HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 11 September 2008. Page 67.)

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:32): I support the motion to adopt the Address in Reply and join honourable members in thanking His Excellency the Governor for opening this third session of the 51st parliament. We, on this side, are supportive of the Governor's work and know that he is doing an excellent job. Again, I would like to congratulate the Governor and Mrs Scarce on the fine work they do.

As my colleague the Hon. Caroline Schaefer pointed out in her contribution, we all expected far more from this government on this occasion but, again, it failed to deliver. The Rann government's legislative program for the next session is a major disappointment. It is underwhelming. We have had the usual rhetoric about climate change and the plight of the River Murray but there has been very little of substance. There was no mention of how this government will tackle the challenges we face as a result of the national economic slowdown. This was truly a legislative program from a government that is tired, stale and lacks vision.

Government members opposite are trying to talk up the government's achievements in their contributions in reply to the Governor's speech but it is almost like they are apologising for the lack of action. The Hon. Russell Wortley puffed out his chest and made ridiculous comments like, 'You've turned your back on your rural electorates.' This comes from a government that has neglected regional South Australia over the past six and a half years. We need only reflect on the response to the proposed country health cuts to see that country people are fed up with how they have been treated by Premier Rann and his government. Ask country people, who rely on the River Murray for their livelihoods, what they think of this government. I say to the Hon. Russell Wortley: it is your government which has turned its back on regional South Australia, and the majority of country people cannot wait to throw you out.

I will leave it to my other colleagues to give their response to the overall legislative program because, as shadow spokesman for sport, I wish to reflect on what the next 18 months holds for the sport portfolio in this state and, in particular, grassroots sport. It is clear that there is very little to be excited about. There will be millions of dollars for AAMI Stadium, a big screen at Hindmarsh Stadium—and that about does it. In the State's Strategic Plan, target T2.3 is 'to exceed the Australian average for participation in sport and physical activity by 2014'. In my view, the target is a credible one and at this stage, as the government has not put an actual figure on how much it wants in relation to exceeding the Australian national average, I am hopeful that we can get there.

For the record, the latest statistics report that the current national average for participation in physical activity three times a week or more for people aged 15 years and over is 42.8 per cent. South Australia has the lowest rate at 38.6 per cent. The Strategic Plan progress report for July 2008 details that progress is steady. The report maintains that the target is still achievable and, as spokesperson for sport, I sincerely hope it is achieved. Research on participation levels was conducted by the Standing Committee on Recreation and Sport Research Group, which collaborates with state and territory recreation and sport agencies and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

I am confident that the committee is undertaking the necessary research and that we can use these statistics to help grow participation in South Australia. However, the opposition's main issue is that we are hearing from Sport SA and other stakeholders that there is a facilities crisis in South Australia, especially at the grassroots level. One can rightly ask: how can we grow participation when facilities are either out of date or just not available? In my role, I speak regularly to people involved in sport, and their concerns are growing.

Tonight, I will attend the Sport SA annual general meeting and, I am sure, so will the Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, and I have no doubt that we will both get more feedback on facilities from sporting representatives from throughout South Australia. If we are to encourage more people to participate in sport, the issue of sporting facilities must be addressed. The government's response thus far has been to state that it has just committed $100 million to AAMI Stadium. The Rann government is missing the point. Jan Sutherland of Sport SA says:

The government talks about people being active and is quite happy to take the financial benefits from sporting events but it is not prepared to spend any money on facilities. The government is spending $100 million on upgrading AAMI Stadium but that is an upgrade for spectators. We need money spent on facilities for participation in sport.

Ms Sutherland is speaking on behalf of all of Sport SA members, for example, hockey, athletics and swimming—sporting bodies that are crying out for new and improved facilities at the grassroots level and, indeed, at the elite level.

As I have outlined in the past, the Santos Stadium running track is not up to scratch. Mystery still surrounds the building of the new state aquatic centre at Marion, and hockey needs improved facilities. I recently attended the Football Federation of South Australia's annual dinner, and many people came up to me to talk about the crisis they have with the lack of a soccer pitch—and this is in a sport that is growing bigger by the day. Also, our baseball facilities are another example of below par facilities.

Sadly, this government has given very little indication of what it will do to address what is a very serous issue for sport in South Australia. Our facilities are just not up to scratch, and we are falling behind the other states. The opposition has called for an audit of our sporting facilities, a call that has been backed by Sport SA and also the media. The editorial in The Advertiser of Saturday 6 September states:

The state's sporting facilities—from Adelaide Oval through Hindmarsh Stadium to The Pines hockey complex and the velodrome at Gepps Cross—need a complete stocktake. We need to re-evaluate their ability to match the future sporting needs of our younger generation and assess their present suitability for patrons. There are many questions to be answered about our sports facilities. Are we getting the proper value for money from them?

Talk of a Commonwealth Games bid has, quite rightly, renewed debate about the standard of our sporting arenas and just how much they need to be improved, or, in some cases, replaced. A major study of these facilities is not only warranted, it is almost essential. A public audit of the facilities is in the public interest and the dollars spent on such an investigation would be money well spent.

A major audit and long-term plan for Adelaide's sports facilities should not be dismissed by Labor merely because some aspects have been promoted by the Opposition. Sports infrastructure is a matter of intense public interest on many fronts. On the financial front, it attracts significant amounts of public funding. On a wider level, the standards of Adelaide's sports arenas is of great interest to fans from around the state who regularly attend matches.

South Australia has had great success over the years as a sporting state. Now it is time Adelaide's sports facilities were appropriate for the nation's fifth-largest city.

I say to the Rann government: listen to the media, listen to sport and listen to the opposition. We are in the midst of a sports facilities crisis; it is time to act. With those comments, I conclude my contribution. I look forward to continuing to work with all honourable members in the current session.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:40): I thank His Excellency for his speech, delivered on behalf of the government, and congratulate him on his appointment as Governor of South Australia. It is comforting to hear that the government is committed to prudent financial management and retention of the state's AAA rating, but the government needs to accept the detrimental effect that its revenue-raising activities are having on the community, including pensioners, self-funded retirees, young families, low income households and small business. Increases in taxes such as 37.5 per cent in land tax, 16 per cent in sewerage rates, 16 per cent for the emergency services levy and up to 307 per cent in the natural resource management levy, along with other state charges, are a heavy burden on the community already struggling with high interest rates, transport and food costs.

It is encouraging to see that the government intends to foster economic growth, prosperity and opportunity for South Australia. However, many companies will not agree with the government when it says that this state is the most competitive place to do business in Australia and New Zealand. If the government believes this, it should ensure that its departments are working towards overcoming barriers to support this statement by reviewing restrictive bureaucratic processes.

Everyone would agree that water security is one of the biggest challenges facing South Australia. I applaud the decision to build a desalination plant at Port Stanvac and that this facility will be completed a year earlier than originally planned.

The issue of stormwater capture and aquifer recharge is currently the topic of discussion and, whilst I understand that this is a local government responsibility, the government should take a leadership role in informing the community about issues concerning stormwater management and reuse. The Natural Resource Management Board should play a more pro-active role in stormwater capture and aquifer recharge, rather than fiddling around with superficial issues that appear to be aimed at spending natural resource management levies on administration rather than achieving worthwhile and measurable results that provide a benefit to the state.

