HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-02-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

ADDRESS IN REPLY

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 28 February 2012.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:35): I rise to support this motion and to thank the Governor for his opening of the second session of the 52nd Parliament of South Australia. I echo my colleagues who have, I think without exception, paid tribute to His Excellency the Governor and his family and the office for their service to the South Australian Parliament and, of course, to the people of South Australia, and I add my support to those who have welcomed the news that Governor Scarce has been appointed for a further two-year term. I trust that this will also bode well for the continued success of Central Districts Football Club. I share the Governor's passion for Central Districts Football Club, despite last year's finals hiccup. I think that, if we had had just a few minutes more, we possibly could have got across the line.

Historically, the Governor's speech to open a session of parliament outlines for the people of South Australia what the legislative agenda for the government will be for that coming session. As we know, we are in an unusual situation, where we have gone from former premier Rann to current Premier Weatherill and where we have prorogued the parliament. Certainly, it has brought some interesting developments in recent weeks.

One welcome part of the speech, something that was historical for this parliament, was that it was the first proceedings of this parliament to be webcast, and that is, of course, something that the Greens welcome. I am very happy we have finally entered the 20th century. Unfortunately, we are not quite in the 21st century yet because we do not have the video to go with the audio, so perhaps that might come some time soon, although I do not know whether we want to inflict our visage upon people. However, I think the technology is there and we should be ashamed that we are the last parliament to access webcasting. I look forward to a better democracy as a result of this innovation, as we will know that people might potentially be listening to us as we speak.

Digital democracy still has some way to go in this parliament. I also hope that we will see developments such as the acceptance of electronic petitions, better transparency and accountability of the proceedings, and searchability of our Hansard, for example, through our website in the near future, because anyone who has ever tried as an outsider not on the intranet to search for a bit of Hansard would know that it is not the most user-friendly parliamentary system in the country. I certainly have greater ease finding things in the parliament of other states and territories than I do when dealing with our own.

The Governor's speech to this parliament, which was prorogued following a change from the former premier to current Premier Weatherill, outlined what I would call unfinished business. We heard that there is to be a review and a new Aboriginal heritage act. While I welcome that, this is certainly not a new announcement; this is something that the government has been reviewing since, I believe, 2009. So, I note with some concern that it has been announced as some new milestone to achieve, without that acknowledgement. I certainly think that, for transparency, that acknowledgement should be made, and it should have been in the Governor's speech.

I also note that the Rann government, and now the Weatherill government, has been reviewing the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act for some years as well. The issues, of course, in Indigenous affairs are, as we often hear, complex and challenging and, indeed, I agree with that. But that does not mean that they are so difficult that we cannot ensure that we progress them with the appropriate importance I think they should be apportioned.

I would say that the former minister (the minister before the current minister, Paul Caica) did not make an enormous contribution under her watch. Certainly, under her watch, we saw neither the Aboriginal Heritage Act nor the Aboriginal Lands Trust Act reach a point where we had draft legislation in this place or, indeed, any sort of final report. I for one, and the Greens, certainly want to work with the government in the area of Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation. It is a vital area that I think all parliamentarians should put their mind to in terms of a commitment to those who are the most disadvantaged in Australian society.

I was saddened to see what happened with the Australia Day debacle when petty and personal politics overtook what was an important recognition of the history of Aboriginal people in this country. I agree with my colleague, Adam Bandt, when he called for any debates in the federal parliament following that Australia Day incident to focus on closing the gap, not identifying faults or what a staffer did or said at a particular time. I certainly know, in the annals of history, which is the most important.

Under the Rann government, and now the Weatherill government, there has been a lot of rhetoric about law and order. There have been announcements of increased police and we have recently heard the announcement of a $3.5 million police station at Yalata, yet community constable positions remain unfilled. In one community those particular positions have remained unfilled since 2003 despite the fact that the chair of the community council in that community has attempted to assist the government to fill those positions, and despite the fact that applications have been made.

