HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (15:40) brought up the following report of the committee appointed to prepare the draft Address in Reply to His Excellency the Governor’s speech:

1. We, the members of the Legislative Council, thank Your Excellency for the speech with which you have been pleased to open parliament.

2. We assure Your Excellency that we will give our best attention to all matters placed before us.

3. We earnestly pray for the Divine blessing on the proceedings of the session.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (15:41): I move:

That the Address in Reply as read be adopted.

I am very proud to rise today to reinforce the significance of the Address in Reply and to express the appreciation of all in this place to our Governor, His Excellency Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, for his gracious remarks in support of the government's program both now and into the future.

I note that this is the first time that His Excellency has summoned the parliament, and I take the opportunity to welcome him in that particular role. The office of Governor has changed enormously over the past 160 years. Where once the Governor of our state made laws and policy and managed the colony on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom, or was subject to the direction of the Queen or the British government, today the vice-regal powers are exercised on the advice of the Premier or Executive Council. It is worth reminding ourselves of this progression because, as a result, the Governor is now responsible to the people of South Australia.

It is in this capacity that we welcome him and congratulate this son of our great state on his distinguished contributions to the welfare of our polity. We wish him well for his term of office. The Governor called us together 'for the dispatch of business'. Let us now take a look at that business. This is the seventh year of the Rann government, and the plans for the future outlined by His Excellency characterise the agenda going forward as, undoubtedly, a Labor agenda.

With reference to the 2008 budget, this agenda is focused upon providing the elements that form the foundation for an inclusive society; a society which makes it possible for its citizens to achieve their best in an environment of harmony, growth and prosperity; a society that extends its protection to its vulnerable members; a society that acknowledges the enormous opportunities and challenges that await us, as we move with confidence further into the 21st century. This agenda epitomises the government's commitment to action now for the future.

Labor will keep the faith with those who have elected it, unlike members opposite who have turned their backs on those who have traditionally been their supporters in rural areas. In my Address in Reply speech in 2007, I expressed with pride my passion for working people, the education system and the health system. It is with that passion in mind that I turn to the major themes outlined by His Excellency. These include health, transport, growth and development—both private and public—water security, education, social inclusion, and the new initiatives related to crime and policing. Of these, one of the paramount concerns is water security.

All members present in this place know only too well that water levels along the Murray-Darling system and in Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina, near the Murray Mouth, are at historically low levels. The factors behind this enormous challenge for government and the community are now converging in an all too real social, ecological and economic tragedy. This has not been helped by 12 years of neglect from the Howard government in regard to these issues.

Earlier this year an agreement was reached at COAG whereby reform of the governance of the Murray-Darling Basin will commence. The river system will be managed as a national asset. In addition, River Murray states have submitted funding proposals for projects intended not only to safeguard the river but also to look towards prospective community transition and renewal options.

This government has been successful in obtaining commonwealth funding for a number of infrastructure projects, known collectively as Murray Futures. The $610 million allocated to South Australia will go towards:

a Lower Lakes pipeline to provide a potable water supply and some irrigation water supply;

management towards better ecological outcomes along the Coorong;

industry transition programs (including relocation of people, retirement of land and supporting changing crop choices); and

a new pump relocation and flood plain management from the South Australian border to Wellington, relocating more than 360 pumps over 10 years from wetlands and backwaters to the main stem of the river.

Consultations on these projects are starting this month. Meanwhile, a pilot desalination plant is undergoing testing at Port Stanvac. The results will ensure that the desalination plant to be established by this government will use the best possible filtration, pre-treatment and related technologies. Augmentation of reservoir capacity is under investigation in the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Again, in His Excellency's words, Labor aims to improve the lives of South Australians today, and to position us to take advantage of the opportunities offered tomorrow.

Another focus for modernisation and upgrading in the program His Excellency has outlined is that of health infrastructure, so long neglected (some might say criminally neglected) by our predecessors. Planning is well under way for the new Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital, and the Flinders Medical Centre, the Women's and Children's, the Lyell McEwin, Noarlunga and the Queen Elizabeth hospitals are benefiting from major redevelopment. GP clinics at Aldinga and Woodville will be augmented by the new centres at Elizabeth and Marion, helping to reduce the pressure on our busy emergency departments. As you will notice, Mr Acting President, 'augmented' and 'augment' are words that can be used only for Labor budgets.

Public transport is essential to the lives of working people across the state. Members in this place are aware of the projected improvements to our present system which have been so welcomed by our community. Extension of the tram network, the electrification of the major northern and southern rail lines, and the new and converted or refurbished rolling stock will furnish ample proof of Labor's commitment to upgrading transport infrastructure. Record investment in new, upgraded and improved roads will enhance both access and efficiency.

I turn finally to education and, in particular, vocational and related skills education. Many of those in opposition federally, and in the states, have attempted to play down the fact that Australia is experiencing severe skills shortages. As His Excellency pointed out, however, it is estimated that South Australia will need an extra 133,000 workers in the next 10 years to carry out long-term projects in the defence and mining sectors, as well as another 206,000 to replace those expected to leave their workplaces.

It is clear that the skills crisis is hitting home and hitting hard. In response, the government has developed a visionary strategy which includes an enhanced legislative base for skills and workforce development and a stronger Industry and Skills Board, intended to identify and respond to changing workforce needs.

In line with its focus on economic development, the Rann Labor government will continue to invest in education and its partners, science and innovation, in the context of environmental sustainability and increased employment opportunities. I think most of us in this council would be pleased to note that there has been no recent drop in the unemployment rate in this state, which shows that our strategic plan and the efforts put in by this government are working. The government is determined to promote better opportunities and outcomes for young people through education and schooling, from which come the workforce of the future.

His Excellency stated very clearly:

My government proposes to continue its program to foster economic growth, prosperity and opportunity for South Australia. It is committed to prudent financial management, a strong budget position and the retention of South Australia's AAA credit rating. The goals and targets that are contained in the government's policy blueprint, South Australia's Strategic Plan, underpin its legislative program.

And underpin it they do. Those opposite should listen closely. The days when South Australia was run for the benefit of the occupants of this place and the denizens of the Adelaide Club are over. Labor presides over a modern, inclusive economy that has achieved a momentum never generated during our predecessors' watch. They need to wake up to themselves and have a look around. I note that the sole Liberal Party pre-selected rural candidate for this place has been put at No. 7 on its ticket. We will be pushing this—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Because you have turned your back on your constituents. In this chamber the Liberal Party once had a number of proud representatives of country people, but it will have none after the next election—none, Mr President. Let us look at its role for women as members of this parliament: in the upper house it has two and in the lower house it has three. Compare that to Labor, which has 13 in the lower house and two in the upper house. Nearly 40 per cent of our elected representatives are women. Our party reflects society. The party of members opposite does not reflect society: it reflects the privileged few in the eastern suburbs, and it ought to be ashamed.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: They can laugh all they want, but the proof will be in the pudding.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. I.K. Hunter): Order! The Hon. Mr Wortley should return to his speech.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I will, Mr Acting President, but I think this is a very important issue. In its recent preselections the Liberal Party has shown that it is here only to represent a privileged few in the eastern suburbs. Members opposite have criticised Labor for its affirmative action policy. They have criticised—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Which you played a part in. The difference between us is that the Liberal Party has men in the top four positions and a woman in fifth position.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: You won only three spots in the last Legislative Council election.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You are embarrassing yourself, Russell.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: No, I am not embarrassing myself. I think it is quite funny.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: After the next election I will be looking across and you will be the only woman sitting there. Now, that might suit you because it suits your career prospects, but you have let down the women in this state. Labor has grasped the nettle for the women of this state.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Mr Acting President, I find that comment offensive and I ask the honourable member to withdraw.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Is the Hon. Ms Lensink rising on a point of order?

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The claim that I do not support women in the Liberal Party is absolute rubbish.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: There is no point of order.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Thank you, Mr Acting President, for your protection. You are an absolute disgrace. Your party has neglected women. You have turned your back not only on women but also on your rural electorates, and this party will take up the task. We will take up the task.

Members interjecting:

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! Interjections are out of order. The Hon. Mr Wortley will come back to his speech.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Thank you, Mr Acting President. The only rural representative in this council will be the Hon. Mr Bernie Finnegan, and I reckon that is disgraceful.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: He lives in Gawler. Look at the UBD map and you will find that Adelaide has actually caught up and overtaken Gawler. People in Kimba would be insulted to think that you look at Gawler as a rural area. However, I should not be side-tracked by the rudeness of the opposition. As I said, I suggest that members opposite take a good look at themselves and determine whom they aspire to govern. Women and those who remain in the bush in the face of the most shocking adversity do not appear to be on their radar to any significant extent. Undoubtedly, it has been up to Labor to do the hard yards to repair the years of neglect, to evolve a vision for the coming years and to plan not just for the expectations but also for the hopes and dreams of South Australians—for themselves and for their children.

