HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUPPLY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 May 2011.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:34): I conclude my comments in response to the government's Supply Bill by rounding up that the total number of positions lost in the Public Service, since the horror budget of last year, is at the moment a little over 477 full-time positions, or equivalent full-time positions. These have come from the Department of Education and Children's Services, where we have seen 22 jobs go, including those in family day care.

We have seen jobs lost in the Attorney-General's Department of some 25.6 equivalent full-time positions, and these were in the Equal Opportunity Commission, the Office of Business and Consumer Affairs, Multicultural SA, the Office for Youth, Justice Youth Reform and the Crown Solicitor's Office. We have also seen a position go from SAPOL; we have seen two positions go from the SA Ambulance services; we have seen the Department of Primary Industries and Resources lose 21.3 equivalent full-time positions.

These are in agricultural food and wine, biosecurity, fisheries and agriculture, and SARDI. We have seen 15 jobs go from the Department of Health, we have seen 21 jobs go from the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology, and we have seen jobs go from the Department of Families and Communities, a department that I think could not afford to be losing jobs. We have seen 113 jobs go from that department. It is a shameful situation, as I said. This Labor government should be incredibly ashamed that it has betrayed its core values.

Yet what have we seen from the ministers in this time? We have seen ministers refurbish and refit offices. We have seen the Minister for Transport, Pat Conlon's, North Terrace office, boasting stunning views of the River Torrens and the Adelaide Oval (soon to be upgraded, as we know), have a $490,000 remodelling. We were told that these are the budget cuts that we had to have by our then treasurer Foley, yet ministers have gone around and splashed out the money upgrading their offices, totally unnecessarily and totally showing that they have lost touch with the community.

The Secretary of SA Unions, Janet Giles, actually said that the overall cost of this office showed that the government had lost contact with the community. She said that before that refit the office already had a lovely walnut coffee table, leather lounges, and a big desk overlooking the oval. She thinks, and I agree, 'taxpayers expect the government to spend money on community services and not making ministerial offices nicer'.

Sadly, the Minister for Transport's office is not the only one that has been refurbished. We have also seen refurbishments in several other ministers' offices. Up to 12 ministers, in fact, have had improvements to their offices in recent years. I think this is a disgraceful situation, where, although treasurer Foley said at the time that these budget cuts were being taken internally, clearly the internal cuts did not start at the top with the ministries themselves being reduced, and certainly not with the ministers' offices losing any of the luxuries that these ministers have come to expect.

I wanted to sum up in final comments to this bill, because, of course, we saw the announcement made by the government yesterday about the South-East and the privatisation of the South-East forests. The Greens believe that selling off the family farm and community-owned businesses is an irresponsible way to manage the state's finances. I am sure many of the parliamentary officers of this place would have received many emails, letters and phone calls from local communities who are outraged by this Rann government's decision. It is a shame that the loud noises of the logging trucks, the forestry workers and the families who all travelled down from the South-East and stood on the steps of this place did not reach our current leadership. I would say that that was an irresponsible action of this Rann government which may perhaps prove to be one of its last actions.

This government needs to make it clear to what extent we are prepared to export jobs overseas, which is what will occur if we forward sell these plantation rotations. We need to be investing in community jobs, not privatising for the sake of it just so that this government can shine away on an Adelaide Oval project. Treasurer Snelling has said that the jobs of forestry workers, the jobs in the South-East regional economy, will be secure and that he would not have proceeded if he was not completely convinced.

How is government convinced that jobs will not be lost? How is this government convinced that the state's economy is being reasonably managed, when clearly jobs will be lost to foreign investors who can process the logs overseas and cost community jobs. We should be exporting overseas products and building our manufacturing base, but we should be smart, competitive, and, most of all of course, value adding.

A prime opportunity for this government actually exists in live export. At the moment Australia exports live sheep to the Middle East. I would encourage the Rann government to take a look at the Port Adelaide facilities and to take a look at the opportunities that exist for South Australia in chilled meat exports, and I would hope that they would see public investment in that area as investment in not only a humane industry but also a very profitable one for South Australia.

The Greens believe that this government's most recent budget has been a travesty and a denial of Labor's roots. We have seen in New South Wales, as I said yesterday, the people who had always voted Labor not vote Labor this time around. We have seen the premier there, Kristina Keneally, admit that it was Labor that left their people. In South Australia, the Labor Party is losing support from its core base at a rate of knots. It if comes up with another budget like the one that it did last year—

The Hon. P. Holloway: Why don't you worry about the Greens and how they're going? Why don't you worry about them?

