HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 July 2008. Page 3712.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:23): Given the hour of the afternoon and the fact that there will be a number of speakers on this, I will try to restrain my comments on the number of missed opportunities in this budget and, indeed, it reflects many opportunities, we would argue. Here in question time, on a daily basis, we receive retorts from the bright lights on the back bench such as, 'Well, what did you do?' Having been a ministerial adviser for the former Liberal government, in the areas of disability and ageing portfolios in particular, I know that the amount of funding was always incredibly tight.

So, when one looks at the achievements of this government they are very few and far between. Indeed, I note that in the previous financial year the Conservation Council's headline was, 'No news is bad news, say conservationists'. In response to this budget it has said, 'Environment budget: trains win, species lose'. In particular, it has pointed to the issues of peak oil and the fact that this government opposed the motion of the Hon. Sandra Kanck to put that to a select committee. It has also accused the government of not doing its fair share to reduce South Australia's carbon footprint. It does applaud the investment in public transport; however, when one looks forward into the budget papers one wonders when those promises will be delivered. My colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens has coined the phrase, 'Believe it when you see it,' in relation to this government, and I think that aptly describes how we feel.

I return to the Conservation Council's media release. It reads:

'However, climate change is also a tremendous threat to South Australia's unique plant and animal life, and so we are alarmed to see the Department for Environment and Heritage's funding cut yet again, this time by over $18 million. CCSA has serious concerns that vital NatureLinks and Marine Parks programs simply won't be able to be delivered adequately and that threatened species, both terrestrial and marine, will be pushed to extinction.'

It goes on to say:

The government's approach to water security has also been criticised by the Conservation Council:

'While we've seen the fast-tracking of the desalination plant for Port Stanvac…what should have been the state's first-resort measure for water security has been all but ignored. Harvesting all that stormwater that currently goes out to sea barely rated a mention, despite CSIRO studies showing that we can use wetlands and aquifers to purify and store potable water at half the cost of desalinated water. Instead of prioritising this solution, a meagre $3 million has been set aside for floodplain mapping, management plans and priority stormwater infrastructure works.'

Those are the comments of one of the peak bodies for the environment in this state, clearly disappointed at the contribution to the environment, and I echo of a number of the points it has made.

I believe this government has been incredibly lax in terms of planning for water security. Last year I was fortunate enough to attend a water trading mission in Israel, and a person from one of the interstate water utilities said that they have regular hook-ups with all water utilities around Australia, and they often remarked to one another that South Australia's response for so many years had been, 'Well, we're praying for rain.' Clearly, God has not been listening to the Rann Labor government because that has not come to fruition.

The Liberal Party has put out very clear policy points in relation to water security both in terms of desalination and stormwater harvesting, something in which this state leads the way—no thanks to this Rann Labor government but entirely thanks to local government, which has been leading the effort, whether at Salisbury or in a number of other initiatives around the state. Indeed, I challenged minister Maywald on investment (or lack thereof) in stormwater harvesting and she stated that it was a priority for local government, indicating that the state government did not need to invest in it. I think that is incredibly shortsighted. The technology is available and it has been demonstrated; and this government ought to be making more of an effort to enhance the efforts taking place that are being led by local government (which does not have the same level of financial flexibility to fund it).

There are four agencies in environment and conservation: DEH, EPA, DWLBC and Zero Waste. Again, and as we have seen in previous budgets, shared services is somehow supposed to deliver a huge windfall for Treasury of some $23 million or $24 million. Across all those agencies I think that is something like a 12.5 per cent funding reduction, and that is just scandalous. I sometimes say that everyone is 'green' these days, but I think people have to realise the importance of the environment—and in South Australia particularly, the importance of water and the need for water security.

In Budget Paper No. 3 we find some of the forward estimates in terms of savings targets—and this is in addition to what I have just referred to—whereby on page 2.31 DWLBC, DEH and the EPA are all expected to come up with substantial savings targets by 2011-12. The recurrent figure for DWLBC is $6.3 million over three years and, on a recurrent basis, that will be $3.8 million by 2011-12. Similarly—and referring to my question earlier today—the real reason behind DEH not providing funding for adjoining land-holders to assist with repairing fences is that it does not have the resources. Again, we already have an environment agency which is under-resourced and under a great deal of pressure. Over the next three years to 2011-12, it is expected to come up with a total of $12.8 million, which in recurrent terms will amount to $7.7 million by 2011-12. Similarly, for the EPA, the figure is $1.9 million over three years which, on a recurrent basis, will be $1.1 million by 2011-12. Clearly, the environment is not a high priority for this government.

I refer to some of the programs within those various agencies. Clearly in this budget there was some funding that was directed towards water security matters. We believe on this side of the chamber that, had the Labor states along with their federal counterpart been able to agree to a deal that would secure some funding for the River Murray, that would have greatly enhanced what this state might be doing at a local level. Indeed, one of the key pieces from the previous budget last year was the announcement of the expansion of Mount Bold, and yet that has all but disappeared.

In relation to some of the other programs, it seems that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Coast and marine conservation will receive an increase from the 2008-09 budget compared to the previous estimate of $5 million, which presumably is to implement some of the new marine parks legislation, but that comes at the expense of areas such as visitor management, fire management and public land stewardship, which is probably the farmers' fences. We do try to tease these things out in estimates, but the answers are usually unsatisfactory (as they are generally during question time), so why those areas have been slashed is, I think, highly questionable.

The important area of environment and radiation protection within the EPA is also receiving a funding cut, as is environment protection generally, so clearly the environment is not a high priority. This government engages in a number of tokenistic press releases and the odd initiative, but it does not go to the heart of the areas that need to be managed correctly for the environment.

I also make a special mention of the No Species Loss program, which has had a very moderate increase of 0.4 per cent in spite of the rhetoric that we hear from this government and the federal government about their commitment to climate change. Clearly, one of the areas where we need to be mitigating the impacts of climate change is in restoring habitat for threatened species, yet they do not receive very much in this budget at all.

I will refer to a couple of areas where the government has put in substantial amounts of money. One of those, of course, is the $5.5 million for the new EPA building. Given that a number of other areas, particularly within the EPA, will receive cuts, I think it is scandalous that, for the sake of the EPA's being able to say, 'We are green and friendly because we have this lovely building with lots of pot plants', somehow Mike Rann can sleep better at night. The other area is $500,000 for a plastic bag ban public education program. The Liberal Party has publicly announced that it does not support the plastic bag ban and believes that money should be redirected into real environmental measures rather than being tokenistic in its approach to the environment.

While on the matter of the environment stream, there has been no indication from the government that it has a firm plan in relation to other parts of the waste stream such as car tyres, electronic waste or compact fluorescent light bulbs. Instead, it seeks to ban a product which, apart from when it is flapping about in our seas, is a fairly harmless substance compared to a number of those areas.

In the mental health budget, of course, there is nothing new for the non-government sector. There is some funding for government offices for the community mental health team so, again, the government is investing in bricks and mortar rather than people. There has been some funding allocated to the James Nash rebuild but that, again, is behind target: $1.1 million was allocated in the previous budget and only $320,000 of that has been spent. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital aged care and mental health rebuild is again behind target, with $3.8 million being allocated in the previous budget, none of which has been spent.

Then we have the most significant part of the mental health system, which is the Glenside campus, being funded through asset sales. We have only been advised of $10 million or $11 million that has been allocated in this current budget, and I ask this government where its priorities are when it is able to find $100 million for entertainment centres and so forth, yet it will not proceed with the rebuild of the Glenside Hospital site unless significant property is sold, not only on the Glenside site but also the Drug & Alcohol Services sites. One property is at Warinilla at Norwood, one is at Joslin and one is in North Adelaide, and they are all being sold to fund the new hospital rebuild. This is something which I asked Monsignor Cappo about in a select committee recently and he did not have an answer for that.

I think that most of the rhetoric around the Glenside redevelopment has been just that. There has been absolutely no substance in whatever publication one receives from the government about the consultation and so forth, and the community is, rightly, very angry. I think it is quite insulting, too, that when these issues are raised in this place the government tries to insinuate that somehow the local community is opposed to the redevelopment because it looks down on people with mental illness. If one reads a number of the letters that have been written to the editor, and so forth, that is clearly not the case. People firmly believe that open space is important for the rehabilitation of people who have mental illness.

While on that issue of rehabilitation, the psychiatrist community is very concerned that there will not be any provision for long-term rehabilitation beds within the revised range of services available, and these people are a particularly difficult client group to care for because some need several months in a facility where their medication can be monitored, or changed if necessary, and they can often be treatment resistant and can exhibit complex behaviours. If there is nowhere for these people to go, I ask the government where they will go. I suspect we will see them cycle in and out of acute hospital wards or placed inappropriately in backpacker accommodation.

Similarly, in the area of substance abuse there is no new funding for the non-government sector. As it is, most of those little agencies survive on minimal funds and receive minimal indexation from the government, which barely allows them to keep pace; in fact, it does not, and there is a high job insecurity in the non-government sector, particularly in the drug and alcohol sector and also in mental health. It is hard to keep staff and hard for those organisations to continue to provide services when the government will not update them now beyond financial years. We had the ludicrous situation in last year's budget where they had six or 10 days before the end of the financial year before they knew whether they would continue to receive funding. I suggest to the government that some of the ministers should go and try that sort of job security and see how they like it.

I question also the efficacy of the government's measures in terms of smoking rates, because there has been no change in the target for those rates. It remains static at 22.7 per cent for 15 to 29-year olds, and that reflects a number of other targets as well which have not been met. We have this new interesting language in relation to State Strategic Plan targets, with a rating from 0 to 4 and, if ever there were weasel words, it is words such as 'on track', 'to be met', and so on. We know already that the government has revised its statistics in relation to the appointment of women to boards and committees. That was interestingly revised down a couple of years ago and, according to the latest information, the government is not on track to meet its own targets.

This is again a budget that delivers little. It has a great deal of tokenism and, with the headline statement in terms of this year's golden egg—transport—being so far off into the future, I repeat the words of my colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens: believe it when you see it.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:44): I rise to indicate my support for the second reading of this bill. In the 2008-09 budget the government indicated an increase of $36 million in land tax receipts from private owners. Land tax receipts for 2007-08 were reported to be $223 million, with an expectation to increase by 37.5 per cent to $306 million in 2008-09. Land tax is paid on rental, commercial and industrial properties and vacant land. These increases will compound the current rental crisis as investors will be left with little choice but to pass them on to their tenants or sell their properties.

A report in the Sunday Mail of 27 July claimed that Adelaide's rental accommodation market is the tightest in Australia, and this issue of increasing land tax receipts will further exacerbate the situation.

It is not only residential properties that will be affected by land tax increases but the community will also experience an increase in the price of goods as a result of increases in land tax liabilities of commercial and industrial property owners. The increase in land tax on vacant allotments and development of subdivisions will impact severely on housing affordability, as developers will also have no alternative but to pass on these taxes to purchasers by way of additional costs.

On the issue of public land tax, liabilities have increased by $25 million from $155 million in 2007-08 to $179 million in 2008-09. Ultimately, these increases will be paid for by the South Australian community through an increase in government charges. Furthermore, as the South Australian Land Management Corporation is subject to land tax as well, this will have the effect of increasing land prices in South Australia.

Whilst the above increases could be portrayed as dramatic, I believe the government's estimates are fairly conservative as they are based on an underestimated increase in valuations compared to that which the Valuer-General reported on 29 May 2008. The government estimated an increase of an average 14.5 per cent for residential land in the budget, whereas the Valuer-General reported an average increase of 16 per cent. Similar underestimations for the increase in land tax occurred for commercial and industrial properties.

An increase in land valuations has a further flow-on effect in respect of other levies and taxes. The government estimated an increase in capital value of 13.7 per cent for residential properties, 14.7 per cent for commercial properties and 17 per cent for industrial properties. As certain levies and taxes are based on the valuation of a property, an increase in the capital value will naturally see an increase in levy receipts. For example, whilst the government has not indicated it will increase the rate in the dollar for the emergency services levy, the amount of money collected from the emergency services levy will increase due to the increase in capital values. Indeed, property owners in the Alexandrina council face an alarming increase of 307 per cent for their natural resources management levy, which includes the impact of capital value increases.

On a brighter note, the government should be congratulated for reducing payroll tax from 5.25 per cent to 5 per cent, whilst concurrently increasing the threshold from $504,000 to $552,000 effective from 1 July 2008. I understand the government plans to further reduce payroll tax by 0.05 per cent down to 4.95 per cent and to increase the threshold to $600,000 from 1 July 2009.

I believe the government should also be applauded for increasing stamp duty exemptions for first-home buyers for properties up to $400,000. Whilst this will encourage more people to buy a property, it must be highlighted that recent reports have quoted the median house price in Adelaide to be $412,000, and for that reason I believe further consideration should be given to increasing the exemption further.

Over the past few years, the Treasurer has indicated that 'land value growth is projected to moderate in subsequent years'. However, given the Valuer-General's current valuations are conservative in nature, particularly in the inner metropolitan area, should property prices moderate in subsequent years, a rise in valuations is still likely to occur as a result of catch-up.

Finally, on the issue of gambling, the outlook for the next three financial years shows a steady increase in gambling taxes from $401.3 million in 2008-09 to $417.9 million in 2009-10, $439.7 million in 2010-11 and $464 million in 2011-12. These increases should be concerning to us all, especially given the paltry amount set aside by government per annum to fund the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund, which is equal to just $3.845 million. This amount, together with the voluntary contribution of $1.6 million from the gaming industry, is not directed entirely to providing assistance to problem gamblers but also to staffing expenses and associated administrative expenses of running the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund, which appears to be fairly extravagant on the face of it. I am advised that in excess of $400,000 is allocated towards salaries for 5.5 staff members, which equates to almost 10 per cent of the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund. With those few words, I support the second reading of the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:50): I rise today to briefly indicate my support for the passage of this bill. There is a great deal of truth to the adage that strong oppositions are vital for strong governance.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Hear, hear!