Our Governor, himself a fine example of a person of service in a variety of arenas, expressed his trust in all of us that we would serve the advancement of the people of this state in our deliberations during this session. I add my trust to his. I commend the government's strategic plan and the remarks so kindly offered by His Excellency in its support. I wish all members of this parliament a positive and productive time, and I indicate my readiness to work with all in making good laws for the benefit of our state.

The ACTING PRESIDENT: I call the seconder of the motion, the Hon. Mr Finnigan.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Here we go. He's going to make some comments about being the only country member!

The ACTING PRESIDENT: Order! I called the Hon. Mr Finnigan, not the Hon. Ms Lensink.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (15:54): Thank you, Mr Acting President. I have pleasure in seconding the motion that the Address in Reply as read be adopted. I thank His Excellency the Governor of South Australia, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce (Companion of the Order of Australia, Conspicuous Service Cross, Royal Australian Navy Reserve), for his first address to the parliament. I think we all agree that His Excellency is serving the state with distinction.

I begin today by speaking of something which was not particularly canvassed by His Excellency (but it is convention or tradition that the Address in Reply can be fairly wide ranging), and that is to commemorate on the record the 40th anniversary of the death of Lt Anthony Casadio of the Royal Australian Navy. I am sure those members who have any connection to Mount Gambier will be familiar with the life and death of Lt Casadio.

Anthony Austin Casadio was killed in action in the Republic of South Vietnam on 21 August 1968 so, as I said, recently it was the 40th anniversary of his death. He was a member of the Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Flight Vietnam, a unit specially formed for service in support of allied forces during the Vietnam War. This unit was integrated with the US Army 135th Assault Helicopter Company, flying Iroquois helicopters in both utility and gunship configurations. Those helicopters, otherwise known as Hueys, became emblematic of the conflict in Vietnam.

The role of the 135th Assault Helicopter Company based at Vung Tau in South Vietnam was to provide tactical air movement of combat troops, supplies and equipment in air mobile operations. This included acquisition of army medical services, search and rescue and the provision of a command and control aircraft capability to supported units. In the first month of operation of this unit, the company had flown 3,182 hours in support of the US Army 9th Infantry and the 1st Australian Task Force based at Nui Dat.

Lt Casadio piloted gunships with the Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Flight Vietnam from early November 1967 until his tragic death in August 1968. He participated in many hazardous operations, including combat assaults, naval gunfire, fire support, medevac and cargo uplift. The unit's first major operation, Operation Santa Fe, was a lift of 9th Infantry Division troops and involved more than 80 helicopters from a number of companies. It was one of the largest operations that the Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Flight Vietnam participated in.

Operation Tiger Coronado followed, during which helicopters of the Assault Helicopter Company were first hit by enemy fire. It was also the first with an Australian pilot to be hit. Lt Casadio was piloting a gunship during an attack on Viet Cong positions in the Rung Sat Special Zone near Saigon. After his gunship was hit by ground fire several times, Lt Casadio force landed near the enemy.

Once the helicopter was on the ground, the Viet Cong immediately attacked the helicopter crew. Despite their relative inexperience, the young American soldiers and their Australian Navy captain maintained control of the situation and set up a defensive perimeter using the helicopter's door-mounted M60 guns. An accompanying helicopter circled overhead until the dangerously low level of fuel forced it to leave the scene. Before they were rescued by another EMU helicopter, Lt Casadio and his men successfully drove off an unknown number of Viet Cong, killing two of the enemy in the process.

In December of that year, Lt Casadio's company moved from the secure base at Vung Tau to Camp Blackhorse, committing the 135th to the support of more units over a greater area. In the ensuing months, increasing Viet Cong activity in the area, including the widespread Tet Offensive, caused many Royal Australian Navy and US personnel casualties, the deaths of a US Army crew and the first Australian helicopter pilot to be killed in action.

In August 1969 Camp Blackhorse came under increased enemy mortar attacks as a Viet Cong tactic to keep helicopter gunships grounded while they attacked our posts, 10 miles away. On 21 August 1968, a light fire team was engaged by enemy troops equipped with rocket propelled grenades. The lead gunship, captained by Lt Anthony Casadio and flying at treetop level, was hit by one of these grenades and exploded in flames, crashing through the trees and exploding. All on board were killed.

Lt Casadio is named on the Royal Australian Navy Helicopter Flight Vietnam Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial and on the Royal Australian Navy in Vietnam Memorial in Fremantle in Western Australia. He was awarded a mention in despatches for his gallantry and commendable service. On 27 May this year, Lt Casadio was one of five Royal Australian Navy pilots who had died serving in Vietnam who were remembered in a special service in the United States, which 40 Australians attended.

As I said, Lt Casadio's contribution to the service of our country is well known in Mount Gambier and is commemorated by the naming of the Italo Australian Club facility at Casadio Park, which I am sure many members would have been to over the years. There is also the Anthony Casadio Memorial Trophy for character and leadership in a senior boy, which is awarded at Tenison Woods College (which was Tenison College), and I am proud to say that I was the recipient of that award in 1989. Lt Casadio is buried in Carinya Gardens in Mount Gambier, as are my parents.

I place on record the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the death of Lieutenant Casadio and record my appreciation, and I am sure that of all honourable members, for his meritorious service to his nation. May he have eternal rest.

The Governor's speech dealt in some detail with the program of the state government, which is very much centred on taking action now to provide for the future, and we see that in a whole range of areas, such as in health, with the building of the Marjorie Jackson-Nelson hospital, which will be a state-of-the-art facility on North Terrace, to provide for the health needs of South Australians for many years into the future.

In education, we see the development of our super schools and trade schools initiatives, which again are laying the foundations for our education in future years. In the field of law and order and community safety, the Rann Labor government continues its dedication to training and deploying new police officers, and His Excellency mentioned the number (close to 200) who will graduate over the next 12 months.

Also in the area of law and order, the government is committed to the greatest investment in prison infrastructure we have seen for some time. We know that this project has come in for a lot of scrutiny from members opposite. I do not know whether that is simply because it is in a country area at Mobilong, which means that they have contempt for it, or because they are concerned about the people who have to travel there

The Hon. Carmel Zollo interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am sure that, as my colleague the Minister for Correctional Services says, it is welcomed very much by the people in Murray Bridge and that community because it will be a source of considerable employment in the building and ongoing prison infrastructure.

The Hon. Mr Lawson and the Hon. Mr Stephens have referred to me a few times as being from the Mingbool Marshes. I am happy to be of assistance in providing them with some geography. Mingbool is about 10 miles or so from Mount Gambier. I am not quite sure what distance that is from Eight Mile Creek, where I grew up. To be honest, I have never paced it out, but I am sure that it would be about 30 or 40 miles between Eight Mile Creek and Mingbool.

What members opposite have against Mingbool escapes me, but it is south of Adelaide, which means that it is probably not likely to warrant their attention. However, there is nothing wrong with Mingbool or Eight Mile Creek. Indeed, I am very proud of both places. Eight Mile Creek was indeed a swamp until it was drained and turned into cultivated land.

The Rann Labor government has continued its work in building the economic foundations for future growth in a lower tax regime and putting in place the infrastructure to facilitate growth and the boom in the mining industry. The government has also committed to provide the infrastructure for the future of water security. We all know what a growing problem this is, and the Labor government has taken steps to ensure that we have that infrastructure for the future in a desalination plant and the work, involving the development of the national Murray-Darling Basin Authority, on which the Premier is to be congratulated for his leadership.

This government has continued to play a leading role in combating climate change, which includes a very high level of wind and solar power being used in this state. When we compare the program outlined by His Excellency to that which the Liberal Party wish to put in place in our state, we see a stadium-led recovery centred on Commonwealth Games that will be decided long before the opposition could possibly take office in this state.

This shows the lack of foresight and the 'shoot from the hip' attitude of the opposition when it announces that South Australia should bid for a significant large international sporting event without doing any costings or preliminary work. It simply thought, 'Well, here's a good press release. Let's go for the Commonwealth Games,' and did not even take the trouble to find out that the bidding process would be well and truly over before it could hope to assume office.

We know that the Liberal Party wants to underground powerlines and to build a big stadium. It wants to do a lot of things in the city because it knows that the election, like all elections in South Australia, will be decided in metropolitan seats. The opposition believes that it has the seats of Mount Gambier and Chaffey very much in the bag. Certainly, the opinion often expressed in the Adelaide media is that Mount Gambier is a lay-down misère for the Liberal Party.

I can certainly assure everybody that the people of Mount Gambier view themselves as the arbiters of who will represent them in state parliament. They do not believe that the seat belongs to the Liberal Party, and they do not automatically support the Liberal Party candidate. In the past three elections, the people of Mount Gambier have shown that they are prepared to elect an Independent and buck the trend of the swing, whatever that may be in the state, such as in the very different result from the statewide result in 1985.

In fact, in the history of the seat of Mount Gambier, Gordon, and Mount Gambier again, of the five members there has been only one who has been a member of the Liberal Party—Mr Allison. If the Liberal Party thinks it can take for granted the support of the people of Mount Gambier, I believe that the people in that area would have quite a different message for it.

