HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 July 2009. Page 2960.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:24): I reflected in the past that the Appropriation Bill provides the parliament with the opportunity to review the priorities of the government of the day and take stock of the progress or otherwise on those priorities. This is the Rann government's eighth budget and, hopefully, for the sake of the people of South Australia, it will be its last.

For the first seven years, the Rann government enjoyed some of the best years South Australia has ever seen. Basking in the success of federal Liberal economic management, it has experienced record revenues, huge—in fact, as the leader of the government would say, 'massive'—GST windfalls and a booming economy. Yet in the boom times the Rann government has failed to provide for the future, instead letting its expenses get out of hand—a fact highlighted by the Auditor-General on several occasions.

Despite record revenues there has been little or no infrastructure, no action, no vision. At the end of this government's second term and, with the onset of the global financial crisis, the government should have been able to deliver a budget highlighting a record of achievement. Instead, this budget shows the government to be more like a deer in headlights: now, when the good times have come to an end, it does not know which way to go. Spending federal bailouts has become a cover for a stale government lacking in vision and purpose.

I turn now to the budget and the government's performance in each of my areas of shadow responsibility; first, water security. South Australians remain extremely concerned about water security. It is not a new issue. The government repeatedly bleats that it cannot be blamed for the drought, but our water crisis predates the drought. Let me quote the Premier. In 2004 he wrote a foreword in the report of the water expert Thinker in Residence the late Peter Cullen, which stated:

The water situation in South Australia has become critical…I do believe, however, that South Australians are coming to realise that we now need to act with some urgency…a fresh, bold approach is needed.

So, let us hold the Premier accountable for his own words. That was in 2004; now, five years on, how is the government going in terms of pursuing an urgent, fresh, bold approach on water?

There certainly was not any urgency in the government's investment in water infrastructure. The recently released 2007-08 National Performance Report of the National Water Commission shows that, while the rest of the nation was investing heavily in water infrastructure mid-decade, the Rann government was just sitting around hoping it would rain. In 2003-04, at the same time as the Premier's call for urgency, Adelaide was spending the national average spend per capita on water and waste water infrastructure amongst the metropolitan major water utilities; yet data from the National Water Commission shows that, while the other states increased spending to more than $200 per person per capita, the Rann government cut its per capita spending to only $73 per person.

On average, capital expenditure by the major metropolitan water utilities more than doubled from $1.1 billion in 2002-03 to $2.8 billion in 2007-08—a 130 per cent increase. However, the Rann government increased its capital spending in Adelaide by only 10 per cent—not even the rate of inflation. In this year's budget the government is now trying to claim that it has significantly increased capital works expenditure in response to the crisis. This is a crisis that the Premier said we were in in 2004, yet he failed to invest in dealing with that crisis until five years later—and, even then, it is hardly broad based.

In fact, two-thirds of the capital investment announced in the recent budget is in one project: the Adelaide desalination plant. The water from this plant will be able to be distributed to only half the metropolitan area of Adelaide. It is hardly a comprehensive response to the water security challenge facing the people of Adelaide and South Australia. What is more, no new water projects will be delivered before the end of 2010; most projects will come online between 2011 and 2014. So, where is the urgency that the Premier claimed in 2004? The first projects from this budget will be delivered some six years after the Premier's call for an urgent response. Clearly, this government and this budget have failed to respond to the water challenge in a timely fashion.

What of the other point: the Premier's call for a fresh and bold approach? There has certainly been nothing fresh about the government's approach to water security. While the opposition has shown leadership on water, calling for fresh approaches such as desalination and stormwater capture and re-use, in contrast the government has focused on the laziest response: suppressing demand. Adelaide has faced water restrictions since 2003 which, even the Premier himself admits, are punitive. Basically, the public is being punished for the government's failure to invest.

What is the government's attitude to the not so easy options? Let us consider stormwater. This Labor government is chronically sceptical about stormwater. In 1989, the Bannon Labor government released its report, entitled South Australia's Water Future, which estimated that up to 75 gigalitres of Adelaide's stormwater run-off could be captured, treated in wetlands and stored in aquifers. Does that sound familiar?

Now, 20 years later, another Labor government is telling us that, in 2050, it hopes to be able to catch 75 gigalitres per annum. It is 20 years since Labor first said that it would do it. It now says that it will be another 40 years before we reach 75 gigalitres per annum. The telling difference, though, is that the 1989 report suggested that 75 gigalitres per annum could be harvested from the metropolitan area of Adelaide. The Water for Good target of 75 gigalitres by 2050 is actually a target for the whole of South Australia. So, we have to wait 60 years for this government to underachieve compared with its predecessors.

Experts with a proven track record on delivering projects on stormwater on the ground—such as Colin Pitman—are confident that we can deliver a lot more water decades earlier than Labor's half-hearted plan. The government's short-term target of 20 gigalitres by 2014 is less than the output of projects already in operation or under construction as identified by the Centre for Economic Studies published for the Local Government Association.

In terms of investment, less than 3 per cent of the water security investment announced in the 2009-10 budget relates to stormwater. This government is a chronic stormwater sceptic, and it is even worse than previous Labor administrations. It stubbornly refuses to embrace the opportunities, and it is condemning future generations of South Australians to water insecurity and lower economic growth. While Labor's Stormwater Management Authority is focused on flood mitigation, South Australians recognise that stormwater is a resource, not just a problem.

In contrast, the Liberal opposition is keen to establish a water capture and re-use commission as one of its first acts in government. This body will provide leadership and a streamlined structure to bring stakeholders together to fast-track stormwater harvesting opportunities. We have a credible strategy to harvest 89 gigalitres, which contrasts with the Labor Party's long-term ambition to achieve somewhat less than 75 gigalitres.

A properly coordinated and accelerated plan is likely to reduce the total cost of projects by ensuring that harvesting and distribution opportunities reach a critical mass much earlier. South Australia cannot afford to be held back by Labor's stormwater sceptics. Labor's priority in water is demonstrated by its $2.5 million expenditure in advertising its recently released Water for Good plan. That money would have been better spent on stormwater opportunities.

I remind the council that the Morphettville racecourse stormwater project will cost $2.4 million and will deliver 512 megalitres of water. If the government wanted a quick hit, $2.4 million could buy 6.7 billion litres or 2,700 Olympic size swimming pools of temporary water on the River Murray.

South Australians do not need education on the value of water. They get it; it is the government that needs education. The government has also failed on the need for a fresh approach. In 2004, the Premier called for a bold approach yet, on this measure, the government and this budget fail once again.

Shortly after the budget, the so-called Independent Commissioner for Water Security released the government's Water for Good plan, a plan that the government says will guarantee South Australia's water security. But what South Australia needs is action, vision and leadership, not another plan. We have already had the 2005 Water Proofing Adelaide plan, which was supposed to be a 20 year plan to secure Adelaide's water supply. Now, only four years into that 20 year plan, the government has released a new plan—this time, a 41 year plan.

