HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 April 2009. Page 1943.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:22): I rise to support the Supply Bill 2009, as will many of my colleagues. As members know, this bill provides for the ongoing supply of funds for the Public Service and government operations during the period of the budget and the budget estimates until the budget is finally passed.

I will make some comments of a general nature and in the areas for which I have been a shadow minister, in particular police and police resources and the incentives paid to officers who police areas such as Roxby Downs, to which the minister just referred in response to a Dorothy Dix question.

It is interesting that we have a public sector reform bill before the parliament. This is an important piece of legislation and we look forward to debating it, hopefully, later in the week. The Hon. Rob Lucas and I asked a number of questions during our second reading contribution to the Public Sector Bill, and we believe that the government should at least pay us the courtesy of attempting to answer those questions before we proceed with the committee stage.

When minister Gago summed up the government's position she made no reference to the questions that the Hon. Rob Lucas and I asked. I think that is an indication of the level of arrogance of this government. When we ask questions during the second reading stage of a bill members opposite often joke that we have just had question time, not answer time. We often do not get the answers that we want to the questions that we have asked, but at least we expect the government to attempt to provide some answers. Given that we have some 17,000 more public servants working for the government since it came to office, one would think there would be people in the ministers' offices who would be able to provide those answers.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Which part of the Supply Bill don't you understand?

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Those initial comments certainly relate more to the Public Sector Reform Bill than the Supply Bill, but I thought that it was an appropriate time to put on the record that we do expect some response to those questions as we progress with the Public Sector Reform Bill later in the week. As members know, I have been the shadow minister for police for some considerable time. Certainly in recent times there has been a reshuffle in the opposition ranks and I have responsibility for some other areas. However, the police force in particular has the biggest component of the public sector, if you like, for which I am responsible.

In particular, I want to mention the recruitment program the government has undertaken, that is, the Recruit 400 initiative that was announced at the last election. The Premier announced that the intention was to recruit 400 extra police officers by 2010, and the language used has been interesting. Initially it was 'by 2010', then it was 'by March 2010' and then it was 'during 2010'. Now, of course, the government admitted during the Budget and Finance Committee last week that it will not achieve the target of 400 extra police officers and having 4,400 police officers on the beat—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Mr Wortley interjects that it is not the government's fault. Is he saying that it is the fault of the police? The Hon. Mr Wortley does not understand that it was an election commitment by the government to have 4,400 police officers on the beat by 2010. Then, as I said, the government let it slip to March 2010, then during 2010 and now it will not happen at all. It is one of those promises we often hear from the government. It shifts the promise and it shifts the deadline. One has only to look at the growth in exports in the Strategic Plan to see that it goes from $9 billion to $25 billion by 2013.

We are only four years from 2013 and we are still at $9 billion—seven years of this government and it has not created one extra dollar of export income. Mind you, it has created 17,000 new positions in the public sector! When one looks at recruitment for the police force, one can see that it is a government that is all talk. At the end of the day, it did not actually resource the police force appropriately to achieve those targets. I have a couple of questions to which, if he is able, I would like the minister to provide some answers.

I would like to know the number of officers who have been recruited by South Australia Police during this period who are no longer in SAPOL—so, those who have been recruited as part of the Recruit 400 program but who have dropped out of it, and not as a result of retirement. Also, I would like to know the actual amount of money that has been spent on the program recruiting officers from the United Kingdom. Another question I would like to ask relates to the amount of money spent recruiting young South Australians and young Australians to our police force in comparison to the amount of money that has been spent to recruit overseas police officers.

I understand that often overseas police officers have special expertise and skills that help bolster our police force (and tonight we will see the federal Treasurer talk about an unemployment rate of 8½ per cent—potentially even higher), and this should be a great opportunity for us to recruit young South Australians into our public sector, especially where we have people in a police sense, because the government is still, I assume, progressing forward with its plan to have 4,400 sworn officers on the beat by 2010.

It is interesting to note that not only has the minister in this place today answered a Dorothy Dix question in relation to Roxby Downs but a little while ago when I was in my office getting some documents I heard on the speaker in my office the Premier answering a similar Dorothy Dix question. I think that presents an interesting case study, because it will be one of the communities in our state that is likely to grow over the next 20 years. We have just seen BHP's environmental impact statement tabled and presented to the public and the whole community is looking at it with some interest. Obviously a certain section of the community is opposed to it, but the vast majority of South Australians see the wonderful benefits of that expansion.