At last the government intends to introduce legislation to refer its constitutional responsibility for water management in the River Murray to the commonwealth, but I wonder why it has taken it so long and what pressure will be put on the 'coalition of the willing', particularly the eastern states, including Victoria, to do likewise. The fact that investigations are continuing as to the potential to double the capacity of reservoirs in the Mount Lofty Ranges is commendable, but I highlight that land was purchased in the early 1960s for a proposed Clarendon reservoir and nothing materialised. No funding appears to have been provided in the budget for this initiative, and the question therefore needs to be asked as to whether the proposal is genuine.

In terms of energy, the government mentioned exploration and development of energy projects such as those of Geodynamics, Petratherm and Torrens Energy. It is essential that companies like these are encouraged to promote these type of projects. The initiative to ban single-use lightweight plastic shopping bags from May 2009 has my support, albeit reluctantly, but I note that since the bill was introduced a trial is being undertaken by a supermarket chain in the use of biodegradable cornstarch bags, and I understand the cost of these will not be passed on to the consumer. This should be encouraged.

The health initiatives of the government include the new Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital, and redevelopment at Flinders Medical Centre, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Women's and Children's Hospital, Noarlunga Hospital and Lyell McEwen Hospital. Redevelopments for Whyalla, Berri and Ceduna and proposed new GP Plus Centres for Elizabeth and Marion are commendable; however, their final completion appears a long way off. The health department's community and staff consultation processes fall a long way short of what would be accepted as satisfactory, and the government needs to address these issues if successful implementation of these projects is to be achieved.

The government mentioned the 25-year rolling supply of broadacre land to meet the industrial, commercial and residential needs of a growing population, and this measure is to be commended. However, more needs to be done to assist in providing affordable housing for young families, and the charter of the Land Management Corporation needs to be reviewed in order to provide affordable residential allotments in new subdivisions.

At last we appear to be seeing the start of a strategic transport plan for South Australia, and the government should at least be complimented on this. A lot more needs to be done in terms of consultation and communication of these plans to the community so there is a better understanding of the comprehensive nature of the plan and so it is not seen as just a group of projects cobbled together at the last minute to demonstrate that something is being done. The government's treatment of dispossessed owners whose properties lie in the path of the major transport routes which are required for transport corridor purposes needs to be urgently addressed.

I congratulate the government on its initiative to overhaul the state's planning laws. This will have the effect of providing the potential for a diversified range of housing, not only for young families but also for elderly citizens wanting to downsize in familiar surroundings, with all their existing support mechanisms. The faster approval process for new houses and additions is long overdue, as is the exemption from planning approval for minor developments, and this should result in a reduction in development costs.

The current WorkCover system in South Australia leaves a lot to be desired and, as I indicated during the WorkCover debate, I doubt whether we will see any real improvement until such time as there is recognition and acceptance that a genuine attempt to change the culture of the WorkCover Corporation and the various key players in the WorkCover system is undertaken.

There has been a suggestion that the government will introduce the public sector bill, and that is long overdue. I hope that the archaic administrative arrangements for the appointment of parliamentary staff will also be considered, along with the public sector initiatives.

I now move to the proposed mental health campus at Glenside. This project got off to a bad start, mainly due to the type of consultation process that was used in selling the proposal to the public. It is encouraging to see that at last the community is starting to accept the benefits of the redevelopment. I hope that the new mental health facility at Glenside and services in other parts of the metropolitan area and the state will ensure that patients are properly cared for and given the appropriate ongoing support they need. The centralisation of drug and alcohol abuse services to the campus will require close monitoring to ensure that appropriate security arrangements are in place, to avoid any adverse interference with adjoining communities.

The intended plan for acceleration of mineral exploration in South Australia is to be commended, as this will eventually lead to wealth creation in the state. However, additional infrastructure projects will be required to service these Outback developments.

I note that the government intends to introduce new victims of crime legislation. It is a pity that, when this legislation was before parliament earlier this year, it could not have been receptive to amendments agreed to by this council that really did extend the rights of victims. The government has again mentioned its six new super schools initiative, the implementation of recommendations from the Mullighan inquiry, the 10 new trade schools for the future and others, and I look forward to progress in these areas and other new initiatives and proposals as we move towards 2010. I support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:48): I rise today to support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply. In doing so, I thank the Governor for his service and work on behalf of the people of South Australia and his time and effort to open this session of the 51st parliament. I also take the opportunity to publicly acknowledge the work of the Lieutenant-Governor, particularly at this time, when he is the patron of the OzAsia Festival. Both of those gentlemen are already making a significant impact in our state in their service to the Crown and the people of South Australia, and they are both role models for the fact that South Australia is a state of opportunity.

At the 2006 election, the Premier campaigned on the slogan 'Rann Delivers Results'. The reality is that Premier Rann has delivered disappointment. The Governor's speech embodies that. There was a hope that, perhaps, after six long years, the Governor's speech would contain some new initiatives. However, they were singularly lacking. With respect to water, the speech merely reiterated the government's plans for a desalination plant, and there was no mention of the Upper Spencer Gulf plant, which now appears to be on the scrapheap.

There was nothing in the speech to address the growing challenges to our economy in the context of the national economic slowdown. The urgency of such leadership was demonstrated by the recent stresses in the world financial markets. There was nothing of substance in the speech that advances our commitment to alternative technologies.

If South Australians were looking for vision, economic stability or an investment in technology, Premier Rann and his government have yet again delivered disappointment. The Rann government has done nothing in seven budget years, and it will go to the next election having completed two terms and delivered nothing of substance.

Premier Rann has become something of a Labor dinosaur. He became the leader of the South Australian Labor Party in 1993 (15 years ago), which now makes him the longest serving state Labor leader by more than a decade. The second longest serving state Labor leader, I understand, is in only their second year of service.

Likewise, the Premier had an opportunity recently to refresh his government by refreshing his cabinet. He blinked. There were no additions and no removals. The five most senior cabinet ministers remained in their post, unchanged. So, how did the Premier propose to refresh his government? He purged the bureaucracy. Some of the most senior bureaucrats within the South Australian Public Service were removed within weeks of the abortive attempt to reshuffle the cabinet.

Premier Rann is increasingly out of touch with community concerns, and increasingly shown to be without new ideas. The Liberal opposition has had to step up to the plate and provide leadership to the South Australian community in the absence of leadership from the government on issues such as desalination, the sports stadium, stormwater harvesting, ICAC and planning reform. These are all areas where the Liberal opposition has needed to provide leadership in the absence of government leadership. A clear pattern has developed. The Liberal opposition puts forward an innovative idea and the Labor government rejects (and even lampoons) the Liberal idea. The community embraces the Liberal idea, and Labor plays catch-up and tries to rebadge the idea as its own.

Clearly, the arrogance of the Rann Labor government has been evident right through this term. On the eve of the last election—in November, I seem to recall—the Premier announced that he was going to move to abolish this chamber. Yet, in spite of a very low vote for his party in the Legislative Council, the day after that election the Premier reiterated his intention. What arrogance! So, faced with a public which is not willing to go along with his constitutional vandalism, the Premier is setting about trying to dumb down the Legislative Council. It is a clear strategy of this government to try to reduce the relevance of this council.