This latest plan includes plans for yet more plans, including a natural resources management plan, a Greater Adelaide plan, several regional plans, two water allocation plans, a strategic water information and monitoring plan, a stormwater master plan and a wastewater master plan. Clearly, the government's cunning plan is to plan to have yet more plans. This is not action: this is just spin. There is nothing bold in the Water for Good report. When it is trying to excuse past inaction, it is putting off action with a commitment to planning.

There is nothing in Water for Good which is bold in addressing the urgent issues which face us in 2009 and beyond. We see a recommitment to Labor's focus on suppressing demand in the hope that it will rain, ignoring the changing environment from climate change. Labor's plan makes no allowance for an increase in the water needed as a result of climate change, particularly in dealing with the urban heat island effect.

The Water for Good report highlights the work being done by Monash University, in particular in relation to the impact of the urban heat island effect; that is, localised warming related to an increase in the amount of paved and dark coloured surfaces resulting from urban development. The report states that the resulting higher temperatures can be expected to lead to increased water and energy consumption. The effect of urban heat may be reduced by ensuring that there are sufficient green spaces within urban areas. Some scientists suggest the integration of rooftop gardens and the establishment of within canopy vegetation. Yet, the government wants to reduce water demand as part of this plan by an additional 50 gigalitres over the next 40 years in spite of a considerable increase in our population.

Once again, it is up to the Liberals to show leadership, to come up with solutions, and all Labor can do is plan to plan. It was the Liberals who committed to independent price regulation in our 2007 policy; it was the Liberals who introduced the Third-Party Access Bill in 2006; and, last month, we released a detailed model for Action Now on fast tracking fresh water. It is the Liberals who have a comprehensive strategy to harvest 89 gigalitres of stormwater across Adelaide.

In truth, the Water for Good plan and its $2.4 million advertising campaign are nothing more than an attempt to distract from the government's inaction on water security and its failure to deliver on the Premier's demand for an urgent, fresh, bold approach. Tragically, it is the electors of the Minister for Water Security's own electorate who are suffering the most. It was the Liberals who first pushed for water for irrigators to keep permanent plantings alive, and it was months before the government reacted. Now we are told that future arrangements are dependent on deals with other states.

The recent budget has not even allocated any funds for a critical water allocation program for 2009-10. South Australia's permanent planting irrigators are left with the same hollow feelings of doubt and uncertainty for their future that they felt last year before the announcement of the program.

I now turn to the local government portfolio. Through partnerships with the state and commonwealth governments and the coordination of expertise and resources, local government strives to deliver services on the ground. While the Rann government likes to criticise, mock and denigrate local councils, the state budget papers show that the financial performance of the local government sector compared with the state government is quite remarkable.

The budget papers show that over the past five years the local government sector has steadily reduced its operating deficit; in fact, in 2007-08, the operating deficit is recorded as a dash. That understated dash shows that the local government sector as a whole has achieved an operating surplus for the first time on record. This is a significant achievement and in stark contrast to the state budget, which is set to go into deficit. While the state government has been squandering its money, the local government sector has achieved its first operating surplus. Not only that but at the same time the budget papers show that the local government sector has invested a record $447 million in capital works.

So, while the Rann government has squandered its record revenues and produced little in terms of investment in capital works, the local government sector has eliminated its operating deficit and maintained a strong capital works program. Perhaps members opposite could take a leaf out of the local government sector's books.

It is also interesting to note that the budget papers show that in 2009-10 state government funding for the local government sector will increase by 0.008 per cent despite Treasury estimates of a 1.75 per cent increase in CPI over the 2009-10 financial year. In fact, the local government price index (that is, the real cost of goods and services which councils buy) is closer to 4.2 per cent, leaving the government sector short by over $3 million. Yet, at the same time, the budget for the Office of State/Local Government Relations (the state government bureaucracy) has increased by almost 3 per cent.

I now turn to the area of disability services. People with a disability are among the most vulnerable members of our community, and they are also among the most creative and enterprising. On the one hand, we have a moral duty to support South Australians to lead a decent life while, on the other, we owe it to ourselves to support South Australians with a disability to make their contribution to the economic and social success of the state.

This budget continues the shameful lack of support of people with a disability and those who care for them. In fact, it is a step backwards from the already poor record of the Rann government. One of the biggest issues facing the sector, particularly in the face of the economic downturn, is funding at both individual and NGO levels.

In speaking to many disability service providers from the non-government sector, one of the recurring themes is the sustainability of those organisations, given the rising cost of employing and retaining professional and trained staff, compounded by the reduction in investment revenue and charitable donations due to the global financial crisis.

Even before the crisis hit, there was concern within the sector as salaries and expenses increased, particularly the salaries of professionals, such as therapists. The cost of providing a service was increasing, yet the total indexation per year was in the area of only 3 per cent.

As part of the new national disability agreement, the commonwealth government has increased the indexation on its share of the disability sector funding to 5 per cent. But, unlike the Howard government, it has not put any conditions on this indexation increase or any requirements for the indexation to be passed on to the service providers.

Unfortunately, the commonwealth contribution goes directly to the South Australian government, and indications are that the state government will refuse to pass on the full indexation to service providers. When questioned about this in estimates, the minister said that the state government was negotiating with service providers regarding the indexation. They sound like mealy-mouthed words. How can you negotiate on indexation which is already intended for the NGOs? Does the government seriously believe that there are any NGOs out there, in the current climate, who will say, 'No, you keep it. We don't need our indexation'?

Organisations like Novita, Minda or SCOSA, to name only a few, provide valuable, effective services to people with a disability and should be supported to do so before they are forced to cut services due to budget constraints. How mean-spirited is this government that, instead of passing on the indexation from the commonwealth, it would grab not only its share of the indexation but use the non-government share to prop up its own services and feed its burgeoning bureaucracy?

South Australia continues to experience distressing waiting lists in disability services. The Minister for Disability admitted in the estimates committees that this budget would only be funding services to people with a disability who are classified as category 1 or 2. Category 1 means that a carer has died and the person with a disability is at immediate risk of becoming homeless. Category 2 means that the carer is threatening to commit suicide or relinquish if they do not get help and the person with a disability is at risk of becoming homeless.

These are scandalous conditions that people need to fulfil in order to receive services. For example, an advocate told me of one of the situations that they are dealing with. The client is a young man with spina bifida with very complicated health issues. His father is in his 60s and is alone trying to support his son. The father has not had respite for some time and the son receives four hours of care per month for recreational purposes.

The father has to threaten to commit suicide before his son would be eligible to get any service, yet the young man and his father are surely entitled to lead a life with dignity. The son has not been able to get out of bed for a few weeks because his wheelchair is giving him pressure sores. He is still waiting for a new wheelchair.

That leads me to what I thought was a shameful admission by the minister in estimates. When she was questioned about whether there was a waiting list for equipment, she stated:

There has been a consolidation of domiciliary care and disability equipment, which means we have been able to provide a lot more equipment in relation to our budget and, in 2008-09, I think we cleared the adult waiting list for equipment.

