HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

APPROPRIATION BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 26 October 2010.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:41): I rise to support the Appropriation Bill. Whilst I have touched on certain aspects of the general appropriation within the Statutes Amendment (Budget 2010) Bill, I want to specifically talk about some other aspects of the budget. First, with respect to the budget and the Appropriation Bill, it is interesting to get an independent look. I believe that other colleagues received a document yesterday, too, that was commissioned by the Public Service Association of South Australia, and I commend the association for commissioning the independent report from the Centre of Full Employment and Equity—the COFEE report.

When you look at the centre's analysis, it is interesting to see what is happening here in South Australia. The centre's analysis in terms of the South Australian industry share of employment shows that, with agriculture, forestry and fishing, it was 7.8 per cent in 1985 and 7.9 per cent in 2000, so it was pretty stable throughout that period. Yet, from 2000 to 2010, it has gone from 7.9 per cent to 4.7 per cent, and that is of concern.

I note that the Leader of Government Business, the minister for planning and other portfolios, used the same figures yesterday that the minister for primary industries (the Hon. Michael O'Brien) used, saying that we were seeing growth in agricultural products and export at about 4.4 per cent. I am not quite sure where the government gets its figures from but, when you look at this independent analysis and look at the report that the federal minister (Hon. Mr Carr) put to the federal parliament yesterday, you can see some alarming issues not only in South Australia, but nationally when it comes to where we are positioning ourselves with agriculture and food security.

In fact, for the first time ever in Australia's history, in processed and manufactured food, sadly, we saw more food being imported into Australia than we saw being exported. So, for the first time ever, we have had a complete turnaround, and we need to change that.

If we look at manufacturing in South Australia, the industry share of employment was 16.9 per cent in 1985 and 14.1 per cent in 2000—so a drop but, in a 15-year period, not a significant drop. However, by 2010, manufacturing employment in South Australia is now back to 9.9 per cent. That is a very big drop in just a 10-year period.

I also want to talk about mining's share of employment in the context of agriculture as an employer. It is consistently between 1.4 per cent and 0.8 per cent. If we compare that with arts and recreation services, they are consistently 1.1 to 1.4 per cent. Then, of course, we look at public administration and safety, which is up from 4.8 per cent in 1985 to 6.6 per cent now, and health care and social assistance was 9.6 per cent in 1985 and 13.9 per cent in 2010.

We see some significant increases in those areas, but when it comes to a lot of the economic engine-room driving opportunities for this state we see a significant reduction in South Australian industry's share of employment. That is why we need to be focused on a budget that will give sustainability to the South Australian community and to its future.

If we look at saving shares in the budget, the burden is being born most heavily by health. I acknowledge that health obviously had to be part of the reduction in a budget in which the government is targeting $1.4 billion of savings into the forward estimates. Where I differ with the government is that, while I acknowledge that it has the right to look at savings and efficiency dividends—and I have sat around and been told what efficiency dividends I have had to provide over a few years, and it is never easy for the minister or the department—I believe that the $1.4 billion of efficiency dividends and savings is more to do with the promises made at the last state election than with the global financial crisis.

It is pretty easy to add up where the $1.4 billion comes in because, if you look at the state's GST revenue alone, it is a fact that that GST revenue did not drop to anywhere near like the forecast by Treasury, when the GFC first hit the economy of South Australia and Australia—and, indeed, internationally.

I am pleased to see the duplication of the Southern Expressway, and I want to put on the public record—because I get sick and tired of hearing the Hon. Patrick Conlon criticise the fact that it was a reversible freeway—that the reason for that was that there were something like $11 billion of core debt when that freeway was built. At that stage the commonwealth government, under prime minister Keating, refused to put a dollar into it. Also, the forward projections on the road indicated that there would not be a need for duplication of the road until at least 2025; however, because of the acceleration of housing development in the south there is a need for that now.