It was noticeable recently that there were a number of senior portfolios removed from the Legislative Council, in particular, the sacking of minister Holloway as the police minister. We also see the white-anting of this chamber by the government in the way that it is handling question time. Government ministers seem to go out of their way to avoid answering a question or, when they get a question from a government member, take the opportunity to read a media release verbatim.

The government is also attempting to undermine the role of this council in terms of its legislative review function. We saw that in its mismanagement of bills such as the serious and organised crime bill, the WorkCover bill and, more recently, in its arrogant response to the victims bill brought forward by the Hon. Mr Darley. I would certainly hope that the notice that Mr Darley gave today of a new bill will give the council an opportunity to provide real leadership on victims' rights rather than having to contend with the petulance of this government.

Further, the government is undermining the work of this council in terms of its work on committees. I am concerned that there seems to be a growing lack of cooperation from government members on committees, and I would make it clear that the opposition will be holding the government accountable. Once this council has made a decision to form a committee and appoint members, it is incumbent on all members to make themselves available and cooperate in the professional dispatch of the responsibilities given to the committee by this council.

As for the Liberal Party, we take this chamber very seriously. We have always believed in bicameralism. We will do what we can to ensure that this council continues to evolve and be a very relevant contributor to the life of the state of South Australia.

I will now address some remarks to some issues for which I have spokesperson responsibility within the opposition. I take the opportunity to commend the broad community effort which has led to the current progress on some key indicators in road safety. Road safety is a whole community effort, and the community is showing its commitment. More recently, we have had some bad weeks. We should not panic. We should redouble our resolve and do everything each of us can to reduce the risk on the roads.

However, we should not be overly focused on this week, last week, or even this year. What we should be committed to is long-term progress over decades. Since the 1970s the South Australian community has shown demonstrable progress in reducing the road toll. The South Australian Road Safety Strategy, which the government has released, highlights the range of factors which will contribute to a long-term sustainable reduction in the road toll. Interestingly, it suggests that 22 per cent of those measures relate to driver behaviour, 30 per cent relate to vehicle improvements and 48 per cent relate to improved road conditions.

So, in the context of the government's own data, it is concerning that it persists in allowing the road maintenance backlog to remain unaddressed. The RAA estimates that the current backlog is $200 million, compared with the government's $27 million contribution to road surfacing and rehabilitation. We believe that it is important for the government to do what it can in a broad-based strategy to reduce the risks on our roads. Progress on the road toll without significant investment in roads is very unlikely.

I turn now to the area of emergency services. I was disappointed that the speech prepared by the government for the Governor made no reference to the Fire and Emergency Services Act. On 8 May 2008, the then minister (Hon. Carmel Zollo) made a ministerial statement on the report of the review of the Fire and Emergency Services Act. She indicated:

…the legislative changes arising from this review, and those that flow from the Bushfire Management Review and the Wangary inquest about bushfire mitigation and prevention, will be brought before the parliament in a timely manner.

However, in the Governor's speech, which outlined the legislative program of the government for this session, which takes us up to the 2010 election, there was no mention of that legislation. The opposition calls on the government to consult and bring the bill before the parliament at the earliest opportunity.

In particular, we have concerns that the government will not take the opportunity to give the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission an appropriate role. The government states that it is committed to a three services approach, but so much of what it is doing seems to be moving towards integration. There is concern in the sector that SAFECOM is unduly controlling emergency services and intervening in their operation. For example, there was the recent case of the Port Lincoln Fire Station.

The member for Flinders—an excellent member of the House of Assembly—raised her concerns about the Port Lincoln Fire Station, and I understand that she did so most recently in a submission to the Public Works Committee on 31 July. She highlighted the concerns of the Port Lincoln city council in relation to the land which was proposed to be used for the SES and CFS facility and which would reduce the capacity for new tennis courts and not allow for associated facilities. In particular, in relation to emergency services outcomes, the honourable member said:

While the location of the proposed combined facility is considered roughly 'central' within the town, this creates problems in emergency situations and will not necessarily be 'central' when the road is cut and relocated further around to enable the marina to expand. CFS and SES volunteers will have to pass at least one school, possibly two, cross a railway or pass over a bridge to even get to this location at Kirton Point. Once assembled, they will then have to go to the emergency which, if it isn't close by, will mean having to traverse the same set of hurdles in reverse to leave the area. The potential difficulties and delays that will be encountered if an emergency occurs around 8:30am or 3:30pm on a school day as children, parents and buses are leaving the school, kindergartens or child care centre could be crucial.

The freight railway line and Stevenson Street, the major road to the wharf precinct, dissect Kirton Point from the rest of the city. Stevenson Street passes between the school and kindergarten and the proposed emergency services site. This route is used by the fishing industry to access the wharf from factories on Proper Bay. The area is also extensively used by various fishing industries to and from the Marina.

She continued:

The site where the proposed emergency services centre is to be located is on the major route for the swelling number of families living in the marina area—all accessing the city precinct and using the facilities.

In conclusion, the honourable member stated:

I live in Port Lincoln and I know many of the dedicated members involved with the emergency services, particularly volunteers in SES and CFS. These volunteers, who live and work in this community, know what they want. However, they are being dictated to by their metropolitan bureaucratic hierarchy.

It makes no sense to local people to have communication towers on an ongoing 'costly' rented site well away from the operational and training centres with no room for future expansion. I urge the committee to take these concerns into consideration before approving the Port Lincoln fire station.

The concerns that the honourable member highlighted also relate to the fact that the CFS and the SES are responsible for servicing the area to the west and north of Port Lincoln, beyond the built-up area. So, to have the facility on the eastern side of the built-up area means that the CFS and the SES will need to travel further to get to the facility and to the site where they need to respond.

The concerns that SAFECOM has been driving this project, rather than the services themselves, was highlighted by the fact that it was the Commissioner for Fire and Emergencies—the head of SAFECOM—who came out and pre-empted the Public Works Committee by saying that the project would be going ahead.

As an observer, my impression is that this drive for a combined MFS-SES-CFS facility has not been initiated by the services themselves; it has been initiated by SAFECOM. The opposition expresses its severe concern that, if the bureaucracy is interfering with the operational decisions, we would want the chief officers of the MFS, CFS and SES to be able to decide what is in the best interests of their sector and to deliver the outcomes that they need to deliver to their service areas without bureaucratic interference.

To be frank, I have concerns about the title itself. To call the Commissioner for Fire and Emergencies a bureaucrat suggests an operational role which is not an appropriate role for the head of SAFECOM. Most recently, we have also seen the despicable act of the leaking of a performance review in an attempt to damage the chief officer of the CFS. We believe that that was either a bit of petty jealousy being displayed between Labor ministers or a power grab, a political move, by SAFECOM. We indicate that we note the widespread sector support for Euan Ferguson, and we are much more inclined to take the word of CFS volunteers than the word of any Labor minister.

I also express my concerns about the bureaucracy of SAFECOM. After all, SAFECOM increased its budget by 30 per cent since 2005-06 and it has increased its staff in the past financial year by 18 per cent. In contrast, the SES has managed only a 4 per cent increase in its budget. We have seen in a number of appointments to advisory boards, and so forth, that there is a clear shift—a moving away—from volunteers towards professionals and from operational staff towards bureaucratic sources of advice. The South Australian community wants its emergency services to be professional and supported. It does not want them to be bullied by bureaucrats. The Liberal opposition will be doing all it can to make sure that the CFS, MFS and SES remain controlled by their chief officers, not by the bureaucracy.

