Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 21 May 2014.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (10:32): I thank the Governor for his speech, which outlined the Weatherill government's program for the next four years. As I have been quoted as saying publicly and repeat again today, in my view, it is the most lacklustre government program that I have ever seen in all my time in parliament and observing parliament for some time prior to me being in parliament, but there will be time for addressing that over the coming four years.

At the outset, can I acknowledge the retired members of the Legislative Council: the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. Ann Bressington. Much was said about the Hon. Carmel Zollo prior to her leaving because everyone knew that she was leaving. In relation to the Hon. Ms Bressington, there was a slightly different set of circumstances.

I want to place on the public record my acknowledgement for the work that the Hon. Ann Bressington did during her time in parliament. Certainly, from my viewpoint, I appreciated, in particular, the practical input from someone who had actually been there and done that in relation to drug-related issues. In particular, I know people within SA Health took a strongly divergent view, but the Hon. Ann Bressington, for the reasons she has outlined, had a personal background and then a professional background in the area. Certainly, some of us, and I put myself in that category, acknowledge the input she had on those issues as we debated them in the parliament.

I did not agree with all of her views on issues such as fluoridation and others, but that is, in my view, the beauty and the joy of this chamber. Hopefully, we can respect divergent views in this chamber, even if we disagree with some of those, and can acknowledge the expertise and the capacity that each member brings to the table on particular issues.

I want to congratulate the new members of the Legislative Council: the Hon. Tung Ngo but, in particular, my new colleague, the Hon. Mr McLachlan. I am delighted that he has joined the Liberal Party ranks in this chamber. I am delighted that he has also agreed to serve on the Budget and Finance Committee and to dip his toes in the select committee waters by having a look at how a select committee on the controversial issue of Gillman will eventuate—on both of those, we will serve together.

Given his undoubted expertise in business, in finance, in community affairs and a range of other areas, as he outlined in his impressive maiden speech to this chamber, I believe he will bring a lot to the legislative table. He certainly brings a lot to the Liberal Party, and on another occasion I will address some of the disparaging comments made about this chamber by the leader writer of The Advertiser today, along with the Attorney-General of the state (and the Premier on some occasions), but I will leave that to another occasion.

Certainly if I can speak on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I believe in the Hon. Mr McLachlan there is the perfect example of a quality candidate bringing a lot to table, I hope over the coming years in the chamber. Hopefully, the leader writer for The Advertiser at the very least—I am sure we will not change the views of the current Premier and the current Attorney-General—and others will come to see the value that some members of this chamber can bring to bear in terms of public debate.

I also welcome back the re-elected MLCs on both sides of the chamber. There has been reference already to the Hon. Mr Maher being re-elected to this chamber. The Hon. Mr Gazzola pointed out that the Hon. Mr Maher was deeply despondent some six months out prior to the election. My understanding is that the Hon. Mr Maher was so deeply despondent that he had a $1,000 bet with another Labor colleague last year that he would not be re-elected to the chamber in the No.4 position in the Legislative Council. The worrying thing is that he may well be following the example of the welsher from the west, the member for West Torrens, and not paying up. The member for West Torrens has not paid up his $50, but the Hon. Mr Maher obviously deals in bigger gambling stakes than does the member for West Torrens, if he is putting—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: It doesn't really matter if you're not going to pay it.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That is true, if you have a bet and you don't pay up. Let's hope he clears the decks and pays up on that particular bet with his Labor colleague.

It does indicate the concerns at that time, which I will return to later in the address—the deep concerns between the left and the right in the Labor Party. The Hon. Mr Maher was bitterly disappointed that the right at that stage had done him over and put the Hon. Mr Ngo from the right in the No. 3 position on the ticket. He believed he was entitled to that because he believed he would lose in the election at the No. 4 position. I understand that wiser heads in the Labor Party told him to 'settle down, you are only a new chum and you will be re-elected at the election'.

I also welcome the new Liberal MPs in another place. I single out two in particular: Troy Bell, the member for Mount Gambier. I do so because Mount Gambier, as members will know, is my home town. Members of my family know Troy Bell through his education background. They spoke highly of him when the Liberal Party preselected him, and I know he will be a first-class representative for the seat of Mount Gambier.

I also welcome the new member for Hartley, the new lion of Hartley, from the Liberal Party viewpoint, Vincent Tarzia. In doing that I also not only congratulate him but also congratulate his family, in particular his parents who worked long and hard over a long period of time to assist him in his election, as did his many volunteers. As a member of his supporting team, we had the interminable Saturday early a.m. meetings that his campaign group held over a long period of time in terms of running his campaign.

Together with the member for Bragg, I was pleased to be associated with and to have been a small part of the team that had Vincent elected. I am also pleased to note that this unholy alliance between the member for Bragg and me, which saw the election of Vincent Tarzia in 2014, was also associated with supporting the election of Steven Marshall in Norwood in 2010. I am hoping that in 2018 the party might see fit that the member for Bragg and I be paired in another seat, which hopefully we can win, as part of a quest—a long quest now—for victory in 2018.

Finally, in terms of acknowledgements, and as other members have, I place on the public record best wishes from my wife Marie and me to Bob Such and his family in relation to his health issues. Unlike most others, I served with Bob when he was a member of the Liberal Party and in the Liberal cabinet, and we certainly wish him well in the very difficult battle he has with his health.

The first issue I want to address in my Address in Reply is to outline some early concerns I have about the operations of the ICAC in South Australia. These are concerns that I hope will be considered by the oversight committee that was established under the ICAC Act under section 47—the Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee—and that also might be considered with the annual review of the exercise of powers, when the Attorney-General appoints an independent person to conduct a review of operations during each financial year. I will return to that aspect later on.

In making these comments about my early concerns about its operations, I want to place on the public record and make it quite clear that I am making no criticism at all of commissioner Lander. I have known commissioner Lander for a long period of time and I hold him in the highest regard, and have great respect for his past record and great respect for the way, I am sure, he will set about tackling the particular task that is before us.

The issues and concerns I have are about how we, as a parliament, draft some aspects of the legislation. More particularly, my concerns are directed as to how the Weatherill government is using the ICAC, in my view, as an instrument of intimidation against public servants and staffers who are suspected of leaking, in the public interest, to journalists, the media and members of parliament. That is where my criticisms are to be directed in my contribution today: not at the commissioner but at the way we potentially craft the legislation and, more importantly, the way that this government uses the ICAC as an instrument of intimidation.

I am aware that the government, for a period of time now, has been very concerned about the large number of leaks of information, very embarrassing to the government, that are getting to both members of parliament and into the public arena. In my view, what has occurred since the establishment of the ICAC has been a deliberate strategy from the government and its officers of referring a number of these leaks to the ICAC for its consideration. I understand there might be at least two examples of leaked information that first appeared in the media being referred to the ICAC.

The first of these relates to the leaking of Premier Weatherill's confidential campaign strategy to the media. There was a whole series of articles, but I will not go through the details of those. In the Sunday Mail on 20 October, 'Did Des Corcoran's daughter try to destroy a Labor government?' was the headline of the story. Another headline revealed, 'Daughter of ex-Labor premier accused over leak. Did this woman betray Jay?'

The editorial that day stated, 'Tough on leaks, soft on creeps', and there was a whole series of articles in relation to that. That particular one was just the embarrassment to Premier Weatherill and his people that his confidential strategy had been leaked in the public interest by somebody; I am certainly not accusing Mary Lou Corcoran, but that was the coverage at the time. One of the articles by Sheradyn Holderhead states:

The woman, who Jay Weatherill believes was responsible for leaked confidential documents about his election strategy, can today be revealed as the daughter of former Labor premier Des Corcoran.

So that is pretty clear in terms of what The Advertiser had been told by some Labor sources. That was just the issue of Premier Weatherill being embarrassed that his campaign strategy had been leaked. It is not confidential commercial information, nothing about the security of the state; it is just a politician who has had his campaign strategy leaked and who is embarrassed about it and this issue is being pursued.

The second example refers to a story first covered, as I understand it, on 16 February of this year in the Sunday Mail, entitled, 'Teacher crimes under scrutiny'. It refers to some charges against teachers and some ongoing concerns about child protection-related issues within the education department. I do not need to go into the detail, but I give these as two examples—and I obviously do not have direct knowledge of the operations of the commission—of the case I want to put to this chamber. As I understand it, there may well be other examples where the government has referred similar types of issues to the ICAC.

The second general category, and I have direct knowledge of this, is that I have now been asked by two separate ICAC investigators to go along to the commission to assist them with inquiries into two separate examples of leaked information that I first raised in the Budget and Finance Committee of the parliament; one of those related to issues I raised in the public interest in May last year (so we are talking about 12 months ago) in relation to very serious dispute issues going on at senior levels of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, in particular the expenditure of taxpayers' funds through the appointment of a firm (and a firm does a range of things) and one of the tasks it was evidently given to do, that is, to investigate allegations and to try to mediate or settle disputes between two public servants.

I raised the issue in the Budget and Finance Committee and also the issue of taxpayers' money being potentially wasted in my view on the appointment of a very senior group of people—at, I imagine, quite considerable cost to taxpayers—to settle a dispute between two public servants within the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. That is the first issue.

The second issue, members will be much more familiar with; that is, over a long period of time I had been raising issues in this chamber, potentially with the Hon. Mr Hunter in one of his portfolio areas, and through the Budget and Finance Committee, with what was then known as the department for communities and social inclusion in relation to very significant wastage of taxpayers' money on the APY lands.

Members might recall issues of lavish spending towards the end of financial year, such as motorbikes costing $360,000 being purchased and then locked up in a shed up on the APY lands and not being used, and a whole range of other concerns about travel allowances and other areas in terms of wastage of public taxpayers' expenditure in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I have not had a chance to go through all the details of those press stories, but certainly I raised some questions way back in August 2012, which might have been when the first questions were raised; there were stories at that time. I managed to get some other members of the media interested in following up the issue in early 2013, and there are some stories in the media in April and June 2013 on some of the issues that came out of those questions. That was 12 months to two years ago, and I am being asked to assist the commission in relation to, as I understand it, information that has been provided to me from within the Public Service on those issues.