The reality is that there are still hundreds of South Australians who are waiting for disability equipment. Let me outline some of the stories of people who have had contact with me in recent months. One person has been waiting for seven years for a wheelchair. Another young person has been told that they have to wait a bit longer for their wheelchair, after waiting three years. Another person has been told that they will have to wait six months for a wheelchair cushion. One constituent recently did receive a hoist, but it took 14 months and three assessments.

The reality is that people are waiting for equipment. The minister's statement on the equipment waiting list for adults is either a shameful lack of knowledge of what is happening in this portfolio or a shameful devaluation of those who are waiting. The first step in addressing a crisis is being honest enough to face the reality and state it truthfully.

Another example of Labor's failure to provide essential equipment for people with a disability and give them the support they need is the cancellation of the Statewide Complex Communication Needs project, for people with severe communication difficulties. The SCCN program provided assessment training and technology support services for children and adults living with complex communication needs. It was funded through NovitaTech at a cost of $900,000 for one year.

The program bundled communications equipment with support such as training, social networking and technology support for both children and adults. Evaluation showed that it was turning lives around. Communication is a fundamental need of people which affects every aspect of their lives. The fact that the government stopped funding this vital service is a reflection on its priorities. During the 12 months that the project was running, the department found the money to establish a new and additional deputy chief executive for the department at a total estimated cost of $400,000.

In relation to housing, I am advised that Housing SA stock for people with a disability has an 18-month waiting list for people on category 1, whereas two years ago that wait was only six months. In relation to category 2, the wait has increased to six years.

In relation to Disability SA, the disability sector continues to reel from the restructuring announced in 2006. The concept was flawed and the implementation was appalling. There remains significant concern in the disability sector at the lack of disability awareness amongst the leadership in Disability SA. One of the few leaders who had experience in the disability sector was Ms Lynn Young, but many people are concerned that, while she is on leave of absence, it is not proposed to fill that position.

Despite the stress and instability being experienced in Disability SA, the fact is that the Department for Families and Communities thinks that it cannot cover that position. My understanding is that the chief executive of the department is intending to cover that role. I know that there are significant concerns in the sector that that is not a sustainable arrangement, nor does it give the sector the prospect of being able to address the multitude of issues.

Recently, I have had a number of contacts regarding the fact that there are hundreds of contracts for services for people with disability which are not being renewed. In other words, there has been a delay in the renewal of contracts post 1 July. I call on the government to urgently identify what the problem is and resolve it. People with disability do not need the insecurity of not knowing whether their support worker will be funded to turn up when needed.

In terms of support workers, I know that there is growing concern in the sector about the need for both appropriate remuneration and training, and the need to increase funding. I have had concerns expressed to me by people with disability and those who are caring for them about increases in salaries for disability support workers which are not being funded. The people with a disability are being forced into the situation where they have to choose between losing a valued worker or reducing their support hours.

Before moving on to the issue of education, I would like to touch on the matter of individualised funding within disability services. Individualised funding is a support model which has evolved over three decades in countries such as the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. By allowing people to choose which services and supports best suit their individual needs, individualised funding empowers people with a disability to shape their future and to participate in and enrich their communities. This contrasts with the government's 'one size fits all' approach. This budget is a continuation of the government's bureaucratic and centralised decision-making process.

The opposition believes that people with a disability and those who support them understand their support needs better than politicians or bureaucrats. We believe it is time for the government to put the people who use the support in control of their own lives and, on that basis, we have committed to introduce individualised funding.

Despite minister Weatherill's request to the Disability Advisory Council to investigate the opportunity of individualised funding in February last year, it was not until this budget 16 months later that we were to see any action. There was a passing reference to individualised funding in the budget paper, and it was only in estimates that the government, under questioning, was to reveal that there will be a pilot of individualised funding later this year.

The opposition believes that the pilot may not even be necessary. After all, this concept has been well and truly tried interstate and overseas, and it may well have been better to take a dynamic approach to implementation, as a number of South Australians are already receiving what would be described as individualised funding.

There is concern in the sector, too, that there was no consultation with the community regarding the design of the tool. I have been contacted by service providers who, until estimates, were not aware of the trial, the scope of the trial or, in particular, the resource allocation tool that will be used. One can only assume that the government has a sceptical approach to individualised funding and is striving to slow down progress towards it so that it can protect its centralised approach.

I would now like to move onto the issue of education for people with a disability. Disability impacts on the full range of life domains, and education is a particularly important area in this regard. First, people with a disability are entitled to a full education and, secondly, education can often ameliorate some of the impacts of disability, particularly an intellectual disability.

My colleague the shadow minister for education, David Pisoni, and I have been meeting recently with parents and school boards who either care for a person with a disability or have a responsibility in this area. We have been concerned at what seems to be a falling level of service provided by the education department in this area.

One group the education department seems to be having particular trouble coping with is children and young people with autism. Following a rally on the steps of Parliament House recently, some parents provided me with stories to help me understand the issues they face in terms of education. I would like to quote some excerpts from their letters now. For the sake of privacy, I have changed the names of the children.

One of the recurring themes in the letters is instability in education service delivery. Whereas a family normally expects a child to take their primary education in one school and their secondary education in another, through a range of factors a recurring experience of people with a disability is that they are shunted from school to school and from arrangement to arrangement.

One of the issues highlighted in the material was the need for early assessment and intervention. The stories recur, just to highlight the fact that people are waiting one, two, three years for an assessment, let alone for a service delivery to be planned. One of the disturbing elements in the letter is the need for support and training of teachers to deal with students with autism. I quote from a letter from a mother, whose son I shall call Joshua, as follows:

My son Joshua...has...autism. He does not have an Intellectual Disability but has low adaptive functioning with splinter skills and gaps in abilities. He has high anxiety levels and easily triggers into a state of fight or flight. He requires routine, structure and adjusted curriculum.

Joshua started mainstream school with four hours a day funding for a teachers aide. A great deal of thought and planning went into his transition to school, and he was placed in a class with a teacher who had a good understanding of autism. Joshua gradually worked up his attendance from one hour a day until finally, by the last two weeks of term 4 [of kindy], he was attending full time. Joshua would meltdown at least once a week invoking a 'take home'—

that is where a child needs to return to their home—

and was unable to keep up with other children unless his teacher's aide was with him. Joshua struggled with group time/floor time, noise levels and other sensory issues..[but] Joshua did enjoy the social aspect of school, and the other children were kind to him.

I pause here to highlight that, in spite of the fact that Joshua continued to be a challenge in the school environment, clearly, the family appreciated the support given, and it was a successful, sustainable arrangement. The letter continues:

Joshua was not transitioned properly to Year 1. The teacher he was placed with made it clear that she was unhappy. The teacher did not 'believe' in autism and came up with three alternative diagnoses—the final one being that he was possessed by demons and required an exorcism. Joshua spent his entire school day on a desk outside the classroom playing with lego under the supervision of the teacher's aide. He began to be bullied during non-structured times. His stress levels and anxiety levels at home rose dramatically, and at this age [6], he began to play out ways to kill himself....One day he signed in Makaton (a sign language used by many ASD children) that he needed to go to the toilet. The teacher asked him to sit down, put his hand up and ask properly. He wet himself. The teacher became upset and accused him of 'being defiant' and as punishment left him in his urine soaked clothing for the rest of the day. At this point, I removed Joshua from this school and looked for alternative schooling options.

