HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-02-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Adjourned debate on motion for adoption.

(Continued from 11 February 2015.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (15:30): When we last sat I sought leave to conclude my remarks, and now I wish to conclude those remarks. As members will recall, it was the tenth of this month when the Governor spoke in this chamber on the opening of the parliament. I will cover just a couple of points; I did have a lengthy contribution when we last sat, so it will be only a small contribution today.

I am interested, in particular, in some of the comments the Governor made about tourism. He said that the government would 'increase its investment in events, to further expand the program of activities that has energised our city'. It is interesting to look at the government's track record, especially its tourism marketing efforts, and certainly for our regions. Clearly, they have not worked. We have seen the $6 million Kangaroo Island campaign, then the $6 million Barossa campaign, and of course the 'Adelaide. Breathe' astronaut campaign, which was money that was actually brought forward from this financial year to promote Adelaide during the election campaign.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: She says I am a cynic. We all know that the Tourism Commission board was conned by the minister and the money was dragged forward to run that. It is a memorable one. I have barely ever seen it run. I do not know whether it was the honourable minister in the astronaut suit or what, given she is so offended by my comments.

However, the facts stand for themselves. Since 2010—over five years ago—through this KI, Barossa and Adelaide campaign, a staggering 1,339 tourism businesses have disappeared, 12 of our tourism regions have recorded a decrease in the number of businesses, and we have lost one million visitor nights from regional South Australia in the last two years.

While small tourism businesses struggle to survive, the government makes a decision to give $1 million to a multinational, Pernod Ricard, for their cellar door experience in the Barossa Valley when that company posted in excess of 1 billion euros in profit last year. To put that in context, we have about a $1.2 billion deficit. This company, that we gave taxpayers' money to, actually had a profit the same size as our deficit. Just ponder this while you are sitting there, Mr Acting President: does it make sense to you that we have lost 1,339 small businesses yet we are handing out $1 million to a company that makes in excess of $1 billion profit every year?

As part of that plan Labor also projected that tourism would be an $8 billion industry with an additional 10,000 jobs by 2020. Of course, it had a 100,000 target that it also announced in the 2010 election which we all know was, very sadly, a con and will not be achieved. This tourism plan acknowledged that if industry held its current market share across all markets, visitor expenditure would grow to just $6.7 billion by 2020. So the actual plan recognises the fact that the government is not going to get to its target. It just does not make sense, some of the information that is coming out of the minister's office and the Tourism Commission.

Of course, we now know (it has been tabled in the other chamber) about the bill to abolish a whole range of boards and committees, which, of course, includes the South Australian Tourism Commission. The minister wants to get rid of that board, which is the advocacy board for what is, at the moment, a $5.2 billion business. The Tourism Commission is not like a government agency with a whole bunch of public servants. The industry has some 18,000 small to medium tourism operators, so making decisions to cater for this industry is extremely complex; it cannot be left in the hands of just one minister or his chief executives—which is, of course, what the minister wants.

It is interesting to note that this change will effectively remove the chief executive's accountability. At the moment the chief executive, Mr Rodney Harrex (and I do commend him for the work he does), reports to the board. With this new regime proposed by the minister—and which, incidentally, the opposition will be opposing—is that the chief executive reports only to the minister. So, we will be the only state in the nation that will have that particular structure.

The minister said, when it was announced, 'Just because every other state is still doing it the old way, what's wrong with doing it our way?' Well, we know that tourism is not performing as well as it should. We know that under this minister's leadership and stewardship we have seen a significant number of projects and events that have failed, and we have not seen the targets met.

Tourism is about the tourists having an experience, but it is also about businesses providing experience and jobs for young South Australians, in fact for all South Australians. As I mentioned just a few moments ago, we have lost some 1,339 tourism-related small businesses in the last five years since 2010, and it is probably slightly less than five years because those statistics were probably finalised some time late last year. So, in the four years up to Christmas of last year, we lost some 1,300 small businesses.

It is an interesting concept: we are going to get rid of the board and the minister is going to be totally in control, he and the chief executive. I simply do not believe that to be an appropriate structure to have. As I said, no other state in the nation has it and I do not believe that our tourism industry should be the guinea pig, or the experiment, for a minister who does not like having to deal with the board. I think it would be very dangerous, from the industry's point of view.

