HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-05-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Bills

Supply Bill 2024

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (15:38): With regard to the comments I was making prior to the break and commencement of question time, I was starting to address the history of budgets across this government and how we have entered the position that we are in now both in terms of large infrastructure projects but also the broader budget position. I touched on the significant election commitments that were made by this government prior to the election; the fact that on coming to government and the preparation of their first budget, they quickly realised that there was an issue in being able to deliver those; and the fact that we saw the two most significant infrastructure projects in the state shifted into a review to determine what they were.

Those on this side of the house, certainly, were of the view—and I think that if you asked people outside of this place as well, there would be a fair portion who would share our cynicism in regard to why that was the case and why those projects needed to be reviewed. What we saw was, essentially, a shifting of the spend profile for those particular projects. They were shifted back considerably, and outside of the budget forward estimates in some circumstances.

But the broader question still remained unanswered around what role the CFMEU played in that decision, and also how they will benefit from the state's two largest infrastructure projects, noting the significant change that has occurred within that union since the change in government, where we had John Setka and the Melbourne-based branch come to South Australian and effectively take over the local branch. We had seen a level of union activity that we had not seen previously, and disharmony on work sites within South Australia on some of our bigger private infrastructure projects. But the question remains.

It is difficult now to drive around South Australia and Adelaide, particularly on the back of the disbanding of the federal Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), without seeing the CFMEU flag adorning the majority of construction sites. The question that remains in regard to, as I said, those two big projects—the Women's and Children's Hospital project and the north-south corridor—is the role of the CFMEU and the collective bargaining around those particular projects, and also the benefit that may be borne out on the back of those projects. I particularly note that the review has significantly increased the cost and budget of those two projects, shifting them from what was in the order of $12 billion to $13 billion to now reaching $20 billion, if those cost estimates are to be stuck to.

In the last little while, there have been questions put in this house—and more broadly across the infrastructure industry by the MBA, as well as others—in relation to what efforts the government was undertaking regarding the industry benefits scheme, also known locally as BIRST, and the scheme that the CFMEU was keen to take its place in South Australia, Incolink.

We had received assurances from the Premier in this place that everything would be done to ensure that Incolink would not become the fund of choice for South Australian construction workers and projects, because that would mean we would have money being expended by South Australian investment—and in the context of public infrastructure projects, South Australian taxpayer money being expended—but we would then see those funds transferred interstate. The Premier stood here in this chamber and said that would not be an ideal outcome for South Australians. We share that sentiment on this side of the house. It is not a sensible outcome for those funds.

The question is: what has happened since then? I think it would be helpful for the Premier to provide an update to the house about how his efforts are going to curtail the shift of Incolink into both government contracts—and also, more broadly, private building companies here in South Australia—because what we are hearing on the ground is that the shift has been quick and that it has already been taken up by a number of builders through the contracts that are negotiated with the unions.

So what real action did the Premier take? Did he take any real action and what is the current state of those negotiations? But the more pertinent question is: what will the fund of choice be for those two biggest projects in our state's history to this point?

Will the Premier preclude Incolink having any involvement in those two projects? That is an open question that the Premier of South Australia needs to answer, because if he is serious about standing up for the rights of South Australian construction workers, if he is serious about supporting the efforts of the Master Builders Association and those that represent the building industry and the building sector in South Australia, particularly those in the commercial building sector, then he will ensure that happens. The question is: will he?

More broadly, there is certainly talk around town at the moment that the CFMEU are looking to take up more and more and have more and more influence within the South Australian Labor Party. We have certainly heard rumours that there is a push to have delegates on the floor, something that we would love to have answers on from the member for Reynell, the minister, if she is keen to dispel those rumours here and now. I would love to hear what the government's view on that is. It is a scary, scary situation for the South Australian building and construction sector at the moment where we have entered a phase that has been unlike the harmony that we have seen across our work sites for a prolonged period of time.

In regard to other issues that we will be watching closely as we shift through the budget process, before I get more specifically to a couple of measures, this government came to office promising a lot when it came to local procurement, a lot when it came to policies being very well articulated, some of which were not very clear. To this point, it has been almost impossible to get straight answers from the government in terms of whether they have actually achieved any of the policies that they have set out to.

While we have had some commentary around the ability for government departments to pay contractor invoices within 15 days, there were a large swathe of commitments that sat around their procurement policies. I would perhaps like to touch on a few of those and indicate now that we will certainly be asking questions through the estimates process and expecting answers from the government in terms of what is actually being delivered versus what was promised prior to the election.

With some of these, we would certainly hope that at the very least we can get some clarity around what their commitments actually were. Some of those included mandating that South Australian workers deliver 90 per cent of labour hours on major infrastructure projects. There are questions that still sit behind that particular policy. Does 'SA workers' mean that they are employed by a South Australian company but they may live interstate? Does it mean that they are workers who live, pay taxes and are permanently based here in South Australia? Do the hours that go into that calculation include the hours that were undertaken by public sector employees in the preparation for that particular project? None of this is outlined anywhere.

Further questions are: how is it being reported, who is measuring it, and are departments publicly displaying this information anywhere? Some of the other commitments include requiring government agencies to buy local uniforms and locally manufactured PPE. Again, that is not something that anyone necessarily disagrees with but where is the proof that these things are being achieved?

Another commitment is setting aside 1 per cent of government project funding into a subcontractor support fund to enable the state to directly pay subcontractors on government projects where the lead contractors are delaying payments. Again, it would be helpful I think for the government to provide updates. We see the Treasurer come in here from time to time to provide an update on his interpretation of the state of the economy, but I cannot really remember an update in regard to some of these substantive policies being delivered to the house.

To require chief executives to sign off on procurement outcomes where the successful tenderer is not South Australian is the one that, from a practical perspective, I would love to understand further and how it is actually operating. We know from the SA Tenders website, plus a range of other sources, that there are a number of government contracts that are still being awarded to interstate companies. I would find it difficult to believe that every single one of those, no matter the value, is being signed off by the chief executive of the relevant department.

Perhaps the minister can give me an assurance that every contract that has gone to an interstate company has been signed off by her CE. I do not see that assurance coming from the minister. But the broader question is: is there even a cut-off or level that the government has decided on where this is practical? Are we talking about every single procurement outcome? Is there a limit in terms of dollar value where this becomes worth more and is more sensible than the use of the CE's time on signing off on those outcomes? Again, nobody necessarily disagrees with the fundamentals and the principles of this, but be clear about what is actually being recorded and whether it is being achieved. These are things that should be in the public domain.

The final commitment is as clear as many of the others that I will pull out. There are a number of further commitments, but there is one in particular prior to the one that I will touch on finally: to require the use of South Australian manufactured products on public housing construction and maintenance programs where available. Again, there are a range of questions. Is this being reported anywhere? What has the outcome been to this point?

Again, nobody disagrees with the sourcing of local content, local goods. Obviously, to a degree we have to understand the cost implication and whether any of that is actually being communicated. Given we cannot get much information out of this government in terms of contracts that they enter—nor can the Auditor-General for that matter—it seems difficult to ascertain what the actual benefit of these policies have been, and it seems like something that should be communicated if it is being achieved.

