HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 July 2008. Page 3540.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (23:03): I rise as one of a number of speakers from the opposition to speak on this bill. This year, rather than give a wide-ranging critique of the budget, I might make a few general comments and then devote comment to the areas of planning, mineral resource development and police—a portfolio from which the minister was sacked today because he has not been able to hold down the portfolio.

It is interesting to make some initial observations of the budget and, particularly, the financial performance of the government over the past six years. Having been a small business operator and dealt with budgets and cash flow budgets, gone to the bank manager to extend my overdraft and paid off loans, I am intrigued when I look at this budget and other budgets over the past six years. From a budget perspective we have seen cash blow-outs of $184 million, $467 million, $487 million, $370 million and $374 million. There are significance variations from the predicted expenditure.

Mr President, I know you have been around the traps for a long while. You cannot run a proper business—and the state of South Australia is a business, with the present board of directors doing a reasonably poor job—and we cannot continue to run the state with blow-outs totalling in some cases almost $0.5 billion a year. Of course, the government has been quite fortunate to mask that. At the same time that it has had those cash blow-outs it has had windfall revenue gains of the order of $528 million in the first year and $794 million. That is almost $1 billion of windfall gain. Then it had figures of $595 million, $521 million and $493 million.

The Hon. R.D. Lawson: Plus the SA Water rip-off.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes. The Hon. Robert Lawson interjects about the rip-off from SA Water.

The PRESIDENT: I remind members that interjections are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I realise that interjections are out of order, Mr President, but it was an important interjection and I thought I should make sure that I responded to get it on the record. In fact, if one looks at the 2006-07 windfall gain, one sees that it is $493 million, which is the only one since this government came to office that is under half a billion dollars. In six years the government has received in excess of $3 billion more in unbudgeted extra income. It would be a little like, Mr President, if you were back in your shearing days getting paid $1.20 a sheep, at the very best, and suddenly you were getting paid $1.80. Every time you bent over and pulled a sheep out of the catching pen to shear it, you were getting 50¢ more than you actually thought you were getting.

The Hon. R.D. Lawson interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, I am sure he would do more than two sheep a day. He was a very good shearer, I have been told. It is quite amazing, when we consider the mechanisms we have today for monitoring business, budgets and money to make sure that we live within our means, that we have a government which has continually had significant blow-outs over the time it has been in office but which has been so fortunate to have had a strong federal economy and a strong state economy that have delivered in excess of half a billion dollars every year in windfall gains.

I will also pose a number of questions which I hope, when he responds next week, the minister does answer; unlike last year when a number of us asked questions—I did and also the Hon. Rob Lucas posed questions—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: So did I.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: And the Hon. John Dawkins posed some questions. Unfortunately, the minister was either unable or chose not to provide any sort of answer to those questions. I will make further reference later in my contribution, but often we have a variance in statistical figures that are quoted, and we had one this week. The minister and I are often at odds with the number of full-time equivalent employees within the police force in terms of the Productivity Commission figures and the Police Commissioner's figures.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister interjects that the figures I used for—

The PRESIDENT: Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know that interjections are out of order, but I still think it is appropriate to mention that the Productivity Commission figures on police full-time equivalents are old figures, yet, back in February (and we are now in the seventh month, so, only five months ago), the minister stood up in this place in response to a question from the Hon. Bernard Finnigan and said that he was happy to talk about all the statistics the Productivity Commission had released, except, of course, the full-time equivalent figures which showed a reduction in police numbers.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister says that we did not include the non-sworn officers who are non-operational, and that is why, at the Budget and Finance Committee on Monday, we posed a question to the Police Commissioner about whether he can reconcile the figures SAPOL and the minister are quoting for full-time equivalent officers and those of the Productivity Commission.

The Hon. R.D. Lawson interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes. Again, I know that interjections are inappropriate, but that is why he was sacked: he was not able to manage the police numbers. I have talked about police numbers to give the council some idea of this question. We have seen a significant increase in the public sector under this government. The Commissioner for Public Employment says that there are 17,017 extra employees. The budget papers say that there are 12,085 extra employees, but the Treasurer is quoted publicly as saying there are 9,287. There is a significant difference in those figures. Can the minister reconcile why the Commissioner for Public Employment is saying 17,017, why the budget papers say almost 5,000 fewer at 12,085 and why the Treasurer is quoting a figure of 9,287?

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They are full-time equivalents. I will quote from a document:

The following table summarises the different accounts of amount by which the public sector full-time equivalents have exceeded the budgeted full-time equivalents since this government came to office.