The Liberal Party has shown that it takes a very reckless approach to balancing the books and to the fiscal management of the state—one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any government. I am sure that, if we tote up the promises that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition in another place and his shadow cabinet, we will find the fiscal position of the state would be under considerable threat.

We know, of course, that a big problem for the Liberal opposition is that its Legislative Council team is pretty much out of control and is not in sync with what is happening in the lower house. The classic example of that is that the Leader of the Opposition wants to build a $1 billion stadium on North Terrace instead of a hospital, and the members in this place continually complain about our government's commitment to invest $100 million in the existing AAMI Football Stadium at West Lakes. So, on the one hand, we have the Leader of the Opposition out there saying, 'We're going to build a $1 billion stadium on North Terrace' and, on the other hand, the members in this place are saying, 'Oh, no; we don't think you should spend any money on the existing stadium, let alone invest in a new one altogether'.

We are continually seeing the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party in the lower house trying to push the message that the Liberal Party is open for business and representing itself as being like the Liberal Party has traditionally considered itself to be, that is, a friend of economic growth; whereas, in this place, all we get is obfuscation, delay and obstruction from members opposite.

We also know that there is considerable tension within the Liberal Party, particularly in this chamber, in relation to its leadership. If one were to count up the number of references to the Hon. Mr Lucas in The Advertiser, I think he gets more mentions than Mr Hamilton-Smith in another place—and certainly far more mentions than the Hon. Mr Ridgway, the Leader of the Opposition, or the deputy leader of the opposition in this place. In fact, I suspect that the Hon. Mr Lucas would get more press coverage for the Liberal Party in this place than the entire frontbench of this chamber put together.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Honourable members opposite interject that it is all media profile. I assume that means that they think the Hon. Mr Lucas should not be briefing The Advertiser on stories at every opportunity in the way he does. So, here they are confirming the very point I am making, that is, that the Hon. Mr Lucas is out of control and that they are not able, as the leadership of the Liberal Party in this chamber, to control their former leader. They are indeed confirming that fact by pointing out that they place no worth on press coverage, therefore condemning the Hon. Mr Lucas for his efforts in that regard.

Finally, I will talk a little about the Legislative Council. I suppose I should begin by acknowledging that I am indeed a person who was appointed to a casual vacancy; I was not elected directly by the people. Obviously, I do not have any problem with the constitutional provisions that enable people to be appointed to casual vacancies. If I did have a problem with it, I would not have put myself forward. If the Hon. Mr Lawson or the Hon. Mrs Schaefer or the Hon. Mr Lucas decide that their contribution is over in this place, unlikely though that may seem, I certainly would not have any objection to the Liberal Party filling that vacancy, as I have no objection to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire filling the vacancy for the Hon. Mr Evans or, heaven forbid, should the Hon. Mr Parnell be required to resign, I would have no problem with such a casual vacancy being filled.

What I do have a difficulty with is the attitude of members opposite, where they continually talk about themselves as the great protectors of democracy by their being members of this council and that the Legislative Council is somehow the brake on executive government. I think it is important that we have a rational debate about the position of the Legislative Council: how it is elected, what powers it should have, what length its term should be, and those sorts of matters. What we see at the moment is a slightly hysterical response to any suggestion that the Legislative Council should be reformed.

I think that one of the clearest problems at this stage is that, with eight year terms, the composition of the chamber would not generally reflect the will of the people expressed at the most recent election. The obvious examples I could point to are the Hon. Mr Cameron and the Hon. Ms Kanck. Without reflecting on them as individuals or on their service, it is clear that the Hon. Mr Cameron was elected as a Labor Party member, left the Labor Party soon after but continued to serve for well over six years. The Hon. Ms Kanck has been in this place for the past two years and is here for another two years, long after it is clear that the Australian Democrats have lost their electoral support.

If we look at the actual voting for the Legislative Council at the 2006 election, I think we would see the vagaries of the proportional representation system. The flow of preferences has as much to do with who is elected to this place as it does with people expressing some great desire to keep the executive government in check.

The Hon. Mr Hood was elected with less than 5 per cent of the primary vote, which is about 0.6 of a quota. The Hon. Mr Parnell was elected with considerably less than that—just under 4.3 per cent; so roughly just over half a quota. So, the Hon. Mr Hood and the Hon. Mr Parnell did not receive anywhere near their quotas to be elected to this place; they got here on the back of preferences from either the Labor Party or from the Hon. Mr Xenophon (after the Hon. Mr Darley was excluded from the count) or the Australian Democrats or One Nation, or whatever it may be.

I am not disputing that those members were validly elected, and I am not reflecting on their contribution as members. However, I think it is important to remember that the proportional representation system and the flow of preferences can be a fairly odd beast on occasion. The election of Senator Fielding is often pointed to as an example of where someone received a fairly low primary vote but was then elected nonetheless to the Senate on the back of Labor preferences.

As I have said, I am not reflecting on any of the members or the preferences that were agreed between any of the parties. I am just pointing out that, when people get hot under the collar and start wanting to man the barricades to defend the upper house, saying that they are the true guardians of democracy and that they are the bulwark against the executive government, it is important to remember that 60 per cent or more of the electorate did indeed vote for the Labor Party or the Liberal Party.

Similarly, with the Hon. Mr Xenophon's vote, I am not quite sure whether the people who voted for him were aware that they would end up with the Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Mr Darley representing him. I suppose that is something members would have to ask them.

Again, I think the Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Mr Darley are doing a good job. I have no complaint with how they are going. The fact that they are here means that they were legitimately elected. However, I think it is important to remember that, when people cast their vote for the upper house, not everybody who votes—as, similarly, not everyone who votes in the lower house—is necessarily going to be fully cognisant of where their preferences are going. They are not necessarily going to make a decision that they do not like the Labor government; they want to put a brake on the Labor government and frustrate it by voting for someone else in the upper house. So, it is important to remember that and to approach this issue rationally.

Aware of the weaknesses of the current system, we have a good system in the Westminster system of government. We all know that there are many different formulas for electoral systems and we see it around Australia. We have multimember electorates; we have the Hare-Clark system; we have all sorts of combinations. There is no doubt that there are any number of ways in which we can approach the election of members to the lower and upper houses.

I am sure that the Hons Mr Parnell, Mr Hood and Mr Brokenshire would argue that we should have proportional representation in lower house seats, or multimember electorates down there. So, there is a whole range of ways in which we elect people to try to give the best reflection of the will of the people. I think it is important that we approach that debate rationally, looking at the facts and looking at exactly how it is that the Legislative Council as it stands is constituted.

We should also be mindful of the fact that there does not appear to be significant evidence that people are voting in the upper house in an attempt to frustrate the will of the government in the lower house. If they felt that way, if they felt that Labor was unfit to govern and should not be in government, and if they did not want the Hon. Mr Rann as Premier, one assumes that they would not vote for us at well over 50 per cent of the two-candidate preferred vote in the lower house.

When we talk about the future of the Legislative Council and the options for reform or abolition—what ought to happen to this chamber—I think it is important to approach that debate carefully, sensibly and cognisant of the facts.

I conclude by thanking His Excellency the Governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, for his address to parliament. I extend my thanks to him for his work on behalf of the state, and to the Lieutenant-Governor. I join in the spirit of the motion in wishing God's continued benediction upon our great state.

The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (16:18): I commence what I imagine will be my final speech on the Address in Reply in this parliament with my expression of thanks to the Governor for the speech which he delivered on behalf of the government. I also record my gratitude to Admiral and Mrs Scarce for the excellent manner in which they are fulfilling their vice-regal responsibilities and duties.

Every Governor brings to the position a particular style. Admiral and Mrs Scarce have been very active in the community, and the Governor has continued to show his keen interest in promoting the defence industry of this state. That is commendable. My only hope is that other equally important sectors of the economy do not develop the feeling that the Governor was neglecting them. I do not believe that he is, but I believe that it is important that our head of state is seen as inclusive, and not exclusive, in all that he does.

I regret the fact that the Governor's decision to undertake a role in relation to the Adelaide branch of the Carnegie Mellon University was given great publicity with the result that other competing institutions do not appear to enjoy the same patronage. I am sure that His Excellency had no intention or desire to play favourites, but it is important that that perception not be allowed to develop.

Incidentally, I should state my own position in relation to South Australia's connection with the crown. I favour Australia severing its remaining constitutional tie with the British monarchy and, at the conclusion of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, I believe that an Australian head of state should be appointed. The Australia Acts of 1986 severed legislative and legal links between Australia and the United Kingdom. The Governor may now exercise all of the powers of the Queen in South Australia with very few limitations, and they relate to the personal prerogatives of the monarch in relation to honours. Of course, Her Majesty the Queen presently retains the right to exercise all her powers in respect of this state when she is physically present here.

The Rudd Labor government has announced that it intends to revisit the question of the continued role of the monarch in Australia in due course. I hope that it does so and I hope that, once again, there is vigorous debate and that the true issues are not disguised, as I think they were on a previous occasion.