I am disheartened to see a direction where that which should be a shame, that those positions are not filled, is actually seen as business as usual. I hope that under the Weatherill government these sorts of instances in Aboriginal affairs will not be seen as business as usual. I also hope that we will see a greater focus on justice reinvestment and a recognition of one of the old principles that prevention is a lot better than cure and early intervention is not only a cost saving measure but it is a life-saving measure. The sacrifice of the lives of people who come into contact unnecessarily with the justice system and lose their future destroys families and destroys the fabric of our society, when a small investment in the early years could produce real and lasting results.

Another area that was a bit of unfinished business—but I certainly welcomed the announcement in the Governor's speech—was that of disability. Disability demands reification of our attitudes. In the Strong Voices blueprint document from the Social Inclusion Unit I note the words of Monsignor Cappo:

It is a plan not just for Government, but for the whole community, to change the way disability is considered as an issue. It is now time that Government and the community sees people with disability not for what they cannot do, but for who they are and what they can achieve as citizens.

The elected representative of the Dignity4Disability Party in this place challenges all of us in our day-to-day working lives here in parliament as to what a representative who happens to have a disability can do and can achieve. I welcome the contributions made by Dignity4Disability, but I am mindful that it is the responsibility of all of us to work on disability issues and to ensure that those with disabilities in our communities are not forgotten.

We have heard that a new disability act is to come before us, as outlined in the Governor's speech. I am disappointed that we have not got a commitment from government yet that that will be rights-based rather than welfare-based. I can only echo the recommendations that have come out of the report of the Office of the Public Advocate this week, that we must move from a welfare-based approach to disability to a rights-based approach and all that accompanies that.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has certainly been a great step forward at the international level. Many other areas of the world have adopted that approach and we have seen great gains. As I say, it is a different way of viewing disability and an area that needs public policy rethinking.

One area that did not get a mention in terms of disability is youth care. Across the country a young person with high care needs is often placed in aged care facilities. I understand that in South Australia close to 1,000 young people are currently living in aged care, and that is simply unacceptable. Young people with a disability deserve to be placed in specialised facilities that offer the rehabilitation and specialised care that they need to deal with acquired brain injuries and specific disabilities like Parkinson's disease, muscular dystrophy and so on.

They certainly do not need to be living in an aged-care facility where people are at the end of their lives. There is a burden on those young people because they are living with people who are passing away on a regular basis. It is not appropriate and it is not acceptable. I commend Victoria. It is to be congratulated because it opened the first youth-care facility in Melbourne over a year ago, possibly two years ago now. I think we can and we must follow suit in South Australia.

Of course, a youth-care facility could be a monument. We have come to see that monuments in this state have to be the biggest to count as a priority of government. South Australians deserve the best in health care, the best in education, the best in employment opportunities, the best environment and the best that we can offer for the future. They do not deserve an obsession with spin over substance where the debates revolve around a new or a rebuilt public hospital, or a new or a rebuilt sporting oval. We can spend up big at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, finding $2 million for some way-finding art, yet we cannot find just under half a million for the Keith Hospital. I am really disappointed that some of the mistakes of the past (with regard to the funding of that particular hospital) were not addressed in the Governor's speech.

Ultimately we will be remembered not for the statutes or for the monuments but for the real impact that we had on people's lives. We must lose the spin. We must not talk about homelessness as only people sleeping rough on the streets and our ability to reduce those numbers, while we do not talk about the women sleeping in cars in car parks in suburban shopping centres and then taking their children to school.

We do not talk about the hidden homelessness; we simply identify one area, focus on that in our state plan and congratulate ourselves with a pat on the back when we hit a target. Simply because an area is easily measured does not necessarily mean that it is the most important, and I certainly would point to mental health and wellbeing as an area that is very difficult to measure and very difficult to calculate, yet it is absolutely vital that we ensure that we have good mental health in our society.

