HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 July 2009. Page 2799.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:04): I rise to speak to the Appropriation Bill for the 2009-10 budget which we have received from the House of Assembly. We will pass it this week so that the government can get on and function as a government—in a financial sense at least.

This is this government's eighth budget and I think now that the community can judge Labor on its ongoing failure in relation to the state's economy. I know that some will argue that we have had a wonderful economic time in this state. I think even the most courageous of members opposite would have to acknowledge that Australia and the world have gone through a sensational economic boom over the past decade. Sadly, that came to an end last October. However, I think South Australia is not well placed as a result of this government's mismanagement of the economy over the preceding seven years.

Our state's most pressing need is water. The government has failed to take the lead on water. Governments are elected to show leadership. Premier Rann would have stood up in the 2002 election campaign as opposition leader promising strong leadership and a commitment to look after South Australians. Yet, for seven years we have seen no leadership on the issue of water.

Liberal members of the opposition indicated that we would build a desalination plant if we were elected, and time and again we have repeated the story that the government of the day said that we did not need one. I think minister Hill made some comment that we did not need one; minister Foley suggested that it was too big; Premier Rann may have said it was not big enough—they made a whole range of excuses why they did not want to support our policy.

They spent 12 months doing nothing, then they announced a high level committee to look into the establishment of a desalination plant and to evaluate some sites. It took about another 18 months before the government finally came up with the site of Port Stanvac—the original site that we suggested over two years before. So, you can see, Mr President, that, when it comes to leadership, this government has been sadly lacking, especially on the issue of water.

Thankfully, as we have all heard on the roof here today, we have had significant rain. In fact, over the past few nights (including last night) we have had significant rain. I just saw the start of the Channel 10 news with the headline story that we have had our wettest start to July in over two decades. Certainly, that augurs well for our catchments in the hills.

The other area that the government has been particularly negligent in is that of stormwater. Even in this time of climate change, global warming and uncertainty about rainfall, we are still getting a significant amount of rainfall. In fact, many gigalitres of water have run out to sea in this wettest start to July for two decades, yet this government has shown no leadership on stormwater in the seven years prior to this budget.

The government has announced its Water for Good plan, which some of us find quite amazing. I will not speak in much detail on that because I think the Hon. Stephen Wade will make some detailed comments regarding water on behalf of the opposition.

Certainly, Colin Pitman and the City of Salisbury have shown what they can do to capture stormwater. We also had the federal government commitment to do something at Adelaide Airport similar to Parafield airport, and it is estimated that some 60 gigalitres of stormwater could be captured there, yet the government did not want to do that. It just has not shown leadership. So, in seven years of good economic times with buoyant revenues, this government has squandered its opportunities.

It is also important to note some of the government's announcements in the last budget, including the electrification of rail. I think in the early 1990s Perth and Adelaide had roughly the same number of passengers on their rail systems, and Perth had a diesel train system, as we have here today. Perth made the decision back then to electrify, and the patronage there is some 70 per cent higher today than it was then, while ours is only 8 or 10 per cent higher than it was then.

Members opposite conveniently forget that, when the Liberal Party came to power and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire was a member of that government, we had the financial mess of the state bank to clean up, so sadly we were somewhat limited in what we could do with electrification of rail and a whole range of projects we needed to do for the community. However, it was on the agenda, and again there is a lack of leadership from the government.

In 2002 when we lost office, the resleepering of the Outer Harbor line had already been planned and started by the Hon. Diana Laidlaw as transport minister in preparation for electrification. Members opposite and now the ministers have said that we have to resleeper the lines, get the gauge right and put in the concrete sleepers and that we must have a top quality line and track before we can electrify it. That project had started on the Outer Harbor line, and this government cancelled it. It was in place, and the government cancelled it. It has only just started to reorganise, and now it has announced its big infrastructure spend. It is almost at the end of the budget cycle and, of course, after the financial boom cycle it is now borrowing significant amounts of money to invest in public transport.

As my old grandfather used to say, it is not what you make that is important: it is what you do not spend. It is interesting to see that spending blow-outs, not falls in revenue, are the reason the government's budget has now slumped into deficit. Government spending has blown out by some $556 million in the 2008-09 budget and $1.382 million in 2009-10 above those budgeted in the 2008-09 budget.

We can look at the comments that the Auditor-General made two years ago, when he said that the projected current operating surplus for the four years of the 2008-09 budget is therefore subject to highly constrained expenditure. This was the case with the forecasts for the past two budgets, but they did not achieve real term decreases in expenditure for those budget years. For seven budgets, the Rann government has been running small surpluses as a percentage of revenue, but now, despite record revenue growth, spending blowouts have caused the budget to plunge into deficit.

It is interesting to see that the cumulative total of unbudgeted spending over the life of this government is some $2.7 billion. That is the thing that most South Australians struggle to come to terms with. We have an army of people in Treasury; we have a government with all the resources of government and ministers with huge departments. I know they go through an exhaustive process with the bilaterals in framing the budget, so it is particularly rigorous.

I am at a loss to work out how, with the thousands of people who would contribute to the final budget document (and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, who has been a minister before, is nodding in agreement with me, I assume, or maybe he was nodding with the Hon. Ann Bressington, but I think he was nodding in agreement with me), and with the army of experts and the expertise that is put into place to formulate the budget, which is tabled by the Treasurer with the budget lock up and with all the media attention this year when he took his trip to the US to make sure he kept our AAA credit rating—with an army of people over the seven years, we have seen $2.7 billion more expenditure.