I commend to members the reports of the South Australian Constitution Advisory Council, which was established by premier Dean Brown upon his coming to office. Those reports were published in September and December of 1996, and they are both excellent documents. The first report indicates that, even if the Commonwealth of Australia severs its constitutional link with the monarch, there will remain the necessity of having in this state some office which fulfils the important roles presently filled by the Governor. In my view, that is constitutionally correct. However, I also believe that it is highly desirable for the person to fill the important community role as a non-political, non-partisan leader within the state. To dismiss that role as merely ceremonial or symbolic is misguided. The ceremonial and the symbolic are important elements in human life. They are important elements in social cohesion and community building. Accordingly, whilst I favour an Australian head of state, both for the commonwealth and for the state, I do not favour throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We should build on our traditions, not destroy them and seek to start again. My prescription is evolution not revolution.

On that particular topic I can say this: the Rann government's program outlined in the Governor's speech was certainly not revolutionary; it is not even evolutionary—it is simply more of the same. I thought the lack of new vision and new directions contained in the government's program was appalling. We are experiencing glacial progress on the ground in this state and all we are hearing are talks of infrastructure development in the future, and public/private partnerships not yet costed, not yet organised, still over the electoral horizon. The fact is that, in so many respects in this state, we are barely keeping our head above water.

Whilst on the topic of constitutional change, I should address the important issue of judicial appointments. There has been a number of recent suggestions that we in Australia, both federally and in the states, establish a judicial appointments commission with responsibility for making formal input to the appointment process for the various courts in the land. The Canadian provinces and many states in the USA already have such commissions, and they have had them for years. More recently, in the United Kingdom, a Judicial Appointments Commission was established. That occurred in 2006 and it has responsibility to make the selection of judges, taking over that responsibility from the Lord Chancellor. The chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission in the United Kingdom, Baroness Usha Prashar, said:

These appointments to the High Court will be the first to be made on the recommendation of the JAC, using our new systems. The days of 'secret soundings' and 'taps on the shoulder' are long gone. Today's judicial applicants will be assessed on who they are, not who they know.

I think there is a suspicion that some judicial appointments are still being made in this country on the basis of secret soundings and taps on the shoulder, and an assessment of who they know and not who they are.

There have been suggestions that we follow the United Kingdom model. I have had quite a longstanding interest in this particular subject. I have usually been against the creation of judicial appointment commissions or boards. I have felt that they unnecessarily limit the capacity of a government to make innovative and inspired selections to the judiciary and that the effect of such commissions is to limit rather than expand the available talent for appointment to the bench.

Some years ago I spoke in this parliament on that particular subject. On that occasion I noted that, as early as his 1983 Boyer Lectures, Justice Michael Kirby opposed the establishment of such a commission. He said:

The call for the establishment of...a Judicial Commission has been made in Britain, New Zealand and Canada. So far, nothing has come of it and I hope nothing will.

He was speaking, as I said, in 1983. He continues:

It has all the hallmarks of an institutional arrangement that would deprive our judiciary of the light and shade that tends to come from the present system. In our judges we need a mixture of traditionalist and the reformist. Institutionalising orthodoxy, or worse still, judges choosing judges, is quite the wrong way to procure a Bench more reflective of the diversity of our country.

Justice Kirby was not alone in that view: Justice Brennan expressed similar views. The Advisory Committee on the Australian Judicial System, which was one of five committees established to advise the Constitutional Commission, examined ways in which the Australian Constitution might be changed and, in 1997, its views were expressed. Lord Hailsham, a Conservative Lord Chancellor, described his policy for selecting judges in the following terms—which most might agree with—when he said:

My first and fundamental policy is to appoint solely on merit the best potential candidate ready and willing to accept the post. No considerations of party politics, sex, religion, or race must enter into my calculations and they do not. Personality, integrity, professional ability, experience, standing and capacity are the only criteria, coupled of course with the requirement that the candidate must be physically capable of carrying out the duties of the post, and not disqualified by any personal unsuitability. My overriding consideration is always the public interest in maintaining the quality of the bench and confidence in its competence and integrity.

That was from an article published in the Law Society Gazette of the United Kingdom in August 1985. Times, however, have moved on and I think Lord Hailsham was looking through rather rose-tinted glasses if he thought that every person responsible for judicial appointments was adopting so high a standard. I think there is no doubt these days, for example, that governments do seek to make appointments to redress what are seen as imbalances in relation to gender, ethnic diversity and the like.

There has in this state been a convention that the Attorney-General consults with members of parliament, the judges, the Law Society, the Bar Association and others, when making appointments. This informal arrangement has not always worked terribly satisfactorily. Under the Fair Work Act the appointment of industrial commissioners can be made only after the minister consults with a committee which is established under that legislation, and I do not believe that the consultation process in relation to that has worked satisfactorily. Recent appointments have been made really on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and the consultation has been perfunctory, at best—and that is in a case where there is a statutory obligation to consult. The Attorney-General's consultation really is merely a matter of convention, excepting in connection with certain appointments to the workplace relations court.

I am not critical of all, or even many, of this government's appointments but there have been some of which I am critical. In July 2005 there was an appointment of a judge to the Industrial Relations Court. Not only did no consultation take place with external parties, but also the Attorney-General failed to comply with the legislation which required consultation with the Chief Justice of the District Court before a judge could be assigned to the workplace relations court. The fact that the appointee was the sister of the convenor of the right faction of the Australian Labor Party indicates that there are grounds for concern. I believe that that and other instances mean that we should be revisiting the institutional arrangements relating to the consultation that should take place before these important appointments are made.

The Governor's speech reveals that the Rann government will continue to squeeze the law and order lemon in an effort to extract more juice from it. The government claims that its policies have led to a reduction in the crime rate in South Australia. This claim has been frequently made by the Premier. It has also been made by the Deputy Premier and the Attorney-General. Actually, the Attorney-General, on one occasion, did let the cat out of the bag by acknowledging on public media that, in fact, the government's policies had little to do with the reducing crime rate. On 1 July 2005 on Channel 10 the Attorney-General said:

Yes, there have been reductions in the crime rate in South Australia since our government came to office, but my suspicion is that it doesn't have much to do with our policy.

He went on to say:

One of the big influences on the crime rate anywhere in the world is the number of young men from disadvantaged backgrounds as a proportion of the total population.

But that burst of truth and reality is rare in the rhetoric on law and order in this state. The government continues to claim, and we see it again in the Governor's speech, that its policies are leading to a safer South Australian community.

The fallacy and hypocrisy of the government's claims in relation to the effect of its law and order policies can be clearly demonstrated by examining the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures relating to recorded crime in Australia. The data provided by the bureau was released as recently as 26 June this year. The data shows the figures across all offence categories collected from all Australian states and territories, and also the combined Australian figures. They show the numbers of offences committed; they also make calculations about the indexed rates and rates of crime per hundred thousand population. Those figures make clear the argument that I am advancing. Mr President, I seek to have inserted in Hansard tables of a purely statistical nature provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics demonstrating this point.

Leave granted.

Table 1

South Australia, recorded crime—Victims*

Number of offences

Highest Year** Latest Year
Offence Category 1999 2000 2001 2007
Total Homicide and related offences 78 54
Total Robbery 1,681 1,254
Total Unlawful Entry with intent 36,302 20,357
Motor vehicle theft 13,464 7,737
Other theft 79,185 47,080


Index Rate (Base index: 2001=100)

Highest Year** Latest Year
Offence Category 1999 2000 2001 2007
Total Homicide and related offences 148.5 100.0 97.2
Total Robbery 100.0 71.2
Total Unlawful Entry with intent 104.0 55.4
Motor vehicle theft 106.8 58.3
Other theft 100.0 56.8


*Extracted from Australian Bureau of Statistics, pub. 4510.0—Recorded Crime—Victims p. 21. Released 26 June 2008.

**Highest year between 1998 and 2007 (incl.).

Table 2

Australia, recorded crime—Victims*

(All states and territories, including SA)

Number of offences

Highest Year** Latest Year
Offence Category 1999 2000 2001 2007
Homicide and related offences 806 527
Robbery 26,591 17,988
Unlawful Entry with intent 436,968 248,423
Motor vehicle theft 139,844 70,650
Other theft 700,137 492,222


Rate per 100,000

Highest Year** Latest Year
Offence Category 1999 2000 2001 2007
Homicide and related offences 4.2 2.5
Robbery 137.0 85.6
Unlawful Entry with intent 2,281.7 1,182.1
Motor vehicle theft 725.4 336.2
Other theft 3,607.0 2,342.2


Index Rate (Base index: 2001=100)

Highest Year** Latest Year
Offence Category 1999 2000 2001 2007
Homicide and related offences 103.3 60.4
Robbery 100.0 np
Unlawful Entry with intent 101.6 np
Motor vehicle theft 100.6 np
Other theft 100.0 64.9


*Extracted from Australian Bureau of Statistics, pub. 4510.0—Recorded Crime—Victims p. 21. Released 26 June 2008.