I have some notes that have been given to me. If we look at the increase in population in Roxby Downs, currently it is about 6,600 people and is likely to go to 19,000 people in 2014. Then we have, as the minister said a while ago, the Hiltaba construction camp halfway between Roxby Downs and Andamooka. In the 2013-14 time frame, the figures provided to the Minister for Police show that that camp is likely to house between 7,500 and 8,000 construction workers. So, we are looking at a population of some 25,000 to 27,000 people in that area. Currently there are only about 6,500, so we will see another 20,000 or more people.

I am discussing this because there is a concern within the ranks of a number of people within the police force, certainly those out on the ground in these remote communities, that the incentives are not there to attract them. In these regional communities we have an increasing workload and the Roxby Downs population is likely to be a lot of young people, in particular young men. Even though they are well paid, as the population increases we are likely to see an increase in policing requirements. There will always be property damage, vehicle crime, drugs, assaults and related behaviour, not necessarily associated with the employees of the mine but because you have a bigger community and a larger number of people living in and around that community.

I have raised in this place before the concern I have with Andamooka and the government support going into that community, especially by way of police, education and other authorities. The minister has imposed a development plan amendment, where the minimum allotment size is 1,200 square metres, so they cannot have urban infill or desert infill to stop the growth of the community. Clearly there will be significant growth in that community and we expect that, if it is outside the control of BHP, there will be developments there and unsavoury social behaviour that will require extra police presence.

It is interesting to note in the information I received that this significant increase in the population will increase policing requirements. I raise this because of the difficulty in attracting police officers to these remote areas. In the 2006-07 financial year SAPOL had an establishment of seven sworn officers and one civilian customer service clerk in Roxby Downs. This was increased by three sworn officers in 2008-09 to include a detective position, and a second civilian service clerk. Funds have been approved to build a new police station at Roxby Downs and it is envisaged that it will be completed in 2010.

I have visited Roxby Downs on a number of occasions in the past seven years, particularly in the past two or three as the shadow minister for police, and not once has that police station been fully staffed; it has always been short staffed. Indeed, nearly every rural and regional police station in our state is undermanned. Recently I was in Ceduna, where they were eight officers short at that time. My notes go on to say that once the police station is completed a further 14 sworn positions will be attached to provide extended day/afternoon/early morning shifts, seven days a week, and a police response of 24 police and two civilian customer clerks. Depending on the expansion time frames of the mine, a further six police officers are to be considered from 2012-13, and potentially another five in 2013-14. This will be a very significant regional police station and presence. If the population grows according to the expansion outlined in the document provided to the minister, we would see this as being one of our biggest regional towns and police stations. However, as I said, these are rarely ever filled. My notes go on to say that at that time I was advised that there were nine sworn positions for full-time officers in uniformed staff in that station, yet there are two vacancies as we speak today. I know that this continues to be a problem.

If you look at the incentives provided to police officers to work in these outback areas, I think that is where we have a real problem. Rent for houses in Roxby Downs is 40 per cent above that for similar houses in Adelaide: three bedroom houses are between $450 and $500 a week, four bedroom houses are $480 to $550, and a three bedroom unit is over $400 a week. There is a view amongst some staff in the northern areas of our state that, with the expansion of Roxby Downs, SAPOL will never be able to fill those positions. In fact, some people in the police force suggest that the government should look at what happens in other states, which have a zero rent policy for mining communities and other hard to fill, remote areas.

Police officers do not go to these areas on a larger salary, and, as a result, the positions have been very hard to fill. We know, and the minister himself has made comment in this place, that it has been almost impossible to match the salaries paid by the mining companies, so we have to look at other ways of getting there the important people—whether they be police officers, teachers or other government employees—who make those communities work. We want the development and we want to see our state's economy grow, but the government (in partnership with the public sector and the Public Service) must be prepared to provide some incentives for people to go to those areas and take up the important roles that are needed to grow these regional communities.

Some wonderful developments may occur with hot rocks and geothermal energy resources in Outback South Australia, and in the long term it may well be better and cheaper to actually shift people to live in that part of the state rather than try to transmit the electricity. There would be huge transmission losses across the lines, and it may be a more efficient use of that resource to have people live in the Outback. Again, I believe the government has to play a much greater role in partnering with the public sector and the Public Service to have people working in those outback areas.