Finally, I want to touch on one of the final policies to which the opposition has certainly had a level of feedback from industry, which is to require that apprentices, trainees, Aboriginal workers and long-term unemployed deliver 20 per cent of labour hours on major projects. While nobody necessarily disagrees with the principle, or with what is trying to be achieved with that policy, we have certainly had members of different industries come to us and say that that particular policy has been prohibitive in them being able to enter a tender for a particular procurement. These are South Australian companies that have been raising that issue with us.

Again, it would be helpful to get some sort of assessment from the government as to whether they believe that this has been helpful in the broader context of delivering the outcomes that they were seeking to achieve, if they have had any feedback from industry in terms of the appropriateness or the ability for South Australian companies to comply with some of the requirements they have put in place—but see what the cost implications are for the South Australian taxpayer by putting in some of these requirements. That is the very least that we should expect from these sorts of procurement policies, that there be clear and concise answers to some of these questions.

I now shift to some particular issues that were raised in last year's budget and perhaps that have surfaced over the last year or so as well. In particular, I would like to start on energy rebates. Clearly, electricity prices are an issue in South Australia. They have escalated since this government took office. What we saw last year was a program to provide assistance to those people on commonwealth concession payments, a smaller range of state concessions and also to small businesses, which was obviously warmly welcomed.

I have certainly had some feedback to my office. There were some changes made to the program around small businesses in embedded networks that have had significant difficulty accessing the program to this point. This is now nearly nine months since its inception. I have contacted the Minister for Small Business who was helpful in helping me direct those businesses to the right place; however, I do note they unfortunately had no luck in their endeavours to contact the Office for Small and Family Business who were not aware of the process to make those applications. Unfortunately, we still have small businesses in South Australia who have been wanting to access those concessions from last year who still have not had the ability to do so.

More broadly, it sparked the conversation about what more can be done to assist with electricity prices in the short term. At the state level, we obviously understand that the levers that we have for cost of living are reduced compared with the federal level. That does not mean that we obfuscate all responsibility at the state level by any stretch of the imagination. I have just listed off the top of my head a range of different areas, including ESL, water bills and others from the previous Liberal government that sought to reduce the cost of living for South Australians. We can talk about CTP insurance and a range of others on top of that.

What we still do not know a month out from the budget is the future of those rebates into next financial year. Is the government going to continue those rebates? Is the government going to widen those rebates? Is the government going to adhere to the call from the SA Business Chamber to double those rebates? Those questions are still unanswered.

In regard to another specific initiative that was announced in the last budget, one that this side of the house welcomed in principle because we, quite rightly, supported it, is what I would call concession, and what those on the other side, particularly in the days post-budget, referred to as abolition of stamp duty for first-home buyers, with a number of asterisks attached to the end of it.

It did make sense that we do everything within our power, as best we can, to assist first-home buyers to get into what has been a very difficult market and a market that is only going to continue to be if the predictions of media commentators today are correct that Adelaide house prices are on a trajectory to outperform or become greater than Melbourne house prices in the not too distant future. What we always had an issue with was the prescriptive nature of the initiative and the way that it was sold to young South Australians looking to buy their first home.

Not that long ago, a couple of weeks ago, we met up with a young couple who had just bought their first home in, I believe, Torrensville. The house was right on the border of two suburbs, so it was difficult to ascertain exactly where the house was. Their story was much like those that the opposition has received since the introduction of this measure. They felt duped by the way in which this was presented to the South Australian public.

We had billboards on the backs of trucks rolling around the CBD on the day of the budget, if my memory serves me correctly, with essentially the words, 'We are abolishing stamp duty for first-home buyers'. None of the asterisks were there at first communication, that this needed to be a property under $650,000, that it needed to be a construction that was a new build. If you looked closely at the finer detail at that point in time, from my memory, it was just over 20 per cent of suburbs in greater Adelaide where the median price matched that cut-off. Already, the prescriptive nature of just where you could potentially buy a house that would fit this criteria was well and truly limited.

Over the last nine months, the last three quarters, since that program was announced, we have only seen the increase on increase of property prices in Adelaide, meaning that it is now well below 20 per cent of houses in suburban Adelaide that are actually under that threshold now. We called this out from day one, that the prescriptive nature of this particular initiative was not going to meet the proposed objectives of the government in regard to this particular scheme, because to this point there is no other way to describe the performance of this scheme but entirely lacklustre.

To have first-home buyers under the impression that buying their first home would mean that they would not pay stamp duty on it was, I think, at the very least completely misleading. The way that it was presented was completely misleading, in my view. We then learn, on the back of a Budget and Finance Committee not too long ago, that the ambition was to have 3,800 deferrals—not deferrals; I will call it more like what it is. Perhaps the best way to describe it is abolishment, to an extent, with a couple of asterisks, if you meet the criteria. Effectively, the expectation of the government was that 3,800 households, for lack of a better term, would take up the scheme in the financial year.

We learned that to 25 March 2024—so a good nine months into the scheme, where we remember the bulk of communication for this scheme was provided right at the very start of the financial year at around the time of the budget—there had only been 1,300 applications received, only 1,169 of those applications had been approved and there had been a number above 60 that had been denied. So we are talking effectively about a scheme that, to this point, has been lucky to acquire 33 per cent of the expected take-up for this financial year.

It was almost like this scheme was built to fulfil a headline that the government was looking to put out into the market—'We are doing what we can to abolish stamp duty for first-home buyers'—when the reality is it came with three asterisks, when the reality is the take-up rate has been significantly below what was expected. It was almost like the scheme was actually set up to return money to the state coffers, because anybody could have looked at the restrictions that were put on the scheme from day one and realised that it was just not possible for the number of people that were expected to apply to do that.

So most likely—and again, goodness knows, there may be some drastic uptake in the last three months—on current projections there will be a significant amount of money returned or unspent in that particular scheme this year. The Master Builders Association have called for a cut-off in terms of price for this particular scheme to be fixed to the median price within suburban Adelaide. Again, on face value, that does not seem like a silly idea by any stretch of the imagination, because at the very least there is a broader amount of property available for first-home buyers to be able to take up this scheme.

As I said, we support the scheme in principle; we think it makes sense. But this scheme was set up to fail, it almost appears, by this government. It was set up for a headline that could be shifted around on LCD screens on the backs of trucks the day after the election, but the reality of what it has delivered is nothing like the outcomes that were sought for this program.

Finally, in regard to specific measures, I wanted to touch on the GP payroll tax issue. We have seen a pretty significant divergence in the public commentary from the Royal College of GPs and the Treasurer to this point. I think, from memory, one of the questions that was asked by this side of the house during question time this week was whether the Treasurer was aware of a statement from the Royal College of GPs that essentially said, to paraphrase, that their experience to this point was like banging their head up against the Treasurer's door in trying to get some movement and some clear indication of what is happening moving forwards on this issue.

The Treasurer in his response said that he has had nothing but productive conversations to this point with the Royal College of GPs. I am not too sure how those two descriptions at all align by any stretch of the imagination. My view of productive conversations does not often involve a description of struggling to get one's head in the right place to have a conversation.

It is an issue that is going to really fundamentally shape access to GPs into the future and, in the representations made to us and publicly by the Royal College of GPs and others who have closely looked into this issue, there is a view from those groups that this is going to put significant increased pressure on emergency department presentations in South Australia—at a time when we are on the back of record of ramping, despite what was promised by those opposite, essentially the core and only commitment that was made during that campaign.