The point I am making is that if you are looking at $450 million, maybe more, the budget estimate for the duplication of the Southern Expressway will actually blow out. On 8 or 9 December last year, I ran a petition calling on the government to support the duplication of the Southern Expressway—I think that was just after cabinet had met at Wirreanda High School or one of the other high schools in the south. Again, the Hon. Patrick Conlon told members of a business association that there was no way, under the watch of this Labor government, that the Southern Expressway would be duplicated. Guess what? Within just a few short weeks, it was duplicating the Southern Expressway, due to polling.

I do not think the government has looked at the complexities. It can do the costings on the bridges and on the general roadworks, but the complexity of the Southern Expressway, when it actually comes down to Darlington, is that you cannot construct duplication there as you can with the first part of the Southern Expressway. There will have to be significant and very technically engineered flyovers over the Southern Expressway and the existing Main South Road to interconnect at Darlington. I forecast that we will see a considerable blowout in the cost of that road.

The point is that the government said it would be, I think, $400 million to $450 million for that. Have a look at the pressure the AFL put on the government with the Adelaide Oval: the government is now putting up $535 million, $35 million more than it initially promised. Of course, that does not include the footbridge, and that is another $30 million to $40 million, I understand. The AFL can come over here and demand that the government do something and the government buckles to it, but the government did not buckle to the pressure of the South Australian community. If you round off those figures, you are looking at about $1 billion just in those two projects, which, I believe, were unfunded. They certainly were not in the forward estimates. That is why these cuts are occurring: for the reason that this government wants to do these capital works so that people can see them and touch them prior to the 2014 election.

That is backed up by the budget forecasts that show pretty sizeable surpluses in 2014 and an even more sizeable surplus after 2014. Whilst it is good, and I commend this government for looking at surpluses in the future, I do not think it is a good way of running the business of government when you are cutting the number of public servants and their entitlements, as well as making cuts in all these other areas that we are now starting to see, to get your pet projects in but at the same time not showing proper planning and strategic management.

A cut has to be made in the health portfolio, and the Minister for Health has to come up with efficiency measures. He has the largest budget of all the ministers, but when you start penny-pinching to the extent of $800,000 with a budget amounting to billions of dollars and destroy the social opportunities and duty of care factors involved with proper health care affecting the Moonta, Ardrossan and Keith communities, for example, as well as tourists and other people travelling through those areas, you have to shake your head.

I do not believe, in fact I am almost certain, that there was no net cost benefit analysis done by the health department or Treasury on that $800,000 worth of cuts. I also believe that no regional impact study was done, and I am almost positive that no family impact statement was prepared. So, in other words, it was purely Treasury, through the Sustainable Budget Commission, going to the health department and saying, 'Show me where you can find savings.' Someone obviously did not like the fact that a few hundred thousand dollars was going to these community hospitals, and they thought, 'Here's a chance to actually cut', but they will not save any money out of that.

In fact, that $800,000 was a cheap investment and I can substantiate that by the experience involving the McLaren Vale hospital , where we saw this sort of budget nonsense happening at the end of the Bannon government. In 1993, we saw the then health minister, the Hon. Martyn Evans, come down to McLaren Vale—I was a candidate at that stage for the seat of Mawson—and he got a shock when he saw the size of the public meeting. The then Labor government wanted to actually cut the public funding to the McLaren Vale hospital back then.

Again, that was short term, like these cuts in this budget with the health services at Moonta, Ardrossan and Wallaroo. We beat the government on that occasion and rolled it up into a $1.1 million recurrent public contract with the McLaren Vale & Districts War Memorial Hospital. To congratulate this government, they have now continued with that. They are providing bed services there for about $120-$125 a bed per day, whereas I understand that at Noarlunga it would be up around $1,000, and at Flinders, $1,400 a bed per day.

The government will get logjams in the public hospitals. They say that they have spent $1 million on Wallaroo coming up to this budget period: $1 million is a lot to any one of us, but in a $15 billion budget it is petty cash. Even with that $1 million, Wallaroo is chock-a-block. So, we are going to see this backlog come right back through to the RAH, Flinders and the Lyell McEwin, wherever they can get the patients into acute beds for the necessary operations and medical support. They will then stay in there until they are well enough to go home because they will not have that transitional opportunity of going back into a general bed contracted in a community hospital.

