HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2022-05-31 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Supply Bill 2022

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 May 2022.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (17:07): I am very pleased to speak on the Supply Bill, a bill that provides for the government of South Australia to continue to run programs, to pay public servants, to provide grants and to continue with infrastructure projects during the period from 1 July 2022 until the Appropriation Bill effectively cuts in.

The Malinauskas Labor government has come to power. We are now in the third sitting week and, with the Address in Reply having been dealt with, they would like to have the state budget this Thursday. Indeed, now we are offered a Supply Bill because they know the state budget—as happens every year—is never finished by the end of June, so in this house and in the Legislative Council that bill must be passed before its money can flow. This Supply Bill gets us through in the interim. That is its purpose and it happens every year.

The unusual thing this year is that the Supply Bill has been delayed so far, not just by an election but by three weeks of Address in Reply. If it were to be the case that the government was going to take so long with that, it is up to them whether the sitting calendar providing a record low number of sitting days—certainly a record low number in my time in the parliament—is provided. That is up to them to determine. We have this Supply Bill now and we will consider it. It is a large amount of money It is an enormous amount of money—billions of dollars of taxpayers' money for the people of South Australia. The opportunity to scrutinise this bill and deliberate on it is a fiercely held one by the parliament and, as all oppositions do, we will give it consideration.

Obviously, the opposition will support the Supply Bill, but it is incumbent on the government, having the opportunity with this Supply Bill to put in place its agenda from 1 July, to deliver on its agenda, to deliver to the people of South Australia the things they promised to do. From a Liberal point of view, the people of South Australia voted for the Malinauskas Labor government in a disturbingly large number of seats, which is something that I think they will reflect on in four years' time if this government does not deliver on its commitments or indeed if this government determines that it is going to undertake policies that were never discussed before the election and that are contrary to the interests of the people of South Australia.

With this Supply Bill, the government has the capacity to govern. Every member sitting opposite, or even over there on the Labor benches, has a responsibility to their community to ensure that their ministry delivers what they said they would do when these members were pitching for election. I do not know how many of the members who are sitting in the chamber on the non-cabinet member benches for the Labor Party were aware that this government on coming to office would delay the north-south corridor project by at least a year. Judging by the Minister for Transport's answers in the house today, one can only assume that his real plans are to delay it for longer. Potentially, I have limited confidence in this project at all under the current minister. Maybe one of the others would do a better job.

They seem more interested in playing musical chairs with senior Public Service positions than on delivering projects for the people of South Australia, and this is problematic. We need a government focused on outcomes for the people of South Australia. Delaying the north-south corridor is more uncertainty for businesses that are operating along it and more uncertainty for residents who are now wondering whether their houses will need to be acquired under Minister Koutsantonis's new plans for whatever he proposes to deliver there—all enormous productivity losses for the state of South Australia going forward.

We want this corridor, the largest infrastructure project in South Australia's history, to deliver for South Australia for generations to come and start as soon as possible. There are enormous productivity benefits for our farmers trying to get their product to market and for people trying to get to jobs more quickly, whether they are working on domestic or commercial projects or indeed civil projects. This is a tremendously important project, and it is troubling that it is already being slated for delay by the new minister.

Today, in question time it was made very clear that universal access for preschool for all three-year-old children in South Australia will not be available in 2026. Again, I do not know how many of the Labor members sitting on the non-cabinet benches were aware that, allegedly, according to the education minister, if you believe him today, that was never part of the plan. However, the Labor Party provided their members with policy documents, including one where it is very, very explicit. It states: 'Labor's commitment to offer three-year-old preschool to all children in South Australia from 2026'.

It talks about some policy matters related to autism. It is very explicit that the Labor Party went to the people of South Australia with a proposition that they wanted three year olds in South Australia to have universal access to preschool, which is understood, by the way, as 15 hours of a preschool-style program. In South Australia, this would be overwhelmingly delivered in public preschools, although not exclusively. It can be delivered in non-government settings as well. A number of long day-care centres offer a preschool-style program, which is funded under the universal access scheme.

Either the Labor government needs to be clear with the people of South Australia about what its actual motivations and policies are or it fails the trust of the people of South Australia after the election. What we heard today was very clear. The minister set forth a series of what he described as big challenges to delivering three-year-old preschool for all three year olds in South Australia by 2026. He talked about the challenges of capacity.