I struggle to understand how can you can do that. The only reason we have survived as a state is that over that same time revenue has gone up by some $3.8 billion. If you look at the investment in the desalination plant, public transport and a whole range of areas on which the government is hoping to be re-elected, such as spending $2 billion on a transport revolution, we have $3.8 billion of revenue that was unbudgeted for. You can almost see that on some of these projects we would not have to borrow money: we would have the surplus in the system to fund them.

Treasurer Foley and Premier Rann should have a good, long, hard look at themselves, and the community has to have a good, long, hard look at them, because clearly they have not been able to deliver a budget at any time in the past that has come in on budget, especially expenditure. Revenue, yes; the economy ebbs and flows and comes and goes, and land prices go up, so some taxation revenue has increased, but the one thing the government has control over is expenditure.

Treasurer Foley always used to stand up in the first term and talk about what a good economic manager he was. 'We are good economic managers', he repeated. Sadly, I think the media in this community have swallowed that line. If you were trying to run your own household or your own small business or the shearing contracting business you ran years ago, Mr President (sadly, among members opposite you are probably the only one who has ever been involved in any private business activity; looking at the rest of the members opposite, I do not think they have had much experience at all in private enterprise and business), you would find that you could not run a business in that way.

If you went to the bank with a budget and said, 'This is my budget, but my expenditures have gone up significantly higher than I expected', the bank would say, 'I'm sorry; we are not prepared to provide any overdraft or loan facilities for you.'

So, we see a government that has really failed to grasp the opportunities those wonderful economic times gave South Australia. We are now experiencing a period when things are somewhat constrained by the contraction of the global economy, and we find ourselves having to borrow a significant amount of money.

It is also interesting to note that one of the budget announcements was that a sustainable budget commission—a razor gang—would be implemented after the election. I think the Treasurer is looking for expenditure cuts of some $750 million. That is a particularly gutless approach to a problem. If you need $750 million worth of expenditure cuts, why not put it in the budget and tell the community where you are going to make those cuts? But, no, this government is not prepared to do that; it wants to do it after the election. The Premier, Treasurer Foley and minister Holloway, as Leader of the Government, say that they do not shirk their responsibilities and that they make the tough decisions. They are meant to show leadership, yet no leadership has been shown in relation to the tough decisions, and they have deferred the decision until after the election.

The voters really need to ask themselves why they should trust this government for another term if it is not prepared to tell them exactly where cuts will be made. I expect we will see those cuts in a range of community projects that affect the everyday life of South Australians. At the end of the day, South Australians will feel the effect in their quality of life and the quality of the community activities available to them, because this government will be making cuts to programs that affect the daily life of all South Australians.

It is interesting to note that the global financial crisis has hit some of the government's investments quite hard; in particular, WorkCover and the issue of the unfunded liability. When Labor came to office, the unfunded liability was some $60 million, although the CEO of WorkCover, Ms Julia Davison, told me in a briefing at one point that the actuary had it wrong and used a different method to make the calculation and that it was closer to $120 million. Even if you accept Julia Davison's estimate of $120 million, it is now $1.3 billion. I know that WorkCover has significant assets, and I think the value of those assets has dropped by some $200 million, which has contributed slightly to the unfunded liability. However, it is still well in excess of $1 billion and approaching $1.2 billion.

If Julia Davison's excuse that the actuary was using a different formula is accurate, the unfunded liability went from $120 million to $160 million—and I recall the Hon. Angus Redford asking questions of minister Holloway and minister Roberts at the time and holding the government to account. The unfunded liability then went to $200 million and then to $250 million. I think the government then commissioned a report from the WorkCover Board, which took 12 months to complete. Minister Wright then chose not to accept the report from the board. By that stage the unfunded liability was up to $600 million to $700 million. The government then commissioned an external review, and by that stage it was up to $800 million to $900 million. The government then brought in legislation late last year, which the opposition agreed to support, but the legislation has not helped to bring down the unfunded liability. The question we need to ask ourselves is: why is minister Wright still in the job when he sat there—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He's not.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: In fact, he isn't; it is now minister Caica. So, he is no longer in the job; I have been corrected by my colleague the Hon. John Dawkins. On minister Wright's watch, the unfunded liability went from $120 million, if you use Julia Davison's calculation, right through to $1.1 billion. Again, in the best of economic times and with low unemployment and a highly competitive economy, this government sat back and sat on its hands and watched the status of our workers compensation system being eroded. Again, I think that is where leadership should have come in, but it has not been shown.

The government should have recognised that, if the unfunded liability has gone from $120 million to $240 million, it has doubled. I think I have mentioned the briefing with Julia Davison, the chair of the board, Mr Bruce Carter, and other ministerial advisers. I suspect that managing something like WorkCover is like rolling a big tractor tyre; that is, the hard thing is to get it up and balanced but, once it is balanced and as long as you keep it balanced, it is relatively easy to roll along.

This government has taken its eye off the ball. When the unfunded liability got to $150 million or $160 million, it should have put in a bit of effort and pushed the tyre up straight. But, no, the government just watched and let it fall almost flat on its side, and now the community, injured workers and employers have to pick up the tab for the government's inaction and lack of leadership. The government should have stepped in early in the piece and pushed the WorkCover tyre back up straight.

It is interesting to note that it is now official that South Australia is the highest taxed state in the nation and that the Rann government is the highest taxing government in the nation. The total taxation revenue in 2009-10 will be $48 million more than in 2008-09. The tax revenue has increased by 61 per cent since this government came to office. It is quite astounding the amount of money this government collects in taxes, but where is the benefit to our community? I think most people accept that we need to pay tax. Sadly, taxes are a reality of life. Only two things are certain in life, and they are death and taxes.