I have heard a lot of spin. I think the most disappointing bit of spin over substance was during my first weeks here when I was informed that fewer children (wards of the state) were living in hotels than had done so in previous years—this was infants through to youth. At first I thought that was a great thing. I thought it was a great achievement. Then I discovered that, in fact, they were living in apartments, and that the numbers had gone up.

I do not buy the story that an apartment for a child as a home life is better than a hotel. I think both are unacceptable. I think it is unacceptable to learn that we have infants in the care of the state who are cared for probably by very well meaning but unqualified people who, for example, feed a young infant solids when the child is not physically equipped to handle that. To me that indicates that we do not have the best care for our children right from the start in this state.

We will be remembered for the decisions that we make here that impact on future generations. I hope that we will be leaving a society of compassion rather than creating a culture of fear. We will also be remembered for how we secure the future opportunities for South Australians. Of course, one such case that many speakers have touched on in both houses is the future of GMH at Elizabeth. I had a flashback this week after hearing all the speeches about Holden's and I remember I had a light blue T-shirt that had the lyrics from a song familiar to many growing up in the seventies—that I was as Aussie as football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars. It had a kangaroo on it but I do not think it had a Holden car.

As we have heard in past months, Holden cars in Australia may not necessarily be the Australia of the future, despite the fact that they have been certainly an icon of our past. We must grapple with what part Holden—and the manufacturing sector, more broadly—will play in our future. I have to agree with Greens member for Melbourne and the Greens industry spokesperson federally, Adam Bandt, when he says that future assistance to the car industry needs to drive innovation and a shift to electric vehicles if our Australian car industry is to survive.

We cannot just blame the high dollar for job cuts. We have to take responsibility and adapt to new markets, and the car industry certainly needs to go green if it is to survive in our particular conditions in Australia and in South Australia. The government needs to play an active role in driving that innovation and requiring the industry to change.

I certainly take cold comfort in the handouts given to the industry without ensuring that there is a future for that industry because, if we are simply giving workers a few more years before they then see the company move offshore, we are really not giving them real job security. We need to get ahead of the game, and certainly I condemn at a federal level the scrapping of the green car innovation fund because, although that had some problems, it was at least a step in the right direction.

Another area in which South Australians deserve that we provide the best is, of course, the area, before employment, of education. Unfortunately, the SACE system has not provided South Australian students with the best that we can offer. We have seen students used as guinea pigs. We have seen a lack of forward planning and an inability and an unwillingness to listen to the educators about the disaster that was before us. That leaves us in a position where we are now about to review the SACE.

Everyone who was involved in delivering and studying the SACE was saying that there was a problem. We knew that the compulsory research project was difficult to support. We knew that it was actually diminishing students' ability to do extra subjects such as languages and potentially harming their ability to get into tertiary academic institutions, certainly in other states, as their options were being cut off by being forced to do a research project.

We are also aware that there is a lack of librarians across the state and that teachers are being stretched even further when we know that they are pretty much at the limit of what they can manage at the moment. Yet, their calls to have preparation time and also to potentially offer students who wished to do another subject that was not a research project that option were ignored for years. Unfortunately, that particular cohort of students, I believe, has been used as guinea pigs and, certainly, the Greens have said that those students who were doing the research project have, in fact, been treated as a research project, and that is just not good enough.

Young people deserve the best education and the best employment opportunities that we can provide, but they also must have a vibrant culture. Certainly, I will be speaking further to this when the Hon. Michelle Lensink moves her motion about the travesty of losing young people from this state. One of the reasons young people leave, other than employment and education opportunities, is, of course, because they seek the vibrant cultures of our Eastern States in Australia.

I welcome the announcement of a Capital City Committee. I welcome what seems to be an attempt to work across government. I am concerned that the member for Adelaide is not invited to participate on this committee, and I would hope that that would not be because she is from a party that is not of the government. Certainly, I think, if we are to have a vibrant culture and a prosperous state, in those particular cases we must put aside our political differences and work together.