The Hon. A. Bressington: They're going all right.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: They're doing very well.

The PRESIDENT: They're 'green' with envy.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: In response, the Greens in New South Wales have actually picked up Labor votes. We have picked up a safe Labor seat in that state. We are quite happy to take further safe Labor seats from the Labor party in the future. The Labor party is making our job much easier with budgets like the one they produced last year. We look forward to a more 'core value' Labor budget this year, but I do not hold my breath on that one, and certainly the South Australian people and the Labor voters of the past are probably not holding their breath, waiting for Labor to come back to its core traditional values, either.

With that, the Greens will support this Supply Bill. We do not believe in blocking supply. We understand the significance of the guarantee for the supply of the stability of any government, but we just hope that that government starts to shape up.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (16:41): I rise to support the Supply Bill. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity to place on record the commitment of this government to the state's financial and, hence, our society's, wellbeing. I would like to touch on a few areas: jobs; mining; and infrastructure spending, whether it be for transport or our public health institutions, education or sports and recreation—all areas that require the commitment of funding to enable the business of government to run smoothly for its constituency.

In relation to jobs—it is what this government stands for; about giving young people a decent start in life. Indeed, it is important to note that, since this government was elected nine years ago, over 120,000 new jobs have been created. I should also place on record that growth in total employment over these nine years stands at 17.8 per cent, which is more than double that under the previous opposition's term in office.

I know that, as a society, the measure that is more indicative of employment success is full-time jobs, and I am aware that, in the past year alone, this government has delivered 11,600 full-time jobs, which is double the figure for the previous government's entire term. The importance of ensuring that the skill base necessary for jobs is also recognised by the government's commitment to also deliver 100,000 extra training places over the next five years.

In relation to mining, last month, the Premier welcomed the announcement by BHP Billiton that it is moving to the feasibility study phase of the Olympic Dam expansion project. This proposed expansion will see many new jobs for this state. Similarly, yesterday, the Premier announced in a ministerial statement that, together with federal ministers Stephen Smith and Martin Ferguson, and state Minister for Resources Development, the final report of a review into the Woomera Prohibited Area was released.

The Premier was pleased to report to the parliament that the review recognised that the WPA, as it is known, should be opened up to the exploration of resources to the maximum extent possible. Even more pleasing for us as a state is that the federal government announced at the same time that it accepted the finding of the review and will now seek to implement the new rules for the WPA.

This is, indeed, exciting news for our state, with the new rules making it possible to unlock essentially tens of billions of dollars in resources in gold, uranium, copper and iron ore that lie beneath the surface of this protected area.

When one hears that this unique area stretches over an area roughly the equivalent of the whole of England then one realises the enormity of this project. Again, this government commitment within its agencies to progress the betterment of this state and jobs for its citizens is on a scale never seen before.

I know we were all pleased to see the strong mineral resources and wheat exports earlier this year totalling more than $1 billion. In particular, our farmers well and truly deserved a decent break, both in the weather and the financial gains that comes with it.

There is an area of agency spend in this state which is unprecedented, and that is infrastructure spend. This government has embarked on the biggest infrastructure spend in our state, with an investment of $10.7 billion over four years.

One of the biggest challenges we have faced over the last five years or so has been the risk of enough water. This government took the necessary action of building a desalinisation plant, which is planned to be online by the end of next year.

As a member of the select committee set up by the Independents and the opposition in this chamber, I have had the opportunity to visit the plant and see what is the largest infrastructure build in our state taking shape. The scale and complexity of this plant is a first for our state and I know that we all welcome not just the jobs but the extra skill sets that those working at the plant have been able to acquire.

In relation to reinvigorating the Riverbank precinct, including an expanded Adelaide Convention Centre, we will now see a world-class redevelopment of the internationally-renowned Adelaide Oval. I know we all welcome the commonsense decision of SACA members in voting for the upgrade of the oval and in the future both codes, cricket and football, will be able to enjoy the respective sports in a world-class stadium.

Despite the many knockers, preparation is well and truly underway for the building of a new Royal Adelaide Hospital. As a migrant child, and often interpreter, I know the Royal Adelaide Hospital well and am someone who appreciates that whilst the staff are wonderful, the condition of most of the accommodation is in urgent need of upgrade and expansion for its patients.