I understand there may be other members of parliament who have been asked to assist the commission in relation to what I might call, in Yes Minister terms, 'leak inquiries'. I do just note at this stage that I am ready and willing and able to assist if I can, but I have not yet been contacted by the ICAC to assist any inquiries into the very many corruption or misconduct allegations I have made, through the Budget and Finance Committee in particular, in relation to 'cartridgegate', property purchases by departments with the involvement of former ministerial staffers, non merit-based appointment processes in the public sector, and a range of other issues that have been raised over a long period of time. Certainly, if I can assist the commission at any stage, I would be only too happy to do so.

I want to firstly consider the ICAC powers in the legislation in the first examples I have used, where there is a leak to a journalist; that is, where a member of the Public Service decides, in the public interest in their judgement, to leak something to a journalist and it is run. I am not a lawyer, but certainly in the initial discussions I have had with lawyers it is clear that the ICAC, in those circumstances, should it so choose, can force a journalist to answer questions and can force a journalist to reveal the source of the leak.

I think this is an important issue for members of the media because, potentially, what we have here—and I have given two examples where I believe issues have been referred to an ICAC—is that, if a journalist receives information from a public servant on a matter of public interest and the journalist runs that story, potentially (and this is what I think the oversight committee and reviews should be looking at) the ICAC powers have the power to force that journalist to reveal the source of the information—in this case, the public servant.

Clearly, it is in the government's interests to scare the bejesus (to use a colloquial expression) out of the public servants, if they can, to try to prevent the release of information in the public interest to the media or to members of parliament. It is therefore in the Weatherill government's interest to try to get as many of these issues, if they can, to be considered by the ICAC.

I am assuming also, looking at the powers of the ICAC, that the ICAC could, if it deems that it is required—and there are certain safeguards and precautions—tap the phones of the journalists and the public servants. Again, I think that is an issue which needs to be explored in the review. It needs to be explored by the oversight committee of the parliament in relation to the powers.

I think there are some very significant issues here for journalists and members of the media that their association and they as individuals ought to be addressing because, if what I am outlining is correct, there is potentially a very serious threat under the Weatherill government's usage of the ICAC to limit the flow of information to journalists, in particular.

The second category I have looked at is if there is a leak to an MP. I think credit goes to a number of people for the drafting of the ICAC legislation but, as I understand it, in the original draft, clause 6, at least in its current form, might not have even existed but, as a result of informed advice from a number of individuals, and others, we have the parliamentary privilege clause which has been inserted and supported ultimately in the legislation. It states:

Parliamentary privilege unaffected

Nothing in this Act affects the privileges, immunities or powers of the Legislative Council or House of Assembly or their committees or members.

I would urge the oversight committee and the review to look at this provision and compare it with some of the provisions in the other legislation, and I am having some work done on that at the moment as well. Certainly, the equivalent provisions in the Western Australian and New South Wales legislation are significantly different from the provision in our legislation. My advice is that ours is to be supported if we want to protect the capacity of members to continue to take up difficult issues and, certainly at this stage, I am not raising any concerns about the current drafting.

I do list that because of the advice I have received in relation to how we should interpret this. I firstly spoke to parliamentary counsel, who gave me some statements of fact in relation to the legislation but then referred me to the undoubted expert in the state, from a parliamentary viewpoint, on parliamentary privilege, and that is, indeed, our own Clerk, in relation to how parliamentary privilege can be interpreted. After those discussions, and others, I have come to the conclusion that clause 6 certainly and absolutely protects us as members of parliament and the sources that come to us in relation to provision of information.

There are some, as I understand it, who might want to argue about that but, certainly, based on the advice I have received and my own very strong view is that, we are protected. In particular, what I am saying is that if a public servant, for example, provides a member of parliament with information in the public interest and the member of parliament uses that information to raise embarrassing issues about the Weatherill government in a committee or in the parliament, if the ICAC asks to see that member of parliament, he or she cannot be compelled to reveal the source of the information given to the MP. That is quite different from the dilemma that confronts a journalist who might be dragged before the ICAC; that is, the MP through this provision of parliamentary privilege will have his or her source.

I think this is an important message and one that I want to put on the public record in this debate for public servants who are interested in accountability and transparency of government processes and who do put the public interest first. I want to speak on my own behalf, first, and say that in my 32 years in parliament I have never burnt a source. I have never identified a source of information that has been provided to me and I have no intention of starting to burn sources in relation to information that is provided to me.

Certainly, from my viewpoint, should I at any stage be asked by anybody the source of the information provided, whether it be for the taxpayers' spending in the Department of the Premier and Cabinet or for the taxpayer spending in the APY lands and the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion or, indeed, others, I will not be revealing the source of that information unless, in the end, a source agrees that they want to be identified.

My observations about this whole process and my concerns are that with potentially where we are heading we are going to lead exactly to what the Weatherill government wants, and that is significantly reduced transparency and accountability—a very significant danger to democracy. I believe that where this potentially might head is not what was intended for the ICAC by virtually all or the majority of members of parliament in this chamber and in another chamber and that was, in particular, we were of the view that we were trying to root out corruption as the layperson understood it to be.

The sorts of things such as what we have seen in New South Wales and some other eastern states—the potential problems with 'cartridgegate' and others—are the sorts of issues most of us fought long and hard for, particularly on this side of the chamber, as it was the Weatherill government, the Labor government, that was dragged kicking and screaming to support an ICAC eventually, but that was essentially the purpose.

If, however, what we are seeing is an increasing number of resources, an increasing number of references, being taken up by the ICAC because the Weatherill government is embarrassed about leaks of campaign strategies or whatever else it might happen to be, then speaking personally that is certainly not what we were intending the ICAC to be devoting its time and effort to, and I am sure that would be a view shared by many others.

In considering how this could have occurred I have looked at the specific issue. The obvious question to be answered is: how is leaking information—such as an embarrassing leak about campaign strategies—under the ICAC Act interpreted by anyone to be corruption? I think it is an important issue. I can see that it could be interpreted as misconduct, because misconduct can be interpreted as, in essence, a breach of the code of conduct.

The Public Service Code of Conduct obviously says, without these exact words but when paraphrased, in essence: thou shalt not leak. There are obviously provisions, such as whistle-blower provisions and others in the public interest, but one could see how an allegation of leaking might be a misconduct issue. I am advised by the shadow attorney that if it is a misconduct issue it is referred to another agency to investigate, not the ICAC. It goes to the Ombudsman or some agency like that to consider misconduct issues.

So, I can understand if it was characterised as misconduct why there might be an inquiry by somebody such as an ombudsman or some other agency, but if the ICAC, as I understand it, is conducting these leak inquiries, how has that occurred? Now, again, the shadow attorney has advised me that to be corruption the ICAC has to determine there is some, in essence, personal benefit or interest in it for the person who is leaking. So potentially the ICAC could determine that a public servant in leaking information has been motivated in some way by personal benefit as opposed to public interest.

Now, if that is the potential interpretation that the ICAC is using, does that mean that the ICAC believes that the public servant who leaks to a journalist or to an MP has been paid money, for example, by the MP or the journalist? In all my time in politics I have never ever heard of an example where information that has leaked has been as a result of someone paying a public servant for that, but I guess if there were those circumstances, that is something the ICAC might deem to be corruption. Maybe the ICAC is making an assumption that anyone who leaks information is only doing so for the personal benefit, that if they are leaking to an opposition member of parliament or to a government member—more likely opposition member—at some stage in the future they might benefit by being given a job or a promotion in some way.

Again, in all of my 32 years in politics and on the information that has been provided to me, on no occasion has there ever been any discussion about what is in it for me. I am so upset about what is going on I want this to be raised publicly because something needs to be changed. That is almost overwhelmingly the reason that information is provided.

If, for example, the information has been leaked to a journalist, what is it that a journalist can offer? They cannot offer them a job, unless they can offer them a job as the editor of The Advertiser or the news editor of a television news station or something. I cannot see how the notion of a journalist being able to offer a personal benefit in relation to some sort of future job prospect might come about. So I am at a loss to understand—and, again, what I hope the oversight committee and the review under sections 46 and 47 will do is look at this issue and consider what have been the grounds for the ICAC in essence proceeding with leak inquiries, if that is indeed the case. That is the task ahead, I think, for that oversight committee and the independent review that has to be conducted by someone that the Attorney-General appoints.

The second broad area I want to address in my Address in Reply is the whole issue of the division, disunity and instability in the Labor government. It is clearly an important issue because the independent member for Frome has indicated that he is supporting the current Weatherill government on the basis of providing a stable government, and certainly the issues of division, disunity and instability in the Labor government will be key issues.

We have seen from the media feeding frenzy in the last two or three days that there is continuing public and media interest in this issue of division, disunity and instability in the current government. There is no doubt that there are continuing problems within the Weatherill government in terms of division, disunity and instability. We saw the outbreak early this year in relation to the right faction's attempt to drop Senator Farrell into the seat of Napier just prior to the state election and the comments that were being made at that particular time by named and unnamed members of the right. After that issue was resolved by Premier Weatherill, it was made quite clear that at that particular time those unnamed members of the Labor Party were threatening retribution.

I will just remind members of some of the comments quoted in the media at the time: 'Senior Labor right aligned MPs and figures have revealed recently to journalists that Weatherill created an effing disaster; Jay has had a tantrum, it's a bit effing rich. He has exposed a huge rift in the party. This is going to do a lot of damage to the party for a very long time. The Labor right will lock in between now and the election so will give the appearance of just moving on until March 15, then Weatherill will pay.' The Australian also reported one Labor right MP saying—and this is a direct quote—'Mr Weatherill is a dead man walking' and reveals that the powerful Labor right faction is 'assembling the arsenal and it is just a matter of timing.' Of course, Mr Weatherill's victory in March in essence delays the early onset, I imagine, of some of those foreboding warnings from the Labor right.

What we have seen in this last week from the Hon. Mr Gazzola's contribution to the Address in Reply and the public dispute between the Hon. Mr Gazzola and the Hon. Mr Wortley over the presidency has demonstrated that the divisions and disunity between the Labor factions, between the left and the right and between individuals, continues apace just barely bubbling beneath the surface, but every now and again erupting violently in the public domain. As you would be aware, Mr Acting President, the Hon. Mr Gazzola eventually backed down in this particular dispute. The reason he backed down was due to threats of retribution in relation to future preselections, future cabinet positions and future perks of office that the Labor right made to the Labor left, and the fact that the Labor right took the presidency position in this council for themselves was an early example of that.