So, at the end of the day, there will not be savings in this area. I forecast that, if these hospitals close before the 2014 election, it will be a catalyst for a lot of city people to actually work against this government too. It will not just be country people this time. Do not underestimate the power of country people and their relationship with city people. We are one state. Look at the sympathy and the frustration of people in Adelaide when they are trying to buy South Australian and Australian-produced food to see how loyal they are to their country fellow South Australians.

PIRSA loses 18.2 per cent of its operating expenditure between 2009-10 and 2010-11 alone. With respect to water, it is 36.6 per cent. Where was the primary industries minister in terms of fighting for a fair go for the most sustainable industry in this state, agriculture? I do not know where he was but if he was in the cabinet room, if he was in budget bilaterals with the Treasurer in the State Administration Centre, I am sorry, minister: you failed rural people, you failed food security and you failed to support a department that has delivered so much for this state—I refer, of course, to the old department of agriculture, now primary industries.

It was interesting to see the attitude of some of the heads of other departments where, at a briefing some of us received just this week, the head of the Department for Environment and Heritage (or his offsider, I cannot remember which one) made the comment that perhaps PIRSA should come in under a department with the Department for Environment and Heritage.

They have tried that trick before. That would be the worst thing that could possibly happen in relation to food production in this state. They have gutted PIRSA so much that PIRSA is there battling to survive, let alone fight some of these department heads who have other ideas of growing bigger departments. Then, of course, there is SARDI, which I think SARDI actually started under a Labor government.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: It didn't? I was going to give them some credit, but it did not start under Labor; it must have started under the Liberals, then. The bottom line is that for a very long time successive Liberal and Labor governments have nurtured the development of SARDI.

If you go down to West Beach or anywhere around the state and you have a look at the work done by SARDI, it is world's best practice. And what do we see? We see a cut in the SARDI budget of about 10 per cent. That is an area of research and development that can create opportunities for the state.

What we are doing is a knee-jerk reaction to address certain issues in this budget so that the government can get another chance in 2014 to have 16 years of government. But what happens in the years beyond 2018 when, if the government does get 16 years as a Labor government, it has made such a mess of things that it has undermined the future of our state?

That is what I believe is happening with a lot of these decisions in this budget. It might be all right, it might fool some people, it might get you over the line for one more term; but surely the government has a basic responsibility to govern for the long-term future of this state.

PIRSA's employee losses in 2013-14 will be 179 full-time equivalents. That is on top of the 111, from memory, they had to get rid of in the last budget. PIRSA is not so big when it comes to staff numbers that it can afford those cuts. Indeed, the brain drain and experience going out of PIRSA in the last few years has been phenomenal.

Wait until these packages come around. Why would you stay with PIRSA as a dedicated agricultural scientist when you can get a package, go out into the private sector and earn more money? You are not being respected, appreciated or treated properly when you are working for the government these days in any case.

I want to deal now with public housing. We have been asking for some time now whether or not commonwealth money is being shifted around to try to make it look as though the minister here in South Australia is looking after Housing SA. It is pretty obvious, when you look at public housing, that the government is walking away from its responsibility involving public housing, of which we are seeing less and less. If colleagues do not believe me on this, they can actually have a look at the Centre for Full Employment and Equity Report and see that this is all stated there independently.

I refer to one part of this report which is directly relevant to the Appropriation Bill, and that is the graph on page 37, figure 8, which shows the revenue of this state. In the past eight or nine years it really has been a river of gold. My business and, I am sure, anybody in business would love to see revenue increases like the ones we have seen. There was $8 billion (or just under) in revenue at the change of office and now, eight years and six months (or thereabouts) after this government came into office, it is $16 billion—double the revenue. Yet, now we see a budget where the devil is in the detail, and it is coming out, day in and day out; you hear about it on radio and you see it everywhere—cutting like you would not believe. However, those cuts, if they are necessary, have been made in the wrong areas.