The fact is that there are indeed—and this is true—a number of preschools in South Australia that have capacity to take more children, that could offer another day, for example. They have capacity to take more children. They could potentially take the three year olds tomorrow if they were all in attendance and the state government were willing to pay for it. Indeed, we have a number of preschools in our public system, and do not forget that the overwhelming majority of preschool programs in South Australia are in public preschools. We have a number of those preschools—and members may be familiar with them—that are at capacity now, where there is no more room.

Julieann Riedstra was a former chief operating officer, a former executive director of infrastructure in the Department for Education, someone who served Liberal and Labor governments over a respected career of several decades. We established in estimates last year, I think it was, that after her retirement she reminded me that she had put the capital cost estimate of delivering three-year-old preschool, certainly according to the public model or the similar proportions to what are currently in the system in public preschools, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, just in capital alone.

Even if, as I think the education minister seemed to suggest on ABC radio a couple of weeks ago, you expect a large amount of the increased numbers to be in long day-care services with preschool-style programs there is still an extraordinary cost for the state budget: $80 million to $100 million it was estimated in the advice that was given to the former government. If the government consider the $80 million to $100 million in this program is the best way to enhance early childhood education, as they certainly seemed to suggest before the election, then well be it.

The first 1,000 days of a kid's life are utterly critical. We want that to be a focus of government policy and we want every cent of improvement to early childhood education to go to where it is going to have the most impact. That drove the decisions that we took as a government as to how we could best enhance early childhood education with every cent made available.

We will get to the Early Learning Strategy that we released last year a bit later, and I hope the new government will not be cutting it in order to fund some of its new commitments. At any rate, I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind on the Labor benches that they went to the election promising three-year-old universal preschool. In fact, I was with the former members for Newland and King and other members at the Modbury pre-poll booth before the election on a number of occasions. We had some friendly discussions about how politics was going. I do not know which one of the Labor members put up the post of Labor's plan for education with the big tick for universal three-year-old preschool—Labor's plan for election.

At the very least, even if it was not explicitly in the policy document, one might imagine that when Labor is talking about having a plan for education you can assume they are talking about the coming term of government—universal three-year-old preschool. There are some specific meanings in early childhood education that go with those words.

Universal access is a funding arrangement with the state and the commonwealth. It is where the commonwealth provides the extra three hours on top of the 12 hours that the state provides for four year olds so that there is 15 hours of preschool per week for all of our four-year-old children. In addition to that at the moment and for a number of years, certainly throughout the entire time of the Marshall Liberal government, we provided three-year-old preschool for all South Australian Aboriginal children and for children under guardianship.

In our Early Learning Strategy, which we released in the 2021 state budget, people can see that we were looking at further considerations for further areas. At page 23, we were looking at review policy settings for an additional year of preschool for developmentally delayed children. Today, in question time the minister in his answer identified—and he was right—that there are certain cohorts of students that will get more benefit from three-year-old preschool, because the thing is we have excellent long day-care services in South Australia, certainly with higher proportions of services going above the national average on the myChild website than most other jurisdictions, and we have a National Quality Framework that the Labor Party should be proud of. I think Kate Ellis was the minister who led the debate on it. It was delivered during the 2010-14 period of government, the Rann-Weatherill years.

They signed up to the National Quality Framework, during which time was required the introduction of teachers and more diploma and certificate-qualified staff in our long day-care services. This ensures that, while it may not always be a preschool-style setting that our three year olds are in, the overwhelming majority of our three year olds are in an early education setting that deserves our respect, and the educators who work in our long day-care services deserve our respect rather than being dismissed as some sort of second-class option for our children.

Those children are actually doing pretty well. Yes, we want them to do better, and we must work to do better. We must work on the developmental checks. Indeed, there are a number of them who will benefit from a preschool-work style setting specifically, a preschool-style program specifically. We have identified already Aboriginal children, children in guardianship, and the Marshall Liberal government put on the table children with a developmental delay. I recognise that there will be other vulnerable cohorts who are not getting all the benefits of that quality framework provided for long day-care settings.

Maybe there are different standards in some long day-care centres than in some preschools. The point I make is this: Labor has said that the answer is three-year-old preschool for every child. That means not what is currently being delivered, a combination of parental and commonwealth subsidies supporting those three year-olds in long day-care settings. There are some children who miss out, and they would always be better in a three-year-old preschool than not getting any of those early education opportunities at all.

