HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-02-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 16 February 2012.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:26): I rise to speak in support of the motion that the Address in Reply, as read, be adopted. I thank the Governor for delivering the address to open the Second Session of the Fifty-Second Parliament and I thank both he and his wife for their ongoing service to this state. We congratulate the Governor on his reappointment.

The Address in Reply debate marks the start of a new parliamentary session, but on this occasion it also marks two other milestones. First, it marks a new premiership. After the Malinauskas coup and a tortuously long birth, this Governor's speech is the first of the Weatherill ministry. The other milestone is the halfway mark of the parliament. The next election is almost as close as the last. It is an appropriate time to take stock of this government.

My reflections will focus on my shadow portfolio responsibilities—Attorney-General's and Justice. The Governor's speech was delivered during a period of heightened crime group activity. We had a shooting in a coffee shop in a prestige shopping district in broad daylight; we had the shooting of an outlaw motorcycle gang member in a suburban street. In the Governor's speech, he said that the government believes that our public discourse should be more civil, that we should be slower to attribute blame and quicker to accept responsibility.

On that basis, we would think that the government would be taking responsibility for a decade of failure at dealing with outlaw motorcycle gang members. After all, there are more members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. In the three years since the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act was enacted, outlaw motorcycle gang memberships has increased by 10 per cent to 274. There are more gangs. The New Boys street gang has transformed into the Comancheros, and we have seen evolving links between street gangs more generally and outlaw motorcycle gang groups. In spite of the commitments of the former premier, in particular, there are no fewer bikie fortresses. The Australian Crime Commission has highlighted to us the weakening of internal controls and that that will lead to more public and riskier behaviour.

After the Governor's plea that people in public discourse should be slower to attribute blame and quicker to accept responsibility, what did we see? The House of Assembly adjourned for little more than an hour after the Governor's speech before the house resumed to a tirade by the Premier in a ministerial statement blaming the opposition for causing the crime wave by daring to improve proposed laws. Soon after, the government moved to suspend standing orders to bring on debate on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012. This was a bill that was so urgent that its predecessor bill had been left untouched for 4½ months. There had been no work brought on by the government since 27 September 2011.

The Liberal opposition did not object to the suspension of standing orders, in fact 13 days earlier we had suggested it. I had written to the Attorney to suggest that standing orders be suspended to allow debate on the new anti-gang laws to proceed. The only response from the government was a letter of acknowledgement, received on 6 February. On the same day, we received an email from the Attorney-General's office inquiring about our views on the monkey bike bill, and I quote:

In relation to the above Bill, it is anticipated that this will once again go to a Deadlock Conference. In order to speed up the process, I would be grateful if your Party could articulate its final concerns with the Bill in writing...

Labor did not take up the offer of expediting the anti-gang laws. Labor wanted to play the blame game. Labor wanted some parliamentary theatrics, and so, with less than 24 hours notice before the resumption of the House of Assembly, it brought on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill. The Liberal opposition cooperated and 24 hours later the bill was passed through the House of Assembly.

So, what has happened with this urgent bill? Members of this place would have expected that having been declared urgent in the House of Assembly, and having been rushed through the other place, that it would be a high priority for the government in this place, but no, when the government revealed its priorities for this week the bill was not even in its nine priorities.

Labor's changing priorities expose Premier Weatherill's tough talk on crime as mere rhetoric—it is merely the blame game. The calls in the Governor's speech for the taking of responsibility are shown to be mere hollow words. This Labor government has the conviction and concentration span of a goldfish. The Weatherill government feigns urgency to distract, or to attempt to distract, from its own inaction.

In spite of the government's hypocrisy, the Liberal opposition is continuing with its scrutiny of the new anti-gang laws that were introduced into the House of Assembly last week and are being considered by the House of Assembly this week. Premier Weatherill promised South Australians a new Labor, but he has shown that he is no different to the former premier, Mike Rann: all spin and no substance.

The Governor's speech identified one of the so-called seven primary areas of focus of action as safe and active neighbourhoods. The Governor's speech states that:

...being safe from crime remains the most important single concern for South Australians. And securing the safety of the people is a primary role of government:

That is true, and the government, over the past 10 years, has failed in that responsibility. It has failed to reduce fear in our community. Before the 2002 state election, the then opposition leader, Mike Rann, promised that he would:

Focus not only on minimising crime but on ending the fear of crime that terrorises many in our community, especially older South Australians.

Yet, South Australians walking locally at night feel the least safe of citizens of any state. According to the report on government services, 43 per cent of South Australians, in 2009-10, felt unsafe. In contrast, in 2001-02, South Australians felt the most safe of any state. The Governor's speech went on to state:

The Government will therefore introduce legislation to attack head-on the most dangerous and violent criminal conduct.

That statement belies Labor's naive belief that a law on the statute books, in and of itself, produces peace on the streets. In fact, when the parliament's work on a new law is done, the reality is that the task has only just begun. This government is more interested in making laws than doing the hard yards to implement them. For example, firearms prohibition orders were introduced in 2008, after the Tonic Nightclub shooting.

The government specifically stated that the orders were designed to curb motorcycle gang violence, but the last police annual report states that only 24 outlaw motorcycle gang members have firearms prohibition orders against them, less than 10 per cent of the 274 members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Firearms offences against public order increased by 9.4 per cent in 2010-11 to 3,891 incidents in that year alone, but only 53 people throughout the state are subject to the orders.

There have been two major incidents involving the discharging of firearms in public places in the last two months but, despite being previously known to police for their involvement in violent incidents, none of the known combatants are subject to firearms prohibition orders. In particular, I remind the council of Vince Focarelli, Michael Syfris, Dylan Jessen and Danny Papadopoulos. None are subject to FPOs.

Orders would serve to discourage the participants from possessing a firearm and taking a firearm into a public place and would strengthen the arm of the police in terms of search and seizure. Again, Labor loves to make laws but loses interest soon after the ink dries on the press release. Legislation passed in 2008 also required a review of the firearms prohibition orders. Now, 12 months after it was due, it is yet to be tabled in this place. If the government will not respect the law, how does it expect that bikies will?

One of the most bizarre sidelights in the House of Assembly last week was the Attorney-General's participation. The Premier had been frothing at the mouth at the need to progress his integrated package of crime bills. Standing orders were suspended and the debate on the first bill comes on. Yet, the Attorney-General's summing up on the second reading of the bill did not even focus on the bill. Most of the Attorney-General's contribution is a self-indulgent defence by the Attorney in relation to a press release that I had issued. The Attorney even adjourned the debate to the following day so that he could continue his comments.

The release was called 'Rau: all talk, no action'. My complaint was that the Attorney and Labor more generally are more interested in press coverage than getting the job done. I detailed 19 core policy announcements that the Attorney had failed to deliver. Let me summarise those 19 failures. Three of the 19 failures relate to matters that I suspect are rightly called 'closed matters'.

One of the 19 was the 2010 election policy commitment on tightening laws on drug paraphernalia. That has been met but, then again, it was met as soon as it was made, as the promised laws already existed. When the Attorney brought his nothing bill into the parliament, the opposition and other members of this place did the work and made the amendments to give the bill some useful work to do.

The Hon. A. Bressington: And it still doesn't work!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Attorney failed to deliver because there was nothing to deliver in law and, as my colleague the Hon. Ann Bressington highlights, having the law in place does not mean that it is being implemented. It is yet to be seen to work on the ground.

The Attorney failed to deliver on another commitment in relation to similar fact and propensity evidence. The Attorney objects to this because he did get a bill through the parliament on this matter, but let us remember what Labor promised. Labor promised to lower the threshold and allow more such evidence.

The Attorney's bill did no such thing. It merely codified the law. I actually acknowledge that it was a good bill, and I am sure that it is a law that will be easy to work with and the Attorney may still be smirking about how he hoodwinked former premier Rann into thinking that he had delivered, but it was just another broken Labor promise.

Another of the 19 will never be delivered. In the Mid-Year Budget Review, the government broke its election promise to establish a southern community justice court. I ask the house: what hope do the courts have of getting any investment out of this government when the A-G has so little standing within the government that, within 18 months, he managed to lose funding for courts infrastructure that was promised as part of the election campaign?

The Attorney-General particularly seemed to get excited when he was focusing on three of the 19 areas, because he objected to being blamed for Legislative Council obstructionism. This claim shows the arrogance of the man and of the government he seeks to be a leader within. More often than not, the Attorney-General's reaction and that of this government to any amendments from the Legislative Council is to just park the bill.

The Legislative Council does the hard yards to review and improve a law and then waits and waits for any response. What a cop-out. Rather than having the confidence in the government's bills to come in and argue them, the Attorney and his colleagues just park them. Rather than engage the council through negotiations outside the chamber or perhaps through deadlock conferences or even debate in the chamber, the Attorney-General assumes that government bills, by definition, cannot be improved.

I urge the council to be highly sceptical of this attitude. If the government continues to effectively veto Legislative Council amendments by refusing to have them considered by the House of Assembly, and then turns around from time to time and insists that we pass all parked bills without amendment, the Legislative Council might as well pack up and go home.

The Attorney-General has particularly criticised the opposition for amending four bills in the last session. By way of footnote I stress that the opposition in this place is completely impotent to pass amendments without the support of the majority of the crossbenchers. However, the government particularly focuses on Liberal members—and I do not shy away from our role, working cooperatively with other crossbenchers to deliver improvements to law—and, in particular, the government is calling on the Liberal opposition to back down and pass four bills unamended.