But those worries about how the states are dealing with the GP payroll tax issues, and in particular South Australia, do not just come from this side of the house and they do not just come from the Royal College of GPs. They also come from the Labor federal health minister, who in the headline of this article published on 22 April this year says that he is 'very worried' about payroll tax impacts. I will quote directly from this:

Federal Health and Aged Care Minister Mark Butler has added his voice to growing calls for state governments to reverse their payroll tax grabs, warning its implementation is at odds with recent health investments.

Again, a very different sentiment that has been presented in this place to this point by the Treasurer. He goes on to provide further commentary around the particular issue and then towards the end of the article we have some comments that have been made by the President of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, Dr Nicole Higgins. I will again quote directly from this article. It states:

Several states have introduced payroll tax amnesties for practices to help prepare for the change, but GPs say a lack of long-term certainty remains.

The most pressing need for change comes in South Australia where its amnesty ends on 30 June this year, while in Victoria, GPs can only request ex gratia relief with no amnesty period on offer.

'The healthcare system is being undermined by state greed when they need to be looking at the big picture, because having the added payroll tax on Medicare will lead to increased ramping and overflowing emergency departments, which will impact their own hospitals…

It is, as she has described, 'an own goal'.

'GPs are starting to have conversations with patients around what payroll tax will mean and the impact that will have on increasing the gap and reducing bulk billing.

This government came to power with what can only be described as an ambitious goal that to this point instead of achieving has only made things worse. The approach of this government to this point and the interactions it appears to be having with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners around this issue beggar belief.

Even the Treasurer will not necessarily say how many practices were actually paying payroll tax on their contractor GPs. He is very precise with his language in this place, simply referencing that some medical facilities have previously paid payroll tax. That statement does not mean that GP practices have been paying payroll tax on their contractor GPs' income or revenue. He knows I know that the vast majority in this industry have been operating on the assumption that GP contract revenue was not captured under contracting provisions within the Payroll Tax Act.

Just because a decision of a court confirms that that understanding was wrong, just because a decision of a court implies that it was wrong historically, does not mean that that understanding was not there. It does not mean that historically GP practices have not been paying this tax on those wages. It does not mean that, if enforced, the cost to South Australians to go to a GP to access a GP appointment will not go up. That is the very crux of this issue.

On the back of the amnesty ending, the expectation is that steps need to be taken in this budget. That goes without saying. The question is: what will this government do? Will they, as the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners has said, conform and have the healthcare system undermined by state greed? To this point, if you look at the actions that they have taken in pocketing revenue, whether that be across payroll tax, stamp duties, GST or otherwise, one can only suspect what the outcome is going to be in a couple of weeks' time when the budget is provided.

In regard to my local area, I think it is always helpful in supply contributions to discuss some of the issues that we hope will be, or that have been previously, provided funding through the state budget process. In particular, in preparing for this contribution I had a good look at the comments that I made to the house previously, in last year's supply bill debate.

As part of that debate, I recounted the particular issues that were happening in my community in regard to the coastline. It is an issue that has gone on for a significant period of time, where we have effectively seen the erosion of, in my view—again, I am slightly biased, representing this part of beautiful Adelaide—some of the best beaches in South Australia.

To walk back through the history of this issue only heightens the frustration of both myself and my community, to know the solution that was put forward by the former government, that was researched, that was well and truly communicated, that involved a significant and prolonged period of consultation, that involved significant scientific work, that resulted in a signed contract for delivery of this solution—a sand recycling pipeline—and to have so quickly on coming to government that contract torn up and then to have been in this state of waiting and waiting and waiting, now for over two years, for what the alternative proposal was.

The Labor Party came to government with one intention in regard to this issue: to tear up the contract. Did they understand the issue in broad terms? Did they really closely apply themselves to understand what was actually possible, to understand what options were viable, to understand the cost implications of other potential methods? It does not appear so.

The ultimate irony of this issue is that it was the Labor Party themselves that proposed this solution nearly 15 years ago. They proposed this solution but then did not find the funds to deliver it. I have been in this house with the member for Gibson now for two years. I have yet to see her walk into this chamber and tell us that the sand recycling pipeline that operates down to her community, that provides sand to her beaches, where it is recycled from the end of its section of beaches on our southern coastline, should be turned off.

I am yet to see her walk into this place and tell us to turn that pipeline off. I am yet to see her walk into this place and say that there is a significant environmental issue in the operation of that sand recycling pipeline. Funnily enough, I am yet to see anybody from the Labor Party walk into this chamber and say that the sand recycling pipeline operating from Glenelg to Kingston Park is a bad idea.

As it turns out, there was a second part of that plan, which involved a second pipeline running from Semaphore to West Beach. The only problem was, of course, that the Labor government of the time was not able to find the funds to prioritise that section of beaches. We have seen the complete turnaround of the beach at Kingston Park, which 20-odd years ago looked like it was essentially going to be clay and rock.

We have seen other jurisdictions around the country—up in Noosa, up on the Gold Coast, through some of what are the most pristine tourism-centric beaches in Australia, with councils or responsible governments of all persuasions—undertake these sorts of solutions. In fact, we have a council in Noosa with a significant involvement of Greens members who have replaced their sand recycling pipeline because it was the best option available to them.

And what do we have here in South Australia? We have a continuation of procrastination, a continuation of sourcing what is some of the most expensive sand in our history, taking it from a quarry down to West Beach only for it to all move further down the coast, to have stopped a mass replenishment program that would have seen the rebuild of the beach at West Beach to the point where it could have withstood some of the more damaging weather events that no doubt will come over the coming years.

It is nothing but disappointing and pure hypocrisy from those opposite, purely motivated by politics, and this is an issue that did not need that. I was happy to come to the table saying that this is a Labor Party idea. The former member of my seat, the Hon. Paul Caica, as a former environment minister, and the former Premier, also from the western suburbs, were the very people proposing this solution 15 years ago. But, here we are, nearly 2½ years later, having had significant events in Henley, with hundreds of people turning up asking for one thing: tell us what you are doing and do something about it now. That is it. It is that simple.

I have been entirely up-front to this point. If there are other long-term, sustainable options available to us, I will not disregard them. I will have an open mind, but tell us what they are. To this point, the government has gone out to consultation, again, through a two-year process, on a range of options that were not even assessed for viability. There was no clarity about whether sand sources were even available. There was no clarity that the technology being proposed was even possible to come to South Australia at the time.

It is a fundamental issue that could have been solved, that could have had an operating sand recycling pipeline replicating the one that runs through the member for Gibson's electorate, that deposits sand on her beach, that has rebuilt Kingston Park and that saw very little resistance—certainly none that I am aware of—from the former member for Morphett at the time, that this was proposed to go into his seat. He saw the bigger picture. He understood that we should be looking at sections of beaches on our western coast in suburban Adelaide. It is not just about the little patch that we represent but about the bigger system of beaches.

We are at the point again where we have, for lack of being entirely accurate, 100 or so semitrailer trucks driving straight past a boat ramp, driving down a ramp outside a sailing club over one of the most frequently used pedestrian paths in South Australia, that being the coast path, to dump sand on a beach that is eroding. There is a better way; I am convinced of that. There is a way to make it safer. I am convinced of that. There was one thing that every section of beach did agree on: that trucks are not the answer.