I would like to continue my comments on the police for a little longer. It is interesting to note that we have had the best of economic times, some of the best years that our nation has ever seen with the growth in our economy, yet we have a police force that (when you talk to police officers) always seems to be just a little under-resourced. I will use tasers as an example. My colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens, when he was assisting as parliamentary secretary for police, was passionate about progressing the issue of supplying our police force with tasers, but it was resisted.

When I became shadow minister it was resisted by the police, but it was something that the Hon. Terry Stephens was working towards along with my colleague the Hon. Rob Lucas. Late last year we released a policy (via press release and a story in the Sunday Mail) advising that, as an alternative government, we would provide funding for some 500 taser units for SAPOL. It was interesting to note that the police commissioner then came out and said that they were actually going to do that themselves and were undertaking a trial.

It reflects poorly on this government that it does not provide resources to the police force to enable our hard-working officers to be kept up-to-date with the latest equipment, especially when we see increasing crime and violence in areas such as Hindley Street. Tasers have been used worldwide so there is no need to conduct a trial. I am sure it is just a delaying tactic employed by the commissioner because the government has not provided sufficient financial support to supply the police with those units.

Certainly, in Hindley Street and those areas where there is a bit of civil disobedience, which are often difficult situations, tasers have proven to be very effective tools of trade for the police to bring some of the crowd behaviour under control and send a message to some of the people in those crowds who behave badly and cause civil disturbances that make those areas a little unpleasant for the rest of us.

Police officers equipped with tasers will move quickly and bring those people under control. We have seen time and again where a person's life has been saved with the use of a taser because the police have not had to use some other more traditional method such as a gun or some other sort of restraint. I think that that is another example of where the government has been, if you like, lazy in not actually resourcing our police force adequately.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): The Hon. Mr Wortley is out of order. This bill is about the provision of Public Service funds.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting President. The police as public servants—and I am sure that the Hon. Mr Wortley would understand that police officers are public servants—in this modern day, when they graduate, do not even receive something as simple as a raincoat or a kitbag. That is a joke in this modern world. I am sure your union members would have got a raincoat. When you were one of the gassies, you would have got a raincoat.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Ridgway is reminded to address his comments through the chair.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I do beg your pardon, Mr Acting President. I think it can be seen that there really is a whole range of areas in which this government has let down our public sector, particularly the Public Service and, in particular, the police. I think we need to put this all into context. Even though we have had seven of the best years this state has ever seen, recent budget reductions show that SAPOL has been asked to reduce its spending by nearly $60 million over the next four years to meet the budget cuts and unfunded cost pressures.

Now the pressure will really come on. We will have close to 4,400 sworn officers on the beat. They will not quite get there, but it will be within 50 to 100 of that number, but there will be not enough resources there to support them. I foresee some real tensions where the government will again let down our hard-working public sector.

It is also interesting to note the 2008-09 budget papers relating to the redevelopment of the Fort Largs Police Academy where all our young police officers will be trained. Those budget papers show that $29.7 million was allocated to the redevelopment of that facility, but the recent announcement shows that it will cost some $59 million. You can see that there will be some tremendous pressures for the police minister to deal with: a dwindling budget, dwindling resources and still trying to support our hard-working police officers so that they can actually get out on the beat and do the job that they are trained to do.

One of the other areas for which I have had some responsibility in the past little while is mining. The government has often claimed that it has put extra money and extra staff into PIRSA and that it is investing in helping to develop our mining industry. It is interesting to note that Dr Paul Vogel, when he left as the head of the EPA, commented that, if we were serious about expanding our mining industry, and in particular our nuclear industry (and we have just heard the Premier and the minister, by way of Dorothy Dix questions, talk about what is happening at Roxby Downs), we had inadequate radiation compliance officers to support our burgeoning uranium/nuclear mining industry.

To my knowledge, there has been no increase in radiation compliance officers within the EPA, and yet we are talking about the world's largest mine. I heard the Premier say in another place recently that he has been told that it is a $US1 trillion resource. He brags about how big it is and how wonderful it is but, as we always see, he does not actually back up his bragging with resources to the Public Service and, in particular, the government departments that will provide the support. We saw the problems that came about in Arkaroola when Marathon Resources dumped some material that probably it should not have dumped. Why did we not have some compliance officers out there? Why do we not have the resources on the ground to support this mining industry?