I am pleased that the new hospital, when it comes online, will be the most advanced. It will provide more beds, bigger operating theatres, an expanded emergency department and better infection controls. Far too many people leave the RAH with MRSA, for example.

The transport infrastructure spend is an investment of over $2 billion. We are seeing a major revitalisation of public transport infrastructure. I know that it is often annoying for the public to reduce speed or be diverted, but ultimately major works necessitate such inconvenience to see better transport corridors in the long run.

We have commenced on the electrification, extension and upgrade of our metropolitan rail network, all the way from Gawler to Seaford. As well, we have seen the extension of the now much-used tram system. I think that those of us on this side of the chamber were bored to death with the many ways the opposition thought of using the money that was used to extend the tram thus far. The people of South Australia have well and truly spoken when it comes to using the tram and, very obviously, welcome its extension.

On the road network, the government is undertaking major improvements, including an upgrade of the main north-south link by creating a dual-direction Southern Expressway—I know that many will welcome an expressway that goes in both directions at the same time and stop the confusion it can now create—and, of course, our state's biggest ever road project, the South Road Superway.

The very recently completed NEXY, or Northern Expressway, has improved access between the Barossa Valley, the Riverland and our port facilities. I make special mention of our port facilities because the deepened harbour channel, new grain terminal and new road and rail bridges that are linked to the Port River Expressway are further assisting our exporters and ensuring that we are even more internationally competitive and, of course, government has a facilitating role in ensuring this success.

I could go on with infrastructure spend, whether it is the $300 million investment to build Techport Australia or the $44 billion worth of defence contracts we have won, all providing job opportunities, but I would like the opportunity to look at several other areas.

In relation to spending on health, I have already mentioned the new RAH, but I think it important to place on record that since 2002 the health expenditure in our state has more than doubled. We have employed more than 4,000 extra nurses and in excess of 1,000 additional doctors—all public servants for whom this Supply Bill is necessary. Apart from the RAH rebuild, every other metropolitan public hospital has been or is being rebuilt or redeveloped. It is the most comprehensive upgrade of our health facilities in decades.

I know that South Australia was instrumental in lobbying for a new health deal with the federal government. The new deal struck with the commonwealth will mean that from 2014-15 every new bed, every new doctor and every new nurse will help us to meet those future health needs which will be funded by federal and state governments on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

In the meantime, getting back to the Supply Bill, South Australia has secured an extra $306 million for our health system, which will be delivered over the next three years to accommodate growth, including extra beds, more clinicians and, of great importance, more additional surgery procedures.

As a former minister for mental health, I am pleased that South Australia has been successful in having mental health reform placed on the COAG agenda. It is important to see a greater partnership in mental health as well, and we are hopeful of a boost in the upcoming federal budget. More importantly, this government has committed more than $300 million to rebuilding, renewing and restructuring mental health services and facilities.

When we talk about mental health, we are talking about one in five people suffering some form of mental illness in our state. I am sure that we all know somebody, whether it is a family member or friend, who at different times in their life can suffer from a mental health issue. We readily acknowledge that this state's mental health system needed some overhauling and major reform as it had not happened for decades.

In 2005 the Premier asked the Social Inclusion Board to conduct a major review of mental health in our state. The report from that review, 'Stepping Up', led to the implementation of a stepped model of care. This model of care enables people to enter the system at the level that their individual needs require. This philosophy also underpins this government's historic investment of more than $300 million to rebuild, renew and restructure our system.

I think it is important to place on record what this means for the funding of these services. It includes $128.2 million mental health and substance abuse facilities being built at Glenside, comprising a state-of-the-art 129-bed hospital, as well as a 15-bed intermediate care centre, and 20 supported accommodation places. It includes new acute and intermediate care services. Two of the four intermediate care centres are operational at Glenside and Noarlunga, with a third due to be completed at Queenstown later this year.

Six new community mental health centres are being established across metropolitan Adelaide. The first of these facilities, which I understand is collocated with the new GP Plus centre at Marion, is due to begin operation hopefully some time this month. In addition, we have already opened community rehabilitation centres in Adelaide's north, south and west.

In relation to regional services, I will give a few examples. This government is committed to providing good services and facilities in regional South Australia, whether it is the recently announced extension of services in Clare that minister Gago today told the chamber about or the newly opened $7.9 million Roxby Downs police station, amongst many services.