The savings targets: will they work? We have been critical of the outcomes of Shared Services and the concern remains that this will probably be privatised in some way. A whistleblower spoke to me and said that was correct but the government said, 'No, the whistleblower is not correct and we have no plan to privatise and sell Shared Services.' I still think that the day will come when Shared Services will be in a reasonable position. At the moment Shared Services is having more and more money poured into it because it has failed to deliver its savings. It has failed to even get its own management together.

One only has to look at what is happing with ambulance officers right now: some were overpaid and some were underpaid for the last year or two and now the government, through Shared Services, wants that all fixed. There is a lot of pressure and angst out there. The bottom line is that they came up with initiatives like Shared Services and the fact is that in the estimation of the centre savings are $28 million short of the $60 million target. In forward estimates they have revised that to $30 million.

What really annoys me with this budget is that time and again it shows a host of cuts to community services. I have talked to my colleague the Hon. Ann Bressington about the anti-poverty program through the Department for Families and Communities. Of all the portfolio areas the one that has been hit the absolute hardest is Families and Communities where nearly every area has been torched. Good on them—we have people from that department openly talking to us (and I am sure my colleagues, as well) saying that they are at their wits' end. They do not know how they are going to be able to deliver services any more. They are not respected for the work they are providing.

As a result of these cuts the very people whom I thought the traditional Labor Party and government stood for—that is vulnerable people and people with special support needs, etc.—would be the ones to be looked after. Surprise, surprise—not with this government; not with the Rann government. Those people are the ones who are getting hit the most.

The government has criticised its critics who say that it has not proposed alternatives. I have some alternatives: first of all, the fines revenue. Yesterday, minister Wright had to admit administrative errors meant massive write-offs, yet the courts are writing off a heap more and are also failing to collect revenue which, if you went back over the life of the government, would have been hundreds of millions of dollars—it is written off.

Habitual fine defaulters know the system and that they can break the laws that are made in parliament, or the regulations that the government put through here, and then plead hardship to the magistrates. The magistrates then, in frustration, write them off. Notwithstanding the fact that they have written off tens of millions of dollars, there is still $205 million out there, much of which could be collected—a large amount.

We have seen amendments and legislative proposals come through this house, some just recently, where you can potentially be fined for up to $2,000 if you do not have your car registered. What do they do? On the other hand, the cost-saving measure to save the Treasurer was something like $2 million or $3 million. You are not going to have a registration disc any more. I would like to know how this is going to work in practice. You pay for the disc, by the way, when you register the car—the government does not pay for it. We are not going to get a reduction of $2 million either. We are not getting the reduction; that is coming back into Treasury.

It is one of the things that you do remember when you get into your car. Every now and again you look at the colour and you look at the number, and you know that if it is a purple or a brown it is either registered or on the edge, and if it is October, you think, 'Gee, I haven't seen that account.' I am not sure how you are going to fix that, but what we will do anyway is that, if you drive around in a vehicle and you are unregistered, we will bring a law through here that will hit you for up to $2,000.

People will not be able to afford to pay that. Registration fees have gone up like you would not believe. People in the northern and southern suburbs, where the transport is not as good as in inner Adelaide, sometimes have to have two or three cars for their family. They are paying eighteen hundred dollars or more a year, just to register those cars, so if they happen to make a mistake and drive unregistered, that will be $2,000 they will not be able to pay. What I am getting to here is that there is an out of balance situation with how this government generally is working.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Fine, fine, fine.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes. When it comes to the fine defaulters and this $205 million: hand it over to police. Get that unit out of courts administration. I can tell you that change occurred when the Liberals were in, and it is wrong. They made a mistake and it did not work. But for some reason—and I was surprised, because I thought that the Rann government would have looked at that and said, 'Well, we need this money. Putting it into the courts administration and all that area and away from SAPOL was a bad decision by the Liberals.'—Labor have just gone along the same way. They have thrown money in to try to get more revenue there by putting more people in, but money for that resource should be put into SAPOL. Let SAPOL have a go at collecting this money. We need the $205 million.