We have a government bragging about its PACE initiative amounting to roughly $5 million each year, resulting in $300 million worth of mining exploration. It has claimed that it was the PACE initiative that delivered that great mining exploration boom. If $5 million two years ago gave us $300 million worth of exploration, surely $10 million in this budget will see us with $600 million of exploration if that PACE program is the reason we had that wonderful mining exploration boom. We know it is not; it was driven by commodity prices.

We also need to look at the Labor Party's policy (the Premier claims it was hard work changing their no new mines policy from a uranium perspective), which has certainly held this state back. As I indicated some weeks ago in this chamber, we are so highly prospective for uranium in South Australia that whenever you drill somewhere you are likely to find uranium. If you could not establish a uranium mine over the past 20 years under the Labor policy then mining companies were not even interested in exploring. Clearly, Dr Paul Vogel knows that we are highly prospective for uranium. We have 40 per cent of the world's known reserves and it is likely to increase as further exploration takes place.

Again, that is an example of a government that has not been prepared to support our mining industry with enough people on the ground. In fact, I think that an increase in the Extractive Areas Rehabilitation Fund levy was to enable an extra compliance officer to be provided on the ground to monitor what was going on. To my understanding, the government has been collecting that money (quite a significant amount—several million dollars) since that agreement passed this chamber and yet there is not one extra person on the ground undertaking that compliance role for our extractive industries sector.

It is also interesting to note that the government has been championing its reforms in the planning sector, and certainly the move to a residential code was something that the opposition was happy to support. However, as I indicated in my question earlier today, there appears to be a lack of resources in Planning SA. There is a lack of staff on the ground, and it appears that the government has not actually provided enough resources for Planning SA to deliver the sort of leadership we want for the growth in our society and in our economy over the next 20 or 30 years.

The anecdotal evidence I hear is that there are increasing numbers of external consultants. We have a record number of Public Service employees (some 17,000 more than when this government came to office) and yet I know that a whole range of activities are being undertaken by consultants outside of Planning SA, certainly regarding our 30-year plan and other components of the residential code. A whole range of work by the government is all being done by external consultants. Clearly, we have the wrong people in Planning SA, or perhaps the government has not put enough people in there or is not resourcing them adequately.

What I cannot understand is how we can have an increase in the number of public servants in South Australia and yet have an increase in the use of external consultants and external expertise. Surely, if you are going to use external consultants and expertise you should be reducing the number of public servants, or the other way around: you actually bring the expertise in-house and you do not need to use consultants at the same level.

Planning SA has significant challenges ahead of it with the development of the TOD (transport oriented development) concept. I think that is a great opportunity to bring in some good expertise rather than relying on external consultants. I also note that the Minister for Urban Development and Planning (Hon. Paul Holloway) and the Minister for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (Hon. Pat Conlon) are heading up a world tour of TOD developments in the near future. I think they leave at the end of the week. I have heard that the minister will spend one or two nights in the Waldorf Astoria. I am wondering—

The Hon. P. Holloway: That's not true.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister says that it is not true, and he can perhaps correct the record, but that is what I was told the other day. I thought that would be a wonderful use—not—of the Public Service. Again, it is about the expertise. I do not really know what benefit it brings to our state's economy to have some 20 members of our business community touring with two ministers—

The Hon. P. Holloway: It is their choice whether they go; they are paying for it.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: They are paying for it, but how many members of the government are travelling on this tour, including the two ministers and their support staff? We are talking about the Supply Bill. This money has been supplied to send these people and other members of their staff overseas.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Rob Lucas talks about a two week holiday.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister interjects. The cost of the trip is almost double an opposition member's travel allowance. Even if I had been invited, I would not have been able to afford to travel. There is a whole range of issues in Planning SA. I question the Hon. Patrick Conlon's department, where we have seen a whole range of projects. The government has asked the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure to cost these projects, and yet nearly all of them have blown out significantly in cost.

Has the government brought in external people to give advice, or have in-house people given the advice? The South Road/Anzac Highway underpass has almost doubled in cost from $65 million to $118 million; the Northern Expressway increased from $300 million to $560 million; the northern connector corridor cost $1.55 billion; and the Port River bridges increased from $131 million to $175 million. These projects had been costed and, clearly, mistakes have been made. Have they not been resourcing government departments properly? I just do not understand how you can get things so wrong. Most people would expect—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The minister just interjected, 'Well, steel goes up'. Well, steel has come down significantly in price, so why aren't projects coming down in price?