I cannot really conclude this contribution without mentioning the newly opened Marion Aquatic Centre. Members would, no doubt, be aware that it is the largest single built aquatic centre and one that we should all be rightly proud of. I have not had the opportunity to visit the centre yet but I am told it does look outstanding and can hold some 4,500 people. It is also state of the art for the purposes of preparation and training.

In the area of law and order and the need for us to pass the Supply Bill the government has employed more than 700 additional police which translates to more police, of course, on our streets than ever before. Priority has also been given to equipping our hardworking police with the latest technology. Our tougher laws are reflected in the fall in crime rates, which have fallen by 35 per cent since this government came to office. We have also seen an investment of more than $1 billion in school capital works, maintenance and asset funding since 2002-03, with the government now focusing on school and teacher improvements.

We are all aware, particularly the government, that it has had to make some tough decisions in the last budget. These decisions are never easy but it is the business of government and it sometimes needs to be done to ensure the economic future of the state which you are governing and for which you are responsible. I add my support to the Supply Bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:56): In speaking to the Supply Bill I would like to start by fully endorsing the comments of my colleague Tammy Franks who, I think, has eloquently and thoroughly addressed issues of government waste, government misallocation of resources, and the underlying principle behind both those things—the government's loss of direction, particularly in relation to its traditional support base.

I am not going to repeat the various topics that the Hon. Tammy Franks went through but we could add to them a significant number of other issues. For example, I attended a public meeting at Stirling a month or so ago where residents expressed their concern at the reduction in funding over many years for the important botanical gardens. A recent meeting at Blackwood also looked at the cuts to the funding of the Wittunga Botanical Gardens; the meeting at Stirling was focused on the Mount Lofty Botanical Gardens. There is also the example of the shortsighted forward sale of the forest rotations in the South-East.

However, today, I want to focus on two particular matters. The first is the Olympic Dam expansion, a project that will consume via subsidies (direct and indirect) vast quantities of state funds as well as vast quantities of federal funds. The second issue I want to address is our preparedness as a state for the inevitable energy shocks that we will be facing in the future.

To start with the Olympic Dam expansion, I cannot help but respond to some points that the Hon. Carmel Zollo made in relation to employment in mining. I urge the honourable member (and, in fact, all honourable members) to read the March 2011 report from the Australian Institute for Social Research which points out that jobs in South Australia in the mining sector have shrunk from 12,000 in 2007 to 7,700 in 2010. Mining was always a small employer but it is a shrinking employer, hovering around the 1 per cent mark.

The Olympic Dam expansion is a massive project. If it goes ahead it will be the biggest industrial project in this state by a mile. It was disappointing that the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into providing reasonable opportunities for the public to comment on the project, to comment on the biggest document ever produced in the history of this state and yet, through the efforts of the Greens and the Legislative Council, we did force the government to increase the public consultation period from the bare statutory minimum to something that was a bit closer to a reasonable opportunity to comment. The government is now sitting on the report from BHP Billiton which addresses the thousands of individual, organisation and government submissions to the project.

Members might not be aware of this, but the legislated opportunities for formal participation in that project have now all passed. The Development Act does not require the supplementary EIS to go through any process of further consultation. In fact, one of the concerns I have is that the government will, true to form, seek to short-change the community in relation to opportunities to comment on this massive project. That is why the Greens have publicly called for the government to release the supplementary EIS and to provide a clear mechanism for public engagement before they approve the final project.

The reason for my concern is that the government has form in releasing supplementary environmental impact statements on the same day that it announces its approval for the project. Members should look no further than the Port Stanvac desalination plant and the Buckland Park development to see that the government often releases these important documents at the same time it announces its approval, thereby making any further comment or feedback anyone might have completely redundant and irrelevant.

The government has been sitting on the Olympic Dam expansion supplementary EIS since before Christmas. It announced it would release it in January. We are now in May and we don't have a firm date for the release of that document. The government, as I say, must provide a further opportunity for people to comment on that document because it is going to include a vast quantity of new information.

The reason it will include new information is that so many things were left out of the original EIS. It may have been the biggest document printed in South Australian history, running to some 4,600 pages, yet it was completely inadequate in relation to a number of important issues. So, with those unanswered questions, I think the government should commit up-front to a period of consultation on this further document, at least as long as the period that was provided on the original document—that was 3½ months.

The future of our economy, the future of this particular industry, is not just a conversation between the proponent and the government behind closed doors. The public need to be involved as well. We need a chance, and the business community needs a chance, to assess BHP Billiton's claims and to assess what this project means for our state economy.