**Highest year between 1998 and 2007 (incl.).

Table 3

Reduction in recorded crime*

A. Percentage reduction in number of offences between highest year and 2007

Offence Category SA Australia
Total Homicide and related offences -30.8% -34.6
Total Robbery -25.4 -32.4
Total unlawful Entry with intent -43.9 -43.1
Motor Vehicle theft -42.5 -49.5
Other theft -40.5 -29.7


B. Percentage reduction in indexed rate between 2001 and 2007

Offence Category SA Vic. Australia
Total Homicide and related offences -2.8% -19.8 -39.6
Total Robbery -28.8 -45.2 np
Total unlawful Entry with intent -44.6 -43.7 np
Motor Vehicle theft -41.7 -61.9 -53.4
Other theft -43.2 -31.0 -35.1


*Calculated from Australian Bureau of Statistics pub. 4510.0—Recorded Crime—Victims, pp. 9, 18, 20. Released 26 June 2008.


The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Table 1 shows each of the five main categories of crime, and for South Australia it shows that the highest number of offences occurred in various years but around 2000 or 2001. The important point here is that the figures show that the high point was reached and the rate of crime started to come down before the Rann government came to office, and, more particularly, before the raft of measures which took effect. That trend has continued not only in South Australia but also across the whole of Australia. If one looks, for example, at table 1, and one takes, say, the offence of unlawful entry with intent, one can see that in South Australia we reached a peak of 36,302 for such offences in the year 2000.

Since that time it has fallen. It has fallen down to 20,357, and that is in pure terms. One would have expected the number of offences to rise because the population has increased. The ABS does the signal service of providing an indexed rate. The base index is 100 at 2001. Taking that offence category of unlawful entry with intent, one can see that the high point was reached in the year 2000. It was then (on the index) 104 per cent. It has now fallen to 55.4 per cent. Motor vehicle theft is another for which the Attorney-General is keen to claim some credit. The indexed rate reached its highest level in 2000 at 106.8 per cent. That has now fallen quite dramatically to 58.3 per cent.

Table 2 shows these figures in relation to the whole of Australia, including South Australia, and they demonstrate clearly that not only has the number of offences fallen but also that the rate per 100,000 of population has fallen, and so has the indexed rate. Table 3 contains calculations which most dramatically illustrate the point I am making. For example, the number of offences of unlawful entry with intent in South Australia has decreased by 43.9 per cent, and overall it is 43.1 per cent across the whole of the country. That is the one category in which we have done just a little better than the national average.

However, in relation to homicide-related offences, total robbery, motor vehicle and other theft, our figures are not as good as the national figures. In terms of the number of offences of motor vehicle theft in South Australia, we have gone down by 42.5 per cent, but across the whole of Australia generally it has reduced by 49.5 per cent. The percentage of the reduction in the indexed rate between 2001 and 2007 is shown in the second part of table 3. Our indexed rate for motor vehicle theft has gone down by some 41.7 per cent, but the national reduction is down by 53.4 per cent. I have included in part B of table 3 figures also for Victoria because, in relation to two categories, the Australian figures were not published in the record.

I do commend members to those figures. I think they are worth studying, because they demonstrate three points: first, that the trend of downward crime in South Australia and in Australia generally began before the Rann government came to office. The reason why it declined will always be a matter of debate. I believe, as do many commentators (and I believe that the Attorney-General believes this from the remarks that I quoted earlier), that the improving economic conditions as a result of the Howard government's economic policies have led to a reduction in crime.

Secondly, the figures show that, notwithstanding all the Premier's rhetoric, in states such as Victoria and other places in Australia where there has not been this chest-beating emphasis on law and order rhetoric, crime rates have increased by the same or more than in South Australia. The Rann government beating its chest in the Governor's speech about continuing the law and order policies is claiming credit for which it is not due.

A couple of issues were not mentioned in the Governor's speech which I believe ought to have been. We have heard a lot about federalism in recent times, and for a state such as South Australia the principles of federalism are indeed important. We are a part of a federation, and the federation ought to work effectively.

One of the advantages of Federation is that different states can try different policies, have different regimes and seek to attract investment and the like in a competitive sense. What we have now is the Rudd government, followed by the Premier here, extolling the virtue of the fact that, with Labor Party governments in office in all states and the commonwealth, there is a greater degree of cooperation. Well, cooperation does not necessarily lead to an improvement. Cooperation can lead to nothing at all being done and the lowest common denominator being adopted.

Prime Minister Rudd is fond of saying that we now have a more cooperative system and that there is no blame game, so nobody is blaming anybody else across the states. In fact, the reason why nobody is blaming anybody else is that it if there is any disagreement they decide that it will be swept under the carpet and no action be taken at all. In order to create action, very often you need to tread on some toes. We find, for example, with water policy, where the Victorian government is thumbing its nose at the rest of the states which are interested in that matter and the commonwealth, well, we have a cosy little agreement which is based upon the lowest common denominator rather than what is the best solution for the country.

I believe that federalism will fail us unless we are able to be more progressive and more competitive and not simply seek to be cooperative. If one said the Olympic Games was a great event because we now have cooperative sportsmanship rather than competitive sportsmanship we would be laughed out of court, so I believe there should be some competitive tension to make our federal system work.

There is no mention in the Governor's speech of any proposals in relation to an independent commission against corruption in South Australia. That is lamentable. Time and again we hear the government, in particular the Attorney-General, claiming that we do not need an anti-corruption commission in South Australia because we already have adequate mechanisms to cover investigations into corrupt and like conduct. I simply do not agree that our mechanisms are satisfactory. I do not agree that South Australia is immune from the sort of corruption that occurs in other places. We know already of examples in this state which should have warranted investigations by an independent commission against corruption.

At the moment what we have is an ad hoc system where the government of the day decides that if it is politically convenient it will establish a royal commission, as it did in relation to the Kapunda Road affair concerning the solicitor, Mr Eugene McGee. There was a result and an expensive inquiry. So, an ad hoc inquiry was called on that occasion because the government did not feel it was in any political difficulty but, in relation to the matters like the Atkinson, Ashbourne and Clarke affair and the 'stashed cash' affair, certainly in relation to Ashbourne, the government promised an inquiry, did not provide an inquiry and then was keen to close down the select committee that was investigating that.

I believe we do need an independent commission against corruption, and the Liberal Party will pursue that issue into the next election. We simply do not accept the rather lame suggestion that it is not warranted in this state. The government said it was not warranted on the ground of expense; it said it might cost $30 million, but the government was very keen to ingratiate itself with the football community by making available $100 million for the improvement of a football stadium. A government of which integrity is a hallmark is something that is worth more and is more important in the true nature of things than sporting stadia.

It is also a matter a matter for regret that the government has not decided to commit funds nor to announce any programs in relation to improving the physical environment at the Supreme Court. The judges have been asking for this for a number of years. They have received nothing but abuse and the suggestion that they are merely seeking a Taj Mahal for their own comfort. That is an unworthy response by the government. There does not appear to be any acknowledgement by this government of the need to improve efficiency in the courts and, notwithstanding the appointment of a task force to reduce the waiting lists in our courts, they have not yet been significantly reduced.

Finally, I note the accusation the Hon. Bernie Finnigan made in the previous contribution that I and my colleague the Hon. Terry Stevens are geographically challenged by occasionally referring to the murmurings from Mingbool Marsh. I do know the location of that delightful feature, and I am appalled that the Hon. Bernie Finnigan would spend the time of parliament seeking to dissociate himself from this delightful grotto. I support the motion for the adoption of the Address in Reply.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:52): This is my first opportunity in the parliament to acknowledge and congratulate His Excellency the Governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce, on his appointment. I also congratulate the government on this appointment and note the multipartisan support for the Governor. It is a wonderful appointment for South Australia, and this Governor follows on from several with whom I had the privilege of working when I was previously in parliament and who were very focused on the best interests of South Australia. I wish the Governor and his wife every success in their most important position.

However, I was disappointed with the lack of vision, strategies and new initiatives I expected to see introduced yesterday in the new session of parliament. In fact, I expected to pick up The Advertiser yesterday morning and read a front page talking about the great new initiatives of the Rann government because, effectively, I saw the Governor's address as the start of an 18- month election campaign.

Traditionally, this government has been notorious for leaking key initiatives to start a good media day. However, I think that that went down like a lead balloon yesterday; in fact, most of the members of the media I spoke to said that they were surprised that there was nothing new at all. Apart from the announcement of a couple of small pieces of legislation on law and order, yesterday's speech offered nothing other than the recycling of what all South Australians had already been told.

I want to start by talking about the AAA credit rating, and in my maiden speech I said that I was concerned that this government was rewriting history. Whilst, technically, the AAA rating was returned to South Australians under the watch of the current government, history will show that the hard work on getting back the AAA rating was actually done by the former government. I think it is important to put that on the public record because I like history to be written correctly and it ties in with what I will have to say about finances in a short while.

Let us for a minute remember that in the budget papers billions of dollars have been recently committed to be borrowed for South Australia. The Treasurer himself is on the public record as saying that these borrowings are at the upper limit and that the fact of the matter is that there is probably not much room to move now in relation to further borrowings for South Australians, through the government, before the AAA credit rating is at risk.