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Don't get too carried away. I know that the role of the opposition and the cross benches is to scrutinise and review and to hold the government of the day accountable. However, as I said last year, I become tired and frustrated listening to negative comment after negative comment from members in this place. As with any budget, this budget has omissions and a disappointing lack of funds allocated to certain areas—but that is part of the challenge of government. Indeed, there is much on which to commend the government in this budget.

I note that it was generally well received in the media as providing a solid framework for the future of state. The Editor of The Advertiser, Melvin Mansell, even stated in his editorial of 6 June that the Treasurer had 'delivered what is arguably the most positive and constructive state budget for a quarter of a century'. Yet if you believed everything you heard from the opposition after this budget was handed down, and indeed in this place last week, there was virtually nothing positive and constructive at all; we are now on another road to financial ruin and another disaster on the scale of the State Bank debacle is now almost inevitable.

Indeed, the global economic situation is quite frightening and unstable as a result of the sub prime situation in the United States, where we are still not sure what the long-term effect will be or even if that situation has yet reached its peak. I find dwelling on the past to be a generally unproductive pastime yet also an ever present reality in this place. It certainly comes from both sides, so I will even out the statement by saying that in question time, time after time in response to questions asked by the opposition, we hear from the government, 'Well, what did you do in your term' and 'It is all the fault of the previous government'. It is fair to say that that was more than six years ago; it is now time to move on and get on with the job and govern.

As I said in my reply to the Appropriation Bill last year, South Australians want solutions, not complaints. Sledging for the sake of sledging is tired. It is a tired way of playing politics and it is a tired way of responding to issues that are raised in this place. Of course, we must learn from our mistakes, but at the same time our eyes must be firmly set on the future. There is no doubt that many sectors that were crying out for upgrades after years of neglect have been targeted.

We all are aware that this budget provides for more than $10 billion to be spent on infrastructure, including a $2 billion injection into the state's public transport system—which was savaged in the media earlier this year and, at the time, rightly so. I congratulate the government for correctly prioritising major new rail projects as a vital issue. Together with water and health, spending on transport infrastructure is a direct result of increased pressure from the media, business leaders, the opposition, the wider community and the cross benches in this place. During the first half of this year they all were calling for improvements to transport and health, as well as a move to secure the future of Adelaide's water supply.

It is interesting to note that stormwater harvesting was a really hot issue back in 1994-95. Much of the same debate we are having here and now occurred then, except, of course, sides were changed. I hear no-one here talking about the situation that is occurring up river of the Condamine where they are not only harvesting rainwater but also draining water from the Condamine in huge amounts; and the same situation exists along the Goulbourn River in Victoria. That is what is strangling the Murray River.

Until both those states, Victoria and Queensland, get into some serious debate with this state government, it does not matter how much rain we get, because the Murray will not be revived. Certainly, that is not a consequence of this government's actions alone. This has happened well over a decade; so, both sides of government have some responsibility for the fact that we did water deals way back when and we are now suffering the consequences of those deals.

This is certainly a big-spending budget and, indeed, the government has made no attempt to hide that fact. On the contrary, the massive investment in public transport in particular will significantly increase state debt from about $82 million to $1.9 billion by 2012, and it will be some time before these services are delivered.

However, vision and a lot of money is required to provide infrastructure for 10 years down the track. Tramlines are being extended, the rail network will be electrified and 80 new buses and 58 converted electric trains will be bought. These are all initiatives which I fully support. With this in mind, I feel compelled to comment on what I feel was a pathetic instance of political game playing by the opposition following the handing down of this budget. All year we have heard about the desperate need to upgrade our state's infrastructure. The media certainly did not need any encouragement, but it seemed that the Liberals were prepared to go to any lengths, not matter how embarrassing, to ensure that the issue remained in the public spotlight.

For example, members would no doubt recall a shadow minister from the other place crammed awkwardly between two scantily-clad models at a media conference to highlight our overcrowded and unreliable public transport system. I also note that tax reform—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I'm sure you did. I am sure you had to draw a lottery. I also note that tax reform has been a key issue for the opposition this year and has called for payroll tax cuts to help South Australian businesses become more competitive. The Rann government should be able to afford it, we kept hearing, due to receiving such huge tax windfalls courtesy of a sustained economic boom and the GST. This may be true, but when the government provides payroll tax cuts and infrastructure spending as two of its key features, the budget is branded by the Leader of the Opposition as 'the most irresponsible set of decisions since the State Bank collapse', while simultaneously crowing that the Liberals had set the agenda.

So, they were terrible ideas but they were also his ideas. Certainly, that is a strange logic; and to the Leader of the Opposition I say, 'You certainly cannot have it both ways.' I congratulate the Treasurer for keeping his word and maintaining a budget surplus. In The Advertiser of Tuesday 3 June, the Treasurer stated:

I believe that in the current economic and financial times, the credit squeeze and massively increased petrol pricing, we need to keep the budget strongly in surplus.

This budget contains a huge surplus of $160 million, which the government expects to grow over the next four years to $424 million in 2011-12. Large surpluses over the past few years have enabled the government to provide significant infrastructure investment in this budget in vital areas, such as our public transport system, schools and hospitals. That said, there are a number of areas on which I would like to concentrate. As I said, there are a number of sectors where there is scope for a great deal of improvement. I will start with child protection.

I know that you cannot do everything all at once, and I fully appreciate that. However, I am always concerned to learn that bureaucracies which do not work or which are demonstrating chronic shortcomings in their performance of statutory functions are putting out their hand for more resources and more staff when history shows us that the more they receive the less effective they become and the greater the abuse of power and waste of public resources. I would like to make the point that to improve the performance of a department does not always require resourcing: it sometimes requires focusing on where those resources are going.

Over the past two years since I have been in this place, I know that Families SA has had a very difficult job to do. For the life of me, I would not ever want to work in child protection and make the life and death decisions required of that department. It is always a case of 'damned if they do and damned if they don't'. If the department does not remove a child and that child dies or experiences harm, it is demonised for that. If it does remove a child and it is unwarranted, it is demonised for that. However, there are systemic problems. Those problems seem to come from not having effective policy and procedures in place, adequate training to ensure that staff are working within their competency levels, effective case management and supervision or effective reporting to ensure accountability.

Mr President, I speak from experience on this because, as you know, as CEO of a non-government organisation that deals with another very difficult target group, where the demand is high, you learn to work within the resources you are given. However, the focus must be on providing a well-rounded and effective service. There are shortcomings within this department (as I know is the case with others), but we cannot continually blame a lack of resources for poor performance.

I would suggest that perhaps the new minister for Families SA considers some sort of assessment and evaluation of the competency level of social workers who are given the great burden of having to make assessments about whether or not to remove children. It should be a priority for this government to ensure that we have experienced people doing very difficult work, which requires a level of communication and conflict resolution skills.

I will give an example of where things could have gone terribly wrong for a family in Whyalla on the weekend. It just so happens that I knew the mother, who was about to have her three children removed. She rang me at 5.30, with police and social workers at her door ready to take her three children away from her. A tier 3 notification in five hours very quickly escalated to a tier 1 imminent danger removal of those children, with no evidence to back up a mandatory report.

At the beginning of this incident, it would have been easy for the social worker involved to make some very simple inquiries, as I did when I arrived in Whyalla on Friday morning. I spoke with and received a statement from a GP who has been looking after the baby ever since that child was born some three months ago. The baby has gained weight, and every week is in the right weight and length percentile for her age and birth weight, and the mother was observed by the doctor as being a very competent and attentive mother. Over that period of five hours, from the original visit from the social worker to the removal of those children, the only thing that lacked was conflict resolution.

I met with the social workers and family members for four hours, and they agreed that the situation had escalated far further than it should have done. From all the reports that we have received through the inquiry, and also through people coming to me, it seems that there is a blueprint: if a parent asserts their right to seek medical advice (which this mother did), rather than have social workers, with no medical background at all, come into their home to make an assessment of a child, as soon as those parents assert their right, it seems that the department goes into damage control, and it is almost like a storm-trooper exercise. I have heard the story many times.

I know that people may think that I am a little more sympathetic towards the families involved in this than I am towards the workers, but I am not. I know when a system is lacking and ineffective, and I can identify when employees are doing a job that is well above their level of competency and training.

The fact is that social workers within this department are not trained according to their policy and procedures manual. When the senior social workers I was dealing with on Friday in Whyalla were challenged as to the policy and procedure they should be following, they literally did not know. Evidence has been given that, when there is a policy or procedure change, the only training or notification that social workers receive is via a memo.

In any human service delivery process, it is essential that workers who are dealing with traumatised and distressed people receive the training in their policy and procedures to learn how to effect the best possible result and not put families through trauma or leave children in highly suspicious circumstances.

I compare the situation in Whyalla at the weekend to the family of 12 in Elizabeth Grove. The department moved heaven and earth to keep that mother together with her 12 children regardless of the filth that they were living in and regardless of the fact that young children were wandering around that neighbourhood in a nappy and singlet at 11 o'clock at night in the freezing cold. It just does not line up. It shows that one office acts one way and another office acts another way and policy and procedure have little to do with it. As you would all gather, child protection is a passion of mine because I believe we should be doing everything that we can to avoid a recurrence of having to make an apology as we did in relation to the Mullighan inquiry and children in state care. Prevention is usually better than cure.

Of course, the other issue close to my heart is drugs. I hope that over time this government will see the need to equally fund treatment and rehab centres along with harm minimisation initiatives. I know that it seems that I disapprove of harm minimisation initiatives such as needle and syringe programs; I do not. I believe that needle and syringe programs have now become a necessity; however, their administration and the way they are operated is questionable. All I ask is that the Treasurer maybe shift his focus a little and see drugs as a more sexy issue so that we can start to get on top of that particular problem.

On another note, I have to question the wisdom of the government's new concessions to home buyers. Under these concessions more than 9,000 first home buyers will be eligible for a new $4,000 first home bonus grant, replacing the existing stamp duty concession scheme. I understand that we have a housing crisis in South Australia, and I understand that affordable housing and making it possible for people to get into their own home must be a priority of the government. However, while this might sound great at first, I see it as pouring petrol on a fire that is already out of control.

Although it has been recently reported that the market is slowing down, with prices even falling in some areas, I see this as the first sign of long overdue correction. The problem is that Australian real estate is the most expensive in the world when adjusted to median household incomes, yet we keep throwing money at people to help them buy a house, which inevitably just bumps up prices further, and they struggle to meet the mortgage payments. To me, on top of increasing interest rates and spiralling inflation, that is a recipe for disaster.

However, the government has made an attempt to help first home buyers a little more. I just hope that we do not suffer the same consequences as we have seen in the United States with the repossession of homes because people cannot keep up with repayments. Many other areas of controversy, such as health and water, have already been addressed by other members, so I will not go into them again. However, in closing I will say that despite my concerns, which I hope the government will address, I believe that, overall, this budget provides a reasonable framework for the future of this state.


[Sitting suspended from 18:09 to 19:50]


The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (19:50): I want to put on the record my appreciation to all my colleagues in this chamber for allowing some flexibility so that I could bring together my contribution to the appropriation debate and my maiden speech in the Legislative Council. There is quite a lot that I want to say, but there is plenty of time to do so in the future. Given that it has been a long session for Legislative Councillors (unlike members of the House of Assembly) I will try to bring out my key points tonight and follow through with the rest in due course.

First and foremost, and most importantly, I want to acknowledge the fantastic work of the Hon. Andrew Evans. I watched with interest the Hon. Andrew Evans before he came to parliament, when he was out and about in the south and other areas of the state, but particularly in the south. One could see that here was a gentleman who had an absolute passion and commitment for his state and his values and who was prepared to do more than most people would ever do, by helping to develop a party that could make a real difference in this state. Whilst it is still young in its development, Andrew Evans can hold his head high. Very few people, I might add, anywhere in the world start up a party that ultimately ends up with members of parliament in the state or the country in which it started, and so I congratulate Andrew on achieving that. It will be very difficult to get anywhere near what Andrew Evans has achieved in this council but, together with the Hon. Dennis Hood, I will certainly be giving it my best effort.

I want to place on the public record my appreciation of Lorraine, Andrew Evans' wife. The bottom line is that, when you are here in the parliament, at home is somebody else who is backing you up, and the people concerned are often forgotten about. However, without that support at home and out in the community and the electorate, the job is pretty difficult. Lorraine has been a fantastic supporter of Andrew Evans.

As I said, great achievements have already been made. A lot of opportunities are out there, along with a lot of windows of opportunity, and, together with the Hon. Dennis Hood, I look forward to working with the community to ensure that we give them the best opportunity to open those windows. I first met the Hon. Dennis Hood before he was elected to the Legislative Council when he was out on the campaign trail. I have watched a lot of people come in and go out of the parliament and, given that he had only Andrew and the Legislative Council staff to support him, the Hon. Dennis Hood is to be commended for his achievements and the way he has grown in stature and knowledge in this council in just two short years. I understand that Andrew Evans hand picked Dennis to run for Family First in the last state election, and it was an excellent choice.

I have had a history in the Liberal Party, and I want to say that I have appreciated the opportunities that the Liberal Party gave me during those years as a member of the House of Assembly and as a minister and shadow minister for some of that time. After due consideration, it was clear to me that the party I really belonged to and wanted to put my energies and efforts into in the future was Family First. I want to put on the public record here tonight that I will look at every piece of legislation and policy that is put up by the government, as well as every piece of alternative legislation and policy put up by the opposition, without fear or favour. It will be assessed on merit and merit only because that is what the South Australian community wants: members of parliament who are not locked into a party line, and that is one thing I am certainly enjoying in Family First.

We have five or six core values, core values I have always strongly supported. This parliament, and the Westminster system, is based on a Christian foundation. I am proud of that, and I am focused on those five values. I look forward to broadening the whole of the Family First Party in every respect as Dennis and I work with colleagues here and with the broader South Australian community to ensure that we continue to make this state a better and safer place in which to work and live.