We are at the point now where essentially we are seeing Henley South degrade to the point that there is no high tide beach again, where you cannot walk from Henley Square to the outlet because the sea is that high based on the fact that the sand is so low, where we have had the bottom of coastal access stairways exposed. How is it that we have got to the point where we have the local council and the state government bickering over who is responsible for replacing this infrastructure because the state does not want to admit that it is their policy of sand erosion that is causing these issues? Is it going to take the likes of Joe's kiosk to have to be closed, because the infrastructure is that badly affected, before this government actually does something about it?

The irony is that, if the only viable solution is a pipeline to recycle sand, how much more is it going to cost now than it would have, had the government actually undertaken what it should have been doing, which is to look out for the best interests of all South Australians and the entirety of the South Australian coastline?

The other issue that I want to briefly touch on is in regard to the West Beach Surf Life Saving Club. It goes without saying that the two issues are intrinsically connected. The process involved, as the former minister and those on this side are well aware, was long and protracted in terms of identifying how and where the West Beach Surf Life Saving Club was going to be rebuilt.

The club has its roots in what was originally a tin shed at the end of West Beach Road. There is a group of clubbies who are colloquially known as the Tin Shedders based on their involvement in building the original club. We had the most recent iteration—before what is now the fantastic facility that sits at the end of West Beach Road—that served the club very well for a significant period of time, but it had certainly seen better days. I think that would be the easiest way to explain it. The balcony that overlooked the beach had, at times, been questioned for its structural integrity. I know they had done everything absolutely correctly and, without a shadow of a doubt, it adhered to every OH&S requirement that needed to be adhered to, but it had seen better days.

The previous government was very happy to support the rebuild of that club. Many members of the committee; former presidents, by way of Peter Zuill; general committee members Kevin Richardson and Paul Rafanelli; current president, Graeme Cunningham; and so many others—I will not name anyone else because I am sure to miss somebody out—had been part of that process of deciding how and where to rebuild the West Beach Surf Life Saving Club.

Over the period, there had been discussion about potentially shifting much further north, maybe even up to the same site as the Henley Sailing Club at the end of Burbridge Road. There had been talk—in fact, very initial designs were even drawn up—regarding the car park directly to the south of Harold and Cynthia Anderson Reserve as perhaps being, at that point in time, the only potential and viable place to rebuild the club. That had some pushback from some of the neighbours and also had some broader issues in terms of beach access.

The fundamental reason that the club always entertained and continued to entertain the desire to rebuild on the existing site of the club was twofold: if they did move, it would provide an easy out for a future state government—potentially this one—to not continue with the rebuild or bringing sand to West Beach. That was the first.

The second reason was their desire—and rightfully so—to continue to service and patrol the beach directly adjacent to West Beach Parks caravan park. It is an area that the club has patrolled for a significant period of time and one that they have always prided themselves on patrolling. The fact is that over the holiday periods, whether that be the long summer holidays or the term 1 or term 3 school holidays, it is a service they saw as part of their responsibility to provide that water cover and to provide that service to our broader local community because, funnily enough, the highest percentage of people who visit the West Beach caravan park are actually from suburban Adelaide. I have not quite worked out how that is the case just yet.

They saw it as their responsibility to continue to patrol that area. It had been difficult for them to do that over the recent past. There were times, unfortunately, prior to the work of the previous Liberal government, where it was impossible for them to actually access that beach except by going up to the Adelaide Sailing Club and accessing it directly from the south. There were times—and I certainly had correspondence come through my office—where it had gotten so bad there that nippers were not even able to access the beach from the ramp outside the surf club.

I am proud of the advocacy work that I undertook to try to seek and find a solution for this issue. What I am more proud of is the commitment of the local area—local residents and members of our local surf clubs who have continued to put this at the forefront. It is not just about them as local users. It is about the broader economic prosperity of our state if we cannot invest in what are some of our best natural assets.

It is incredible to me that this issue has reached this point and it is a crying shame that this issue has been politicised to this point. Ultimately, it really, really is, because (a) the amount of money that is being wasted—and could be wasted in future years based on the decisions to this point—is frankly concerning and (b) this deserved to be fixed so much sooner than it has.

The fact that we have now had multiple issues, the fact that it had taken the erosion to shift down to Henley South and to Henley to further illustrate the point that carting is not the answer, the difficulty that this government has had in recent weeks of finding a way of getting a semitrailer full of sand across the outlet of the River Torrens at Henley South only 100 per cent exemplifies the issue that we have.

It is not sensible to continue with trucks. They are having to wait for essentially no rain over a prolonged period of time and to have earthworks equipment situated in the right place at the right time and available to be able to shift enough sand into an outlet's mouth that is sturdy enough to carry a semitrailer laden with sand across a river outlet to then be dispersed onto a beach which has effectively disappeared. What is happening at the moment is insanity.

The irony is that, had a recycling pipeline been in place that had an outlet at Henley South, sand could have been dispersed onto that beach at any point in time. That is the reality that we are faced with. Again, I reiterate I am not bound to a particular technology solution. I do notice what other states and other jurisdictions are doing—and I can tell you it is very similar to what was proposed by the former Labor government and the former Liberal government—but what I do say is: get on with it.

It has been two-plus years, and the minister has had to recuse herself from her portfolio responsibilities to undertake the review despite the fact that she was the very architect of the policy to instigate a review, which is not lost on me or my community either. Just do the right thing; that is the one thing that our community is calling on this government to do. Do the right thing. Fund it and let's get on with it, and let's fix the beach once and for all.

Finally, in regard to local issues, I want to touch on what has been a disappointing development in regard to the Breakout Creek project that had been undertaken under the life of the former government and the early part of this government. It was a significant project that the state had undertaken over a number of stages, with the first one commencing I think nearly 25 to 30 years ago: the section of linear trail and the River Torrens that sits between Henley Beach Road and Rowells Road or Findon Road, depending on which side of the bridge you are sitting on. The second section was undertaken in the late 2000s, early 2010s, which was the section between Henley Beach Road and Tapleys Hill Road. That left this last part of the project to be finished, which had not been funded for what was a good 15 or so years.

We have seen that project designed and now implemented. I still have some outstanding questions about when the horses are going to return to their custom-built equestrian facilities at the Apex Park corner. Their staging facilities, for lack of a better term, are still on the Breakout Creek footprint. There has been a level of investment there that I hope facilitates their return. Unfortunately, this government removed one of the most important aspects of that project, which is the second river crossing that was towards the western end of the project, close to the outlet and Seaview Road.

Unfortunately, we now have a situation where we have paths leading down to the river's edge, where prams and bikes have to turn around because the crossing that was meant to be put in place was not. We have fundamental access issues based on that fact. The agreed plan or design was done so on the understanding that one of the key issues we were looking to increase was accessibility to Linear Park.

Hand in hand with that, given the significant number of students who access Henley High from the West Beach suburb, came a viable safe way for them to cross closer to school, which is level with Military Road. So I certainly hope the government would be willing to commit to and to provide my community with a level of assurance that that second river crossing that was removed will be reinstated.

I am pleased today to learn of the commitment from, I believe, last year's budget on road crossing initiatives. Certainly, I have made representations to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport around the particular issue on the crossing at the end of Wright Street at Henley, abutting Grange Road. I am pleased to see that that project has been included, and I look forward to seeing the plans for that particular crossing as soon as possible. I will be writing to the minister in short order to request that from him.