With regard to the Hon. Mr Gazzola's speech this week, most of the media attention so far has related to the very colourful descriptions of the Hon. Mr Wortley as a parasite and an embarrassment to the Labor Party and his call for the Hon. Mr Wortley to resign from his position as Legislative Council President. That was followed on, of course, with further reference by the Hon. Mr Gazzola to allegations made in this council by the Hon. Mr Redford back in 1995 and the Hon. Mr Ridgway in 2011 of corruption within unions, and that has been playing out publicly again this morning, as I understand it, and even as we speak, in relation to further pursuit of those issues.

The Hon. Mr Wortley is a very colourful member of the Legislative Council, if I can say that in a nicely understated way. I refer members to a speech I gave in June 2011 in this chamber where I quoted my view that the Hon. Mr Wortley was a man of infinitely flexible principles and beliefs. Whilst he was now a member of the right, I referred members to an edition of Green Left of 9 November 1994 and an article written by Chris Spindler, in which he said:

A new left faction of the Labor Party, the Progressive Labor Alliance, has formed in South Australia following the walkout of a section from the existing left faction. The walkout includes 14 unions and state parliamentarian Peter Duncan.

Of course, this faction, which you would have some familiarity with, Mr Acting President, was known colloquially as 'the Duncan left' or 'the hard left'. The leader of the new faction was Mr Russell Wortley. Mr Wortley was quoted as follows:

I respect that point of view, and at times I'm quite ashamed of the direction that the Labor Party has taken. But sometimes the fight has to be fought inside the Labor Party. There is no point in deserting the Labor Party; otherwise there [will be] nothing to restrain the Labor Party from drifting off into the right.

This is the now Hon. Mr Wortley warning the Labor Party that you had to stay on and fight within the Labor Party because otherwise there would be nothing to restrain the Labor Party from drifting off into the right. He went on to say:

At least we have some influence to stop some of the direction.

That was Russell Wortley, convenor of the hard left faction, or the Duncan left faction, 1994. As you would be aware, Mr Acting President, the Hon. Mr Wortley, as I said, a man of infinitely flexible beliefs and principles, moved from that view and position and that faction to the right faction and was rewarded with a position in the Legislative Council.

The Hon. Mr Wortley's record is a sorry one in terms of his ministerial performance. As has been pointed out before, the fastest no confidence motion ever in this chamber, or in any chamber, I suspect, after only four (I think) sitting days as minister; a successful no confidence motion moved against him in this particular chamber.

There was his infamous statement, which was referred to by another member earlier this week, where he could not trust himself to read a particular document because he might leak it to somebody else—people he should not leak it to. As a minister, his own Premier did not trust him, not giving him any real work at all.

He was a minister for local government relations, which means just getting on with local government, and he stuffed that up. He was a minister for industrial relations when—as you know, Mr Acting President—virtually all industrial relations issues are now handled by the federal jurisdiction.

For the first time ever, the industrial relations portfolio had WorkCover removed from it. WorkCover has always been part of the industrial relations minister's portfolio, but the Labor government decided he could not be trusted to handle the WorkCover issue so, for the first time ever, WorkCover was removed from the portfolio. He had, I think, 17 or 18 full-time staff in his office to handle what meagre tasks he needed to handle and then, eventually, he was sacked anyway by his own Premier.

There was the recent article in The Advertiser, 'Prosperous union for Labor's lucky couple', which had a very interesting photograph of the Hon. Mr Wortley indicating in that photograph what he thought of The Advertiser, I think, and The Advertiser photographer: a middle finger raised on the side of his face as the photograph was taken. I just wanted to correct that particular article—I am sure the Hon. Mr Wortley would wish me to do so—as to the accuracy of some of the information because the Tiser says that:

Labor pair Russell and Dana Wortley have experienced the lows of political life but will now command about $420,000 in combined taxpayer-funded salaries, after the former's elevation this week to Legislative Council President.

Just to put it on the public record, on my calculations, for the Hon. Mr Wortley and the member for Torrens, it will not be $420,000 in combined taxpayer-funded salaries, but will be closer to $455,000 in taxpayer-funded salaries, as the member for Torrens has received two paid committee positions which need to be added to that particular story and, in addition to that, of course, I would assume, access to two taxpayer-funded cars and, in addition to that, access to another taxpayer-funded car and chauffeur for the Hon. Mr Wortley as President of the Legislative Council.

I think the Hon. Mr Wortley's woes and lack of support within his own party were best demonstrated by the Leader of the Government's answer to a simple question that I put to her yesterday, where we gave the honourable Leader of the Government the opportunity to indicate support for the Hon. Mr Wortley as being the best person from her party to be the President of the Legislative Council. When one looks at that answer, the Hon. Ms Gago studiously refused to provide any such support or endorsement for the Hon. Mr Wortley—a yet further indication of the deep divisions and disunity within the Labor Party on not only this issue but a range of issues.

The media attention thus far this week on the Hon. Mr Gazzola's speech has rightly, I guess, or understandably, concentrated on the 'parasite' and resignation issues, but I would refer members to a closer reading of the Hon. Mr Gazzola's speech in a couple of other sections because it is clear they have been made for particular reasons. He says:

I also note, from the Governor's speech, that the government will reform the existing WorkCover scheme so that it works effectively for both workers and employers and 'will also protect and enhance the wellbeing of the most seriously injured at work and will hold a clearer focus on recovery, retraining and return to work for those less seriously injured'. Changes to WorkCover will be subject to scrutiny and debate in this place in the not too distant future.

He then goes on to quote, with no other reference other than a reference back, obviously, to this WorkCover debate, that a survey of ALP members—the 2014 Vision for Australia Survey of Labor Supporters—indicates the 'importance of substantial engagement with supporters on the issues of policy and representation'.

Clearly the Hon. Mr Gazzola's message there is, as is similar to the message of the member for Ashford in the House of Assembly, that on the issue of WorkCover, which the right through minister Rau are attempting to crunch through the Labor caucus, there will be a fearful fight within the Labor caucus, flagged by the member for Ashford and flagged, albeit obliquely, by the Hon. Mr Gazzola in this speech, within the Labor caucus on this particular issue. Of course the Hon. Mr Gazzola and the member for Ashford do not have too much to lose in terms of speaking fearlessly, because it is obvious that neither of those members, as I understand it, will be seeking further Labor Party endorsement at future elections.

The second point the Hon. Mr Gazzola was making in his speech—and one would have to look at why he would say these things—is that he is quite specific about making comments about the Hon. Mr Maher. He rejects the claim I have made that there is trouble in paradise between the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Gazzola. I stand by every statement I have made. I know for a fact that there are major issues between the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Gazzola and others in relation to the Hon. Mr Maher's lack of support for the Hon. Mr Gazzola as a fellow lefty and fellow member of the left, someone from whom the Hon. Mr Maher has sought advice (as well as from the Hon. Mr Sneath) as a new left member of this chamber. I do not agree with the Hon. Mr Gazzola's assessment that all is smelling of roses in the relationship between the Hon. Mr Maher and the Hon. Mr Gazzola.

I urge members and journalists to look at his comments in relation to the Hon. Mr Maher. He quotes from Mr Maher's maiden speech, which basically says good things about the Hon. Mr Gazzola, and he puts that on the public record. He then goes on to say:

About six months prior to the election a very dejected Hon. Mr Maher had all but given up hope. Now the Hon. Mr Maher is a parliamentary secretary on his way to a ministry.

He then says:

As a member of the left faction the Hon. Mr Maher will have to be quite creative in how and with whose support he becomes a minister.

The Hon. Mr Gazzola is saying that for a purpose and a reason. This is a message to the Hon. Mr Maher and a message to others. He is saying specifically to the Hon. Mr Maher: you've got on the first rung—parliamentary secretary—you did have the support of many of us in the past, but he is saying now that, 'the Hon. Mr Maher will have to be quite creative in how and with whose support he becomes a minister'. That is a clearly warning shot to the Hon. Mr Maher. The Hon. Mr Gazzola does not say that in an Address in Reply speech just by happenstance. There is a purpose in what he said in this speech—it was a cleverly crafted speech and there was a message in every line and every paragraph for somebody, and I think some people have missed some of it. The final line is the clincher:

The Hon. Mr Maher is the future and a member of new Labor—

whatever that is—

whereas I—

that's Mr Gazzola—

am old Labor, which valued loyalty and collectivism.

So the message from the Hon. Mr Gazzola to the Hon. Mr Maher, in clear terms, is that the Hon. Mr Gazzola and Hon. Mr Sneath were old lefties, they were old Labor. How does he define old Labor? These are people who value loyalty and collectivism, that is, they are loyal to their colleagues and they will be loyal to you. He is saying to Mr Maher: 'You're not old Labor, you're not characterised by loyalty and collectivism, you're in it for yourself, and you have dudded your colleagues, you've not been loyal, you've not abided by the collectivism of the Labor left,' and he is calling you out on it.

That is a clear, specific and scathing message to the Hon. Mr Maher from one of his own colleagues. I am sure the Hon. Mr Maher would be used to people on this side of the chamber slinging arrows at him and being critical of him, but this is one of his friends, a fellow Labor leftie, in essence, publicly calling the Hon. Mr Maher out in terms of the way he has behaved. I think the view of many within the Labor left is that the Hon. Mr Maher might need to take the message that has been given to him by some senior members of the Labor left.

I did note, with a bit of a chuckle, that in the Hon. Mr Gazzola's speech he said, 'In my situation there was no consultation, no discussion, no negotiation and no ham and pineapple pizza.' As I tweeted last night, he did not get a ham and pineapple pizza but he did get the rough end of the pineapple inserted, by the Labor right, in an unfortunate position.

My final point, in terms of the division and disunity that the Hon. Mr Gazzola has highlighted in his carefully prepared presentation, relates to his final paragraph (which I am sure was said partly tongue in cheek). He said:

Finally, let there be no doubt that the Jay Weatherill minority government is united—

that is the bit that I believe is said firmly with tongue in cheek—

in that the right's dominance over policy and positions and a substantially weakened, almost to the point of irrelevant progressive left, gives the right almost free rein over the government's agenda.

What he is saying there is, 'We're all united, because in essence the right is crushing any view from anyone else, in particular from the progressive left, within the Labor caucus and the Labor government, and the views of minister Rau on WorkCover, the views of minister Koutsantonis on the budget issues and significant budget cuts, and all those, are the views of the Labor right crushing the views of the Labor left.'

