government over 16 years is exemplary, and that is particularly the case in the last four years when they were faced with the significant economic challenges caused by the conservative side of politics with the closure of Holden's and the like. The record is there for everyone to see.

Let's just take South Road itself, with duplication at the southern end of the Southern Expressway. As we move up, we saw the establishment of the Darlington project, with construction almost coming to an end on that project, creating hundreds of jobs. Further up the line on South Road, we have seen the Gallipoli Underpass, which was funded and delivered by the former Labor government. Heading north, there is the Torrens to Torrens project. That all essentially happened in the course of one term of government. It was funded and designed and construction was started post the 2014 election and then finally delivered not too long after the 2018 election.

Moving further along South Road, you have the superway—the superway is Labor to its core—actually delivered. Further along again, we have the Northern Connector project. I welcomed the opportunity to see the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure at the Northern Connector family fun day last weekend. He was getting a sausage, presumably at the sausage sizzle. That is his contribution: the rest was Labor's. That is just South Road.

Let's take hospitals. Let's take health infrastructure, which does not have a bad record either. There have been hundreds upon hundreds of millions in investment across our hospital network, the centrepiece of which was a brand-new Royal Adelaide Hospital, which will be an outstanding piece of health infrastructure for our state for decades and for generations.

Notwithstanding difficult operational issues that occur at the RAH, we know of course that the majority of people who go to the RAH actually compliment the piece of infrastructure itself. It is a dramatic improvement on the old facility, one that this mob would still have us all in. They would still have us in the old RAH. There would be no Lot Fourteen if these guys were in charge because the old Royal Adelaide Hospital, which was old and decrepit, would be there.

Mr Ellis interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I welcome the member for Narungga's interjections; it gives us an opportunity to talk about a few other things that are topical at the moment. I dare say he will be silent from hereon in—let's see.

Regarding health infrastructure, we had a $250 million investment down at The QEH signed, sealed and delivered by the former Labor government. I was very proudly part of that as then health minister. Likewise, at Modbury there was over $90 million. The member for Newland is in the chamber, and I am sure he will be quick to congratulate the former Labor government and myself, being then health minister, who delivered that. It was $90 million budgeted for, absolutely budgeted for. In fact, I have seen the press releases—

Mr Pederick: Tell us about what you did with the Repat, tell us that.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: I have seen your press release, and it is very similar to the one I put out—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —sometime during late 2017. So in health there was a massive investment in infrastructure. Of course, there are other pieces of iconic infrastructure in this state that have added to it both culturally and economically, the best example of which is Adelaide Oval. There is just a snapshot of highly productive infrastructure that delivered real jobs in real time, with most of those projects on budget and delivering a great outcome for the people of South Australia.

Now let's look at this government. Let's look at what they have done for the last two years in infrastructure. One struggles to cite a project they have actually started to deliver on. What have they actually delivered on that is an idea of their own? It is a vacuum of activity. What they are currently doing is setting us up for an infrastructure valley of death. It has a lot of people in the industry—civil contractors, engineering, construction workers, a lot of blue-collar workers who, as we all know and I have always enunciated, are desperately looking for work—trying to work out what is next.

I know what they can look forward to. How about this government's central infrastructure program? Their number one policy, the visionary policy that they took to the last election, that was also promised at the last federal election, that was going to transform the state, going to 'change everything, literally' (I think they were the words the Premier used in his glossy videos) was GlobeLink. How is GlobeLink going? Dead, buried and cremated. Right there, next to WorkChoices somewhere, it is dead, buried and cremated. The government's central infrastructure program that they promised at the last election is gone—if it ever lived.

It is a disgraceful example of a now Premier, then leader of the opposition, going to the election so utterly desperate to get a W next to the words 'Liberal Party', to finally get a win, that he was willing to promise everything to everyone in the hope they would just win, and then deal with the rest later. What are we left with? At the end of last year we had the highest unemployment rate in the nation, with nothing to look forward to in the form of infrastructure jobs. It is a joke.

Members interjecting:

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Members opposite might make light of the seriousness of the situation, but I do not think South Australians will over the coming months.

What else do we have to look forward to in infrastructure? That is right: they promised a new women's and kids' hospital. Where is that at? We have reports being buried and, two years into this new government, nothing, not a contract signed, not a hard hat to be seen, just a lot of people waiting. Meanwhile, down at the RAH we have hundreds of doctors signing letters talking about how much of a disaster it is. We will come back to health in a moment, but in terms of health infrastructure they have nothing to hang their hat on that is their own, apart from what the last government—namely, myself as the then health minister—set up for them, with Modbury being the best example of that.

I think there is a business case now being looked at that we are apparently going to get sometime before the end of this year. How this government is going to honour its pledge of delivering a new women's and kids' hospital by the year 2024-25—I think that was what the commitment was—is beyond everyone. It is not going to happen, not when they are fluffing around kicking the can down the road on decisions.

Talking about kicking the can down the road on decisions, the gold medal goes to the Premier, but if there is a silver medal it goes to the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure. Let's take South Road. What are they doing on South Road? Regency to Pym is not their project; I think we all acknowledge that. What we have here is this prevarication on decision-making when it comes to the rest of the project. We were promised an answer last year about whether or not we were going to have tunnels on the remaining part of South Road. What have we heard since? Just more kicking the can down the road, no activity.

We have seen front pages talking about $10 billion and all this new money for South Road, but when you actually look at the federal budget papers the amount of money coming into South Australia for road infrastructure in the out years goes down to $79 million. It was over $490 million; now it is down to less than $80 million. It is a collapse—a collapse—in money coming from the commonwealth on road infrastructure programs, because they do not exist. We are facing an infrastructure valley of death. This government inaction, its kicking the can down the road on all these projects, is coming a cropper. Time is running out, time that this state does not have.

Let's take another important source of jobs in this state, the naval infrastructure program. We are facing the prospect of the greatest opportunity this state has ever had in the form of jobs being missed—a missed opportunity that would literally break the hearts of us all here, I would have thought. There is so much legitimate hope and aspiration riding on the naval infrastructure program of works coming our way at Osborne.

That is something that we should all be genuinely excited about, but if it ends up being a missed opportunity as a result of this government's inaction, this Premier's lack of leadership, that will hurt us all long after the lives of all of our respective parliamentary careers. It is a genuine risk, a risk that needs to be mitigated quickly with serious political action. Instead, what we are seeing from the Premier again is an absence of leadership.