I think the concern in the community was highlighted by the very successful tax summit the leader of the opposition at the time (Mr Martin Hamilton-Smith) organised in Parliament House a couple of years ago, which was well supported. That tax summit highlighted a range of concerns in our community about taxation and the reform needed to our tax system. The government's own budget figures indicate 61 per cent growth: in 2001-02, there was $2.193 billion, and total taxation is now $3.56 billion. So it has not quite doubled but it has gone up significantly. Most people would ask: where is the better service for our taxes? I think the government really needs to look hard at its taxation reform.

I also think one of the issues that has been interesting to look at is the reluctance of the government to show any sort of reform. As I said earlier, the Hon. Stephen Wade will make some more comments about water, but I think it is worth noting that the government has taken very few hard decisions when it comes to water. In fact, they it has used SA Water as a cash cow to prop up or to fund some of its extravagant expenditure blow-outs.

The total dividends and payments to the state government from SA Water are budgeted to be $226 million in 2009-10 but, since 2002-03, the total amount that SA Water has contributed has been $2.2 billion. Sadly, little of this has been made available for infrastructure spending, as demonstrated by the latest ABS data from the ABS showing that South Australia spends less per capita than other states on water infrastructure.

Again, it comes back to leadership. We have had record revenues, a booming economy and water has been our biggest single issue. In fact, Premier Rann, I think, in 1989 made his first speech in the other place on the threat of climate change, the ozone hole over the South Pole and global warming. You would think that, when we have record revenues of some $2.2 billion going into the state coffers from SA Water, that is the time when you should be investing in water infrastructure, especially given that we have had a drought now for some years.

Minister Maywald is continually saying that we are in uncharted waters. This is a drought of unprecedented magnitude. We did not know that it would go on for so long. Yet the government has been quite happy to sit back and take these record revenues. As I keep saying, it comes back to leadership. Premiers and governments are elected to show leadership, to protect the community, and yet they have done nothing. We have had these water restrictions across Adelaide in which, by and large, most people have participated but we need not have had such severe restrictions if the government had acted a bit earlier and shown some leadership.

It is quite interesting to look at some of the other issues involving water. Water prices will increase over the next few years. In fact, the Treasurer recently announced that water prices would increase by 37 per cent for those who consume the least, following the 42 per cent on the previous year. We have these water price rises going on but we do not have a desalination plant, and my understanding in relation to the construction is that we only really pay for it once it is completed. So, again, I think you will find that the government is getting extra revenue from putting water prices up but not reinvesting at this point back into additional water supply.

We do know that a desalination plant is being built at Port Stanvac. I was down there recently visiting a couple of shopping centres with a very good candidate, Maria Kourtesis, who hopefully will be the member for Bright after the next election, and the residents are very concerned. The Port Stanvac site is some 1,000 hectares, with the old refinery right in the middle and there are buffer zones surrounding it, and the desalination plant has been located at the northern end of the buffer zone right in front of people's houses. It is not on the industrial site where it could have easily been. Certainly there are some contaminated areas that Mobil needs to clean up, and the government has again shown little leadership in actually getting Mobil to the table with a view to starting the cleaning up at an earlier time. It did a deal where by 30 June, I think, was the deadline for that agreement with Mobil that now gives it 10 years to clean up the site.

The government should have been tougher and shown more leadership. That has been a valuable site for South Australia and for that part of the state potentially for some housing development but certainly some industrial development, because we do need jobs in the south. If they had shown a little more leadership and got Mobil to the table more quickly, the desalination plant might well have been built closer to the actual refinery site and further away from people's houses and not smack up against them.

The people who live there have enjoyed some wonderful views across the gulf. I am not sure whether you have been down there, Mr President, but quite a massive amount of soil has been put there and I think you will find that the people are going to lose their views; but, more importantly, the industrial activity is right up against people's houses when, had the government shown a bit more leadership, it would have been further away from that site. Again, I keep harping on the leadership but clearly that is an area in which the government has been very poor.

Another area that I think people have been alarmed with is the blow-out in the public sector. We have seen quite significant numbers and, according to state budget papers from 2001-02 to 2008-09, the public sector employment number will increase by 16,393. The government now says it will cut 1,600 public servants not directly involved in the delivery of front-line services. The Auditor-General reveals that the increase in providers of core public services from 2001 to 2008 is only 4,414, so you can see that there are close to 12,000 public servants who are not delivering those core services; in fact, I think it is 11,979.

We have had the public sector reform bill through this chamber, and I expect we will probably get it back because the government is dealing with some amendments probably as we speak. Not once, when the government was attacking the opposition for supporting the Public Service Association's position, have I seen any leadership from the Premier, the Treasurer, minister Holloway or any of the government ministers. Not once have I seen any of them stand up and take it on the chin and say, 'Well, we took our eye off the ball. We've got all these extra public servants that we didn't budget on; we probably got it wrong and we need a hand to fix it.' Not once have they had the courage to take that step. Good leaders of our community recognise when they have got something wrong, and they face up to reality and do something about it.

The government was begging us to support its position but it did not have the courage to say, 'Actually, we need a hand to fix this; we've got it wrong.' Again, leadership has been missing with this government. Of course, the people who hold those positions in the public sector responded to advertisements and were employed in good faith, but now we have a public sector that is much larger than the government budgeted for, and it will be a challenge for any government to deal with that in the future.