I am not necessarily saying that the Treasurer's figure of 9,000 is wrong, or that the Commissioner for Public Employment's figure is wrong, but I think it is appropriate and reasonable to ask the minister to come back to this chamber on Tuesday of next week and say, 'This is why these figures are different; they are counting different numbers.' The difference between 9,000 and 17,000 is almost double.

We accept that a number of public sector employees have been important, and in the time of this government we have had some 1,949 new nurses, approximately 600 teachers, 674 doctors and 303 police. That, according to the government's figures, totals 3,526. According to the Commissioner for Public Employment's figures, there are almost 13,500 more public sector full-time equivalents than were budgeted for. I think it is an appropriate and genuine question to ask the minister representing the government here to give an answer as to how those figures can be so different. Certainly, it is confusing. The minister does not like me quoting figures that he claims are incorrect on police numbers. It is only fair that he give us a breakdown of how all those figures are arrived at. Given that it is Wednesday and we have until next Tuesday, I do hope he is able to bring back a response.

I have a few general comments in relation to what I think are going to be key issues towards the next election and vital to South Australia. The first one is water and water security in this state. We have seen a government which has been here now for six and a half years and which has basically just sat and prayed for rain. It ignored calls from the opposition to do anything about a desalination plant a couple of years ago.

Minister Hill (I think it was) answered and said we did not need one, then I think Treasurer Foley said it was not big enough, and then minister Maywald said no. Without any government resources, three opposition members (Hon. Iain Evans, Mitch Williams and I) travelled to Perth and looked at a desalination plant. We put together a policy, which the party endorsed, that Port Stanvac was the likely spot—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: We would have it built by now.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Exactly. I understand the member is out of order, but I do think that is important. I am quite surprised that three members of the opposition, with no resources from government, could come up with something endorsed by the party to say that we should build a desalination plant and the logical place to build it would be at Port Stanvac.

The government said, 'We don't think that's a very good idea at all. We are going to put up a high level committee to work that out.' Twelve months later the Minister for Water Security (Hon. Karlene Maywald) announced that Port Stanvac would be the logical site. That is the sort of bumbling, bureaucratic government we have: it cannot make a decision and looks for every reason possible to avoid making one. South Australia is now at least 12 months, if not two years, behind where it would have been if the government had admitted that we were right and agreed that it should get on and build a desalination plant.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Even if we don't own the land?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister interjects and says we do not own the land. You can compulsorily acquire anything if you choose to. I have been down there. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan is on the select committee and he has been there. There are hundreds of hectares of vacant farming land there. The government could have started acquiring it the day we announced the policy. It could have said, 'That's not a bad idea. We think they have a point. Let's go and have a look at it.' But, no, it plays around, delays things and puts South Australia's water security at risk.

Some weeks ago we talked about the Mount Bold reservoir. I think it was a Dorothy Dix question that the minister was answering at the time. It is quite interesting that the Mount Bold reservoir has almost fallen from the agenda of this year's budget. Last year it was an important part of a new initiative. However, the Treasurer recently stated on Lateline that the expansion of the Mount Bold reservoir would follow the completion of the desalination plant.

Recently the minister made some comments in this chamber that, with a desalination plant, it might put the water into Mount Bold. Of course, there is not enough water in the Murray. At the moment the water is pumped out of the Murray and is run down into the reservoir.

The Onkaparinga is under stress, almost as much stress as the River Murray. The minister has said, 'Oh, no, we're going to put water from the desalination plant into Mount Bold.' Clearly, the minister does not understand that it is about $1.30 a kilolitre to desalinate water, which takes out all the impurities, and then you have to put back in some of the minerals because you cannot drink the pure water that comes out of a desalination plant. As the Hon. Sandra Kanck said earlier, desalination is very energy expensive; it is not cheap to run. Having spent all that money, you do not put that water into an open-top, large reservoir to get contaminated again with bird droppings, dust, dirt, vegetable matter and all the things you find in a reservoir. So, clearly, this is a government that does not really have any understanding. This is $1 billion it is talking about spending on a desalination plant, yet it does not know what it is going to do with the water. Clearly, in cabinet someone does not explain these things.