Let us look at the bills which the Attorney-General highlighted as indicative of Legislative Council obstructionism. In relation to the first one, I am constrained by standing orders not to address the merits because it is on our Notice Paper, but I will simply highlight the time frame. The Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced in the House of Assembly on 18 May 2011. The Legislative Council committee and the third reading stages were completed on 27 September 2011 and there has been no work since. It sat on the House of Assembly Notice Paper until the parliamentary theatrics of the last sitting week. If it was so important the government should have progressed it.

The Attorney-General also claimed that the Legislative Council was obstructing its efforts to deal with internet censorship and dodgy how-to-vote cards. He claims that the bill was bogged down in the Legislative Council committee. Indeed, the Legislative Council did have a select committee and that committee, including the Labor members, rejected his bill to deal with dodgy how-to-vote cards. That committee reported on 5 May. The government has had 10 months to bring the legislation back in; it has not done so.

In fact, the fact that the bill has not even been restored to the Notice Paper, I hope is an indication that the government finally admits that the Attorney-General's bill was dodgy and that it will not try to progress it. We urge the government to provide a new bill to the parliament as soon as possible. We find it highly unacceptable that we had two parliamentary by-elections recently and South Australians did not have protection in place against Labor's tactics as used at the 2010 general election.

I also pointed out that this Attorney-General has failed to deliver on his promise on weapons prohibition orders. The Summary Offences (Weapons) Amendment Bill 2010 was introduced to the House of Assembly on 15 September 2010 and the Legislative Council completed the Legislative Council committee stage on 21 June 2011. There has been no work done on this bill since June. The government paused for four months before it even bothered to put the bill to its third reading on 8 November and no work until this month, when it was restored to the Notice Paper. I remind members that that bill emanated from the stabbing of a young Sudanese male (Daniel Awak) in Grenfell Street in 2008.

What horrendous follies does the Attorney-General claim this council has inflicted on this bill? Could it be that we want children to be able to purchase plastic knives and forks at community barbecues? Could it be that we refuse to allow amateurs to be authorised to conduct personal body searches? Could it be that we wanted to ensure that all offensive weapons, not simply knives, were banned in schools? We may never know because for this Attorney-General parliament seems to be a mere platform for the display of brute numbers, but he needs to look outside the door of his own chamber. His parliamentary gang may have a comfortable majority in the House of Assembly but no bill can go to the Governor without the support of both chambers of this parliament.

I remind the Labor Party that no government has had control of this chamber since 1975. The crossbenchers are the largest they have ever been—that is the will of the people of South Australia. I dare to predict that this council has no intention of betraying our collective mandate from the people of South Australia nor of abdicating our personal responsibilities as legislators by caving in to the theatrics of the temperamental Attorney-General and a government getting more arrogant, not less.

That deals with seven of the 19 commitments where the Attorney-General has failed to deliver and, in spite of the fact that we have untimed speeches in this chamber, I will do the council the courtesy of merely listing some of the others. We have a bunch of 2010 election commitments: to keep child sex offenders in prison for longer, suspended sentences, being tough on tagging, more control over entertainment precincts and targeting drug dealers in nightclubs and pubs; all are yet to be implemented.

There are a range of other measures, such as the response to the report by Thinker in Residence Peggy Hora, 'Smart Justice', which was delivered in February 2011 after, I understand, a number of months' delay in its tabling. We have been told that the government is looking at a general appeals tribunal; that was announced in August 2011 but there has still been no progress. In relation to DNA law reform, we were told in November 2010 that we would have a new bill in early 2011; 12 months later there are still no changes.

In November 2010 we had a discussion paper on public integrity, and we had an announcement from incoming Premier Weatherill of a lightweight version of an ICAC, but still there is no legislation. We had commitments in March 2011 for security industry reform; no changes have been made. In February 2011 the government sought public comment on reforms to spent convictions legislation; we are still waiting.

The Attorney-General's defence on a number of these are that they are 'in the pipeline', if I can paraphrase his words. I appreciate that at any point in time there will always be things in the pipeline, but I remind the Attorney that pipelines are for throughput; as some things go in one end you do expect some things to come out the other. With this Attorney the pipeline seems to be like a long, thin dam.

In this regard let me highlight another example, highlighted in fact by the Governor's speech. It relates to codes of conduct by parliamentarians. The Governor's speech states:

The government will call on all members to maintain the proper standards during this session. And beyond this, we will enact a Code of Conduct for all members, to ensure that their public lives are beyond reproach.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am sorry to bring mirth to the chamber. To be fair, the pipeline on this one goes back not to 2010 when the Attorney-General was appointed, but to the earliest days of the government. The government has a tradition of re-announcing policies rather than implementing them. The Governor's speech announcement follows nearly eight years of delay.

In October 2004 the joint committee on a code of conduct—of which Attorney-General Rau, then a mere backbencher, was a member—recommended the introduction of a statement of principles for members of parliament. In 2009 the South Australian Labor Party platform committed to a code of conduct for parliamentarians, but another three years and no progress had been made towards that code of conduct.

On 30 June 2011 Independent member of the House of Assembly the Hon. Dr Bob Such moved a motion calling on the parliament to introduce a code of conduct, but still the government took no action. On 24 October 2011 Attorney-General Rau announced again that Labor would introduce a code of conduct. In the Governor's speech the Labor government announced, yet again, its commitment to a code of conduct.

The Liberal Party committed to a code of conduct in its 2010 election policy: Transparency. After eight years' of Labor inaction it may well take the election of a Liberal government to see real action. The Attorney is failing to deliver on commitments and reform. He is also failing to act effectively to protect the administration of justice. I will give the council three particular examples.

First, I believe the Attorney has failed to protect public confidence in the legal system by letting action in relation to Eugene McGee lapse. I believe the Attorney has underestimated the significant community concern that persists in relation to the role of Mr McGee in the hit and run death of cyclist Ian Humphrey on 30 November 2003. Deficiencies of police prosecutors and courts in handling the case has significantly undermined public confidence in our justice system. In spite of the action already taken against Mr McGee, it is important that all reasonable steps are taken to hold Mr McGee to account and ensure that such issues are adequately addressed through the justice system in the future.

Last year I received advice which raised significant doubt as to the correctness of the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board decision and recommended that charges should be laid in the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. While the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board recommended no action against Mr McGee, the Attorney-General could still refer the matter to the more senior body, the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. Given the efflux of time, under section 82 of the Legal Practitioners Act only the Attorney-General is legally able to refer this matter to the tribunal.

In April 2011 Senator Nick Xenophon and myself called for Attorney-General Rau to do so. The Attorney-General issued a statement on 8 December 2011 announcing that, following advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office that it was open to the board to take the view that unprofessional conduct could not be proved in the circumstances, he had decided not to refer the case. The implication was that it was open to the board to take a contrary view. On that day I called for the Attorney-General to release his advice. He has not done so.

The case was recently subject to two episodes of the ABC series Australian Story. Former attorney-general Michael Atkinson and Senator Xenophon both recently called for the case to be referred. Mr Atkinson has been quoted as saying:

Under the Legal Practitioners Act the Attorney-General has the undoubted authority to refer a charge against a legal practitioner to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal...and my opinion is that John Rau should refer the Eugene McGee matter to the tribunal for adjudication but he has chosen in a personal decision, not a cabinet decision or a government decision, but a personal decision not to refer the Eugene McGee charge to the tribunal.

To protect public confidence in the justice system I consider that we as a community should maintain our calls for the referral of the Eugene McGee matter to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal.

Secondly, the Attorney-General has failed to protect the administration of justice by failing to deal effectively with the Malcolm Fox case. I am concerned at the Labor government's silence in the face of significant community disquiet at the sentence in the Malcolm Fox case. The Labor government's own Commissioner for Victims' Rights has recognised community concerns at the perceived leniency of the sentence and supported the victim to seek an appeal through the DPP.

In the face of this community concern, I understand the Attorney-General did not meet with the victim. As far as I know, he did not seek a briefing from the DPP on the case and on the prospects for a review of the sentence. In my view, it is fair to say that the community expects that a conviction for such an offence would mean time in custody. Whilst nobody wants another round of court bashing by Labor, victims need to be assured that the government is protecting their interests.

The Labor government should have ensured that South Australians received an explanation as to why the sentencing decision in the Malcolm Fox case was not appealed. The Liberal Party believes that the community needs to have engagement in the process and that the process needs to be transparent. After all, one of the criteria for an appeal is whether the sentence would 'shock the public conscience'. The community has a right to be informed and engaged.

Thirdly, I believe the Attorney-General has failed to protect the administration of justice in the context of the case of the Labor member of parliament charged in April 2011. Following the public outrage at the suppression of the identity of a Labor MP, the Labor government commissioned and then rejected the findings of its own independent review in relation to the use of suppression orders in relation to sex offences. The Liberal opposition welcomes the report by Justice Martin, which is a strong statement on the need for open justice and how the legal system needs to be open to both the media and the public. As an aside, I would encourage members to read the judgement. I thought it was a particularly strong statement in terms of the vital importance of freedom of the press.

The Liberal Party will work for openness and transparency in sex offences cases by rolling back automatic suppression orders, as recommended by Justice Martin. We support suppression orders. We believe that suppression orders, used appropriately, are part of the proper administration of justice, but they must be used sparingly, and there is no reason why sexual offences should be treated differently to other offences. We want court processes to be open, unless there is a good reason for them not to be.