Labor's promise did not go into this nuance. Labor's promise was universal three-year-old preschool in South Australia. This Supply Bill, and the budget to follow on Thursday, has the opportunity for Labor to deliver on its promise. Yes, it will take some work. The minister said the Victorian government, on which they based their modelling, took 10 years, or he is proposing over 10 years to roll out three-year-old preschool.

I do not really know how many of the Labor members here recall that in their talking points when they were going to community events saying that they would roll it out over 10 years, along the Victorian model, in a staged approach. I do not think that was in the Labor talking points because it certainly was not in their policy. Their policy—and I reference it again, Labor's commitment to offer three-year-old preschool to all children in South Australia from 2026—Labor's election posters, Labor's plan for education, universal three-year-old preschool. Today, the minister said, 'From 2026, we will look at start rolling it out and we will have a royal commission to tell us how.'

Before the election, when Labor announced their policy, we were interested in how they were going to deliver it. As established, depending on the model, if we are talking about all public preschoolers, this is hundreds of millions of dollars of capital in addition to the $80 million to $100 million a year in recurrent funding required to deliver preschool-type programs according to any of the definitions of are currently considered a preschool-type program.

It is a cost to the state government and it is a cost that I am happy to pay if it is going to deliver massive improvements to children's education and benefits for families. But Labor are not even actually now proposing to deliver it. They are shifting the language and talking about a staged approach, where certain cohorts might get there first because they have these capacity challenges to overcome. The royal commission was Labor's promise. Today, I asked the minister to reconcile his answer, which made it clear there was going to be this staged approach, with Labor's promises that all children in South Australia from 2026 would have access to three-year-old preschools. I switched around a bit, but it is nevertheless the quote.

I asked them to reconcile Labor's commitment to offer three-year-old preschool to all children in South Australia from 2026. He said, 'There is no problem reconciling it because our commitment wasn't that. It was that we would have a royal commission to advise us on how we could deliver that.' He said that the royal commission would investigate how to have this three-year-old preschool for all children, ideally from 2026. That is an aspiration. He talked about a lofty aspiration—that is fine.

The thing is that their election promise provided $1 million for a royal commission. The last two royal commissions in South Australia, I note, cost five and seven times that amount, but we will forgive this government if they spend more on the royal commission than $1 million because they must and it is clearly a key election promise to have this royal commission. If they spend only $1 million it would be to the benefit of the Treasurer, but it will be a failure to the children and families of South Australia.

This royal commission's task, as explained by the Labor Party before the election, was to tell them how to deliver three-year-old preschool for 2026. It is a big task. We knew it was a big task. We said it would be expensive, and Labor said, 'We will have a royal commission to deal with it. We are supposed to solve all these problems.' I suspect that what has happened is that, since coming to government, the education minister has received advice that there is a cost, and to put that cost in the forward estimates would blow all of the current Treasurer's commentary about no more big projects, no more big expenses.

We saw him in The Advertiser today suggesting that further projects will be delayed. He will blow it completely out of the water. Eighty million dollars to $100 million from 2026 is what the Labor Party will have to deliver on its election commitments, and they are not going to from the clear responses from the minister today that they are squibbing on this promise to the people of South Australia.

It is a betrayal of the trust of the people of South Australia. As the Premier today was wrapping up his Address in Reply, just before I started speaking on the Supply Bill, I heard him talking at length about his description of his government's motivations to support families and children in South Australia. I commend his government for having that as an aspiration; it was ours. Early childhood was key in our government's focus priority areas, as was education.

There was never more money spent nor focused energy spent on reforms in a four-year period in school education in South Australia's history than in the last four years of the Marshall Liberal government. In early childhood education, we, too, had a strong commitment to reforming our delivery of early childhood education and potentially expanding the responsibilities for state government in this area.

The education minister in question time today said that we had no policy on early childhood. I put it to the education minister and those opposite that just because a policy is funded by government money ahead of an election, rather than waiting until the election campaign itself, does not make it any less a policy. I commend to those opposite, certainly the new members to whom I did not send a copy at last year's budget, the document 'All young children thriving and learning: South Australia's early learning strategy', which I believe is still on the education department's website.

It includes, from page 18 through to page 28, a series of measures, some 10 or 15 measures on most pages, identifying where we are going in early childhood. Some of them were immediately funded, some of them were areas for further research and some of them were 10-year aspirations. They are very important measures. Although they are now saying that we had no vision in early childhood education, I recall the Premier saying that $50 million commitment was the best thing in Rob Lucas's last 2021 budget. Labor members who were here at the time may remember it in the talking points.