I would point to one particular area of vibrant culture that I think South Australia could do a lot better in. Last week, we saw the very first SLAM Day. That acronym stands for Save Live Australian Music. The very week that we saw the commemoration of Save Live Australian Music Day, we saw the reason why we need it, because we heard of the impending closure of the Jade Monkey later this year. The site on which the Jade Monkey has operated as a small live music venue for about a decade now is slated for development. I have no quibble with the development, that seems to be a positive thing, but I certainly think there must be more done to save small live music venues in South Australia—and, in particular, our capital city—if we are to support contemporary music.

I note that $500,000 has been allocated each year in South Australia for contemporary music. That was originally put in place as an amendment to the SA Gaming Machines Act 1992, and I remember helping friends who were in bands with grant applications and so on. I remember going along to those meetings where that amount was offered to, I guess, pacify the anger of the live music industry. I do commend the establishment of the Community Development Fund, but that figure of $500,000 was a minimum and it was set some 10 years ago. I understand it has not actually been increased since that time; certainly the 2010 arts policy document for the state, State of the Arts, makes no mention of contemporary music.

There is no contemporary music strategy in this state, unlike in Western Australia and Queensland. I understand that the government is currently either in the process of or about to finalise a review of the contemporary music funding program, but that review does not contemplate an increase to the allocation, yet in terms of our arts budget, is just one half of one per cent. I think that live music warrants more than that very paltry amount.

The small live music venues in this state being under threat is no different to the situation around the country. In Melbourne we have seen iconic venues under threat, and in Sydney we have seen the real diminution of the live music industry. In fact, the Australia Council report 'Vanishing Act' outlines just how dire the situation is.

Just as we saw the reopening of the Tuxedo Cat, something that I welcomed—and I commend the Premier for taking an interest in the arts and in venues like the Tuxedo Cat, and in projects like Renew Adelaide—we heard of the loss of the Jade Monkey. I do hope that a new home can be found for that particular venue, and I point to the huge groundswell of public support that indicates just how much South Australians do, in fact, care about live music and the live music scene. I think that government support should be commensurate with that public opinion.

It is time for the state government to step up its commitment to local live music or we will never see local talent follow in the footsteps of some of our proudest achievements: the Hilltop Hoods, the Angels, Mark of Cain, Master's Apprentices, I Killed the Prom Queen, the Audreys, and of course Cold Chisel. I do not know the Hon. John Gazzola's bands' names or I would throw them in here. Those young bands, new bands and emerging artists will never step out of their bedrooms and onto a local stage if there are no small live music venues. It is a long way to the top, as the lyric goes, but if you cannot take the first step you will never get to the end of the journey.

The Greens have also long called for changes to the welfare system at the federal level to remove the bias against practising musicians and help them earn a living wage. I think that supporting live musicians should be on the agenda not only of the arts departments but also education, Treasury, communications, trade and so much more. I do commend the Weatherill government, because I believe that the Premier has actually contacted the Jade Monkey personally and offered some assistance, so I look forward to more positive news in coming months on that front.

At this point I cannot leave unchallenged some of the various contributors' comments with regards to the Greens in the Port Adelaide by-election. I certainly note the words of the Leader of the Opposition in this house that this was some sort of a test for the Greens. Apparently it was a test for us to say to the government, and I quote:

We don't like the fact that you are selling the forests. We don't like Mount Barker; we don't like Buckland Park. We don't like the sort of economic management that you have undertaken. We do not like seeing our businesses uncompetitive, bus contracts going to Malaysian companies.

Well, we don't like those things. I would agree; we don't like those things. The Liberal opposition must remember that we have also not been in accord with them on various measures in this place. Certainly, on the Work Health and Safety Bill before us and for protections for child workers we have definitely not been in accord with the Liberal Party.

The Leader of the Opposition in this place pointed out that we had the opportunity as the Greens to preference the local candidate, Gary Johanson. Now, last I heard, the Liberal Party actually refused to field a candidate in these by-elections and there was an independent member of the Liberal Party who ran. I would point out to the Liberal Party members that the Greens, in fact, preferenced her above Gary Johanson.