I found that you were always compromising in the major parties and, whether it be in the party room, the cabinet or a subcommittee of cabinet, there was compromise after compromise. However, in a watchdog party such as Family First, you do not compromise the South Australian community for power or in order to try to get power, as happens with the majors. That is one thing I certainly will not miss.

I acknowledge my wife and my three children, Mandy, Amy, Nick and Elissa. It was fantastic that they worked with me for 13 years in a marginal seat, where I was never home and might have had only one night out of seven on the farm I love. I want to touch on agriculture in a little while, as I think it needs a greater focus by government in South Australia to ensure that we have a good, strong economy in the future.

Given this opportunity, I put the suggestion to my family, and they were right behind me. They realised that I still had a lot of passion for South Australia, which I had looked forward to delivering prior to losing my seat in the House of Assembly. In fact, Mandy and Nick, in particular, have taken on a further workload in our farming enterprise, and to take over its full management and a couple of staff at 20 years of age is a great effort on Nick's part. I wish him well and thank him for giving his father this opportunity.

I want to touch on the economy because a couple of things niggled me as I sat on the tractor and in the ute listening to radio talkback and hearing it a lot more clearly having left the parliament than I did when I was there. One thing I think needs correction is the AAA rating. The Treasurer has done an excellent job of branding the fact that he almost single-handedly achieved that rating for South Australia.

This has always annoyed me because a lot of hard work was done by a lot of people to get back the AAA rating. The Treasurer did have some positive input but, by and large, if you read the reports associated with the rating, the very hard yakka, and the pain that went with it, was done between 1993 and 2002.

Of course, the media have helped the Treasurer, because I read time and again where they have fallen for the three-card trick of acknowledging the current Treasurer (Hon. Kevin Foley) as getting back the AAA rating. However, if you read the record books, you will see that he had only a little bit to do with it—and I believe that is being reasonably generous.

In fact, I have to say that I am disappointed in most respects, but not all, in what I see as absolutely wasted opportunities over the past six years, in particular. When you are running a business, if you have great income and an opportunity to market your product, you can return a pretty good profit to that business. If you line that up with what has happened here in South Australia in the last few years, there should have been a great profit returned to the South Australian community because the taxation revenue has just been amazing. Home on the farm, I have watched, week in and week out, what we as a small family farm business are now paying per year in direct and indirect taxes, and I can tell you that it is hurting.

In fact, contrary to what the Treasurer says about this current budget, people out there are bleeding big time. There are a few doing very well, but most people now are finding the job very tough. I would have thought that a Treasurer and a cabinet who aligned themselves with the battlers would realise this and would ease the pressure off, not screw the pressure down harder on these families and communities.

You only have to have a look at the budget papers to see what is actually happening with revenue. The 2001-02 budget showed for 2002-03 revenue of $8.0270 billion, and if you have a look now, conservatively, you can see that this state actually has billions of dollars of additional income, more than was projected over that six-year period.

There is CPI, and there are other things that governments want to do but when you look at the many billions of dollars—and I will talk in specifics about how many in further debate because of the time tonight—let me say that there has been at least a $10 billion windfall over that period. One has to ask: what have we actually got for it?

As one example, I say to my colleagues: drive down the Victor Harbor Road and show me where any of that additional $10 billion windfall has delivered a safer and better road for Victor Harbor, other than a sign that tells us how many days have passed since the last serious accident. That sign stirs me immensely when I drive past it because I have been to fatal accidents on that road that occurred in front of our own farm. I drive past black posts every day, some of which represent accidents that I attended, and you never wipe them out of your mind.

I was longing for the day when I would see a proper infrastructure plan and real opportunities and dividends delivered back to South Australians so that we would be able to drive on safer roads, catch up on the backlog of road maintenance and see comprehensive statewide plans for improved public transport that would make a real difference getting cars off the road in regional and rural centres as well as in the city.

That is not happening. Yes, a lot of money is being pumped into a certain sector of the footprint, but most of the footprint of South Australia is receiving very little and I am not just talking about country areas. We see a situation now that really hurts me. I do not mind debt if that debt drives opportunities for the economy. I do not mind borrowing money at home if we buy more farmland, as long as I have done my homework and that will return a better investment, and we will meet our mortgage payments, build up our equity and increase our cash flow.

You do not mind that in business, and I do not think people mind it when governments do it, too, but the Treasurer himself has admitted that the AAA rating is right up the top now. The Treasurer has said publicly that there is probably no chance of borrowing any additional money, and I understand that, by 2010-11, we will see somewhere around $5.2 billion of core debt.

That does not take into account unfunded public sector superannuation, and unless we continue to address that seriously—and not drop it off budget by budget to throw some lollipops at parts of the electorate so that we can get re-elected—unless we are serious about getting rid of those shackles on the community, our children's and grandchildren's futures are bleak because we have to face climate change and other threats, as well, and we do not need the shackles of debt.

So, the unfunded public sector super debt is still very high and in my opinion is not coming down fast enough. We still have problems with debt with the Housing Trust and other organisations such as WorkCover that I will touch on in a while, and we are now seeing debt go up to $5.2 billion after it came down to a manageable figure of about $2 billion. What I would say on that is: forget the government of the day, because all governments do it (Liberal and Labor), although I have to say that, whilst the Labor Party has some commitments to the community that the Liberals do not have, the Liberals also have some, and I see economic management as still being one of the strengths of conservative government.

I would ask cabinet to table the plan and the background work to part of that $5.2 billion of core debt that it has acknowledged it is creating with the $2 billion for, particularly, the tramline extensions and the electrification. I would ask for that plan to be tabled, showing how it was developed, including all the homework that was done and how the plan would be seen as part of a bigger plan, as well as showing the net cost benefit analysis involved. I cannot recall the government telling anyone in the community before the last election that it would be putting the state further into debt and putting the AAA rating potentially at risk.

I think it is time, whoever is going to take government in the future, that if you are going to borrow big amounts of money you need to be up-front and tell the community at the election that you are going to do so. People should be told that you are going to put the state back into debt and given the reasons why, and then let them judge on merit. Otherwise, a massive debt is created over one or two terms of government, and someone else is then put in to clean up the mess, and where does that leave a state like South Australia?

As I said, I am not opposed to supporting and upgrading transport networks for the west: those people need it. What I am opposed to is knee-jerk ad hoc planning that does not cover a proper transport and full infrastructure plan, covering new build, rebuild and maintenance that is urgently required in this state. I will give an example in the south and north of Adelaide. After two bad headlines in the Sunday Mail for two weekends, the Land Management Corporation is announcing that it is going to release a heap of land in the southern suburbs, namely, Hackham, Seaford and Aldinga, etc.

I feel for the people who are buying those homes down there. Where is their public transport network? Where is their upgraded infrastructure for roads? Where are their job opportunities? What is happening to those subdivisions when it comes to addressing the issues of water supply (for a start) for them?

I am glad that the Leader of the Government is in the council tonight listening, and I appreciate and thank him for that. I am not saying that it is this particular minister's baby alone, but we cannot continue to pump out subdivision after subdivision and let those pipes run out into the gulf, when we have a drastic situation with the River Murray, which I will touch on in a short while.

Dual reticulation, sedimentation, retention ponding and recycled water are basic things. I had the privilege of studying that before coming into the parliament in 1993. I went over to Austin, Texas; I went to San Francisco; and I have seen it in Israel: I pushed for recycling, previously, and I am proud of the recycled water project for the Willunga Basin from the Christies Beach treatment plant. However, there is no proper plan to ensure that that is automatically provided when it comes to further greenfields site developments in the future.

Now, all of a sudden, most of the $2 billion is being pumped into one sector of the metropolitan area. I think the north and the south are going to be neglected and will not achieve better transport infrastructure, because the money simply will not be there for it to happen. I put on the record that, as a young person at the time, I can remember the third arterial road being promised three times to the south, and it was never delivered, and now people ridicule the Southern Expressway.

I will talk about social dividends to people because, first and foremost, it is about people and it is about community. That is why I am very proud to be a member of the Family First Party: our platform is focused on people, families and communities first. Power and control are irrelevant to us, because we are not aiming to hold or to win government. What we are aiming to do is grow the Family First Party so that we in the Legislative Council can ensure that there is a proper balance to stop the power and control initiatives from working against the best interests of South Australians. The thing that hurts me more than anything else is that at this time (at 51 years of age) I cannot remember a better economic period than the past 10 years.

My father and mother told me about the Playford era, the time when he was in government, and they told me about the benefits I was going to receive through infrastructure planning at that time through genuine affordable housing. Let us get the South Australian Housing Trust back to genuine, affordable housing for those people who really need it. That is what it was started for; that is what the Housing Trust was all about. I strongly believe that the majority of South Australian families and communities have missed out on a time when we should have been seeing a proper social dividend.

I include with that disability services, which is an interesting area. I have to admit—and I thank God that it did not affect any of Mandy's and my children—that I did not have a direct association with a family close to me who had a member with a disability until 1992, when I started doorknocking in Mawson. I could not believe then how many families directly or indirectly had a loved one with a disability; it is incredible how many people out there are directly or indirectly supporting a family member, a loved one, a neighbour or a friend with a disability. Yet carers are still telling me they are finding it incredibly hard, and finding it incredibly hard to get respite care. I could not believe it when I heard on the radio—and I think the CEO needs to explain to the new minister why the proposal was put up to the previous minister—that they planned to start charging people with disabilities a weekly fee for wheelchairs and the like. I mean, come on; we are not a Third World country!

I look forward to working with people in the disability services sector. I have a niece, of whom I am proud, who did a degree after having a child; finishing year 12 and then doing this degree, and working in the disability sector. I watched them come to her wedding, and they wanted to come to that wedding because they were so appreciative of her commitment to them. As members of parliament, in both this chamber and in the other place, we all need to focus and ensure we have a genuine commitment that delivers the services those people in the disability sector desperately need.

Of course, then there is aged care and pensioners. A lot of that is federal, but there are things we can do when it comes to aged care and pensioners, because they are finding it really tough at the moment. Food prices, fuel prices, budget CPIs in this state as against the increase in pension from the commonwealth; it is just not stacking up for them. In fact, I am talking to more and more families where the children are now having to support their mums and dads to maintain their homes. They are asset rich—there is plenty of value in their homes—but they are very cash-flow poor; they cannot even maintain their homes and have the right sort of food, and their children have to support them in their own homes.

Water is a major issue. As a farmer I have been fortunate, and I hope we continue to be fortunate at home in Mount Compass so that we can continue the irrigation we do; but it is not just over the last two years. Even in Mount Compass, when I look at the rainfall figures for more than 10 years now, I have not seen the rainfall that I saw when I was a young person on our farm. We have swamps and springs on our farm, and we are at the head of the Tookayerta Creek system. Until recently that was one of the last water systems in this state that was still suitable for water consumption; however, I do not see those springs running like they used to, nor as early as they used to.

I was at my father-in-law's farm at Pages Flat a few days ago in July, and at one of the main creeks feeding the Myponga Reservoir—a creek I could not get across with a tractor most of the time—probably 70 to 80 per cent of these massive culvert pipes had no water flowing through them. We have a major problem with water in this state. We know that we are the driest state in the driest continent in the world, but it is no good knowing that if we are not seriously focused on addressing water concerns and water issues.

Family First released a 15-point plan on water this week. That is just the start of policy and initiative that we will be continuing to develop. We will champion, in every way we can, opportunities to increase water supply in this state because, if South Australia does not have a guaranteed water supply, it does not have a future: it is as simple as that.

I declare my interest here in owning property on River Murray which I see when I visit at least every fortnight, and I have watched the river's degradation over recent years. I have worked on the River Murray and I was there in the good times in the '70s. When it flooded, we were rescuing sheep from little islands in the lagoons and putting them in a boat to move them up to higher ground. We rolled up all our fences and put them up 20 feet higher, among the trees, because the floodwaters were starting to come through. I have seen the River Murray at its greatest and I am seeing it nearly dead right now. I am very happy to meet with the Premier on this issue; in fact, I have written to him and I want to be multipartisan on this. However, the Premier, as the leader of our state, should realise that the No. 1 issue confronting this state is water and that everything else is secondary.

On a Saturday a few weeks ago the people at Milang discovered that the Prime Minister and the Premier were coming to visit. Even though all the media knew about it, no-one from Milang was advised about it. The Prime Minister was to arrive there at 8.30, I believe, on the Saturday morning, and 100 people found out about it the night before. They went out there with their kids and eventually caught up with the Prime Minister, who they thought was there to announce an urgent environmental flow for the River Murray, to stop the problems with the acid phosphorous soils occurring at the moment and the death of turtles. As a gentleman said today, a turtle dying in the River Murray and the lakes at the moment is equivalent to a canary dying underground in a mining development and, indeed, it is.

When the Prime Minister came down there he had no announcement to make on an environmental flow. In fact, I understand that the reason for his visit was the result of the COAG agreement for which Premier Brumby ought to be congratulated, having done such a good job for Victoria. He has stitched up the situation until 2019, no matter what happens, even if they do find the intestinal fortitude to bring in proper legislation and give this new authority teeth. That is what it needs, because if it is an authority in name only on a piece of paper, then rip it up, because it is worth nothing. Give them the teeth, let us show some leadership from the top, let us gain full control over that river, and let us address the problems caused by the mistakes that we have all been guilty of making.

You do not have a river if you do not have an environmental flow, so let us find out what the environmental flow for the river has to be: that has to be the base. Then let us do some work on how much water allocation you can assure people of having, so that they can properly manage their properties and, following that, in the good years you might be able to grow additional plantings. But at the moment I feel for the people in the Riverland and for those right along the river and around the lakes system.

I was privileged as a parliamentary secretary for the Hon. David Wotton (a man whom I admire greatly and who taught me so much in my early years in parliament) to go down with the Denver family and look at the property being developed under the Ramsar agreement. I have been to Kakadu and I have been to Kruger, and I can say that it is probably not going to be like it for much longer if something is not done, but I urge members to go down and have a look at the bottom end of the island. Get in a boat, as I did, and have a look at what is down there. It is magnificent, but it does not have long to go.