I would also like to take the opportunity to highlight my concerns about the constant statements made by the government as an indication that the CFS and SES, in particular, are its services and that it owns them. I am not going to get into a debate about whether the ESL is a tax or a property charge, and whether governments can take the credit for the expenditure that they achieve by the taxes and property charges being collected. I think that in this context one does not even need to get into that debate. However, one needs to remember that the SES and CFS are basically volunteer services. In this context, I was interested to read a statement by the South-East CFS Acting Regional Commander, Dean Ludwig, in the Border Watch of 15 August 2008. He said:

The government supplies the CFS with equipment, the station and training, but the reality is, it is the community that provides the fire service.

I think it is a very wise statement. After all, a fire service is not the equipment, it is not the station, and it is not the training; a fire service is fundamentally the firefighters. In that context, I think it is important for this council to affirm that the CFS and the SES volunteers own the CFS and the SES more than the government.

In that context, it made me think about the contribution that CFS volunteers make to the wealth of our state. It is interesting that the MFS 2006-07 budget totalled $90.8 million. Of that, $71.5 million was allocated to salaries; that is about 79 per cent of the MFS budget committed to salaries. In contrast, the CFS, being a volunteer service, of course had a much lower proportion of its budget committed to salaries—about 16 per cent, that being $8.5 million in a total budget of $54.9 million.

If the MFS and the CFS had a similar ratio of operational costs to staff costs, the CFS salaries budget would be $171 million. So, on the basis of trying to value the contribution of CFS volunteers, it could be as high as $171 million. Another way might be to look at the operational hours reported in the CFS annual reports, and so forth, and value them at SA average weekly earnings. My understanding is that the latest figures show that CFS volunteers provided 172,770 operational hours and 207,500 'other' hours, which I understand would include training and the like. If you devalue that at South Australian average weekly earnings, you are talking about a contribution of $41.1 million. I am sure that the Hon. Carmel Zollo would agree with me that the South Australian community is indeed indebted to the volunteers in both the CFS—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: Have I ever suggested otherwise?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: And she has never suggested otherwise. Clearly, in spite of the rhetoric, Mr Ludwig is right: the community provides the fire service.

Moving to correctional services, this is probably an area where the honourable minister and I will beg to differ, having had a brief moment of consonance. In relation to prison overcrowding, the opposition is vigorously opposed to the Rann government's 'rack, pack and stack' approach. On its own budget figures, it is clear that it is not able to properly manage the prison system. In spite of years of developing its legislative program or criminal law regime, the government has not been able to properly forecast and manage prison population services and responsibilities such as work, education and rehabilitation, which are declining.

Since 2005-06, the proportion of prisoners with work is down almost 20 per cent. If the government wants to have lazy prisoners, who are idle and perhaps more and more likely to be frustrated, that is the minister's call. Only 43 per cent of education programs were completed, and rehabilitation deliverables are either stable or falling, while the prison population is increasing rapidly at 24 per cent in the past financial year.

ROGS shows that the percentage of prisoners employed in fee-for-service industries has fallen by 12.6 per cent in the past five years, leaving South Australian prison employment rates below the national average.

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister might be tempted to be disorderly and suggest that that is why we are building a prison. All I would say to the minister is that she has been in government for six years. Why would the government not plan the prison, get the prison on track and open these facilities ahead of the prisoners turning up? If the government is really suggesting that, when it passed these laws in the first years of its government, it did not envisage that anyone would be imprisoned because of them, why did it bother putting them in in the first place? The incompetence of the government in its management of the prison system is appalling.

Perhaps the most stunning achievement of this minister in recent times is that in the past month she has managed to have the annual average escape rate in two weeks.

Clearly, the government cannot manage security, it cannot manage accommodation, it has the most over-crowded prisons in Australia and it has also managed to have the highest remand rate of any state in Australia. It is interesting that the government continues to pirouette like a ballet dancer in relation to the sex offenders program. In June we had the minister rejecting Commissioner Mullighan's recommendation for an expansion of the sexual offenders program. They have been shamed into action by the opposition, members of the community and the media. The government demonstrated that it is out of touch and has reacted to that by expanding the program.

What we are now beginning to learn over time is that it has not actually expanded the program by an investment of new money: all it has done is shifted resources around. What the minister is not willing to tell us is where they have come from. There are concerns in the sector that the resources have come from other programs, in particular, community programs. We will be very keen to follow that up to make sure that that has not happened.

I do not propose to dwell on disability services this afternoon because I will be taking the opportunity of a notice of motion in private members' time to address some of our concerns in that regard. In conclusion, I will reiterate my thanks to the Governor for his speech and for his service to the state. I express my disappointment that this government has not been able to refresh itself, in which case it should pass the baton to a team that is better able to govern this state. The Liberal opposition is doing everything it can to develop a regime for government which will win the confidence of the South Australian community, and I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:13): In supporting the adoption of the Address in Reply, I want to focus today on water, and in particular water security, for Adelaide. In his speech, the Governor referred to a number of initiatives and, in particular, the 50 gigalitres desalination plant that is proposed for Port Stanvac and also the doubling of capacity of reservoirs in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

When they were first announced, the big ticket items were estimated to cost respectively $1.4 billion for the desalination plant and $1 billion for the Mount Bold reservoir expansion. Those estimates, as I understand it, are going up all the time, so we are now looking at probably more than $2.5 billion of investment, perhaps up to $3 billion. It would seem to me, when we are expending such large amounts of money (and, as the Governor said in his speech, the largest infrastructure investment in the state's history), that a great deal of analysis and research would have been done to determine whether we were spending this money in the most efficient way possible.

However, it is a surprise to me—and it would be a surprise to most South Australians—to realise that that analysis has not been done. The government has not gone through the different options for water security and comprehensively evaluated them against social, economic and environmental criteria. So, in that vacuum, I privately commissioned a study and asked consultants to do the task that the government should have done. I asked consultants to go through all the different options for water security—be it demand management, desalination, wastewater reuse, aquifer use, expansion of reservoirs or reliance on the River Murray. I asked the consultants to rank them according to criteria based on economic, social and environmental factors.

I was very pleased, a couple of weeks ago, to publicly release the Report on Sustainable Water Options for Adelaide undertaken by Sustainable Focus and Richard Clark and Associates. The report did get some very favourable attention in the community when it was released. I thought I would outline some of the thinking behind the report because I think it highlights the government's lack of attention to detail when it comes to providing genuine and sustainable water security.

I asked the consultants to look at some sustainability criteria. They looked at all of the different possibilities for providing water security. They looked first of all at all of the different possibilities for providing security. First, they looked at the reliability of services; in other words, how reliable was each particular source of water.

Next, I asked them to look at affordability, that is, affordability in terms of infrastructure and ongoing costs. I asked them to look at how quickly different water security options could be brought onstream, because we do need action fast. I asked them to look at the impacts on human health because not all water sources are currently fit for human use and need treatment. I got them to look at whether a particular source of water would have an additional benefit of protecting us from flood damage. We looked at upstream and in-stream environmental impacts (such as the impact on biodiversity) and also we looked at downstream environmental impacts (such as the impact on a marine environment from the discharge of waste or polluted waters). Lastly, I asked them to look at the greenhouse implications of each form of water security.