In the past week, we have seen where a cabinet decision was made to increase water prices, yet in cabinet no-one actually understood that it was going to be back charged, that is, that the increased charges would apply to water that had been consumed in the six months prior to that. Surely, there is a responsibility on cabinet members to understand, and there is a responsibility on ministers to go in—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They talk about other people. This is a government that says it is above all of that. This government claims that it is the best government we have ever had. All government members do is look backwards. The minister failed to inform cabinet, and the same thing has happened with the desalination plant. Someone has not informed cabinet exactly how it works. This is $1 billion the government is talking about spending, and this minister is talking about putting the water into a reservoir. It is just ludicrous.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes; water from the Murray goes into the reservoir, but there is not enough water in the Murray. There is not enough water in the Onkaparinga.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Oh, at some stage. You are talking about $1.4 billion to expand Mount Bold and, at some stage, if there is enough water, we will put the water in there. That is crazy.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister says that we are going to spend $1.4 billion on expanding Mount Bold and that one day, if there is enough water and if the Murray is not under stress and if the Onkaparinga has water, we will put extra water into it. That is a crazy suggestion to say that we are going to spend $1.4 billion just to maybe fill it up one day if there is enough water. Give me a break! No wonder he was sacked from the police portfolio. Also, if you look at stormwater harvesting—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am going to respond only to the sensible and intelligent interjections, not the others that are unintelligent and not sensible. Stormwater harvesting is an area where this government has absolutely failed. We have seen that the CSIRO has estimated that, in the past few weeks, 45 days worth of Adelaide's water supply has spilled into the gulf because the Rann government has no plan to capture stormwater. I know from leaks within the department that the Minister for Water Security has said that we have to come up with some way of capturing more stormwater, but we cannot afford to spend any more money. Clearly, the amount of stormwater that runs off Adelaide—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister talks about cotton growers. This is a minister who is part of a government—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Perhaps the minister would like to make his speech in conjunction with the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your protection, Mr President. It is interesting that the minister talks about cotton growing. His government—the Rann government, the President of the Labor Party and six states and the federal government are all Labor. We have wall to wall Labor. I know that you are all rejoicing in that fact. Members opposite think that it is almost heaven that they have wall-to-wall Labor, yet they cannot agree on the Murray. I mean, give me a break! This is an opportunity for national leadership. What has Kevin Rudd done? He has done nothing; he has not provided any leadership.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister interjects with the name of the former prime minister, the Hon. John Howard. He had a plan. The states, all but Victoria—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: —did not want to sign it, because it was a dodgy deal done by Mike Rann, Kevin Rudd and Steve Bracks to thwart John Howard's plan. Well, now you have thwarted John Howard; he is no longer prime minister. The ball is in your court. We have wall-to-wall Labor. It is your responsibility to solve the problems of the Murray. You cannot blame Liberal governments; you cannot blame John Howard; and you cannot blame us because we were in government six years ago.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: We are talking about leadership now. We have a Premier who is the President of the Labor Party. We have a new Prime Minister. If Mike Rann wants a bust of himself out in the hall like Don Dunstan, he needs to show some leadership on water. Kevin Rudd needs to show some leadership on water. They have done nothing. They have sat there and done nothing.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister will stop provoking the Leader of the Opposition.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you. We have seen—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: What is he on about? How can you concentrate when you get an interjection like that? Mr President, please protect me.

The PRESIDENT: I remind honourable members that the night is getting late and we should listen to the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have 10 pages of notes here and I am not even halfway down the first page. We have seen in the past week that nearly $2 billion worth of dividends have gone from SA Water to general revenue since this government came to office.

The Hon. R.D. Lawson interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Exactly. That is right: last week it picked up another 25 million and it is going to give only $10 million back. As I said before, this is a government that actually has no understanding of the real needs of this community. It has no understanding of—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Rory had a pretty good understanding.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Yes; that is right. The Hon. John Dawkins reminds me that minister McEwen said, 'That's the way we've done it for the past seven years; get over it', and then he gets promoted for an arrogant approach to the South Australian community. I mean, give me a break!

In its seventh budget, this government has not yet produced a tangible solution to our water shortage. It has talked about increasing Mount Bold, but that has slipped off the budget. It has talked about a weir at Wellington, but that has not happened. The Premier talked about having an independent body to oversee the Murray and federal intervention and the handling of it, but: 'No, we can't agree on that because we don't really like that idea', and now, of course, we have a COAG agreement that gives Victoria their existing water rights until 2019.'

This is a government that has absolutely failed South Australia on every measure in respect of water resources. Thankfully the minister opposite has retired for a moment so I will not be inundated with his ridiculous interjections.

I turn now to the mineral resource sector. In May this year, the Eyre Peninsula NRM board reported that ground water levels on Eyre Peninsula are at an all-time low. The report alone suggested that all projects and prospects in the Gawler Craton were in jeopardy.

I think that one of the greatest risks to the development of our resource industry—and I will touch on it in more detail shortly—is not only the skills shortage but water itself. During the estimates, on my behalf, the shadow water security minister asked the Minister for Mineral Resources Development whether the government had a strategy to cope with the shortage of water, or would every operation be left to its own devices, as Oxiana was with the Prominent Hill mine, where it actually had to go out and find its own water resource.