Let's take the full cycle docking program. If that is lost, that represents 3,000 jobs overall: hundreds and hundreds of direct jobs and then thousands more indirect. We cannot afford to lose one job, let alone thousands. That would represent a disaster for our state's economy in an urgent time of need. When we were promised the Future Submarines and the Future Frigates there was never an asterisk that said, 'By the way, you might lose these hundreds of full cycle docking jobs over there as well.' That was never part of the deal. What we need is a premier who is deploying the same tactics, skills and resources that the former premier did to actually get those subs built here in the first place.

We all know that those subs were gone. They were off to Japan under former prime minister Abbott, and the only reason those future subs jobs are here is that we had a state government that decided that, rather than copping it sweet because we were getting something else, we were going to fight for every last one of those subs to be built right here in South Australia. We took on the fight. We had no knowledge of whether it was a fight we were going to win; in fact, all indications were that it was a fight we were going to lose. But we took up that battle because it was the right thing to do for the long-term interests of South Australia, and then we won, despite all the odds—all the odds.

We were up against a conservative commonwealth government that seemed to have their hearts set on denying manufacturing jobs here in South Australia, but it was a battle that we won. Ultimately, the then federal government capitulated to extraordinary political pressure, including the prospect of the then member for Sturt losing his seat. We saw a dramatic about-face, and a decision was made to have that work here. That was welcomed. That was the right outcome, not just in our state's interests but more importantly in our national interests as well.

But once that battle had been won, we knew that another one was coming. That battle was to make sure we got all the jobs that we were promised. Since then, since March 2018, we have largely had silence. Slowly but surely news has been dripped out: full cycle docking at risk, and now we learn, with the Future Submarines program, that Naval, who are acting in their legitimate commercial interests, are doing everything, every last thing they can, to maximise the number of jobs being delivered in France.

Then, during the midst of the bushfire crisis, when people were rightly paying the most attention to that issue, we saw a story appear in the Financial Review from the Australian National Audit Office that showed that Naval has made a decision that parts of the hull of one of the first submarines is going to be done in France. This is not some esoteric part of the submarine that anyone has suggested we do not have the capacity to do: this is part of the hull of the submarine. If that is not supposed to be built here, I am not too sure what is. Of course, in that first sub every bit that is done overseas and not here is one less bit of skills transfer and skills development that we desperately need.

People know that first of type in class is always the most difficult build. It certainly was the case in Collins and it was certainly the case in the AWDs. You get a lot of knowledge and know-how and skills from that first build and then you learn and progress from there. Now we are finding out that part of the first build, namely the hull, is being done in France. And what have we heard from the Premier regarding that outrage? Nothing. Silence. He does not want to upset the apple cart with his mate the Prime Minister or the defence minister.

What we need is a premier who will stand up and make the argument and say, 'Hang on a second. Not only is that not consistent with what we were promised, not only is that not in the national interest, because we are supposed to be having a sovereign submarine-building capability here, but it is also not in the interests of, most importantly, South Australia,' which is fairly and squarely the responsibility of the Premier to advocate for.

Silence on full cycle docking, silence on the hull, and then silence when Naval comes out and says, 'Oh, yeah, by the way, this is happening. We're trying to maximise the work in France. We don't think the South Australian industry is up to it.' How does the Premier describe that event? Think this through. The leader of Naval, clearly an intelligent man in a highly strategic organisation with a track record, appears on the front page of none other than the national broadsheet saying, 'We're going to be putting work over into France,' and what does the Premier say? 'It's a miscommunication.' Give me a break!

Then yesterday in parliament—and I think this is telling about how much this Premier pays attention to detail; he skipped over the land tax part of the budget papers—we heard the Premier talking about how we do not have minimum mandate or local content requirements in these contracts. In fact, in The Australian on 14 February, in an article written by David Penberthy, the Premier is quoted as saying:

The reality is I don't think there has ever been anything in writing on any naval contract whether it be under a Liberal Government or a Labor Government.

Well, guess what? The Premier was not paying attention because in April last year, it was put on the record in Senate estimates by none other than the First Assistant Secretary Ships division within the Department of Defence, Mrs Sheryl Lutz, when Senator Patrick asked, in regard to the Future Frigate program, 'What's the target percentage for local content for this vessel?' First Assistant Secretary, Mrs Lutz, said:

It's contracted over the duration of the whole contract at 58 per cent. BAE have publicly stated that they believe they can achieve [between] 65 to 70 per cent.

Senator Patrick asked, 'I remember the tender had a number in it of 50 per cent,' and Mrs Lutz replied, 'It's 58 per cent for the head contract. For the design and productionisation phase it's 54 per cent.' There it is in black and white: the local content requirements.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Read the contract.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: The Attorney-General says, 'Read the contract.' Have you read the contract? Have you read the Strategic Partnering Agreement? I think not.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr MALINAUSKAS: In February last year, the Premier of South Australia went over and was omnipresent, right there, smiling away when this Strategic Partnering Agreement for the Future Submarines project was signed. The newly minted Prime Minister Scott Morrison was there, defence minister Christopher Pyne was there and the Premier (member for Dunstan) was right there smiling away as his contract was signed.

Upon his return, I distinctly remember questions being asked regarding local content requirements and minimum mandates within that agreement. There was nothing—silence. It turns out that was largely what was happening behind the scenes as well, because if this Premier were exercising the function of leadership he would have been saying to his close mate, to a political mentor, I understand—the then member for Sturt, the defence minister Christopher Pyne—'What's in this contract that guarantees local work?'

Was he advocating any of that, publicly or privately? Clearly not. Nothing, niente, zero leadership on behalf of the people of South Australia, who are literally dependent upon this work coming down the line. Now what we have read in recent weeks, through drip feed, is that acquiescence of leadership is now resulting in our not realising this opportunity that I would have thought all of us wanted to see maximised to the benefit of the people of this state. That represents an economic challenge, not just in the short and medium term but, most alarmingly, in the long term.

There is a jobs problem in South Australia. There is an economic problem in South Australia, and we have a premier who is failing to show leadership and failing to deliver a consistent economic policy. Whether it be taxes, infrastructure, subs jobs or debt, you name it, this government is rudderless. It is leaderless and the people of South Australia are paying the price.