The other issue, one that always alarms me, is that of the government's policy of shared services. Before I was elected to this place I spent most of my life in the country and I was a member of the Bordertown Hospital board. Two payroll ladies worked at that hospital, but with shared services their jobs have gone. People may say that it was only a couple of jobs, but those people were volunteers in the community, their husbands are employed in the community, and they worked tirelessly in that community for most of their working lives. It is the same with the school; the shared services policy has taken a whole range of government jobs out of my hometown of Bordertown—and it has happened right across the state.

The government says it can get some economies of scale. Well, I do not believe it will ever achieve economies of scale, because it has failed to implement it in any sort of fashion. There is the ripple effect. Someone loses their job so they go and look for another one; if they cannot get one in their local community they look elsewhere, and perhaps their husband or wife or partner says, 'Maybe it's time for me to come with you.' Suddenly these people, who have been great volunteers in our rural communities, are leaving those communities—and the communities are the worse for it.

I think that, at the end of the day, it has been a blow-out of costs rather than a cost-saving. Again, it is the leadership that is missing, because we do not have a benefit to the bottom line but we have a very damaging effect on a lot of our regional and rural communities. As most of us would acknowledge, life is pretty tough in country towns and communities. It is great to hear the rain on the roof here today, but it is quite tough.

It is also interesting to note that the government has been beating its chest about infrastructure in the last couple of budgets, but one has to ask: will it all be built? Look at some of the announcements in other budgets that have not been included in this particular budget. An amount of $850 million was initially budgeted for the Mount Bold Reservoir expansion, but it is not even in the budget anymore. I remember when it was first announced that I asked minister Holloway where the water was to come from. He indicated that it could come out of the Murray, but that was already stressed, and there was not enough water in the Onkaparinga, but then he said, 'Of course, we're building a desalination plant just down the hill from there, so that's where you would put the water.'

Now, I am amazed that a minister of the government, in cabinet, would think that water from a desalination plant would be put into an open reservoir. Nowhere else in the world do they do that. You do not spend all that money—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: It's going into Happy Valley; the pipes are being put in.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I know that, but this minister said (and sadly he is not here to listen) in this chamber, that one of the reasons the government was going to increase Mount Bold was to use it to store water from the desalination plant. Now, everyone knows that is not the case; you do not put desalination water into an open reservoir. It will go to Happy Valley to be distributed, because that is where the pipe network can distribute it from, but it will not go into the Happy Valley Reservoir. You do not spend billions of dollars building a desalination plant, and the bit less than $1 per kilolitre to actually take the salt out—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: It is $1.86.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire says it is $1.86; I suspect that because it is now a 100 gigalitre plant it might be cheaper than that. However, whatever it is, you do not spend that to clean it up and make it ready to drink and then put it into an open reservoir where dirt, dust, bird droppings, fish and a whole range of things—

The Hon. C.V. Schaefer interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Caroline Schaefer says possums. I am trying to highlight that minister Holloway, a leader of the government and a senior member of cabinet, when talking about building a desalination plant, had no idea where the water would go. I am absolutely amazed that he could make the comment he did at that time regarding Mount Bold possibly being a site for storing water. It floors me that the minister had given so little attention to detail, given that the desalination plant is such a significant piece of infrastructure.

In the last budget we saw a big announcement regarding the public transport explosion, and the announcement of tramlines out west to Semaphore, West Lakes and Port Adelaide. Well, that is not in the budget anymore, and no-one actually knows whether or not we will see them. I asked a question today about the trip to the United States and Europe undertaken by minister Holloway and minister Conlon regarding transport-oriented developments.

In last year's budget we heard that tram trains were something we would use; they would go on the train lines and then come off them and go on a tram line through our communities. My understanding is that minister Conlon and some of the participants on that trip went to the tram train factory, and the minister walked in and said, 'They're not going to work in South Australia', and walked out. So, last year we heard an announcement about tram trains—I suspect it was something that the government got from a magazine and had not studied in any detail—and this year the minister says that they will not work in South Australia. So, it has gone from the budget.

A desalination plant was promised for the Upper Spencer Gulf. The government would commit to putting $160 million into extra capacity for the BHP plant and the federal government (both the Liberal government and then opposition leader Rudd) said it would put in $160 million so that the communities in the Upper Spencer Gulf could be taken off the River Murray. That has totally gone now.

I turn to some other issues. The north-south corridor through Adelaide has been something that has been missing for some time. Sadly, the Labor Party sold off the MATS plan years ago and we do not have land available to build that corridor, so now it becomes a much more expensive and difficult process. One of the things the government announced some time ago was the South Road, Port Road, Grange Road underpass. That has gone: it is not in the budget any more. Interestingly, the $100 million that the government pledged last year to AAMI stadium has gone: it is missing from the budget.

It really makes me wonder what it has announced this time that will be missing next year. With the $750 million of cuts, we have already seen the prison project cancelled, the project at Murray Bridge. Of course, the opposition is not disappointed, because we thought it flawed policy to build a prison which isolated prisoners from public transport so that their families could not visit them. Certainly, the prisoners need to have—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Robert Brokenshire is laughing. It isolates them from public transport. Part of their rehabilitation is to keep them involved with their families, not to isolate them in a community that has no public transport. This was a poor decision and, again, one on which they did not consult the local community. The Murray Bridge council had no idea what was going on until the budget was announced. I think I was at an architects' award function on the day of the budget this year, along with some of the consortia who were involved in putting together the PPP for the prison project. They were really disgusted at the arrogance of the government in cancelling this project. They received an email from one of the Treasurer's staff after he had begun his budget speech.