The Prime Minister went there to announce the launch of the green paper on emissions trading schemes and the like, and that went down like a lead balloon (pardon the pun). Sadly, I understand the Prime Minister went there because he wanted to use it as an example for climate change. I can tell members, having known that lake and river system for a long time now, that what we are seeing there at the moment has next to nothing to do with climate change. It has to do with two factors: one is an enormous over-allocation of water right through the Murray-Darling Basin; and the other is drought—successive years of drought, which happens in Australia all the time. Of course, it is happening more of late and, yes, it might be the start of climate change, but do not try to fool the people of the Lower Lakes.

I went to the Raukkan community with the Hon. Dennis Hood. I love the Raukkan community, and it is one of the best examples of our Aboriginal families living and developing opportunities for their community. They were without water for days. Finally, a decision has been made, and I commend the Premier and the Prime Minister for that engineering initiative.

The Fischers, as an example, had a magnificent dairy on the Narrung Peninsula. Go for a drive there now and you will see that there are two dairies left. Robert Champion de Crespigny downsized a lot but is still there, along with the Mason family, but that is about it. That dairy industry, had the water system been managed properly, could have been generating much economic opportunity.

Finally, I want to say this about water: I am absolutely amazed that the commonwealth government can come up with an emissions trading scheme that 67 per cent of us know nothing about and do not understand. We know we have a problem with climate change coming and a problem with CO2, but 67 per cent of us know virtually nothing about it at the moment, yet they can implement that scheme by 2010, in just two years. But we cannot get an environmental flow down the river and we cannot organise water allocation management before 2011. I shake my head, and I am very scared that, if that is the case, where are we going? Every South Australian should stand up and fight for what is right, and that is water.

I want to talk about sustainability, and I am firmly of the belief that if you are going to have a sustainable economy, particularly in agriculture, you have to have an environmental focus on it, and industry has started to do that. My own dairy industry has come a long way in the past five or six years—and PIRSA, for which the Hon. Paul Holloway was minister for a while, assisted very well, and things are improving in those areas. Farmers are becoming more focused on a balance between the environment and their economic requirements.

It has to be sustainable. Agriculture is sustainable. Mining is not sustainable. It is very easy for any government to ride on the back of mining, and I can remember what happened when Roxby Downs first started. I have been talking for a while already and I will not go through it right now but it is on the public record—the mirage in the desert, the book, the whole bit—and now you see the championing of Roxby Downs and the uranium mines.

It is easy for the government of the day. Liberal and Labor would both be guilty of this—do not do much, let the mining magnates get in there, and sell your soul to China and India. Yes, that has to happen to a certain extent—I am not silly. I support the fact that we have to capitalise on those opportunities, but let us have a sustainable dividend returned to Australia and South Australia as we sell that, because things rise and things fall.

Mining could be here for quite a while but, eventually, we are going to mine everything and it will be gone. It might be 10, 30 or 50 years. But areas such as agriculture, done properly, can be sustainable, and the first thing people need, before a roof over their head, even, is food. The world is getting hungrier, and Australian farmers (particularly South Australian farmers) are the best in the world at providing clean, green food, and let us not forget that, and let us support and invest properly when it comes to agriculture.

I want to talk about WorkCover, and this might come as a bit of a surprise, particularly to the Liberal Party. I shook my head when I heard what was happening with WorkCover. I was well aware of what was going on with WorkCover in the early 1990s and the unfunded liability was blowing out. By 2002 the unfunded liability had come back to between, from memory, $35 million or $40 million up to $70 million—in other words, it was manageable.

The last couple of years that I was in the House of Assembly, I heard questions to the then minister asking what he was going to do about the unfunded WorkCover liability that was blowing out. At that stage it went to $200 million. A few months later, in answer to another question, it was suggested that it was $300 million and then $400 million. A few years later, the Premier said publicly that it was $1 billion—a third of the State Bank debt in unfunded public sector liability.

I found it interesting that the minister was left on watch all the time that this was happening. I understand reports were not presented to parliament on time, if at all, during that period, yet the government left that minister on the watch. I suggest that, at best, the minister was asleep on the job. That minister then brought in legislation that will kick workers right where it hurts—not just workers, but also their families. That happened in the mid-1990s and workers lost out then, and we were in a bad state of affairs at the time. The economy was not booming, the tax revenue was not there and there was massive unfunded debt. So why, I ask this council, do workers have to suffer again?

I have been out with police on patrol. I attended a situation of domestic violence with them, and I will give an example, as it illustrates what can happen. A police officer goes to the back door, another goes to the front door; they have already seen the lady badly bashed; the guy, who is off his head, sees a police officer and myself at the front door and races to the kitchen. What does the police officer do? Either he backs off, calls for back up, risks that person injuring or killing themselves or, alternatively, bolts through the door and tries to ensure that that person does not get the carving knife from the kitchen, as clearly he was trying to do. When I was with that police officer, fortunately he got there just in time. Imagine that police officer having that carving knife ripped across his shoulder. I do not necessarily think that injury would be fixed in four or six months or even a year. I am not just talking about the physical injury but also the mental and psychiatric injury, yet this parliament, thanks to both the Labor government for implementing it and the Liberal Party for supporting it, has allowed that legislation to go through.

Why should any wife or husband say goodbye to their loved one in the morning, expecting them to come home at night safe from their job, only to find they have had an accident in the workplace and that their whole life is totally disrupted because of it? Injured people have come into my electorate office and, if the physical injury did not get to them, WorkCover certainly did. I have seen no reform with WorkCover in terms of its management, its board, or responsibility by the CEO. I have seen no reform in any of those areas. The only 'reform' I have seen is to kick the worker.

I am not happy when I see an increase month after month in our WorkCover account when it comes through. I do not like that, because my input costs are already too high running our farm business. Having said that—and I pray it never happens—if any of my workers get injured I want them looked after. That is not a bad request of WorkCover: to look after them until they return to work. The ridiculous argument that everyone is out there rorting is a furphy.

There is already legislation in place for the rorter and, in fact, I used it proudly when constituents would come to me and dob them in. There is a mechanism to put an inspector after them and they go after them pretty quickly. They did not rort any more because they were not on the WorkCover system. Do not blame the rorters for this. Most people get back to work fairly quickly because they actually enjoy going back to work. However, that small percentage who cannot return to work are broken and their families are broken—and I have seen it. They end up becoming addicted to alcohol and drugs (at times). They are homeless, the kids suffer and the government has to provide all this other backup support, both commonwealth and state. What has been done in this parliament is a joke, and if I get one chance and one chance only to try to turn some of that around, I will.

I put a final challenge to the government now and the Liberal Party as well, which is in bed with the government on this—and I know why: because they were intimidated, not by the government but by others. If members of the Liberal Party had used their brains—and I bet some of them in the party room would have been raising this—they would have said, 'This is the potential ripple effect to roll the Labor government.' Make no mistake about it, I knew when the former Liberal government was in trouble on certain issues. Monitor your phone, monitor your emails, monitor your faxes and monitor the people who knock on your door in a marginal seat and you know when you are in trouble.

The ripple effect could have built up to a tsunami. If the Libs had used their initiative and not got sucked in, it could have been steaming ahead in the polls now. However, do members know what will happen at the next election? It is good for the Labor Party—very clever. They will say, 'Don't blame us for WorkCover: the Liberals supported it.' It will let them off the hook, but the poor worker and their families are the worse off. I say that it is very disappointing and I use that word underestimating how damn disappointed I am.

I say to those families that, when you are injured and all these doctors start to freak you out and all these people interview you, and your wife says, 'You are home for the third month in a row and I am getting sick of you', and the guy says, 'I am going down the pub'; and the kids miss out, the food is not on the table and everything implodes, go and talk to the people who voted for these changes and challenge them. Because, make no mistake, this will destroy families. We do not stand for that in Family First. We stand for building families and communities, and I am very pleased to see that, along with other crossbench members, my colleague the Hon. Dennis Hood voted against those mad amendments.

I want to touch on the south. I have already talked about land divisions, but I now turn to the Southern Expressway. This is a message for all voters, whomever you vote for. Last year, there was an opportunity to duplicate the Southern Expressway—and the Hon. Patrick Conlon, a friendly colleague of mine old Patrick, attacks the Southern Expressway regularly. I had a bit to do with the Southern Expressway and I am proud of what was done, because it did give the south a decent piece of infrastructure, for a start. However, parallel to that, all these other things happened and the growth accelerated. Whilst the Southern Expressway as a reverse road was supposed to do the job until I think 2020 (projected), it is not doing the job anymore because of the growth and the things on which I have already touched tonight.

However, last year, then prime minister Howard made a commitment to duplicate the Southern Expressway. The now Prime Minister Rudd, who was in the box seat to win, anyway—and this is my message to voters—did not make that same commitment. The south has been all blue. The south is now all red. The south is one example, but this can apply to the north or anywhere else. I simply say to voters, if you want your own area's future infrastructure and opportunities to get on in this state, do not paint it all blue or all red, because you will be taken for granted.

I am disappointed that, last year, the sitting members of the Labor Party in the south did not lock in Prime Minister Rudd on duplicating the Southern Expressway. That could have created an innovative public transport system and continued the fabulous existing bike lanes which I see people using all the time and also developed a green corridor. They did not lock it in and, guess what, we will not see a duplication of that Southern Expressway in the next 20 or 30 years, I would suggest.

Finally, I want to refer to the railway system. We should not accept another plan or feasibility study for a railway system south—or anywhere else—because there is already a lot of documentation which is collecting dust. People who live in the south should demand proper public transport—and I will be there backing them up.

I mentioned agriculture being sustainable. It will only be sustainable if we are prepared to make career pathways for our young people into agriculture, like we are in mining and the trade skills areas. Trade skills is a great one. I encourage people to get into trade skills and I encourage them to get into agriculture, but we have to create better pathways, particularly for city people who could become some of the greatest farmers of all time. How do they engage in an agricultural career at present? The answer is with difficulty.

Let us become the food bowl. We started Food for the Future. Two members in this chamber have been involved in food plans which were going really well, but they are at risk at present. We should and can and must continue to be the food bowl. I am a bit cynical on this issue because I know how governments operate. I ask: why has the CSIRO had a budget restraint at a time when we need it more than ever before, when we have billions of dollars in surplus recurrent spending alone and virtually no debt with the commonwealth?

The CSIRO should be instructed to work harder on climate change, but at the same time it should not be losing other areas of research. Currently, the CSIRO is closing the Merbein research centre—which is a disgrace. I have not heard the primary industries minister in the other house talking about it at all. He should be kicking and screaming—so should the member for Chaffey. After several years of joint investment, it has now developed a magnificent seedless, easy to peel orange which is exported around the world. It is working on other research. That has now been canned.

Is the federal government saying it will not address the water problems in the River Murray, that it will be happy to import all our dried apricots from Turkey and that we will not be a food bowl? It must be; otherwise, why do away with research and development sectors for citrus and dried fruit?

I finish on country health. I fought for the McLaren Vale hospital with the local people for years. I knew what the hidden agenda of the health commission was, even if the ministers did not necessarily think it was the case. The agenda was to flick the McLaren Vale hospital and put all the services down to Noarlunga because the bean counters and senior management in the health commission thought they would get a better bang for their buck.

Surprise, surprise, after a lot of fighting by the community, the McLaren Vale hospital is still there. It gets $1.1 million a year from the public sector, from the health department, that underpins all the private work that goes on there, that underpins the food cooked and delivered by the Meals on Wheels volunteers and that underpins its investment in aged-care homes and its future plans for aged care.

Guess what? Some $3 million a year is spent in the McLaren Vale district because the hospital is there. People who have no better access these days than a gopher can see their loved ones in the hospital. There is not a decent transport system through McLaren Vale. It is better than it used to be—and I commend both this government and the previous government—but it needs to be better. How would a person get to Noarlunga if McLaren Vale hospital was not there? It would be with incredible difficulty.

That will be the same right around South Australia. Some of the incentives for GPs to work in the country will be funded only until 2010. Is that code for getting the Country Health Care Plan through and then we will not be responsible for doctors or we will not need as many doctors because the hospitals will be closed?

I intend to fight with everything I have got to support our rural and regional people. I commend the government for committing to build better regional hospitals (yes, that is needed, and not just for country people, because it will take the pressure off the city as well, which the government forgot to mention), but do not pull the services out of the existing hospitals. I will give members an example. I know a bit about this because previously I was a volunteer, as well as a former emergency services minister. If a coach and a B-double have a significant accident between Lameroo and Tailem Bend, or between Keith and Tailem Bend, golden minutes count.

When people attend to assess that situation, our great medivac with our highly-trained paramedics and our specialist doctors and nurses will get there, they will get some patients back to the helipad and they will be given as good an opportunity in this state as they would get anywhere in the world, but then you have to assess all the patients. You cannot send them all to Murray Bridge because Tailem Bend is basically history and Lameroo is history. You cannot do that, because not enough beds will be there for a start. Who will take them in the ambulances? So, yes, make Murray Bridge a better hospital (I agree with that) so that the second assessment cases go to Murray Bridge and not to Adelaide.

However, the others who need to be dealt with for shock, and that, but who could go into a cardiac arrest, etc., should be able to go to Tailem Bend or Lameroo. I notice that the minister said that he intends to employ 17 more paid ambulance people in the country. That is a drop in the bucket. Do not underestimate how difficult it will be to have volunteers in the ambulance service if you put this pressure on them. I will be watching the issue of police with interest. I love the portfolio. I am disappointed that the Premier has taken the police portfolio away from this house. I would have loved to have been able to ask questions straight to the former police minister, who was respected, I might add, by police, from the Commissioner right through the ranks. I believe he did an honourable job.

The challenge will be whether the Hon. Michael Wright can do half as good a job as the Hon. Paul Holloway. I am very concerned about police numbers on the beat. 'Tough on crime' is a good call for the media, but we need a holistic approach back into the justice system, and I will talk a lot about that in the future. Illicit drugs is something Family First is passionate about combating.