Before I finish my remarks, I want to close on the fundamental underpinnings of the first two years before we shift into the latest budget from this government. I again go back to the Premier's paraphrased comment that was reported in the media precis yesterday that state revenues remain strong. Never has the Premier spoken truer words.

For every increase in property prices, for every worker who has been added to a South Australian business that previously did not pay payroll tax that now does, and for every household that has paid more because of inflation on their everyday goods and services, that revenue has flowed through to the federal government GST pool and then to this state government. Those increased stamp duty payments that have been made by first-home buyers who did not qualify for the stamp duty exemption have also contributed to those additional revenues. Those small businesses that have reached the payroll tax threshold because they are doing nothing more than employing more South Australians have contributed to those increased revenues.

This government has been one of the luckiest governments in the state's history. They have benefited from what the Treasurer himself has described as 'windfall revenues'. But they have not been fiscally prudent. They have seen blowouts across basically every government department. They have baked in that increased spending over the forward estimates. The question remains: what happens when the rivers of gold do not flow quite as strongly? That question remains.

I finish on this point: this government promised no new taxes and no tax increases. Do you think South Australians believe there have been no tax increases? Because every South Australian has paid more in stamp duty, in fees and charges, and in payroll tax than they ever did previously. And not even that, you ask those small businesses that have now reached the payroll tax threshold and you ask those GP practices that will be for the first time likely paying payroll tax next year whether they have seen new taxes and, I tell you what, I think they would say that they have.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (16:42): It is an absolute pleasure to stand and speak to the Supply Bill and to use this opportunity to talk about some of the exciting and positive projects that are happening in my community of Davenport.

I will kick off by talking about the upgrades that are scheduled for the Flinders Medical Centre. Earlier this week, I was there with the Premier, the health minister, the federal member for Boothby and the member for Waite to celebrate the opening of another 20 beds at the Flinders Medical Centre. Those 20 beds will form part of the 160 beds being opened across FMC and also the Repat now and over the next 12 to 18 months.

It was really exciting to be there and speak with some of our newest health workers. In fact, there are 1,432 new health workers we have brought on deck since we have been in government, which includes 691 nurses, 329 new doctors, 219 new paramedics and 193 allied health workers. It was really exciting to be there and speak to some of those new health workers. They were particularly excited to check out the new ward and the 20 new beds that they will be working with starting now. This week they started working in that space. It is a beautiful area. It is not what you expect going into a hospital. It is so fresh and modern with beautiful peaceful colours and design.

I am quite familiar with the Laurel Hospice further up the road. Sadly, my mum spent her last few days there, but it was a beautiful space for her and many others to spend their last few days. It has a beautiful team of staff. It is like they have hand-picked the best quality and the best possible talent out of our health workforce to have them caring for and looking after those people in their last days.

I feel like this particular ward that we opened on Monday has been designed with similar design principles. Most of the rooms have a beautiful window with a view looking out onto some big gorgeous gum trees, a nice green space, which we know is a really good thing for the mental health not just of patients but also of health workers who are working hard every day to provide a good care experience for South Australians. I could not be happier that this new upgrade is being delivered for those in the south, who deserve quality health care. It is great to see these beds being progressively rolled out, along with the incredible health workers that we are continuing to recruit to support those beds.

The new upgrade at the Flinders Medical Centre will not just see those extra beds but also an expansion of the Margaret Tobin Centre, an increase in capacity in the intensive care unit, additional operating theatres, increased capacity of emergency and elective surgery, an upgrade and expansion of medical imaging services and a new eye surgery clinic. It is a generational investment that we are seeing there—$498 million is being spent, which is a partnership between the Albanese and Malinauskas governments. I know that all southern MPs, as well as federal MPs, are particularly excited about this upgrade and look forward to getting along to more releases of beds as they open.

This is just another step that we are taking for our state to reduce the strain on our emergency departments and reduce pressure on ambulances. I am really proud to be part of a government that is dedicated to delivering on that, and we are seeing huge improvements already. I know, after talking to some of those health workers at Flinders on Monday, they are certainly seeing and feeling a change, feeling less pressure and knowing that they are supported by a government that is prioritising improvements for health right across our state.

Moving up the road further south, another project I am particularly excited about is the Majors Road on/off ramps at the Southern Expressway. This is a project that people in the south have been asking for for years and years. I am very excited to be part of a government that is delivering on that commitment. Strangely enough, the former government made it one of their number one priorities but were not able to deliver on that promise. The southern community felt pretty let down by the former government when they did a bit of a flip on that priority. I think the member for Black said it was his number one priority, but then he quickly changed his mind when he got into government. I am really pleased that our government has made that a priority.

It is another project that we are partnering with the federal government on. It is a $120 million project, so fifty-fifty between the state government and the federal government. It is really going to improve drive times and drive experience for people in the south and also for people heading south. For my community, particularly in Davenport, most of the benefit will be for people heading further south, so those who want to get onto the expressway and head down to Fleurieu Peninsula and enjoy beautiful McLaren Vale and all the fantastic wines it has to offer, or head down further to Victor Harbor.

Those drive times will be much faster, and people in my community will not be having to navigate their way through the suburbs of Happy Valley and Reynella to get on the Reynella on/off ramp. That is pretty exciting for my community. It is also exciting for the community of Black. People in Hallett Cove are particularly excited to be able to get on and off at Majors Road. It has been a long time coming, so the community is very excited.

I also thank the community for their patience through the roadworks. There have been some reductions in speed limits along the expressway there. A lot of the works are happening overnight, but there are progressive works over probably about a 12-month period. We do appreciate people's patience, and I know that road users know that it is worth it and it will be fantastic when it is completed.

Majors Road at O'Halloran Hill is becoming a real hive of activity. We have Riding for the Disabled up there, and the new RSPCA building is opening up in a couple of weeks, which is very exciting. They have just closed down their operations at Lonsdale and are heading over to O'Halloran Hill to this incredible facility, which I cannot wait to share with the public. Also up there on Majors Road, of course, is Glenthorne National Park, which our community absolutely love. It was not that long ago that we were able to open a new nature play area that many families in my community and surrounding communities are getting out and enjoying.

We also have the fairly new soccer facilities up there and the recently reopened BMX track. This is an international facility which is now able to host international BMX events. That is open and running and there is a fantastic popular pump track outside of the BMX facility, which I have never seen so many kids enjoying. It is a real hive of activity up there, and having this new on/off ramp to allow people to easily access this new and exciting part of our community is really important.

I am also very pleased that the MFS and ambulance station up there on Majors Road at O'Halloran Hill, whilst they are right in the centre of a massive project and are right in the middle of the site for that project, have been very well looked after. I was pleased to touch base with them and learn that they have been very well accommodated up there.

They have a new access ramp already functioning where they are able to get onto the Southern Expressway quite quickly, and that is reducing their response times too. They are really happy about that and it has not caused too much disruption to them so far. I know that there is actually some exciting news coming their way for some upgrades for them too, which we will be able to share more about soon. That is a very exciting project that I am really looking forward to being able to finally deliver for our community.