I note in the Governor's speech that the government says that it believes that the biggest challenge facing South Australia is the issue of water security. There is no 'believe': it is a statement of fact. Nothing is more important at the moment for South Australia than securing a permanent water supply and, to that end, I was disappointed that there was no commitment in the Governor's speech to go forward with a proper plan for stormwater harvesting.

When you see Adelaide receiving 21 inches of rain a year on average (with our having a pretty handy winter for the first time in three years), and you see the amount of water running out to sea, damaging the gulf and being absolutely wasted, it is almost beyond belief that the government does not realise that one of the key ways of addressing a permanent water supply for South Australia is stormwater harvesting.

In the 1990s, I spent quite a lot of time in Texas, California and Israel looking at how they manage recycled water and stormwater. They do not waste a drop. I do not understand why we are just focusing on a desalination plant (which seemed to come in late on the government's agenda) and not focusing more on trying to wean us as much as possible off the River Murray.

The fact of the matter is that we will always have to rely on the River Murray for some of Adelaide's water, but it could be only a small amount if we harvested stormwater. From what I am told (and I understand a reasonable amount about the hydrology behind the Adelaide Plains), whilst there are several aquifers, most of them should easily take up aquifer storage. Effectively, there is a mass of natural reservoirs under the metropolitan area, yet we hear talk about expanding Mount Bold, which will have a significant environmental impact on that precious part of the Adelaide Hills and the Mount Lofty Ranges, and I know that area like the back of my hand. Of course, there is no funding in the budget papers for that initiative, anyway.

I put on the public record a plea to the Premier to go to the Prime Minister and negotiate additional money from the commonwealth government to assist the state with stormwater harvesting. Billions of dollars have been allocated for water initiatives through the commonwealth by both the previous Howard government and now the Rudd government but, at $600 million or thereabouts, we have nowhere near our share. Victoria has received $1 billion, but we should receive far more because we have to work harder to ensure that we have a guaranteed water supply.

With respect to the historic agreement earlier this year, the sweeping reforms to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin system will occur only if the relevant legislation is passed through all houses of parliament in Australia. Whilst I understand and congratulate the state government on indicating its will (and it will certainly have the support of Family First in handing over powers from our state to the commonwealth), I am still concerned about what will happen in Victoria.

There needs to be no backdoor deals done as this legislation is framed because Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland must give total powers to the commonwealth government as well. It is the only way we are going to get a fair outcome for the Murray-Darling system, particularly for South Australia.

In relation to the $3.1 billion the commonwealth has allocated to purchase over-allocated water licences, it disappoints and frustrates me that, whether it is a Liberal or Labor government, simply because it is someone who is not from within their immediate team or their bureaucracy who comes up with ideas, they are totally discounted. The Wentworth group of scientists were not engaged by the Howard government, nor have they been engaged by the Rudd government or by the Rann government. When there are brilliant people such as Professor Mike Young, a South Australian who is passionate about helping to fix the river system and coming up with other initiatives for a permanent water supply for Adelaide, it amazes me that governments are turning their back on opportunities, instead of embracing those people and saying, 'We have a major problem here; can you help?' I still believe that those people would come in and assist.

However, when it comes to the $3.1 billion allocated for the buy-back of over-allocated water, there is still only about $130 million to $150 million being put on the table. Obviously, buying back over-allocated water at this time will not fix the problem we have in the Lower Lakes. There is another initiative, which I have already talked about in this chamber, that could fix that problem, if the will was there between our Premier and the Prime Minister.

It is paramount that we buy back that over-allocated water now with the $3.1 billion package. In buying back that water, we should also be advocating some sort of a rescue package for irrigators, particularly in the Riverland area of South Australia, the Lower Lakes, and the lower areas of the river, below lock 1. It has been done in other agricultural and manufacturing industries. If it is done properly, I am advised that the buy-back of all the over-allocated water would occur within a very short time. I encourage the government to immediately put further pressure on the Rudd government to set up a better structure going forward so that we can buy back over-allocated water licences.

As I mentioned earlier, the Governor's speech talks about investigations into doubling the capacity of reservoirs in the Mount Lofty Ranges. Well, I live in the Mount Lofty Ranges, and I can tell members that climate change and drought are having the same effect there as they are having everywhere else. Rainfall has dropped by a great percentage in the past 10 or 15 years. In my own town, we used to have as high as 36 inches (in the old language) of rainfall in a year, year in and year out. However, we have had nowhere near that for many years now. So, that tells me that, if you are going to double the capacity of reservoirs such as Mount Bold, you will still have to rely on filling them by pulling water out of the River Murray. Again, that shows the importance of taking a much more visionary approach and looking at stormwater harvesting.

Further into the Governor's speech yesterday, the government talks about health, in particular, country hospitals, as follows:

The government has also committed to capital works at country hospitals, including redevelopments for Berri, Whyalla and Ceduna.

There was no mention of the Country Health Plan yesterday—the failed Country Health Plan that was going to close up to 43 hospitals in rural and regional South Australia. It was only the power of the people and assistance from some sectors of both houses of the parliament that stopped the government from permanently damaging fair and reasonable health services and facilities in country South Australia.

I now move on to the Glenside campus. The Governor's speech states that a significant part of the government's reform and investment includes a $130 million redevelopment of the Glenside campus, with work expected to commence in 2009. I am very concerned that the Glenside campus is being interfered with in the wrong way when it comes to what they are going to do with the real estate there. Shopping centres and other commercial facilities are not the way to go with the land out there at Glenside. As far as a new $43 million film studio goes, that should never be built on such an important piece of land. We need specialist mental health facilities. We need them to be improved and upgraded and brought into this century, and the place to do that is clearly at Glenside, where there is a good transport system, close access to our tertiary hospitals, and easy access for families to visit patients. We should be modelling a state of the art centre of excellence for mental health at Glenside, not flogging off land to try to reduce debt and not setting up a film studio there.

If there is a need for a new film studio, I would like to see it set up in the south (and I have written to the Premier in this regard) in the new precinct being developed along the rail corridor at Noarlunga Centre. It was always the plan to have accommodation and new industries and new opportunities for jobs desperately needed in the south. Put the $43 million into a film studio there, and build supported accommodation for transitional mental health patients at Glenside. That would be good government, and I would commend the government if it were to do that. However, at the moment it is an ad hoc plan. In fact, it is the wrong plan, and it will not work in the long-term best interests of rehabilitating mental health patients. Remember that one in five South Australians will have short or long-term mental health problems, and it is a growing problem that needs to be addressed and not swept under the carpet.

I hope that the Premier will see some wisdom in the letter I have sent to him and that he will help create a new industry opportunity with that money he is allocating by setting it up in the south. I see that the Premier allocated $2 million, I think it was, to Scott Hicks to do a film down there. That in itself is an acknowledgment of the importance of the Fleurieu Peninsula. Many great films have already been made down there. It has a fantastic landscape, with a lot of different terrain and topography. There are art centres down there and some of our great artists and musicians live down there. The culture is already there, and it sets the scene for developing a film studio there.

The paper also talks about public transport, about the $2 billion debt that has been incurred for the electrification of the train lines in the Adelaide metropolitan area, the extension of the tram line and some upgrades of tram facilities right through into the deeper part of the western suburbs. Whilst the western suburbs still need improvement in public transport, compared to the south, the north and the east, they have much better public transport now.

We have a situation where we have a deplorable road network from Victor Harbor in the south right through to Gawler in the north. If $2 billion was borrowed, I think an upgrade of public transport could have been achieved, perhaps not quite as grand as is proposed in the western suburbs, but still an upgrade for the western suburbs, the southern suburbs and the northern suburbs. A staged plan on building a proper north-south motorway could have been started. It is a significant amount of money. It was not actually spelt out before the last election that this government was going to borrow $2 billion or $3 billion.

I will have more to say about this, but I firmly believe that, if the government is going to put the state into debt to the tune of billions of dollars—I am not talking tens of millions here; I am talking thousands of millions—I believe it should tell the public about that with its policies before an election. Therefore, if people then go and support that particular party—in this case the Labor government—there is a proper mandate to go out and borrow that money. There is no mandate at the moment as far as I am concerned for the government to be putting our future generations back into debt, particularly at a time when we have had record revenue. We should be in better shape than we are. Again, on this point about transport, in the address yesterday the Governor said:

It includes further upgrades of Adelaide's north-south transport corridor.

Well, I am not quite sure what a north-south transport corridor is at the moment. I know about a couple of underpasses and an upgrade at Laffers Triangle. It goes on to say that there will be new projects at Oaklands Park and on Fleurieu Peninsula. I hope that includes some work on the Victor Harbor Road, because whoever manages the engineering at Transport SA needs to be spoken to pretty sternly by the minister. I do not blame this government alone. In fact, I was a member of a government that was involved in the same process for some dual lane work done on Fleurieu Peninsula over the past 10 years. There have been some over-passing lanes created here and there.