The minister stated that the resource infrastructure council has been set up, with Mr Paul Heithersay, who is a very well respected member of PIRSA who heads up the minerals division, and that the council's next meeting will be devoted to the topic of water infrastructure. One of the questions I would ask the minister is: when can we expect a strategy to be implemented that will actually identify sources of new water for our burgeoning minerals industry?

The Premier and the government often talk about the minerals boom. We know that we have an exploration boom, not a mining boom, but water is one is one of the absolute key elements to that industry. If we do not have new supplies of water for that industry it will falter. You cannot mine minerals, crush them and process them without water. We have seen BHP having to invest in a huge desalination plant at the top of the gulf. Will that be the way forward or will we look for other sources of water? It is time that this government, above all other pieces of infrastructure for minerals (and I will touch on some of those issues later), realised that water is the key element.

The second issue, before turning my attention to the portfolio responsibilities, is country health. You, Mr President, are a country man, and the Hon. Bernard Finnigan talks about being the only member of the Legislative Council who lives outside the city. I ask him how many children in his family or among his friends have been born in a country hospital and how many in his family rely on regional country hospitals. Mount Gambier has been well served, because the Hon. Rory McEwen is the member for Mount Gambier and that hospital will be looked after in the Country Health Plan, but not other country hospitals.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Another minister who got sacked today just said that I am talking a load of nonsense.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: I didn't get the sack, you moron.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: She called me a moron; that is unparliamentary, Mr President. Will she withdraw that interjection, please?

The PRESIDENT: The minister should withdraw, if that is the case.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: He put in an inaccurate description, so what is he going to do about that? You withdraw yours; I'll withdraw mine.

The PRESIDENT: The minister should withdraw the word 'moron'.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: On a point of order—

The PRESIDENT: I expect both sides to withdraw their unparliamentary remarks.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: What was unparliamentary?

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: You said I got sacked—I didn't. I got another portfolio instead.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Instead of sacked, I will say she was relieved of some of her responsibilities today.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: And gained another one instead.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: You need to withdraw.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: You called me a moron.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Mr President, I am happy to withdraw.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your protection, Mr President. Last month the Minister for Health denied that 25 country hospitals would be closed and 43 had been made band-aid centres. The government's plan was to enhance four hospitals and bury Mount Gambier and Port Lincoln, while decreasing the services of 43 hospitals to GP Plus hospitals. Andamooka, Leigh Creek and many areas will not even get that: instead they will get some fly in and fly out again arrangement. Of the $3.8 billion health budget, around $1.8 billion goes to public health policy and bureaucrats and $2 billion to acute care hospitals. Of that, $1.78 billion will go to the eight or so hospitals in the metropolitan area and only $250 million, or one-seventh of the total acute care budget, will go to 68 hospitals in country South Australia.

In 2003 the Rann government said that it would not abolish country hospital boards, and by so doing wiped out the major critics of the Country Health Plan with its Health Care Act. The removal of country health boards was a tactical move to silence the advocates of country health, leaving country communities without a voice. In February this year this chamber voted on the Health Care Bill. I remind members—and this is important because water and health in the country are two issues this election will be fought on—of my closing comments:

If this bill is allowed to progress it will tear the heart out of rural health services in South Australia.

We passed the bill, abolished country health boards and look at what has happened. We took the teeth away from country communities; took the viable, vibrant voice of country health boards away from rural communities, and we have seen what has happened. I remind the chamber of the people who voted for the government's bill. Of course, it was the government, supported by the Hons Ann Bressington, Dennis Hood, Andrew Evans, John Darley, Sandra Kanck and Mark Parnell. The only voice that stood up for country health—one of the most important services the government provides to country areas—was that of the Liberal Party. Every other party said, 'We don't believe the Liberal Party; we're going to trust the government.'

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Ann Bressington asks, 'Why didn't you talk to us?' I said that the abolition of country health boards would tear the heart out of rural health in South Australia. I said that standing right here, yet, you all went and voted with the government. I am reaffirming this—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Russell Wortley says that I am scaremongering. He has not been to the country. Has he been sick, or has his wife been in labour in a country hospital? No; she never has. He would not know. My father-in-law, who was recently diagnosed with lung cancer, had to travel to Mount Gambier for a period of observation and hospitalisation.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I beg your pardon? He was hospitalised in Bordertown. Under the new plan he will have to be hospitalised in Mount Gambier. He has no family in Mount Gambier, so not only can he not go to hospital in Bordertown, the family has to travel to Mount Gambier. The Hon. Mr Wortley is absolutely heartless, and has no understanding of the importance of country health to rural communities. Mr President, you have been there; you have lived in a rural community, and you know how important it is. I am just amazed that, at the end of the day, it was only Liberal Party members who voted against it—not the Greens, Democrats or Family First. None of them stuck up for country health, and we are now seeing—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, for hospital boards. They did not stick up for them, and we said that was the thin end of the wedge. Now we are seeing the thick end of the wedge, and those people need to be held responsible for that decision—the government and the people who voted to dissolve country health boards.