The Liberal Party position, I stress, is not a response to the case of the father of a Labor MP, or the identity of a Labor MP; even if the Labor MP's identity is suppressed when legislation is brought before this parliament, we would not support any changes applying retrospectively. Having recognised public disquiet over the suppression of the identity of the Labor MP by commissioning an independent review, we urge the government to support changes to the law.

Fourthly, the Attorney-General has failed, in our view, in his role as political guardian of the administration of justice. In particular, I draw the house's attention to his silence in the recent aftermath of the Focarelli shooting, where there were four days of criticism of the courts by senior police. His silence forced the Chief Judge of the District Court to take the extraordinary step of issuing a public statement to defend his court. The Chief Judge's statement is an indictment of the failure of the Attorney-General to act.

In a month which highlighted 10 years of Labor's failure to deal with organised crime, Attorney-General Rau seemed more than happy to let the courts take the flak. The courts, I assert, are not free from criticism. The courts may well need to lift their game to deal effectively with the escalation of gangs, but so might the police, and so might we as legislators and members of government.

Unlike the police, legislators and members of government, judges are not able to participate in the argy-bargy of the public debate, due to their office. Former Labor attorney-general Len King, who had served as both the attorney-general in a government and as chief justice of our Supreme Court, described the guardian role in the following terms:

It is the special role of the Attorney-General to be the voice within government and to the public which articulates and insists upon the observance of the enduring principles of legal justice and respect for the judicial and other legal institutions through which they are applied.

Len King made those comments at a Colloquium of the Judicial Conference of Australia in 1999. In a letter to premier Rann in 2006, the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court (Chief Justice Doyle), said:

If the impression is allowed to develop that the judiciary or lawyers are not operating in compliance with the laws of the parliament as enacted, then the public's confidence in the judicial system will inevitably be eroded.

In his welcome address to the Supreme Court in 2010, Attorney-General Rau said, 'The challenge of raising the public’s respect for the judiciary and the Rule of Law is before all of us.' The silence of the Attorney-General in recent weeks has failed his own test. I also believe that the Attorney-General is proving to be a poor administrator.

The recent awarding of a tender contract in relation to fines enforcement eight months after it was called highlights how slow the Weatherill government has been in addressing the almost quarter of a billion dollar unexpected fines backlog. In May 2011, the Labor government announced it was calling a tender for a private debt collection agency to address one-fifth of the outstanding fines in South Australia. I remind the house that, since January 2010, $111 million of outstanding fines have been written off. Law-abiding South Australians are paying for this government's failure to properly enforce fines.

The recent announcement only addresses, as I said, one-fifth of the debt. We want the Labor government to respond to last year's consultation and tell us how it is going to address the outstanding fines totalling almost $200 million. Let us remember that South Australians are losing out on services that could be funded by this revenue. The 24 per cent increase in the fines debt in the last financial year alone could have covered the bicentennial funding cutback 1,000 times over. Labor's lack of commitment and sloppy approach to fine enforcement is simply unjust to the thousands of South Australians who pay their fines on time and who are being deprived of services that could otherwise be funded by them.

The poor record of the Attorney-General in so many domains caused the member for Bragg in another place to highlight that, in spite of his attempts to distance himself from his predecessor, former attorney-general Atkinson, the Attorney-General has become like him. The honourable member for Bragg said:

The Atkinson era is, of course, gone, but here I see the Attorney-General with a bit less hair, he could probably grow a foot, add a carnation, and what would we have? We have it all back again. It has all come back.

It may be unkind to the member for Croydon, but the bottom line is that it is all back here...We have the same trumped up, thin, shallow, insincere, inadequate response from the government to deal with a very serious problem.

I am almost driven by the member for Bragg's comments to defend former attorney-general Atkinson. At least former attorney-general Atkinson had the courage of his convictions and did not insult the people with light versions of Liberal policies. The member for Croydon consistently opposed an ICAC. The Liberal Party has long been calling for a full-blooded ICAC. Current Attorney-General Rau is promising to give us ICAC light, a commission which will only deal with corruption beyond the criminal threshold and with limited opportunities for public hearings.

Former attorney-general Atkinson consistently opposed a law reform commission. The Liberal Party has promised a law reform commission. Attorney-General Rau has agreed to a university proposal for a law institute—a light version of a law reform commission. Former attorney-general Atkinson consistently resisted a sentencing advisory council. The Liberal Party has called for a sentencing advisory council. Attorney-General Rau has established a group with that name, but with no budget for it to be able to effectively discharge its important role.

For the sake of balance, in conclusion, I also want to commend the Attorney. Almost two years into his role, I am not aware of the Attorney launching any proceedings for defamation. Whilst parliamentarians have reputations that they have every right to defend, we also have a responsibility to respect freedom of speech and not be too quick to resort to legal action for defamation. I perceive that the Attorney-General is showing that respect and commend him for that. I commend the motion to the council that the Address in Reply be noted.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:03): Firstly, I would like to thank His Excellency the Governor for overseeing the opening ceremony of parliament. The ceremony was conducted with great respect and sense of occasion, in keeping with the dignity of His Excellency's office and that of this great institution, the Parliament of South Australia. I welcome the extension of His Excellency's term for another two years and have no doubt he will continue to work hard in that role on behalf of the Crown for the people of South Australia.

May I also take the opportunity to thank Mrs Scarce for the excellent job that she does in assisting His Excellency in his role. They are a great team and, as I have said before, one of the few very, very good appointments of the Rann government—very few.

I want to begin by saying that my comments are in no way a reflection on His Excellency, as I realise it is convention only which forces the Governor to associate himself with the views of the Premier and his government, which I am sure is the most unpleasant part of his job.

His Excellency outlined that his government would focus on several areas, and I congratulate the Premier and his band of merry men on that speech because it sets a new record for broad sweeping statements. I have never heard a governor's speech of such length containing such little substance. I want to highlight some lines from His Excellency's speech that I found disturbing. First:

The Government understands that many South Australians are troubled and uneasy about the shifting and uncertain times the world now faces, on so many fronts.

I have no doubt the government understands that, because they have created it. This government is directly responsible for the cost of living pressures that many South Australians are now under. We are now the highest taxed state in the nation, and you would think that with such a high amount of tax coming in that the government would have no problem paying its bills. No surprises, but that is not the case.

The budget is currently in a deficit of $11 billion with an interest bill of $2 million a day. The budget was only just getting back on track following the State Bank disaster, which was brought back under the previous Liberal government, when Labor managed slide its way into government through some backroom deals and uncomfortable marriages with crossbenches from the 50th Parliament. The Governor then continued on with the Premier's words:

The Government's aim is not limited to improving the material circumstances of South Australians.

No, the government is committed to exactly the opposite, as I said before. How can burdening South Australians with exorbitant taxes be improving their material circumstances? Shame on the Treasurer and shame on the Premier. Another quote from the speech:

This Government will resist, by whatever means necessary, the depletion and pollution of the Murray through over-allocation by upstream states.

What exactly does this statement mean? There was no concrete promise or commitment to do anything other than just give a broad statement—a broad statement that was also made by former premier Rann when we had the huff and puff and spin that we have been accustomed to from this Labor government that a High Court challenge was going to save the river and South Australia. Well, it did not. Nothing changed, and more rhetoric from the government is only going to push any achievements on the River Murray further away.

The Governor mentioned South Australia's leading role in renewable energy technologies. This, of course, includes the wind farms that no-one wants and the unconsultative process in which they are built. It includes solar technology which the government is unwilling to support, a feed-in tariff no longer in operation citing its unsustainability, and the cost to ETSA. Given the dire situation that many remote centres are in regarding energy, perhaps greater investment in solar technology would be pertinent.

Coober Pedy comes to mind where, instead of perhaps investing in solar technologies in a place where it is most appropriate, the government has generously allowed the town to pay for its connection to the grid at a cost of $50 million. This in effect left the local council and the people of Coober Pedy high and dry.

The speech mentioned the potential of the mining boom to bring wealth and prosperity to this state, which all of us in this place wish for I am sure; however, the preparation and economic conditions need to be handled and maintained responsibly in order to guarantee the ripple effects of a strong mining sector. For this, I look to the Western Australian government under Premier Barnett. He had made the economic conditions in his state comfortable for the miners to operate within, encouraging investment.

The Western Australian government has been opposed to the federal government's mining tax from the outset, and so are we. The Liberal Party understands how important mining is to this state and does not want to jeopardise that through a ludicrous money grab. The government needs to come out against it. If the Premier really wants a strong mining sector in South Australia, and wants to guarantee its long-term future, he should come out against this punitive tax. I quote again from the Governor:

It is therefore crucial that we sustain our existing manufacturing sector, particularly our car manufacturing industry that employs about 8,000 workers in South Australia. This government will invest to keep General Motors-Holden in South Australia for the next decade and beyond.

That is all well and good to want to keep the industry and the plant at Elizabeth. I could not agree more with the government, but the government needs to realise that it cannot dictate to a private company what it prefers for that company's future.

After the Premier's Messianic trip to Detroit to persuade the GM bosses and save the plant from closure, we learnt that Holden was cutting a shift at Elizabeth anyway. In fact, like Monty Python's Brian, the Premier is not the Messiah but just 'a very naughty boy' because he wasted taxpayers' dollars on a trip that has done nothing to improve the situation at Elizabeth and was a trip that was not necessary for the Premier of Victoria as he received similar news about General Motors operations in his state.