When it came to weighting each of those criteria, I asked them to put triple weighting on the economic criteria. The Greens are always looking for sound economic policies, and we wanted to make sure that affordability was given a suitable ranking. That exercise showed that the options the government is embracing as the solution to Adelaide's water security problems turned out to be the lowest ranking, while desalination was towards the bottom of the list and expansion of the reservoirs in the Mount Lofty Ranges was right at the bottom of the list.

One of the things that struck me in this report was that there were two features of metropolitan Adelaide that should inform our water security choices, but they have been largely ignored by the government. It was a surprise to me (and I am grateful to the consultants for pointing it out) to learn that two unique factors set Adelaide aside from other cities. The first is the risk we have in respect of flooding. Most people would recognise that Adelaide has lower rainfall than many other capital cities, and people would also be aware that, with climate change, there is a prediction for an overall decrease in rainfall. However, what people often do not realise is that the particular topography of Adelaide, the nature of our soils, and the way in which we have developed the metropolitan area on the Adelaide Plains puts us at very serious risk of flooding. For example, if Adelaide were to experience a rainstorm event of the proportion that occurred in February 1925, where 125 millimetres of rain (5 inches in the old speak) fell over North Adelaide in just three hours, it would cause horrendous flooding right throughout the metropolitan area.

So, that is the first factor we have to take into account. The lesson that comes from that is that any measure we can introduce that helps us to gain water security for Adelaide and, at the same time, deals with this risk of flooding is a win-win situation, and I will come back to the water security measures that do address both flooding and water supply needs.

The second factor that most people ignore is that Adelaide is built over a very extensive system of aquifers. Whilst the total extent of these aquifers is not known, what is generally accepted by hydrologists is that the capacity of these aquifers to store water is estimated to be tens of times greater—or even hundreds of times greater—than the capacity we have to store water in the reservoirs in the Mount Lofty Ranges. If you put those two things together (that is, we are a city at risk of flooding and we have these massive networks of underground water reservoirs that we could be using), the solution is literally under our feet.

It is probably of no surprise to members that, when the consultants did the ranking (and we asked them also to determine how much water we could get from each of these water solutions), one of those that came out on top was stormwater harvesting. The consultants concluded that it offered a cost-effective water supply option; and it provided very significant downstream benefits in that it kept that polluted stormwater out of the marine environment, where it kills the sea grasses and mobilises sand. One of the impacts of that is that we had to spend $2 million or more a year moving sand up and down the beach because we have so interfered with the natural systems.

The consultants estimate that we could provide 60 gigalitres of water to Adelaide each year with effective stormwater harvesting of the same type that is currently undertaken in Salisbury council, where they capture the stormwater, treat it in wetlands, pump it into underground storages and then draw it out later on for use. So, we could have 60 gigalitres, which is more than the desal plant is proposed to deliver, and it will be cheaper—cheaper per litre, cheaper upfront capital cost and cheaper running costs—yet the government seems oblivious to using stormwater. The Treasurer will make some glib comment, such as 'We looked at it, and it doesn't stack up.' Well, I would like to see the government report that states that spending $1.4 billion (or maybe it is now $1.5 billion) on a desalination plant that will provide less water than effective stormwater harvesting, and I would like to know whether it has been through this rigorous process the government pretends it has.

On top of the list, of course, is something we always ignore when we look at supply site options, and that is looking at the demand side (that is, demand management). It is the most cost-effective way of stretching the water resources we already have. As I have said, towards the bottom of the list is desalination and expanding the capacity of Mount Bold. The Mount Bold proposal has been condemned by every conservation group in this state. It will be a disaster for the ecology of the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Desalination has a lot of support and is superficially attractive. It is a way of providing water that is independent of rainfall, but people forget that there is already sufficient rain falling on Adelaide which, if we were to capture it effectively, could meet all our needs. If we were to capture it before it becomes stormwater and reuse it when it goes through the waste stream, we would have more than enough water not only for our existing population but also for the growing population.

Another feature people often forget when it comes to water security is that some sources of water increase as population and the urban area expands: that is, wastewater and stormwater. The more our city grows the more we have hard surfaces such as roofs and roads, the more stormwater runoff we get and the more capacity we have to collect it. The larger the population the more wastewater we produce and the greater the capacity to recover and collect that water.

The Greens' position is not to be anti-desalination. We do not say it is a technology sent from the devil: it is an incredibly useful and valuable technology in appropriate locations and circumstances. There are few other options for remote communities over on the Nullarbor Plain, but is it a first resort option for Adelaide's water security? No, it is not: it should be a last resort option. The Greens' support for a desalination plant for Adelaide is premised on a number of factors that would need to be met for us to support it. First, there should be no negative environmental impacts. We know the brine discharge is likely to settle on the sea floor in a low energy gulf environment where it will damage marine organisms and, unless the government can guarantee no adverse environmental impacts, the prospect of a desalination plant in Gulf St Vincent is unacceptable.

The second factor that would need to be met before the Greens would support it is that we would have to power any desalination plant from 100 per cent new renewable energy. A few statements have been made recently that suggest that the government is thinking more about energy for desalination, but we still have no assurance that it will be 100 per cent new renewable energy. Another requirement for Greens' support is that the plant would need to be 100 per cent government owned and controlled, because the last thing we want is a white elephant desalination plant from which we are contracted to buy water, whether we need it or not, whether we are in a dry or wet year, and where we can be held to ransom by a corporation's profit motive rather than the desire of the community for genuine water security and water on our terms.

None of these things are stacking up at the moment, which is why we are not supporting the desalination plant at Port Stanvac until those conditions are met. There is a range of other actions that come out of the consultant's report which the government would do well to listen to, and certainly the Greens have paid attention to it and we will over the next session of parliament introduce measures that give effect to some of these solutions. For example, if we are to properly use the stormwater resource available to us we will have to make sure that greenfields developers set aside sufficient land to enable us to properly capture and treat that water.

Presently under the Development Act all that we require is that they provide open space, largely for parks; and, if it is a commercial development, maybe car-parking spaces are required of them, but we do not have anything in our development system that guarantees that sufficient land will be set aside by developers for water management. The great tragedy is that where sufficient land already exists, such as Cheltenham racecourse, the government misses the opportunity completely to take full advantage of that land. The areas the Greens say we should be focusing on are not just Cheltenham: the airport provides huge potential. At Oaklands Park the Marion council is keen to get stormwater management and recovery happening there. Mitchell Park and Camden Park are other locations.

We also need in relation to demand management to make sure that it is not just managing the demand of domestic consumers through water restrictions in the garden: also we need to ensure that we look at big business and its water use, and the Greens say that the government should be introducing mandatory demand management schemes for commercial and industrial users. It would be another good start to dispense with the property-based charges in water and sewerage and move to a charging system based on the water people actually use.

If we look at how other jurisdictions have managed the demand for water, we see that in South-East Queensland they could get use of water down to as low as 120 or 130 litres of mains water per person per day. In South Australia we could get down to 140 litres. You would need to average it over a year, with less water in winter and more water in summer. There is great merit in allowing people the right to choose how to use their water and, if people want to use less water inside and more water outside growing their vegetables, we should not hamper their desire through crude water restrictions that do not give people any choice.