Worst of all, all these policies go directly to the Premier's character, because at the last election the Premier made promises to the people of South Australia about the economy—they appear to be broken—and also about services, costs and privatisation. Again, in each and every one of those instances, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, the member for Dunstan, promised everything to everyone to achieve a political objective, and now we have broken promises.

This government may think that they are getting away with it. They may think that things are travelling well. That is certainly consistent with the way they talk about things, but the people of South Australia are hurting. At the women's and kids' hospital at the moment, people are hurting. That is on the record this morning, so let's talk about health for a moment. They went to the last election promising better health services. What has happened since then?

They have had a policy. Their policy was to cut 1,100 staff from SA Health. That included nurses and doctors, who they said before the election were immune from these sorts of cuts. They cut 1,100 staff. Guess what happens when you take 1,100 staff out of SA Health? Guess what happens? I will tell you what happens: hospital ramping—ambulance ramping—doubles.

They used to beat the drum before the election about ambulance ramping. What do they do? They cut 1,100 people from SA Health and ramping doubles. They close beds, which they have done, and ramping doubles. They said nothing before the election about closing beds. They said nothing before the election about cutting 1,100 staff. They said nothing before the election apart from saying they were going to fix this mess, and ambulance ramping doubles.

It takes an extraordinary lack of leadership to preside over that sort of mess. Meanwhile, the women's and kids' are promised a new hospital. That seems to have fallen by the wayside, and down at the current women's and kids' we have hundreds of doctors signing letters talking about the debacle that they are now having to face and deal with. That is this government's policy on health.

Then, of course, we have privatisation. This government went to the last election with a no privatisation agenda, and then last year was the year that we saw one of the most substantial broken promises in the memory of this parliament. They had a no privatisation agenda and now they are privatising trains and trams. This government have made a calculation that public transport is something they can get away with. Let me tell you something: public transport is an elementary service, which a state government is responsible for delivering.

In every other part of the world, we see local governments and subnational governments investing in their public transport infrastructure and investing in the quality of its service. In many other parts of the world, where governments have decided to go down the path of privatising public transport services, guess what they are doing? They are bringing it back into public control. They are bringing it back into public control because it has more often than not turned out to be a disaster. This government has not just broken a promise. Most alarmingly, they are going to deliver a policy that in other parts of the world has turned out to be a disaster.

One thing I grapple with is this idea that one would get elected to the parliament, one would seek to be a minister to be in charge of things and then, once they are finally in charge on a promise to do things better, what do they do? They make someone else in charge. They sell it off to a private operator. If you are the Minister for Transport and you do not think you can run public transport, then find someone else who can. Do not just sell it off to the highest bidder in a way that will inevitably leave South Australians worse off. That is why other parts of the world are bringing it back into public hands, as I said.

The worst part is that this government said that privatisation of public transport can work well. Let's just give some examples. Take London and take Melbourne. Mr Speaker, please! It turns out that those examples are not particularly crash-hot. Let's take the easy one, the one closest to home, Melbourne. Privatisation in Melbourne of the train network has been an utter debacle. The practice of station skipping has had many people bemused. You would be sitting at a train station in Melbourne and watching it fly past because the private operator wants to meet a time imperative so that they can avoid paying a fine at the end of it. Meanwhile, some poor person is sitting around in the cold and rain of Melbourne waiting for the next train to come past that hopefully, fingers crossed, might pick them up.

These are the sorts of operations that this government says are somehow a shining example of how privatisation can work. It is an absurd proposition. I do not think any user of public transport—in excess of 70,000 on the average week day—thinks it is a good idea. I would encourage those members opposite to go out to find some public transport users who think that privatisation is a good idea. They do not. They are worried about higher fares, they are worried about a diminished service and they are worried about a government that is not accepting responsibility for something that is largely elementary.

Of course, public transport is not just important to those people who use it, but everyone on the road travelling to and from work during peak hour is worried about congestion. Guess what? It is only going to get worse if we have fewer people on public transport. For everyone who is worried about climate change, apparently we have some new-found—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Converts.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: —converts to this cause. But if you are serious about climate change, public transport is a fundamentally important policy. Do not cut it by $46 million, do not privatise it to someone who just wants to make a quick quid at South Australians' expense. Invest in it. Run it properly. Put in the time and effort. Pay some attention. Do not just sell it off to the highest bidder. Do you know what? How about just acting like a leader?

They broke the promise on privatisation. They broke the promise on services. They broke the promise of lower costs. They are delivering higher fees, taxes and charges, as I alluded to earlier: they broke that promise. They have broken the promise on the economy. So, come the end of 2019, they were sitting around the cabinet table and it was time to make a decision about where we go from here. It is little wonder they decided to reset. If I was in their position, I would have reset, too. I would have got to the end of the year and thought, you know what, not this! We have to do something. There is that red button on the cabinet table, press it. Reset! Reset! Reset! So reset they did. They prorogued the parliament. We came back at the beginning of the new year.

An honourable member: They sacked the Leader of Government Business.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: They made a few changes, they moved a few deckchairs, they sacked the Minister for Education as the Leader of Government Business.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Kicked him out of his office.

Mr MALINAUSKAS: Kicked him out of his office—that will do it. That will change a few things. If we just move these pieces around, that looks like a reset. Prorogue the parliament. Anyway, so we came back at the beginning of the year, and I thought, 'Righto, here we go.' I will be candid with you: in the opposition's office, we were thinking, 'Alright, here comes this reset. What are they going to do?' We started thinking about all the options available to a government.

They have all the levers of power and all the resources of the public sector. They have their own genius and ideology at their disposal. What are they going to come up with? Let's think this through. And then we come into the new year, we come into the reset, we sit down to listen to His Excellency's remarks that outline the government's agenda and, oh my word, we were somewhat surprised that this reset does not exist. It is a reheat. It is not a reset: it is a reheat of old policy that failed in the other place.

We hear about shop trading hours and we hear about rate capping, which, by the way, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure ruled out coming back on the agenda only a few days earlier in the Messenger. He said, 'No, rate capping is not happening,' then they go down to the love-in, they come back and say, 'Oh, yes, rate capping is happening.'