By way of a footnote, Joshua's mother did indicate that that experience was not in a South Australian school. However, it is consistent with the other letters and stories I have heard, and I use it because in the one letter it contrasts the impact that a well-trained and aware and sensitive teacher can have on the positive education experience of a person with disabilities. The mother of a girl I will call Emma says:

As parents, we were told that we should be grateful for the services we were receiving. We were asked if we ever disciplined her. At one point, I watched as she was assaulted by a teacher, who grabbed her by her schoolbag and dragged her through a doorway, making her fall to the ground. This incident occurred because the teacher in question did not understand anything about autism and did not realise that opening the door in the morning was one of Emma's rituals. If this teacher had some basic training in autism this incident would never have happened.

I reiterate the point that it is extremely important for teachers to have appropriate support and training so that they are able to provide support to a child with autism in their class.

Another recurring theme in the letters is the need for well-developed and well-maintained strategies. Many parents tell me that they feel that the NEP, which I understand means negotiated education programs, are not about developing education services for their child: it has become a process whereby the Department of Education and Children's Services is shunting the onus back to the parents to justify their child's right to access education and to be provided the resources they need to be in a school environment. I quote from a letter from the parent of a boy I will call Anthony. They say:

Since starting at the DECS school it has been as if Anthony has been on a rollercoaster. He has achieved success but has also experienced extreme levels of anxiety which have affected his health. Anthony's extreme levels of anxiety have been brought on by the implementation of inappropriate strategies by the school. In 2007 when Anthony was in year 4 Anthony's anxiety levels were so extreme that he was only attending school on a part-time basis.

The school has failed to gain an understanding of Anthony's anxiety and the impact that this has on his wellbeing and ability to participate in school. As a result, the school has implemented strategies that are inappropriate for any student with an ASD and severe levels of anxiety. When developing strategies and the approach to be used for Anthony, the school has failed to consider advice from medical professionals who have worked with Anthony for several years.

When there have been strategies in place and they have worked for Anthony, the school has failed to carry them over to the next year level and this has been done without any consultation with myself or my husband.

This year Anthony was placed in a year 6/7 class. However, a decision was made by the school that the approach taken to Anthony's support at school, which had worked so well in 2008, would not be continued. The decision was made outside of the NEP process and without any consultation with us or any explanation to us or Anthony. As a result a number of strategies that had been successful in 2008 were no longer being used. Anthony's anxiety levels began to increase during term 1 which affected his health and Anthony's anxiety levels then meant it was difficult to get him to school on a daily basis.

Certainly, without doubt, maintaining a student with autism in a mainstream school is often a challenging task, and I appreciate that it produces challenges not only for teachers and support aids but also for other students. I think it is important for us to appreciate the positive impact that a mainstream education experience can have on a child with an autism disorder. I will quote a letter from the parent of a boy who I will call Jake. The letter states:

As part of autism is a social disorder, Jake needed to learn to socialise. Now that he was paying attention to the world around him he needed other children to watch and learn from and the opportunity to practise his new found imitation skills. Jake started kindy at the local mainstream kindergarten. Jake went to kindy two sessions a week and was provided with a support worker one on one whilst he was there. I agreed to Jake going to a special small class in a mainstream school for his schooling. Jake was to start in the new year, he would start off going to school for two hours on a Tuesday and two hours on a Thursday. He would also go swimming with a class on Wednesday. His hours were increased by one hour on the two mornings he came, so all up, not including swimming, he spent six hours a week at school for the whole year.

That shows the flexibility that schools are delivering in order to try to provide appropriate access for students with disability. I appreciate that that often involves schools putting in additional resources. I will return to the letter from Jake's parents which, unfortunately, does take a more negative turn. It continues:

After a year of fighting and meetings, we agreed that he could no longer continue to only go to school six hours a week. It was unacceptable. After hearing Jane Lomax-Smith stand up and say, 'Every child has the right to an education,' we questioned where Jake's education was, but the only solution that could be offered was a special school placement.

Jake is now in his fourth year at special school. His goals for this year are not much different to his goals for the first year he was there. In four years Jake has never seen a speech pathologist at school, and only in his first year at the school did he have one-on-one communication lessons. In three years Jake has done less academic work than he did in the year he only went to school for six hours a week. He has been taken shopping in a wheelchair, he has done cooking and watched others make recipes with food he is unable to eat. He has done three or more music lessons a week. He has done fitness and he has spent countless hours swinging in hammocks, swings and swinging chairs. He is kept happy, as long as he is not upset, that is what matters, and he is baby sat!

In the first three years there were six children in his class, so he had a little opportunity to socialise. The children all said good morning to each other and shook hands and exchanged photos of each other. This year there are three children in the class and Jake and a much older boy and a higher functioning boy, who is being transitioned to another school. So Jake is alone now without any academic learning and without any socialisation. I used to say, 'Well, at least he is happy there and they don't send him home.' This year he is NOT happy, and this year they have started sending him home.

At the end of last year the guidance officer assessed Jake again. Her recommendations were special school. This school doesn't want him there any more, I don't want him at this school any more or, importantly, he doesn't want to be there any more, yet there are no places in any other special schools and this is the only recommended place for him, so where does he go? And if he goes to another specialist school, how will it be any different from where he is? What will he learn? What will he do?

Again in estimates we saw another Rann government minister who does not know what is happening in her portfolio when minister Jane Lomax-Smith suggested there were no waiting lists for special education. As I indicated earlier, I do not underestimate the challenge that autism presents as an education task. In that regard, I quote again from the letter from Emma's mother:

Emma's school placement failed because she experienced an extreme sense of distress. Children with autism and Asperger's syndrome have many sensory processing issues. Emma was sensitive to sounds and found the sound of the airconditioner at school to be unbearable. The anxiety caused aggression in speech and toileting. After six weeks both we and the school agreed that the placement was untenable and we decided to move Emma back to kindy for another six months.

When Emma went to a DECS' school she was not included in many of the regular school classes. She could not cope with music, phonics, Italian or computing because her sensory processing problems caused her significant distress. She did not join in the school plays, she found assemblies and excursions difficult and had difficulty socialising with other children. Her sensory distress would often lead to meltdowns. The school policy for dealing with extreme behaviour was to remove all others from the room and leave her in the room alone. This was an occupational health and safety procedure but it ensured exclusion rather than inclusion.

The letters were not without their success stories, and these stories should offer hope not only for people with autism and their parents but also for educators who make the effort to provide them with an education experience. One of those success stories was Abbey, whose mother wrote:

Abbey is now 10 years old and we are very proud of her progress. I cry every day now but it is a different cry. This cry is a happy and 'I can't believe' cry. But after this long educational history of a five year old child's battle to go to school we are very happy with our choice. She is in a good place. I drop her off every morning and go to work happy that she is in good hands, not getting bullied at school and is safe because she cannot get out of the school ground and no-one can get in because the staff in this school know every student, every parent and everyone who is meant to be in the school. I wish this happiness on every parent, and we all deserve this because a child is the most precious thing we have in life and we need to remember we were one once and we would have hated this behaviour to have happened to us and our parents.