The final point I want to make is about the Legislative Council and reform. When you are a minister you do not always like the Legislative Council, and when you are a government you do not always like the Legislative Council, because the Legislative Council can stop crazy initiatives, policies and laws coming into place.

You do not want that when you are in government—you want to be free and easy. I have been sitting back and watching what has been happening in this state in the last couple of years, and the last thing the South Australian community needs is more dictatorship, more arrogance and more power and control by a select handful of people in a government. What we need is more democracy. We will not get it in the House of Assembly. I sat in there the other day and I could not believe my eyes when I saw the number of government members as against opposition members. It hit me with a stark reality. We will get democracy only in the Legislative Council.

As I said at the beginning and as I say as I finish now: sitting on that tractor listening to the radio made me realise how important democracy is and how important this Legislative Council is. If the Premier wants to try to dumb down or abolish the Legislative Council, we will have a very good debate. I look forward to that debate both in this council and publicly. If the Premier is serious about rationalisation of the parliamentary system, he should open his eyes to the green house as well, because I reckon there is a fair bit of fat there that he could trim, and then have a look at government and governance.

I will talk more about that in the future, but I encourage the Premier to stick by the commitment he has made in the media that he wants a referendum on the abolition or dumbing down of the Legislative Council.

I very much look forward to the debate, and I will be doing the biggest road show I possibly can with my colleague, the Hon. Dennis Hood, right around South Australia to let people know why this government wants to get rid of the Legislative Council. I thank my colleagues for listening to me for the past hour. I especially thank you, Mr President, and I look forward, with lots of energy and passion, to working with the Hon. Dennis Hood to grow Family First in the interests of looking after the watchdog capacity for the people of South Australia and putting people before power and control.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The Hon. S.G. WADE (20:45): I congratulate the Hon. Robert Brokenshire on his maiden speech. I wish him all the best in the years ahead. Appropriation is an opportunity for this council to take stock and for the parliament to consider and reflect on the government's priorities. The budget shows what the government considers as important and what it considers as unimportant. Estimates gives the opposition, in particular, the opportunity to explore both the performance of the year past and the plans for the year ahead. Given the limited time, I will focus on my areas of portfolio responsibility—although, having heard an hour-long speech, I am quite attracted to one, so I might have a go myself. We will see.

When we look at the emergency services budget we need to remember that emergency services is not solely a budget item. The portfolio has a dedicated funding stream in the form of the emergency services levy, no thanks to the Labor Party. The Labor Party vigorously opposed the emergency services levy in opposition but now enjoys the benefits of the funding flow. I note that, in this year's budget, the emergency services levy on fixed property is experiencing a nominal growth of 9.1 per cent when other taxes and levies are increasing by 3.5 per cent.

One of the elements that concerns me and other South Australians interested in emergency services is the government's increasing focus on SAFECOM as the peak body with respect to emergency services. The government has allowed SAFECOM to grow in size and influence. Since 2005-06, the SAFECOM bureaucracy has increased by 18 per cent, in terms of FTEs, while the operational agencies have averaged 7 per cent over the same period. It has allowed the head of SAFECOM to be called a Commissioner for Fire and Emergencies, which suggests an operational role.

Under this government, there has been a shift from volunteer to professional and from operational to bureaucratic sources of advice. In May, my colleague the Hon. Caroline Schaefer highlighted the case of the SES volunteer on the Volunteer Marine Rescue Council in South Australia who was removed and replaced by a paid staff member who had no marine rescue qualifications. The government needs to realise that respect for volunteers is shown by engagement with the volunteers and not by media releases, certificates or speeches.

In relation to the MFS, shortly before the budget, the opposition welcomed the government's backflip on Beulah Park. The council will remember that the government had proposed to build a fire station but was not willing to fund a fire crew.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: For those who are speaking other languages, it is known as 'Beleulah Park'. This budget, I am glad to say, does fund this backflip, but the government needs to appreciate that we do not just need staff at Beulah Park (or Beleulah Park); our firefighters also need to be properly trained. I am concerned to see that, in the previous financial year, only nine core skills programs were delivered to MFS staff, compared with 16 in 2006-07. In my discussions with our firefighting professionals, it has been made very clear to me that a properly trained staff will dramatically increase the effectiveness of the firefighting service.

In relation to the Country Fire Service, the opposition welcomes the $15.9 million over four years to enable a type 1 firefighting helicopter to be based in South Australia. After all, we have been calling for an air crane or similar since 2006. Our sadness is that it took a Coroner's report to have the government come through with this commitment. I also thought that the government showed a distinct lack of humility in that neither the budget nor the Premier's media release mentioned the federal government funding, which was absolutely crucial. The Howard Liberal government was the first federal government to provide significant funds for emergency services, in terms of aerial firefighting. It was that funding which made an air crane possible for South Australia.

I notice that in the budget the CFS has dropped the 2007-08 performance indicator of households participating in community fire safe preparedness activities that develop formal bushfire plans. That is particularly surprising given the statements of the government. Last year's budget showed an outcome of 85 per cent, yet the government made great play earlier this year that a CFS survey showed that only 13 per cent of households have action plans. That survey was used by the Premier to vigorously attack the public's bushfire readiness.

It may well be appropriate for the government to remind people to be bushfire ready, but I think it was rather galling considering the Premier's attack was made a matter of weeks after the Kangaroo Island bushfire, when the government itself had significant responsibility in terms of a lack of implementation of its own bushfire preparedness plans through the Department for Environment and Heritage. It was somewhat hypocritical for the Premier to try to turn the heat onto the public when the government itself was not delivering on its responsibilities.

I have already highlighted to the council my concerns about the lack of support for the State Emergency Service. Basically, funding for that service over the past four years has been static. For example, the 2008-09 financial year net cost of services is $10.9 million, which is 4 per cent lower than the $11.4 million allocation in 2005-06, which is now four financial years ago. Over the same period, government spending on SAFECOM has increased by 30 per cent to $14.3 million.

The cut to the SES has been deeper when you appreciate that the SES has been taking on a significantly higher workload. The budget papers indicate that, in terms of total operational hours, the SES workload has doubled over the past three years. The government needs to respond to risk, and when it does so I believe it will increase support to the SES. The opposition looks forward to the progress in the emergency services act review. We believe it will be a major test for the government, particularly in relation to the position that SAFECOM holds. We believe that it is important to invest in operational services, not in bureaucracy.

I now move to the area of correctional services. I think one of the great shames of this Labor government is its failure to manage our prison populations. The Treasurer has made it clear why he is not supporting effective management. He has made it clear that to save the money he is happy to rack, pack and stack South Australians in prison. In the end, is not a matter of whether you are being tough on crime or soft on crime; it is a matter of management.

Whether prisoner numbers are going up or down, government needs to plan its places to match supply and demand, and this government is simply not managing. According to the Productivity Commission, South Australia is at 22 per cent overcrowding. The Australian average is 4 per cent, and the next highest behind South Australia is Western Australia, which is only 7 per cent overcrowded. This government's record is shameful.

As a knee-jerk response, the government announced in this budget a $35 million increase for an additional 209 beds for South Australia, but that is a four-year program. At the current rate of increase, it is only a quarter of the additional prisoner numbers expected to occur over that four-year period. Given that a third of the operating funds are scheduled in the fourth financial year, I am still interested to see whether, in fact, some of this money is funding in advance for the new prison.

In this term of government, that is, since 2005-06, the prison population has increased by 24 per cent, spending has increased by 22 per cent, but staffing has increased by only 11 per cent. Clearly, staff are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden of the increased prison placements. This investment is a clear demonstration of the failure of the government to plan properly for growth in prisoner numbers and to invest accordingly.

In question time today, I brought to the council's attention some of the facts in relation to the government's failure in planning. It is 12 months since the opposition asked very simple questions in relation to prisoner number forecasts. These are the sorts of forecasts that any government should be undertaking before it embarks on significant capital investment, yet the government's failure to respond to that question and the government's failure in question time today to give any attempt at an answer indicates that the government is not planning effectively. The budget papers themselves show that prisoner numbers were forecast to increase by 64 places in 2007-08; in fact, they increased by 169. Clearly, even within months of delivering the services, the government is not effectively projecting the prisoner numbers and is failing to manage efficiently.

This overcrowding is already having an impact on prison services. Since 2005-06, the proportion of prisoners with work—that is, duty assignments—has fallen by 20 per cent, from 85 per cent to 65 per cent. Only 43 per cent of education programs were completed by prisoners enrolled in them, and education and rehabilitation deliverables are stable or falling, in spite of a 24 per cent increase in the prison population.

The opposition believes that the government should be doing a lot better in managing our prison places to try to address the offending behaviours of prisoners so that, when they are released, they will represent a lessened risk to the South Australian community. The government's failure to manage prisons is increasing the risks to all South Australians.

In relation to disability services, I acknowledge the interest shown by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, and I look forward to working with him to promote the interests of South Australians with disabilities. I point out to him, and to other members of the council, that this budget has no new money for disability services: all the new investment is from the commonwealth.

The government claims that it has matched new recurrent commonwealth funding, but that has been done only by counting the funding it announced in last year's budget, in spite of the fact that the new CSTDA agreement was only concluded on 30 May 2008 and commences on 1 January 2009. I know that people with a disability regard this as tricky accounting by the government, and it means that people with a disability are missing out on services they desperately need.

In addition, the government has got into the habit of making a song and dance about funding for disability equipment and, in particular, making recurring claims that it will clear the waiting lists. This is the third time since 2004 that the government has allocated money to 'clear the waiting lists'. This is clearly an example of recurrent expenditure that is being reannounced year after year, rather than its being built into the budgeting.

Equipment is not a luxury people can enjoy every few years: it is an ongoing necessity, and people with a disability need to have their equipment supplied and maintained on an ongoing basis. To have it regarded as some sort of charitable gift in one-off payments is offensive to people with a disability, and it is very inappropriate.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire mentioned the hire fiasco earlier this year, when minister Weatherill backflipped within a day of announcing disability equipment hire fees. My concern is that, having done this backflip, the government is showing gross insensitivity by introducing other changes to the equipment scheme without consultation.

People with a disability are being deprived of the opportunity to choose their service provider in terms of reforms to disability equipment. For many of us, it may not matter who services our car or provides a repair to our property, but wheelchairs, calipers, walking frames and so forth are often very intimate pieces of equipment for people with a disability, and they want to be able to trust the person they deal with, as often it involves in-home visits.

I understand that the majority of equipment repairs are done in the home, so we are actually asking vulnerable people to let a service provider into their home. I think it is extremely unreasonable to take that right away without consultation. I believe the government needs to think again about the changes it is introducing to the provision of disability equipment.

I note that, at the end of last year, the government indicated its openness to individualised funding. It prefers to call it self-managed funding, but the point is that people with a disability would have greater power over purchases made on their behalf. I am extremely concerned to see the budget provides no funding for what was anticipated to be a pilot of self-managed funding in this financial year. I notice that the government's objectives for the coming year use words that seem to be referring to self-managed funding but dare not use the phrase. To me, that gives weight to the rumours that are persistent in the disability sector that the bureaucracy is increasingly winning the war in terms of putting doubts in the mind of the government as to whether self-managed funding is feasible.

It is timely, as this council is considering this budget, that we are within a week of having had a reshuffle in the Rann government that has impacted on disability services. I note the comment of the respected leader of the disability sector, David Holst, in relation to the former minister, the Hon. Jay Weatherill. He described Mr Weatherill as a man of compassion, intelligence and work ethic. Having worked with minister Weatherill myself, when I was Chair of Julia Farr Services, I did indeed find him to be a decent and honourable man to work with.

However, in the end, people with disabilities need more than compassion, intelligence and work ethic. They need ministers to be effective. What Mr Holst highlights in his article, without actually directing it at minister Weatherill, is actually how ineffective minister Weatherill was. He says what a poisoned chalice he had, having to go around the state defending the indefensible, which is the state government's appalling funding for people with a disability. However, it was the Hon. Jay Weatherill's responsibility to highlight to his cabinet colleagues how crucial that funding was and, in that regard, he failed.

Also, I hold the Hon. Jay Weatherill responsible for the creation of Disability SA. That reform was not collaborative. I believe that it was pursued particularly by his agents in an extremely aggressive and inappropriate way. I believe that the community sector was swindled out of millions of dollars of community assets, and it is a reform that is failing to deliver. Mr David Holst, in his article, states:

Disability SA sits today on the edge of a dangerous management abyss, with the restructuring leaving no one in the senior ranks with a high level of experience. It's like having a hospital system run by plumbers.

I think that is a damning indictment of this government and of the former minister.

Mr Holst's article stimulated a parent to write to The Advertiser this morning, and I would like to read that letter. It states:

Holst's article is clear and definitive. Disability SA is grossly under-funded to do the task before it. Restructuring has not resolved many of the previous issues despite the minister's best efforts. As the carer-parent of a daughter with severe and multiple disabilities, and highly specialised care needs as a result of multiple trauma from a motor vehicle accident, I must disagree with some of Ms Gale's statements concerning Disability SA's performance since restructuring.

The access to services provided to us by Disability SA has not improved from what it was before restructuring. I refer to customer service, training and equipment services. We have been waiting for occupational therapy services for five years. An urgent referral to repair or remake a now unusable hand splint, lodged in February, has yet to be implemented. This has disadvantaged the recipient in that this hand is used as her only means of communication and the hand is deteriorating in function.

Upgrading of workplace skills (and our home is the workplace) has been slow and at times non-existent. We have gaps in service provision and shifts are often not filled with trained care workers or even not filled at all. Good communication is paramount to a good service. Often there is no communication in a timely manner about changes to service provision, often leaving the family with full responsibility of care unexpectedly.

My experience is that that is far from an uncommon story. I hear constantly from people with a disability and those who care for them that Disability SA, even after two years of operation, is failing to improve services to people with a disability.