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know. The minister always has an excuse. He always blames somebody or something else. We have some 17,000 extra employees. We have tremendous budget pressures, with talk about the world economy as it slips into recession. Sadly, South Australia is likely to move into low growth over the next period. It really is of concern to the opposition that we have a public sector that will now be starved of resources because the government has not been able to manage it over the past seven years.

We have had significant revenue flows. In fact, the most alarming thing for most of us is that, for every budget the Treasurer has delivered, income has increased beyond what he expected, but so has his expenditure. He has delivered a budget, but expenditure and revenue have outstripped the budget; revenue has always outdone expenditure. So, of course, this government has been rescued by windfall gains every year.

We will now see a government that will move in the opposite direction. We all know that, when an economy starts to back off and underperform, revenue will shrink away from expenditure at an even greater rate. We are at great risk of having a crippled state economy and public sector because this government has not properly managed our state's finances. With those few words, I indicate that I am happy to support the Supply Bill.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (15:55): I will not repeat everything our lead speaker has said, but there are a few points that I wish to touch on. I will make a reasonably brief contribution, unless the Hon. John Gazzola heckles me too much, in which case it will become far more lengthy and it will drive everybody nuts.

Given the global financial crisis that we are facing, it is a very important time for the state's economy to be managed efficiently but, regrettably, this inept government is in charge of controlling the purse strings. This Supply Bill comes to us after seven of the very best years this state has ever seen but, regrettably, there is little to show for it. The Rann Labor government has benefitted from record GST payments from the federal government.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Government members have been warned.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Thank you, Mr President, for your protection. This government has also benefited from record tax revenues. Yet, during the best of economic times prior to the current situation that we face, the government has run South Australia firmly into the ground. The Rann Labor government is all spin and no action. It really has done very little for the people of South Australia.

The Mid-Year Budget Review painted a very interesting picture of where our state is at. As some of my Liberal colleagues in another place have already explained, this government has never had a problem with revenue: it has had a problem with expenses. We have seen budget blow-outs in almost everything this government touches. Almost every project this government has undertaken has had a blow-out. Whether it is building an underpass or a bridge, or undertaking any project at all, the Rann government has stuffed it up. We are not seeing revenue problems, but problems with expenditure.

South Australia's fiscal position and outlook is bleak to say the least. At the time of the Mid-Year Budget Review, there were budget deficits on all three accounting measures in 2008-09: a lending deficit of $819 million, a cash deficit of $801 million, and a net operating deficit of $112 million. All these have worsened since the Mid-Year Budget Review. The responsibility for this rests solely with the Premier and the Treasurer, and a Liberal government will again be required to come in and fix up Labor's financial mess.

South Australia now carries the second worst budget deficit in the nation, with only New South Wales being worse off, and we all know what a basket case they are. Essentially, poor financial discipline and poor management by the Rann government has landed South Australia in financial trouble. To try to make up for his mistakes, the Treasurer has deferred infrastructure projects of significant value to the community.

Most of my Liberal colleagues have been involved in small business, and some of my other colleagues in this place will know that, in the good times, it is all about keeping your expenses under control so that your business has a strong future. Unfortunately, most people in the Labor Party do not have this type of business acumen, and that is why Labor governments so often fail on economic management.

I am sure that tonight Mr Rudd and Mr Swan will give us another glowing example of this when they unveil the biggest budget deficit in Australian history, and just watch them blame the former Howard government (a government with impeccable economic credentials), the global financial crisis, and anything and anyone but themselves.

As mentioned, this state government has an expenses problem. Revenue has never been an issue, but we will still not hear the Treasurer talk about the windfall revenues gained from the GST during the good years. As we head into tougher times, one can rightfully ask: where has all the money gone? It has gone into trams, into bungled infrastructure projects and into a ballooning Public Service. It has been wasted while major problems, such as securing our state's water supply, are no closer to being resolved.

I want to touch on state taxes. Since this government came to office, payroll tax is up 52 per cent. Taxes on property overall are up 104 per cent, and some categories of land tax are up 267 per cent. Taxes on gambling are up 29 per cent, insurance tax is up 43 per cent, and motor vehicle tax is up 35 per cent. This is the highest taxing government in the state's history.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has indicated that South Australia has levied its tax revenue bases more severely than any other state or territory during 2007-08. Labor's unenviable feat is that it has delivered the highest taxing regime of any state in the commonwealth.