The engineers at Transport SA need to do a lot better when they do their design and tender. If you drive down along the Victor Harbor road at the moment, you will actually see holes in the road with these double passing lanes that are probably up to 150 millimetres in depth, and the membrane underneath the bitumen is now exposed. That is a major tourism and commuter road. If you go along South Road down to Yankalilla (in the member for Kaurna's electorate), you will actually see that the double passing lanes there have not only broken up but it is now like a rollercoaster. So, money not being managed properly is not delivering good value for South Australians. In fact, those particular roads down there, and many others in this state, need urgent attention.

One thing that really annoyed me in the address was this particular sentence, which I will quote from page 4:

It continues to work towards reforming WorkCover in order to deliver a worker's compensation scheme that provides injured workers with fair and equitable financial and other support that reduces the average levy rate for employers and is fully funded as soon as practicable.

I disagree with the government on that. In fact, as an employer myself, only a couple of days ago I received quite a bit of propaganda that is sent out all the time in a publication called Newslink. It refers to WorkCover legislative changes being passed, and it has the CEO espousing the virtues of the former chairman of the board and how great he was and what a wonderful job he did in getting WorkCover back into shape. The bottom line is that all that has happened with WorkCover so far is that it has done over legitimate injured workers.

I have started to meet with some of these groups since I have come back into the parliament. It is very sad when one talks to these people who have been injured, and their families, and you see the lack of case management and the lack of real support to get them back into the workforce, and now this government is cutting their entitlements. Of course, if you are a rorter, you should be hit hard.

The legislation was already there for that, but the government has done irreparable damage to workers by reducing worker entitlements. So I, in fact, condemn that paragraph, because it is not about fair and equitable opportunities for workers; it is about unfair and inequitable opportunities now put before them. In fact, they do not have an opportunity because the law now says, 'No matter what happens, after a certain period of time your entitlements are cut.'

I want to finish on a couple of points. The address also refers to education, as follows:

The 2009 school year will see compulsory age education legislation come into effect. That will ensure that all young people are in school or training until they are aged 17 or achieve their SACE or equivalent qualification.

I have serious concerns about this. It might sound good on paper to say that you are keeping students at school longer, but one size does not fit all, and some of the behaviour problems that we see coming out into the community now—and particularly in secondary school—I believe are a direct result of what we have already seen in the past few years when the school age was extended to 16.

I happen to have personal knowledge of a great young person working for us on our farm. He is 17 now and he left school well over a year ago. He has improved immensely in his learning capacity and in his enthusiasm, all because we gave him a traineeship through the school (and I commend the school for assisting us with that) and now we have him on a full apprenticeship. He is doing Certificate II in agriculture and I hope he will end up doing Certificate III. He is a fantastic worker, he is generating money, he has empathy and he is also helping us to grow food along with other farmers around this state.

However, if he was forced to stay at school until he was 17, because he was not able to opt into the type of opportunity that we have given him now, he would be the worse off for that, and the school might have found that some of its resources would have gone into assisting him in his general management rather than into curriculum development. If we are going to leave these people there for a longer time, we have to ensure that there are opportunities and flexibility in the education system or we will have problems with these people and will need many more student counsellors and SSOs.

Turning now to the final part of the Governor's speech, it states that the Social Inclusion Unit will continue to implement strategies designed to make reductions in the number of homeless people. Before 2002, the Rann government promised to halve homelessness during the government's lifetime. I was interested in that promise because it reminded me of a promise that Prime Minister Hawke made back in the early 90s or late 80s, when he said that no Australian child would live in poverty after a certain date. Sadly, there are more Australian children living in poverty now than there were back then.

I commend the government for having a strategy to reduce homelessness and to address the problems of people who are sleeping rough on our streets. However, I know that some members of the Social Inclusion Unit are still very concerned about whether it will meet the overall targets. I am hoping that the government will accelerate its efforts to assist these most disadvantaged people. After not coming into Adelaide much at all for two years and now coming in virtually every day, I can very easily see, when driving down different roads into the city proper, that there are still a lot of homeless people out there, a lot of people doing it tough, and a lot of people who are sleeping rough.

Towards the end, the Governor's speech talks about a ministry for the northern suburbs. There is no doubt that the north and south need services but, if the ministers of the government are absolutely focused on needs, one would have to question whether or not there is a need for an office and a specific minister for the north and the south. I intend to do an audit of achievements of what has happened with the first office that was set up, the Office for the Southern Suburbs. I suggest that, with the amount of money spent on that as against the programs that have been delivered, it may well be that an allocation of money for education specifically going to additional SSO areas in the south and the north, with money also being allocated to economic development opportunities in the south and the north, and further money being allocated to more hospital beds in the south and the north (as three examples) would have been a much better investment than has been the case.

I am concerned that much of the attention of these offices is focused on peripheral areas and the warm and fuzzy matters, rather than on actual delivery of better services. In the south you can see that the focus for the City of Onkaparinga (that I commend) was to take the bull by the horns and generate a lot of the economic development down there, a role that really should be very secondary for local government but, in this instance, it became a primary role because it was not delivered by the Office for the Southern Suburbs.

I now want to turn to policing. I note with interest that the address stated that the government will continue to recruit more police (which is good) with a further 165 cadets in training at the Fort Largs Police Academy who will graduate by the end of this year. I intend to drill further into this matter in the near future. The government made a commitment (and so did the opposition at the last election) that whoever won government would deliver 400 additional police officers by the end of this term of office. On average, that is 100 police officers a year. Attrition sits between 125 and 150 police officers a year. Like most departments in South Australia, because of our ageing population, there is the potential over this term for attrition to accelerate, particularly because there has just been another enterprise agreement which helps police officers to maximise their superannuation.

I am concerned about the total number of cadets going through the academy this year if it is that 165 cadets. If that is the case, then I think it will be incredibly difficult for the government to get anywhere near the 400 additional police that it needs. If there are between 125 and 150 a year just for replacement and another 100 on top of that, it is close to 250 police officers a year, if we are going to keep up with attrition and if we are going to keep up with the new numbers.

The only point I make about that is that police officers working in the local service areas are telling me that they are not seeing these additional police, by and large, out in the local service areas yet. Here we are, only 18 months from the next state election, and they are telling me that they are often short on patrols and they are either going solo or, at times, not able to roll out the number of cars allocated on a particular shift. There is a new Minister for Police and it will take him a little while to get his head around the portfolio but I will be watching closely and trusting that the government honours its commitment to ensure that the 400 police are out there on the beat by the second Saturday in March 2010.

I will complete my remarks by saying that I was hoping for some vision, a new direction, new energy and fire in the belly from the government, and I thought it would have to start yesterday with the Governor's address on behalf of the government. But, if you read this document in detail, there is very little new initiative to inspire you. There is a lot of recycling, and it scares me that a government that is still 18 months out and starting to plan towards the next election is not coming in with a lot more vibrancy, energy, initiative and strategy than we heard in the address yesterday.

In conclusion, I hope the government has quite a bit more up its sleeve and we start to see it rolled out, because the South Australian community, by and large, is hurting at the moment; and the social dividend that was spoken about in this document yesterday certainly has not been delivered in the past couple of years. In fact, it has been a social tax hike. That is what it has been, and that is part of what is hurting people, together with fuel prices and interest rates.

I note that the government is saying that there will be a social dividend as well as an economic dividend. I will support the government if it delivers those, otherwise we will be doing whatever we can to expose the government for its weaknesses and to get it focused on giving a true economic dividend and a true social dividend for the South Australian community.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (17:25): I rise to support the address by the Governor and thank him for the work he is doing within South Australia. In particular, he and his wife have, very early in their time, visited much of regional and rural South Australia. Their visits are always very informal and very much appreciated by the people in the areas that they visit.

The reason for an Address in Reply speech is to respond to the Governor's speech which, of course, is written for him by the government of the day to outline its plans for the next session of parliament. I agree with the Hon. Robert Brokenshire in that I think we all expected that, this being probably the last opening of parliament before the next election, the government would have some new plans, some vision, or something that it was actually going to do for the people of South Australia. We have been bitterly disappointed by the fact that there is so little. This has caused me to look at previous governors' speeches—again, to announce the policies of the government—since 2002, and the sameness and the recycling is quite remarkable. I will draw attention to some of the statements that have been made at the various openings of parliament.

In May 2002 the new government said that South Australia would be a place 'with a healthy and vital River Murray, flowing to the sea'. We are still waiting, and it has become worse. It also said that it would introduce the River Murray Act—which indeed it did—and that it would give the government clear powers over the way in which the river is used and control planning, irrigation practices, pollution and rehabilitation programs. However, we continue to see the river dry up and die. In 2003 the then governor said:

My government has made an historic breakthrough on rescuing the River Murray.

Well, we are still waiting. She went on to say in 2003, which is five years ago:

The recent Council of Australian Governments meeting in Canberra determined to return water to the Murray-Darling Basin system over the next five years. This $500 million agreement is crucial to restoring the health of the river. South Australia's environment, economy and communities all depend on the way the state manages its natural resources.

We are still waiting, five years down the track, for any of that to be introduced and any of that action to save the now desperately ill River Murray. In 2004, the then governor said:

Preventing the further decline—

remember it has now gone from preserving the healthy to preventing the further decline—

of the ailing River Murray remains one of our highest priorities.