As there were only three consortia, common decency would tell you that, at the very least, the Treasurer could have picked up the telephone and said, 'Hey, look; we have had to do this. Sorry, about that.' If he could not do it, then his chief of staff or someone senior could have picked up the telephone and said, 'We understand this will cause you some difficulty.' In the end, I think the government has given some commitment to compensate them for the cost. These people have spent between $5 million and $10 million bidding for the project.

The arrogance that the government showed by not picking up the phone and saying, 'Hey, look, fellas; we have some pretty tough economic times; something has to go and so the prison has to go.' I suspect it was cancelled at such late notice because the ratings agencies in the US had said that something had to go from the government's program, otherwise it would lose its AAA credit rating, because as late as the Friday before—that is, six days before the budget on the Thursday—two of the consortia were still talking to the department about revised bids and finetuning some of the bids. Members can see that it was a very late decision and one that has damaged the government's credibility in the business community.

If members recall, the government cancelled the new transport building that minister Conlon announced he was going to build. They had some 17 people go through a process to bid to be short-listed. I think, on average, they spent between $50,000 and $100,000 each—so you are looking at close to $1 million—and the project was cancelled; no explanation. I think, in the end, Mr Conlon did not have Treasury approval for the project.

I touched on country South Australia in relation to shared services. Members opposite like to think that they represent the country. You, Mr Acting President (Hon. Bernard Finnigan), often talk about living in a rural community and that your government and you stick up for rural communities. It is interesting to look at what has happened in Mount Gambier, your home town, over the life of this government. The medical services have been ripped out of the hospital. The specialist services have gone from the hospital. You might roll your eyes, but it has happened under your watch. Over the past seven years, while you have been in government, Mount Gambier's health service has become a poorer quality service than it was prior to your coming to government.

Then you have to look at what happened with the government's country health policy that was going to rip the heart out of country health. We all knew in this chamber when the legislation went through the parliament for the abolition of the local hospital boards—and I have served on a board, as have other members of the opposition—and for them to have a health advisory committee that you were going to rip the heart out of country health, because that is the one thing that binds country communities together.

I have used this example before, but I will use it again. In Bordertown, which is my own local community, the chairman of the hospital board is a life member of the Mundulla Football Club. The vice chairman of the hospital board is a life member of the Bordertown Football Club. When playing football, they would have fought to the death. Bordertown and Mundulla have probably one of the strongest rivalries in the state between two country towns. They would have fought to the death yet, once off the football field, they have come together with a common goal. The hospital is the thing that holds communities together, and Bordertown is no different from any other country community. This government ripped the heart out of country health and, of course, last year tried to do even more damage by cutting funding to country health.

I now turn to infrastructure for our regional areas in South Australia. There is virtually no mention in the budget of any increased spending. We have a $200 million road maintenance backlog. That was the amount that was bandied around two or three years ago. In fact, it may well have been at the time when the Hon. Robert Brokenshire was a member of the Liberal Party. I think the $200 million was probably something he referred to when he was the shadow minister for transport, and so it would be higher than that today, for sure. We have seen no commitment from the government to address it—no planning; no leadership. If they said, 'We have this backlog and we are going to throw $20 million a year at it for the next 15 years'—it is probably close to $300 million—at least there would be a plan, but there is no plan.

When I touch on plans, it is interesting to note that the Minister for Transport does not have a transport plan. We have this $1 billion public transport revolution. We have huge amounts of money being spent on infrastructure, but we do not have a plan. Yet, after the federal budget was announced, with $61 million for the O-Bahn coming our way, the minister said, 'It was easy: we went and saw Anthony Albanese in Canberra, rolled out our plan and it was very easy to see why we needed to spend the money.' Clearly they have a plan but are not prepared to share it with the community. Certainly, if there is a plan it does not include rural South Australia.

There is a whole range of other issues in our rural communities to do with water. The far West Coast has missed out because the government has withdrawn its support for increased capacity in the Upper Spencer Gulf desalination plant. The West Coast is a great part of South Australia, but one of the things lacking over there is a regular increasing supply of water. It does very well with the amount of water it has, but the member for Flinders, Liz Penfold, has been championing the need for water, along with my colleague the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, formerly of Kimba. Water is needed on the West Coast, as is energy infrastructure. It is one of South Australia's great hidden secrets, as leadership is missing.

We had a proposal to put a bigger airport into the Port Lincoln community, but the government does not see it as being a priority. It will cost only a couple of million dollars to extend the runway and turn it into a bigger airport, and then you will be able to attract bigger aeroplanes and create more tourism opportunities, but the government did not see it as a priority.

Education is lacking across South Australia as well. During my time as the shadow minister for police the government has always talked tough on law and order, but it seems to be meaningless. We only have to look at the issue we have been discussing today, with the parolee involved in the incident in the north—stabbing a police officer and assaulting other people in the community. The Parole Board revoked his parole. He was to be arrested late in June, but that did not occur. The clear reason is that the police do not have the resources. Every police officer I talk to says they need more resources, whether it be more time and resources in the back office to process arrests and do the documentation, or whether it is equipment. My colleague the Hon. Terry Stephens has personally waged a campaign to get new automatic firearms for the police, which they now have, but the commissioner is slow to implement it, I suspect because the government does not provide the resources.