So, it seems the Labor spin machine is still in full operation and it is business as usual on that side of the chamber. Staged media opportunities and denial are the preferred method rather than facing up to the debacle that is this government. His Excellency states:

Increasingly, well-educated and well-trained people have choices, and are willing to make those choices, about where they will live to find fulfilling work.

Young people are certainly making those choices, but they are not choosing Adelaide. Since this government has been in office, there has been a mass exodus of our youngest and brightest interstate, particularly to Melbourne and Sydney, but increasingly to Perth, a city which was comparable to Adelaide not so long ago.

The government also mentioned that it has enlivened the Capital City Committee to include the Premier and Deputy Premier. How about including the local parliamentary representative, the member for Adelaide from another place? Would it be because she is a Liberal? It is not her fault the Labor Party neglected its constituents in the electorate of Adelaide—their voice should be heard on this committee. I hope the member for Adelaide's bill to amend the membership of the committee is supported by the House of Assembly so that it may be considered by this place.

The Governor also mentioned the regeneration of Adelaide Oval in his speech, as if it was a visionary proposal for which the government will be forever immortalised. Let us be clear on this, the government did not even consider an upgrade to the oval until the 2010 election campaign, when the Liberals had a plan for a covered inner city stadium, which was immensely popular and which left the government out of step, and it then cobbled together this Adelaide Oval idea. The Governor states:

The Government will develop a State Public Health Plan, and assist all councils to create Healthy Neighbourhood Plans.

I, with the people of this state, am sick to death of this government's many plans, which are never worth the glossy paper they are printed on. 'More plans and no action' should be the slogan of the Rann/Weatherill government. Solutions need to happen, things need to be done. This government has had 10 years to plan and still there is no action. You do not need to plan to know that regional hospitals are in desperate need of funding, with many at risk of closure.

Keith Hospital is one major example that comes to mind: $370,000 is all it requires, yet this government is happy to abandon it in favour of golden handshakes and perks for themselves and former members and friends. For example, the golden handshake—perhaps golden parachute would be more appropriate—that Premier Weatherill gave to former premier Rann, which was worth about $200,000 and included a car, staff and furnished office, as well as a pension worth three-quarters of his former salary. The Governor continues:

The Government will...introduce legislation to attack head-on the most dangerous and violent criminal conduct.

This is an excerpt from the Governor's speech of last Tuesday. Was not similar legislation introduced and passed in 2008? The opposition had reservations about the original legislation four years ago. It did not believe it would solve the problem. Four years and a High Court challenge later, nothing has changed. What makes the government think that this similar proposal will change anything now? His Excellency states:

Parliament should demonstrate how debate and dissent can be constructive—and not be a forum for endless squabbles that lead nowhere.

What parliament, and particularly this place, should not be is a rubber stamp for government, especially this government. It was pointed out to me recently that in the Canadian parliament, one with very similar traditions and roots to ours, opposition frontbenchers are referred to as 'critics' rather than shadow ministers, which probably reflects our role much better.

We are not there to act as a rubber stamp or as yes men, but to analyse and criticise the government's proposals, and that is, a lot of the time, constructive. The work we do here, which includes minor parties and Independents, reflecting the broad view of South Australians, actually works on and improves government bills before they become law, and it is a shame that the government and the broader Labor Party want to abolish this place.

The Governor went on to say that his government wants a government sector where risk-taking is rewarded. We can only hope it is not the risk-taking which led to the State Bank collapse in the late 1980s—a monumental failure which I know this government is capable of. With those few remarks, I support the motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:13): I rise to support the adoption of the Address in Reply to the Governor's speech and to thank His Excellency for his ongoing service to our state. There were many fine words in the Governor's address and it was hard to disagree with a lot of it. However, it is actions rather than words that really matter, and I want to speak briefly today on the government's priorities, in particular an apparent shift in government priority away from action and programs that look after the environment.

The former premier, from his election in 2002 until he left office, spoke often and frequently about the environment, about ecological sustainability, renewable energy, the challenge of climate change and a range of other environmental issues. During his tenure, the Greens were often critical of how the premier spoke about these issues and then failed to deliver real outcomes for the South Australian environment. We often saw the spin and the words not matched by action on the ground.

I could go through example after example of where the spin took over and the action did not result, but just one will suffice: the mini wind turbines on the roof of the state administration building. They were announced with great fanfare. There were ribbons to be cut, but we know that they never worked. They did not ever power one light globe or one heater under one bureaucrat's desk. They simply did not work. I am not critical of the government trying things and I am not even necessarily critical if those trials fail.

Failure is a part of trial, but I do object, as do many South Australians, when the issue is spun as somehow the saviour of the environment when in fact it was a small trial, an unsuccessful trial and it should have been declared as such. Despite those criticisms of the former premier, at least the Hon. Mike Rann did seem to recognise the importance of the issue. That is to his credit.

However, since Premier Weatherill has taken charge, I have been hearing many worrying reports from inside the Public Service that environmental issues have been significantly downgraded. There are two recent incidents that strongly back up this concern. The first is the scrapping of the renewable energy fund. Members might have read the article by Belinda Willis in the SA Business Journal in The Advertiser, in the last edition, under the heading 'Fears solar project has lost support'. Her article starts like this:

Solar groups are worried the State Government is pulling its industry support after funding dried up for the community-owned solar farms project. Funding of $1 million disappeared when $11.7 million was cut from RenewablesSA with at least a dozen community groups well advanced in their project submissions.

The article goes on to outline some concerns of some pretty prominent South Australians, including Monica Oliphant, who is a committee member of the Australian Solar Energy Society and a former president of the International Solar Energy Society. The article refers to her concerns, saying:

Ms Oliphant was concerned the State Government was not showing interest in solar power.

I think that is clearly an understatement. So, why has it come to cutting this relatively small fund? The answer can be found in some other decisions that the government has made—very poor decisions—in relation to hospital car parking.

It decided that it was going to charge people to park at hospitals, charge visitors who were calling on sick friends and relations and helping to cheer them up and helping their healing. It was going to charge them. When that policy was ultimately abandoned, or at least modified, the money to be found was found by axing this environmental project. Here you have a clear example of the government fixing up a social policy mistake of its own making by sacrificing an environmental program.

What all members have to remember is that renewable energy is a very job-rich sector and it is also a sector that is focused on the future. It was one of the priority areas identified by the state Economic Development Board, a priority area for South Australia to invest in and to advance and to lead. This renewable energy fund was a very small fund, comparatively, but even this small amount has now been scrapped.

The second example of the government's abandonment of an environmental initiative is in relation to the Glenside Hospital and we have already heard in this place about what has happened there. The government, through lack of due diligence or through whatever means, has now discovered that the extent of contamination at the Glenside site is far worse than it had previously expected and the cost of remediation is far greater. What was going to be a fairly modest clean-up cost is now ranging into the tens of millions.

So what is the government's response? It is to go for the low-hanging fruit—the environmental projects, the environmental initiatives. The first we hear is that it will be the stormwater collection and management component of the project that will be axed. Again, stormwater management is one of those long-term investments that pays rich rewards if you do it properly. Members will be familiar with the report that I commissioned some years ago still sitting there on my website. It is a plan for water security for Adelaide, 'Water that doesn't cost the earth'.

In that report we analysed all the different options for water security, and the harvesting, treatment and reuse of stormwater ranked right up near the top of the list for cost-effective, environmentally responsible water security measures. The other end of the spectrum, of course, was the least environmentally sustainable and the most expensive, and that is desalination. It is unacceptable for the government to try to bail itself out of problems of its own making by sacrificing environmental initiatives. It is short-sighted and it is entirely the wrong way to go.

Of course, if we do not invest in things like stormwater capture and reuse, then we are destined to rely on two ultimately dodgy sources of water: one is the River Murray (and we all know what dire straits that river has been in in the past, and will be again in the future) and, as I say, desal—bottled electricity, the most expensive way we know of making fresh water.

It is important for the government to stick with the stormwater component for Glenside. Of course, it is much easier, much simpler and much cheaper to introduce those sorts of schemes at the ground floor; in other words, do it whilst the project is at the development stage rather than trying to retrofit this type of measure onto an existing development. We know how hard it is and we know how expensive it is. If they are going to do a proper environmental stormwater component of this project at Glenside they need to do it right up-front.

What these examples show is a worrying mindset within the Weatherill government that environmental aspects of projects are simply expendable. Rather than truly integrated and holistic thinking within the government that recognises that economic, cultural, social and environmental considerations should be an integral part of all projects, what we are now seeing is that the government sees environmental aspects as an add-on and something that can be jettisoned as soon as the money gets tight.

On top of those examples we have the ongoing issue of budget cuts to the environment department and to the EPA which results in compromises which, in turn, compromise our environment. As a result, we see community groups and others raising concerns about a range of important issues: there is the Tropical Conservatory at the Botanic Gardens, the future of the Mount Lofty Botanic Gardens and the Wittunga Botanic Gardens.

These things normally would not be on a list of things to be worried about, but we know that many of them featured in the Sustainable Budget Commission report and I think people will be going back to that report and worrying about even more things that are in there, given what we are now seeing as the Weatherill government's lack of commitment to environmental projects.

The Greens call on the Premier to stop this dangerous trend of ignoring sustainability and environmental policy. It is not a question of one or the other—the government can certainly walk and chew gum at the same time—it is not a trade-off between economic objectives, social objectives and environmental objectives. We must seek to achieve them all.