Reflecting on the stories of the families of children with autism, I would like to read a letter from Amanda Tulloch-Hoskins, a representative of Parents Assisting Kids with Autism, commonly called PAKA. The letter states:

Dear Mr Wade,

We recently had the opportunity to discuss with you our concerns regarding the state of the education system as it stands in South Australia for children with autism spectrum disorder. The Department of Education and Children's Services in South Australia has a policy of inclusion for people with disabilities in public schools. This policy is failing our children on the autism spectrum. Inclusion policy can only succeed if support services are properly funded, support staff and teachers are correctly trained in autism support strategies, service providers are adequately supported within schools and children receive adequate support during school hours. In South Australia in 2009 this is not happening.

The New South Wales Department of Education and Training (DET) manages an autism specific education plan in conjunction with Aspect (Autism Spectrum Australia) and the Catholic Education Office in New South Wales. Aspect manages six autism specific special schools in New South Wales; 68 satellite classes, or special small classes, are then run in DET or Catholic education schools around New South Wales. These classes are fed from the Aspect main special schools. As children in the Aspect schools are deemed developmentally ready to move into a more mainstream environment, they are transitioned into a satellite class. The satellite classes allow for the children to share some time in the mainstream environment while being provided with an autism specific education space.

I pause to indicate that the letter then references a URL for Aspect, which is www.aspect.org.au. The letter continues:

This system does not exist in South Australia or indeed any other state in Australia, although other states have different ways of managing the education of young people with autism spectrum disorder. In order to fully illustrate how the current South Australian policy is not working for our children, please find enclosed some short case studies.

I pause to indicate that these are the case studies from which I quote. These are the family experiences of PAKA members, and they include that of a family who has not had experience of the mainstream public school system. Their experience has been quite different and extremely positive. The letter continues:

Our aim in sending you these experiences is not to blame specific schools or teachers. These are examples of a system-wide problem: if staff and schools are not coping, it is because there is a system-wide problem, and the people who are meant to implement this policy are being unsupported.

Further, we are not necessarily advocating for a NSW-style system. Many parents have views about what sort of Autism Spectrum-specific system would encompass the needs of our children. While it is the view of the PAKA parents that an autism-specific school is the best option for our children, our central position is that parents should have the option of real choice when it comes to the education of their autistic children. It is time to move away from an inclusion policy that does not support autistic children, neurotypical children, families or school staff. It is time to move toward a policy that offers the choice between autism-specific schools, satellite classes in mainstream settings, and properly funded and supported places in mainstream public and independent schools.

As parents, we advocate. We have voices. But it is our kids who have to live it every day. Very often, they do not even have words to tell us what is happening to them. They need to be protected. They need a system that works for them, not in spite of them.

Yours sincerely

Amanda Tulloch-Hoskins

Parents Assisting Kids with Autism (PAKA)

I indicate that I know the government is cocky about its chances of re-election in 2010. I know it thinks that it has bullied the disability sector into silence, but I perceive a growing anger at the burgeoning waiting lists, the continual insensitivity and the lack of real choices for people with disability. The government ignores this at its peril.

In conclusion, these failures I have highlighted in the areas of water security, disability, local government and so on are just part of the overall story of the failure of this government over the past seven years. This budget is the conclusion of the Rann government's eight years of failure and eight years of wasted opportunities.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (12:12): Hear, hear! I commend the Hon. Stephen Wade for his contribution with which I could not agree more. Indeed, this budget is the culmination of nearly two terms in office and, once again, demonstrates the complete failure of the state's Treasurer in regard to any fiscal responsibility. Effectively, he has had his budget bailed out and funded by the federal government in its wilful disregard of any established practice in terms of fiscal conservatism and has splashed out money left, right and centre, and future generations will be funding this into the future.

The state government's budget is really half a budget. Some $750 million of cuts will not appear until after the election—most convenient for Mr Foley—and I do hope that the community and the media in this state will keep the Treasurer on his toes in terms of ensuring that we get some sort of answer about exactly what it is he intends to do.

There were a couple of areas in the budget where my colleagues from the House of Assembly sought some commitments from various ministers about which programs would be cut. Those ministers gave a commitment that, 'No, no, no; none of our programs will be cut,' so it will be interesting to see whether that turns out to be the truth in the future, once these cuts emerge.

As I said, this budget has been bailed out by the federal government, with some $2.9 billion in special purpose payments. The state tax revenue will increase by $48 million, and GST grants are up by $2 million.

I think the Treasurer has rather sneakily sought to portray in the lead-up to this budget that there would be a reduction in some of those revenues coming from the commonwealth. In fact, some of those have increased. Overall, commonwealth grants are up by $858 million, so, in net revenue terms, this government has been far better off.

Unfortunately, its unfunded superannuation liability has blown out from $5.1 billion in 2006-07 to $9.8 billion in 2009-10. We need some answers from this government about how it is going to manage that debt into the future, because it has made no effort whatsoever to rein it in.

We are the highest taxed state in Australia. If one examines the tax revenues over several years from 2001-02 to this budget, one can see that we are taxed more severely than other states—by 12 per cent over the national average.

Land tax is an ongoing issue for many South Australian families, particularly those from migrant backgrounds who have seen real estate as a very solid way to invest in their future. It has increased by an extraordinary amount—292 per cent, in fact—and the number of land tax payers has almost trebled during this time, from 69,000 to 188,000. These costs are passed on to residential and commercial renters, so it impacts on some people who may be on low incomes also.

In terms of our Public Service, there has been a massive increase also. We have 16,400 more public servants than this government promised, and I note that it has made some sort of commitment to cut that number by 1,600. Again, one is not sure where that will occur, so we are in the dark about a number of these things. The so-called fat cats (which I note is a moniker that was invented by the current Premier) have increased from 782 to over 4,000.

The Hon. P. Holloway: Actually, Clyde Cameron used it in 1975. That is where it came from.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: So, it was one of your Labor people. Debt is something like $6.7 billion. I have mentioned the unfunded superannuation; and, of course, there is always WorkCover, which has a massive debt these days of $1.4 billion. That is an extraordinary amount, considering that our last Liberal government was so diligent in reducing it to something like $281 million—and South Australia continues to have the highest WorkCover levy rate of all the states which, of course, is something that impacts on all employers.

I will make some reference to the infrastructure broken promises, which are extraordinary. The major one, from my personal point of view, is the prisons project. We were all hopeful that the prisons would be rebuilt, particularly the women's prison, which is a disgrace and continues to be so. That has been cancelled, and I think that will hurt the credibility of South Australia in terms of future infrastructure projects because a number of the consortia that were bidding were not advised until the Treasurer had delivered his budget. In fact, there had been discussions with some of those consortia in the week prior to the budget and they were given the distinct impression that they would be continuing.