Tasers have been called for by the Police Association and the community. We have to have a trial because the government does not provide enough resources to the commissioner to adequately resource our police force. I meet regularly with police officers—and they risk possible disciplinary action by meeting with me—and some of the issues I find quite baffling. The government has spent no money on crime prevention; in fact, it disbanded the crime prevention office in the Attorney-General's Department. I do not know about you, Mr Acting President, but I do not want my family to be a victim. It is fine for the Premier to say that he will be tough, make sentences higher and longer, fine people more and increase penalties, but I do not want my daughter to be raped, whether the rapist gets one or 20 life sentences. I do not want one of my family to be a victim. The government claims to be tough on law and order, but we have just as many victims in the community and we are not getting to the root cause.

I refer to the hand-held laser guns police officers use to measure speeding vehicles. The minister might like to correct me if I am wrong, but I understand from police officers that the police procurement section has purchased a certain size battery to power them. Those batteries are made overseas and they are a couple of millimetres shorter than the standard battery, so to make the laser guns work they have to put a 10c piece in with the battery for it to make contact. The minister may say that that is not accurate, but I would be surprised if the police officers are telling me porkies because they are out there delivering the service. On the one hand the government is trying to save money, but to buy batteries that are not quite the right size for laser guns to me seems a derogation of duty. We should be buying batteries that are made and suited to fit the device.

Another issue that alarmed me was in relation to random breath testing. Police are told that they have a certain number of targets and people to test. We would all remember the TV advertisements where someone was driving down the road, suddenly saw an RBT and turned off to avoid it, but down a side street a police car was waiting. There was nowhere to run and hide, and in fact you would be apprehended. I am told by police officers that it is a pain in the neck if they apprehend somebody, with the cost involved to get them. This officer told me that they are now selecting long straight stretches of road, with plenty of opportunities to turn off so that they just get up their stats and test the number of people required. They measure the testing by the little mouthpieces that go on the end of the machine. I have heard reports of them throwing those mouthpieces into the bin to make it look like they have tested a certain number of people. I asked why they do not have the police cars and patrol officers down the side streets or somebody waiting with the car idling so that if somebody drives off from an RBT they can chase them, but they simply do not have the resources.

With those two issues it is alarming because if the police force is not being resourced adequately the community is not safe. Again, we have seen an officer in the country attacked last week. He was a single officer on patrol. I get evidence from police officers in the city that a lot of the time they are on their own and, if they see a fight or something that is a dangerous situation, a single police officer on his own really is powerless to manage it. So there are certainly some issues about resourcing our police officers further.

I have some other points to make but I know that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire would like me to finish at five to six, and I know my other colleagues—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I am not sure. He is making some funny noises over there. One of the things that intrigues me is the location of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, or the rail yards hospital. Again, it is about leadership. We have one piece of real estate left in Adelaide that fronts North Terrace and the Torrens Lake and is in the CBD. It is the one piece that is left, Mr Acting President. Leadership is about ensuring we use that for the very best purpose and long-term good of our city and community. That is where I think this government fails dismally, because we know it did not seek any expert planning advice. Minister Holloway said it was minister Hill's responsibility. During estimates, minister Hill said they did not get any expert planning advice. They did not even go to Planning SA, the government's own department.

I will acknowledge there are differing views in the community about whether we need a new hospital or we can rebuild the existing hospital on the current site. Of course, the Liberal Party will always say that it is better to rebuild it on the existing site, but there are people in the community, the government especially, who say, 'No, we want to build a new hospital.' However, what it has never done is look at whether that is the best site. If we build a hospital there, it is there for the next 150 or 200 years. You do not build a hospital and in 10 years knock it down. What it has not done is shown leadership for the long term.

Premier Rann talks in some of his commentary about the heroes he has looked up to in his life, and Don Dunstan was one of those, and there have been others. They showed real leadership and made sure the decisions they made were the right decisions for the long term for our community. You can see, Mr Acting President, that the selection of this site has been made without any consideration of whether it is the best possible site for a hospital. It is just a site that the government chose—although I think, from the evidence and gossip that the opposition hears, that the view is not shared widely within cabinet.

I think that epitomises the total lack of leadership by this government. It does not really care. In fact, I suggest that Premier Rann, within months of no longer being in politics, whenever that is (and the sooner the better, from the point of view of this side of the chamber), will not even live in this state, because he does not particularly care about the long-term benefits to South Australia. He only cares about being re-elected.

I think that demonstrates absolutely the lack of leadership by this government, because it will deny Adelaide the opportunity to have a boutique docklands-type area. We would like to build, at some point in the future, a stadium on that site (we know that is something the South Australian community wants) and an entertainment and cultural precinct that the whole community can participate in. We need good quality hospitals and good health services, but I can tell members that there is not one person in this building today who plans to go to a hospital. However, we all make plans to have a good night out—to go to the footy or a concert, to enjoy the arts or go down to the river to feed the ducks or go on the paddle boats. There is a whole range of things that we would do, but we would not choose to go to hospital.

With those few words, I indicate that the opposition supports the bill, but I reiterate that it is an example of how this government has failed to show leadership for South Australia.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:56): I rise to support the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. I could say a lot about the bill but I am going to abbreviate my comments this afternoon. We realise there has been a global financial crisis and it has not abated—although, hopefully, there are signs it may be easing, but there is nothing certain at this stage. With that in mind, Family First is disappointed that this budget has delivered little, if any, tax relief for families and businesses, and I give the examples of land tax and stamp duty.