It was a solid body of work that was developed over a series of years aimed at targeting funding, and we accessed new funding from Rob Lucas, no less. We accessed new funding to target measures that would have a significant positive impact on children's development because it became very clear that the AEDC census data showed that, unlike most other states, in the period of the collection of data from 2009 to 2018 there was an increase in the percentage of children developmentally vulnerable on one or more domains—between 2009 and 2018, the core years of the former Labor government.

In South Australia, children in a vulnerable situation increased from 23 per cent to 24 per cent. The only other jurisdiction that increased, by the way, was the ACT. Queensland saw a 3 per cent decline, Western Australia a 6 per cent decline and the Northern Territory, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania all saw improvements on that developmental data. South Australia did not, so we put in place a series of measures that will address that, measures that will look at children's vulnerabilities for early support, early diagnosis and interventions and work with communities and NGOs. Groups like Raising Literacy Australia, the Smith Family and others were funded to engage in projects.

I very much hope that this new government will continue that work in the years ahead because it will have a big impact. I urge the minister to do so, and I urge him to fulfil his commitments to the people of South Australia on three-year-old preschool or at least have the decency to own up to the fact that it seems the Labor Party is walking away from that clear election promise.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (17:27): I rise to speak on the Supply Bill, a Supply Bill that will, with the Appropriation Bill, ensure investments and improvements in my community of Badcoe. For Labor MPs and supporters, we are living in very exciting times. With victory at elections comes the opportunity and, of course, the responsibility to do great things for our community. While much emphasis is put on elections, and winning them is obviously essential to delivering as a government, success at the ballot box is simply the very first step to creating real change and having real success and is not the goal in itself.

I am particularly excited about the great many projects that I, as the re-elected member for Badcoe, now have the opportunity to deliver for my community as part of a Labor team. Badcoe is a diverse community, featuring leafy streets and now multimillion-dollar homes, through to suburbs with families and individuals who need a helping hand, the kind of help that only Labor governments can deliver. The needs and wants across Badcoe are similarly diverse, and it is one of the very special joys of my job as the MP for the local area to serve so many different people from so many different backgrounds, each with ideas about our community and our state and how we can make it better.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who voted for me. I was very pleased after four years of hard work as your MP to win the seat on primary votes, something that has not been achieved before. Thank you for all the flowers and boxes of chocolates that arrived after my re-election. It is a testament to the generosity and kindness of people in my community I am so lucky to represent.

I would also like to assure you that I am an MP for everyone, not just those who lent their vote to me or their preference. Of course, I intend to win over those who voted differently over the next four years with sheer hard work, with compassion and understanding and by finding smart solutions to the issues facing my community, and there are indeed challenges ahead for people in Badcoe. Chief among those challenges is the north-south corridor upgrade. This is an enormous endeavour. At almost $10 billion it is going to be the largest road project in the country and, frankly, it is not without intrinsically unfair consequences for Badcoe residents in order to achieve a greater good.

Almost 400 property owners have been informed that their homes or businesses are required by the government for the expansion, and for many people, though not all, that is a really tough pill to swallow. Put simply, people not only in Badcoe but also in West Torrens and Elder are making huge sacrifices for the infrastructure needs of our growing metropolis.

My commitment to local people has been this: that I will listen to you, that I will do all I can to make sure that you receive timely and accurate information, that I will raise your concerns and offer constructive advice and solutions and that where necessary I will fight for your rights to get the best deal possible in what is a less than ideal situation. That was my commitment in opposition and it remains my commitment as a government MP. My first obligation in this house is to the community that elected me, and I will continue to do that.

The Torrens to Darlington project is now under review by the new Labor government. That was an election promise and one that I am glad we are sticking to. It is an enormous project and there are many questions to ask and options to interrogate, and although there are tough decisions ahead, I am greatly encouraged and relieved that we now have a minister who is committed to listening to the people most severely affected by this project.

I sincerely thank my friend and colleague Minister Koutsantonis for listening to the concerns of my community in terms of the Anzac Highway flyover and the no right turn aspects of this project. I have also flagged the lack of information under the former government about which local roads would be cut off or diverted, as well as a litany of individual cases with specific concerns about their own properties that were not adequately addressed under the former regime. I appreciate that those matters are now being properly investigated.