This reset is a reheat, and then there is the central policy of the reset, which I am not too sure how that came about, if it was actually an announcement of policy or not because I confess that in the Governor's address I skipped over the fact that apparently there was a new city stadium at the centre of it. Someone had to point it out to me via InDaily. I applaud Tom Richardson; he picked up on it. Apparently there was a new policy in this and it was the city stadium.

So we go back to the office that afternoon and say, 'Right, they are doing a city stadium. What is it going to be? It is going to be announced in the paper tomorrow, presumably. They have foreshadowed it in the Governor's address. Presumably, the next day in the paper we are going to see all revealed of the new city stadium, their new plan, the centrepiece of the reset. What is it? Is it going to be basketball? Is it going to be soccer? Is it going to be next to Adelaide Oval? Is it going to be west of the Morphett Street Bridge? What is it going to be?' It turns out that the next day, when we read the paper, they are saying, 'Oh, we don't know what it's going to be. We are doing a review at the moment. We are doing an analysis. That analysis was set up in the context of the Commonwealth Games bid. That is dead, yes, sure, but we have some new city stadium plan. We are working through all our options.'

They were asked, 'What sport is it going to be?' and they said, 'We don't know.' 'Where is it going to be?' 'We don't know.' 'How is it going to be funded?' 'We don't know.' 'What is it going to cost?' 'We don't know that either.' That is the reset! That is the new policy! If the alarm bells are not ringing in the corridors of government, that is one thing, except for the fact that all this actually matters. It actually does matter because, as I outlined at the beginning of my remarks, there is a whole range of statistics that I have gone through, but they represent a material impact on people's lives.

The whole reason we fight so hard to be in this parliament, to be able to get our hands on the decision-making authority that executive government provides, the whole reason we pursue this, is so that we can actually do some things that might improve people's lives. When government is not doing that, the opportunity lost represents people missing out on jobs. It is represented by people being stuck in the back of an ambulance. It is represented by someone not being able to get a bus to work early in the morning so they can go and do a minimum wage job on a shift that they have been crying out for. That is the material consequence of this.

While we criticise the government—and those opposite will review it is some sort of political speech—the truth is that all the things we do in here actually matter. That is worth thinking about. From the opposition's perspective, we have to make sure we do not repeat the same mistake, and I impress this upon my colleagues all the time. I have said before in this place and I will say it again: opposition is not purgatory; opposition is actually an opportunity. It is an opportunity to go away, to think about what it is that you would actually like to do given the opportunity, the privilege, that the current government has to be in charge. That is the work that we are undertaking as we speak.

In 2020, our focus is policy development that we can take to the next election so that if we are fortunate enough to get the keys to the car, if the people on this front bench and the people on this side of the house get their hands on the legislature, the executive power of government, if I am fortunate enough to become the Premier, I want to know exactly what it is that we plan to do with all that responsibility and authority invested in us.

We have the keys to the car and we want to know exactly where we are driving it. We do not want to be making it up as we go along. We do not want to be reaching out for the reset or panic buttons only 18 months or two years after being elected and after being in opposition for 16 years. We have to treat this period of opposition as an opportunity and that is what we are doing.

We will continue to scrutinise this government with our every last breath, but it is not what we live for. What we live for is defining our own ambitious policy and our own vision for this state that addresses the real-life concerns of people and realises that we are part of a globe that does have a number of challenges within it, whether it be the economy, whether it be climate change, whether it be the way that we treat each other generally. These are challenges that we believe a government must meet. These are challenges that require leadership and we are determined to deliver exactly that.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:10): I rise to consider matters in response to His Excellency's speech in the Legislative Council, setting out the parameters of this government's—indeed, his government's—agenda in the forthcoming legislative period.

I wish to acknowledge both His Excellency and Mrs Lan Le for the extraordinary work that they have continued to undertake and for which they deservedly have the love, respect and admiration of South Australians. That really came to the fore and shone during the most recent period of bushfire tragedies in South Australia. They made repeated visits to the affected areas and gave sympathy and support to those who needed his and her counsel. That has been an extraordinary effort and I particularly thank them for that, in addition to all the other vice-regal duties that they undertake on our behalf.

I also acknowledge the Welcome to Country from Uncle Mickey O'Brien. I particularly acknowledge this year the Chief Justice and other justices of the Supreme Court for their attendance at the opening of parliament. Members may have noted that His Honour Mark Livesey QC was recently appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court and was the first judge appointed to the newly passed, as approved and acclaimed, Appeal Court, which is yet to commence its operations. When it has its full complement, that will progress, we would expect, in the next 12 months.

A special thanks goes to them for their attendance. They remind us of the significance of the role that we have in democracy in South Australia. Embedded in our constitution are the arms of executive, this parliament and the judiciary and their interdependence together with the respectful distance between our roles.

The passing of the Hon. Sam Bass, Steve Condous, John Cornwall and Bryant Giles was duly recognised and I wish to also remember them in this chamber. They have provided service in different governments and parliaments and that should not pass without recognition. The budget outlines the proposals of the government, led by the Governor, as to aspirations for implementation of law reforms, of policy initiatives and of decisions that have been undertaken by the government.

I wish to just also acknowledge that as a local member of parliament, the member for Bragg, I am very pleased to recognise here in the chamber the work of many volunteers from my electorate. Whether they be members of the Country Fire Service, in particular the Burnside CFS, members of our MFS—we have one at Glen Osmond in my electorate—or members of the police force, together with other emergency agencies they all, worked hand in glove with local people and the ADF during the significant fires that we have had over the summer.

Probably most of the members in the house will have experienced occasions of fundraising activity by people in their electorates. We hear heartwarming stories of schoolchildren in Western Australia, who combined their small money to make a very generous contribution, across to major benefactors such as Twiggy Forest through his foundation towards the efforts of recovery.

The carnage in relation to wildlife in the Adelaide Hills and Kangaroo Island has not escaped international attention and there has been an enormous outpouring of work and financial contribution towards the rehabilitation of our natural environment. No small contribution and attention has been given to the plight of our koalas on Kangaroo Island. At the local level, I can say that we have accommodated a number of koalas at Cleland National Park and they are suitably housed there.

We also have a large number of koalas currently on Torrens Island under quarantine, which will again be introduced to help develop and expand the gene pool of koalas in South Australia. These are not koalas that have sustained any direct damage to their limbs from fire or that are under treatment, these are healthy koalas, but they are also being rescued because of the loss of their food source on Kangaroo Island particularly. It is fair to say that they are disease free. Unfortunately, not all our native fauna population is disease free. Koalas from Kangaroo Island are chlamydia free and they do not carry the equivalent of koala AIDS. It is pleasing to know that out of such adversity we can have some benefits to enable us to assist in other areas.