I point out that the Greens have produced an alternative model for the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine; that is, an expansion that does not involve the extraction and sale of uranium. Now, this model is one that stacks up environmentally, socially and economically.

The PRESIDENT: It has nothing to do with the Supply Bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: We engaged a senior academic from Monash University, Dr Gavin Mudd, to analyse what it would mean. It is relevant to supply, Mr President, because, as I said earlier, this project will consume vast quantities of both direct and indirect government subsidies. The bill will be footed by taxpayers.

The report that Dr Gavin Mudd prepared showed that the no-uranium Olympic Dam expansion option is not only technically feasible but it will also use less water. It will use less energy and it will create more jobs, because we know that the Olympic Dam mine is overwhelmingly a copper and gold project. The uranium component of total revenue is decreasing and it has decreased down to below 20 per cent.

According to BHP Billiton, in the Financial Review last year, their focus is on copper. It is not on uranium, especially in the first stages of this project. So what we have to determine as a state and what our government needs to come clean with to the South Australian community is whether or not we are prepared for our state to simply be China's quarry or whether we are going to maximise the community benefit from this important non-renewable resource.

The no uranium option for Olympic Dam is a very promising alternative to the plan that BHP Billiton have outlined, which is simply to export the radioactive copper concentrate (and therefore the jobs) overseas, primarily to China. In relation to energy, the question that we have to ask ourselves is how prepared we are as a state for the inevitable shocks that lie ahead. What I want to focus on is the role of government and government spending in helping the community to absorb those shocks.

It is no surprise to anyone that the price of petrol is going up, and it will continue to rise due to a number of factors: turmoil in the Middle East, an improving US economy, increasing demand for oil from India and China. This week the average price of petrol in Adelaide is pushing $1.50 a litre. In Brisbane, it is already over $1.50. The national average is $1.45. The strong Australian dollar is the only thing that has prevented a record high price for petrol being reached already.

However, as we know, the fluctuation in currency is both volatile and difficult to predict. Members should remember that less than a year ago the Australian dollar was valued at only US83¢. If we were to go back to that level now, the price of petrol would already be over $2 per litre. If we go back a little further to February-March 2009, when the value of the Australian dollar was only US66¢, the price of petrol would already be $3 a litre. You can imagine what that would mean for South Australian families. It would be a devastating impost on the household budget.

What is the government doing about it through the measures available to it, through spending and through government policy? The answer is not much, and the things that they are doing are the wrong things. Last week, the Australian Conservation Foundation released a very sobering report about the direction we are heading in relation to transport planning and transport spending. What that report showed would come as a surprise to no-one; that is, we are spending four times as much on roads as we are on public transport.

The gulf between state and federal government spending on roads compared to that spent on public transport is massive. What that report says is that the difference is now more than four times. Over the last decade, all levels of government in Australia have spent 4.3 times more on the construction of public roads and bridges than they have on public transport. There was some $11.3 million spent on road construction in 2008-09. In addition to that, $5 billion was given away as subsidies by the federal government through the fuel tax credits program, and there was another $1 billion spent through the fringe benefits tax scheme to encourage the private use of company cars. During the same period, only $3.3 billion was spent on rail construction.

The figures for South Australia are very similar. We spent 0.61 per cent of gross state product on roads compared to only 0.15 per cent on other transport options. The Hon. Carmel Zollo spoke in glowing terms of the South Road Superway. The Greens refer to that project as the 'super waste'. We know that Adelaide has sprawled uncontrollably north and south and we know that social problems arise when people are forced to travel long distances to reach jobs and where public transport options are inadequate.

If you cannot drive or you cannot afford to drive, you miss out in our society. The government speaks in glowing terms of its expenditure on the electrification of the railways and a very short extension of the Noarlunga train to Seaford and a very short extension of the tramline, yet those programs need to be considered more as backlog maintenance than genuine new infrastructure spending. Most of the money spent on electrification will not provide a faster or a more frequent service; it is simply catching up and replacing an ageing diesel fleet with a more modern electric fleet. We need to increase patronage if we are going to help people to cope with the shocks of increased petrol prices.