In the Governor's speech, he said the government will increase investment in events to further expand a program of activities that will energise the city. I should just remind members of some where the minister was involved and, of course, before he was the minister. Lance Armstrong: we still do not know how much money was spent on Lance Armstrong. We all know that it came to light that Mr Armstrong had perhaps enhanced his activities and his performance with some performance-enhancing substances. Just recently, he has had to pay a fine of some $16 million, I think, whether it is a fine or to repay some of his sponsors a whole lot of money (I am not sure of the exact details of it).

We saw that the Tourism Commission lost a bit over $1 million in foreign exchange deals. Word Adelaide: that would have to be one of the dumbest decisions I have ever seen, to have a program based around the spoken word. The Fringe had already tried it a couple of times before and it failed, but nobody in tourism actually spoke to the Fringe and they burnt $400,000 on that. The Kangaroo Island surfing competition and music festival, I think in the end cost around $700,000 of taxpayers' money. I think that was back when minister Rau was the tourism minister. We had the Rolling Stones, and we are still not sure but we think in the order of $1 million was spent on the Rolling Stones.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: It was $450,000. They announced it at the time.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: $450,000.

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Did you go see them?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I did not see them.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I stand corrected. The Hon. Tammy Franks says $450,000. If it is $450,000, what I am saying is that there is a lot of money being spent on events that are of questionable value and the Rolling Stones, why would we spend money? Normal acts come to this great city and people pay to go, you do not have to spend half a million dollars of taxpayers' money. It is a subsidy to an overseas multimillion dollar rock and roll band and the Greens think it is a good thing to spend money on.

AirAsia X: an undisclosed amount was spent on collaborative marketing. Nobody knows what was spent on the collaborative marketing. It is all secret. Just recently it was announced that Liverpool is coming. It is fine to showcase the Adelaide Oval, but how much are we spending bringing these people to Adelaide?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: $450,000.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: For Liverpool?

The Hon. K.J. Maher: No, for the Rolling Stones.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I have moved on from the Rolling Stones. I am talking about Liverpool. I was on the radio with minister Bignell saying, 'We're not opposed to bringing people to Adelaide and events to Adelaide, but tell us what they cost.'

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Are you going to go see Liverpool?

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: No, I am not going to go see Liverpool. It is not about whether I am going to see them or not. The minister is in a taxpayer-funded corporate box, I suspect; that is why he is looking so happy. However, I compare that to the Victorian government when Tiger Woods came to Melbourne. They were very up front: 'It's $3 million; we think it's a good investment.' The point I am trying to make is that with all the secrecy around government deals people get suspicious. People get suspicious all the time: Word Adelaide, the KI surfing competition and Lance Armstrong.

I am interested in an event that was identified to me as being a potential event for the city, and I even spoke to the minister before the bid had to be lodged. It is the World Water Ski Championships. Everybody laughs when we say that that can be held in the Torrens. I am not a waterskier, but the waterskiing fraternity—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: You would be very good, David.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Now my own mob are turning on me. I am being distracted. The World Water Ski Championships proponents approached me and I mentioned it to Mark Beretta, who is a Channel 7 sports reporter. I often see him on Sunrise on Channel 7. He said to me, 'It is a fantastic event. It would be a coup for Adelaide to have it. It hasn't been in Australia since 1965.' In fact, he told me that he had emailed or written to Hitaf Rasheed, the head of Events SA, to say that this is a great event. He said that it was so good that—he could not say unequivocally—Channel 7 would come to town and broadcast it.

This is an event that has not been in Australia for 50 years. It was held on the Gold Coast when SeaWorld was first built and it has not been in Australia since. The world waterski federation and its chairman have come and looked at Adelaide saying that it is the best venue when it comes to the quality of the water and the fact that we have a body of water right in the middle of the CBD. There are reeds on the banks so you would not get any wash back, and all of the contestants can stay in a hotel (we have several around Parliament House) and walk to the event each day.

The most recent one was held in Chile, I think. The contestants had a two-hour bus drive from the hotel to the event, and it is a weeklong event. The Casino is interested in being part of any sponsorship or promotion around the event. I spoke to minister Bignell in the lead-up to the election and said, 'Whoever wins the election, this is a good event and it should come to Adelaide: the world championships in 2017.' The silence is deafening. Tourism said they are helping, they are working, but nothing is happening. This is an event that is held every two years all around the world. We could showcase our great city. I am hopeful that increased investment in events to further expand the program of activities that has energised our city will include a serious attempt to put on the World Water Ski Championships in the Torrens.