One of the surprises in this report for me was that domestic rainwater tanks, whilst rating higher than desalination plants and expanding Mount Bold reservoir, did not rank as highly as neighbourhood-wide or community schemes for capturing and reusing stormwater. The main reason is that economically it is very expensive up-front to put in rainwater tanks, yet they are still an important part of the solution, particularly mandated in new dwellings and plumbed into the house, because the capacity of a particular rainwater tank can be used many times over as the water is continually used in the house.

Rainwater tanks also have great educational value. People become more aware of where water comes from: it comes from the sky. If you have a rainwater tank, you know when it has been raining: your tank is full or it is empty. So, I think that there is still room for rainwater tanks in the solution. In fact, in the consultants' preferred mix of sustainable water options for Adelaide, they believe that we could get up to six gigalitres from domestic rainwater tanks. It is not as much as broad scale stormwater harvesting, where we believe we could get up to 60 gigalitres, but six gigalitres is a substantial amount of water.

The other point that I think needs to be made is that, if we are talking about water security, we need to look at sources that are secure. The River Murray is probably the least secure water option that we have available to us—not only in relation to its quantity, which we know is in serious trouble, but also its quality. Members will recall that probably five years ago there were predictions that the salinity of the River Murray would increase to a level where the water would be unfit for human consumption by, I think, the year 2050. That date has certainly been brought forward a great deal in recent times. So, we need to wean ourselves off the River Murray.

I do not subscribe to the view that Adelaide's reliance on the River Murray is what keeps the issue on the national agenda. I think that we can show people in upstream states that we are interested in preserving our unique ecology in the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, and that South Australia's push for sustainable water management in the Murray is not just about Adelaide's water supply and our metropolitan gardens. So, we can wean ourselves off the River Murray. The consultants have shown that, even with zero take from the River Murray, we can provide to metropolitan Adelaide more water than we currently use by going to these more sustainable options: demand management, stormwater harvesting and wastewater reuse.

I know that wastewater reuse is one of those difficult issues, and people are concerned about the 'yuk' factor. However well the water might be treated and however pure it might be in microbiological terms, people are still uncomfortable about drinking it. However, most of the uses of water in the metropolitan area are not for drinking, and we can use reclaimed wastewater for those other uses, whether it is parks and gardens, flushing toilets or other non-potable uses.

I think the government has missed the boat in relation to water security. I think the desire for silver bullets, big-ticket items and ribbon-cutting opportunities for the Premier have got in the way of a more sensible analysis of the whole range of options that are available to us. The take-home message from the report that the Greens commissioned is that we can be water secure. We do not have to have a desalination plant, we do not have to rely on the River Murray and we do not need to double the size of Mount Bold, and we will have more than enough water for all our uses. I support the adoption of the Address in Reply.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:35): I rise to support the adoption of the Address in Reply. In doing so, I indicate my sincere gratitude for the manner in which the Governor delivered the opening speech on behalf of the government. I think that, since Rear Admiral Scarce has been appointed, he has filled the position in a very distinguished manner, and I am sure that everyone here would agree with that. I have appreciated the way in which the Governor has been supported by his wife, of course, and also the new Lieutenant-Governor, Mr Hieu Van Le, who has performed his duties in a very distinguished manner.

I wish to take the opportunity to make a few comments in relation to some of the matters raised in the Governor's speech. Certainly, I note the comments that the Governor made about the River Murray and the southern Murray-Darling Basin. Of course, those issues have been high in the minds of South Australians for a very long time. Unfortunately, the impact of the situation with respect to that system has become worse, and I think we all understand that.

During my speech in the Address in Reply in May last year, I made some significant comments in relation to my concerns about the very dry conditions that have affected the Murray-Darling Basin over a number of years. The fact that we have failed to have significant run-off throughout that basin area for a very long time has had an immense impact on all the communities that rely on the rivers in that basin.

In particular, I think it is worth noting in the Governor's speech that he made a comment on behalf of the government about the fact that this current state government had first raised concerns about the River Murray and the southern Murray-Darling Basin in 2002. It may be appropriate to say that that was the first opportunity that the current government had to do so, but can I say that it was the former premier (Hon. John Olsen) who must be given credit for raising the issues of the River Murray with the eastern states, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, to a high level much earlier than that. I think there is some general recognition of that across the political divide, and I think that ought to be put on the record.

In relation to the current situation with the River Murray and the Murray-Darling as a whole, I am particularly concerned about the impact on all the people who rely on the river in South Australia. Of course, we have heard a lot about the situation with the Lower Lakes and all the communities below Lock 1, and I have raised in this chamber previously the access limitations for residents of that area below Lock 1 as a result of the failure of the government to spend the relatively small amount of money to ensure that the ferries in that area can carry heavier transport vehicles.

I am concerned particularly about the people who rely on the river for their income in the Riverland of South Australia. Riverland producers and the community have always been resilient and positive. However, I have not seen the region under such stress throughout my life, and I have had a lifelong association with the Riverland. I cannot recall any other period when there has been such a widespread impact on horticulture and associated industries. This is highlighted by the large scale loss of permanent plantings. South Australia cannot afford to lose the permanent plantings along the river and the economic activity that they drive. A fresh COAG agreement, in my view, must be signed, in which all states must refer their constitutional powers to the commonwealth and a truly independent Murray-Darling Basin authority established to manage the river in the best interests of the nation.

In his speech on behalf of the government the Governor also referred to work modernising and upgrading South Australia's health infrastructure, and that made me think of some of the things that have been raised with me in recent times in country areas about health facilities. There has been a lot of controversy, as we know, about the government's country health plan, which I think was very poorly consulted on and not well thought through at all. One of the things that has become apparent is that, whether the health plan is amended or whatever processes come through for the health of country citizens of this state, the reality as we see it now is that, in many instances when people need more than basic elementary treatment, they are forced to go out of their country areas and head for Adelaide.

Last week I visited the Yorketown Hospital and spoke to a number of citizens of Southern Yorke Peninsula about their concerns that when people need more than the treatments available in that hospital on the bottom of Yorke Peninsula they are supposed to go to Wallaroo. Wallaroo is a fine facility, but many people, if they are directed from Yorketown to go to Wallaroo, instead of that, will just head around the top of the gulf towards the metropolis, and the first hospital they come to is the Lyell McEwin Hospital. Many of us in this chamber realise that in recent times the government has curtailed some of the activities at the Modbury Hospital, meaning that many people from the north-eastern suburbs are converging on the Lyell McEwin Hospital. You also have people from Yorke Peninsula and the Mid North coming to the Lyell McEwin Hospital. They cannot all fit there, and I think that is a problem that the government needs to address.

In his speech the Governor also made some reference to the government's $130 million redevelopment of the Glenside campus, and I want to briefly comment on that. You, Mr Acting President, and other members of this chamber, join me on the select committee that is looking at that redevelopment, and tomorrow I will move that the council notes the interim report that has been tabled in this place on behalf of that select committee. I will not delay the chamber now but, basically, the interim report calls on the government to establish a mental health research and training institute as part of its redevelopment plans for the Glenside Hospital site. The motion to bring down an interim report was moved by the Hon. Sandra Kanck and agreed to by the committee after it received evidence from Professor Robert Goldney, head of psychiatry at the University of Adelaide, and from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, which both stressed the need for a local centre of excellence in the field of mental health. As I said, I will elaborate more on that tomorrow in the motion to note the report. However, it is important that that goes on the record in this Address in Reply debate.