If we head down the road, still in O'Halloran Hill, we get to a site that I visited this morning. It is where there are around about 20 properties being built. Unfortunately, the home owners there fell victim to the collapse of Felmeri, which happened not that long ago. What happened was that when the developers went under and were not able to complete those builds they also were not able to complete the infrastructure around those homes. The road that people would use to access their homes and for builders to access their homes was not finished, and neither was the underground infrastructure that should have been completed to go with that.

Home owners who were already paying towards the mortgages of their builds and having to pay rent or live on a couch or live with family in the meantime have been through almost four years of absolute hell and were crying out for some support. I was really pleased that our state government was able to step in and assist with the build of that road. This morning I was able to go out there and see that bitumen finally go down, with all the beautiful assets underneath ready for home owners to connect to.

I know that the home owners there are particularly excited to be able to now finalise their builds and move into their properties. If someone were able to finish their build today, they would be able to move in today with regard to the access and the underground services. I am really looking forward to those homes being completed and being able to go out there and have a fun street party and crack a bottle of champagne and really enjoy that these home owners are finally able to get into their homes that they have been dreaming about for a long, long time.

Further down the road, towards Flagstaff Hill, is a project that is also underway at the moment, which is the upgrade of Main Road, Cherry Gardens. The member for Heysen might also be interested to see this road being built. It has been a long time coming. It is an extremely dangerous road. There have been 36 crashes there over five years and, member for Heysen, I am sure you remember that there was, sadly, a fatality there of a young man I think back in 2018.

The RAA deemed it to be, I think, the third riskiest road in the state, and that meant that it made it eligible to receive some funding through the $120 million Adelaide Hills Productivity and Road Safety Package. So $10 million of that is going towards upgrading Main Road, Cherry Gardens. It is a section from the end of Black Road at Flagstaff Hill, and it winds all the way up the hill to where it meets Chandlers Hill Road. I think it is about a four-kilometre section. The road is being widened and it is being resurfaced. The curves are becoming wider and there will be new guardrails going in, which hopefully will make this road much safer.

I know the residents who live along this road have particularly been crying out for years. There is a resident along there who has reached out to just about every possible politician he could over the last 20 years asking for these upgrades. His name is Nick Villios. He is a very passionate man, and I am looking forward to going to visit him tomorrow to check out where the upgrades are at so far and how much we have progressed.

Again, on that project, I thank the local community for their patience with these ongoing roadworks, but it will absolutely be worth it in the end. It is already looking much better, and I know our community is excited about it because at the moment people avoid the road altogether because it is so dangerous. Nick Villios would tell me and anybody else that he has a chance to speak to, often through tears, that his own daughter will not bring his grandchildren to visit him because she is so scared about driving on the road. He, too, feels scared about her coming to visit him with the kids because it is such a scary, dangerous road, so I am looking forward to being able to deliver on that road safety initiative for our community.

If we then head a little bit further south to Aberfoyle Park and Happy Valley, there is a project that I have been working on. It was an election commitment of mine to deliver a traffic study for the intersections between Happy Valley Drive and Windebanks Road and also Happy Valley Drive and Chandlers Hill Road. Currently, at peak hour, school drop-off times, mornings and afternoons and also Saturday mornings, you often could be waiting. There will be a queue of cars almost half a kilometre in each direction from those intersections, slowly getting through those intersections at a snail's pace, so for quite a few years the community has been raising their concerns around these intersections.

There are safety problems there, too, and there are frequently crashes. Fortunately, I do not believe there have been any serious injuries yet, but there have been plenty of small bingles here and there and a lot of frustrated drivers having to wait on their way to and from school pickup and drop-off.

So what we have done is a traffic study to determine what kind of solutions could improve traffic flow at those two intersections. The department has done a fantastic job. We have had a huge amount of engagement. We had almost 700 people reply to the surveys online and almost 100 people come out to our community street-corner meeting to have a look at the concepts that are being proposed and provide their feedback on those concepts.

What we are looking at is a proposal for a new roundabout at the intersection of Windebanks Road and Happy Valley Drive and generally the community is pretty happy with the concept that is being proposed. I know they would like to see an additional lane inserted into that roundabout, so we will see what the department thinks about that. At the existing roundabout at the intersection of Chandlers Hill Road and Happy Valley Drive, we are looking to increase the size of that roundabout, so ultimately providing left-turn lanes in each corner. We are hoping that would really get the traffic flowing there. The next step now is to progress those designs and see if that project can get funded into the future so we can improve things on the roads for people in Happy Valley and Aberfoyle Park.

With the time I have left, I would also like to talk about a pretty exciting project that we launched only a couple of weeks ago. I had the Premier out to help me launch it, alongside the City of Onkaparinga Mayor, Moira Were. It is called the Minkarra link trail and it is a trail that my community has been calling for for almost 30 years.

It was exciting to have the former mayor of the former Happy Valley council Geoff Simpson out there with me. He had original plans that he had come up with as his vision almost 30 years ago. This project ultimately is a 700-metre section of trail that links existing trails in my community and means that there will be a consistent trail all the way from Chandlers Hill through Happy Valley, through Aberfoyle Park to Flagstaff Hill and down the hill onto the flats so that people can safely walk or ride pretty much anywhere they like from the south into town, which is very exciting.

It wraps around the Flagstaff Hill golf course, so it is a beautiful setting. There are seating points along the way, particularly around the golf club dam, so you can sit and really enjoy the environment and nature. The council has done a great job of installing some educational signage throughout the trail so that as you are walking around, particularly with kids, you can teach them about the native plants and the native wildlife and butterflies and birds and really take it all in and enjoy it. It has been so popular.

What I have really enjoyed about this project is that they have done a great job of weeding out a lot of the olives from around the Flagstaff Hill golf course, which means when you are driving down Happy Valley Drive, which is a significant main road in my community—most people in my community would drive that road every day—you can now see into this section of our community that most people would never have even known existed.

It is really exciting that we have opened up a part of our community that we have never had access to before. That is a project the community is absolutely pumped about, and it is great for me to drive past each day and see big groups of families out walking with their dogs and enjoying our beautiful environment in Flagstaff Hill.

With the last couple of minutes, I would like to talk about a project that we are working on now, which is the upgrade of the Aberfoyle Community Centre. This is a $1.5 million commitment from our government and ultimately it will increase the capacity and ability for Aberfoyle Community Centre to keep delivering the fantastic programs that they already deliver.

We are particularly focusing on youth programs. It is something that the northern part of the City of Onkaparinga council area has not been able to deliver as well in the past. There is no youth centre in my patch and so young people, particularly teenagers, have been crying out for something else. We have a skate park and a couple of basketball courts, but this is something that they have been really crying out for.

This will be a space where young people can come together and enjoy programs that will be delivered by the City of Onkaparinga and a safe place for them to come and meet and be mentored by others as well. I am really excited about that project, which we will be rolling out over the next six months, and I am looking forward to the day when I will get to bring along the Premier again, with the Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga, and open that fantastic new community centre for our community to enjoy.

In addition to that $1.5 million, there is an additional $40,000 which is going specifically towards shed services, which is something that my community is extremely excited about, so that they will be able to store all sorts of tools and run all sorts of shed programs for people in the community to come together and build things and connect and enjoy each other's company.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (17:02): I rise in support of the bill, if that is the best way to describe it. The Supply Bill 2024 would appropriate the sum of $7,706 million from the consolidated account for the financial year ending 30 June 2025. It is a process that we are all well familiar with in terms of the appropriation. Importantly, that will take us well beyond where we are now, just at the two-year mark, already a substantial way down the line in terms of this Malinauskas Labor government.