I turn now to the area of road safety. Recently the government released an action plan where it reiterated the four-pronged approach to road safety—safer speeds, safer vehicles, safer drivers, safer roads. Yet between strategy statements, the government's focus is far from balanced. The government focuses far too much, in my view, on blaming the drivers. You hear little from this government in relation to the other factors and they have more control over some of those factors, in particular I highlight the issue of safe, quality roads. Safe, quality roads are vital to road safety in South Australia.

Again, I commend the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for his comments about the Victor Harbor Road. What better example could there be of a road where the failure to invest in road infrastructure is costing the lives of South Australians? The South Australian Road Safety Strategy itself—a government document—estimates that 48 per cent of future road safety improvements will come from improved road conditions. Yet this government prefers to ignore this fact and take the cheaper route of more speed cameras and increased penalties.

The government's own road safety action plan released this month highlights the importance of shoulder sealing and overtaking lanes. According to the action plan, shoulder sealing can reduce crash risk by up to 40 per cent, yet this government has cut funding to the overtaking lanes program from $7.4 million in 2007-08 to a pittance of only $1 million in 2008-09. This is shameful. Is the government suggesting that no more overtaking lanes are needed in South Australia? The RAA estimates that South Australia has a road maintenance backlog of approximately $200 million. This also remains unaddressed with the government committing only $23.7 million for road surfacing and rehabilitation.

I turn now to the Legislative Council and, again, I find myself concurring with the comments of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. I think he put it aptly when he referred to the honourable Premier's trying to dumb down the Legislative Council. Let me give you some examples of that. Firstly, in relation to the portfolio allocations, he showed that he had a lack of confidence in his Legislative Council team by taking away police and giving small business, taking away emergency services and giving gambling, taking away environment and conservation, mental health and substance abuse, and giving a fruit salad of other portfolios.

The clear strategy from the government is to try to reduce the relevance of this council, particularly in question time and in the eyes of the media, by making it increasingly difficult for members of this council to ask topical questions. We will be continuing to honour this council by working aggressively to maintain the relevance of question time. We will be creative, and I look forward to the support of the cross benches in that goal.

Secondly, I believe the way the government is handling question time is a deliberate attempt to undermine this council. Government ministers go out of their way to avoid answering a question—for example, as did the Hon. Carmel Zollo in today's question time. As soon as she hears a keyword, she tells us that we have asked that question over and again. The fact that the word might have been common to five different questions—for example, the word 'prison'—does not mean the question has been asked five times before.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: Come on!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In fact, the Hon. Carmel Zollo wants to go on the record. She said, 'Come on!' as though she was a cricketer chanting from the hill. But the point of the matter is that I have never asked the minister on forward projections in this council. I have asked it on questions on notice. I have been waiting for a year. The minister has graciously indicated that the response is coming but, after a year, you would think that you would be able to generate it in less than a year—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The minister is out of order.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —considering that the government should have had those projections in hand well and truly before they started a half a billion dollar investment in prison infrastructure. So, that is the second example. The government is trying to dumb down this council. That is a very good phrase used by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, and I must keep using it. They are trying to dumb down this Legislative Council to lay a foundation for abolition. We will not tolerate it.

The third example is resourcing. We had an event in the last financial year when the House of Assembly-based Treasurer tried to reduce the allowances available to MLCs—allowances that are vital for us to do our duty.

We will continue to make sure that we fulfil our duties to the people of South Australia, including receiving appropriate resources to do so. Fourthly, I believe that the government is trying to undermine the council by undermining the legislative review function. I pay tribute to my Legislative Council colleagues, particularly the crossbench MPs, because I think there are a number of examples recently where it is only through the crossbench MPs supporting the opposition that together we have been able to ensure that we do our duty in terms of legislative review.

The bills that come to mind are the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Bill and the WorkCover bill. We had the petulant displays of the Attorney-General in another place in terms of what was or was not the government's priority for the week. In relation to the victims of crime bill, I particularly pay tribute to the sponsor of that bill, the Hon. Mr Darley. He insisted that the best bill was worth waiting for and was not willing to be bullied by this government, and I know that he is continuing to develop legislative proposals that the opposition will look forward to.

I make those points as examples of this government trying to dumb down the Legislative Council and trying to, if you like, prepare it for burial. I can assure you that, to quote one of my favourite films, 'We ain't dead yet.' I will be joining Robert Brokenshire and other members of this council to ensure that the Rann government fails in its attempt not only to abolish the Legislative Council but to dumb it down and make it irrelevant.

Honourable members: Hear, hear!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: In the year ahead, the Liberal opposition will be holding the government accountable for this budget, for its commitments and for everything that we do for the true welfare of the people of South Australia.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (21:11): I will be, I hope, mercifully brief, but there are a number of issues that I would like to raise with regard to the performance or lack of performance of this government. As many members have heard me say before, if I am going to speak about the good things that this government has done for regional and rural South Australia it will take me very little time at all.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Name one.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: Well, I cannot actually name one, as my colleague interjects. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of anything that this government has done in six years that has actually been good for regional and rural South Australia. The government neutered and slashed the budget of the department of primary industries, as it was then, and particularly that which remains of it: the agriculture section. It began by taking the natural resources management section and putting it in the Department for Environment and Heritage so that from then on it was very difficult to compare apples with apples with regard to funding.

It has gradually chipped away at that department until it is nothing but a skeleton of that which it should be. The most recent closure/slashing that I have heard is the closure again of a number of regional offices that work in rural solutions. I am not sure exactly where those regional offices are, but I know that one is at Streaky Bay. So, we have a government that will close the hospital at Streaky Bay and the agriculture department office at Streaky Bay, just for a start.

Food SA, of course, is no longer a separate entity. It has been subsumed under the auspices of Mr Don Plowman who does an excellent job given that he has about half the staff and about three times the duties of the previous head of that section.

The most recent and most astounding evidence that I have had of this government's attitude towards agriculture was a quote yesterday from the Leader of the Government in this place, a former minister for agriculture who said on radio:

Look at Olympic Dam: that's $100 billion or thereabouts. The entire agricultural industry wouldn't produce that in a hundred years.

I would have thought that that just about sums up the attitude of this government to rural and regional South Australia and to agriculture in particular. Roughly, year in, year out, agriculture—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: Not only has the minister the temerity to abuse agriculture on radio, but he now defends himself by saying how wonderful the mining industry will be for South Australia. Of course the mining industry will be wonderful for South Australia and of course it will provide royalties, which hopefully will get some roads—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: He waxes lyrical about how good it is. But you cannot eat iron ore, you cannot eat uranium and you cannot eat any of the other minerals that are going to be mined in rural and regional South Australia. Of course, we support mining and the development of mining in South Australia, but not at the demise, and the peril, of agriculture to this state.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: You did. I will quote again from an interview with Deb Tribe of ABC Radio yesterday where the minister said:

Look at Olympic Dam, that's $100 billion, or thereabouts, that the entire agricultural industry wouldn't produce in 100 years.

I would have thought that give or take the odd drought—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: —the agricultural industry would produce that in somewhere between 10 and 15 years. That, I think, summarises the attitude of this government to agriculture in this state, particularly when it comes from a previous minister for agriculture.

Members in this place have heard me speak at length about the Country Health Care Plan, or the plan to destroy country health, of this government, and they have heard me speak at length about the demise that will come from that, not just of health in the country but of the economy and, therefore, the social environment of regional South Australia.

I was, therefore, very pleased to hear the Hon. Mr Brokenshire say that he has a focus on country health, because his party did not support the retention of country hospital boards when it supported the government's health bill, and nor did anyone else on the crossbenches. We were left alone, just as country South Australia has been left alone now. Hopefully, many of my crossbench colleagues have had their road to Damascus and will support us into the future. Similarly, I was very pleased to see the Hon. Sandra Kanck at the rally on Saturday, because she too did not support us when we desperately needed that support.

As I have said, I do not propose to continue speaking about the Country Health Care Plan, or the plan to fail, the plan to let down country areas, because today I heard a number of new issues to do with country health and the funding thereof, including that the number of cars for outreach services such as palliative care in homes, in particular at Roxby Downs, which is the area I have been quoted, but I believe it is statewide, has been cut by something like 30 per cent. So, not only do we not have hospitals, we now do not have the outreach services to service those people who do not have hospitals. Why are we not hearing—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: And now the leader interjects: 'Do you know how much that costs?' So, country lives are not as important. Country lives do not matter.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: The minister interjects: 'Do we know how many millions of dollars extra have gone into country health?' Well, yes I do; it is in the vicinity of $300 million extra in their six years.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: No; it is widely acknowledged by health professionals, even government health professionals, that the CPI for health is 9 per cent. In rough figures that means it is $600 million below what it should be if it had kept up with health CPI. So the minister should not interject unless he knows what he is talking about.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: I got that at a public meeting, acknowledged by the health professional who was there. People may wonder why we have not heard from health professionals themselves or from the staff of country hospitals. Let me say that they have all been silenced; they have been sent an email saying that they may not comment—even the maintenance man at one of the hospitals, who came to me and said, 'I will be at the public meeting but I may not speak and I may not ask a question. Even as the maintenance man I am not allowed to comment.' That is how transparent this government is!

Another issue I raise concerns the supply of goods to the health department and, because I think it is so important, I will read almost all of a letter I received by email from one of the suppliers just this week. The letter reads:

We were informed late yesterday by one of our national distributors that they have had a request to supply the newly formed Health Supply Department. As you would know the health department purchased the old defunct, loss-making Supply SA business and stock in early July this year, and our understanding then was to supply the major public hospitals in Adelaide, ie RAH and Queen Elizabeth.

Our supplier informed us that the Health Supply Department had requested to purchase products from them in container lots, the supplier apologised to us for the loss of trade that this transaction with the Health Supply Department will have on our business, as we supply a large number of hospitals across the state. He explained that his information was based on ALL hospitals being given an instruction, or about to be given, to purchase a minimum of 80 per cent of all their requirements through this new department.

So much for free trade in South Australia. The letter went on:

This whole operation raises a whole raft of questions as well as problems associated with the setup and operation of such a facility. The original Supply SA was a loss-making operation for years, losing I believe up to $3 million per year until shut down by the government progressively from December 2007. How does the health department expect this operation to fare any better than the old Supply SA? Supply SA had competition from a large range of businesses across the state [that] sold to the hospitals in direct competition with Supply SA, and one of the reasons for Supply SA's demise was competition and customer service.

The questions I have for you are:

Who gave approval for the health department to spend $Ms of public funds to purchase a loss-making business, costing hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to operate, and set up a commercial sales enterprise in direct competition with private enterprise?

How does the health department expect to turn a defunct, loss-making business (Supply SA) of approximately $3 million a year into a profitable operation?

What budgets have been prepared and vetted to prove the viability of the operation?

How many years of loss-making (taxpayers' funds) are budgeted for?

What skills do the operators have to make it a success or is this just another state government fiasco—State Bank style?

What does the edict to ALL hospitals breach in regard to restrictive trade practices?

The sheer volume and quantity of products ordered from the supplier raises questions about who this department is eventually going to supply.

Is the state government introducing a form of communism, whereby they will control the quantity, availability and price of all products?

Why has sorely needed funds been taken out of a so-called cash-strapped health department to purchase and set up this anti competition operation, when the funds could be better spent on our hospitals in the country, nurses, doctors, police, teachers, etc?

Why have all the hospitals been given an edict that they will purchase a minimum of 80 per cent of all purchases from the health supply department and remove all competition from the supply system?

What is this government attempting to do, not only shut down country hospitals, but also small business that supply these regional facilities, the effect is not hard to imagine.

Reduced business sales, reduced business income, loss of employment opportunities, people moving from country, rural towns, no qualified people left to staff hospitals.

That sums up the attitude of this government. Not only do we have a Country Health Care Plan that plans to fail and sorts out who will fail first and in what order, but we now have an edict that the government will control the supply and purchase of all goods for those hospitals, and we have a restriction on the number of vehicles that may be used to service those few people who are now able to remain in country South Australia.

I have not touched on the River Murray, nor the demise of the River Murray and the people who live and make their living along it but, again, I plead with this government to do something. Where is the budget that shows us what this government will do to save the River Murray? What it has done is signed an agreement which lets Victoria off the hook until 2019 and which provides Victoria with an additional $1 billion over and above the original allocation for this so-called agreement, and it has replaced it with nothing.

Recently someone described this government to me as 'the mirror government'. When I asked why it was the mirror government, they said, 'Because it's been looking into things for the last six, nearly seven years and has not produced anything.' I think that sums up my frustration with a government that is so city-centric that it does not mind what happens outside the CBD.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (21:27): I make a few observations regarding this bill and I will relate some of the things that I have seen as a reasonably long time country person, given that the community that I originally come from is supposedly one of the winners in this Country Health Care Plan—if you can call it that. I left the community of Whyalla 10 years ago. When I was a young man growing up in that community, our hospital was well staffed and well serviced, and you could just about get any procedure done in that hospital. In fact, I never felt remotely disadvantaged by the fact that I lived in, at that time, the second biggest community in South Australia, if I had a problem.

I point out from the outset, my wife nursed in that hospital for a long time. I have the utmost respect for the people who work there. The level of care that I had when I was unfortunate enough to be in hospital was sensational, but the services were constantly taken away, and it was done by stealth. I still have a very good friend who now is a surgeon in Adelaide. He is a fantastic surgeon. He was removing gallbladders via keyhole surgery when most people in Australia were still making a rather large incision, and the rehab time was dramatically different. I would meet with him on a social basis quite regularly and he said, 'Terry, they just really don't want me here.' Initially, I thought he was perhaps a bit of a whinger.

However, it became quite obvious that he did not fit in the long-term plan for the Whyalla and District Hospital. He constantly had his operating time reduced. We had a good operating theatre, good facilities and top nurses—all the things that meant that we could get the best service in that district for his area of specialty—but I think they cut him back to two hours a week operating time. I have heard it said before by a number of my colleagues that you do not have to cut a sheep's throat to kill it. You can put it in a paddock and not feed and water it, and it dies. Well, this is what happens: if you do not fit in the long-term plan for the area, they are not silly enough to say, 'We don't want you any more.' They just make it impossible for you to practise in that particular facility.