This does not mean that there are magic solutions, and the options are being worked through carefully, but it is a relief after a lack of listening on behalf of the previous regime—at times, frankly, downright arrogance from the minister towards the people of Badcoe—that someone is finally willing to listen and assess the genuine issues that are being raised. It is really the least that any government can do.

I thank the minister and his staff, as well as the new leadership team at DIT, especially the new CEO, Jon Whelan, for already demonstrating to me and my community that they are listening and considering options to address our worries about the project. CEs are pretty busy people, so it was a sign to me of the change in direction that Mr Whelan himself has attended several community engagements now and fronted people directly and calmly to earnestly explain the projects in my area, their complexities and the options that are before the department and the community, and I appreciate that refreshing new commitment to consultation and communication. I am sure that there will be ups and downs, but I hope that this concerted effort continues through the life of this lengthy and complex project.

I want to take this opportunity to make clear for all those affected residents in my community—that is, in the suburbs of Glandore, Ashford and Marleston—who have received a notice of intent or who have received a letter notifying them that they would be subject to land acquisition processes this year that that remains the case. Put simply, if you live in my electorate and you have been advised that your property is to be acquired, that is not changing. Although the minister outlined over the weekend that the time line set by the former government was unrealistic and unachievable and had to be pushed forward a year and that there have been consequential corrections in the budget, that does not alter the stated land acquisition schedule for Badcoe residents.

I know that this is not the news that some people might have hoped for. I know that there were people who were holding out hope that their properties might have been spared, but I hope this information provides certainty and clarity to the people I represent. I know that clarity and certainty are so important for people who right now are making really big decisions about where their next home will be, how they will afford that and the timing of their move or, for that matter, the future of their business.

Likewise, for those who have reached agreements to stay in their homes until November 2023, this departure date remains. People will need to depart their homes permanently in late 2023 at the latest, or earlier according to the arrangements that they have made with their DIT case managers. This is despite the recent discovery that the previous government had not made adequate progress on the project to start major works in late 2023 and that it is more likely to be 2024 now. I hope this information also provides clarity for people facing acquisition.

Another aspect I have raised very loudly and publicly on behalf of Badcoe residents is the haphazard and inconsistent approach to allowing residents whose homes are being acquired to access rent-free periods where necessary. This rent-free period is not necessary for every home owner, but it is patently problematic for a person to be forced to sell their home to the government and then have to pay the government for the privilege of continuing to live in their own home, particularly when they face difficulty in immediately moving to another premises. It is also a bit of an affront to those who have worked hard to be mortgage free to then be again paying to live in their own home.

Last year, after a concerted campaign by local people, case managers assured residents that, if they needed, they could get a rent-free period after selling their homes to the government. Many people were happy to settle swiftly on the basis of that assurance. However, that approach changed at some point before the election and was not applied uniformly. So why is this approach and this policy of rent-free period availability necessary?

The fact is, unfortunately, we are in a really tight real estate market. It is not unheard of for a dispossessed resident to need to purchase a home that is dissimilar to the one that they have been forced to depart and requires renovation or modification to meet their needs. We are also not so flush with properties in this city that like for like can be achieved for everyone. But there are also a range of instances in which a rent-free period is a compassionate and practical approach.

To use some real-life examples in my community, there is a woman in her 90s who is having to move out the house her husband built for them with his own hands in the 1940s and into an appropriate aged-care home. Aside from the time needed to locate a place, it is quite sensible that she is given a chance to transition to that new location.

For another family, their adult daughter is living in their family home rent free while she deals with some complex health issues, and she needs time to find affordable and safe housing. The rent-free period will also assist a mother who is undergoing cancer treatment in my community and wants to be able to focus on getting well rather than on the pressure of buying and relocating to another home in a tight time period. This flexibility is also necessary for families who want their children to complete their final year of primary school or high school at the local school they have attended for years with their friends, rather than the upheaval of moving to another school far away.

It is necessary because the government should have a special regard for the circumstances of residents it is forcing out of their homes without any choice amid an unprecedented housing shortage and an overheated market. Put simply, this is not a sweetheart deal. It is a policy that deals with people as compassionately as possible amid an unfair situation in which they cannot stay in their own homes. It is certainly not an arrangement designed for people to turn a profit. It is a policy aimed at helping people who are facing pressures that are not of their own making.