We will then be well beyond the three-year mark and really close to the conclusion, and so it is well that at this time, when it is customary for us to be considering appropriation and the way in which the government is applying the scarce resources that are available for public works and the meeting of commitments and indeed the day-to-day good government and management of the state, that we reflect upon both the past and the future.

As other members have, we reflect on some of the things that are going on in our local area. I recently published, as I do, my seasonal newsletter, which I have circulated to my constituents. In it, there are there referred to a number of key matters that are underway or being achieved as a result of public funding, indeed, through the provision of resources available through the budget.

One of those is the works that are being undertaken to upgrade the park-and-ride facility at Crafers. I highlight that partly because it is something I have been calling for. I advocated for it, together with improvement of park-and-ride facilities throughout the Hills, as a candidate back in 2017 and then throughout the period since. The upgrade of the Crafers park-and-ride was a matter for which the former Marshall Liberal government committed to provide funds for 140 car spaces much needed at Crafers. That is now being undertaken, albeit delivering a lesser number—85 car parking spaces—but it is an improvement.

I thank the government for not cancelling that project. It is happening at a place that is a logical place for the car-parking facility to be made. It was an area that was used by those who were conducting much more substantial works in the delivery of a third lane on the freeway between Crafers and Stirling, both sides of the freeway, and the complete renovation of the freeway from the Tollgate all the way through to Stirling and beyond during the course of the last government. To see that this upgrade of the Crafers park-and-ride is underway and due for completion fairly shortly this year is a positive step.

I urge the Malinauskas government to not then abandon altogether the Hills and regional roads. We have seen over the course of the last period, unfortunately, Labor governments, state and federal, abandoning in their entirety works that were committed to solving the Hahndorf traffic congestion by a bypass, walking away, state and federal, $250 million, and, to a relatively similar and significant amount, walking away entirely from the Truro freight bypass, which also in turn has flow-on effects for congestion through the Hills.

Roads and infrastructure investment in regional South Australia remain a massive priority for my residents in Heysen. I look for continued investment that will enable them, enable all of us, to as safely as possible navigate the freeway, to the extent that we can leave the car at a park-and-ride and take public transport on the freeway and, then, when driving locally in the Hills, to be as safe as we possibly can be. It is no surprise that the bulk of my seasonal newsletter to electors has a focus on roads large and small and the improved effects that investment in them can have for local residents.

I also note in passing the good news that has come just in recent weeks that, after a campaign running for the better part of the last year by local residents in terms of engaging with the Stirling Community Hospital board, a decision has been made that the hospital stay at Stirling and stay open. The threat had been that it would close and move to rented premises at Mount Barker. It is certainly a big headline in this current newsletter. I say, with respect to the budget, it is no thanks to the Malinauskas state Labor government.

As early as the middle of last year, upon my first concerted appeals for support from the Labor government, the Minister for Health just immediately washed his hands of it entirely, describing it as a private institution which the government will not be involved with and not providing support for. I might say that it was not too far from the attention of the Minister for Health to have come up a few months earlier and attended a ribbon-cutting at the opening of an improved surgery suite and facilities at the hospital.

It is a pity that the Malinauskas Labor government has not been showing any indication that it will provide support to our local hospital at Stirling. The fact that it continues at Stirling is the result of now more than 90 years of community solidarity, and it needs to continue at Stirling for the long term. There are, of course, many other matters locally on which the budget will have a positive effect. I highlight those two in particular.

The consideration of the Supply Bill is a moment to reflect on the government's management of those scarce resources, as I have indicated, and, indeed, to reflect on election commitments that the government made on coming to office. It is one thing that the Malinauskas Labor government has made much of over the course of these last two years: this idea that it is committed to meeting all of those election commitments. We know that already the signal election commitment of the government has been more or less completely abandoned. We have seen it in the course of debate only in recent days in the house, but it goes much broader than that.

Over, now, the bulk of the last year the government has set out to recast what was its signal promise to fix ramping in South Australia. Instead it has been confronted with the reality that it has delivered not only a failure to fix it but record ramping and in fact more ramping in less than two years than the former Liberal government's entire four-year term—with the result that patients and paramedics have never spent more time stuck on the ambulance ramp—and as a result there is significant concern throughout the entire community but no more so than among those hardworking frontline health workers and South Australian patients who are feeling it firsthand.

The government was confronted with that reality as recently as earlier this week in the chamber, and it just refused to debate it. It recast it and instead wanted to talk about anything but that signal failure. But it is not the only one. People in South Australia would be well to keep that very much front of mind—the ramping failure—because, of course, we know that health and its management is a central obligation and commitment of any state government, and an adult view of those challenges, investments, commitments and outcomes involves all sorts of complexity. It is therefore to be acknowledged that the challenges that are facing our health system at all times are of complexity and difficulty.

But all the more so in those circumstances should we see an adult response and a response that matches words with conduct and matches words with outcomes. It will be a promise that will weigh on the government now and each day and each week and each month as we lead towards the end of the Malinauskas Labor government in March 2026, because it is a signal failure to deliver on that central promise.

There are now emerging a number of other key matters, and I seek to address just a couple because they appear to now go to the character of the Malinauskas government that has emerged over the last couple of years. We have recently seen a debate in the context of major sporting events between a focus on the one hand about investment in sport, and on the other a relative neglect of the arts. Just to illustrate that, we have recently seen another round of LIV Golf and before that we had the Gather Round in the Aussie Rules football.

Leaving aside a debate about the merits and the success of those events, it is worth bearing in mind that we have got some national attention. I refer to the observations in recent days of Professor Jo Caust, who drew attention to the concern that taxpayers should have about this keen focus on sport and, from Professor Caust's point of view, the real concern that that is coming at the expense of the arts.

But it goes more deeply than that because, to go back to Labor's election commitments—and key among them a document described as Women: Safety, Wellbeing, Equality—For the Future—we saw that the then Malinauskas opposition, seeking to be elected to government, published the following proposition. After indicating that Labor will work to achieve gender equality, the document says:

A Malinauskas Labor government—

and there is a big red tick following that—

Recognise that women were disproportionately affected by the pandemic and invest in those industries in which women make up a bigger share of the workforce such as tourism and the arts. Labor commits to—

and at this point one might start to see descriptions of commitments that might have been met that relate to women, safety, wellbeing and equality. What is the first headline cab off the rank? 'Major event funding of $40m over four years'.

So in order to address Women: Safety, Wellbeing, Equality—indeed, more particularly recognising that women were disproportionately affected by the pandemic—the Malinauskas Labor opposition coming into government promised, number one, to invest in major event funding of $40 million over four years. Leaving aside wrestles between sport and the arts, I do not see anybody really seriously getting around South Australia advertising either the Gather Round or the LIV Golf as being core to promoting the safety, wellbeing and equality of women, but it certainly goes to characterising the nature of the priorities of the Malinauskas Labor government.

In relation to Aboriginal affairs, again, I go back only to recent weeks, because we know what we have now seen over the course of these last two years in terms of the signal election commitments of the Malinauskas Labor government. By the way, it committed—as part of its celebrating Aboriginal people election commitment—number one, to commit $1 million to the design and delivery of new statues and monuments, and to consult with South Australians to identify the first six Aboriginal leaders to be commemorated in the first term.