It became ridiculous. When I lived in Whyalla 10 years ago, and well before that for a long time, if you had private health insurance you could get your operation done in Adelaide. People would travel to Adelaide because they could get operating time in a hospital but you could not get it done at home, and we had all the facilities. And it was not that they were being utilised: there were so-called budgetary constraints. I could never understand it. We paid handsomely for the privilege of having surgery, but the hospital constantly contracted the amount of operating time.

One of the things that has frustrated me is that a number of members of this government have constantly accused members of the Liberal Party of being the people who are creating hysteria in the country community by attacking the Country Health Care Plan. Sir, I know that you are a country man yourself. Can I say that you underestimate the intellect of country people at your peril. A lot of those people are in agricultural pursuits. We have heard the Hon. Rob Brokenshire talking about sitting on his tractor and doing what he needed to do but keeping up to date with current affairs by listening to the radio. Most members would acknowledge that often people say, 'Did you hear this?' or 'Did you hear that?' Usually the answer is no, because we are in meetings, in the parliament, and doing many different things. Country people, in their pursuits, stay up to date with things that are current.

This government, by stealth, removed the community health boards thinking that you will not have a point to go to if you are concerned about your local country hospital. I have attended meetings with regard to country health. They have not been driven by the Liberal Party or members of the Liberal Party. I drove about a 1,400 kilometre round trip to attend a country health meeting at Tumby Bay. I was politely informed by the mayor when I got there (because I introduced myself, out of courtesy) that I would not be invited to speak because this was not a political rally—and I was quite happy to listen to the man's request because it was quite reasonable.

Liz Penfold, the member for Flinders, was there, and she also was not offered the opportunity to speak. They did not need us to speak, and they did not want us to speak. I sat in the audience and listened to country people, who have a good understanding of the services that their hospital provides to them and the comfort it affords them, really. In a place such as Tumby Bay you have a lot of people who are, I guess, a little more senior. They have chosen to live in that beautiful part of South Australia because it has a great little hospital and it is a great community.

I wandered along, after arriving in Tumby Bay, and I thought I would have a look in the local store, because I had no idea how many people would attend this meeting. I did not see a notice in the window of one of the major supermarkets and I was a bit sceptical as to how many people would turn up. Well, the soldiers memorial hall was packed. There were many people who were very respectful and listened to the gentleman, whose name I think is Mr John Southern, who is a representative of the regional health commission of Lower Eyre Peninsula. He is a highly respected fellow who is well liked by members of the community: there was no doubt about that.

I really felt for the fellow because he was defending the indefensible. When you have a panel of country doctors and people from the Australian Nursing Federation, who are very sceptical about the Country Health Care Plan, health professionals who work in the area, and people who use the services, they are all very well aware that, if you have a general practitioner who likes to practice his skills and they are taken away, he will not stay. If you have a young person who has just graduated and wants to head out into the country, he will not go to a place where he cannot practice or develop skills, so you get a marvellous situation where the government can say, 'Look, we would really like to provide you with the service, but we cannot get anyone to go there, so we will have to scale down.' This is what is happening and the community can see it is going to happen.

If government members think this is a sinister Liberal plot to undermine the government, I assure them that we did not come up with this plan and are not driving the opposition to it: country communities are driving the opposition to it. Underestimate them at their peril. They are informed and intelligent and are driving resistance because they know that, if you lose services, you do not get them back. I respectfully put those comments on the record in regard to country health.

With regard to infrastructure, blow-outs and delays, I will mention a couple of things that are indefensible. The Northern Expressway project was originally budgeted to cost around $300 million; it jumped to $564 million; and its latest cost is $1.55 billion and will not be completed until 2017. The disruption and blowout in this project is quite amazing. The Port River road and rail bridges were originally budgeted to cost about $130 million, to be completed in 2005-06, and the latest cost estimate is $175 million. If you are running a business yourself and having those sort of run-overs, you would not be able to continue to trade. The South Road/Anzac Highway underpass was originally budgeted at $65 million, and the latest cost estimate is $118 million. I am half laughing because, if you do not laugh, you cry. This is serious stuff. The tramline extension was originally budgeted at $21 million and it ended up costing $31 million, which is quite unbelievable.

In talking about infrastructure, I refer to the desalination plant. The Hons Caroline Schaefer and Rob Brokenshire, along with all members, understand the importance of water. I visited the Western Australian desal plant two years ago. It took 18 months from whoa to go, to have it up and running and producing. This government has denied the fact that we need one. We were told that we were idiots to suggest it in the first instance, but then suddenly it became a good idea and therefore it was their idea and not our idea. However, that does not really matter.

The time it will take to build the desal plant is staggering. I have been to the one in Western Australia and seen it work. It works beautifully, and it took 18 months from start to finish to construct. There is no sense of urgency with it. The reason it has taken so long is that we will pay for it in increased water rates before we build it. When they tell us what a wonderful job they have done managing our finances and taxes, they have increased our taxes by way of water rates to pay for the desalination plant before we get it. We are paying cash up-front for the damn thing!

We had a tax summit recently in the Liberal Party, well attended by very strong business people throughout South Australia. Labor's first budget in 2002-03 broke a key election promise by introducing new taxes and charges and increased existing taxes and charges, including the introduction of the gaming machine super tax, the Save the River Murray levy and increases in stamp duty on conveyances and regulated fees and charges.

This budget shows that the Hon. Mr Rann and the Hon. Mr Foley will collect $4.7 billion more in revenue in 2008-09 than did the former Liberal government in its last year of 2001-02. So far, a total of $13.3 billion extra. I ask: where is this? The 2008-09 budget did not alter the stamp duty regime for non-first home buyers. The median house price in metropolitan Adelaide is more than $350,000 and the South Australian average is approximately $320,000. Presently, only 13 per cent of home buyers in South Australia are first-home buyers, the lowest proportion of all states.

The 2008-09 budget did not alter the land tax regime at all. Land tax revenues increased by a massive 29 per cent in 2008-09 and 247 per cent since 2001-02. What do we have to show for it? From 2001-02 to 2007-08, payroll tax revenue will increase by at least 48 per cent. Motor vehicle tax revenue will increase by 6.3 per cent in 2008-09; compulsory third party premiums will increase by 7.2 per cent in 2008-09. Other charges, for instance, driver's licences, speeding fines and registrations have increased by up to 4 per cent. I ask: what have they done with the money?

My portfolio and passion is sport, grassroot sport—things that are imperative to get young people to be active, with massive long-term ramifications. The issue of childhood obesity can be tackled with organised sport. There is very little in the budget—and it has been echoed by a number of industry leaders in the sporting area—for grass root sport. I have made statements to the media in the past few months. It concerns me that organised sport for junior people could soon become the privilege of the well-to-do. Well-to-do families will be able to afford sporting fees and will be able to get their children to organised sport.

I have a very basic background and I come from an industrial city. One of the great thrills and privileges as a child was to be able to participate in organised sport. As a parent, it is one of those few things that I think is reasonably sensible. If you can keep your children active and busy and wear them out, and teach them some team disciplines and a bit of self-discipline, they have half a chance of being reasonably successful as they go through life. It is becoming incredibly obvious to me that it is almost impossible for people on very low incomes to give their children the most basic lessons in life through organised sport because they cannot afford it. Whether that be through a federal government rebate scheme for very low income earners to refund the cost of their children's organised sport, I am not sure, but given that, when the Howard government left office, it had a surplus of $20 billion, do not tell me that some of that money spent in the short term would not have dramatic long-term effects.

Kim Wheatley's article in The Advertiser after the state budget indicated that Sport SA (our key sporting body) feels incredibly let down by this budget, and I am sure that its budget did not grow with inflation. In real terms, it is trying to do a good job—and it does do a good job—advocating for sports in South Australia, but it is put under far too much pressure.

I agree with the Hon. Caroline Schaefer and many others who have spoken before me that water is a key issue in South Australia. I recently visited the Riverland with the Aboriginal Lands Standing Committee. Whilst we worked our way through a number of issues and witnessed a number of very good initiatives and I saw some positive stuff which was fantastic, I have to say that, as a former small businessman, to see the signs in the Riverland pointing to where the region is heading with retail premises being vacated and closing down sales, it is just a disaster on its way through.

The member for Chaffey who has, quite comfortably, cuddled up to this government should be looking to her future (in whatever role that may take) because I suspect that she may have conned the people of Chaffey for some time—but the end is near. I support the passing of this bill and I hope my words are taken with the sincerity with which they are given.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (21:46): I thank members for their contribution to the Appropriation Bill. I congratulate the Hon. Mr Brokenshire on his maiden speech in this council, and I particularly appreciate the generous comments he made about me. I did not necessarily agree with everything the Hon. Robert Brokenshire said, but I am sure he will significantly enliven and enrich debate within the council in the future.

Obviously, many things were said during the debate, and the last thing members would want at this time of night, when we still have a significant amount of business to deal with, is for me to spend too much time responding to every matter that was raised. In relation to technical matters, I understand the Budget and Finance Committee of the parliament has held 20 or 30 meetings and examined every department. I am sure that it will do that again next year and have an opportunity to get into the technical details of the budget.

In deference to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, he wanted an answer to one question in relation to full-time equivalents, and I provide that information. The situation involving 9,287 full-time equivalents attributed to the Treasurer by the Hon. D.W. Ridgway was derived from the time of the 2007-08 budget and was based on the full-time equivalent cap for 30 June 2007. Actual data from the Commissioner for Public Employment's workforce information collection report indicates that the general government (GG) sector has grown by 9,598 full-time equivalents between 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2007. It has changed slightly due to revisions to the 30 June 2002 data. Super SA was incorrectly classified to the GG sector, and there was a slightly higher than estimated result for 30 June 2007, primarily due to increased recruitment in health, and a revised estimation of the cap for education.

The information detailing 12,085 full-time equivalents attributed to the budget papers by the Hon. D.W. Ridgway appears to be based on a comparison of total public sector FTEs printed in the 2002-03 and the 2007-08 budget papers. This comparison is spurious as the FTE data in the two budget papers covers a different scope of entities. We have not been able to source the 17,017 FTE growth which the Hon. D.W. Ridgway attributes to the Commissioner for Public Employment. As noted above, CPE data indicates an increase of 9,598 FTEs in the GG sector and 9,946 FTEs across the total public sector.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway also made a number of comments in relation to planning and mineral resources. I will respond briefly to those comments since they come within my portfolio area. On 10 June I announced a set of planning reforms that will have far-reaching implications for making South Australia the best place in which to do business, bring up a family and be part of a vibrant community. These reforms set the future for all areas of the planning system and the planning and development industry, including strategic planning, planning policy and development assessment. The government has developed a vision for Adelaide that is fit for the challenges and opportunities of the modern era. It is for a rapid mass transit-based city, with people living in energy and water efficient developments centred around rail lines.

This will create a climate change prepared city with a strong, affordable supply of housing to accommodate a growing population and a broad range of housing choices to serve a changing demographic base. We have backed up this vision with a real financial commitment of $2 billion over the next decade for revitalising the public transport system and a boost to Planning SA resources, including a staff increase in the next three years to manage the reform process and set Planning SA up as a department in its own right. Planning SA is responding rapidly to the directions set by the government and is in the process of developing a plan for greater Adelaide that will set the scene for our development prosperity for the next 30 years.

There will be regional plans building on existing work done in collaboration with regional communities and local government that will comprise:

specific regional targets for population and land supply (for both housing and employment);

regional targets and strategies for water and energy efficiency and for housing affordability;

protected conservation and agriculture/horticulture areas, growth precincts and land subject to further investigation;

integrated transport planning; and

major infrastructure requirements identified for feeding into government planning.

In particular, the government's vision is for developments focused on:

transport corridors;

transit-orientated developments (TODs) and growth precincts;

increasing the broadacre land supply; and

structure planning to manage significant precincts.

The government has also stepped in to reduce the red tape that slows down residential development by setting a program of reforms to deliver simplified assessment and faster approvals for new homes and home improvements. This will provide major time and cost savings for South Australian families and for business, including 30-day approvals for many major alterations and additions and new homes, and it will also free councils from spending time and valuable resources on assessing low impact residential development.

This suite of reforms demonstrates that this government is not limiting its interest to a boutique focus on a couple of precincts in central Adelaide but includes a wholesale modernisation of our planning system and a vision for South Australia's future that the community will welcome. In his speech, the Hon. Mr Ridgway referred to my decision in relation to Adelaide City Council developments over $10 million, and asked: 'Where will that money go? Will it be invested back into planning in supporting our planning system or will it go into general revenue?' The government made a decision that large-scale developments in the City of Adelaide are of such strategic importance to the state that they require the attention of the Development Assessment Commission (DAC).

I point out that this decision is in line with the philosophy of the recently announced reforms which have led to a refocus of DAC's responsibilities for state significant development (I think that it is recommendation 40 within the planning review). If one looks at the fees associated with the planning assessment process one will see that they will be expended appropriately; and, obviously, an additional workload will be required for the Development Assessment Commission to take on that role. We are currently working with the Adelaide City Council in relation to how this decision will operate, and the detail on that fee allocation and collection models is being developed. A question was also asked about the number of skilled people required for implementation. The government has engaged in a recruiting process to ensure that the right leadership is available for delivering these reforms.

A nationwide search for the chief executive of the new department is nearing completion. Key executive positions have been filled to oversee the implementation of the reforms. The Hon. Mr Ridgway also commented that it was stated that the government is seeking 180 planners and attempting to recruit them from interstate. My comment in estimates, which I think the Hon. Mr Ridgway was referring to, was: 'I think Western Australia has recently been trying to recruit 180 planners.' That was what I said in estimates.