I urge the Premier to reverse the decision that has apparently been made about stormwater at Glenside, reverse the axing of the Renewable Energy Fund and recommit this government to environmental programs and environmental initiatives. The environment is not an optional extra: it is what keeps us all alive and it is irresponsible to ignore it.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:25): I also rise to support the motion on the Address in Reply, and again thank His Excellency the Governor for his speech and congratulate him on his extended term. The Governor, in his speech to this parliament, stated:

This government has comprehensively reviewed where the state stands now, and made decisions about where its focus needs to be for the future. Its emphasis is not just on the next year, or the next decade, but on a future which will provide rich and worthwhile opportunities for our children, and for our children's children.

From this process, this government has identified seven primary areas of focus for action. These...[are]:

Clean, green food industry

The mining boom and its benefits

Advanced manufacturing

A vibrant city

Safe and active neighbourhoods

Affordable living

Early childhood

The government recognises that these fields of focus do not include every subject of importance in the life of the state, or every area of government endeavour. It has made [strategic] choices.

He goes on to say that the government's aim is not limited to improving the material circumstances of South Australians. I see these seven primary areas of focus as aspirational rather than inspirational.

There is nothing inspirational to a family who cannot afford to pay for their power or their mortgage or their water to hear about a vibrant city. There is nothing inspirational to that same family about the clean, green food industry when they are forced to line up for food hampers, and affordable living to that same family is a kick in the guts as they struggle to pay their mortgage or for an education for their children, and then watch in disgust as the long-term unemployed, drug-addicted deadbeats next door wreck a house that they have contributed to pay for, via their taxes, and receive a house full of new furniture and whitegoods after they have been reported for abusing and/or neglecting their own children.

I will not even tell you about the lack of inspiration it causes when they also hear the blurb about early childhood, when so many hardworking families in the north cannot even enrol their children in kindergarten, primary school or high school because there simply are not any places left. With all due respect, the primary areas of focus in the Governor's speech are, for average Joe, a joke that is not easily expressed in civil terms. When the Governor stated that the government's aim is not limited to improving the material circumstances of South Australians, the general response I got was, 'No kidding. You don't have to be Einstein to work that one out. We are being robbed blind day in and day out.'

While the government's aim is not limited to improving the material circumstances of South Australians, I am sure average Joe has received the message loud and clear that it was of the utmost importance, however, to secure the material circumstances for the former premier Mike Rann with his $600,000 package, debated behind the closed doors of the Labor Party rooms—probably the same rooms where they plotted to rip off the pensioners for their measly federal pension increase just last year.

I am sure that it is not just me who sees that there are actually some valid reasons for discontent and contempt for this government, and I am sad to say that the Governor's speech did not do anything to reduce either of these emotions, which will prevail unless the needs—the needs, not the wants—of people are actually met.

In 2010 the Rann Labor government secured office for another term, and this year the people of this state will have the opportunity to measure the new Premier of South Australia, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, and his ministers, appointed to serve the best interests of the people of this state. Indeed, it is an honour that comparatively few people achieve in their lifetime, to be of service to the people of a great state such as this and to literally hold the future of well over one million people in the palm of their hands. That in itself is a surreal thought, that every decision we make here flows over to every single person out there, one way or another.

I hope that this new look Labor government, that has declared the intention of doing things differently, is not only able but willing to address the many ongoing needs of the people and that this Labor government can achieve some kind of balance between having to meet the obligations of the globalists, who have thrust policies upon us without public debate and scrutiny that will affect our way of life far into the future, and meeting their responsibilities to both lead and govern for the people.

There is no doubt that being part of the global community is only just now starting to reveal the impact this will have on Australian life as we know it and on how the required adjustments will impact on the security of this state and this country as a whole. At the end of the day the people of this state are not just an economy: they are real people with real problems raising real families.

As I look around this chamber I see people who I believe are decent and well intentioned. I would find it hard to believe that any person would come into this place with the intention to do any harm to the people of this state. I also believe that there are still those who believe that, when their time comes, they will be able to make a difference and turn back the clock on some of the disastrous decisions that have been made over the last years just since I have been here, and also who believe they can adjust some of the poor public policy of those who went before them.

Rarely though does that seem to happen because it seems that, once the climb up the ladder of political success begins, somehow focus shifts and it seems to become all about holding on to that power instead of analysing what should be done with it.

Over the past weeks we have seen a display of disunity at the federal level that has not only disgusted the Australian public but also has shone a light on how people are misled on an almost daily basis. Is there going to be a leadership challenge? The question is asked a thousand times in 100 different ways. The resounding response was, 'No, no; the PM has my support. I'm happy being foreign minister' or, from other senior ministers, 'the PM has total party support and we are not concerned'.

Almost every minister and backbencher for that matter is now unbelievable in the eyes of the Australian public. As we have seen, the PM tried to scratch and claw her way to a half-decent opinion poll after the biggest lie ever told pre-election that 'there'll be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. The Labor Party now has to deal with the fact that, not only cannot they be trusted but that they are all very good liars.

On Monday of this week a Nine MSN poll asked the question: Do you think the Labor Party is fit to run this country? The answer was: no, 65,854 and, yes, 15,667. I know that every time a poll like this is run that the response is, 'We don't take any notice of polls; we have a job to do and we are just getting on with it'. Perhaps that is the problem because, after all, if 81,521 people take the time to answer a question, they would probably expect that their answer be heeded and not dismissed. These are voices of the Australian people sending a clear message, and every time that response is heard the more resentment builds.

I have said in this place before that tensions are rising against governments in this country and it is not just the so-called nutters or fringe-dwelling loonies who are fed up, but business people in the community, middle-class Australia, are sick and tired of having their resources drained away while those with the welfare mentality reap the rewards. Middle-class Australia can only subsidise for so long and, as we have seen, the working poor have become a reality, and it will not be too much longer before diverting their hard-earned dollars will not be possible because there will be just nothing left to divert.

About six weeks ago a friend of mine had to accompany her husband to the hospital because of a suspected heart attack, and she shared with me a conversation she had with the female ambulance driver. The ambulance driver said that paramedics and police are demoralised with the work they are being asked to do. She said they are being used as a baby-sitting service for drug addicts, who are draining their time and resources and making their job near impossible to cope with.

She said that it is the drug addicts who are doing the crime and the drug addicts who are draining their service, and it never gets any better because they do not suffer any consequences for their actions and have unlimited resources diverted to them while good-hearted working people suffer as a result. This conversation is a revelation to me of enormous magnitude and tells a story of how our communities are falling apart.

Of course the other important fact we learnt just last week is that 61 per cent of people in South Australia do not even bother to report crime any more. Is anyone seeing the same picture as I am? This is a government that has staked its law and order agenda—its tough on crime agenda—on the need to pass more laws to deal with outlaw motorcycle gangs and the like when, in fact, it has missed what needs to be done entirely. Law and order is not just about new tough legislation, it is about justice as well; justice for everyone, including the sick and vulnerable.

As it has been said many times before, placing a fence at the top of the mountain, rather than an ambulance at the bottom, would be the desired action to take. People are fed up with seeing those who are not interested in making their lives any better being rewarded for their lack of effort and lack of respect, and they are also sick and tired of hearing the airy-fairy rhetoric of a government that they believe does not have a clue.

Most Australians were raised with the belief in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay; that is, work hard and, over time, you will be able to provide for your children and yourself at the end of your working life, with some assistance from the state and federal government, in return for the hard-earned money that has been paid in taxes over your working lives. This has been the Australian way of life, but no more, it seems.

It is time to reset the moral compass and deal with the social issues that flow over onto each and every family in this state. Start setting things right, or this Labor Party will see the same level of dissatisfaction from the public as their federal counterparts.

We have seen a government that has been very willing to pin the future of this state on a mining boom—something I have been hearing about since entering this place in 2006—and that has also come at a cost. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the Hon. Mark Parnell during that particular debate to bring to the surface many of the compromises made associated with the Olympic Dam mine expansion.

Although I had some empathy for the position of the honourable member during that debate, I also recognise that this state has little left to bargain with but its natural resources. Although I am still doubtful that the windfall is going to be as great as this government claims, what else do we do when we have depleted our manufacturing and industry to such a degree that we are literally painted into a corner and are now in a position where mining is our get-out-of-gaol card for a cash flow?

The big projects that are in the pipeline will bring no short-term relief to all of the economic struggles that face this state, but, true to form, I imagine that more taxes, more levies and more fines for the average working family will be put forward to keep our head above water. Of course, we will also see further cuts to necessary services as austerity measures, and these will be touted as necessary to get us through the hard times.

We know that we absolutely have a government that feels no shame in using the line, 'We are not afraid of having to make the hard decisions necessary for the future of this state.' Of course, as time goes by, the people are able to see that these austerity measures actually only apply to them, because, in the midst of these tough times, we have seen that ministers of this government have no intention to curb their own spending and to do it just that little bit tougher.

In these tough times, we have had ministers spending exorbitant amounts of money on travel and office renovations, and all of this pales into insignificance when we see the money spent on monuments that will benefit the least number of people at any one time. I speak now of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment, at a cost of $535 million to the taxpayer.

Yes, every capital city needs a sports stadium, but did we need to have such a monument in such tough times? The majority of people thought not, but I suspect because of deals done and promises made, it went full steam ahead, and I have no doubt that every person in this state is well aware that this sporting arena will be paid for not only by their hard-earned dollars but that of their children, and most likely their grandchildren.

The same applies to the new hospital, that promises not to deliver more beds and services, but an art gallery that will provide signage of where one needs to go. Really, extravagance in the face of hard times so that senior ministers of this government can pat themselves on the back and feel proud. Surely, providing much-needed services and health care to the sick and vulnerable would really be something to truly take pride in.