There is an expression of hubris but, let alone that, 'during the first term' means during these years, two of which have just passed, of the Malinauskas Labor government, and working with local councils on the co-funding and finding prominent homes for the artworks and developing online virtual histories, and seeking ideas for further monuments and so on that might be delivered should the electors of South Australia be good enough to deliver yet another term to the Malinauskas Labor government.

We have not seen any indication of that. We are bit more than two years in now, and I think Aboriginal people, to the extent that they were interested in that particular direction, will be starting to feel particularly underwhelmed. Then, in relation to those very public debates that we have seen carried out on the national stage, as well as in this state, we have seen a national debate about a constitutionally enshrined Voice, and a referendum in that regard.

Prior to that, we saw the state Labor version of a legislated Voice that was passed about a year ago, and we are yet to see that in action. I have had a bit to say about the consequences, two of which are that for the better part of a year we have not had a constituted South Australian Aboriginal advisory committee, something established back in 2006 by a former Labor government. It had been functioning, therefore, for the better part of 20 years until the current Labor government dissolved it.

Secondly, and closer to home, we have seen that the government has decided that there is some sort of virtue in dissolving the dedicated Aboriginal affairs parliamentary standing committee, both of which I have had a bit to say in terms of the deleterious effect that has had on the capacity to work towards improvement. But, looking to the future, we see in the Malinauskas Labor election commitment document a commitment to invest more than $2 million over these four years, to restart the Treaty process, to consult about that, and to establish a truth-telling process in South Australia.

Just a couple of weeks ago, in April, I asked the Premier about what that means, and put to the Premier that the government had previously committed to progressing Treaty and Truth as identified in the statement, and that the Premier had said, 'After the Voice is established and up and running, the government will turn its mind to Treaty and Truth.' The only response from the Premier at that point was, 'I stand by my remarks.' So, we wait, and we might see.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (17:23): I rise to speak on the bill today. It is my absolute pleasure to provide the house with a bit of an update of all the wonderful things that are happening in my local community. I know how valuable a strong and connected community is, and I entered this place determined to do all I could for mine, to ensure that we have the best possible supports in place and to help meet the evolving needs of my local community, both for the immediate need now but also for the years to come.

I am very proud that as a member of the Malinauskas government we have been taking decisive action in this space. Take health, for example. We know that there needs to be significant investment into the health system and we agree, and we are determined to build a bigger, better health system, and we are not wasting a second to get that done. In fact, you can drive down The Grove Way now and you will not be able to miss the ambulance station that is getting built there, right in the heart of Golden Grove. Even better is that 32 of the paramedics that will be based at that station are already active and servicing our local community. With that in mind, a huge thank you to the amazing crew at Parafield for housing them while this build is underway.

I have had the pleasure of meeting quite a few of the crew members who will be based at this station. What I love seeing is that a lot of these guys are based locally, have lived in the north-east or continue to live in the north-east. They know their area really well and they are completely invested in doing absolutely all they can to help the community that they value so highly. That goes for all the paramedics who will be based there. They are wholeheartedly committed to what they do because they love what they do and we certainly appreciate what they do for our community as well.

It is important to note that not only will it help improve services in my community with the current immediate needs but this station has been designed in a way, in consultation with the SA Ambulance Service, to ensure that it will help meet the needs of the population of my local community for the years to come. As I said, we are not here for short-term fixes. We are certainly thinking about and investing for the needs of the future in the interests in the long term of our local community.

I am also enjoying seeing the flow-on effect that this build is having in my local community, for people like Frank, who lives in Greenwith. Funnily enough, he is also a lad from Pirie who has chosen this amazing part of the state to call his home. He is working for a business that is helping with the build. Frank's company is going to be providing the walls that will go up as part of the station.

Frank was telling me at a recent presentation day at the Golden Grove Little Athletics just how great it has been to be able to drive past on the way to drop-off and pick-up with the kids and being able to show them a bit about what he does and loves to do for a living and also that this particular piece of what he is doing is getting invested into our community and going to have such a positive impact on them as well.

We know that more needs to be done in addition to the ambulance station to help improve our health system, and I am really pleased to share that we have many other initiatives underway in my local community to see this done. One that I am really proud of is our commitment and initiative to support Saints Chemist Warehouse to open 24/7.

It is something that I have had not only parents excited about, who have had that experience of needing to have some teething gel or Panadol in the middle of the night when there are high temperatures and not having anywhere else to go, I have also heard from shiftworkers who work during those typical nine-to-five hours and need to get their prescriptions but are unable to do so.

I have also had wonderful experiences from constituents such as Christine who shared with me the difference that this would make, particularly with the understanding that having something like this available is going to help so many people in our community access health care and support without needing to go into the emergency department.

Christine shared with me that she actually burnt her arm whilst cooking dinner one evening. It was quite significant and she has quite a few different health ailments. She had to have her husband take her in their car and they drove around for hours looking for somewhere to get some support, something to clean it up and something to wrap it with to protect from further infection.

Unfortunately, during that experience, there was nothing available for Christine at that time, and she recognises now, should it happen again—and, hopefully, it does not happen again—she will be able to just nick down the road five minutes away, get what she needs, seek some advice from a professional, and get that under control as well. It is certainly something highly valued and so much so that we are not even two months into having it being open 24/7 yet and we have seen over 10,000 people present themselves to that pharmacy out of hours seeking help and support.

I appreciate not all 10,000 of those visits would be people who may have otherwise gone to emergency departments but it is important that there would be a percentage of those who, had they not had that as an option, would have considered going into emergency because there simply is not any other option available to them as well.

Speaking of our hospitals and emergency departments, things are progressing well at the Lyell McEwin Hospital where we are building an additional 48 beds, which are due to come online a little bit later this year.

So much thought has gone into the design of these beds in this space. I had the great pleasure of having a look through recently with the member for Newland, with great appreciation to Built for showing us around, but also to the department for showing us exactly why things have been designed the way they have and the fact that it has been designed to meet the needs of our local community that the hospital services itself. They have had a really good look at what is coming in, what support people are needing and where the gaps are, and they are doing all they can to ensure that this build meets that need and will certainly meet that need for quite some time to come.

Over at Modbury Hospital things are progressing just as well. I am really excited that the new mental health precinct we will build there is being deigned in consultation with those with lived experience, because that is extremely important. We want to make sure we are doing everything we can to have the maximum impact for those who need help and assistance.

The cancer clinic is a welcome addition to our community, something that has been deeply needed. I have heard time and again from constituents in my local community that for those who need treatment it can be really difficult. It is a time when you need as many supports as possible around you. You are not necessarily in a healthy state yourself to be able to commute backwards and forwards to treatment facilities. The further you have to go the harder that is. We want to make it easier, we want to have your health care accessible, and we know this will be a tremendous support for those going through those processes as well.

We also know the unique needs for parking in the area, whether or not you are going to the hospital. We have expanded the park-and-ride as well, and we know that we need a few more parks at the hospital to meet the new services that are coming but also to meet the current demand we have. I am really pleased that as part of our upgrades to Modbury Hospital we will be building additional car parks—more than 300—to make sure we are meeting the demands for quite some time to come. 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