In his speech, the Governor talked about transport issues, such as the electrification of the northern and southern rail lines and the fact that 20 extra buses per year will be brought into service over the next four years. He then referred to the 10-year transport program that will deliver new electric trains, converted and refurbished diesel to electric trains, new hybrid trams/trains, additional light rail vehicles and a new ticketing system.

I think we all know in this place that none of those programs will be rolled out in the near future, and certainly the electrification of the Gawler line (which I use regularly) will be significantly delayed. I think this is an appropriate time for me to relay the sincere views of a constituent of mine who is a regular user of the train line from Gawler to Adelaide and who is concerned that these programs that have been flagged are so far into the future that they just do not come anywhere near touching the issues that everyday commuters face on the public transport system in the city.

I will read some excerpts from a couple of emails sent to me by a constituent who lives in a small Lower North community and who obviously regularly catches the train from Adelaide to Gawler Central. On 8 September, he wrote:

I read the article in the Bunyip last week about your train trip to Gawler and back with Duncan McFetridge. I think you have done very well to be only 4 minutes late on one leg of the journey!!

As you are aware from our previous discussions and trips we have shared into Adelaide on the Gawler line, the punctuality of the Gawler line service can get a lot worse than 4 minutes overdue since the new time table was introduced on 27/4/08. In fact, my most recent two journeys this morning (8/9/08) and Friday night (05/09/08) illustrate the point.

Friday evening, waited on the far end of platform 7 in Adelaide for the 5.07pm express to Gawler Central. At 5.05pm, an announcement was made that the train would be on the far end of platform 8. This of course means walking the full length of platform 7 and most of the length of platform 8 to be in the correct location. After a couple of minutes the express train pulls in and we board the train. It was about 5.10pm by this time. We look over to platform 7 to see in dismay the 5.10pm Gawler train pull out. This train is not express. Then, less than two minutes later, our train pulls out and subsequently has to crawl all the way to Gawler behind the 5.10pm train. When our train pulled into Gawler Station, the driver announced that the train was terminating and we had to get off and wait for the next express train. This arrived about 3 minutes later and eventually I arrived at Gawler Central 19 minutes after the scheduled arrival of 5.55pm. It was very poor scheduling and use of initiative to let the 5.10pm train leave before the 5.07pm train when both were sitting on the platform ready to go.

This morning caught the 7.45am express train at Gawler Central. The train left on time, but on the initial part of the journey was moving very slowly due to a more frequently stopping train in front of it. By the time we got to Mawson Lakes the train was overcrowded and 6 minutes late. Things got worse from there pulling into Adelaide station 13 minutes late at 7.46, after sitting in the Adelaide rail yard for it least 6 minutes.

So on my last 2 journeys I have had trains that were 19 and 13 minutes late respectively. This is not the exception, but the norm and Pat Conlon needs to understand this. When people complain about late trains, they are not complaining about a one off mishap—it's every journey.

My constituent continued later in his email:

I have been catching the Gawler train since 1985 and never has the service been so bad. I am just wondering what minister Conlon would say if he went to the front of Parliament House on North Terrace to get in his ministerial limousine and it wasn't there and he had to wait 15 minutes for it to turn up. It would only happen once, I am sure. It is a case of different standards of taxpayer funded transport for different people.

That is where the first email concludes. I will continue with my constituent's email of 12 September, as follows:

Just as a follow-up to my previous emails and telephone conversations with you regarding the Gawler line train services, I would like to share with you the experiences of my last 2 journeys home of an evening and also to outline a number of other issues relating to train services not associated with running to the timetables.

Firstly, Wednesday evening (10/9/08) I caught the 5.22pm express service to Gawler Central. It arrived at Gawler station on time. Yet when we reached Gawler Central station we were 8 minutes late—arriving 6.16pm. This means that it had taken us 12 minutes to travel 2 stations instead of the allocated 4 minutes. We were waiting for the previous express train to clear from the single line to Gawler Central—a common problem in the new timetable.

I interpose to say that I think that is a moot point. When these timetables were devised and introduced back in April, not enough consideration was given to the fact that, when trains are running a bit behind time, there is a multiplier effect from Gawler Central because of the fact that it is only a single line from Gawler station. The email continues:

Secondly, Thursday evening (11/9/2008) I caught the 5.07 express train to Gawler Central. We arrived at Gawler Central at 6pm, five minutes late, or so I thought. However, when I got home and studied the timetable, I realised that there is an error in the times for the 5.07 train. It states that it arrives at Gawler Central at 5.55pm, it should be 5.53pm. If you look at the three evening express services they leave 15 minutes apart from Adelaide and are 15 minutes apart at all stations until they reach Gawler Oval. Then for some reason, the 5.07 takes four minutes to go from Gawler to Gawler Oval, whereas every other train in the whole Gawler timetable only takes two minutes! The implications of this are that they have cribbed two minutes, so arriving at 6pm appears to be within the allowed lateness of six minutes, but in fact if the timetable was printed correctly, we were in fact seven minutes late, which is deemed a late train!!! So I wonder if the lateness stats for this service have been based on the arrival time of 5.55pm or 5.53pm?? Has this error been noted by TransAdelaide? The timetables have not been reprinted since 27/4/08.

Having thought about my daily train experiences, there are a number of other issues and thoughts that I would like to talk about and pass on to you;

Since the locking of inter-carriage doors last year, the PSA and security staff do not move from carriage to carriage during a journey unless they are directed to do a ticket check. My impression is that this has led to a decrease in security on trains as passengers are locked in carriages with no means to get assistance from staff—who generally stay in the back carriage. If you need help you have to wait to the next station and jump out and go back to the last carriage...if the train doesn't take off first!!

I think because of the first point, there has been a large increase in antisocial behaviour on the Gawler line. People know that the staff stay in one carriage and don't generally change during the journey, so they simply get on a carriage where the staff are not. So the types of behaviour that are regularly seen are:

Excessive swearing—you don't need to watch Gordon Ramsay to catch the 'F' word.

Kids riding their bikes down the aisle of the train in peak hour

People getting on at the more northern stations with slabs of beer and six packs of mixers and then proceed to open and drink them. They are generally already inebriated and end up spilling at least one bottle or can on the floor, which everyone then has to walk through or move their bags because of liquid running all over the floor

General fare evasion because they know the staff can't get them. They only validate their ticket if they see the staff coming to the carriage;

General safety and security on trains. On Friday evening of 27/06/2008 as the train was travelling between the Salisbury station and Nurlutta station at slow speed, a rock was thrown at the middle carriage, shattering the window. I was sitting next to the said window with my head very close to the window, the window shattered, the inside layer of the glass delaminated and I was covered with a very fine white glassy powder. As it was a 2000 series carriage, it only has a single sheet of glass, unlike the double sheets in the 3000 series. Someone must have notified the staff as they came into the carriage from the rear carriage at the next station, examined the damage—declared it to be unsafe and asked me and another gentleman to move to another seat. Interesting that on Monday morning we had the exact same train at Gawler Central with the same damaged window unrepaired. Trains being pelted by rocks is a regular occurrence each week on the Gawler line. This incident was too close for comfort.