Mr President, I say this again and again at the risk of being repetitive: the people of SA are hurting and, as the weeks go by, more and more are falling into the category of the working poor, and all of this seems to roll off this government like water off a duck's back. We are told there is no money to fund this service or that service and that cuts are necessary, and then the people see a government prepared to enter into financial agreements or PPPs and commit millions upon millions to non-essentials, while the sick and vulnerable have to suck it up and live in conditions that this state and this country would have once believed to be unacceptable.

This government scrounges back an increase for the aged pensioners, breaking a promise to the federal government, and then upgrades a cricket oval. This government attempts to close a community centre—no doubt a land grab—and then minister Portolesi spends $20,000 on a fly-in, fly-out trip to the APY lands for a photo opportunity as the Red Cross are handing out food parcels to hungry Aboriginal children.

Then this same minister is exposed for flying business class with her daughter overseas, with the cost of the airfares totalling $14,000. The explanation given to the people of this state who paid for these trips was, 'Parliamentary rules allow MPs allow to take one family member on an overseas trip once a year.' Perhaps, just because the rules say that it can be done, it would be prudent to reflect on the hardship of the ordinary person and then make a judgement call. Surely, if times are tough, they are tough for everyone, not just the people who provide the cash flow to this government and then expect that that money would be spent in their best interest.

We also saw the former premier and treasurer ensure that there was basically nothing left in their travel allowances to be refunded on their retirement, while most people right now cannot even afford to take their children away for a weekend. The inappropriate use of funds seems to be now a badge of honour for a number of Labor MPs, even at the federal level. Again, all of this while austerity measures are the play of the day to secure our financial future.

Is it any wonder that the term 'ruling elite' is surfacing more and more? When did the Labor government or the Labor Party decide that there was a law of entitlement to taxpayer funds when so many average citizens are struggling to pay for water, electricity, food and fuel? In 2010 around this same time, on the night of the election, then premier Mike Rann said:

'I recognise tonight we have suffered some big swings and we have to listen to the message of the people,' he said.

'And we will listen to that message and we will reconnect with the people in an energised and positive way because everything we must do in the future is about them and their families and their children's future.

'I want us to absolutely commit tonight, win or lose tonight, to go out to the suburbs, to the streets, to the rural communities, to the farms and factories and reconnect in a way where we can reinvigorate what we are doing to make sure we have a positive future for this state.'

Obviously, this reconnection with rural SA did not include the neglect or closure of their hospitals, the intrusion of the NRM into the lives of good, honest food producers or, of course, the forward sale of SA forests in the South-East. One might ask what other issues did this government think it could possibly reconnect on in rural South Australia and who would not be affected to want to re-engage with this government?

This seemingly heartfelt speech seemed like a good starting point for all of us to look forward to because, as we all know in this place, many South Australian citizens are hurting, and hurting in ways that only occur when governments ignore the concerns of the people it is elected to serve. It is fair to say that the government took a significant hit at that last election, with almost every minister of this government having a warning shot fired across their bow. An 8.8 per cent swing against any government should not be ignored.

There were significant swings away from the government for the ministers overseeing important social issues, such as disabilities, family and community services, housing, industrial relations, primary industries, education, and mental health and substance abuse, not to mention the significant swing against the premier himself.

I am curious to know just who the then premier intended to reconnect and re-engage with, because we all know that the issues raised in this place that negatively impact on South Australians have varied very little over the six years I have been here, and the government response to those issues has been seen as little more than patronising and condescending, to say the least. It appears that the aspirations of the Hon. Mike Rann were either a dismal failure or, as most have concluded, it simply made good television at the time.

Both the former premier and treasurer managed to hang in there longer than most expected, and many watched as the mentoring of our premier-elect rolled out into one insult after another—hardly the hallmark of a friendly departure. Of course, the speculation about the former treasurer, the Hon. Kevin Foley, became more and more ungracious as his conduct in public came to the attention of the South Australian people. It is fair to say that the Hon. Kevin Foley has left an indelible mark against the title 'honourable' for a long time to come. He was able singlehandedly to lower whatever expectations people have of their political leaders even more, if that is possible. This is the same Labor government that is talking about introducing a code of conduct for parliamentarians.

Indeed, the Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, and his team have a huge task ahead of them to restore public opinion in favour of a Labor government, and that is demonstrated again that the longheld values of the labour movement have been traded for values that fall far short of public expectation. Many have been forced to re-evaluate their lifelong voting habits and have pledged never to vote Labor again.

I have no doubt that these words will fall on deaf ears because, sadly, denial seems to be one of the most prominent features of this government—denial that the people can see with their own eyes. This is a government that is more focused on undoing this state by ignoring the social issues that grow worse and by ignoring the fact that people are hurting at the hands of government departments and statutory authorities, and ministers are content to fiddle while SA burns.

Now we hear the current Premier acknowledge that they have a lot of work to do, and this will need to be more than a public relations exercise for the people to buy it. It should be loud and clear by now that the people just do not want what this government has been trying to sell. Any smart person would be forced to undertake a critical analysis of how it was doing business, and I wonder whether this government has what it really takes to honestly re-evaluate where it has been trying to take this state and how their electors feel about that.

I can tell you right here right now that this government has been branded as the most power hungry, control hungry government in memory, with poor social policies that do not fit with what Australians believe is needed. So, what did we see in the 12 months following that seemingly genuine objective to reconnect and re-engage? Well, WorkCover. It remains a mess, and those who are unfortunate enough to need help and support are let down time and time again.

Yet, we still must endure the pathetic advertising campaign on radio about the successful return-to-work rate of some poor schmuck who needs to learn how to use a saw and we will still watch while dollars are needlessly spent on PR campaigns of an awards night for injured workers. We do not even go near the litigation that it is costing WorkCover.

Meanwhile, one person who has literally devoted her life as an advocate to injured workers, Ms Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson, has had to put together food parcels with support from me to ensure that those people she advocates for do not have to choose whether they pay a power bill or eat. This has cost me a mere $6,000 to ensure that injured workers have food on their table for them and their children—$6,000 only.

But there is no money for Ms Rosemary McKenzie who does this out of her own time, out of her own pocket. The delivery of food parcels is only one of the many services that Rosemary delivers free of charge, and many injured workers' lives have been made that little bit easier because someone cared. Again, it is not a good look for a Labor government that is supposed to be all about social justice and equity.

The disability sector remains in disarray, with essential services and equipment still not accessible to those who need them. The Hon. Kelly Vincent has raised numerous issues facing the disability sector in this place and, like the rest of us, I suspect the answers she gets are nothing more than bureaucratic doublespeak that, when deciphered, translate to 'Too bad, too sad. We are in tough times.'

Housing SA is still plagued with reports of violent and abusive tenants disrupting the lives of entire neighbourhoods and the ongoing call for public housing to be used for its intended purpose of assisting low income families to put a roof over their head instead of the system of welfare housing where criminals and drug addicts have become the priority. Yet again, another community hero who spends her time and effort advocating for the pathetic situation of Housing SA tenants, Ms Julie MacDonald, is the only person in this state who is making an effort to hold this government to account for the breaking down of what used to be a fine scheme for the struggling families of this state.

Child protection: well, do not even go there. The old saying applies that when nothing changes, then nothing changes. The former minister (Hon. Jennifer Rankine) made a solemn promise that the world would spin in a different direction once a new CEO was appointed in 2009. Children who are at risk and should be removed, are not, and children who should not be removed, are, and the merry-go-round of human misery remains in business.

Victims of abuse in state care are still waiting for the state to develop some code or to be the model citizen, as it promised, and deliver justice in a timely fashion and provide assistance for those victims to heal as best they can. There is the debacle around Ward 4G and changing the services to those who suffer from eating disorders to an untried and unproven model. The motto for this government on issues of health is not, 'If it ain't broken, don't fix it' but rather, 'If we can save a buck, then bugger the outcomes.'

Farmers have been put under the hammer, being expected to comply with the views of bureaucrats who have learnt their farming skills out of a textbook (probably) or somewhere other than on the land. An entire farming community has threatened to go to gaol rather than comply with metering their dams or allowing NRM officers onto their land without prior warning. These farmers and food growers have had to learn to be political lobbyists, to expose the lunacy of some of the NRM policies and fines for non-compliance of policies that will eventually force them off the land, if they remain silent.

Again, another citizen steps up: Mr Peter Manuel, and some of his associates, and devotes his time and effort to advocating for farmers and food growers through an organisation known as FLAG SA. Efforts have been made to sully the reputation of this man, to discredit him, and yet he still manages to attract new membership to his organisation every day because the issues he raises are the real issues of the farming community, not just stories that are made up to make this government look bad.

I comfortably make this prediction for 2014: that the issue of NRM boards across this state will be a make or break deal for both the government and the opposition because the farmers and food growers of SA have set up an information network that spans across every state in this country, as well as overseas, and they no longer need a crystal ball to see what the future holds for the food security of this state if we continue down the path of this green agenda. Environmental policies will ensure that there will be no food security in this state. Peter Manuel and his organisation have identified that they now have a responsibility and cannot sit back and do nothing or say nothing.