Of course, the government wants to justify its actions by saying that there is already a shortage in the workforce in country regions, so there needs to be a change in the model, but there are shortages in the city as well. That has not affected the decision to attempt to build the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital. Of course, we talk about consultation with hospital boards in country areas. I have been told that caucus and most of the cabinet were not consulted on the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital; it was something cooked up by the Premier and a couple of ministers, brought into cabinet and then dumped on the caucus.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: It isn't mentioned in the Strategic Plan, either.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No. The Hon. John Dawkins interjects that it does not figure in the State Strategic Plan.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I understand that that is out of order, sir. When this government came to office, the Royal Adelaide Hospital had 850 operational beds. While this government spruiks the 800-bed hospital that it will have by 2016, it is now down to 650 operational beds at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The government continually closes beds in our state health system, and we are worse off.

I will talk a little about mineral resources development. The Premier claims that we are experiencing a mining boom. We all know that we are experiencing an exploration boom, not a mining boom. In estimates it was mentioned that, at the recent National Press Club event, Premier Rann said that South Australia's mining success is not due natural forces but to his government survey work and encouragement of exploration. It is interesting to note that, yesterday, the minister answered a Dorothy Dix question relating to 'PIRSA: 125 Years of Discovery', the geological survey work; basically, it was the department of mines' 125th anniversary. At that event a banner displayed the chronological history of the bipartisan achievements of the South Australian government—not the Labor Party, not Mike Rann's government, but 125 years of broad bipartisan support of our mining industry.

I will quickly highlight some of the milestones. In 1998, under the former Liberal government, the TEiSA program commenced with a $10 million commitment to provide geoscientific data. TEiSA was the forerunner to the PACE program. The minister claims that TEiSA was not funded, but it was funded until 2003. The minister came to office in 2002. The funding lapsed, and then, of course, the government created the PACE program. PACE was the logical extension of TEiSA.

In 1999 under the same Liberal government, the Resources Task Force reported to the government recommendations for adopting the targets that have been transferred to the current Labor government's Strategic Plan. Under a Liberal government, the Resources Task Force recommended certain targets for exploration and export, and, of course, they are the same targets that this government adopted for its plan. The Labor government did not change its targets, because it did not change the supporting TEiSA program; it simply rebadged it as the PACE program.

Mr Rann also said that his government's success was evidenced by the fact that there were only four mines operational when it came into office and there were now 10. Again, that is playing with statistics, as this government often does. First, the exploration licences that supported those 10 operations were all granted many years before the operations took place and many years before this government came into office, so the Premier cannot claim this increase in operational mines as a testament to his or his ministers' success in managing the mining sector. In addition, only one of those 10 operational mines has received his so-called successful PACE funding, making it evident that none of the real groundwork was encouraged or supported by the current government.

The Premier often talks about geothermal energy and how it is a wonderful thing for the future. Well, in 2000 it was the Liberal government that introduced a petroleum act regulations bill which provided a licence classification to allow geothermal exploration. If the Liberal government had not done that, we would not be where we are today.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Chuck him out! The Premier has just recently said that he has approached Prime Minister Rudd for funding from his infrastructure fund to help link up our exciting geothermal industry. Of course, if it were not a budget and legislative commitment from the previous Liberal government we would not have a geothermal industry today.

In 2001 it was a Liberal government that called for tenders and issued licences to facilitate the building of the SEAGas pipeline, thus guaranteeing the state's gas supply, and it was in 2001 that the Liberal government facilitated the first Australian multi-tribal, multi-community native title agreement, which facilitated petroleum production in the Cooper Basin.

The Rann government will continue to prevent capitalisation on our mining boom; they are relying on the success of mining giants like BHP, while prospective mines may never be realised because of blatant ignorance in relation to the need for infrastructure. As I mentioned before, we have not seen a commitment from this government on water for our mining industry. That is the single biggest limiting factor to expansion of our mining industry, and we have not had any commitment on it. I can see what will happen: unfortunately for you in your role, Mr President, this lot will lose government at the next election and then they will be on this side of the chamber saying that we have not invested in infrastructure to support our mining industry. They will be saying that ours is the government that has not invested in infrastructure.