I also wish to acknowledge from my own department the work of the Law Society and the Legal Services Commission and their strategy to provide legal advice. In my department, the Crown Solicitor's Office, Consumer and Business Services and Births, Deaths and Marriages have all in different ways made a direct contribution to assisting people in fire-affected areas. We have also undertaken a considerable amount of work as quickly as possible to enable liquor licensing permission and processes be progressed to support fundraising and the like in different ways. People working in the Attorney-General's Department and even lawyers, not often recognised, are giving their assistance.

The destruction of someone's birth certificate or occupational licence, which may be necessary post-fire to be eligible for benefit and support, in addition to being able to seek other employment, is critical. This may be small to some but is very important to those who are affected. Through our government departments, we must all do what we can. I am proud to say that agencies such as the Legal Services Commission partnering with the Law Society provide legal advice for people to understand what their entitlements are in relation to an insurance policy, so that they are able to navigate forms in relation to eligibility or challenge to financial benefits and support, and there is a team of literally hundreds of lawyers and firms who are signed up to this strategy. It has been implemented, I think, three times since 2011. I take my hat off to those who have made a contribution in that way.

Across all our electorates, people are supporting fundraisers. A local business community in my electorate held an event last Saturday night. Sally and her team from the Burnside precinct area had put on a large event. There was local entertainment from Seymour College and Irish dancing by a local dance school and, to my eternal embarrassment because I participated in this later in the night, Bollywood dancing was brought to Burnside. The dancers were exceptional, except of course when people like me joined in.

In any event, in every way, we have to do what we can to support people during these difficult times, of which we have had a few. We have obviously had the bushfires, which have been well recorded, and the recovery has been well supported. We have also had the continuing drought across large parts of our state and, more recently, the economic and human impact of the coronavirus. These things will continue to have significant financial impact on our state.

Notwithstanding the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition as to the plight of our state, I think he perhaps missed the opportunity to read that in January unemployment in this state was down to 5.7 per cent. Or perhaps he did and was not impressed by it. That is an impressive development. These statistics do come and go, but I think he should acknowledge when the state is progressing.

I think that is now the third lowest unemployment rate in the country. That is a far cry from that horrible period under the previous administration when we were repeatedly neck and neck with Tasmania on almost every single indicator and performance level when compared with the rest of the country. I am very proud that we have been able to reset the agenda, and that I have the privilege of being part of that team.

The Leader of the Opposition might say that we have a 'jobs problem' in South Australia. I think his only problem is that we are not supporting the jobs that he wants. Let me place this on the record. Whilst he might be critical of this government's program, we had an election in March 2018 and, despite whatever fantastic contribution he thinks his former government—of which he was a member for a number of years—won for South Australia, the South Australian public said, 'No, it's not acceptable. It is not a standard.'

Frankly, to come in here and talk about health, given what his government failed to do in relation to providing health services to South Australians, is an embarrassment. Rather than spout what his government had done, the opposition leader, if he were genuine about his position, should reflect on how fundamentally he failed South Australians by closing the Repat Hospital. That would just be the start of the list, but let me progress to a couple of other matters I would like to discuss.

I am proud to be part of a government that has made some hard decisions. In relation to law reform—in particular, the justice law reform agenda that we have set—there will be a continuing commitment to modernising our laws. As has been reflected upon by His Excellency, I will be progressing law reform in relation to abortion. There was a significant debate on this issue back in 1969, when the abortion law was first presented to the parliament.

It was controversial then, but it was an area of law that was placed in our criminal law. It is no less controversial today. We receive annual reports to this parliament that tell us around 4,000 terminations are undertaken in South Australia each year. I would ask members to look at that report. It is only a short one. It gives us a profile of this procedure and is accountable to this parliament every year.

It gives an age profile. It tells us a very interesting story about a very significant number of women who undertake terminations who are both married and over the age of 24 or 25. It is an area that we need to address. I will be progressing this, and we will need to consider it. It is not going to be easy, but I hope that members will look at how we might deal with the termination laws in the contemporary 21st century and the health procedures that are necessarily regulated in relation to the offering of this medical procedure and how we might accommodate the situation now, which was not available back in 1969, of a non-surgical option in relation to the termination of pregnancy.

I will not shy away from these issues. I am certain that, as part of the government's justice reform agenda, we will pursue other matters as well, including the difficult barnacle of dealing with provocation in our murder laws. We must address this issue as well, from the provocation law of the last century and the century before—around protecting usually men who, in a jealous rage, would kill the lover of their spouse or sister—to a 21st century understanding of violence that is provoked, which includes exposure to and learning of sexual abuse of children or domestic violence.

These are the modern areas that are now out from behind the cupboard and that we are addressing. Again, it is an area of protection particularly for children and domestic violence victims, and we must address these issues. I am proud that our government will be advancing provocation law reform. Again, it will not be easy. I will ask members to come to those debates on the clear understanding that it is time we modernised some of these matters.

Another area, which has had some attention as a result of the incident at the Christmas party last year here in this parliament, is the question of how we deal with the protection of people in the workplace. That has had some attention most recently for reasons that are now well known. The incident in question has been under review by the Speaker. That is currently suspended as a result of an announcement that there was a report to police on the matter.

I would hope that everyone in this house would ensure that we do not act in any way to cut across that inquiry and proper investigation. However, it does focus our minds on what we need to do in relation to workplace protections. In recent times, we have had a suggestion by an honourable member in the other place, the Hon. Tammy Franks. I am just trying to think of the name of the commissioner. She mentioned it again in parliament yesterday. It was to have something like a conduct commissioner deal with a model of MP to MP circumstances.

Because the government have already indicated that we are looking at this, I will just traverse for the purposes of the members here that, if people do have a particular view on how we address this as a parliament, I would be happy to hear from them. I have already had conversations with, and the helpful advice of, the equal opportunity commissioner, because obviously she has had some experience in dealing with workplace concerns that have been raised. She has a process, under legislation, for conciliation and, if necessary, for referral to the equal opportunity tribunal.