As I said, media attention has understandably focused on the words 'parasite' and 'embarrassment to the labour movement', and that he should resign from the position as President. However, I urge members to look at what else the Hon. Mr Gazzola said and the messages he has left to the public in relation to division and disunity in the Labor Party, to the Hon. Mr Maher about personal ambition, loyalty and disloyalty and, I guess, to the community generally about the ongoing instability of the Weatherill Labor government.

In relation to the election result, I subscribe to the old adage that 'winners are grinners and losers can please themselves'. The Labor government has won, as I am sure you are aware Mr President, and they are busily, on every occasion, rewriting history. As I said, winners are grinners and losers can please themselves, and while we can debate particular issues in relation to aspects of the campaign in the electoral motions before the house, I accept that adage and acknowledge the reality.

However, I think what is of great concern to the people of South Australia is the hubris and ego of government ministers and staffers as a result of that election victory. There has been unseemly behaviour by some in terms of the hubris they have demonstrated. On election night, for example, down at the best footy club rooms in the state, the West Adelaide club rooms—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No, not the South Whyalla footy club; the West Adelaide footy club, where the Labor Party had its celebrations. One Labor media adviser said to a young female journalist, and I quote, 'You shouldn't be here you effing Tory bitch.' He then physically shoved the journalist, on that particular night. Even after that behaviour against a young female journalist, Premier Weatherill decided to keep on this Labor staffer, media advisor, Jason Gillick, because he and the government were obviously unhappy with the position that that particular media outlet had taken in the period leading up to the election.

I can just imagine if that had occurred on the other side of the fence—if a young Liberal staffer had behaved similarly to a journalist—the screams of outrage we would have heard from the Labor Party about an action calls for action. I think it is unacceptable. There was another example on that same night where another male journalist was abused but not physically pushed by Labor staffers who are still Labor staffers at the moment.

That sort of behaviour from journalists should not be accepted. It is being fed, of course, because the member for Croydon and the member for West Torrens have continued with a public baiting program against journalists whom they are unhappy with, whether it be in the member for Croydon's case through a Twitter war with particular journalists, or whether it be through individual comments of a disparaging nature that those members and ministers make to particular journalists because of what those Labor ministers and members perceive to be the unfavourable treatment of the Labor Party in the period leading up to the election by some media outlets.

I suggest to some of those members, particularly the member for West Torrens, get into the real world, you have been around long enough, you will find that media outlets variously are on your side and against you depending on where you happen to be in the electoral cycle. At some stage you need to grow up and accept that that is the reality of the world, and there is not too much in the end that you are going to be able to do about it.

Speaking of the member for West Torrens, the major change in relation to ministerial appointments after the election was his appointment as Treasurer of South Australia. I have to say that, in my view, it is a very sad day for South Australia that we have descended to the position where the member for West Torrens would become the Treasurer of the state of South Australia. I think it is good news for the Liberal Party in a purely political sense but, clearly, I think the member for West Torrens knows in his own mind that he does not have the capacity to handle the job as Treasurer and to handle the brief of Treasurer.

In the brief period since the election, and since his going into the position, we have seen a number of very significant stuff-ups and errors from the member for West Torrens in terms of just not understanding the brief of being Treasurer. Back on 27 March, in his first bungle, he told the media after the Treasurer's conference that the GST is allocated on the basis of a per capita arrangement between the states. That is factually wrong. That is, in fact, the position that the treasurers in the eastern states want to implement to rip money out of South Australia.

Here we had the Treasurer of the state representing South Australia at a treasurer's conference telling the media that he understands the GST is allocated on the basis of a per capita arrangement. If that is what he was arguing within the treasurer's conference, heaven forbid in terms of the future of the state of South Australia. The eastern states' treasurers would be licking their lips saying, 'What have we got here? We have a South Australian treasurer who is telling the media that the GST is allocated on the basis of a per capita arrangement.' They would have thought that all their Christmases had arrived at once.

Whilst I had a lot of disagreements with the Hon. Mr Foley when he was the Treasurer, he at least understood how the GST was distributed between the states. The danger and the dilemma for South Australia is we have a Treasurer who is telling the national media completely the wrong thing, because he just does not understand how the GST is distributed.

Soon after that, on 31 March, he told the state media that our payroll tax threshold is one of the best in the country. He is saying that South Australia's payroll tax threshold is one of the best in the country. South Australia's was actually second worst, at $600,000. In Queensland, it is $1.1 million and in Tasmania it is $1.25 million. No wonder they think there are no problems with small business, or whatever it was. We have a Treasurer who is telling the world that in South Australia our payroll tax threshold for small businesses is the one of the best in the country.

That is the lack of capacity of the member for West Torrens to understand even the most basic brief. It is not as if that was an obscure issue not debated in the election. For months that had been discussed, because the Liberal Party, during the election period, had promised to lift the threshold from $600,000 to $800,000. It was not an obscure issue; it was a prominent issue in state debate, yet the current Treasurer had no idea.

On 31 March he was asked on ABC radio to explain what 'net financial liabilities' were. When you look at the transcript and you listen to it, he had no idea, until clearly a staff member gave him a briefing note and he managed to read something embarrassing a minute or so later in that particular interview. When he was asked on the 31^st again about the AAA credit rating, he said, 'I'm more interested in unemployment.' I am assuming he meant he was more interested in employment, but 'out of the mouths of babes'. On FIVEaa, when asked about the AAA, he said, 'Look, I'm more interested in unemployment.' Well, I guess he got it right. He and the Labor government have been more interested in—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: They have made it an art form.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: They have made it an art form, as the Hon. Mr Stephens has indicated. Then on 1 May—he is not improving—the Tiser points out that he made an embarrassing $380 million error in trying to explain reasons for government assistance to Nyrstar. I guess the Treasurer might say, 'It's only a $380 million error, you know, in a $15 or $16 billion budget—what the heck.' On 14May, again he got national GST figures wrong. He tried to take on the Leader of the Opposition in a debate on facts and information on GST and he said that a particular figure of $1.4 billion was a national figure and not a state figure. He could not even read the federal budget figures.

On the issue of competence, there are very significant issues, sadly, for the state of South Australia. The member for West Torrens is not widely regarded by his own party. I note an article from 1 February, from Miles Kemp. Miles Kemp, as Labor members would know, has in the past had very close connections with the Labor Party and certainly would be privy to access to information from the Labor left. In this particular article, 'A faction too much friction; life inside Labor's rival ruling tribes', he, I thought intriguingly, outed Tom Koutsantonis. The profile which is included there—I assume it is part of Miles Kemp's article—says:

Tom Koutsantonis suffers from being accused of leaking to anti-Labor reporters and the hangover from revelations of his poor driving record when road safety minister.

We are all aware of his poor driver safety record. It is the reason why many in the community refer to him still as Turbo Tom. This is an outing in an article attributed to Miles Kemp, someone with close connections to the Labor Party, who says Tom Koutsantonis suffers from being accused of leaking to anti-Labor reporters.

I think everyone in the Labor Party knows that Mr Koutsantonis has been, and is being, accused by his own people of being a serial leaker for personal gain purposes to members of the media. Whilst all of us in parliament are aware of that—his colleagues are aware of it and the Liberal Party members are aware of it—here is someone with very close Labor connections putting on the public record the accusations against the member for West Torrens.

I also refer, whilst in this vein, to the member for West Torrens leaking and contributing to the factional instability within this government. I refer to an article of 4 June 2011, 'Factional rivals ready to fill Rann's shoes'. In that article is a statement, as follows:

There are powerful forces in the right who vehemently oppose Weatherill, including one who at a recent lunch with three senior political journalists decried the Education Minister as a 'coward'.

The education minister at that time was the Hon. Mr Weatherill. So, this journalist is saying that powerful forces in the right, in essence, attacked Mr Weatherill as a coward in front of three senior political journalists.

Labor Party sources at the time told me that the member for West Torrens (Mr Koutsantonis) was outed as being the person who was having lunch with the three senior political journalists and, when that became apparent, I am told, clearly Mr Weatherill was mightily upset, and it came to the situation where, ultimately (after a period of time, I might say, not immediately), the member for West Torrens identified himself as the source of that particular leak, story and criticism and apologised to Mr Weatherill for adding to the instability of the Labor government in that way.

These are just a number of examples (and there are many others those of us who are involved in politics are aware of) of the member for West Torrens leaking against his own party—against former premiers in particular and other members of the Labor Party. Loyalty certainly has not been his strong suit in terms of the views he has expressed quite openly to Labor supporters, Labor staffers and other Labor members but, more damagingly for the Labor Party, I guess, and for the future of this state, is his leaking to journalists about these issues.

The final issue I quickly want to raise is some brief comments in relation to the federal budget. I will have an opportunity during the Supply Bill and Appropriation Bill speeches to speak at greater length. I want to reject some of the claims being made by government ministers (in particular, the Hon. Mr Hunter), and others, that the Liberal Party in South Australia is the only state Liberal Party supporting holus bolus the federal budget and had not opposed the cuts. There are any number of public statements that have been made (and I suspect there is probably a debate today) when the state Liberal Party's position has been made quite clear; that is, we oppose the cuts to health and education which, in the main, will have greatest impact in years four through to 10.

Nevertheless, as a party that hopes to be in government some time during that period, we put the interests of the State of South Australia first and we have publicly expressed our opposition to those health and education cuts and, also, specifically, to the supplementary funding to local government for roads. I think it is some $18 million. They are the official party positions.

I briefly want to add my personal reservations and concerns about one particular aspect of the budget, and I hope that it merits further consideration by federal ministers and the government, in relation to the changes to unemployment benefits for the under 30s. For those of us who have children of that age and who have a large number of friends of that age, we can certainly become aware that young people through no fault of their own can move in and out of unemployment.

Certainly I support, and I think the majority of Australians support, that where a young person clearly refuses to work over a long period of time, and that person is work ready or job ready and can work and a job is available, there can be genuine questions about whether the taxpayers forever and a day should be supporting that person. I think there is community support for that. I think there are some genuine questions to be asked about what has just been publicly announced—and the details are still to be filled in—about whether the new changes would actually fit that model. I think there are significant questions about whether they will.

Potentially, some young people who do have qualifications but who are unable to get employment anywhere in South Australia—possibly because of the policies of the state Labor government and the highest or second highest on average unemployment in the nation on an average basis—and are prepared to work anywhere in South Australia but fall in and out of unemployment, might not have any support. That is concerning from my personal viewpoint, and these are personal views that I put on the record.