I will now move on to planning. The government has been slow to act on the much needed reforms, and it is interesting to look at the chronology of its announcements. It has taken six months for the government to come to the table and talk about removing planning powers from the Adelaide City Council. In February the Leader of the Opposition, Martin Hamilton-Smith, launched a master plan for Adelaide, which was a wider vision of how we see the future of Adelaide as a capital city for all South Australians and, if you like, the jewel in the crown for the middle and south of Australia. Of course, Labor's decision was nothing about a master plan or a vision: it was just an ad hoc decision that related to a single issue and a single decision by council. This is a government that is all about knee-jerk reactions to issues rather than having a long-term vision for this state.

The Liberals launched our planning principles some six to eight weeks prior to the government launching its planning reform, and it copied almost everything we did. I am surprised that the minister has not lost planning in the reshuffle today, because he has not had an original idea in the last 12 months. Everything he has done has been copied from a Liberal agenda.

It is interesting to look at the budget commitment for the planning reforms. The total budget for implementation is about $11.9 million, but only about $1.2 million has been allocated to the operations after implementation. So there is actually no commitment to ongoing funding to make sure Planning SA can deliver a quality outcome and provide a quality service. When we said that we would take planning powers from the Adelaide City Council we were not necessarily considering giving it to the Development Assessment Commission, which of course is Planning SA. So, I would like to know what the minister will do with the extra $1.4 million that the city council will lose in planning applications that now come to Planning SA. Will that extra $1.4 million be invested back into planning and supporting our planning system, or will it go into general revenue? I would like the minister to address that issue when he responds.

Given the recommendations that have been made, the resources for the operation are very limited. The recommendations include Planning SA becoming a separate agency, with the appointment of a CEO, a high-level management team and expert planning staff. It is interesting to read the statement, because how can the government ensure that skilled people will be on board by the time of implementation? If they are not, the skills will not be in place, with a budget commitment to employ people, and the reforms will fall flat.

I know that there is now a vacancy rate of about 20 per cent in local government assessment teams to assess developments at a local government level. Unless the government is prepared to put the resources and the budget behind these reforms, it will not get the staff it requires. Throughout estimates, minister Holloway conceded that very soon more people will be leaving than entering the workforce. The budget allocated to operate the new planning system is not sufficient to draw the expert planning staff who are needed.

The minister said that the Rann government has a track record of setting and keeping high objectives and that it needs to get those skilled staff to keep that up. He mentioned that it was trying to get 180 planners and that it was attempting to recruit them from other states, but is this government making employment opportunities appealing enough to retain the skills?

Today, I was talking to representatives from the Planning Institute of Australia. Last weekend, Planning SA placed advertisements in the newspaper for these positions; however, there were also advertisements for planners in Victoria and New South Wales. We were some 40 to 60 per cent behind the market, with salaries of between $65,000 and $85,000 being offered in South Australia, with comparable positions in Victoria and New South Wales attracting salaries of $120,000 to $130,000. This government talks about planning reforms but, clearly, it has not allocated enough resources to attract or retain key people. You cannot talk about reforms without putting in place the personnel to deliver them.

One of the questions asked during estimates related to planning reform and the recruitment of a Western Australian public relations company to do the promotion. We have a plethora of PR firms in South Australia yet, for some reason, this government chose to spend taxpayers' dollars on a Western Australian firm to promote its agenda, which seems quite crazy.

Forty-seven recommendations have been accepted, but no priorities have yet been set in the agenda as to which ones will be agreed upon first. It is interesting to note that there has been insufficient commitment to deliver those reforms. The minister knows that they are broadly supported by the opposition, yet we have not seen a commitment in a budgetary sense to implement them.

I move now to comments on police. It is fitting that the minister will shortly no longer be the Minister for Police, so I guess this is a little bit of a farewell commentary on his sacking. I question the government's priorities. It talks about committing $38 million to a new police headquarters when crime is worsening in our outer suburbs.

I speak to a number of police officers. I will certainly not name the LSA, or its commanding officer, but when they heard that the government was spending $38 million on a new headquarters they said, 'I would love $38 million spent in my LSA for more staff and more resources to actually make the place safe.' I think the sentiment being echoed across this state is that this government has its priorities wrong and that the dollars need to be spent on the ground.