International Energy Agency is an organisation that members might be aware of. This organisation has for many years denied the existence of the concept of peak oil. In fact, only five years ago, the International Energy Agency said that oil production was set to rise to 120 million barrels a day by 2030. Those predictions turned out to be wildly off the mark. What it is now saying, just five years later, is that the world's crude oil production actually peaked in 2006, and global oil production having peaked is a one-way ticket for prices to go up—prices to go up for South Australian families.

The prediction from the International Energy Agency was that oil prices were likely to rise 30 per cent over the next three years. The chief economist of the IEA, Dr Fatih Birol, said:

The existing fields are declining so sharply that in order to say where we are in terms of production levels in the next 25 years, we have to find and develop four new Saudi Arabias...It is a huge, huge challenge that we continue to underline.

However, the conclusion from the International Energy Agency was that the age of cheap oil is over, and we are seeing that already.

The question for us in South Australia is: how well placed are we to deal with the inevitable shocks that rising oil prices will deliver to our families and our communities? It is not just about petrol at the bowser. Oil is deeply embedded in the whole of the economy. It is in our food systems and in all other goods and services we produce.

So, the government's response is counterproductive and it is counterintuitive. It is not just the disproportionate spending on roads but it is also reflected in the government's planning priorities—approving new urban sprawl out at Mount Barker or Gawler East and, if you like, the mother of all lunatic urban planning projects, the Buckland Park development. I said at the time, and I was joined by many, many professionals in the planning field, that what we were looking at was the creation of a ghetto in waiting.

The reason for that is that young families will be attracted out to places such as Buckland Park and then they will be marooned out there by rising petrol prices. You have only to imagine the viability of low-income families living out at Buckland Park, miles from anywhere, with petrol at $2 or $3 a litre and, on the proponent of the Buckland Park township's own admission, there will not be a high take-up of public transport.

The bottom line is that, with petrol prices going up, peak oil having arrived, we as a state are totally unprepared for this brave new world, and the government owes it to the community, through policy and through its spending in the budget, to help us deal with these shocks. The government has completely missed the opportunities and the challenges that have been provided by these global changes. South Australia will cope less well than other places because of this lack of preparedness.

With those brief remarks, I indicate that the Greens will be supporting the Supply Bill. We look forward to the forthcoming budget reversing some of the policy disasters of recent years and showing that this government is, in fact, prepared to lead South Australia into the future. The government will do that by making sensible decisions that reflect the fact that we live on a finite planet with finite resources.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:14): I rise to speak to the Supply Bill 2011. As we know, the Supply Bill is of course for the supply of financial resources to the public sector to continue to operate while the government eventually presents its budget and we pass the Appropriation Bill. So, it should supply the government services to the people of South Australia. It should, but it does not.

It should provide the supply of police services, adequate staff in corrections and family services, in the Environment Protection Authority, in tourism and in trade. Instead, it sells South Australians short. It sells them so short that, if this was the stock exchange, short selling of this type would be banned. In a political context, selling South Australians as short as this should also be banned.

The only things this government can sell are the publicly owned assets. Sadly, we saw the forward sale of up to three rotations of our forests yesterday. What saddens me even more is that we saw the Minister for Regional Development in this chamber today admit that she had not read the regional impact statement or even read the executive summary of that regional impact statement. A sad day indeed, and I guess she probably voted in cabinet on that decision.

I wonder how many other ministers in this government had voted on that decision, not having read that particular regional impact statement. I know it is a subject dear to your heart, Mr Acting President, because you told me you were in Mount Gambier only in the last week or two, and the feeling in the community is extremely high about this sale of forestry assets.

Government land goes to developers. Sadly, at Glenside, a facility once famous for the care and treatment it provided to the mentally ill, the Labor Party has thrown the occupants out. I wonder how much of the violence we sadly see in our community, the shootings and violent attacks on people, is a result of this government's mental health policy. That land has been made available for a film hub, a housing development and a supermarket, because the mentally ill, the physically ill, the elderly and the young are not cared for well enough in this Supply Bill.

It is not just the public sector that is made to suffer from this incompetent and diminished ministry. The public deserves better, stronger and more compassionate government service. The government tells us that we have record numbers of police, yet we all hear every day the comment, 'Where are the police?' We just do not see them in our community. Where are the support staff? Where is the backup? Where is the infrastructure and support to let the police do the jobs they are trained to do? Where is the emphasis on road safety?

At Easter, coming back from a very enjoyable family holiday in the Riverland, on the River Murray (and it is in beautiful condition at the moment), on the South-Eastern Freeway, I saw one police vehicle. It was parked on the side of the road with a flashing light on top, warning of a traffic congestion ahead. But I think I saw four, or maybe even five, other vehicles with police officers in them; they were unmarked.