I want to finish with other projects. It is in the budget here, but we have had lots of debate on the RAH and whether you continue with staged redevelopment as they do in a lot of other countries. In England, for example, there is a 300-year-old campus for one of their state-of-the-art teaching hospitals. It is on a 300-year-old campus, but they continually upgrade that. We know the reason the government went to a greenfield site. It was because when they came into government they dropped the ball on capital works re staged development of the existing RAH, and they stopped it for two or three years, because it was actually a full plan and it had already started; there have been hundreds of millions of dollars spent there in the last 15 years.

The point I am getting at there is: here is another waste. What happened when they polled, as I am advised—and I think the advice is pretty right—was they found out they had a problem then with health and that they had dropped the ball on health, so they had to come up with some sexy type projects and opportunities to try to reinvigorate the health services and health situation in the community, so they went for the greenfield site.

Well, they said it would be $1.7 billion, and they said it would be a public–private partnership. At this stage we have still not been told whether it is going to be a public–private, or whether it is going to be picked up by the taxpayers in entirety, but what we did see in this budget—very quiet, I might add—was that $1.7 billion is now $1.8 billion: $100 million more, just like that. We will not say too much about it. It will be in the budget papers, but hopefully no-one will pick it up; members of parliament will not pick it up and the media will not pick it up. How can you just grab another $100 million? Why were the costings out by $100 million, and who suffers as a result of that bad management in those costings?

With respect to the Appropriation Bill in this house, we have no choice but to support the bill, but we do have the capacity to put down our concerns with respect to the bill. The government should have learnt its lesson some time ago. Let us hope that it does not, but if the economy tightens further, where will it cut next? With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:10): Thank you, sir. There I was saying earlier that I would be back later in the week; I am back on the same day, so how's that for organisation! As I said earlier, I have a number of concerns in relation to the budget and will speak briefly about them generally now. I do not wish to imply that I do not commend the government for increasing disability funding by 7.7 per cent. However, considering that unmet needs for disability services increased by approximately 30 per cent last year, it is simply not enough. I look at the extra 29 supported accommodation places provided, for example, and cannot help but think of the 1,000 people who are still waiting.

While the government has increased its funding, it is simply not coming close to keeping up with the need. I am worried that the 3.5 per cent increase provided to the NGOs who service the disability sector is insufficient to provide support to the 600 people who are waiting for therapy services, the 500 people waiting for respite, or the 1,000 people waiting for personal support services.

Just yesterday, my office received a desperate call from a mother whose daughter's distressing and challenging behaviours are worsening. It now takes this family a full hour to cajole their disabled daughter into the car to get her to school, or anywhere else for that matter. When this mother called her service provider she was told, with great regret, that it would take around six months on a waiting list until she could be provided with the help she needs in the home for her child and her family.

Tell me, Mr President, how many honourable members here today could live a truly productive life if it took them two hours to get in and out of a car. This family is, in fact, now so disabled by this lack of support that they face the shut-in lifestyle that we hear about far too often in the disability sector.

I am also concerned about cuts to Disability SA Client Trust Management. I have been told that the effective outsourcing of this department to the Public Trustee will add not only red tape but also more costs to the people using Disability SA services. These people are already living in poverty, having a disposable income of only around $55 per week.

As an artist I am concerned about the cuts to Arts SA and the realisation that there are even fewer art grants available to artists. For many artists it is grants that enable them to develop their work and their passion, and without these grants artists are left to fend for themselves, which is near impossible financially.

I am concerned that continued cuts to arts funding will lead to South Australia being an artistic backwater, to be frank. What the government should be looking at is supporting artists for them to be able to create great work so as to enhance the fabric of our society. Surely, if the government can invest in sports stadiums it can invest in its artists.

We have heard the Hon. Gail Gago, for example, talk on several occasions about the Act Now Theatre for Social Change and the project Expect Respect as an example of the important contribution that artists make to this great state. It saddens me very much to think that we will now have less of that.

We have all heard of the cuts to country hospitals, which may well lead to the closure of the Keith, Ardrossan and Moonta hospitals. I hope that the government will take heed of the hundreds of people who rallied on the steps of Parliament House yesterday.