I refer to payroll tax levied under this government. A business operating in Queensland with a payroll of up to $1 million will not pay one cent in payroll tax. A business in Tasmania will pay nothing in payroll tax. Over in the west, a business will pay $13,750 in payroll tax but, here in South Australia, it is $22,400. It makes no sense whatsoever. South Australia has the lowest payroll tax threshold in the country and one of the worst payroll tax regimes. It is uncompetitive, unfair and a disincentive to do business in our state.

Let me touch on stamp duty. As a parent of two young adults I am keen to see them break into the housing market, and I have previously spoken in this place about unfair stamp duties in South Australia. If you are buying a $300,000 property in Queensland you will pay $3,000 in stamp duty. If you are buying in South Australia you will pay $11,000 in stamp duty. We are the worst of all the states, except Victoria. Land tax is a major issue to business in this state. Many business people I speak to are concerned about the effect that land tax is having on their business. It is affecting their business to the point where they have had to sell some of their commercial property and look to invest interstate.

It is again worth looking at how they do things interstate. How much land tax does one pay on an investment property or business premises valued at $500,000 in Queensland? Not a cent. In South Australia the government will take $1,700 from you. If it is a $1 million property you are paying $11,400 in South Australia, but in Western Australia you would be paying about $700. How can the Rann Labor government justify this? What sort of signs are the Premier and the Treasurer sending to the business community when good businesses employing high numbers of people have to sell part of their assets and move interstate purely because of the disgraceful taxation regime in this state?

It is a restrictive regime that quite simply has to change. We have seen the community anger at public meetings and in the media and, clearly, something has to give. With those few comments, I support the bill, but I fear for the future of South Australians both young and old.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:01): I rise to support the second reading of this bill, which provides, I believe, some $2.75 billion to ensure the payment of public servants and the continuation of state government services from 1 July until the Appropriation Bill for 2009-10 passes both houses. As we know, the Supply Bill gives parliamentary authority to the government of the day to continue delivering services via public expenditure. The government is entitled to continue delivering these services in accordance with general approved priorities—that is, the priorities of the last 12 months—until the Appropriation Bill is passed.

I want to take a little time today to talk about a number of areas that are serviced by various sectors of the state government and, obviously, the public servants who perform those duties. A certain degree of it will relate to the health portfolio, so I will cover three different areas in that portfolio sector. First, I would like to talk a little about the recent plan of the government in relation to central procurement for country hospitals. In recent months my colleagues and I have been able to pour some light on the government's central procurement policy for country hospitals which has mandated those hospitals to cease obtaining supplies from local businesses in favour of the South Australian Distribution Centre at Camden Park.

We have seen a recent backflip—via ABC Radio—which will allow country suppliers to compete against the South Australian Distribution Centre, because I think the government has been embarrassed by the publicity this 'centralisation gone mad' (as I have described it) has received in country areas. While the government has said that regional-based distributors can compete against the Camden Park centre, certainly there are very strong concerns by the businesses who have been supplying the hospitals very well that they will not be competing on a level playing field due to the size of the contracts that the Camden Park centre can hand out to other suppliers.

Certainly in this house the government has been unable to tell me whether the decision was accompanied by a regional impact statement when it went through cabinet. I am sure that it should have done, but we have not heard any answer on that; and, certainly, I have not heard any answer as to whether the Regional Communities Consultative Council was given any indication of this move. It does concern me that a number of significant businesses in regional South Australia— and they include Northern Agencies in Whyalla, EP Cleaning Supplies in Port Lincoln, Warehouse Matrix in Balaklava, Riverland Paper Supplies in Berri and Jaypak Distributors in Mount Gambier (I think there are some others)—have all indicated that they face an uncertain future and that there will be a negative impact on their staffing levels and on the support they can give to community groups in their area.

It has been a very strange decision, yet many of them are reminded of the days of the old Supply SA venture, which was closed down because it was inefficient. These businesses have shown that they are very good at providing a same-day, freight-free service to the hospitals. Let us not forget that those country hospitals are staffed very largely by hard-working public servants who are providing a service not only to the people who live in those regional communities but in many cases also to the people who live in Adelaide and larger country communities who, when driving through a town, have an accident and need to go to a hospital in that area. They need those services just as much as the local people. The government needs to come clean on this one. Is it prepared to allow those public servants in country hospitals to continue to have those very good arrangements with the businesses based in their local communities or in other regions nearby that understand the intricacies of those local areas?