We were informed in this place that a vote for the Greens was a vote for Labor. Well, no; a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens, and we have seen in recent elections that that is not a wasted vote. We had a nine-point plan for the port, and that is outlined on our website. It was a plan for the future of Port Adelaide. It was a plan for a new model for the port redevelopment, developing a tourism icon at Hart's Mill, protecting heritage at risk at Torrens Island, a better approach to development across the state, an EPA that works, protecting our marine environment, a decent system of WorkCover, helping South Australians in financial difficulty and investing in justice not prisons.

The Greens are no-one's lackey. These are Green priorities for the people of Port Adelaide. They have come from great consultation with the locals of Port Adelaide and they reflect Green ideas for Port Adelaide. We are no-one's preference machine; we are no-one's faction. We are here to see Green ideas into power. We take two seats in this place, but around the country we take 22 state and territory seats and, in federal parliament, we have 10. We have broken through in lower houses as well as upper houses and, in 2010, 1.6 million Australians voted Green. They did not vote Green to vote Labor or Liberal.

It is certainly telling that, when it comes down to it, there have been two recent occasions: in the Victorian elections, Labor and Liberal did a deal for the Liberals to preference Labor above the Greens to keep the Greens out of four key seats where we looked like taking those lower-house seats in the inner suburbs of Melbourne; and in Tasmania the Liberal Party, with 10 seats would not come to the five Greens who had been elected and the Greens were, in fact, forced by the situation to finally work with the Labor Party's 10 members.

That was only done after days of stand-off and the Governor sending both parties back to the drawing table and telling them that one of them had to work with the Greens. We have seen two ministers there in that Tasmanian government, Nick McKim and Cassy O'Connor, do fine work, but we will work with either party. I would point the Liberals to look to their record at refusing to work with the Greens.

I would say that the Greens here in this state upper house look forward to a changed, refreshed and renewed Weatherill government. We hope that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated, and we look forward to working with people from all parties who are elected to this place to represent the people of South Australia.


[Sitting suspended from 18:04 to 19:48]


The Hon. J.S. LEE (19:48): I rise to support the adoption of the Address in Reply given by His Excellency to open the Second Session of the 52nd Parliament on 14 February 2012. Along with the other honourable members, I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Governor and Mrs Scarce on their commitment to the community by doing an outstanding job in their roles. They demonstrate a high level of respect and courtesy to the people of this state and are great ambassadors for South Australia.

I place on the record my sincere congratulations to the Governor for his reappointment for a future term. This decision, I believe, is great news for the South Australian community. As the shadow parliamentary secretary for multicultural affairs for the Leader of the Opposition, I would also like to thank the Governor for his commitment to recognising the achievements and contributions of our citizens from culturally and linguistically diverse communities through the Governor's Multicultural Awards.

The Governor's address to open the parliament followed the grand traditions of the Westminster system. Therefore, he was acting and speaking on behalf of the government. The Governor was reading a prepared speech written by the Labor government of the day and, of course, the new Premier. My comments in replying to the Governor's address are not a reflection on the Governor but an assessment of the government. The opening speech by the Governor spoke about the future. He said:

My Government believes that, more than at any time since the formation of the first government for this State 175 years ago, our future will be determined by the decisions we make in this decade.

It is very interesting to observe that the government should talk about the future. Is it because they do not want to remind the people of South Australia about the past? Labor has been in government for 10 years and produced a very miserable report card for the state. So, the new Premier decided that those 10 years of hard Labor have nothing to do with him and he wants the people of South Australia to forget the past. Premier Jay Weatherill would rather shift the 10 years of Labor mess to the former premier Mike Rann as his legacy: bye, bye Mr Rann, walking away leaving the state in a mess but with a very handsome $200,000 golden handshake departure allowance package that the people of this state have to pay for.

The government and Premier Weatherill would like South Australians to forget the past 10 years and focus on the next decade. He is trying to mislead the people of South Australia by promising a new direction for Labor. Perhaps a few reminders will highlight why Premier Weatherill would use the Governor's speech to make people feel good about the future rather than looking at the past.