That was four years ago. The then governor also said:

The government believes that additional flows on their own will not be enough to save the river. What is really important is how these flows are used.

Well, there have been virtually no additional flows. The speech continues:

To this end, the government will be doing much work over the coming year to determine how best to manage the additional water—

what additional water?—

available for priority sites located wholly or partly in South Australia.

In 2006, the then governor said:

In order to help save the River Murray, my government will continue to work with other Murray-Darling Basin governments to return 500 gigalitres of water to the river.

Well, it is still coming. We hope. In 2007, the then governor said:

We will finalise negotiations with the commonwealth and then introduce complementary legislation to transfer management of the River Murray to an independent commission responsible to a federal minister, with appropriate guarantees of environmental flows to South Australia.

Yesterday, the Governor stated:

The Council of Australian Governments reached a historic agreement earlier this year [so, what happened to the agreement it reached in 2007?] that will allow for sweeping reforms to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Again, what happened to the agreement 12 months ago? The Governor continued:

Under that agreement, South Australia will refer its constitutional responsibility for water management in the River Murray to the commonwealth.

I am not sure whether the government simply lifted the same speech or whether there is something different. The Governor continued:

Amendments to the Murray-Darling Basin Act will be required to enable the management of the River Murray in South Australia by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

I refer to the previous quotes and wonder just what has happened over the long and tedious six years of this government's control over South Australia. The speech continues to say that the government will improve water efficiency 'through upgraded infrastructure and other projects'. It does not tell us what the 'other projects' are or what the infrastructure upgrades will be, but whatever they are they will 'return much-needed water in the medium to long term to the ailing river system to improve environmental flows, including to the Lower Lakes and Coorong'. I tell members that that was said in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Governor further stated:

The $610 million that the government secured from the commonwealth's [so, it is not South Australian money] Water for the Future package will be used for a program of infrastructure projects known as 'Murray Futures'.

Well, while this government fiddles the Murray has no future. The speech continued:

That program will include the complete re-engineering of water infrastructure affecting the townships, communities and irrigators that draw water from the Lower Lakes.

For that members can read 'the engineering will be put in place for the Lower Lakes to be salt'. The speech further states:

And $200 million has been allocated for longer-term environmental improvements to the Lower Lakes to help secure their future.

It does not say what those environmental improvements will be, however. And our government in its generosity will also include $80 million (so that is from the $200 million) 'that is available for the purchase of water entitlements from willing sellers'. I did the maths on that and, as I understand it, at $1,200 per megalitre (which is about the current market price of purchasing water), that would be 66 gigalitres of water when South Australia needs 1,000 gigalitres overnight. This government has known and talked about this now for six years.

We have the upper reaches of the River Murray in South Australia desperate. We have the irrigators collapsing. We have the spectre of not only South Australia but also Australia having to import its citrus and almonds and the collapse of the irrigated-grape industry in the Riverland. They are around the corner, without even mentioning the parlous state of the Lower Lakes, where, without local rains a couple of months ago, much of the water in Lake Albert was of a higher salinity than sea water. For six years this government has made promises and announcements which it has recycled and recycled. A couple of other issues were not mentioned, strangely enough, in this year's speech that I found interesting going back. In May 2002 the then governor said:

The EDB will achieve some vital real benefits to South Australia, such as:

a massive new investment at Mitsubishi;

two new car models;

doubling of output;

1,000 new direct jobs created;

major commitment to expand exports; and

research and development.

We all know what has happened to Mitsubishi under the watch of this government. Similarly, the government in 2003 and again in 2004 (and I notice that it has now dropped off the page altogether) announced that it would triple exports to reach $25 billion by 2013. That was its announcement in 2003. In 2004 it said exactly the same thing—it was to treble the value of our export income to $25 billion a year by 2013.

My understanding is that our exports from South Australia currently sit at about $9 billion. They have slowly and gradually reached the level they were at when we lost government. They have climbed back up to $9 billion. I notice, as I say, that there is no further mention of the expansion of exports or $25 billion by 2013 in any of the Governor's speeches. In 2004 the then governor announced that this government would undertake an initiative to accelerate the growth of the food sector in South Australia. She said:

Food industry development officers will be employed to provide services and develop capabilities at a local level that underpin long-term sustainable growth in food industries.

That was in 2004 and, indeed, the government reinstated, I think, nine regional food officers, colloquially known as FIDOs (Food Industry Development Officers) in, I think, late 2004. However, it has since sacked five of those officers. We have only four across South Australia now. One is in Adelaide. They have such a large territory to cover with no extra salary from what they had when there were nine of them that their job is nigh on impossible

That should not surprise any of us, because the only mention at all of agriculture in the Governor's speech yesterday was that Adelaide would become home to a new super greenhouse, the plant accelerator (whatever that is), and that is the only mention of agriculture at all in the Governor's speech.

One of the many other things that the government has stopped mentioning is that it will work closely with BHP Billiton to facilitate and negotiate an indenture to underpin the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine with an associated desalination plant proposed for the Upper Spencer Gulf. I do not know what happened to that, but yesterday's speech mentioned a desalination plant of 50 gigalitres in Adelaide, but there was nothing about working with BHP for a desalination plant, which was going to be one of the biggest in the world. It was going to provide potable water for all of Eyre Peninsula; it was going to create massive economic development in that region, but somehow it has just slipped quietly off the page.

Further to that, the Governor yesterday announced that projects are also under way to meet the government's target of increasing the percentage of waste water and stormwater that is used in South Australia. My question is: what projects; where are they, and when are they going to start? I say that, because I sit on a standing committee which had the person involved in stormwater in South Australia before us, and they were unable to point to any projects within South Australia that are currently under way or even announced, so I am very interested to find out where these projects are and when they will get under way.

Other than that, the Governor's speech yesterday—and therefore the government's speech—was that of a tired, old government which is recycling announcements because it has nothing new to tell the people of South Australia. I thought I would mention some of these recycled announcements. The first one is that, to further protect our environment, the government will introduce legislation to ban the supply of lightweight shopping bags. How many times have we heard that? How many times have we got ready to debate that issue? It is now to come into effect in May 2009. Let us hope it does.

The next recycled announcement is that outer boundaries of 19 marine parks will be announced. That is great, because we have been talking about them for the past six years. More regional women in South Australia will have access to updated breast screening technology—a recycled announcement. The government will continue to fight childhood obesity; we know that, because it tells us about once a month. A significant part of the government's reform and investment includes a $130 million redevelopment of Glenside campus. Yep; we know that, because again, the government tells us whenever it is short of news, and that is becoming increasingly frequent.

The government has also undertaken to overhaul the state's planning system. Yep; we know that too, because again, that is a recycled announcement. It is going to continue to work towards reforming WorkCover, yet it told us and everyone else that it had reformed WorkCover. It has also announced in this speech that its projects will include the Air Warfare Destroyer project and the relocation of the 1,200-strong Mechanised Battalion Group to Edinburgh. I could not count the number of times that has been announced. It will work towards a stronger and more flexible public sector. That was announced in 2002 and has come up very frequently since.

In addition, the government goes on to tell us, we are also now home to branches of international universities, including Carnegie Mellon. Yep; we know that too, because it tells us, more or less every six months. It announced six or nine months ago that Britain's Cranfield University will be offering defence related courses here. Yes; we know that, too. We also know, because it has been announced on a number of occasions, that the University College of London will also establish a presence in Adelaide.

It has also recycled and actually altered the retention age for young people at school. It will now be 17, when it was going to be 16. It has recycled the announcement of the construction of six new schools. One wonders whether it will ever build them. It has talked again about the Social Inclusion Unit and the wonderful things it is going to do to help the homeless who sleep rough. It has had six years and there is little reduction.

I also query whom the Social Inclusion Unit actually includes. It certainly does not include remote and isolated children. When I was in Port Augusta recently I visited the School of the Air, where state funding has been cut to such an extent that children are unable to access many of their lessons because of the cost of connection to broadband. I may add that in every other state that is subsidised to socially isolated children but, obviously, social inclusion does not include people like that.

The government has again announced that it will strengthen the authority of police and prosecutors and that it will again fight to outlaw motorcycle gangs. I am sure that, if I look hard enough, it will have also announced that it will crack down on the gang of 49. It fascinates me that, after six years, it is still a gang of 49—it has not even reached a gang of 48 or 47, and it has not been reduced by even two members.

I see this as a sorry, sad and boring indictment of a government that has run out of ideas and has, indeed, failed to implement many of the ideas it claimed it would bring to South Australia when it was first elected. The only infrastructure monument any of us can see is a tram—a tram after six years.

There are abandoned roads, abandoned rural health programs and abandoned children who happen to have to do distance education. If the government had introduced the number of additional police it claimed every year, we would be one of the most highly policed states in Australia, if not the world, but we all know that recruitment is barely keeping up with attrition. Indeed, a great shame this government must live with is its total lack of any ability to work towards saving the River Murray or the people who depend on it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.

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