Some young people are lucky because their families are able to support them through a period when government assistance might not be available but, as we would all know through our work as members of parliament or, as I said, as parents of children of that age who have friends moving in and out of employment and unemployment on a relatively regular basis, there are some significant issues and there are some people who do not have the family support to help them feed themselves, look after their health needs and tackle the issues, as they move out of their 20s and into their 30s, of stable employment and, hopefully, a happy and healthy life for the future.

With that comment, as I said, the other issues of the federal budget I can address in the Supply and Appropriation bill speeches.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (11:48): I rise to support the motion that the Address in Reply as read be adopted. As we start the 53^rd parliament of the Parliament of South Australia, I acknowledge the service of three groups of South Australians. Firstly, I extend my gratitude to the Governor and his wife for their esteemed service to the state. Taking on such a role involves significant personal sacrifice and they have served with grace, generosity and distinction. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the service and passing of former governor Seaman and seven former members of this parliament and join the Governor in expressing sincere condolences to their family and friends.

Thirdly, I acknowledge the service of two former members of this council, the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. Ann Bressington. Both members fervently stood up for their values and beliefs and, despite differences we may have had from time to time, I know that their contributions were sincere and have made a lasting impact on this state.

These honourable members have been replaced by two new members, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Andrew McLachlan. Both members bring unique and valuable skills, experiences and perspective to this place. The fact that the Hon. Tung Ngo arrived in Australia as a refugee highlights our nation's record as a welcoming nation and the ongoing contribution that refugees and migrants generally make to the life of our state and our nation.

I have had the pleasure of serving with the Hon. Andrew McLachlan on policy and electoral bodies within the Liberal Party and I know him as a thoughtful and intelligent person who I am confident will make a strong contribution to this council and this state.

The Liberal team in the House of Assembly has been refreshed and expanded with the election of five new members, four of whom replaced Labor members. Under our leader Steven Marshall, the member for Dunstan, we were humbled to receive 455,797 votes at the general election held on 15 March 2014, 53 per cent of the two-party preferred count. The system has not delivered the change for which South Australians voted, and the arrogant way in which Labor has assumed government is disrespectful of the will of the people of this state. For a party which suffered by malapportionment in the past, their attitude shows how self-interested, how parasitic this once great party has become.

I thank the Governor for delivering the speech in which the government outlined its program. The government's program is underwhelming and highlights why the people of this state voted to rid themselves of it. Many of the statements in the speech arouse a sense of déjà vu. We have heard many of the same platitudes and many of the same commitments from this government in the years gone by. What it lacked was a vision and a strategy to address the challenges facing the state.

Let me take a few moments to reflect on the government's performance and challenges in my areas of portfolio responsibility as we start this 53^rd parliament. First, let me draw members' attention to the issue of fines. The government continues to fail to manage fines, from the fair imposing of fines to the fair reviewing of fines to the fair collection of fines in this state. The government uses fines more as a source of revenue than for their primary purpose, as a penalty to support the enforcement of law. What other explanation is there for the fact that in recent years the government has increased the fines for driving unregistered threefold? Our penalty is 82 per cent higher than the average penalty in other states. Are South Australians really so thick, so noncompliant, so dangerous that they need a fine which is 82 per cent higher than other states? I think not. I think they just have a government that cannot control its budget and that continues to ramp up taxes and charges.

In the 2013-14 year alone, the government revenue from fines and penalties is budgeted to increase by 25 per cent to $126 million. Levying fines to raise revenue rather than focusing on community safety and justice undermines community confidence in both systems. The government's fine regime is flawed and failing. The government continues to fail to collect a significant proportion of the fines it issues, which makes a mockery of the system.

Last year the government wrote off more money in unpaid fines than the police issued in expiation notices. The government's answer has been to introduce the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit, which on the government's own figures will not eliminate the debt for decades.

The third aspect of the problems in fines is the government's use of the victims of crime levy as an opportunity to raise funds to offset its budget black hole. This government has continued to increase the amount it collects in the name of victims. The levy has doubled twice since 2007, but have victims received the benefit of this? No, they have not. Like so many of the government's levies, this money is not finding its way to its stated purpose. Victims' compensation has not increased since the scheme was introduced in 1990.

Remarkably, the Labor Party committed at the 2014 election to increase compensation for victims—it is remarkable because the government has consistently opposed an increase in compensation every time it has been debated in this place—yet we see no urgency on the part of the government to support victims. Perhaps it is naïve to think that the government will readily honour its commitment considering how stubbornly it resisted an increase in the past. Labor has also consistently failed to protect children and failed to provide the range of victim support services that children need.

At the election the Liberal Party committed to providing $600,000 a year towards the expansion of victim support services to children. In addition, we committed ourselves to allowing victims to speak from the heart, to increase fees payable for legal representatives and to roll out a disability justice plan as a broad strategy to systematically address the hurdles that South Australians with a disability face, including victims. We also committed to doubling the victims of crime compensation available to victims and to double grief and funeral expense payments.

The government is also failing to prevent future victims, particularly by failing to maintain a well functioning justice system. The system, on this front, has changed; that is, it is getting worse. South Australia's prisons are so overstretched that their capacity to deliver effective rehabilitation is being substantially undermined. Labor's rack, pack and stack approach has not slowed in recent years. Over the last 10 years the prison population has increased by more than 50 per cent, and over the last two years prison numbers have increased by 10 per cent.

In mid-February 2014, the prison system had 24 more inmates than there was room to house them. There were 2,427 inmates, of whom 830 were on remand. The recent spike in prison population is significantly related to an increase in remand. Already having delivered Australia's highest remand rate, the current government has overseen an increase in the remand rate to 34.2 per cent, up from 31.1 per cent in 2012; that is, more than 3 per cent in 18 months. When the annual cost of imprisonment is $97,108 this 75 prisoner increase costs the state an additional $7.3 million.

In terms of spare capacity, I understand that 5 per cent of spare capacity is required to run an efficient and effective prison system. That allows both operational, rehabilitative and program requirements. What it means is that in South Australia, considering that we have negative spare capacity, those facets of the operation of the system are undermined.

Another area of concern is the over-representation of Indigenous South Australians in state prisons. Indigenous South Australians have been particularly affected by the Weatherill Labor government's rack, pack and stack policies. The Indigenous imprisonment rate per 100,000 prisoner population in South Australia has increased by 52 per cent under Labor, compared with 37 per cent nationally. The Indigenous prison population in South Australia has increased by 113 per cent, compared with 53 per cent for other South Australians.

I also want to reiterate the opposition's ongoing concerns at the impact of the government's compulsory third party insurance changes. The government's legislation to dramatically wind back compulsory third party insurance compensation for road accident victims showed a disregard for people with a less than catastrophic injury. The government's decision last year to take $100,000,000 from the Motor Accident Commission to fund roadworks and speed cameras shows that the justification put forward for the reform was a charade.

This episode demonstrates a lack of respect for the legal rights of South Australians and for the legal profession which advocates for them. But this is not an isolated case. This government is not just failing on the details, but failing on the basics. Fundamental to the government's responsibility to deliver justice is the maintenance of the courts. South Australia's courts have some of the worst backlogs in the nation. There is a 20 per cent backlog in higher court non-appeal criminal matters, which is twice the national standard. Since 2002, when the Labor government was elected, the District Court backlog of cases older than 12 months has nearly doubled from 11 per cent to 21 per cent. In District Court criminal matters nearly 60 per cent of cases take more than 12 months and 19 per cent of cases take more than 24 months.

Higher courts in South Australia have the worst backlog of any Australian state, with 56 per cent of civil non-appeal matters waiting more than 12 months. In spite of the projected backlogs in the magistrates and district courts, the government is only budgeting for a 2 per cent increase in expenditure for the Courts Administration Authority between 2012-13 and 2016-17. Funding is virtually stagnant with, effectively, an $8 million reduction over four years.

Under Labor, it takes years for criminals to face court, and that means that victims are waiting years for justice, and delays increase the risk that criminal cases will fall over, including due to the risk that witnesses will become unavailable for whatever reason. Increasingly, ordinary South Australians and businesses cannot afford to protect their rights. When claimants often cannot get listing dates for 18 months, many simply cannot afford to wait and have to settle on adverse terms.

What do we see from the government? Urgent action to address the crisis? We are still seeing a distinct lack of urgency from the government. Instead, we see what seem to be the stages of grieving—perhaps from the loss they were expecting, perhaps from the loss of the AAA credit rating, perhaps they are grieving the loss of their credibility and integrity. The Attorney-General continues to be in denial of the cause of the crisis. When courts are in serious need of modernisation, he says the solution is not 'throwing money' at problems. He then blames everyone around him, including the profession itself.

The Attorney says that we need drastic reform of court procedures and that the attitude of some in the legal profession is the urgent remedy required. The Attorney talks about the dangers that our legal system face if the courts and the professions do not embrace and participate in change. Considering the government has been in power for 12 years, and that he has been in office for four years, one has to ask: what leadership is the government providing for that change?

To say that the court's appalling performance is the result of the bad attitude of the legal profession is another offensive reflection on the profession. The biggest attitude problem is the government's arrogance and a decade of wasted opportunities. They have spent a decade failing to deliver fundamental reform and failing to invest in our courts and our legal system. In fact, we can all well remember the government's claim that it was not willing to invest in new court facilities because it was not willing to build a Taj Mahal for lawyers.

A classic example of the government's neglect in the justice system is in relation to the IT systems. Earlier this year, the government admitted that they had so badly underinvested in the courts that there is a $51 million backlog in IT projects. They attacked the opposition for committing to include that investment in the upgrade of the courts. We are still yet to see a tangible demonstration of this government's commitment to the justice system. There is nothing in stone to indicate that a change is actually coming. But change is what South Australians voted for.

The two-party preferred vote was 53 per cent in favour of the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party was the preferred party of government in 24 of the 47 seats. It gained the largest share of the primary vote yet, despite this, the Liberal Party was not able to form government. The election on 15 March was the third time in four elections that the Labor Party was able to form government without achieving a mandate from South Australians. Despite the Liberal Party winning on all other measures of support, the ongoing failure of the electoral system to match seats with votes means that an increasingly large share of South Australians are not getting the government they voted for.