The circumstances and processes in relation to MPs in this workplace, as well as elected members in councils, local government and judges, is different from other workplaces. Everyone here in this house has people in their councils; I think even the member for Stuart does. I know he has something similar to a council, but parts of his electorate have councils in it. Under the Equal Opportunity Act, for example, access to that program for the purpose of support during an incident that is the basis of a complaint is not available to those people in the same way that it is for the general workforce.

It is important that we look at these matters, and I have had a meeting with the equal opportunity commissioner to briefly discuss those. I have explained to her that I have obtained preliminary advice in relation to any constitutional impediments to how we might go forward. I have also explained the different reasons that we have some exclusion in these areas, for example, elected members of councils and judges. We have a process where the Chief Justice has to receive any referral in relation to alleged judicial misconduct and then there are other process that can flow. So we do have some areas that are not covered. It is 2020 and we do need to consider how we address those. I thank the equal opportunity commissioner for her advice to date on that.

The constitutional issues in relation to us particularly, and parliamentary privilege specifically, are complex, so there is no simple answer, but that does not mean that we should not deal with them. It should not mean that we do not re-look at what our position is, and that is precisely what I am doing on behalf of the government. I also thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her helpful advice to date in relation to this, as our representative in respect to women. As I have previously explained in relation to the matters pertaining to last year's incident, I remain available as Attorney-General to receive information from any members who wish to add to that.

We will work through this; we must do so. I propose at my next meeting with the Chief Justice to canvass with him, on a preliminary basis, how he might like us as a parliament to consider different models of how this might be addressed in the 21st century. Obviously, that will need to be considered. I expect the Local Government Association will also want to have a say on this. I assure members of the house that none of this should in any way impede the particular incident that is currently the subject of inquiry by the police, but I will report to parliament in due course as to how we might progress that.

As I said, the Hon. Tammy Franks has identified her proposal. I recall now that she was proposing a standards commissioner. I have not seen any particulars of the model of that but, again, we must address these matters and we must look at how we can not only protect people in any of our workplaces but also preserve and protect the issues, principles and laws that we are here to honour and support, and that is to make sure that parliamentary privilege is not impeded.

Can I say for the record, especially for new members, that parliamentary privilege is not a privilege belonging to us as members of parliament; it is a privilege of the people of South Australia. The reasons they have it are manifold, but if I can put it in the most simple layman's terms that I can express, probably clumsily, what is important is that people in South Australia, through us, have an opportunity to present their cause, their views or their aspirations in relation to the laws that we make and change here, as well as the important issues that we discuss here.

They must feel that they are protected against any impediment to us, as their representatives, in being able to freely and frankly present that to the parliament in our debates. It is a protection that is there for them, not for us. It is the same reason that we have rules to say that Her Majesty, or her representative, cannot come into this chamber while we are here debating our business. It may be historical and it may be a very different potential influence from that of 400 years ago, but these rules are there for good reason and we must work hard to ensure that we protect them because we are providing protection to the people of South Australia—not us. We need to deal with the difficult issues, which we will.

I should announce at this stage that I am the lead speaker, not that I am proposing to speak all day, but I should make mention of that to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, I think you are limited to 30 minutes on this occasion.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The other matters I wish to address relate to succession law, sentence discounting and major indictable reform. Again, they are all areas that are difficult, but we are going to address them and they will be on our agenda. It is fair to say that there are a few things that I would like to say that I am deeply grateful for the cabinet endorsing, and my colleagues' hard work in doing. Again, we are in 2020 and we need to understand what we are doing, which is to set a new restart button for South Australia.

The permanent lifting of the prohibition on the growing of GM crops I think will be a very, very significant advance for South Australia. We have been trapped in a circumstance of mainland South Australia not being able to compete with the rest of the country. Everyone else has moved ahead but we have not. Fortunately, we also have a geographical area of isolation which can be maintained, and that is Kangaroo Island.

When I first read the report on this by the Hon. Anne Levy AO (a former President of the Legislative Council), I thought it was excellent. She indicated that we should be moving ahead with GM but that we should maintain prohibition of it on Kangaroo Island. This will be a game changer for our state, a state which continues to be pioneering, very dependent on agriculture and horticulture and where, I remind members, we have the most prestigious university, I suggest, in the world, the Adelaide University's campus in relation to agriculture and genomics, and we ought to be promoting that.

The second area I single out is that of single-use plastics. People in my area have been delighted by the government's initiatives in environmental single-use equipment, and plastics and straws and things of that nature are back on the agenda. My experience is that certainly the younger generation is very keen for us to advance this. They are not always good at turning off lights when they go out of a room and saving power, and they are not necessarily always good at worrying about whether they fly everywhere or drive a car and use diesel or anything else, but they are conscious of making sure that we do not blemish our environment, and that includes protection of our oceans and rivers from plastic.

Mr Cowdrey: And our coastline thanks you for it.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: And, of course, the member for Colton reminds me of the coastline and how we might protect that. This is an important issue for South Australians, and I commend the Minister for Environment and his department for progressing this worthy work.

Finally, can I say that one other area which I am really, really excited about is, of course, the rebirth of space. Members will know that, come 1970, the then prime minister, Gough Whitlam, decided that we would not be in the space industry, which is a prerogative of governments. We moved out of it. An agency that we established in 1961 in Australia closed. Well, 50 years later the reset button has started, and we have a chance to be able to have, obviously, the development of critical and complementary industries and services. It is very exciting, very inspiring and will be, I think, a game changer for South Australia.

Congratulations to the Premier on the state dinner the other night in welcoming a number of people here. I am proud to be South Australian. I am very proud to be part of this government. I thank His Excellency for his splendid outlining of the objectives of the new government, and I for one am confident that we will be able to advance for the betterment of all South Australians.

Ms WORTLEY (Torrens) (12:40): I rise to speak on the Address in Reply to the speech by His Excellency the Governor, Hieu Van Le AO, at the opening of the Second Session of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament of South Australia. We are fortunate to have a Governor who is so genuine, so hardworking and has a real understanding of some of the challenges members of our community face, in particular, our multicultural communities. I recall His Excellency saying on one occasion that, on his journey to Australia, he and his amazing wife, Lan, carried with them little more than a suitcase full of dreams, and so it is for many of those from other countries who have made their own journey and now call South Australia home.