And then there is education. I was ready to bang my chest about cuts to adult education funding, but I am pleased to note that the Minister for Education has realised the importance of this program to people over the age of 21 years and decided against implementing these cuts.

I commend the government's spending $9 million to establish six new special education units for children with disabilities. However, I note that despite this students are still waiting for places in special education classes in mainstream schools. I believe in dignity through choice, and I believe that students with disabilities are not often enough provided with the support required to make a real choice.

All in all, I expected more from this budget. I hoped that the government would at least clear the unmet needs list for equipment, and I hoped that the government would prioritise some of the most vulnerable people in our community, but I am sorry to say that my hopes were largely dashed.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (12:15): In supporting the passage of this bill, I recognise its importance in providing finance to the various programs incorporated in the 2010-11 budget. It is my intention, later in this contribution, to focus on some particular areas that have come to my attention.

On 16 September, treasurer Foley handed down the 2010 budget, many months later than it should have been. It lived up to the pre-budget speculation in the media, which was fed by the government. It was a horror budget which slashed jobs, cut services, stripped the neediest of vital concessions, increased taxes and still delivered a budget deficit, and also delivered a spiralling debt to levels that, to the horror of many, are akin to the State Bank disaster.

Three things are now crystal clear: firstly, South Australia is officially the highest taxed state in the nation. As a friend of mine said, treasurer Foley has been spending like a drunken sailor, putting the state into massive debt and deficit. Thirdly, the Rann government has proven why it cannot be trusted, and the issue of trust is one that I will come back to later in this presentation.

The budget delivers a $389 million net operating deficit in 2010-11. Alarmingly, public debt will reach $7.1 billion over the forward estimates, requiring South Australians to pay $2 million a day to service the interest repayments. That reminds many of us of the State Bank debt.

Sadly, despite the massive increases in revenue under this Rann Labor government, taxes have increased by 76 per cent and, indeed, property taxes have increased by 131 per cent. This situation has led two independent organisations to confirm that South Australia has become the highest taxed state in the nation, and treasurer Foley wants to increase those taxes by an additional $1 billion.

The Treasurer has blamed much of the horror of this budget on decreased revenue resulting from the global financial crisis, but he cannot reconcile this claim with the fact that revenue increased by $1.1 billion last year and has almost doubled in the life of this government, since 2002. The Treasurer has an expenses problem. Instead of prudently saving the extra revenue that he, as the custodian of that revenue, has received over the life of this government, he has been out there spending, as my friend says, like a drunken sailor.

Government waste has reached momentous proportions. Government advertising has increased to $70 million per annum, and individual departments cannot control spending. We have heard a range of examples of that in the media in recent days. The health department, alone, had a $200 million overspend last year. My colleague, the Hon. Mr Lucas, I think, highlighted the differences between the way in which the former Liberal government dealt with those overspends as compared to what the practice has been under the current Treasurer.

Not only has the government been asleep at the wheel, it seems that it will do and say anything to cling to power. These decisions have ramifications. The Rann government's broken election promises include the $1.7 billion rail yards hospital, which is now at least $1.8 billion, but I note that the Treasurer has laughed that off as just another $100 million, not to mention the Adelaide Oval patch-up job that was originally $300 million, and, as we all remember, it would 'not be a penny more', but is now $535 million, and climbing.

It appears that the Premier's written guarantees do not amount to much any more. We should ask the pensioners and the Public Service Association about that. I think most of us recall the Premier writing to the then prime minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, guaranteeing not to increase Housing Trust rents for pensioners. Of course, pensioners are now being slugged extra, and the Public Service Association is protesting vehemently, as we noted again this week.

Many people were out in front of this building protesting this situation and even, extraordinarily, calling for the Hon. Mr Rann and the Hon. Mr Foley to be sacked. I think these people are to be credited for highlighting the way they feel about being let down by the broken promise to revisit the no forced redundancies policy and to strip workers of pay and conditions.