This is an approach that was promised but not delivered, and in fact reneged, under the previous leadership. I am pleased that it will now be delivered, and I thank the minister again for listening to locals on this front and delivering a compassionate result.

For residents who are in this situation or who are unsure about whether they can access a rent-free period, they need only contact their case manager to discuss their particular circumstances and ask for the policy as it applies to them to be put in writing. The policy change has been issued within DIT and is now in force, so there should be no issue with residents raising this with their case manager.

I now want to turn to some other important election commitments in my electorate that will also be provided with the passage of this bill. Glandore Oval: I am so pleased that the Malinauskas Labor government has committed $5 million to upgrading this complex. Least of which, and the reason why I am happy about that, is that the Glandore community is feeling the brunt of the South Road project at the moment and I think this will be a great investment that will contribute to lifting the spirits of people in Glandore and providing them with some much-needed recreational resources.

This will be a new multipurpose clubhouse for sporting and community use, as well as outdoor upgrades. We are taking a flexible approach to what is contained in the upgrade, and suggestions that I have had from locals so far have included dog facilities, walking trails, more trees, children's playgrounds and children's spaces, and conglomerating the existing outbuildings that are on the site as well as possible oval realignment.

We will be undertaking comprehensive consultation about what goes on at Glandore Oval, and I cannot stress that enough. It is critically important that the Glandore community, the residents there and the people who use the oval are informing what happens at that site. I am aware, unfortunately, of recent failures to consult on local government projects on the site and that has caused quite a bit of distress. I can tell people in my electorate that we will not be going down that path. We will be making sure that consultation is comprehensive and that locals are heard on this.

Does that mean that everyone will love every aspect of the project? Sadly, no. In my experience, even on highly successful and well-loved projects that I have previously delivered in my community, including Goodwood Oval and Weigall Oval, 100 per cent consensus has not been reached, and there is a bit of give and take that is involved with this. But I do believe that the community are more likely to be the ones with the great ideas and the solutions and we owe it to ourselves to consult properly. I am pleased to say that I will have information for our community shortly about the start of the consultation process and how that will be done, and I look forward to engaging with everyone about this project.

Secondly, the school zone: I am relieved and very excited to be part of a team that is going to deliver the reinstatement of the city school zone. This was a very hard-fought campaign that began in 2019, and I thank parents who worked hard to get this result back in 2019 and 2020, but really they did not give up the fight. They kept going right up to and including the election campaign, and I thank them for that dedication to their community and to their children.

We are going to achieve this by upgrading Adelaide Botanic High School and creating 700 more places, and that will enable the reinstatement of the school zone that was axed under the former government. That means nine suburbs or part suburbs will come back into the CBD zone, giving people the option they previously had of being able to access Adelaide Botanic High or Adelaide High. In my electorate that includes part of Marleston, Black Forest, Kurralta Park, Glandore and part of Clarence Park.

Consultation, information and Q&A sessions with families are now being organised and they will be advertised soon, and I look forward to announcing those details. This is a major change and there will be transition arrangements that will be discussed with affected families.

Plympton International College, I am delighted, is also going to be receiving a $3 million upgrade and work is getting underway to identify traffic solutions in particular for that school. Not too long ago the RAA put it on a list of most dangerous school drop-off and pick-up points, so I am pleased that our government is paying some attention to that, to the safety of students, and improving traffic issues in that area of Plympton. We are also going to be looking at whether capacity increases are required because that school, I understand, is now reaching its capacity.

We will be once again consulting with the community about those improvements. I really think that these improvements at Plympton International College will complement some of the other investments that Labor is making is education in my area, which includes a $1 million playground and outdoor spaces upgrade at Richmond Primary School. I was pleased to join the governing council two weeks ago to run them through the details of that.

Also, the long-awaited upgrade to Black Forest Primary: is $5 million that was committed in 2017 by the former Labor government, but unfortunately not a thing has been done on site for the last four years. Later this year, I am looking forward to going down there and turning the sod to start that project which has been eagerly awaited by that growing school. There will also be improvements at Edwardstown Primary School and Westbourne Park Primary School, and the member for Elder and I are delighted about those improvements.

What has been committed to at Plympton oval is a master plan or a feasibility study. The reason we have done that is that everyone knows that the site deserves attention and that that work, unfortunately, was not done under the previous government. But there are several different options as to how we might go about addressing improvements that are needed at that site. This funding commitment from the Labor government is for that feasibility work to be done with a view to future investment in that site. That includes particularly upgrading the clubhouse, and we will also be looking at the facilities more broadly as far as parking and other community services on that land.

