HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-06-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL 2008

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 June 2008. Page 3403.)

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (15:40): I rise to support the passage of the Supply Bill, which will appropriate the sum of about $2.3 billion from the Consolidated Account for the Public Service of this state for the year ended 30 June 2009. It is to be applied during the period until the Appropriation Bill is passed, and I certainly look forward to the debate on the Appropriation Bill. I will not canvass the number of issues that will arise in the context of the bill when the government's current budget will be torn apart. It is already falling apart under the weight of informed criticism.

I think there are a number of issues that are particularly disappointing. One is the fact that, despite significantly increased revenues flowing from the GST and from higher taxes and charges imposed upon the South Australian community, this government, despite its rhetoric, is failing to invest in a number of significant areas, particularly in the area of the provision of services to the courts. It is all very well for the government to say that over the next four years money will be applied to reopen two courts in Sturt Street and that judges will be appointed to replace those who are retiring, but the fact is that the delays in our courts are still unacceptably long. The fact is that this government ought to be spending money refurbishing facilities in the existing courts.

The Chief Justice and his fellow judges had the temerity to suggest that the old Supreme Court building in Victoria Square—in which the judges have their chambers and the court staff work—requires significant new investment to bring it up to date! The building is actually a disgrace. The facilities are not only for the judges and their staff but also for the public, and they are disgracefully inadequate. When the Chief Justice and the judges raised their concerns, what did they get from this government—a sympathetic response? No, they got a mouthful of abuse, namely: 'We are not going to fund some new Taj Mahal.' It was as though the judges were seeking the investment of significant funds for their own comfort and for no benefit to the community—a Taj Mahal!

Members of the judiciary well know the sort of abuse you get when you express a view which is inconsistent with that of this particular government. The Deputy Chief Magistrate, Dr Cannon, has this week aired a view that some might agree with and some might not, but what did he get in response? He got a mouthful of personal abuse and denigration from the Attorney-General. He might say that the Deputy Chief Magistrate is one judicial officer. The Chief Justice is, of course, a far more elevated officer, but he gets exactly the same thing: he is told that he is after a Taj Mahal. It is a deplorable state of affairs, and it is actually disgraceful. The Premier and his government ought to be ashamed.

What we do see this government always going for is the big announcement to endeavour to get the political heat off itself. I think a perfect example is the Adelaide Entertainment Centre. The Adelaide Entertainment Centre is a popular facility, which has been running quite well. In fact, in recent times—and certainly in the past year—it has been doing very well. It is a good facility. It has 900 car parks and holds about 250 wedding events—and other like events—in addition to the 60 or so major concerts held there every year. The government has been steadily flogging off the land around that facility, most recently to the Kerry Stokes-owned Channel 7, of the strategic site on the very corner of Port Road, thereby diminishing the car-parking facilities.

So, what does the government do in relation to a facility of this kind? It announces that it is going to spend $50 million on the Adelaide Entertainment Centre. A lot of people would think that that is quite a good idea, that it will be money well spent but, when you look at the economic justification for expenditure of that kind and look at the figures, you will notice that the situation is entirely different. If you look at the Auditor-General's Report for last year, he states:

The Corporation reported a net loss for each of the past three years. This reflects the impact of depreciation expense upon the Entertainment Centre building.

The viability of the centre is being diminished by reason of heavy depreciation charges on the building. So, what do you do? You spend $50 million to improve it. What does that do? It, of course, increases immensely the depreciation charge, the very lead in the saddles of this organisation. The $50 million will result in what are called 'major facility enhancements': construction of a small live entertainment venue, expansion of patron services around the existing building, and the development also of a Port Road drop-off and pick-up point.

These things, no doubt, are intended to increase the usage of that facility, including the daytime usage, and will thereby reduce the available car-parking spaces available. On the other hand, the government is saying, 'We are going to extend the tramline from North Terrace to the Adelaide Entertainment Centre because people can't park there and this will be a good way for people to get there.' Indeed, during the daytime it will be used as a 'park and drop' facility, so that people can park their cars at this particular place.

So, at the one time we are spending a vast amount of money to extend the tram track to a facility, and the car-parking facility to make the 'park and drop' system work is being reduced. This is populism at its best. There has been no planning study. We heard Mr Rod Hook on the radio this morning saying that this tramline will be going down Port Road and across the bridge by the police barracks. A four-lane bridge which carries the highest volume of traffic in South Australia every day will now have a tramline on it as well, thereby further increasing congestion in that area.

You have a facility that we are spending $50 million on to create more opportunities, to have more people there on more days, and you are actually diminishing the car-parking area and it will not be used as a 'park and drop' facility. There does not seem to be any rational planning behind this decision other than the desire to extend a tramline that the government regards as iconic and to appeal to popular opinion: opinion which, unfortunately, will not be well informed on the cost benefit analysis, if indeed any cost benefit analysis has been done, and if indeed there has been any business case of the Adelaide Entertainment Centre to indicate that an additional $50 million of expenditure would be a wise investment of public funds.

We see the Adelaide Entertainment Centre advertising in a prominent position in last weekend's Advertiser about its wedding and reception facilities. One might say that is great, but many private investors in South Australia are running wedding reception venues. They are not getting the benefit of a $50 million handout to have their premises updated. They are competing against a massive government enterprise. They are not getting these sorts of breaks. They are not getting tramlines running to their front door to enable them to compete effectively against this government behemoth.

This government in so many ways shows that it has lost its way. Its priorities are not about solving the problems of the community but, rather, about solving the political problems of the Rann government by endeavouring to show that it has some sort of vision and plan for the future when, clearly, it does not. They are ad hoc announcements for an immediate headline.

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

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