We should remember that this budget was applauded by Labor MPs behind closed doors. Schools and hospitals are being stripped of funding, and the budget attacks pensioners, the primary industry sector, the fishing industry sector and the agricultural sector. It also authorised the closure of the Parks Community Centre. This budget decimates the regions and delivers higher debt, fewer services, higher taxes and job cuts. Not only should members of the Labor government hang their head in shame when it comes to this budget, but they should, and will, be held to account.

I want to look at a few particular areas of the budget in relation to the appropriation of government services and the way in which those things are done. Firstly, I have often criticised the government—and I have been joined by many people in the community—for not thinking beyond Gepps Cross. I know that people from the southern areas of the state would say that it relates to the tollgate or other extremities of the metropolitan area that this government cannot see beyond. This government cannot even get Gepps Cross right.

I continue to be inundated with constituent inquiries about the bottleneck which exists at the Gepps Cross intersection as a result of the completion of the Northern Expressway. I will continue to pursue that, but it has been a mess. Blind Freddy should have known that, once the Northern Expressway was completed, the volume of traffic coming into or going out of Gepps Cross on Port Wakefield Road would increase significantly and that the synchronising of the traffic lights—which favours Main North Road—would need to be changed.

We keep an eye on that. Certain days are much worse than others, but it is an issue that should have been sorted out even before the expressway was opened. I know that there are other intersections nearby, relating to Prospect Road and Churchill Road, that are getting diverted traffic moving away from the Gepps Cross intersection. So, I would like to think that the government might do something about that fairly quickly.

I will move on to the issue of the cessation of funding to business enterprise centres. I note that other colleagues, including the Hon. Mr Parnell, the Hon. Mr Darley, I think, and others, have mentioned the work of business enterprise centres and the threat that this decision has brought on them. As Liberal members, I think we know the importance of small business to the South Australian economy, but the government has announced that it will withdraw its commitment of $1.3 million a year to BECs. The BECs do magnificent work in assisting and guiding small business in South Australia. For example, in 2008-09 the BECs supported the establishment of 64 new businesses and created 56 full-time jobs, facilitated 73 start-up workshops and provided advice and assistance to 4,994 target enterprises.

The other threat is to the federal funding. I was at a launch, two or three years ago, when the new federal Labor government announced it would support the business enterprise centre network; then minister Craig Emerson made that announcement at a launch I attended at Hackney. However, that funding was based on the fact that the state government would continue its funding to the business enterprise centres. So, not only are the BECs to lose the $1.3 million a year; they are under great threat of losing federal funding as well, and that would really mean the end of the work they do. That is something I deplore, because I know they do terrific work in the community with so many small businesses who cannot pay for that advice.

Despite the claims of minister Koutsantonis that they should go out and buy that advice, the reality is that if many of them were forced to do that they would just go out of business or would never even start. There are similar effects on Regional Development Australia boards. The funding being withdrawn from these organisations by 2013 just flies in the face of the promises made by the raft of regional development ministers this government has had. I think there have been about seven different appointments within the portfolio over eight years. Minister Caica was in charge when the 13 regional development boards moved, or transitioned, into what are now the seven Regional Development Australia boards, and he made very strong promises—reiterated by minister O'Brien when he took over the portfolio—that the funding would continue well beyond the current resource agreement.

However, that has been reneged on. In question time yesterday I highlighted the fact that the ongoing uncertainty for these organisations in the regional development sector has—a little like with the BECs—been going on for years. This government has been holding them to ransom; it leaves them in the lurch until very late in their funding resource agreement situation, and these bodies obviously lose some very good staff because those people want some certainty in their life. The same thing is happening here, and I am very annoyed about it, because those bodies do terrific work in the community.

I would like to briefly highlight my concerns in a few other areas. One is the decision by this government to remove the 24-hour fruit fly roadblocks at Yamba and Ceduna. I know the Leader of the Government was well aware of that program when he was the minister for agriculture, because he provided me with some significant briefings at the time. Of course, that was a time when the industry wanted mobile roadblocks as well, and they funded that work. Over a number of years there have been significant rumours that the government intended to reduce the hours of those roadblocks. We have had a number of denials but it has come out in this budget that the 24-hour roadblock at those two sites will no longer exist, from January. Particularly in relation to the Yamba roadblock, I think that is just foolish, given that the high risk time for fruit fly infestation is in that part of the year.