We have had the Mount Bold reservoir expansion which was front page in the budget a couple of years ago, which has since disappeared into thin air. The $500 million prisons PPP has been cancelled. Tram line extensions have disappeared from the budget, and the Upper Spencer Gulf desalination plant has disappeared. The South Road, Port Road and Grange Road underpasses have disappeared. The AAMI Stadium upgrade money has also disappeared. I think, in terms of major infrastructure, this government cannot be believed when it says anything about what it intends to do. It does so with the cynical purpose of getting today's headline but not with any intention of following it through.

Along with the prison project is the shame that James Nash House will not be rebuilt. The distinct impression of the people who have worked at James Nash, going back probably three years ago when I visited them, was that there was ample space on that site to rebuild, and it was their impression that it would be rebuilt to modern standards on that existing site.

James Nash House has 30 beds; there are 10 beds in the overflow at Glenside—that is the way it operates at the moment. The waiting lists for it are constant and, as we have seen recently with the intersection with the correctional services area, there is not enough space for people who need to be detained within the system with obvious and sometimes tragic consequences.

With the rebuild of Glenside, which has also been delayed by some two years, those 10 places at Glenside will no longer be available, so we will be back to 30 beds instead of 40. This area of forensic mental health is in dire straits, and that is with the current capacity. The capacity is in desperate need of being increased, and that is one area where I think we will continue to have problems. It is pointless to blame the Parole Board for that because it does not supervise people who are on licence—that is, supervised by people who are in community corrections—and they are vastly under resourced. So, I think this is one very challenging area where the government ought to be providing additional resources, both in bricks and mortar and services.

The Women's and Children's Hospital is also in dire need of infrastructure funding. Some of those wards at the children's hospital are disgraceful and have been neglected, while the government is on its frolic of fantasy to rebuild the existing Royal Adelaide Hospital, parts of which are already world class, at a new site. The Environment, Resources and Development Committee recently had the privilege of going to that site. It is a terrific site, but one wonders why one needs to shift the existing infrastructure from where it is now—collocated with the teaching institutions and our research facilities, where the clinical aspects of our hospitals are combined and can produce a greater body of knowledge in terms of understanding diseases and so forth—and why that should be shifted to another site on the other side of the city. That site could be put to many uses, but a hospital should not be one of them.

The rebuild of the Magill Training Centre has also been cancelled. My understanding is that the previous Liberal government had made a commitment and provided the funds for that to be rebuilt at the Cavan site, which would make some sense. This government, which claims to have some sort of interest in social justice, has no interest when it comes to our juvenile detainees.

Under the watch of this government, the maternity services at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Modbury have closed. In terms of 24 hour services within mental health, we have fewer beds, particularly for people who have very complex needs. Those people had been accommodated at the Glenside campus—people who may need to be in hospital for a period of months to determine whether, in fact, their medication is working. Some people who have had a mental illness for a long time obviously take a long time to show some sign of recovery. So, that is a very important service. Those people now are accommodated in our metropolitan hospital system where it is far more disruptive and very much more difficult to monitor the impact of whether their medication and other treatments are working. So, I think it is a shame that we do not provide a proper and full service for people in that situation.

The government has also broken promises on breast cancer. It had promised $2.6 million for new screening services in the country, and in June last year it announced that it would replace mobile breast screening units, but, again, that has disappeared from the budget. That is yet another indictment of the way this government treats people in the country. We know what it would like to do to the country health system, and now country women will not have the service which they were promised and which they deserve.

At a federal level, the Rudd government has attacked the Medicare safety net, changing things which will affect women's health choices—including IVF treatments, all obstetric services, and some ultrasounds related to pregnancy—because it has changed the cap. Obviously, that will be to the detriment of many women. So, one would have to question whether this government is interested in the next generation and its health.

I would like to refer to some of the portfolio areas for which I have responsibility. Early childhood development is an area that is very much in vogue, and for good reason. Early childhood services are defined as those for zero to eight year olds, so it covers a very broad range and encompasses child care, early learning centres, kindergartens and the early years of primary school. A lot of funding has been released for improving services for this age group, and I think this is very important, but one area that has been neglected in the Building the Education Revolution is that of preschools.

I note that the Preschool Directors Association has been calling for more of those funds to be spent in facilities which cater for the early years because that is when the impact is greater. I think most people would agree with that. Indeed, we have established that primary schools and preschools are areas in which there is greater demand on services, as more parents and families take up those services on behalf of their children, so I believe this is an area that ought to receive more attention.

This government has a program of establishing what it calls children's centres. In principle, this is something one would not oppose. These centres provide a whole lot of services on the one site, including preschools and various sorts of child care services, and, depending on the local need, they may provide occupational therapy, social work or other sorts of services. However, in the government's rush to establish these centres and fulfil commitments made in its announcement, some of the existing services have been rationalised under the one roof and have been cut.

One of the new ones which will come on stream is the Il Nido Centre at Paradise. For that to take place, the Campbelltown preschool will be merged with it. So, one service that has been lost there is the occasional care service that was based at the Campbelltown preschool. Some people may not think that is very significant, but I believe that when these little preschool centres and kindergartens are amalgamated into one it creates impacts that the minister, and indeed the department, may not have thought of. That is, if there are smaller services and fewer kids there is greater community involvement; parents are more likely to walk if it is not as far, kids get to know each other, and I think there is a much greater safety aspect to it. With a larger centre there is more likelihood of bullying and other sorts of issues.

I think it is also a concern that our super schools are being sold as a great new service where you can have whatever you want but, in actual fact, there will be a larger number of kids, and the ones lost in this will be the smaller schools where kids are able to walk to school. I think there are some in the electorate of Enfield, in particular, where families will be greatly disadvantaged by having to attend a school which is across a main road and not easily accessible.

There is also an issue in terms of increased training for people working in the area of early childhood. I think, in principle, people would support that more highly trained people are needed to work in this area, but it is a lot like aged care: it is quite difficult to get people to stay for long and, over time, they tend to drift off.

Those who may be engaged in Certificate III or IV training see it as a stepping stone to other things, such as teaching courses at university, so a lot of centres have trouble keeping their staff. While I think it is a laudable aim to say that people working in those centres should be more highly trained, I think that, in reality, it means that many centres will struggle even more to keep their staff.

I also have some concerns that the Universal Access Program is very much focused on the state government sector. Indeed, South Australia has a history of the state government, through its kindergartens, being one of the largest providers of early childhood services for several decades. There is nothing wrong with that, but I think we ought to have diversity in the sector. I think there are a lot of people in the Catholic and non-government sector who are doing things which are very innovative and of very high quality and, in that, I include the Montessori preschools which, generally speaking, fall into the non-government or private sector.

I think there are concerns that the $65.1 million over four years (which is one of many gifts from Mr Rudd to the state) has been exclusively focused on the state government sector to the detriment of the innovative places in the independent sector where parents may be enrolling their kids. I also note that the budgeted target for the number of students in reception to year 2 in this budget is less than it was in 2007-08; that is, in 2007-08, the number of children enrolled in those years was 40,570 and, in 2009-10, there will be 39,635 children—that is what the government expects.