In relation to primary production (the sector that is exporting strongly and staving off technical recession for the nation), in this state we have seen virtually no help whatsoever from the state government. In fact, we have again seen the demise of the PIRSA budget and staff within PIRSA. It is very disappointing, because the research shows that if it was not for mining and agriculture we would not have got out of the technical recession.

The state and federal governments are doing virtually nothing about what is now a race to the bottom in farm gate prices, and particularly at this stage the prices of milk and wine grapes at farm gate are of major concern. I will give the government some ticks, but I think the biggest tick has to go to the federal government for what we have seen as its benevolent one-off gifts to this state. I ask this question of the minister on notice: what is the total amount of federal one-off grants given to the state government in the current budget, because we read there was a 51 per cent increase in many of these grants by the commonwealth?

I will give a tick to the government for adopting some of Family First's policies on at least four fronts that I can think of, and there are probably more. First, and I know my colleague Dennis Hood will have more to say about this, the government says it will legislate in relation to the commonsense initiative to ensure that general waste is collected weekly. We have not seen that yet, but certainly Family First is absolutely opposed to general waste not being collected weekly.

Secondly, I was surprised to read the front page headline indicating that the state government is adopting Family First policy to require stormwater harvesting in all new residential developments. Family First has had this policy tabled for some time. We are looking for support from the opposition, the crossbenches and the government for this, but we are pleased to see that, when push comes to shove, whilst there is no real strategic plan for water guarantee and sustainability in our state, the government has realised the pressure that exists and acknowledges that setting up stormwater harvesting and dual reticulation in residential areas is very important. What we cannot understand is: why wait until 2013? I am sure both chambers would push through urgent legislation. It could be through parliament this week, gazetted as of next week, and then developers would have to provide that stormwater harvesting dual reticulation immediately.

I congratulate the government for adopting at least part of our policy on protecting the Willunga Basin, but at this stage it is loath to support the bill in its entirety which is a disappointment. I will talk more about this at another time. There are still some major concerns about the Willunga Basin in the Greater Adelaide plan; a lot of subdivision is still intended, particularly on the western side of South Road in the Willunga Basin.

I am pleased to see that the government has at least said that it will largely hold off starting work on the new RAH until after the state election next March, because I believe that, if the facts are put before the South Australian community, the majority of South Australians would not support a greenfield site for the new RAH. Hopefully, the true facts can be put out there between now and the election.

Why is it that in most other countries they can have state-of-the-art tertiary hospitals on campuses that in some cases are 300 years old, yet we have to waste hundreds of millions of dollars (if not as high as $900 million) to build a Taj Mahal that will not deliver the high-tech medical services that are being delivered at the moment between the RAH, the university and the research facilities on the campus in and around the RAH.

The final thing that I think the government has realised needed to be done—and we are happy to support it—is free bus, tram and train travel for pensioners during off-peak times. It is a good initiative for pensioners who are struggling, but I urge the government to advise the house on what it has done in general increases for concessions, pensioners, carers and people on disability pensions, because they are hurting very much when it comes to day-to-day living in our state at this time.

We initially called for a dollar a day travel on public transport for seniors, and I think this is an initiative that still needs to be considered because, at this stage, there is only free bus, tram and train travel for pensioners during off-peak times. I think it would be good if we could look at a dollar a day principle for those who want to access public transport during peak times, and I know many do.

I am pleased that the government has provided parliamentary counsel with some extra staff in this budget, because parliamentary counsel work very hard. I think they have been under-resourced and put under undue pressure when it comes to getting legislation drafted for all of us here in the parliament.

Now I want to talk about some crosses in respect of this budget or what I would describe as squandered opportunities. I would like to know where all the benefits from the mining boom, industry generally, primary industries and particularly the huge increase in GST revenue have gone over the past six years. We have seen an economy on the rise from about 1998-99 up until 2008; so, for 10 years, we have had growth that has been unprecedented in modern history (certainly, in the past 30 or 40 years), yet now we see a budget going into serious deficit in recurrent terms with promises that we may get back to balanced budgets on a recurrent basis within three or four years.

I have grave concerns about that, particularly with respect to the amount of money that has been put in to try to make the recurrent budget look better and the deficit less by the federal government as an initiative to assist both them and the state Labor government, given that they both have elections coming up within the next 18 months.

The fact of the matter is that we also have a significant core debt that worries me for our children and grandchildren, because I was involved in working with other colleagues to get that debt down over a period of time. That debt came down substantially and we were in good shape. Most of us who are farmers have debt as we try to work through growing our family farm businesses, and that is debt that we are personally responsible for; however, when governments take on an extraordinary level of debt without telling communities at the election, we all have to repay that debt, even though we may not have been advised of it or supported it when that government was voted into office.

I will just touch briefly on projects. We have seen the upgrade of the AAMI Stadium gone and the Mobilong Prison upgrade gone. Something will have to happen with the prison system. One thing that I am pleased about with its not relocating to Murray Bridge at this stage is that it is a very bad policy decision to put a women's prison so far out of Adelaide. As a former minister I say to the council that I was always briefed, and I strongly stand by the fact, that a women's prison and juvenile detention must be very close to the city. Children suffer immensely when they are not able to see their mother. I hope that, when a new prison system is finally built, rather than racking, packing and stacking them, the women's prison will not go to Mobilong and will be relocated with a new juvenile prison system in place at Magill, somewhere close to the CBD and metropolitan area.