Sadly, for some families in Australia the magnitude and the devastation caused by the recent bushfires across Australia, and particularly our state of South Australia, proved to be heartbreaking. For some, it ended their dreams. From as early as last September, fires have caused havoc in Queensland and vast regions of New South Wales. More recently, they have impacted Victoria and, as we know all too well, South Australia. People living in Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have not needed to be anywhere near the fires to get some understanding of the impact, with a smoke haze blanketing these cities for days and weeks at a time.

Australia has seen catastrophic bushfires before, including the devastating Ash Wednesday fires of 1983 and the Black Saturday fires that claimed lives in Victoria in 2008, but we have never seen them last this long. While the fires did not burn for as long in South Australia, the impact has been devastating. The Kangaroo Island bushfires of December and January were fiercer than anyone could have imagined. They brought normal life and business to a standstill, resulted in a loss of life, destroyed homes and businesses, devastated wildlife and livestock and wiped out an iconic Australian tourist resort.

Fires also caused devastation in the Adelaide Hills, from Cudlee Creek to Lenswood, Lobethal, Woodside and as far as Mount Torrens. The Kangaroo Island fires destroyed 89 homes, 300 more structures, a rising figure of more than 50,000 heads of livestock, and they claimed the lives of legendary Australian bush pilot Dick Lang and his son Dr Clayton Lang.

On both Kangaroo Island and in the Adelaide Hills, there was a massive loss of native animals and livestock. An estimated 25,000-plus koalas were killed on the island alone. The Cudlee Creek fires destroyed more than 70 homes, thousands of hectares of rich farmland and vineyards and 400 more sheds or outbuildings. They also had a human cost. Much-loved grandfather and respected member of the Charleston community Ron Selth died as a result of the fires.

It is difficult to comprehend the magnitude of these fires. The stories told of the eight Kangaroo Island bushfires, which just kept gaining strength when they appeared to be under control and joined together at different points to become super bushfires, are terrifying. We heard about the walls of flame, the unparalleled speed of these fires, heat that wiped out wild and domestic animals where they stood, and the frightening roar that was heard across the island.

We heard about the hundreds of people being forced into sleeping in whatever makeshift lodgings were available, with many leaving the island. We learnt that the $0.5 million, 750,000-litre fire defence system designed to protect the Southern Ocean Lodge was just helpless in the face of the 100-metre-high fire wall that consumed it. Experienced CFS firefighters said they had never seen anything like these fires in their 40 years.

My colleague and member for Mawson, Leon Bignell, was the type of representative voters needed at such times. He was on the ground, in his local electorate, on Kangaroo Island throughout much of the ordeal, helping out, listening and just being there. He did some amazing things. He spoke in this place about a tourism business whose revenue went from $190,000 a month to less than $10,000, resulting in jobs being lost. You can multiply that many times. It is just one of many businesses devastated by the fires or the fallout from the fires.

A bushfire recovery centre was set up at Parndana, and emergency and hardship grants are being made available. Grants are also available for residents, businesses and primary producers, but there is only so much these can do. The ramifications of the fires will be felt for a long time, and it is our responsibility to do everything we can to get Kangaroo Island working again.

Businesses have been destroyed. Many that have not been destroyed have suffered a massive downturn for varied reasons, from loss of infrastructure and stock to a lack of customers, including tourists, who understandably have assumed that the island is closed. However, the island most definitely is not closed. We need to support the people of Kangaroo Island not just in government assistance and greatly needed and welcome community aid but by getting behind them and visiting the island.

Despite the damage, there is still so much to see even on the western side of the island. I think it is important to let people know that Kangaroo Island is resilient and trading again. Kingscote, American River and Penneshaw escaped the fires, and it is business as usual for their restaurants, hotels and accommodation. We would like to think it is as usual, but of course the numbers are not there. Seal Bay Conservation Park and KI Wildlife Park are trading and so are wineries in Kingscote, Cygnet River and Dudley Peninsula. Even Flinders Chase National Park, which was heavily impacted on the western side of the island, is open again.

The list of reasons to visit Kangaroo Island continues: Admirals Arch, Cape Borda, Emu Bay, the Cape Willoughby lighthouse, the pristine beaches, the jagged coastline and the friendly locals. South Australians should be congratulated on getting right behind the upcoming Kangaroo Island Cup weekend. It shows great support for the island and its residents, but it should also be remembered that, whether it is for a race meeting, a weekend in a hotel or a bed and breakfast, camping out, snorkelling or the endless photographic opportunities, the island is worth visiting.

Nobody expects people to take a holiday that they do not enjoy, but we need to remind people that Kangaroo Island is open for business and that there is plenty to do. We can all help by buying KI products and produce: the free range eggs, Kangaroo Island Fresh Garlic, Dudley Wines, Kangaroo Island Spirits, Island Beehive products, crayfish and other fresh seafoods, Kangaroo Island Source products, Clifford's Honey Farm products and the list goes on. If you are not visiting the island, the products can be bought at the Kangaroo Island stall in the Adelaide Central Market.

It is a similar story in the Adelaide Hills. The impact of the fires will be felt after the fire danger has passed, but life has to continue for the sake of the region and its people. Many parts of the Hills fortunately were left untouched while others were ravaged. The fires came within minutes and metres of consuming Lobethal. This is clearly evident, driving into the town from Woodside, with the blackened hill providing the sobering backdrop to the old Onkaparinga Woollen Mill, which is now a business hub. Within that precinct, a bushfire recovery centre is operating.

Nearby Cudlee Creek provided a very visible example of the unpredictability of these bushfires. Two Cudlee Creek cafes, which most of us know when we drive through or stop at these locations set a couple of kilometres apart, were untouched but, just back from there into the Hills, massive areas were burnt out and houses and farms destroyed. A man lost his life. Native animals and livestock were lost. Then at the next farm or just over the road, homes escaped. The tireless, selfless work of our firefighters cannot be overstated. We hardly need to say what a remarkable job they have done for months, but we need to tell them anyway.

The people of Kelly Road, Cudlee Creek, certainly felt the need to express their gratitude, which was beautifully demonstrated after the fires were brought under control by anyone driving by. They put a notice next to the roadside that simply said, 'Thank you CFS. All our Kelly Road homes saved. Bloody legends.' Of course, other homes were not so fortunate but, when you travel along Cudlee Creek Road, you wonder how so many homes were saved.