I interpose again to say that, when I travelled on the train to Adelaide on Sunday afternoon, there was an enormous noise. I am sure that it was a large rock that was thrown at the train as it travelled between, I think, Munno Para and Smithfield. I will continue with my constituents email:

Graffiti. This is an increasing problem over the past couple of years. There's hardly a surface or fence along the whole line that is not covered with it. Some years ago there was a team of painters that continually went up and down the line painting over it in a short period of time as a deterrent. Now it just seems to build up and up and periodically some sections are cleared off. The area around Mawson Lakes and Dry Creek is disgraceful. I find it a very depressing start to the morning to see all the new vandalisation of property from the night before—let alone what impression it gives to visitors. Mawson Lakes station is a particular point. It seemed to be kept pristine for the first 12-18 months of its life as a showpiece, but now I can see the build up of graffiti here and there at the station and surrounds and it's not being cleaned off any longer. A new fence just before the station on the western side was completely covered in graffiti within a couple of days of it being erected.

I move a bit further down in my constituent's email where he talks more about the graffiti problem. He states:

It reflects what pride we take in our environs—the state of the Gawler train line definitely says something about how the state government feels about the northern suburbs!

As a side issue, on Monday morning of this week on the journey in, I was watching two boys about eight or nine standing in the vestibule area near the doors excitedly looking out the windows from side and pointing. At first I couldn't work out what was so interesting, then I realised they were admiring the graffiti either side of the track on fences etc.—basically idolising it and those who produced it. Then the penny dropped—this is how the vicious cycle continues on—it won't be long and these two boys will be out there graffitiing objects because it is seen as a way to be 'cool'. This well illustrates the point that graffiti should be removed immediately to avoid attracting more and to stop impressionable people like these young boys seeing it and starting in the first place.

Lack of ticket validating devices on the old 2000 series trains. Since the start of the new timetable the 2000 series carriages have been allocated to the Gawler Central express services. These generally only have one ticket validator per door entry. This is normally not a problem. But, for example, the 5.07pm service relies on another service arriving on time in Adelaide station to then become the 5.07 service. This never occurs in a timely fashion. So by the time it arrives at Adelaide station there is a full complement of 5.07 passengers waiting for it. When the doors open, the arriving passengers disembark, then the departing passengers try to get on. The result can only be described as a scrum. Because of the lack of seating everyone tries to get on as quickly as possible, they have to go to the validator machine which is in the wrong direction to the main part of the train (it's in the short end section), then once validating, have to fight against all the other boarding passengers that are trying to validate, to get back to the main part of the carriage. This creates a deadlock in the train vestibule and it takes many minutes for passengers to get on—making the train even later! From an ergonomics point of view there needs to be two validators or single validator carriages not be used on potential late running in and out services.

I put my constituent's comments on the record because I think he has covered a range of issues that I have seen myself on a variety of different train services on that line. He is probably different to me in that I expect he catches the trains in a much more regular pattern in the morning and afternoon than I do. But, certainly, most of the instances he has referred to in his emails are familiar to me.

There is no doubt in my mind that the government needs to have another look at the timetables that were brought in earlier this year. I think that TransAdelaide and the government sincerely hoped that these new timetables would fix the problem of trains running late and the vast overcrowding in many carriages. Unfortunately, I think it has had an opposite effect, and both areas and other areas of security and concern have become worse since 27 April. I implore the government to have a look at that issue. I understand that there are similar issues in many other parts of Adelaide with buses and trains where the new timetables have not worked in the way that it was hoped. I think they should make major changes to those timetables.

The last area that I wish to speak to in relation to the speech delivered by the Governor on behalf of the government deals with references he made to the northern suburbs, particularly the establishment of a ministry for the northern suburbs. I congratulate the Governor on his involvement in the northern suburbs since his appointment. He was at the Playford Pathways launch, the conference and the subsequent ball earlier this year. He is very proud of the fact that he came from the Elizabeth area, and he is very keen to do all that he can to encourage many young people in that area to achieve great things.

I was also pleased to see His Excellency take a strong role in the Northern Community Summit, which was held early last month on 1 August (I think) at which many people from the northern suburbs came together to discuss the way in which that whole area can be advanced. I was pleased to attend the summit for the entire day. As is the case with a lot of those events, some people attending were concerned that it would be just a talkfest, and I confess that I may have gone there with that thought. However, I commend the people with whom I dealt on the day for the sincerity that they put into the summit. I think there was a general view that those who were there wanted to see some action.

I was initially concerned that a fair bit of emphasis would be placed on the community group, Northern Futures, to put into action a lot of the initiatives put forward by the summit. One of the people involved that day told me that they were on Northern Futures as a volunteer, as were most of the other people, and that they were all busy people who really did not have time to action these suggestions.

I note the fact that the government announced just prior to that summit the appointment of the Minister for the Northern Suburbs. He also announced on that day that a government office called Northern Connections will be opened to represent the Minister for the Northern Suburbs, and that will be, I understand, in the Elizabeth City Centre.

A number of us will remember the situation in earlier days when we had a Minister for the Southern Suburbs but no Office for the South, and we had an Office for the North, but no minister. That always seemed a bit weird to me. However, we had an Office for the North which was situated in Edinburgh Parks but was seen to be not very accessible to many of the people in that region. That office has been closed for some time. I do sincerely hope that the Office for the Northern Suburbs (or Northern Connections, as I think it is going to be called) will work with the community in that area to advance the area and to assist in making sure that the wide-ranging initiatives suggested at the summit are put into action.

I commend the University of South Australia, which convened the summit, for putting out a report which I received in the past few days. I think it has done very well to put that report out as quickly as it has. However, here again, it is a number of pieces of paper and I think the people of that region are very keen to see something other than a document that might gather dust, which we have all seen in relation to many other issues over the years.

It is relevant that I talk about the northern suburbs because, for some time, I have been a member of the Playford Partnership Elected Members group. I commend the City of Playford for ensuring that there are members of both major political parties in that group. I have enjoyed the work there. One of the things we have really encouraged in recent times is to make sure that all the individuals and all the non-government organisations and government agencies are working towards the same causes and the advancement of people in the northern suburbs—that they actually do not work in silos and that they know who else exists in the area, and we try to avoid any overlapping of effort—and overall impact, I suppose. As a member of that group, I have been keen to make sure that that happens and I will continue to encourage that action.

I have a little bit of added weight in doing that because the leader, Mr Martin Hamilton-Smith, has today asked me to take on the role of parliamentary secretary to him for the northern suburbs. I am very pleased to do that, and I look forward to providing an alternative voice for the northern suburbs. As I said, I enjoyed contributing to the recent Northern Community Summit and have a long-standing commitment to the northern part of Adelaide. I was pleased that the Rann government created this ministry. Unfortunately, it seemed to follow the remarks of Jimmy Barnes in the Sunday Mail, and some of the other negative articles that followed his comments about the area in which he grew up.

The northern suburbs are renowned for the high level of volunteer commitment from an array of community and sporting organisations. It is an area that is also well served by a variety of non-government organisations and agencies which are devoted to the advancement of the area, particularly in relation to employment and education issues. In my new role I look forward to building my existing networks, creating new ones and working with the local community to ensure that the northern suburbs receive the strong advocacy they deserve.

I thank the council for the opportunity to make some remarks in reply to the speech delivered in opening the third session of the 51st parliament of the state. Again, I thank the Governor for the role that he plays in the democracy that serves this state so well. In conclusion, I must say that one of the great features of that democracy that serves this state so well is that it is a bicameral one—and long may that remain.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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