In House of Assembly elections on 15 March, 455,797 voters supported the Liberal Party—that is 91,377 more primary votes than the Labor Party received. That is the equivalent of every voter in four whole House of Assembly districts; it is enough votes to win eight seats with 50 per cent plus 1 per cent of the vote. The total number of votes won across the state is higher than the equivalent number of votes required to win 37 of the 47 House of Assembly seats outright, without the aid of preferences, yet our system does not deliver this. It does not even deliver a majority of the 47 seats.

I note that the Attorney-General has criticised the proposition that the number of seats won should in some way correlate to the statewide popular vote. Of course, in one respect he is correct in that we have a system that comprises 47 separate contests. The two-party preferred vote is a by-product of these contests.

However, I remind the Attorney-General that the 2PP is not simply an academic by-product, as he suggests, that has no relevance to reality. It is what the good people of South Australia say they want. It is enshrined by the people by way of a statewide referendum in our state's constitution. The concept, practice and desire to have the popular will reflected in our parliament was put in the constitution by South Australians in 1991. They want the majority reflected in our parliament; they voted for it in 1991, they have been let down in 2002, in 2010 and in 2014. The opposition is keen to engage in constructive discussions with the government about electoral reform, but we do not think that the democratic will is an unattainable academic theory.

I would like to address some of the other remarks the Attorney-General made about this place and the members in it. He once again become nostalgic about his failed attempts to introduce Sainte Laguë, and bemoaned the failure of the OPV bill, decrying the current practice of electing people and implying that this in some way was undemocratic. In my view, this place is far more democratic in the way it is elected and the way it translates the votes of South Australians into representation.

In the Legislative Council the Liberal Party won 36 per cent of the primary vote, compared with 31 per cent achieved by the Labor Party and 6.5 per cent by the Greens. With that 36 per cent of the vote the Liberal Party secured 36 per cent of the seats. The Labor Party was fortunate that its vote, at just 86 per cent of the Liberal vote, managed to secure the same number of seats.

The Attorney-General again spoke yesterday in the House of Assembly favourably about optional preferential voting. As I have indicated in this house before, the Liberal Party is open to discussing that reform going forward and of course is even more open to it now that the seems that the federal parliament is intending to move that way. But, if the Attorney-General thinks that OPV is the answer, let me also remind him that the debate around that legislation and other electoral reform was also about how we can improve democratic representation in this place.

I remind the Attorney that if the logic that voters should not be forced to express a preference applies in relation to Legislative Council votes, it applies just as much to preferences for House of Assembly candidates. I assume he is seeking to introduce OPV as a method for electing members to the House of Assembly also. All of the arguments he has levelled at this place in relation to OPV apply equally to the House of Assembly.

Turning back to the current constitution of this place, I can say that, given the Liberal Party received the largest share of the statewide vote in both houses and the greatest share of seats in this place, the Liberal Party will continue to take very seriously the responsibility we carry, the mandate we hold as the most preferred party of South Australians. We will represent not just those who voted for us but all South Australians, despite the fact that our electoral system does not award seats in the House of Assembly proportionate to the support we received.

We also acknowledge the mandate of every elected member of this chamber. Although the Liberal Party would claim we have the greatest mandate with the highest number of votes received per member, all of us in this chamber have a mandate to represent the interests of those who elected us. At times, those interests will bring us into conflict on their behalf, but more often than not it should draw us towards a consensus as we collaboratively serve the interests of the state in its entirety. We all want the best for South Australia, and I look forward to working with all members of this place—honourable members of the government, honourable members of the crossbench and my own party colleagues—to achieve this. I support the motion.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (12:09): I rise to support the motion. At the outset I congratulate the Governor and Mrs Scarce on the way they conduct themselves at all times and represent the people of South Australia. I am incredibly proud of the work they do and, as I said in a previous speech, I rarely congratulate the former premier Mike Rann on a number of his appointments, but I think premier Rann got it absolutely right with Governor Kevin Scarce, and obviously Mrs Scarce plays such an important role. I sincerely wish them all the very best, as I believe their terms are coming to an end.

I would like to pay tribute to the Hon. Ann Bressington and the Hon. Carmel Zollo for the work they have done for this council. I would also like to congratulate all those MLCs who have been returned to this place.

In particular, Mr Acting President, I would like to congratulate you and the Hon. Mr McLachlan for being elected to the Legislative Council, and would like to place on the record that I thought both your maiden speeches were a credit to yourselves, your family and friends, and your parties, which decided to nominate you to be elected to this place. I have also been fortunate enough to hear and read the maiden speech of the members for Bright, Mitchell, Mount Gambier, Hartley and Schubert in the other place, and I was really impressed. I thought they were thoughtful, insightful and inspiring and I really look forward to working with those members.

A common theme in the speeches was the perilous state of our economy, and after 12 years of Labor government our economy is absolutely on its knees. The Premier says that he wants to embrace business—which is, of course, our theme, as to how we would get this economy to tick over again. There are things like payroll tax, land tax and WorkCover which are great places to start. It is not rocket science; the reality is that you really must reduce the burden on business to give business the opportunity to grow and employ people, the very people the Labor Party often says are its core constituency.

I hope it still thinks that working people are its core constituency, and not only people on welfare. I fear that this state is heading towards becoming just a welfare state. Business is finding it incredibly difficult to operate. Early this morning I headed up to my barber to be shorn, as is my wont. He could not do much with my head; this is the best he could do, but I was disturbed to hear him telling me how many people he knows who are in small business who are doing their best to get out of it. They want to sell and get some money for their business while they still can. We are not talking about anything other than the fact that this current state Labor government does not understand that the imposts and regulation that small business has to deal with is making it almost impossible for people to run sustainable businesses. That sort of feedback really disturbs me.

I will continue to work with the industries I have had particular relationships with. I said in my maiden speech that I would always support industries such as the club industry, the hotel industry, the racing industry and, in particular in recent times, the real estate industry, which has suffered with further burdens of overregulation, making it difficult for people to survive.

I made these notes last night and then, of course, I find that the health minister has decided that smoking outdoors in venues will be prohibited. Some people may say that that is entirely reasonable, but I say that unless someone has the guts to ban smoking then I think it is time we got off the throats of those who choose to smoke. It may not sound too bad, that you cannot smoke outdoors, but I have made some investigations and have found that hotels, for instance, have spent enormous amounts of money trying to comply with legislation to let people who do smoke participate in smoking.

I am not a smoker—this is not about self-interest for me, or my wife, who has fortunately given it up—but it is a legal pastime. We find that hotels and clubs have spent an enormous amount of money trying to ensure that all patrons can go and do their thing. If you do not like to smoke, you can be inside, you cannot have that burden pushed upon you, not like it was in the old days, but I have found that if somebody has a bowl of chips or some nuts, and they take them outside, then that will be deemed to be an area where people are eating so smoking will be prohibited.

So, the working class habit of having a couple of gaspers and a couple of beers after work with your mates—your comrades—well, this government has decided that they are not going to put up with that any more. Whatever happened to choice? Whatever happened to common sense? A bit of feedback that I have had, because I made some inquiries straight away about this, is that our reasoning is: because every other state in Australia does it. Well, maybe they have not got it quite right. Maybe people should have a bit of choice with these sorts of things.

I am informed that these measures will be put in by regulation. I will do my best to disallow these regulations, and I hope I get some support from the chamber. I am not a pro-smoking person, I do not particularly like it, but it is a legal pastime and, as I said, unless someone has the guts to decide that they are going to outlaw it, which I do not think is reasonable, I think people should have the choice. Why are we making people's lives miserable and why are we making it harder and harder for businesses to sustain themselves? Again, I think this is a brazen attack on working class people. If you want to have a cigarette and you want to have a beer with your mates after work, where is the harm—seriously? We are becoming a state of nimbys and I cannot understand why this government would go down this particular path.

We have had quite a bit of interference with real estate legislation over the last number of years. I was hoping that clubs and hotels would be left alone with no further extra regulation, no further deterrence for people to own businesses and work in those businesses. I would like to see people take a bit of self responsibility with regards to what they do in hotels and clubs, with no further regulation, or over-regulation, but, of course, the smoking thing has hammered that.

Certainly the real estate industry is doing it particularly tough at the moment so it would be wonderful if this government could just leave them alone, and not try and further regulate and make it more difficult for people to go about their business to buy and sell houses because, at the end of the day, people do buy and people do sell, and the government should try and get the hell out of the way.

I want to refer to the member for Enfield—and I will speak on behalf of my members in the Liberal Party and my crossbench colleagues if they would indulge me. Members of the Labor Party in this house can speak for themselves if they so wish, but for Mr Rau to—and I will read his comments as reported in the paper and I have since had a quick glance at his speech. I quote Sheradyn Holderhead:

Deputy Premier, John Rau, has used his reply to the Governor's speech to push the important issue of upper house reform and had a crack at its members. Mr Rau's remarks were made less than 24 hours after Labor colleague and upper house member John Gazzola used his reply to the Governor's speech to label President Russell Wortley 'a parasite', calling for his resignation from the plum post. Mr Rau said reform to the upper house was important and joked it was a common topic of conversation at barbecues with friends.

Well, I would like him to name the friends. I am not sure how many he has but I think he is using that a bit liberally. It continues:

When you go to a friend's barbecue they start saying, what about the upper house?

Well, I have to say that is not something I have ever been attacked with, and I do have a few friends that I go to barbecues with, believe it or not. It continues:

Because everybody is talking about it. They get quite excited, particularly when they have had a couple of beers.

Well, so should everybody. It continues:

Everyone has a view. Number one is, who are these characters?

Who are these characters? I think that this is a chamber in which we do not necessarily agree on everything but everybody brings something to this particular chamber. I know my colleagues on the opposite side have skill sets. They have worked in industries looking after the terms and conditions of working people. For the Deputy Premier to be making disparaging remarks about the types of people we are, I find incredibly offensive.

I would ask, 'Who is he?' Who is he, Mr Acting President? Was he a community advocate for the people of Enfield before taking that seat, or was he somebody who knifed a sitting member of the Labor Party and took that particular seat? Does he live in that community? These are questions that I think the Deputy Premier should ask himself before he starts questioning the character of the people who are in this particular chamber. I certainly find it incredibly offensive on behalf of my colleagues, certainly within the Liberal Party, who all have real life experience, for the Deputy Premier to be saying, 'Who are these people?'