This decision flies in the face of the government that says they care about the Riverland. They have put a lot of money and some work into the Riverland Futures Task Force but, at the same time, they are saying that they will reduce the effort on the fruit fly roadblock at Yamba, in particular. I think it is a stupid decision because the risk to that horticultural industry throughout the irrigated areas of South Australia, particularly in the Riverland region, is one that we will regret enormously. I really do sincerely plead to my colleagues on the other side of the chamber to go to minister O'Brien and say that this must be revisited. It is an absurdity.

There has been an extraordinary reduction in the amount of money going into PIRSA. We have seen over a number of years some of the best staff that PIRSA has available to it decide to leave because they just cannot see any certainty in their employment. They actually see the benefits of getting out of the bureaucracy and going out into the private sector, which means that PIRSA has lost an enormous amount of expertise in a wide range of areas. That concerns many of us in the Liberal Party.

I also put on the record that the cut in funding to the Advisory Board of Agriculture, which I think is a very small amount of money, is just another step in that direction. The advisory board has a very long history. It was started in the 1880s. I am proud to say that my grandfather was twice the chair of that board. It has, I think, provided fair advice to ministers of agriculture over a very long time. The advice has been well heeded in many cases and is backed up by the unique work of agricultural bureaux across this state, which is something that other states do not have. I regret that the advisory board has been cut adrift.

We all know about the similarly minuscule amount of money that has been withdrawn from the private community hospitals in regional areas, and that will impact on the futures of those bodies. The amounts of money in these cases is very small in the state budgetary sense, but what it does is mean that three hospitals in particular may well be forced to close. There are many jobs in those communities which would be lost, and that has significant impacts on the communities of those towns. I know that members in this chamber are well aware of the communities of Ardrossan, Moonta and Keith, and the strength of the people in those communities, and that was demonstrated outside this building yesterday.

Just moving into the last couple of areas, the Office of Northern Connections is still one that I am keeping an eye on. I notice they have had a small budget reduction this year. Last year, I raised questions which were never answered about the actual position of the director, Dr Mal Hemmerling, who had never gone through an application process for that job. He had variously described himself as the acting director or someone who was on a contract. He has left that organisation now. The government has not made it clear as to what process it will go through to replace him. I understand that the deputy director is acting in that position. It would be interesting to know what the future of that position is.

When the Southern Suburbs office has appointed a director there has been an application process, but the previous minister Rankine and the current minister O'Brien do not seem to want to enforce a decent process in that area. Another aspect is that, last year through the estimates process, I asked for questions to be raised about the Office of Northern Connections work with the small rural townships and communities that are within that area and within the area of jurisdiction of the Office of Northern Connections.

The ones I referred to at that stage were One Tree Hill, Angle Vale and Virginia, which are all part of the Playford council. The then minister Rankine seemed unaware that they actually fitted into the area of jurisdiction that she established. I have yet to have any response to the particular work that the Office of Northern Connections might be doing with those communities which are, in effect, rural communities within the metropolitan area.

In conclusion, I have a message to this government, and I alluded to the matter of trust earlier. I have a message to the government that it should, in regard to dealing with local communities—whether those local communities are within the metropolitan area or across this vast state—trust those local communities; understand and support them, because they can achieve (as they have shown they can with their own resources) many things with a very small amount of government resources.

My message to the government is: do not suppress those communities and do not attempt to dumb them down. When I talk about the BECs and the Regional Development Australia boards, I talk of bodies that, with a very small amount of money from the state government and some money that is put in from the local community (including local government), can do an enormous amount of work on what I would call the smell of an oily rag compared to what may come out of many of the departmental agencies.

That message also relates very strongly to the provision of health services in the large number of small and medium-sized communities across the state. I appreciate the opportunity that this debate has given me to note the funds appropriated in the budget to various agencies and raise particular issues relating to the services that arise from the appropriation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

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