The aged-care sector was successful in lobbying the government to provide it some land tax relief. In most other states in Australia—in fact, I think in all other states—the private aged-care sector was the only one being levied land tax. I am pleased to see that the Aged Care Association (led by the Chair, Dr Prabhash Goel, and the CEO Mr Paul Carberry) successfully lobbied this government that it be provided land tax relief of $1.5 million.

This sum is not a lot to the government, but it certainly makes a big difference to them, particularly when one looks at the structure of what aged-care providers can charge residents. It is one of the most highly regulated sectors in our community because there are limits on how much can be charged—in terms of not just daily rates but also bonds and so forth that may be requested of residents. I think that is a positive step.

The private child-care centre could also do with some relief. Some child-care centres, particularly those operating on private school campuses, are funded, really, by the parents, and the schools and the centres do their best to keep the charges down. One thing that they cannot avoid passing on is the land tax fees that they are required to pay. So, I think that is something that would be good to see in a future budget.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: In a Liberal budget.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: In a Liberal budget, indeed. I turn now to the matter of gambling. We had to squeeze it out of the minister that this government has welshed on its decision not to pursue further the second tranche of the reduction of electronic gaming machines to 3,000. That was an initiative of previous minister Paul Caica, and, indeed, Carmel Zollo, as minister, provided me with a briefing on that bill, which, from what I understand, is ready to go. During Responsible Gambling Awareness Week in May we asked the government where it was, and gave it a slap around the ears for not having introduced the bill yet, and there was a stunned silence.

Estimates has at least provided us with the opportunity to squeeze it out of the current minister that Mr Rann needs the money from these machines—not put in those terms of course. Having lamented the impact of gaming machines on our community and writing personally to each and every member of parliament urging us that this was a most important piece of legislation, he has quietly let it slip off the agenda.

There is a view, I think, within government that it is not just the reduction in the machines, but, certainly, the number of venues may have an impact on problem gambling numbers. I think there are a number of venues that would like to have traded their machines, but $50,000 was not enough for them to exit the industry.

There is the concept that if you have fewer venues and venues which are better staffed then you are more likely to be able to detect people who have problem gambling issues. Certainly, some research is being done by Dr Paul Delfabbro in terms of being able to detect when somebody may have a problem, not just that they are seated by the machine for hours on end but that they obviously have anxiety issues, and that research should advise us well in the future about how to assist people and provide intervention at an earlier stage. But I do think it is a shame that this government, having shouted from the rooftops about how important this was, has quietly let it slip. It is yet another broken promise that we will continue to remind the electorate about.

In terms of the inspectorate, which is under the Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner, this is an ongoing issue that has been raised continuously by the opposition. In fact, in the two estimates committees prior to the most recent one, the member for Davenport, now shadow gambling spokesperson, raised it with the minister. The government advised us that it undertook a review of compliance functions in 2007, and that report was completed in February 2008. But I suspect that nothing has really changed. My advice is that the inspectorate rarely does any out of hours work. One must wonder why that would be, given that it would certainly be outside office hours when issues of breaching either liquor or gambling laws would be most likely to take place, with a number of them basically checking the machines in the casino. I think that is an area that needs a great deal of reform to ensure that it is not just the SAPOL compliance officers who are ensuring compliance but also other people who are employed by the office.

It is true to say that during difficult economic times people tend to gamble more in the hope of gaining a windfall. I would certainly like to see the government ramping up some of its preventative measures and providing some higher quality community advice messages, rather than some of the ones that it has at the moment, which I think are rather lame and certainly do not translate into other languages and cultures terribly well.

In the consumer affairs portfolio I think we are seeing a lot of movement towards the commonwealth. Within a couple of years I think most of what it has been conducting will be done nationally, and that is including trade licensing, business names and consumer credit. So, that is an area that I think is increasingly becoming a national issue.

In terms of other compliance issues, I think the office could do a much better job by being proactive, and rather than relying on complaints from members of the public it could be more proactive in some areas. In respect of one of the bills that we have before us, obviously I cannot refer to it but we discussed it in debate yesterday and suffice to say that I think more could be done in that respect.

I commend its work in terms of checking pricing, issuing recalls and checking stock. We saw the minister recently on TV because there was a blitz on baby products to ensure that they comply with safety standards. I think those are commendable activities that should be continued.

In relation to the status of women, I listened to all of the estimates for which I have portfolio responsibilities and I think the performance was lamentable, to say the least, in terms of answering questions about the government's target of board and committee chairmanship. The minister advised, I think, that her board figures were something like 38 per cent in November 2008 and by June 2009 would be closer to 45 per cent, and I commend her for that.

The minister has taken on notice the other ministers' figures, and I suspect that the government did not have those figures, quite deliberately, in front of them during estimates because in previous estimates we have discovered that some of the ministers' (mostly the bully-boy four) portfolios have been pathetic, to say the least, and have, in some ways, gone backwards.

I think the government needs to be transparent about this. If it is going to have it as one of its targets in the State Strategic Plan then it needs to at least provide these figures during estimates and have them much more readily available.

The Premier's Council for Women was also the subject of discussion during estimates. I appreciate that the Office for Women, indeed, does not have a large budget and so must tailor its activities to those things. I note that the Premier's Council for Women sets its own priorities rather than taking terms of reference from other portfolios.

If it is interested in the area of work/life balance then it ought to be taking more interest in one of the targets, which, under questioning, we were advised is in minister Weatherill's area, and that is the public sector target, which is that, by 2014, 50 per cent of public sector executives should be women.

I understand that the Office for Women has been involved in providing leadership training for a number of women, with the aim of getting them on boards. I would also like to see it taking a greater role in terms of the public sector targets, because I see those areas as being inextricably linked. Research from organisations that study this issue is very clear that women need to be progressed into executive roles and receive the relevant training to enable them to take on those executive roles, if they wish to progress to become board members and, indeed, chairs.

I do not propose to say much more than that. Suffice to say that this is a budget which has let women down in a number of areas which I have outlined. It is an area where women, naturally, take a very strong interest. It is a very disappointing budget, given that this government inherited from the Liberal Party a very healthy budget which was in the black. After many years of our very hard work keeping things on a short leash, this government has splashed cash left, right and centre in the good years, and now that it finds itself in a difficult position it is not funding things which deserve to be funded and which, I would have thought, are part of the core business of any Labor government.

On behalf of the women of South Australia and on behalf of many families, I state that we are disappointed, but I will not hold up the second reading of this bill.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (12:46): This will be my last appropriation speech, you will all be pleased to hear. It is the eighth Labor Party budget that I have had to suffer. It will not take me very long to discuss what is in this budget for rural and regional South Australia because, basically, there is nothing.

One in five people in South Australia are employed, either directly or indirectly, by primary industries, and yet minister Foley could not bring himself to mention the words 'rural, regional or primary industries' in his 45-page budget speech.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: AAA; it's all about Adelaide.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: Yes, AAA, as my colleague says, it's all about Adelaide. There was not even a mention. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan, who lives in Mount Gambier, appears to be amused by that. I must say that it depresses me that rural and regional South Australia matters so little to this government and this Treasurer that it did not even rate a mention.