In estimates, Commissioner Hyde admitted that the government had fallen some 70 recruits short in the past year. He said that he put that down to a timing issue, but he also considered that the tight labour market was making targets a challenge. Yesterday, the minister made an outrageous ministerial statement, when he accused me of undermining the Police Commissioner and every police officer in South Australia. In fact, I have never made comments that undermine the Police Commissioner or any particular individual police officers. I think they all do a fabulous job. It is the government that is undermining them by not resourcing them properly. The minister says that we have 4,144 police officers—

The Hon. P. Holloway: You tell us how much money they need.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will tell you when I am good and ready to tell you. We have 4,144 police officers today but, of course, at least 127 of them—and I suspect that the figure is a bit more—are nonoperational, so we will say there are roughly 4,000 operational police officers in South Australia. This government has made a commitment to have 4,400 full-time equivalent officers on the beat by 2010.

The beginning of 2010 is now only 17 months away, so I am sure that the government will say, 'Actually, we meant the end of 2010. Well, probably 2011.' The election is about 20 months away. We have roughly 4,000 officers on the beat according to the government's figures today (although I suspect it is closer to 3,800 and maybe 3,900 at a push) but, even using the minister's figure of 4,000 on the beat today, taking into account the loss of 360 officers through attrition and retirement in the next two years we will need close to 760 recruits over the next two years to deliver the 4,400 officers on the beat that the minister and the Premier have publicly committed to by the next election.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, that is what you have said you would do. You are the government. If we were the government, we would have delivered.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister says, 'What have we done?' but we are not the government. We are here to hold you to account and you will fail. They will not have 4,400 officers on the beat by 20 March 2010. They will not; they will fail. On 8 July, on radio FIVEaa minister Holloway conceded that there were not enough police to cover the anticipated violence in Hindley Street, and he expected local businesses to provide security guards to fill the gap left by police.

It is no wonder that he has been sacked. He has been sacked, and it is no wonder that he has been sacked. He cannot provide the leadership for this police force to actually step up to the plate. It is no wonder that they have relieved him of his responsibilities.

It is interesting to note too that the new laws to crack down on bikie gangs that were expected to be introduced at the start of this month are yet to come into effect, and we had to rush them through here. In fact, it was the opposition that suspended standing orders to allow us to debate that bill, and the minister was upset that we had taken the business of the day out of the hands of the government. We actually processed that bill, yet we are still to see it come into effect.

At a recent police press conference, the message was given that businesses should minimise the amount of cash kept on premises. They should be alert at all times and make sure that security equipment is functional. The message was that we have almost given up and surrendered to the hoons, the blaggards and the bikies in our community.

This is a minister who has shown no leadership and I am not surprised that he has been relieved of his duties. He likes to talk about statistics. He loves to quote the statistics that show him in a good light, but let us quote some of the statistics that actually show the real figures. The minister said recently that crime rates have gone down. He talks about the overall crime rate going down, but he talked about crimes such as motor vehicle theft. Cars are three times more difficult to steal today. Every car has an immobiliser. He talks about motor vehicle theft when the Liberal Party was in office. Cars are much more difficult to steal today. Home break-ins have gone down. I think nearly everybody in this place would have a home security device. They would have a burglar alarm at their house.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Well, some say no. I would think that the vast majority of them have them at their house because they have not had the faith in this government to deliver a safe community. They have had to take matters into their own hands. It is interesting to note that, between 2002 and 2007, attempted murder increased by 70 per cent; kidnapping and abduction increased by 116 per cent; armed robbery increased by 15.4 per cent; sexual assault increased; and assault generally increased. So, you can see that under this government the number of police on the beat is going backwards, and we are getting more crime. The latest Productivity Commission figures show that we actually went back by 20 full-time equivalents.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, last year nearly 200 guns were stolen in South Australia. These are legal firearms that are reported stolen—I am sure there are hundreds of illegal firearms stolen—and only three per cent are ever recovered. This minister and the government have failed to resource their police force. I think that the police force will be somewhat dismayed to see that the new minister probably has the worst track record that we have seen in the past six years, and a minister who has lost $1 billion with WorkCover. This is a minister who does not even know when to turn his sprinklers on and off when there are water restrictions. Goodness me—and they put this guy in charge of the police! I cannot believe that a minister who has lost $1 billion with WorkCover has not been sacked and relieved of his responsibility totally. However, he is merely shifted from industrial relations to police.

I have a couple of quick points in relation to the budget, and particularly in relation to urban development and the commitment from the government to extend the tramline to the Entertainment Centre and eventually out towards Football Park, Semaphore Road and elsewhere. My questions are: why was the tram extension made a priority when just last week the minister started the process of rezoning the land that was put inside the urban growth boundary at Gawler? When that was announced, the Treasurer said that it would be a great park-and-ride facility, where people can park at the Entertainment Centre and catch the tram into the city.