I am also really excited about other upgrades to local reserves, playgrounds and parks. In addition to Glandore Oval and Plympton oval plans, we are also upgrading smaller but no less vital green spaces. That is really important in Badcoe where we have a denser community, we have more development going on and unfortunately not everyone has access to much green space at their own home. Some families in my electorate are living in quite small accommodation with lots of kids, particularly new arrivals to our community, and there is a need for shared green spaces that we can all benefit from and ensure that kids can have a run around, dogs can have a run around and people can get some fresh air.

I am pleased that there will be upgrades at the Aldridge Avenue Reserve in Plympton Park and the Teesdale Crescent Reserve also in Plympton Park, new areas to the seat of Badcoe, and we will also see a community garden at the Beare Avenue Reserve. That came up after I was doorknocking and a parent said to me that she would love to see a community garden in Netley. She did all the work, putting the ideas together, and I was pleased to be able to support her in her bid for what is a modest amount of money but I think will make a great deal of difference to the Netley community.

Not all announcements require millions and millions of dollars. Some of the small ones are the most exciting, and that is true for the Edwardstown Oval big screen. This big screen will not just be a scoreboard for the footy, the cycling, the triathlon club, the South Road Cricket Club and the bowls—let's not forget the bowls—but it will also be able to host community movie nights. My electorate is pretty excited about being able to go there and maybe watch—

An honourable member:TheSound of Music.

Ms STINSON:TheSound of Music says the member. Finding Nemo has been a very popular suggestion as well. That will really bring together the Edwardstown community, and I am glad that that investment is being made.

There are so many more things in the seat of Badcoe that are being invested in. I am pleased to be sitting on this side of the house with my fabulous colleagues, many of them new, and delivering these amazing things, not just for people in my electorate but right across South Australia.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (17:48): Today, I rise to speak to the Supply Bill 2022. The Supply Bill is important to enable the continued operation of the Public Service of the state until such time as the Appropriation Bill 2022 has been passed through parliament. The bill is a necessity to enable our state's public sector to keep running. It proposes to allocate just over $6.6 to enable state government agencies to continue to carry out their functions and duties: it is a necessary bill.

In speaking to the bill, it provides an opportunity to reflect on the important work of the public sector in our community and highlight where more work is needed. It is funding that enables our principals, teachers, student support officers and school grounds people to continue to work and be paid. It supports the ongoing operation of nurses, doctors, consulting specialists and support staff in our hospitals and community health centres.

It enables the ongoing operation of our paid ambulance and paramedic services and their support crews across our state. It enables our biosecurity staff to continue their work and our state-run natural assets to be managed and protected. In the context of the MacKillop electorate, it reminds me of the important work these Public Service units deliver and that there is, of course, much more that needs to be done.

Ambulance and paramedic services are a critical support for our regional communities. Much has been said in relation to ambulance ramping in the metropolitan area. This is an issue that must be addressed; however, I would like to take the opportunity to shine a light on the role of ambulance services and ambulance volunteers in my electorate.

We rely heavily on the goodwill of our volunteers of our community, and this can put significant stress on those who provide these services. Members of the Kingston community have recently once again highlighted this to me. There is no doubt that the Robe paramedics, who received ongoing funding under our government in the past term, provide a critical service to the local community extending from Robe to Beachport, Kingston and Lucindale. We need to see an ongoing commitment to these great professionals. It has been highlighted to me that more support is needed.

In our government, we rolled out two paramedics in Robe. They are on yearly contracts. Our health minister basically put on these two paramedics, one week on and one week off, and they have been highly utilised and sourced. They really do back up the shortage of GPs in the Beachport, Robe, Lucindale and Kingston area, and their expiry is due at the end of 2022. I really do hope that this new Labor government recognises the importance of paramedics and supports this initiative.

On the ambulance system, I do hope that with ramping in Adelaide—and I was privileged to sit on the Legislative Review Committee in the previous parliament and hear the review of the 46,000 petitioners on ambulance ramping—the Labor government does not just close down communication and highlight what went wrong. I do not think much has changed, but we do not hear it and see it in the news anymore. I hope the Labor government honestly solves this.