Our policies, as I have said in here on a number of occasions, are not the result of careful consideration, but merely policies that have been handed down from international organisations not elected by the people of this state or even this country. For some time, the people of SA believed that their appointed ministers would provide the safety net between good policy and the fanatical green agenda. Then, they realised that none of their ministers seemed capable of questioning any of these policies. It became obvious that ministers of this government were nothing more than a mouthpiece for the policy and bureaucracy that instructs them, and suddenly the ABC television series of Yes Minister did not seem quite so funny anymore.

The forward sale of the forests will go ahead. It is a tough decision but someone has to do it. Hardly a convincing argument to so many concerned for their livelihoods, but never mind, it is still two years to go before the next election.

The Attorney-General seems more than willing to pursue the 'tough on law and order' agenda, yet fails to equate that to justice issues that are a benchmark of a fair government that seeks balance rather than power over the people. The first law officer of this land must be the model citizen in both his judgements and the legislation he puts forward. So far, his pathetic attempts to justify poor judgement and poor legislation have fooled no-one—just park legislation, as the Hon. Stephen Wade mentioned earlier.

When all else fails, however, we revert to the old and tired public safety fear campaign and talk about the bikies and their threat, when in actual fact the people see this government as more of a public threat than all the bikies combined. The scandals, the abhorrent conduct of some politicians (both state and federal), and a party that either remains silent or defends these morally bankrupt individuals, tells the people only one thing—one law for them and another for us. Again, not a good look.

The education system is plagued with bad press over its inability to implement and enforce adequate and functional policies on bullying in schools and has failed on numerous occasions to support victims of abuse, including its own teachers. I was approached by parents in the northern suburbs who have stated to me that the new developments that have gone ahead out our way have not provided adequate educational facilities for their children. The claim was made that there are many children in these new developments who cannot get placements in kindergartens or even primary school for that matter.

One mother told me that her seven year old has not set foot inside a school, not because the child does not want to go to school but because there is no room in any school to take this child. One would have thought that the government would work with developers to ensure that the basic right of access to education was a no-brainer, but again we see poor planning affect families of this state. Again, working-class families are now forced to search for educational facilities for their children or pick up and move house rather than simply be able to have access to those facilities in their own area.

Our health system is faring no better under this government that vowed to re-engage and reconnect with the community. Country hospitals are neglected, city hospitals are understaffed and now, to add insult to injury, staff are required to pay for parking when they show up for work. I have been told by people who work at the QEH and who are on call that paying for their parking is costing them dearly and that they are insisting that the hospital provide taxi transportation to relieve their personal costs.

We also see that issues of violent and aggressive people in emergency rooms remains a problem, even after the health minister of 2005 (the Hon. Lea Stevens) promised that annexes to hospitals were a goer to relieve the stress of nursing staff. What we saw instead was security guards in emergency rooms and still no annexes, because apparently many of the promises made are now subject to the effects of that great global financial crisis—but we can afford a new hospital and a new sporting stadium.

Last but not least, in my opinion, one of the most stupid decisions of all for a new minister, when we are hearing about tough on law and order and tough on crime, is the canning of the Burnside report. The minister, the A-G and the Premier all made it perfectly clear this was a political decision. What does that mean? For the people of Burnside, it meant that there are some who are above the law and order agenda of this government. If you are a bikie, then look out. If you are merely a person connected to government, then you are off the hook. You will not even be investigated and your deeds will never be made known if you play the game of 'dodge and weave' and use the system to ensure that you will live to play another day.

Now of course even the newest minister of the Weatherill government is shrouded under a cloud of suspicion and mistrust, and little is expected of him in the future to uphold his role as a minister of the Crown because his first decision ensured that many people would not see justice done and that the losses they have incurred will never be recovered. Again, smart move and again, a great way to reconnect and re-engage with that electorate.

Although it may seem acceptable to run a state like a corporation, I remind this government that the citizens of SA are real living, breathing human beings and not part of a corporate machine who, once productivity decreases or ceases, are no longer considered viable and are thrown onto the scrapheap. This government has a duty of care—if not legally, then morally—to every single person in this state.

There are so many other issues that need to be addressed, such as the deliberate poisoning of our water with fluoride. I have not given up on that. Again, I note that countries all over the world now are re-evaluating this policy and are voting fluoride out of their water because of the toxic health effects that have now been proven. Again, we see a government and an opposition that turn a blind eye and pretend that this is not an issue.

The spraying of our air with heavy metals and toxins is occurring and chemtrails are not contrails or jet streams. That is just another example of the condescending attitude of this government and its advisers who obviously write the replies to questions asked. Chemtrails are part and parcel of a geo-engineering protocol that has been implemented across every state of this country, and Victoria even has legislation for this activity.

Although denied by the minister in response to a question I asked last year, a picture paints a thousand words, and hundreds of action shots of these planes spraying the population like bugs have been sent to me. Those pictures do not lie. I have seen this myself, and I have actually taken the time to draw the Hon. Stephen Wade's attention to this on two occasions.

On our trip to the Supreme Court the other week, I think there were about nine MPs whom I told to look up and notice the chemtrails in the sky. Again, this minister's already damaged reputation and credibility has been further jeopardised, if that is even possible, and the flippant response of the Hon. Ian Hunter on the day did him no favours either.

All I want to know about the chemtrails is: if we are being sprayed, with what? Who has authorised it? What chemicals are in those sprays? If there is nothing untoward, tell the truth. But, no, what do we do? We deny that there is any spraying happening and, therefore, the EPA does not need to monitor it. It is hardly an acceptable answer to a legitimate question and the concerns of many hundreds of South Australians.

All I can say is, 'Keep up the spin and denial and continue to show contempt for the people of this state and treat them like idiots and you will suffer the consequences at the next election, no matter how much BS is put forward and no matter how many spin doctors you employ.' There is no amount of spin, deception or denial that is going to see this government retain power in 2014.

What would secure it, though, would be an obvious and dedicated agenda to solve problems rather than pretend they are not there or try to convince people that what they are experiencing is simply a figment of their imagination. The pain, the hurt, the hardship and the struggle is real to many, and the more the government denies the presence of such negative impacts their decisions have on so many and the more the government tries to spin its way out of this cycle, the angrier and more cynical people become.

The feedback I was getting (and am still getting) is that the people of this state feel that this government and the bureaucracies have literally declared war on its own citizens. Again, this was reflected with every minister and the Premier getting a swift kick up the backside from the people of this state at the 2010 election, which is the only time that citizens' concerns and aspirations will ever be publicly noted. We have now seen this with Port Adelaide and Ramsay as well.

It seems that the electorate is slowly but surely waking up to the fact that nothing happens randomly in politics; that every move is carefully planned. They also believe that they are being lied to on an almost daily basis, and discontent is rising more and more as days go by. People now get that they are being led down the path that is intended for them rather than being taken to the place that they aspire to be. Once the electorate wakes up it is surely time to change how we do things in here. We can only create so many victim groups and then ignore their needs before the backlash is felt. As I have said over and over again, we make policies and decisions in this place to protect previous bad decisions rather than truly review what is not working and fix it, and for that we will all be held to account.

Secret courts, laws that now presume guilt instead of innocence, no recourse for people who believe that injustice has occurred, and families being broken down day after day is not a recipe for a peaceful and productive community. The voters are hearing the stories of their friends and witnessing the stories of their family members, and those who once believed that it was not possible for the state to turn on its own are now seeing it for themselves. Those who have had their lives destroyed by the actions of government agencies and statutory authorities have families and friends and they talk to others and such is the value of word of mouth.

Again, if this government wants to operate like a corporate body then perhaps a course in Business 101 would be well served. Customer service, customer satisfaction and word of mouth, and sound economic management all make successful businesses—ignore it at your peril. If we have a vision or wish to be remembered for our time in here, then I hope that vision encompasses a will of the majority in here to change what is not working and make it work, not for political gain but for the greater good.

I will support any government that puts forward solutions to the problems that the people of this state are experiencing, and the onus is on government to take the initiative on this. We do not just need a legislative agenda, we need ministers to be the leaders of their portfolios, not followers of their bureaucrats and, as leaders, bring in workable policies and enforce them in the best interests of the people of this state rather than trying to keep its unionised workforce at bay.

We want to see this government set a legislative agenda for this state, not a legislative agenda which brings us into line with other states and which is slowly taking away the power of this parliament and putting it under the federal government. We are becoming little more than an administrative arm. This ideology of levelling the playing field would not and cannot work because Australians have always prided themselves on their individuality and diversity.

What this and the federal government are trying to create with the harmonisation of legislation is a workforce, a community of drones, who do what they are told when they are told, and who will get so bogged down in process that the private sector will eventually fold under the pressure. It is much the same tactic as is being used on our farmers: bog them down with red tape, frustrate the hell out of them, and maybe one day they will walk away.

I truly do regret not being able to stand here and share the optimism of the Governor and take pride in the good news contained in his speech to open this session of parliament. Day in and day out I, like others, are hearing stories of personal tragedy, and it would be a pleasant relief to be able to see, touch and feel something of substance that shows that we are here in this place creating positive change for those who find themselves in such situations.

It is often for no other reason than because they went to work one day and were injured, through no fault of their own; or woke up one day to find their family destroyed through false allegations; or they have to bear another day of discomfort and suffering because they do not qualify for a disability pension; or they wake up to face another horror day of their drug-addicted child threatening violence or prostituting themselves or engaged in criminal activity because there is nowhere for them to get help. It could be children who have to front up to school to face endless bullying, harassment and intimidation, only to have the school they attend tell them to avoid the perpetrators or restrict their movements in order to avoid further incidents, or a parent whose child has run away to live a life of total freedom with some pervert who would then addict these kids to drugs, use them as prostitutes or for their own sick pleasure.