On another matter in relation to the health area, I remind members that last year, running through to the early part of this year, I chaired the select committee on the redevelopment of the Glenside Hospital. The committee brought down an interim report in September last year, recommending that a research and training institute be developed as part of the redevelopment. Following that, we brought down our final report in February this year, which made a number of recommendations. None of those recommendations at this stage have been responded to by the government. I know the parliament decrees that standing committee reports must be responded to within a set period—I think three months—but unfortunately there is no decree in relation to select committees. However, I would have thought that as a courtesy the minister would have responded to our recommendations. As noted by the Hon. Ian Hunter the last time we were sitting, he and the Hon. Bernie Finnigan supported the great majority of the recommendations of the report.

Certainly the report indicated the great deal of disaffection expressed to the committee on a number of aspects of the proposed redevelopment, including the sale of the land to fund residential housing, plans for commercial and retail areas, the future of rural and remote services, the depletion of open space, the possible destruction of trees, security (particularly in relation the incorporation of Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia), traffic and access issues and the consultation process, which most of us in this place were well aware was indicative of many consultation processes. It reminds me somewhat of what we are going through with Regional Development Australia at the moment. It is almost a 'you will do what we say' consultation process.

I ask the Leader of the Government to seek some response to the work done by that select committee. I understand that the government is not all that keen about some of our select committees, but this one worked well and came up with a very good report. If the leader would like to read the Hon. Ian Hunter's speech on the noting of the report, he would realise that he and his colleagues supported the great majority of the recommendations.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Is that Glenside?

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Yes. The committee would appreciate a response from the minister on the two reports. It is important that we get a response to that report on Glenside because there are ongoing issues and continuing matters that remain unresolved. There may have even been a meeting in the vicinity last night of people still concerned about aspects of the Glenside redevelopment that remain unresolved, and the Leader of the Government may well be aware that some of those concerns relate to some development plan amendments. I ask the government to give a response to a number of those issues.

I will not delay the council very long in talking about suicide prevention, as I have done in the past, but in recent years I have made many approaches to the government about the CORES (Community Response to Eliminating Suicide) program and seeking government money, even if only for a pilot program. The current minister (Hon. Jane Lomax-Smith) upon taking office gave me a commitment, as did the Commissioner for Social Inclusion (Monsignor Cappo), that the CORES program would be considered in a review of all mental health and suicide prevention services.

It is many months since that commitment was given to me, and we still see no government support for that program. I have never asked for blanket funding for such a program in this state, other than perhaps some seed funding for community groups—the Salvation Army in some places and Rotary in others, and independent groups such as Loxcare at Loxton—and various councils and regional development boards that have shown interest in running a program but need assistance to do so, but unfortunately that has not been forthcoming. I congratulate the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association for committing funds to run a CORES program within that local government region. There has already been some training for the general community as well as some specific training for two leaders, who will train more local Eyre Peninsula people in the CORES program over the remainder of the year.

I believe that the Eyre Peninsula Local Government Association has committed $11,000 to the program, and that is an extraordinary commitment that also shows the concern held by communities in that region regarding the great threat posed by suicide in the community. Many other areas are of equal concern, and I would hope they are encouraged by the work of the EP LGA. I would also encourage the government—and the minister, in particular—to take note of the work that program is doing, as I will be doing over the coming months.

I would like to move on to a couple of other areas which particularly relate to my responsibilities as the first opposition spokesman for the northern suburbs, a role that I take very seriously. I was appointed to that position about August or September last year, following the Sunday Mail article in which, members may recall, Jimmy Barnes made an impassioned plea for the northern suburbs. That was followed by the University of South Australia convening the Northern Suburbs Summit, which was held on 1 August last year.

Just prior to that, the Premier announced that he would appoint a Minister for the Northern Suburbs, and on the day of the summit he announced that he would open a Northern Connections office in the northern suburbs within a very short period of time. I have spoken about that matter recently in this chamber, but the reality is that the Minister for the Northern Suburbs, the Hon. Jennifer Rankine, has presided over a situation where it took from 1 August, when the announcement was made, until 17 April this year for the government to open that office at Elizabeth. My understanding is that cabinet gave approval in November for the office space to be rented, but no-one has been able to give me any indication of the reason for such a delay. My summary of the situation would be that it was because of general incompetence and a lack of commitment to the project.