Driving to Woodside, the damage is very visible. The fields are black. While both the town centres of Woodside and Lobethal escaped the fires, the surrounding areas were hit hard. The Adelaide Hills is home to more than 100 wineries and around 50 cellar doors. Many of these were hard-hit. Approximately one-third of the Hills vineyards were destroyed, and some thriving wineries were lost and may never be replaced.

It has been heartwarming to see so many South Australians continue to buy Adelaide Hills and Kangaroo Island products. Well after these fires were extinguished and we returned to some sort of normality on the mainland, and on Kangaroo Island, we want to say thank you. We want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of the CFS, MFS, SES—local, interstate and from across the world—ambulance, police, Army Reserve, the Defence Force, farm fighting units, Wildlife Rescue, locals and all who volunteered. To all who have been affected by these devastating fires—my friends on Kangaroo Island, who I will soon be visiting, the businesses on the island and the community groups—we want you to know that we stand with you, and we will be sending visitors your way.

On a much brighter note, we have much to celebrate in our beautiful state of South Australia, and that can be seen around every corner in the city right now as the Fringe and the Adelaide Festival bring huge numbers of people to South Australia, along with WOMADelaide and Writers' Week. Over the coming months, these events will attract thousands of visitors from interstate and around the world. Our festivals really drive home the fact that the arts sector, including the performing arts, has a place in government budgets because the arts is something to be embraced and nurtured and because it can be a significant economic driver.

I have great pleasure in showing off our thriving Adelaide city centre to interstate and overseas visitors, those who once lived here or who moved or those who are visiting, particularly at festival time, and explaining that it is almost exclusively the work of Labor governments. The Festival Centre, the Riverbank Precinct, the fantastic Adelaide Oval redevelopment, the North Terrace Cultural Precinct, the footbridge (that so many on the opposite benches did not want) and the vibrant laneways were all under Labor's watch. We have so much to be proud of here in our state.

The South Australian Film Corporation, established in 1972 by then premier Don Dunstan, has been the leading light of the South Australia's screen industry for more than 40 years. Its relocation in 2011 under Labor to premises within five minutes of the CBD has two sound stages, a Dolby Premier 7.1 Mixing Theatre, ADR and Foley studio, and a 100-seat screening theatre located alongside a creative hub of more than 20 Australian screen businesses and screen practitioners. The Adelaide Film Festival—an international film festival held biennially over two weeks with briefer events in the intervening years—has a strong focus on local South Australian and Australian-produced content. It was established under Labor's watch.

It is difficult sitting on this side when those opposite stand up and claim what previous Labor governments have put in place as though it was their doing. What is even more difficult is seeing the devastating impact of the mean-spirited measures that the Marshall Liberal government has made in its first two years. Like many of my residents I have spoken to, I dread the damage that they will cause in the next two years.

In the lead-up to the last election, the Liberal opposition leader, Steven Marshall, and his team, made so many promises to the people of South Australia—promises that, if elected, they would deliver more jobs, promises that they would deliver lower costs and promises that they would deliver better services.

On Tuesday, I was listening to the shadow minister for health, the member for Kaurna, who was pointing out that over the past two years we have seen ambulance ramping more than double, giving us the worst ramping ever seen in South Australia. Then, we hear there are cuts to doctors, cuts to nurses and cuts to staff at SA Pathology. The only increase we see for these dedicated workers in our hospitals—the nurses, the cleaners and other hospital staff—is a dramatic increase in their car parking fees, an increase that will see them fork out an extra $725 each year just to park their car. Patient and visitor car parking fees are up by 25 per cent.

But it does not end there. There are more increases. There is the bin tax, where ratepayers have seen increases in their council rates, stemming from the Marshall government's increase in the solid waste levy, of up to 40 per cent. There is the small bar tax, which was not so small. We have seen an increase in public transport fares; driver's licence renewal; motor vehicle registration; registering a trailer; the cost of accessing certificates from Births, Deaths and Marriages; plumbing, gasfitting and electrical tradie registration fees; and individual contractor licences.

We have seen cuts in victim support services that support victims of sexual and domestic abuse, including the Women's Domestic Violence Court Assistance Service. We have seen cuts in funding for prison rehabilitation programs, and we have seen cuts to ongoing secured funding for community radio 5EBI. There are cuts and closures involving JusticeNet SA, RecFish SA, Brand SA and the Fund My Neighbourhood program, and some of our busiest Service SA branches are targeted for closure: Prospect, Modbury and Mitcham.

I have spoken in this place many times before about my passion for education and the importance of our state government supporting our education system. After the 2018 state election, the minister announced that several TAFE campuses would close. Tea Tree Gully, Parafield and Port Adelaide have already closed. At this stage, a few campuses, including the Gilles Plains campus in my electorate of Torrens, have been spared that fate. However, I do fear for the future of this site, with the planned redevelopment and the sale of the Strathmont land. Renewal SA contracted a company to do a preliminary site investigation, looking at the Gilles Plains TAFE campus site, with a view to having it rezoned residential.

I will be watching this very closely, as access to further education by students in the surrounding areas in the north-east is crucial for their future. I would like to take a moment to thank the dedicated teachers, lecturers and support staff who have all persevered through the current round of TAFE cuts by the Marshall Liberal government and those who have contributed to the improvements in training delivery for South Australian students.

Cuts and closures are marks of the Marshall Liberal government. Heading into the 2018 election, the then opposition leader told South Australians on television, 'We don't have a privatisation agenda.' He is of course today the Premier. One wonders if that would be the case had he laid out his plans for South Australia—the cuts, closures and privatisation. We are now facing the privatisation of trains and trams, which experience in other places (we have already heard, in London and Melbourne) shows will likely lead to increased fares, decreased reliability, cuts to services and job losses. We have seen the privatisation of the Adelaide Remand Centre, Modbury Hospital patient transfers, and there are privatisation plans for SA Pathology.

It brings me no joy to be standing here in this house two years down the track saying that, following being elected to government, the Marshall Liberal government promises have in many cases proven to be empty promises, broken promises. Cuts and broken promises are what they have delivered. But we hear members opposite stand up and speak about what is being delivered in their own electorates. When the Minister for Sport stands up and says, 'We are delivering on election promises,' it appears the promises that they are delivering on are promises in Liberal-held seats. That brings me to that the promises were made by the Marshall Liberal government in the lead-up to the election that have not been met in Torrens. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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