A visible police presence we know is the greatest deterrent to bad driving behaviour and, in fact, bad public behaviour, yet to have unmarked cars on the road to me sends the message that the government is not really interested in having that visible police deterrent out there in the public view; it is more about catching people and speeding revenue.

I also noticed some commentary recently in relation to Hindley Street that there were very few uniformed police officers on a particular Saturday night; yet I am advised there were 40 undercover police officers on duty that night. I can understand why some level of undercover operations needs to take place in places like Hindley Street, because of, perhaps, sale of drugs and other illegal activities.

However, surely a visible police presence is what is needed. The government, I think, is using a terribly blunt instrument with its changes to liquor licensing hours, but to bring about a change, a greater, more visible police presence is what is needed. I might also ask: where are our park rangers? Where are the staff who used to look after our botanic gardens?

Where is the provision for health care in rural and regional South Australia? And, we are reminded again of the decision yesterday to sell the forests, the decision the night before of the SACA vote and the go-ahead of the Adelaide Oval and, of course, today we have seen the publicly circulated Macquarie Bank prospectus that shows the cost of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital at $2.73 billion.

Where is the provision for health care in regional and rural South Australia? We know that the Keith hospital needs $300,000. I think the service payments on the new hospital are some $330 million a year. That is calculated at almost $1 million a day, which is nearly $50,000 an hour, and so $300,000 is only a matter of four or five hours. The time that we would spend in this place in one day when that hospital is being paid for would look after the Keith hospital for a whole year.

I am also mindful of the future. When we come to the supply next year and in future years of this particular government, it is severely at risk, especially when we talk about the Supply Bill, which not only provides funds to manage the public sector but also provides services to the people who pay the taxes and who need those services. It is, if you like, a double supply.

I know that the Sustainable Budget Commission recommendations were not all adopted, but they are still, I would assume, there for consideration. It is quite frightening. In SAPOL, the initial recommendations were to reduce the unsworn officers by up to nearly 100 personnel; remove the graduate program (another five personnel to go); reduce the service executive support area (one person to go); the closure of eight metropolitan police stations (13 people to go); the closure of nine country police stations (another 18 to be removed); the disbandment of the police band (I think about 60 personnel to go there); and the phasing out of community constables (about the same).

So, Mr President, you can see that the government is going to be under incredible pressure not to cut services as we go forward, because we know it will not have achieved its budget targets with the last budget. Notwithstanding, it has not accepted all the recommendations of the Sustainable Budget Commission, I suspect a number of those are still on the table.

Of course, another area for which I have some responsibility is planning. There are a number of cuts, again, to the public sector—some accepted and some not—but it adds up to some 50 or 60 personnel. Again, that indicates that, while we are looking at supplying the resources to keep the public sector operating, the public sector is under tremendous pressure as a result of cuts from the government and an expectation from the community that they will get a higher level of service.

I think members should be reminded that, in the time of this government, it budgeted for a bit over 2,500 extra public servants, yet, sadly, we see some 18,000 have been employed in that time. Really, I think that shows a real lack of understanding of how to run government; a real lack of understanding that it is not its money to spend but the taxpayers' money. Clearly, it just simply does not understand.

We have also seen in the last couple of days what the government really thinks of this chamber, when we have the unbelievable situation of only having one minister. There is such Labor talent in the Legislative Council—talent enough to promote an ALP backbencher. I mean, why not promote the Hon. Russell Wortley so he could sit at the cabinet table and actually have some input, or even promote the Hon. John Gazzola to the front bench? Mr President, it seems crazy. Or the Hon. Ian Hunter. Clearly—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Relevance?

An honourable member: Supply.

The PRESIDENT: He wants to supply another minister.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Exactly; thank you, Mr President. I mean, the Hon. Paul Holloway and the Hon. Carmel Zollo have had a go, and they are clearly either not wanted or not prepared to step up. There is some talent there, Mr President—and look, it is probably a little sad, in one sense, that you are in the chair, otherwise you would be down here on the front bench. I know that it would help the debate around the cabinet table if there was somebody else other than the hapless acting interim leader that we have at present.

There is an old saying that the price of something depends on supply and demand, and this Supply Bill demands a high price from South Australians. It is the price of a Labor government whose time has come.

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

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