Mr Weatherill has sat in cabinet and signed off every bad Labor decision over the past decade. Perhaps Premier Weatherill was too embarrassed to mention the sale of the South-East forests and the SA Lotteries Commission in the opening speech to parliament. Despite underpinning their budget strategy, Premier Weatherill and the Labor government were ashamed to mention selling the harvesting rights of the South-East forests and selling the SA Lotteries Commission.

In the Governor's speech, he highlighted seven primary areas of focus for action. The first two themes were about a clean, green food industry and the mining boom and its benefits. Honourable members would know that most of the primary produce of food, wine and mining resources come from our regional South Australia. The question is: what has the Labor government done for the regions in the last decade? There has been the sustained neglect of regional South Australia, with many country communities devastated by Labor's city-centric policies.

Labor's ruthless and heartless attacks on the state's regions include selling the forward rotations of the state forests. I am on the forestry select committee, and I have heard first-hand evidence from the community of how unjust is this decision and how it will destroy many businesses and many families in the region. Another select committee I am on examined awarding a substantial part of regional bus contracts to an interstate company instead of staying with South Australian local providers.

Slashing funding to regional community hospitals in Keith, Ardrossan and Moonta is putting regional families at risk. The government has failed to adequately consult regional communities on marine parks; it has slashed jobs and funding from PIRSA, increased fees and charges imposed on fishing, wine, mining and farming sectors; and it has allowed regional roads to deteriorate, with a $200 million backlog in road maintenance across the state.

They also removed the petroleum subsidy scheme, which has seen petrol prices in country regions rise by 3.3¢ per litre. This is hurting regional South Australians, those who have the capacity to produce clean and green food. Removing the petroleum subsidy increases the cost of food, services and tourism and rips $50 million over 3.5 years from the pockets of regional communities. Labor had also landed regional South Australia in a jobs crisis, with the mining sector losing 1,000 jobs and the manufacturing and construction sectors each losing 3,400 jobs reported last year.

The new Premier Weatherill will, of course, distance himself from all these bad decisions he made when he sat in cabinet that crushed regional communities. Not once, Mr President, have we heard Premier Weatherill speak out against those decisions affecting the regions, not once; yet in the opening speech the government talks about the prosperity of the regions and expects the regions to be productive yet does very little to protect and support the people of regional South Australia.

In the Governor's speech the government spoke about the need to support advanced manufacturing. One would have thought that advanced manufacturing requires innovation. The federal Labor government has cut the only program designed to stimulate innovation in the state, namely, Innovate SA, to save $3 million. This cut comes despite the Labor government spending $5 million on the new Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy offices on Grenfell Street. By closing Innovate SA the government has cut the small and medium enterprise investment development program. It has let down business in South Australia. Another theme the government spoke about is a vibrant city. In his speech, the Governor said:

Our capital city centre should be a vibrant place that expresses our state's confidence and vitality.

Perhaps the government should have spoken about a vibrant city when it had a Labor minister in 2002 under Jane Lomax-Smith, the former member for Adelaide. For eight years she did nothing. The Labor government did nothing. Thank goodness for 2010 and we now have a hardworking Liberal member for Adelaide in Rachel Sanderson.

We all know that there is a high concentration of businesses located in the city. To develop a vibrant city means many things, but one of them has to be in relation to business confidence in the city. South Australia has the worst business confidence in the nation. As the parliamentary secretary for small business, I studied the ANZ Small Business Sales Trends recently published with great interest. The report has shown that small businesses are doing it tough in South Australia. Year on year sales figures for the 12 months ending January 2012 show that South Australia was the worst performer of all mainland states—only a 4.1 per cent increase in sales before inflation.