This budget continues with Labor going down the same path over many years. This time, for a change, the South Australian Farmers Federation has come out and voiced its displeasure and alarm at the budget cuts that South Australia must again suffer. We continue to add up the number of roads which are in disrepair in South Australia. Health has been ignored in South Australia after the government tried to unsuccessfully close most of the small country hospitals. It has, in fact, continued to cut back health care funding in South Australia to such an extent that, eventually, it will have its way—it will close most of the small country hospitals.

Rural schools have had a huge shot in the arm thanks to the federal Labor government but, again, their spending power has been ratcheted back in the vicinity of 25 to 30 per cent, because that is the loading that city-based contractors are putting on erecting projects that have been approved for country schools.

An example is Cleve Area School, where they may not be able to construct the hall they had the plans for simply because the loading by contractors—and, I repeat, city-based contractors—is so high in the country that they will not be able actually to erect these Taj Mahal halls. The centralist view of this government has again come to the fore. There is no call for local tenders, and local tradesmen who desperately need the work in these times are being left out of the federal government's spending spree.

Having been decimated every year since the Labor government came to office, PIRSA will again suffer 75 job losses, almost all of which will come from rural and regional South Australia. We all know that extension services in PIRSA no longer exist. Rural Solutions, which has tendered out its services, has endeavoured to keep up some of those services, but it, too, is suffering mammoth budgetary cuts and losses of personnel.

The publications office, which was located in Roseworthy and which was an excellent source of reference material for farmers and professionals alike, has been closed—just summarily closed. When I asked about that in the Budget and Finance Committee, the reply was, 'Well, it was mostly being accessed by agribusiness, so we closed it. It had more agribusiness people than farmers accessing it, so we closed it.' Well, that is because agribusiness is endeavouring to provide the services the primary industries department no longer provides.

The government has denied that it is going to close the offices at Wallaroo, Streaky Bay, Keith and Loxton. However, I have a leaked document in my office that clearly indicates that those offices are for the chop. There may still be a shopfront there, but the expertise and the people needed to deliver services to rural and regional South Australia will not.

We have a government that has subsidised and given free public transport to Seniors Card holders in the city, and that is very nice. At the same time, we have a country taxi service that has been bullied and is in disarray, with no public transport outside Adelaide. We have $1.7 million cut from SARDI's budget—$1.7 million less in research, for plant research, marine biology and so on.

So, rural and regional South Australia has been asked for a long time to stand on its own two feet, but previous governments believed that one of their obligations was to put some money, even if it was to be matched, into research and development. That is not happening, so primary producers are being squeezed from both ends. They are asked to be more productive and they need to be more productive to stay in the game, and yet they get absolutely no assistance from this government until they look like they are going broke.

I commend the government for continuing to put in its share of drought funding, but how long did it take it to work out that the Riverland is in a state of collapse? That is the only way I can describe it. How long did it take it to offer any sort of resettlement package to those people? How long did it take it? It took it four years. Four years ago, I was saying that it should be doubling the advice and rural financial counselling that was available up there. The then minister, Rory McEwen, told me that I was an alarmist, and I did not know what I was talking about. Well, I did know what I was talking about, because I had been up there—and the situation has become worse and worse since then.

We know at a glance, really, why this government is starving rural South Australia to death, and it is because the government has no money, and it has no money not because of an international budgetary crisis but because the government, in fact, went into it going broke. The government has no idea about how to run a budget.

The two areas that concern me most of all are unfunded superannuation, which is running at close to $1 billion in a state that has a small turnover, anyway; and we have unfunded WorkCover liabilities running at $1 billion. The figure that sticks in my mind in relation to superannuation is that it had an unfunded liability of $64 million when we lost government, and it has escalated to, give or take, $1 billion in eight budgets. If you ask someone in the passage, 'What's going to happen?', they say, 'Oh, you don't have to worry, because everyone is not going to make a claim at the same time.' Well, I wish I could go to my bank and say, 'I owe a couple of billion dollars, but don't worry because my creditors are not all going to ask for the money at the same time.' That is why this state is in the parlous state that it is in now, and the reason people in rural and regional South Australia are the forgotten ones is that there are not too many votes there.

It is interesting to note from a press release from my colleague the Hon. John Dawkins that the Rann government did not spend all of the regional infrastructure funding it had budgeted; in fact, it spent about half what it had budgeted. It has gone backwards by $2 million a year since we lost government. Why did the government not spend it? Aren't there any infrastructure projects outside the city? Of course there are. The reason the government did not spent the money is that it does not care. The government does not go out to rural and regional South Australia and say, 'Hey; we actually have an infrastructure fund here; would you like to apply for something?' No; the government does not do that, because it can squirrel that away and eventually it will go back into general revenue. An amount of $2 million might not make a difference to this government, but it makes a lot of difference outside metropolitan area.

As well as that, we are all being slugged in additional taxes. However, if you happen to live outside the city, you are slugged more. 'If you own a car, pay for water, pay rent, catch a bus or use any government services, you will face above inflation increases,'—and that is a quote from Martin Hamilton-Smith. I do own a car, and I drive a lot further than I would if I lived in the city. I will actually pay more in fuel, more to travel and more in tyres than someone who lives in the city—and I will not have any choice because there is no public transport.

I made a mistake when I said that unfunded superannuation had hit $1 billion: I beg your pardon, it has actually hit $9.8 billion. Against that, the government hired 1,485 extra public servants over and above what it said it would hire, and now the government is telling us how tough it is because it is going to get rid of 1,6000 of them. In fact, there are only about 200 for them to reach line ball.

The final issue that concerns me is that this government has failed to recognise the impost of land tax on South Australians generally. It is seen as an issue for suburban dwellers only, but, in fact, it is an issue for people of migrant background who have always chosen to put their superannuation, their pension, into property investment because they can see it and look after it. They are being penalised dreadfully in suburbs such as Norwood. A lot of older people still own a beach property, so they are being slugged. If they happen to have children going to university and they live outside Adelaide, there is a good chance they have borrowed money to buy a unit and they are being slugged—not just slugged, but it is up by 700 and 800 per cent.

This government has failed to lower land tax at a time of massive growth in the value of properties. We know that the value of these properties has risen, but the government could have just as easily dropped the threshold so that people are not being robbed blind. Again, Treasurer Foley in his infinite wisdom said that it only affected the property rich. Well, some of these places cost those people $10,000 and $15,000 when they bought them. They are not cash flow rich.

This government has seen to it that they never will be, because they are being robbed and we are not seeing where it is going. We see a tramline from somewhere to somewhere which cuts through two lanes of traffic and does very little for anyone. Supposedly, we are seeing a grand hospital, although I have been told by a member of the Labor Party that no costing has been done on remediation of the soil on which they will put the 'Marj Mahal'. Everyone knows that the one place that is most polluted over a long time is a rail yard, yet that cost has not been factored in.

I cannot see that rural and regional South Australia, which is my passion, can survive too many more Labor budgets, and I am not sure that South Australia will see anything for its additional charges and taxes, either. It gives me no pleasure to support this bill.

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


[Sitting suspended from 13:03 to 14:18]


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