How does someone go to a matinee or daytime performance at the Entertainment Centre if the car park is full of people who have driven there to park and then catch the tram into the city? It is ludicrous to suggest that converting the car park of the Entertainment Centre to a park-and-ride will actually facilitate a better outcome for the community. I want to know why that was a priority instead of supporting rail infrastructure in the north and the south.

The other question I asked the Minister for Road Safety yesterday, which she was unable to answer, was: how much of the money allocated in the budget for the electrification of rail has been allocated to grade separation? For those members who do not know what grade separation is, it is an overpass or an underpass at a railway line. You cannot have a modern, fast and efficient electric rail service and level crossings. For example, the Mandurah and Joondanna trains travel into Perth at 130 km/h. The express trains fly into the city; you get a lot of people in very quickly, but they have total grade separation. There are no level crossings, so it minimises the risk. There is no way that cars, trucks or any traffic can get in the way of a train.

So, if we are to have a modern, fast and efficient electric rail service, we must have a commitment to separate the traffic from the trains. My question to the minister is: in all of the budget forward estimates and the wonderful $2 billion visionary plan for transport, how much has been allocated to grade separation? On those lines, are we to see the grade separation start from the CBD working out or will we see it from the extremities—Gawler, Noarlunga and beyond—working back in?

Clearly, without a commitment from the government and an overall plan to deliver this measure, this sort of transport revolution is just a joke. It is all just talk, as we have heard from this government year upon year. It is talk, talk, talk without actually delivering an outcome that makes our community safer, that reduces our carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions, and all of the things that we all realise are important to the future of this state. Unless it is actually planned and delivered properly, it will not be a reality.

I could go on for much longer, but I will conclude with a couple of quick questions of the minister, and I hope that he is able to answer them. My questions relate to the police and, in particular, to a couple of points in the budget paper. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.22. In 2007-08, there was an estimated increase of almost 1,500 detected and recorded assaults against the person. So, in 2007-08 there was an estimated increase of 1,500 assaults against the person. That target is increased in 2008-09 to 10,456.

A recent global liveability index placed Adelaide at 49th in the personal safety index, with Melbourne, Perth and Sydney ranking some 20 places higher. How does the minister intend to reach this target of an additional 230 detections and apprehension reports, and can he explain why, when we have record numbers of police, Adelaide ranks behind on a global liveability index— one of the international ratings that the Premier and the minister always talk about? Why is it that we rate behind Melbourne, Perth and Sydney, if you like, on a personal safety liveability index?

I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.18. I note that the general objective of the public order program is to improve wellbeing through the provision of police services to the community. Recently, a letter was sent to an opposition electorate office by the Department of Treasury and Finance. It related to security alarm responses in electorate offices and stated that SAPOL would no longer respond to single or continuous alarm activations. The letter stated, 'The vast majority of these types of alarms are false.'

My question to the minister is: how is this change in line with the objective of improving wellbeing within the community, and how will SAPOL respond to the few alarms that are not false and are a direct danger to the community and, in particular, electorate office staff? Has this letter only been sent to opposition electorate offices or has it been sent to all electorate offices? I have a couple of final questions that I would like to put on the record for the minister.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Russell Wortley obviously does not like the questions I am asking. This is what the Appropriation Bill is about: putting questions on notice so that the minister can answer them.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The honourable member ought to ignore the Hon. Russell Wortley.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: After a while it is impossible to ignore him.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: I order you to do so.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your advice and protection. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 1, page 4.17, which talks about work in progress. It states that the Golden Grove, Para Hills and Aldinga police stations combined have a budget of $120,000 for the financial year. Why are these projects not reflected in the current Capital Investment Statement, and can the minister advise what the $120,000 will be spent on?

I refer to the introduction of the minerals sub-program, which states the government's responsibility to regulate mining operations. On page 20 of TheIndependent Weekly of 20 June, it is stated that at the recent uranium conference BHP president Graeme Hunt gave a presentation which showed that the first major expansion stage of Olympic Dam would be to add a greenfield concentrator plant, with excess concentrate to be exported. One option includes a smelter expansion.

Will the state government support the options for expansion that were presented at the conference, including a possible smelter expansion? Should the proposal to export copper concentrate to China be pursued? Will the export licence granted to BHP allow for the extraction of uranium from ore before the copper concentrate is shipped? Is the government considering a different rate of royalty for concentrate as against fully processed minerals?

As I said earlier, I wanted to focus on some portfolios rather than on a broad ranging speech on a whole range of budget issues. I think I have covered them all reasonably well and, on behalf of the opposition, as its first speaker, I indicate that we will be supporting the Appropriation Bill. However, we look forward to a response from the minister, in particular, to the questions in relation to the full-time equivalent numbers of the public sector.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. B.V. Finnigan.

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