Then he goes on to attack all upper houses, including the Senate. Can I say that I believe the Senate performs an incredibly important role in our parliamentary democracy. I for one will always support it. Why the Hon. John Rau would attack the Senate is beyond me, given that—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: Why John Rau does anything is beyond me.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I acknowledge the Hon. Tammy Franks' interjection. I really find it quite offensive. It is one thing for people to be talking about changes and reform, but when you start talking about the types of people who are in this house, I am certainly going to get angry about it, and I am happy to defend my side of politics and the Liberal Party. I am hoping the honourable members opposite in caucus give him a fair dressing down, because I just do not know why he thinks he is such a trumped up person.

With those few words, of course I am disappointed to be on this side of the chamber. A total of 93,000 more people voted for us than the government. The rules are that the government is the government, so it is our job to hold them to account. To rebut the obvious arguments about the Liberal Party having a gerrymander under Playford for many years, I have to say premier Playford did outstanding things with this state and left us in a lot better place.

If only that were going to be the case. With 16 years of Labor rule, if this was going to be a stronger state, then perhaps we could live with it, but the facts are that we are not. We are leading Australia in a negative way on most economic indicators. Our unemployment rate is the worst in mainland Australia. This government constantly talks about its term. I can tell you that in 2002 we were mid-pack in a strong economy in economic indicators in Australia.

With that, I support the motion and wish all honourable members well in this coming term. Let us do good things for the people of South Australia. I know we work in their interests. The Deputy Premier may not think so, but then I often wonder what drives the Deputy Premier with some of his deliberations.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (12:23): Could I begin by thanking His Excellency the Governor and the establishment of Government House for the ongoing work that they do. I think everyone in this house, and outside indeed, agrees that the Governor has discharged his office with great distinction, and I certainly pass on my thanks to the Governor and his wife for the work that they have done. Congratulations to all the new members in this place and particularly to you, Mr Acting President. Your story, I think, is a great inspiration to us all and shows what is so great about our country.

I would like to comment on the election and congratulate the government on its forming government again. There will be a lot said about the election. There already has been and will be as time goes on. We already have a couple of select committees proposed in this chamber by the Hon. Mr Wade and the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, and the Deputy Premier in the other place has indicated the government is considering forming a joint committee on electoral matters. Out of all of that, one assumes there will be some sort of committee. I would certainly be happy to serve on any of those committees, if it be the will of the house. Electoral matters are important and I think something that we all take an interest in.

In relation to this election result, we have heard a lot from the Liberal Party asking why they are not in government given that they scored a significantly higher primary vote and a higher two-party preferred vote. While there is certainly validity in those arguments in that, ideally, a system would deliver a result where whoever gets the majority of the two-party preferred vote would form government, we all know that we have a Westminster system with single-member electorates. There are 47 seats in the House of Assembly and whoever can command a majority on the floor of the House of Assembly forms government. That is how it has always been in South Australia and I suspect it will be for a long time to come. No-one is under any illusion that that is the system that we work within and the objective is to get 24 votes or more on the floor of the House of Assembly.

Particularly the Liberal members have been suggesting that they have been somehow robbed at this election, which was the same argument they made in 2010. If the people of South Australia felt that the arguments they ran in 2010 about being robbed and not forming government when they should have were valid, they certainly had an opportunity in 2014 to correct that, and they failed to do so.

It reminds me considerably of people in the Labor Party after 1975 who railed against Sir John Kerr and what had happened to the Whitlam government. The people of Australia had two opportunities to correct that, in 1975 and 1977, and both times resoundingly said, 'No, we don't want Mr Whitlam to be Prime Minister.' At some point, you have to accept that people voted the way they did.

There are 47 seats in the House of Assembly and whoever can command a majority in that house forms government. That is it. It is not particularly complicated. If you want a system that ensures (as the Hon. Mr Wade suggested happens here) that if you get X per cent of the vote you get X per cent of the seats, that is easily done. We get rid of single-member electorates and we have a list system. We have proportional representation in the lower house.

There would be no way on God's green earth that the Labor Party or the Liberal Party are ever going to do that because that would mean that the Hon. Tammy Franks and her colleagues and Family First, and others, would be represented in the lower house. We all know that no-one in the Labor and Liberal parties in South Australia, I am pretty confident, would be wanting to go down the track of the ACT, Tasmania, New Zealand or many European countries where you do have some sort of multimember electorates and some sort of proportional representation in the lower house. That would mean you would almost never have a majority government, and that will not happen.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: What about the lower house in New South Wales?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The lower house?

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Yes, sorry, but it is not PR. I do not think it is really valid for the Liberal Party to complain about why they have not formed a majority. I think it is rather insulting to electors in places like Elder, Colton and Ashford, and other marginal seats, to infer that they did not really know what they were doing when they elected or re-elected a Labor member. I think it is pretty insulting to say that the people in those seats re-elected a Labor member and they did not really know what they were doing, they all wanted a Liberal government. To me, that is saying to the people in those seats, 'You didn't know what you were doing. You don't understand the electoral system, and we should fix it so that the outcome is as we should determine.' The people determine the outcome and that is the way it is.

You could as easily argue that the country voters are disenfranchised, in the sense that the central issue with the distribution of votes and seats in South Australia is that South Australia does not have a Wollongong or a Geelong. We do not have relatively large country areas compared to a lot of the other states. Eighteen per cent or so of the population live outside Adelaide and nearly all of those are Liberal seats so we know that, in effect, the election is almost always decided in metropolitan Adelaide and that does throw out the whole overall two-party preferred equation because the reality is that there are large chunks of Liberal vote locked up in country seats.

You could as easily argue that Labor voters in country areas are disenfranchised, in the sense that roughly 30 to 35 per cent of them on a two-party preferred basis vote Labor, but they have one seat out of the number of country seats—which I am not sure offhand, but it is about 12 or 13 in the lower house. You could say, 'Well, why isn't Port Pirie and Port Augusta together?' or 'Why isn't Mount Gambier and Millicent together?' so that there is more chance that the will of country voters is reflected in that there is more chance of Labor winning seats there. That certainly is not the case. I do not think that would be an appropriate manipulation of electoral boundaries. However, to suggest, as the Liberals have consistently, that there is some sort of gerrymander or that there is something fundamentally rigged about the system is a misnomer.

There are plenty of reasons to understand why the government was returned. I think there is a general feeling in the community that things are ticking along reasonably well economically. Now, there are certainly those who will say they are not and I do not pretend for a moment that everything is perfect. There is higher unemployment than we would like to see and we would certainly like to see more economic activity, and I would liked to have seen Olympic Dam go ahead. There is a whole range of things that could be better, but many people in the community remember 17 per cent interest rates, 11 per cent unemployment and stagflation, and so they do not look around and see what is happening in South Australia at the moment and think that it is a disaster. Yes, it could be better, but they do not feel that the economy is on the brink of some sort of collapse as was suggested by some.

I think the election of the Abbott government in September last year was definitely a big factor in the state election and not because people had already turned on Tony Abbott, although some people would like to think that is the case, but because people have an innate caution about one side of politics controlling all levels of government. So naturally, particularly when it was clear that Tasmania was going to elect a Liberal government, I think people were a bit more cautious about the idea of one side controlling everything.

In the coming term of government I think there has been more talk recently about the agricultural industry and I think that is very important. Of course, mining is a critical part of our economy, but agriculture is and will remain very much a bedrock of the South Australian economy. So I think it is very important that that is acknowledged and that considerable efforts are put into maximising our exports and maximising and enhancing the reputation of South Australia as a high quality destination for food and wine—to find food and wine, not to send it.

The great challenge that faces this government is that which is facing Western governments around the world, or governments in industrial economies around the world, since the GFC. There was a time not so long ago when revenue was plentiful at federal and state levels and governments were almost falling over themselves finding ways to spend it or give it away, but we know that since the GFC revenue has taken an enormous hit at the state level and at the federal level and, indeed, it is reflected around the world.

The great challenge that faces the government now in this state and into the future is that we simply do not have enough revenue to cover the cost of the things that people expect and want the government to do—and that is speaking very broadly, it is not a characterisation about this government. It is certainly the case that across the globe, with the development of the welfare state over the years as well as government participation in so many other areas in which they never used to participate, including the economy with businesses subsidies and so on, there is so much that is now expected of government and that governments want to do and that people expect them to do and it is hard to get to the position where revenue can provide for all those things.

So, as a community and a society we really have to think about whether we want to increase revenue, whether we want to cut back, or in some way reform or delineate who does what at the government level. I suppose the federal budget and what is happening there will be a test of where people see that argument going because essentially what the federal government has said is that there is a budget emergency, we need to fix it and in order to do that we need harsh measures.

On the other hand there are those, including the opposition, saying that it is not that bad, particularly compared to around the world, and that with our debt to GDP ratio we do not need to do anything drastic. So, where that argument lands in terms of community opinion is going to be very important because I think that is the central challenge that faces all governments around the world, including this one.

One only has to look at the ministries from the governments of 100 years ago or longer to see that when you look at the list of ministers you notice all the things that are not there compared to what is there now, in the range of responsibilities that the government has taken on.

Finally, if I may just touch on the federal budget—it was not part of the Governor's speech since it had not happened at that time—as a number of honourable members have. There are just a couple of things that I want to touch on. One relates to young people's access to the dole or to benefits and having to wait six months. I think that is a very tough measure and one that misunderstands how things are for people in the community. Not everyone can live with their parents or a sibling or find some sort of support for six months while they are waiting to receive benefits. I think that is going to be a very draconian measure.

The other thing is in relation to apprenticeships and apprentices getting loans. That, to me, is a sort of non sequitur. If you are doing an apprenticeship you are not doing a university degree, you are not studying: you are working and learning and being paid to work and learn. The key thing is that you are being paid to work. So if apprentices are finding themselves unable to make ends meet, the solution is not to get them to take out a government loan: it is to ensure that they are paid more because they are working; they are being paid to work. They are putting in their honest labour and they should be adequately compensated for it. I do not see that that is the same as HECS at all because an apprentice is working as they are learning. Yes, they are receiving training and, yes, hopefully they will come out of it with a qualification that will assist them to earn money in the future, but they are not being paid just to go along and learn; they are being paid to work. They should not have to seek further income from the government to do that, particularly borrowed income.

Finally, I will just touch on the cuts to the foreign aid budget. I absolutely accept—as the Prime Minister would say—that there is a problem with the federal budget and it does need to be addressed, but to single out foreign aid for cuts I think is most unfortunate, a most retrograde step. We all know that around the world governments are facing budget pressures, but to essentially punish for our profligacy very poor people in surrounding nations around the world I think is simply shameful. Australia, as it is, ought to be contributing more to our foreign aid not cutting it back.