It also disturbs me that, while a director has been appointed, we know from the media that he has gone overseas on leave for five weeks. I should point out here that the director is Dr Mal Hemmerling and, while no-one denies him the right to take any leave that he may have accrued in his job as Commissioner for Consumer Affairs, given that the office took from August last year until 17 April this year to open, it would seem that the five councils directed to be part of this portfolio by the government have not yet been consulted regarding what the office will actually do. It seems to me that it will be about 12 months from the Premier's announcement until any concrete work is done.

I support the concept of an Office for the Northern Suburbs—or Northern Connections, as it is known—but I believe it is pointless having it unless local government bodies and other stakeholders in the area have input into what the office will do. The previous Office of the North, which was based at Edinburgh Parks, was not highly regarded and not easily accessible; stakeholders in the region felt it got in the way rather than assisting local community groups or local government bodies. I urge the minister to consult with the stakeholder bodies. While it would seem natural that the Salisbury and Playford councils would be the key stakeholder councils, there are also the Tea Tree Gully, Gawler and Light councils that have been directed to be involved, but none of them has had any say as to whether or not they want to be part of it.

Staff members asked me about a number of issues when I went to the opening of Northern Connections, and one that comes readily to mind is the situation regarding the Gawler rail line. Again, I apologise to members who have heard me go on about this for 12 months or more, but it is an issue that the government fails to recognise as being a problem. I concede that the 6.35 train I travelled on from Gawler this morning had a third carriage—and I was pleased to see that, because it was not quite as badly overcrowded as it has been previously—but the reality is that the changed timetables, which came into effect just after Anzac Day last year and which were amended slightly in November and again at the end of January this year, have produced a situation where the trains on the Gawler railway line are always running late and are generally overcrowded.

I highlight a case where, recently, a train driver or another staff member on a service from Gawler during peak hour announced to the passengers that the service had actually arrived in the yard on time, which was a new thing. However, the trouble was that, even though it arrived in the yard on time, it took about another five or 10 minutes to get into the station because all the other services were running late and there was no room for it to come in.

I think that, when we get to a stage where the TransAdelaide staff are announcing that a service is close to its destination on time, then we have a real problem. I certainly do not criticise the TransAdelaide staff who do most of the work in running the services and operating them, but I think the hierarchy and, certainly, the minister's office will not get the message that the current schedule of timetables for these services is not working whatsoever and needs to be overhauled.

I was asked recently whether some federal funding has been announced to increase security cameras at some stations on the line, and whether this was a good thing that would encourage people to use the train services on that line. I said that I welcomed that, but I also made the point that, until you get more security on the carriages themselves but particularly until you get them to run in a timely fashion, it will not be attractive to more people to use public transport.

Certainly, I would have thought that one of the great aims of this government, or any government, would be to get more people using public transport. To do that you need to ensure that they are going to be safe and secure and that they will travel to where they want to go in a timely fashion.

In conclusion, I hark back to what I said earlier when I referred briefly to the Regional Development Australia proposals that are currently out for consultation with councils. While I am certainly not against the new proposals that have been put forward by the federal and state governments, I think that the manner in which this has been handled by the federal department and by the Department of Trade and Economic Development has been deplorable.

A decision was made by all regional development ministers across the country in July last year in Broome to roll out these changes across Australia. In November, the then minister the Hon. Rory McEwen declared that a memorandum of understanding would be developed in a very short period of time with the three tiers of government. It was very important that that happen in this state because we have a unique situation where local government is a funding partner in regional development bodies—something that we do not see anywhere else. It was going to be in November and, here again, a little bit like the delay in the Northern Connections office, it was only about three weeks ago that the memorandum of understanding on its 10th or 11th draft was finalised.

We now have a situation where local government bodies have been given six weeks to decide on varying degrees of amalgamation with the area consultative committees and other regional development boards with something that is supposed to commence on 1 July this year. I think it is ludicrous to think that that can be rolled out across a great deal of the state. There are some areas where it will be easier than others, but I think the process is lamentable.

I commend those practitioners in regional development and within the local government funding providers for wanting to get on and get the best result from the commonwealth government's entry into this area, but I should reiterate that the commonwealth government is only offering at this stage $1.4 million across the whole state as part of the change that it is demanding.

On that note, I thank the council for the opportunity to make those comments about parts of the public services provided to the community of South Australia by the government. I support the facilitation and continuing delivery of public services by public servants, which is facilitated by this bill, and I support the role of public servants in their commitment to delivering services to the people of South Australia.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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