I look forward to the day when we can rely on government to respond to the needs of these people, when they can be referred to services and supports that exist in the real world rather than the imaginary world of paper policy, when we can guarantee that the legal and judicial system will dish out just sentences and consistently be on the side of the children, parents and families of this state with the conviction that the family is the foundation, the basic fabric of our society, that must be protected and supported at all costs. I support the motion.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:07): It gives me great pleasure to support the motion, and I wish to acknowledge the speech that His Excellency the Governor made to open the second session of the 52nd parliament a fortnight ago. I also welcome the fact that the government has announced that His Excellency has been appointed for a further two years. He has, of course, served the state very well in his term to date, and I do note his strong commitment to the northern suburbs, where he spent a lot of his young life. He is, of course, well known for his support of Central Districts Football Club, although I know he would wish the result of last year's grand final to have been different.

I commend the Governor for his support of other organisations, including the Northern Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group, which does a great deal to encourage young people—not just in the northern area now, but across much of the state—to take up a career in the manufacturing and technical industries that feature across the northern suburbs, in particular. He is also a great supporter of the Operation Flinders Foundation, of which I am an ambassador. I have commended him in this place before for the fact that he actually went out and walked with young people in the Northern Flinders last year, I believe. I also recognise the fact that His Excellency Mr Scarce and Mrs Scarce again attended the annual service to mark the opening of the parliamentary year that is conducted by the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship.

There were seven priorities highlighted in the Governor's speech, which is prepared for him by the government. I noted the reference to safe and active neighbourhoods and affordable living. It reminded me of the efforts the City of Playford has made for a number of years to get some government support. It has tried very hard at a federal level to get government support for a complete study of the vast areas of Housing SA properties within their city, many of which are very much reaching their use-by date. The City of Playford, I think, struggles under the need to renew infrastructure in that area, just as does Housing SA.

Certainly the Liberal Party and myself, as the then spokesman for the northern suburbs, supported the City of Playford in its efforts to get a proper investigation about the fact that a lot of those Housing SA properties are quite large residences on very large blocks and which now, in many cases, have only one or two people living in them, and that that land could be reutilised and have modern and many more residences on it, which would also take up some of the priorities a lot of us have for urban renewal.

I am pleased to say that eventually this government agreed to support the Playford council in that manner and the office of Northern Connections was charged with coming up with some sort of feasibility to support the Playford council's initiative in this area. I understand that that report has been brought down recently, and I think it has been delivered to the City of Playford. I am not sure that it has become public at this point, but I look forward to hearing more about what that feasibility has recommended, because certainly there is a large area there that has great potential for renewal and revitalisation. I also note a sentence on page 10 of the speech by the Governor:

But a great city also contains liveable neighbourhoods, the spaces where our families and communities can gather together in other ways.

Liveable communities do gather together, but in some cases this government is trying to limit the way in which some of these communities can gather together. People gather together for all sorts of reasons, whether it be to go to school or work, for recreation or for entertainment.

I am concerned, first, about the issue of the long, protracted area of the school bus contracts, which have seen a number of local and long-serving bus companies in a situation where they have had their school bus contracts ended, and we have seen a number of these companies impacted across the state. In fact, the Stock Journal on 9 February had a full-page coverage about the impact on relatively small bus companies across South Australia which had been impacted by the government's decision to give many of those contracts to large companies, many of them based or owned outside this state.

I took strong note of the full-page article in the Stock Journal, which does not normally report these sorts of issues, as it is more of an agricultural paper. I put on the record that my son was once the editor of the paper, but has not been for a couple of years. This article—and I am certainly not going to read it out—has a couple of telling headlines: 'Rural school buses run on empty', and, 'State Govt puts history, community links under threat'. This article goes on to highlight the plight of Harris Coaches from Gawler.

That is an organisation that I have not known closely, but I have known of for all of my life. It has operated for 56 years but has lost all of its public school runs for this year; that has an impact on the local community, and it has an impact on the organisations that some of the bus companies support and sponsor. We have not yet had any evidence that some of the other bodies that have taken their place are going to do that.

Talking about communities gathering together also brings me to the issue of the Gawler metropolitan bus service, which was announced with fanfare before the last election. In the last 10 days of the election campaign, there were many placards put up around Gawler and surrounds to say that a re-elected Labor government would bring in a metropolitan bus service to Gawler.

It was never said in so many words, but I think most people believed that that there would be buses in Gawler that would connect to the actual metropolitan bus service, which currently ends at Munno Parra. Many people believed that was going to be the case. I have looked through the documents and I cannot see where it actually said that in so many words, so I take the Labor Party's policy on merit; however, that was what a lot of people believed was going to be the case.

Having said that, what we do have is a service that operates in Gawler, going in loops around the town and linking back to the various railway stations. For some time, a large number of people have raised with me the community's concerns about the size of the buses being used, the lack of large patronage on those buses and the fact that they are ill-designed for the narrow streets and many roundabouts that are a feature of Gawler. I have raised these concerns with minister Chloë Fox, and also in the local media.

On 1 February this year, the member for Light in another place inserted a newsletter known as 'Lights On' in the Barossa Herald, which, as I understand, is a paid insert into that newspaper. In this newsletter, there was an article stating, 'Liberals to axe Gawler buses', which, in no uncertain fashion, criticised me for attacking and undermining this new transport service. Of course, the article reiterated that the Liberal Party would axe the bus service if it was elected to government.

In response to that, the shadow minister for transport and I issued a statement, and it was run by all of the local newspapers in the area, not just in the BarossaHerald. I will read what my colleague the member for Bragg said:

The Liberal Party totally supports Gawler having a bus service—in fact we want a service which is better than the one that Mr Piccolo is defending...Empty buses demonstrate the service is not running as it should and we need to look at how we can change that.

I would reiterate that I have been a public transport user all my life—I must say, trains much more than buses, but certainly a bus service in Gawler is something that has been asked for for a long time. It has been a priority for me to highlight concerns and suggested improvements that are made to me by regular commuters and others who use public transport.

In relation to this, I have called for a review of the current system, and that review should be based around the way the service is designed and the way it is delivered. Certainly, the use of the very large, outdated vehicles, without air conditioning, rumbling around those narrow streets and roundabouts is not desirable.

Having seen that the local media carried that statement by the member for Bragg and I refuting Mr Piccolo's article in that paid newsletter in the BarossaHerald and that heading 'Liberals to axe Gawler buses', in his address in reply contribution on 16 February he actually repeated the assertion in the House of Assembly. I say to the member for Light in the other place that he needs to realise that we are not out there to axe that service. The service can be improved and should be improved. He needs to listen to the community and make sure that minister Fox does something about reviewing the design and delivery of that service. I think the member for Light needs to get the message and not repeat, under parliamentary privilege, things that are not true.

There are a couple of other matters that I will deal with briefly. One is the ongoing issue of the forward sale of the forests in the South-East of this state. I must say that in the last week of parliamentary sitting I was disappointed that, when I asked questions of the Minister for Forests, firstly, about how the relatively small areas of plantation forests in the northern and hills regions of this state would be managed, given that the economy of scale of ForestrySA would be lost when the forward sale was completed, the minister could not answer that question. She had even less of an answer when I asked her about the future management plans of the 25,000 hectares of native forest, much of which is in the South-East, particularly in relation to the fire risk that that amount of native forest is vulnerable to.

I would also like to follow up on something that the Leader of the Opposition in the other place raised in her speech. She noted the new Premier's declaration about lifting the standard of debate and ensuring that credible questions get responsible and relevant answers. I know that we have seen more today from the Premier about answering questions from the other place. I could not agree more, but one of the things I have seen in the last several years in this place is a degeneration in the ability of this government to provide answers. Increasingly, answers are coming back in here that are 12 months old or more.

Members of the government who have not served in opposition seem to accept that it is just a bit of a joke. We raise legitimate questions from legitimate constituents and ask for a response. The minister then stands up and faithfully says they will refer it to their colleague in another place and bring back a response. Most of the time we have to accept that it is going to be many months. I must give credit to new minister the Hon. Mr Hunter because he has been bringing answers back in a relatively short time. However, we had one a fortnight ago that was 15 months old when it was brought back. That is not acceptable.

I will be urging my party, when we return to government after the next election, to make sure that we have a set number of sitting days to ensure that an answer must come back. If that answer does not come back, then the president of the day will need to hear a pretty good excuse as to why it has not come back. I think that it is a part of this parliament that has been lacking in recent years. It is a part of the Westminster democracy that I hold dear and I think that the government needs to have a look at that—and I mean that the government in this chamber needs to have a look at it.

A number of us have been told by members of the Public Service what the result of our inquiry is, that an answer has been drafted and that it is with the minister and has been approved and signed off on, but we know that for some weeks we will not get that answer because they will leave it until everything has been fixed up. You then get an answer afterwards to say, 'What are you worrying about? It has all been done.' To me, that is an insult. I appeal to the Leader of the Government and other members of the government in this chamber to ensure that questions that are asked in good faith are answered in good faith and answered in a much more prompt time frame.

Once again, I thank the Governor for the role that he plays in South Australia. I mean that in the way he covers the state very well. On the day he gave the opening speech to this parliament, the timing of that event was because he had a large event in the morning across the road at Government House with some of the exemplary students in this state and then he had to go to Murray Bridge to open a major building at a certain time, so he does get around the state. I commend him for that. I also commend the motion to the council.

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

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