I find it very concerning that CTP premiums have gone up by 8.5 per cent. A lot of people in the northern and southern suburbs are hit badly through lack of public transport facilities and have to have one or two (and sometimes three) cars. It is going to cost them an enormous amount of extra money. I struggle to see why it should have gone up to that extent when a smaller state like Tasmania has not increased its CTP for four years in a row. This government is really hitting in their hip pockets people who are battling at a time when it should be easing the pressure, not applying it.

I want to talk about cuts to agricultural research and staffing in Rural Solutions and PIRSA. I am very disappointed and concerned about the enormous budget cuts to PIRSA. On the one hand, even in the difficult times we have had with the lack of rainfall in the past few years and climate change matters, the government expects agriculture to be generating sustainable income for the state and yet, when it comes to research and development in areas like the Loxton Research Centre and other research centres, we have seen a massive decline in investment, a serious number of staff (well over 100) being reduced from the department and a situation where Loxton Research Centre will just become a demo farm or equivalent.

I will talk specifically on issues to do with water in a moment, but one big cross against this government's budget is a lack of money for the River Murray, be it water for the environment or irrigators. This oversight was despite an Adelaidenow poll indicating that, in terms of key budget priorities, given options like the Britannia Roundabout, South Road, public transport, the health system, AAMI Stadium or the River Murray, overwhelmingly the River Murray and water supply were the No. 1 focus for South Australians.

We do not have a proper strategic plan, even with the new Water Commissioner's 90 point plan over a long period of time. A lot of that is just warm and fuzzy stuff that does not really deliver. The fact that we will be relying on the River Murray for the absolute majority of our potable water for another 50 years is a disgrace. It is outrageous, and this government needs to be condemned for that. The fact of the matter is that we could have been so much more advanced. The desal plant is being provided so that the population can grow, not to get a sustainable water supply that does not put as much pressure on the River Murray water system. That is very disappointing. Also, neglect of stormwater harvesting is still frustrating for Family First.

I want to touch on the Upper Spencer Gulf in the few minutes that I have left. Contrary to the Rann government's pre-election pledge, which was to build a desalination plant in the Upper Spencer Gulf and 'switch off the pumps from Morgan', instead, the pumps are still going and there is no desalination. Whilst the regional communities in the Upper Spencer Gulf and Eyre Peninsula are working hard to get new economic opportunities and capitalise on mining growth, water is their No. 1 problem, and this government has not addressed it in any way whatsoever.

I now turn to something that the southern community and I are very passionate about, and that is the McLaren Vale police station. The way the government is handling this is of concern to me. A shopfront is not the right way to go. Taking away status from country police is not the right way to go. I am a very strong supporter of the police, but I know that, if the police budget were adequate, they would have sustained and maintained what was there and improved on it.

I have not seen any fight from this government to look after those people who have paid their taxes, just like every other sector of the community. I ask the question: will the government promise not to sell the McLaren Vale police station while the community works through the issues the police are putting before them in relation to alternative options? Once that police station is sold and there is a rented shopfront, it would be very easy for the government to say goodbye to any police presence in the town. That is not acceptable to that community, and Family First will fight for a better go for the community in that area.

There are major problems with Housing SA, and there are major problems in the disability sector, which are not being addressed at all. I am very disappointed to see that there has not been a focus on respite care and supported accommodation for the disabled. In relation to education, there is the issue of critical incident reports, and there needs to be more resourcing to address bullying, harassment and violence towards teachers and students. There is also a need for police in schools programs. All of these things have been missed. I am not sure whether super schools are the answer, and there has not been enough community consultation. No wonder the Upper Spencer Gulf cities of Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie all voted against them. It is time this government woke up to the fact that you actually have to consult and you have to be able to involve communities in decision-making, not just make decisions on the run.

In relation to justice, the government continues to say no to an ICAC. Family First has an ICAC bill before the parliament at the moment, and I know that, by and large, all the crossbench and opposition members say that we need an ICAC. The government is the only one hiding from the fact that we do need an ICAC. If we are to have not only an open and transparent government but also open and transparent departments and bureaucracy and services in this state, we need an ICAC to protect our state from corruption and other problems within government.

We have seen the concerns about the Parole Board. I would say that part of that is due to a lack of resourcing. There is $174 million outstanding in the Fines Unit. Why doesn't the government put together a proper strategy and get that money from expiation notices, rather than hitting law-abiding citizens in the hip pocket? Citizens who may make a mistake from time to time and are caught driving a few kilometres over the speed limit pay their fines, yet people who are massive repeat offenders, with 300 fines outstanding, run away and are laughing at the system. It is a disgrace that the government has not really focused on that problem.

I will touch on the CFS budget and other emergency services budgets. There is not enough money in the budget, particularly when it comes to volunteers. How does the government expect volunteers to look after our community when the budget is inadequate? Fire stations, in particular, needing rebuilds have been put on hold. The replacement of fire trucks has been put out from 20 to 25 years, which ignores the Coroner's recommendations from the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires.

Touching on the Riverland, Family First does not apologise for continuing to fight for a better go for the Riverland. After all, the Riverland generates hundreds of millions of dollars a year for our economy. We need enterprise zones, initiatives and tax breaks for new industry and innovation, and we need to provide a broad approach to ensure sustainable opportunities for the Riverland.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that we will see budget commitments for the 2010-11 budget during the election campaign. I hope that the government hears our concerns about some of the critical needs and acknowledges that families, communities and the disadvantaged are not being listened to and are not being provided for appropriately. At the moment, it seems to be the case that sometimes the big end of town and special sectors, such as the development sector, are getting a hand-up over and above the general community in this state. With those remarks, I indicate that Family First supports the bill.

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

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