When we look at the things that this council has dealt with this week, including bike lanes and the probity of land deals and so on—these are important things, of course—but for a billion or so people around the world, they are struggling to find enough to eat and clean water and shelter. So, to suggest that a wealthy, advanced country like Australia should abandon those people or cut back on our foreign aid because of our own mismanagement I think is certainly unfortunate and it should be resisted. Mr President, I congratulate you on your election as well; you were not in the chair when I began. I commend the motion to members.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (12:39): I would like to start by acknowledging the contributions of members to the Address in Reply and thank them for their contributions. Most importantly, I acknowledge and thank His Excellency the Governor, Rear Admiral Kevin Scarce and his wife, Liz Scarce. The Governor and Mrs Scarce are strongly committed to the South Australian community and continue to support many individuals, organisations and charities in their work. They regularly open their home and are very warm, charming and generous hosts for a whole range of ceremonies and activities that help celebrate and acknowledge South Australians and their achievements. It is a great personal pleasure and privilege for me to have had the opportunity to spend time with them and to see the welcoming and very warm way that they engage with their visitors and I acknowledge all the support they have given me in my responsibilities.

I want to acknowledge the contributions of former members of the Legislative Council, the Hon. Carmel Zollo and the Hon. Ann Bressington, and acknowledge the incoming, the Hon. Tung Ngo and the Hon. Andrew McLachlan. I would also like to congratulate you, sir, on your elevation to the most important position of President. I think that Labor, during its past three terms in office, has a very proud history of electing very strong presidents who have all made valuable contributions to maintaining the standards and integrity of the Legislative Council: The Hon. Ron Roberts, the Hon. Bob Sneath, the Hon. John Gazzola and now yourself, sir. I look forward to your stewardship throughout this term of government.

At the opening of the 53^rd parliament on Tuesday 6 May, the Governor spoke of the Weatherill Labor government's vision for the future of this state, and he outlined the three principles that will lead our government's direction and focus. It is a very effective and straightforward approach. It is about collaboration, innovation and commitment to an outward-looking approach which underpins our direction. As the Governor explained, they build on the Weatherill government's seven strategic priorities: an affordable place to live; creating a vibrant city; every chance for every child; safe communities healthy neighbourhoods; growing advanced manufacturing; realising the benefits of the mining boom for all; and, of course, premium food and wine from a clean environment.

We remain committed to those seven strategic priorities, which are already providing some excellent outcomes for South Australia. We have taken some unexpected hits since the strategic priorities were first set in place. We are all very much aware of BHP Billiton's announcement in August that its plans for the multibillion dollar expansion of the Olympic Dam mine was going to be delayed and, sadly, late last year we had Holden's confirmation that it would cease operations at the Elizabeth plant from 2017. There is no denying these changes have had a difficult impact on many people in this state and will continue to create many challenges for us. When our economy takes hits like this we must always remember that there are individuals deeply affected by these decisions.

Holden's decision is most certainly a blow to our community as we have a strong manufacturing industry built around the automotive industry. Indeed, Australia's car manufacturing industry has had to deal with many significant changes over recent years. But from these challenges opportunities will emerge and this government is determined to take hold of those opportunities and will accelerate its plans to transition our economy to a sustainable manufacturing base by 2017. We had planned these changes to occur over a decade but we recognise the urgency brought on by the announcement of BHP Billiton and Holden and therefore we have decided to move more quickly.

This government is very strongly focused on its vision to keep building South Australia. Our three core principles will take us to a stronger South Australia. Yes, we have challenges, but we are already well down the path of building a strong state.

In our capital city of Adelaide, we have $3.4 billion of infrastructure projects, including 19 privately funded projects in and around the city that are in the approval pipeline or case management, with projects yet to commence construction worth more than $750 million. We are creating a vibrant city which is helping to attract record numbers of visitors. The number of overseas tourists continues to grow, and Adelaide's reputation as a key destination in Australia is also growing.

Adelaide has been selected by National Geographic as one of the 17 smart cities of the world and was the release site for a television series. Adelaide was also selected, alongside Paris, Zürich and Shanghai, in the Lonely Planet's 2014 top 10 cities of the world. It consistently rated as one of the world's most liveable cities and is the nation's safest capital city, yet remains an affordable place to live when compared to other Australian states and territories. The renewal and revitalisation of the inner-city restaurant and bar scene, building on our vibrant city, is attracting attention all around the world. This is what we already have and what we will continue to build on.

We want to continue to strengthen our economy and create jobs. The new department of state development, which will be created from the merger of the Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy and DFEEST, will have a single focus on the economic drivers that will lead the transformation of the economy of this state.

Our task is made more difficult by the savage cuts that we saw announced last week in the federal budget. The Abbott Liberal government seems determined to attack our society and punish those who need the most assistance. We are facing a terrible impact on the Australian economy and workforce, and it seems like a deliberate attempt to impact on the great efforts of the state government to grow our potential. We will not be defeated though. The impacts will be savage, the cuts will be deep, but our resilience and our resolve to keep pushing ahead with our efforts will not be overtaken.

Let me return to those three important principles: our focus on collaboration, innovation and an outward-looking approach. These things will help us build even better outcomes. We will intensify the level of collaboration between business, the government and academia. Collaboration and partnerships can achieve many things.

We already have the decision by Hewlett-Packard to expand its presence in Adelaide, creating more than 400 jobs over the next four years in high-end technology. Its operations will be completed with the Innovation and Collaboration Centre within the University of South Australia's new development in the Health and Biomedical Precinct on North Terrace. With the SA Health and Medical Research Institute now open for business, South Australia is well on its way to becoming the smart state. The Health and Biomedical Precinct is a beacon for high-quality jobs and high-quality people as well, and those jobs are likely to attract, as I said, more talented young people to this state.

This government will establish a health industry board to help harness our medical innovation and drive business opportunities that will create jobs. That brings us straight to the Weatherill government's second principle: innovation. We must constantly strive to find new and better ways of doing things. The government itself is taking the lead with the renewal of the South Australian public sector, for instance. As I said, we have already announced the creation of a new department of state development, and we will continue to reform the public sector and lead by example.

The Premier recently announced two new innovation centres, jointly funded by the state government and Hills Limited, as part of a $5 million agreement. Uni SA, Flinders Uni and the Uni of Adelaide are part of this initiative which will help create an estimated 50 high-end jobs and numerous entrepreneurial start-up companies. The centres will find and reward local design expertise and collaborate with education and research institutions, not to mention tap into the rich pool of independent advisers across Australia. This is government, business and academia working together and collaborative innovation in action.

Our third principle, to modernise and grow our economy, is this government's commitment to an outward-looking approach. What does that mean? It means that we turn our gaze to the world as part of our international engagement strategy, and we have identified India and China in particular. Unlike the Liberal opposition, we recognise the benefits of focusing our export and engagement activities on China and India rather than the scattergun approach they put forward during the recent election campaign.

Mention of their defeat at the ballot box is rubbing salt into a raw wound for members opposite. They are still very sore and sorry for themselves. They still cannot accept their loss. I suggest that they just need to get over it, get over themselves, stop their whinging about losing and get on with it. The Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Council could not even manage a gracious or genuine reply to our Governor's speech. He spent most of his contribution whining about the election. It is time they stopped running down our state and got on board, rolled up their sleeves and did something to help support South Australia.

Our international engagement strategy will take South Australia into the future. The government's strategy for China has already brought remarkable outcomes in the 12 months to January this year. We have seen a 44 per cent increase in the value of South Australian exports to China. Overall the state's exports have increased by 12 per cent in the same period. Exports to China are three-quarters of that increase. We are using South Australia's unique and distinctive flavour to sell ourselves. We are also seeing inbound investment in mining and resources from China.

Later this year the Weatherill government will release its South-East Asia engagement strategy. We are already seeing an increase in exports to the ASEAN member nations. Looking towards Asia also brings cultural and social benefits and broadens our view and understanding of the world. In terms of an alternative, what do we get from the Liberal opposition? Very little! It is the same old nothing that they gave us during their election campaign, which failed to have them elected into government.

They lost because no-one knew what they stood for and that is because they did not have a plan for this state. They sat back, scratched their chins and thought to themselves, 'Well, we don't need to try too hard; we don't need to strive for a better future for the electorate, all we have to do is remain a small target and we'll win this election.' That was a very foolish strategy. They took for granted that the people of South Australia would just fall into line, would not understand the basis of their strategy—very foolish indeed of them to have had no real plan for this state. The people of this state are simply too smart to fall for that lazy and disrespectful attitude.

The Weatherill government's vision for South Australia is about renewal. Not only are we renewing the public sector and modernising the way we approach business and growth in this state but also we also recognise the need to renew ourselves. That is obvious when you look around this government and our new cabinet. We see fresh faces and we have renewed our ranks, and have brought in fresh people with fresh ideas: the member for Ramsay (Hon. Zoe Bettison), the member for Port Adelaide (Hon. Dr Susan Close), the member for Lee (Hon. Stephen Mullighan), and the member for Frome (Hon. Geoff Brock). So around our cabinet table we have four new faces. What do we see from the opposition in comparison? We just see the same old—the same old people doing the same old things, pretty much. Clearly, they have learnt nothing. It is the same old, tired faces in the same old, tired spots.

They have not even really bothered to refresh their shadow cabinet. The people who crafted their defeat, who lost them the unlosable election, are back in pretty much the same places, sitting there complaining and talking down our state, refusing to accept that they lost. In fact, they have not even bothered to match their shadow ministry to reflect the new and refreshed portfolios in this place. What have we been doing since the election? We have got on with it, and they whinge.

In conclusion, this Labor government is confident in its direction. We have many runs on the board from more than a decade in government, we have a solid and sound track record, and we are evolving and growing. Our seven strategic priorities show us the way forward for South Australia. This great state holds much potential and many opportunities, and I am confident that our three principles around collaboration, innovation and forward thinking will help turn our gaze to the world. We have a clear commitment to the future, and will continue to build and grow this state for the next four years and beyond.

Motion carried.

The PRESIDENT: I have to inform honourable members that His Excellency the Governor will receive the President and members of the council at 3.30pm today for the presentation of the Address in Reply.

[Sitting suspended from 12:57 to 14:15]