Also, according to ABS figures released today, South Australia's retail turnover performance dropped by 0.6 per cent compared to a national increase of 2.5 per cent. I would also like to refer to the NAB Retail Survey published on Monday 27 February this week, which showed that South Australia has suffered the lowest per capita retail spending in the nation for the past two years. Other states with lower taxes and better workers compensation schemes saw better growth in sales in the small business sector. Small businesses in South Australia are struggling under the highest taxes in Australia and the worst workers compensation scheme.

With the state budget in such a mess and Labor proposing to spend more than the state gets in revenue in the next three years to the tune of $367 million (deficit), $453 million (deficit) and $348 million (deficit), small businesses can expect more pain from Labor. The shadow treasurer (Hon. Iain Evans) in the other place pointed out that, even after selling the South-East forests and the Lotteries Commission, state debt would increase from $8 billion to over $11 billion.

Households and small business will pay the interest bill approaching $2 million per day through higher taxes. Is it any wonder that they are doing it tough in South Australia after a decade of Labor mess? Without the confidence to operate viable businesses, without the confidence to open its door to consumers and without the confidence to employ people, how can the people of Adelaide have the capacity to build a vibrant city under this government?

Both businesses and consumers in South Australia have lost confidence in the Weatherill Labor government. This Labor government has simply failed to create an environment that encourages and supports business growth in South Australia. Can we trust the Labor government to deliver a vibrant city? The judgement is: I think not.

Another theme the government spoke about is safe and active neighbourhoods. One only has to open the newspaper every day to know that so many neighbourhoods are no longer safe. So many people are living in fear. We all heard about the eight escapees who fled from the Cavan Youth Training Centre on Monday night. This is a clear threat to public safety, as these young men are all facing serious charges.

Labor's claimed urgency to tackle organised crime is a smokescreen to deflect from its poor performance on fighting crime. Despite having literally years to come back to parliament with organised crime laws, the delay still continues. None of Labor's 2010 serious crime or new community safety policy election promises have been implemented.

Another theme was affordable living. The words 'affordable living' are soon to become a foreign language for South Australians. The cost of living skyrockets under Labor. After a decade of this Labor government, South Australian families are struggling with the burden of increasing cost of living pressures. According to the CPI figures released by the ABS, in the past 16 months water bills have increased by 40 per cent, electricity bills have increased by 24.7 per cent, state taxes have increased by 7.4 per cent and housing rents have increased by 4.2 per cent.

The opening speech also spoke about early childhood as another priority area. I recognise that investment in our youngest children is important, but I cannot help feeling sad about those children who have grown up and become young people who are now struggling to find jobs. The number of South Australians in full-time work is the lowest in 12 months, with 1,300 full-time jobs disappearing in December 2011 alone.

Data just released by Roy Morgan reveals an even more disturbing story for the 226,000 South Australians—or one in four workers—who are either out of work or looking for more work. After a year of announcements, promises and even a change in premier, Labor has managed to deliver only part-time jobs.

The Roy Morgan data collected in January confirms that, in South Australia, of a workforce of 892,000 people, 106,000 (11.9 per cent) are unemployed. A further 120,000 people (13.5 per cent) are under-employed (part-time workers). The overall total of 226,000 South Australians (more than 25 per cent) looking for work, or looking for more work, is the highest of any state.

Our state's businesses pay the highest taxes in Australia under the Weatherill Labor government. This means that businesses have less money and lack confidence to hire staff. Labor made an election promise exactly two years ago to create 100,000 new jobs but, at this rate, it will not even meet half its target. Premier Weatherill must explain why South Australians have fewer opportunities after 10 years of this Labor government.

The Labor government must re-look at its priorities and address the current pressures facing families now. It must start addressing the unemployment issues. Bear in mind that families with jobs and security are in the best position to bring up healthy children and therefore be able to invest in developing early childhood wellbeing for their own children.

South Australians are suffering under 10 years of Labor mismanagement, ranging from massive cost of living increases to a damaging youth unemployment rate. Labor has a lot to answer for. Labor has also failed to manage the state budget and invest for the future. I call on the government to start acting in the best interests of all South Australians. With those remarks, I commend the motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas.

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