One thing I heard in this review and read in the submissions was that it is not a money factor; it is not the fact that there are no resources. We heard that there were 20,000 shifts of overtime paid to ambulances because they were needed to meet the needs of the city of Adelaide and surrounding areas. Perhaps that even included regional areas as well.

The point is that there must be a model, that there must be an expectation about good health services and an ambulance system that can provide and meet the needs of the community. I hope that this government foresees and looks seriously into where that lies, whether it be a better ambulance model somewhere, in some other jurisdiction in Australia or even overseas that will work better than the model that we inherited and that has been running badly since 2010—because that is how long ramping has been going.

Coming back to the paramedics, I have been made aware that the volunteer roster system only has six months to run. We know that the ambulance volunteers are well backed up by the paramedics because of the lack of volunteers in this region of Kingston, Robe and Lucindale; hopefully, these paramedics will continue to operate.

Local advice from the Kingston community is that more professional paramedics are needed in the community. It is clear that, whilst some new officers have been promised for Mount Gambier, the township of Kingston is nearly 170 kilometres from Mount Gambier and the allocation of resources that far away is unlikely to assist those who require a rapid ambulance response in the Kingston area. We need more investment in ambulance services to support our local communities.

Likewise, I am aware that the Mallee townships of Lameroo and Pinnaroo need more paramedic support. In this area, the community is working hard to seek more volunteers to support their vital ambulance services. The local ambulance committee are working hard to attract more volunteers, but they have identified that they need a fully paid qualified paramedic to fill the local ambulance roster. They have identified that the addition of a rapid response paramedic, equipped with a four-wheel drive, would significantly cut down the time it takes to attend to patients and take significant pressure off local volunteers.

All students, including early learning, primary and secondary students deserve a quality education. It should not matter if you attend a school in metropolitan Adelaide or in regional South Australia. Last year, I was pleased to see the release of the Country Education Strategy 2021 to 2028. Our regional communities are home to many great primary schools, high schools and area schools. Schools provide a great local hub for sports and communities and can be a safe and supportive haven for children who need support in their vital development.

We are hearing more frequently now of some of the adverse implications of the pandemic on student learning, making it more important than ever to ensure our education system is working to its best. In the regions, inclusive schools and a good education need to go hand in glove with other measures designed to attract and retain workers and their families in our communities. I am keen that we see additional investment in our regional schools and our education system to deliver the goals of the Country Education Strategy, which include:

to support and ensure there is quality leadership and expert teaching in our schools;

that our schools have access to the systems and support that they need to be effective; and

that all our students have access to quality learning and pathway opportunities.

I urge the Malinauskas government to ensure there are adequate resources to support our regional schools to ensure the delivery of these outcomes for our students.

This gives me the opportunity to highlight what our previous government promised for schools in the seat of MacKillop. The Coomandook Area School, which is very close to my friend and colleague the member for Hammond, has a science lab that requires an upgrade. When I visited the Coomandook school, I noted that most of the buildings are 1950s and 1960s weatherboard, the science lab looked like it was of 1980s vintage and like it could even contain asbestos. It had holes in the benches, gas and water taps that did not work that well and the whole science lab had been condemned—well, if it has not, they are trying to just keep it going.

When in government, we promised them $2.4 million for a new science lab that was for primary students right through to year 12, it being an area school. I am hoping that the new education minister and the Labor Party recognise this sort of infrastructure does need to be upgraded and that the money is found from the new Labor government.

That leads me to the Naracoorte High School, where I visited their music room. Again, it was a weatherboard building on blocks and one of the walls had subsided and sunk down. It had been deemed unfit for any student to enter. The school has 450 to 470 students from year 7 right through to year 12, with nearly all students engaged in the music centre, if they are allowed or wish to. It is well utilised and they do need a new music room.

The answer from the education system so far is to move them into a classroom in the centre of the school, surrounded by other classrooms. As anyone would know, a music room should be a little isolated or at least be soundproof so that the music does not distract other students. Again, I hope the Labor government will recognise these two pieces of infrastructure in the school system in MacKillop. Obviously, we need moneys like this to make sure that our students have the right infrastructure and that it continues to be upgraded rather than falling down around our ears.

In our regions, schools support communities and communities support schools. I recently met with representatives from the Coorong District Council, who brought together representatives from local schools to discuss a range of matters impacting on our local school communities in the local districts around Meningie, Tailem Bend and Coomandook. We discussed school enrolments in the context of declining population and the transport arrangements to get students to schools. 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