Many of the reforms announced by the government reduced the burden on local government planners by simplifying and codifying the development approval process. In short, these reforms will take a lot of pressure off the current high level of demand—and, therefore, shortage—in relation to the number of planning experts within our state.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway also raised a number of questions in relation to transport and, in particular, the tram. He asked why a tram extension to the Entertainment Centre was a priority instead of rail infrastructure to the north or south. Of course, in fact, they are all priorities. The government's investment to deliver all of them is considerable: $2 billion. The two major rail lines that this state has are the Noarlunga and Gawler lines: one goes north and one goes south. They carry more passengers than other rail lines and it is part of government's plan that these rail lines will be modernised. However, they first need to be re-sleepered, and they will need new rail carriages and electrification.

As I pointed out before, once the several billion dollars that is necessary to upgrade that infrastructure is spent, it will be relatively cheap—that is, relative to that $2 billion—to then extend those lines. However, to talk about extending a transport system at present would be like adding a six-lane freeway onto a single-lane dirt road that is full of potholes: it just would not make sense. To get the sort of traffic through that we need to serve we obviously need very efficient infrastructure closer to the city. You have to be able to get the volume of vehicles through and, unfortunately, that is why we have to spend so much money in upgrading the rail system.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway also asked questions in relation to mineral resources development, and I would like to respond and correct a couple of the comments that he made. The honourable member claimed:

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 comment on it.

That was his quote. Well, he is wrong. This government is committed to acting on this important issue. Nationally, the central focus of water policy to date has been on the impact of reform of water use and management in the urban and agricultural sectors, particularly irrigated agriculture and sustainable environmental flows. The water needs for other sectors, such as the resources and energy sectors, are more recently coming into focus in the water debate. Identifying sustainable water supplies and best practice water recycling is an essential input into South Australia's existing mining operations and will be a critical requirement for many mining developments in remote areas of the state.

Whilst water is not the main input used by the resources and energy sector, it is critical to their production processes. Every proposal for a mining lease undergoes a comprehensive and highly consultative assessment process which, amongst many other things, considers the potential for impacts on quality and quantity of groundwater and surface waters. In those areas where the waters are prescribed under the Natural Resources Management Act 2002 (the NRM Act), the potential operator must also seek a licence from the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, which is assessed according to the Water Allocation Plan for that area.

Earlier this month, I attended the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources (MCMPR) meeting, and the issue of water was on the agenda. The MCMPR has recently formed an ad hoc water working group with the objective of responding, where appropriate, to the ACIL Tasman report on water reform and industry—Implications of Recent Water Initiatives for the Mining, Petroleum, Energy and Pulp and Paper Industries, commissioned by the then department of industry, tourism and resources, and ensuring that the MCMPR is positioned to engage effectively in water reform. The water working group provided a report to the MCMPR meeting. The report was an overview of the work of the water working group in responding to its terms of reference.

South Australia has established the Resources Energy Sector Infrastructure Council (RESIC), chaired by Mr Paul Dowd, a highly respected leader in the minerals industry. RESIC is considering the strategic needs for infrastructure, including water, for the state's mining developments over the next decade. Exploration to identify new viable water supplies must continue to be an important focus for the government in partnership with the resources sector. In fact, the government's PACE initiative has targeted water exploration in a number of remote locations. A notable success was the PACE supported discovery of ground water of suitable quality and quantity in the Arckaringa Basin near the developing Prominent Hill copper-gold mine. One might also talk about the success in relation to the Iluka Jacinth-Ambrosia deposit, where the operator there discovered an aquifer of such quality that it had no other purpose, but it was suitable for that operation. In short, the significant effort has been in looking at the water needs of industry.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway also made some comments in relation to the PACE scheme and its forerunners. The opposition likes to claim that TEiSA was a forerunner to the very successful PACE program; indeed, the opposition often sounds like the fabled broken record. South Australia has a long-standing reputation for world leading exploration initiatives that have delivered high-quality pre-competitive geo-scientific information contributing directly to successful exploration discovery and development.

South Australia first achieved international recognition with the South Australian Exploration Initiative (SAEI) in 1992 and has been at the forefront ever since. The Targeted Exploration Initiative (TEiSA) was launched in 1998 following on from the highly successful SAEI program from 1992 to 1996. The South Australian government signalled its confidence in the ability of the minerals and energy sector to play a key role in the state's economic growth by providing $10 million in funding for the next four years. TEiSA was created as a phased regional exploration strategy for minerals, petroleum and ground water, with special emphasis on large-scale geo-scientific data acquisition.

The Plan for Accelerating Exploration (PACE), launched in 2004, again raised the bar, leaving all other Australian states and territories scrambling to catch up. There is ongoing debate about which program was the forerunner to PACE, and which government can claim responsibility can be likened to the chicken and the egg debate. The important point is that the PACE initiative has been an outstanding success. As South Australians we should all be rejoicing in the record levels of exploration investment and the new discoveries that PACE has delivered. Other states would not be copying the PACE drilling initiative in various forms if it was not highly successful.

The government has demonstrated its commitment to PACE with the Premier announcing on 4 April 2007 the extension to the original PACE initiative by $8.4 million over four years, with the new funding taking its value over seven years to $30.9 million. As I said before—and I will state it again—in the year prior to the introduction of the government's PACE initiative—that is, 2003—mineral exploration expenditure in South Australia stood at $35.9 million or just 4.9 per cent of the national exploration spend. Mineral exploration expenditure for the 2007 calendar year reached a record level of $331.3 million—16.1 per cent of total Australian mineral exploration expenditure. This is a record level of mineral exploration investment for South Australia, significantly exceeding the South Australian Strategic Plan target. The honourable member made a number of other claims but, given the late hour, I will not occupy the time of the council tonight.

The development of new mines and the associate approval processes is lengthy, and it is essential to get it right. This is a critical component of the approval process, and that is why the Treasurer announced in this state budget that the government will invest $14.1 million in the next four years to ensure that South Australia realises the full potential of the mineral exploration boom.

A $3.1 million allocation will be directed to the Petroleum and Geothermal Group within PIRSA to help speed up the assessment process for applications for geothermal exploration leases from companies seeking to tap the enormous potential for power generation from hot rock technology. This allocation also bolsters support for the state Chair in Petroleum Geology at the University of Adelaide. An $11 million allocation will be directed to the Mineral Resources Group within PIRSA to strengthen the ability of the agency to manage the pipeline of new mines seeking assessment approval. This new funding will ensure that South Australia realises the potential presented by the state's new mineral discoveries.

The unprecedented increase in exploration expenditure, driven by the success of the government's plan for accelerating exploration, is only the first wave in the quantum change that is taking place in the state's mineral sector. The second wave of change is the pipeline of development proposals and new mines that follow from the successful investment in mineral exploration.

I would like to place on record the existing mines: Olympic Dam (copper, gold and uranium); OneSteel, Middleback Ranges (iron ore); Beverley (uranium); Challenger (gold); Leigh Creek (coal); and Angas, which exported its first ore in the last couple of days (zinc and lead).

New mining developments in construction are: Prominent Hill (copper and gold); Mindarie, which is now producing mineral sands; Beltana (zinc); and Honeymoon Mine (uranium). New developments in the advanced assessment/approval phase are: Cairn Hill (iron ore); Peculiar Knob (iron ore); Kanmantoo (copper and gold); Beverley Extension (uranium); 4-Mile Mine (uranium); and Jacinth-Ambrosia (mineral sands).

I am also very pleased to inform honourable members that, in the period April to July 2008, three significant new mineral leases were granted by this government:

the mineral lease for the Cairn Hill iron ore project south of Coober Pedy, the first iron ore development in the state outside the Middleback Ranges;

the mineral lease for the Peculiar Knob iron ore project, also south of Coober Pedy; and

the mineral lease for the Jacinth-Ambrosia mineral sands project in the far west of the state, the first of a number of mineral sands developments expected in the state's Eucla Basin.

I could say a lot more. Through its Budget and Finance Committee, this house now has the capacity to look at any of the technical details. I could refute many political points that were made during the debate, but I will limit them to one made by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, who quoted some remarks I made the other day. She suggested that I was trying to imply in some way that there was a problem with agriculture.

The context of that interview was why the Mining Act 1971 is in the form it is and why it contains the provisions it does to allow access for exploration onto land, including agricultural land. I was explaining the reason the act has contained that provision since 1971 and has done so under successive governments. If a future Liberal government is going to change that, I hope it will let me know. I hope it will let the world know because it will certainly create some interest in this state, I can assure it, if it wishes to change that precept that has been around in the act for nearly 40 years.

The reason it is there is that the value of a mineral resource and a very small footprint can be significant. I simply gave the example of Olympic Dam which, of course, has an extremely large value of ore in place. If one looks at the alternative uses one might have for that land, such as pastoralism, there is no way—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, the agriculture in that area that would be displaced by mining would be infinitesimal. To say that I am running agriculture down is rubbish. What this economy needs is a balanced economy. Our rural economy is in particular difficulty at the moment. We are facing an absolutely unprecedented drought in this country, and the irrigation sector and the Riverland, in particular, are facing catastrophe because of the lack of water within the Murray-Darling Basin. The amount of water in the basin is only just above what, in past years, would have been the entire allocation for South Australia. That is how low the inflows have been into the basin as a whole.

As much as members opposite might seek to gain political profit from that, the reality is that nothing other than a return to average or near average rainfall over a number of years will replenish those storages on which we depend.

Obviously, there is a lot more that one could say, but I think that at this stage of the evening it is time that we passed the budget. I am sure we will have plenty of other opportunities to discuss these issues in future debates.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I ask the minister if he has his advisers with him for the committee stage.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No. I note that we now have a Budget and Finance Committee established where the Hon. Mr Lucas can go through that sort of detail for every department. As a matter of courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition, I have provided answers to the questions he specifically asked.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I want to indicate disappointment at the arrogant attitude of the Leader of the Government on behalf of his Premier and the government with that particular response. May I say that, because a house of parliament institutes an additional check, in terms of public accountability, in this case through a committee of the Legislative Council (the Budget and Finance Committee), it does not mean that the response from the government and its leader should be a petulant one where he says, 'Well, you've got your committee; I'm now not going to do what every Leader of the Government has done for the last'—I can only speak for 25 to 30 years—but I suspect that forever and a day the history of the Legislative Council is that questions that have been put to the Leader of the Government on the Appropriation Bill have been responded to by him with courtesy.

On occasions in the past, the Leader of the Government has said, 'Here are the answers to the questions. We have been able to compile them.' After all, he does not have to do them: it is the members of Treasury or government departments and agencies who compile the answers and then undertake to correspond with members in the period intervening between the close of one session and the next.

Given the hour, I will not pursue the matter at length this evening. However, I do flag that it is an issue that I think this chamber should pursue when we consider the Appropriation Bill in future. It is a simple point: just because you add an additional level of accountability through a Budget and Finance Committee does not mean, therefore, that a minister in a government should be able to say, 'Well, I'm now not going to respond to questions on the Appropriation Bill.' The minister has been fighting the establishment of the Budget and Finance Committee for the past 12 months anyway, but I put that particular matter to one side.

The Budget and Finance Committee, thus far, has tended to concentrate with chief executives particularly in relation to issues that apply to their portfolios. The minister is correct in saying that there is nothing to prevent the Budget and Finance Committee taking (particularly with Treasury officers) an all-embracing and all-encompassing view of the whole budget, rather than just the Treasury and directly Treasury-related matters.

Given the minister's response tonight that, indeed, will have to be the response from the Budget and Finance Committee should a majority of its members choose to go down that particular path. Treasury officers not only will be answering questions in relation to matters of immediate interest to them but will now, clearly, have to take over the role of responding to overall questions in aggregate. I flag general areas in terms of wage and cost policy and those sorts of things which traditionally are responded to by representatives of the government. That is, the government makes the overall aggregate policy decisions and public servants come to committees and say, 'We are there to implement the policy of the government of the day and can answer questions in detail about that'.

The minister rightly points out the powers of that committee are broad and can be used by the committee if it so chooses to pursue these particular matters and, if it so chooses, it may well go down that path. I conclude my contribution by saying that we, the Legislative Council, particularly given the statements of other members earlier about dumbing down or reducing the influence and activity of this chamber, should not just meekly accept what this minister has done for the first time ever, I might say. I repeat that: for the first time ever, a leader of the government has snubbed his nose at this chamber and said, 'I am only going to answer these questions on planning and I am not going to answer genuine and valid questions that other members have put. You can go off and use that committee, which I do not think should exist anyway. Go off and use that particular committee and pursue it'. It is an example of a petulant, arrogant minister which is wholly representative of a petulant and arrogant government.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: What a petulant and arrogant response from a petulant and arrogant backbencher! What has never happened before—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The Hon. Rob Lucas is probably the most arrogant politician ever in the Legislative Council—

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Hon. I.K. Hunter): That is out of order.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —and I think he would recognise that. The convention in the past has been that the leader of the opposition (the person representing the opposition) has asked some questions. The Leader of the Opposition asked some specific questions, which I have answered. If we have a situation where we have a replay of the budget—ministers from this council appear before the House of Assembly, the shadow ministers supply the questions to the house and we have a day in which we question everybody's section of the budget—we have a thorough process. I have responded to the questions that the Leader of the Opposition specifically asked but, if every backbench member in here is going to ask questions on the budget, then where are we going to end up? There has to be some limit.

We were told that by the Hon. Rob Lucas—he is being arrogant now—but he told us, when he set up this committee that one of the things we could do was have a look at the budget, and he has confirmed tonight that that is what it can do. Why then would we would go through this at 10.20pm on the last scheduled night of the session? I suggest that it is not anybody's fault that it has been delayed to this stage, but why would we then want to go into that? I point out to the chamber that I have responded to some specific questions that were asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

I know that the Hon. Rob Lucas loves playing politics but, rather than his talking about dumbing down the Legislative Council, I think that if anything at all dumbs down this place it is comments like that—the cheap, thoughtless, political shot—that we have just had that really does not do us any good. It does us no good at all. The former leader of the opposition obviously has his nose out of joint because he obviously has some adjustment problems, ego problems or something, in coming to terms with his new role. But the reality is that for this council to function effectively there has to be some agreement and some sensibility in how we conduct our affairs. I suggest that this sort of display at this hour of the night on the last night does not really help anybody.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 8), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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