I note that people often question the water quality. It is the intention to have it in September or October (I think it is September), at the end of winter. Even in dry years, when we do not have big rains, we still get a reasonable flushing and water temperatures are reasonably cool. I am also reminded that those world-class waterskiers very rarely fall off and get tangled up in the water, so it is usually quite safe. However, they have done water quality testing and they are happy with it.

The Adelaide City Council has signed off on the concept of having the championships in the water, and my understanding is that they have also spoken to the local Kaurna people and they are very happy with it. It appears that a lot of boxes have been ticked, so I hope minister Bignell and Events SA actually get on with making sure that we can secure this event.

Finally, in relation to the member for Waite (the Minister for Investment and Trade) I am just reminded that this government asked for the confidence of South Australians but has sought stability through an alliance with a member whose self interest is so profound that he did not even negotiate a good deal for his electorate when he switched sides. The Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith would have the residents of Waite believe that he is better able to represent them from within a Labor cabinet, supposedly operating as a Liberal Independent. Although his reasoning is an insult to the intelligence of his voters, it is evidenced by his failure to deliver anything tangible for his electorate. We just have to look.

There were cuts to the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics at the University of Adelaide's Waite Campus. That is in his electorate of Waite; it is named after Mr Peter Waite, the same person that his electorate is named after. It was a cabinet submission he took to cabinet when he was a minister in the Kerin government, yet he has been silent on the cuts to that particular function, the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics.

It is interesting that food and wine, but particularly food, is still a really important part, I think, of the government's economic priorities although that has diminished somewhat in recent times and we do not hear them speaking quite so often about it, but clearly it is an important part. I was just recently there and they have done a whole range of really good exciting work around salinity, salt tolerant crops and drought tolerant crops and yet the local member and now cabinet minister is happy to see their funding cut.

It is interesting also that he did attend a public meeting with the transport minister, the Hon. Stephen Mullighan, in relation to the Springbank Road, Daws Road, Goodwood Road intersection. He said he would make it a priority and he could only deliver from within government, yet I suspect that nothing will be delivered. Of course, I think the final straw that will break the camel's back in Waite has been the announced closure of the Repat Hospital.

In 2012 he stated in a media release himself that its closure would be death by 1,000 cuts. As members would know I live in the electorate of Waite, and I am the only state Liberal member of parliament who does so, and it is amazing the public reaction, initially to his decision to resign from the Liberal Party and then to do a—well it is hardly a deal—be happy to join the Labor cabinet. If you look at all sorts of other Independents around the nation, they all try and do deals for their electorates and, whether you like Independents or not, whether you like it if they swap sides or not, at the end of the day they try and leverage something out of the arrangement for their electorate.

I am sure the Hon. Martin Hamilton-Smith will try and make some sort of play on the Repat—that he has saved the Remembrance Gardens or the chapel or the pool or there will be some play on words with him but, at the end of the day, he has not stood up for his people in his electorate. It would have been very easy. The government does not need his vote at the present time. His deal within cabinet was that he can oppose cabinet decisions, and we have seen other ministers with similar arrangements do that before, yet the silence has been deafening. He has made some sort of, 'Oh well, it really has not been my preference', but he could have easily come out and opposed that cabinet decision but he has not and I think the people of Waite are very disappointed with his silence on the matter.

I just wanted to touch on the last bit in relation to trade and economic development and I note that there is a trade mission going to China somewhere late in May—I think, 25 to 29 May. I note that the Premier's trade mission to China will be with some 200 representatives from seven key industries, including coverage in Shandong. I am also advised that Martin Hamilton-Smith, as the minister, is taking a trade mission of 200, so I will stand to be corrected but I assume that it is the same trade mission late in May.

It is interesting to note that, as I know, Martin Hamilton-Smith as a former member of our shadow cabinet was a big fan of what you call the 'super mission', 200, 300, 400 people on a trade mission. I have been to China a couple of times and I have spoken to the government officials, whether they are state government ones, from a range of states not just South Australia, or whether they are Austrade people, and I know what they will be doing over there. They will be saying, 'Here we go again. We get the Premier rolling into town, we get a couple of ministers rolling into town, a couple of hundred business people and ministerial advisers.'

There will be probably be a couple of media people invited along on the trip, because they want the media there to beam back to South Australia how good it is, but do you know what they do? There are people up there now making sure that there is a handful of signing memorandum of understanding opportunities, a bit like the MOU that minister Gago signed for Fujian some years ago, which I think has evaporated. They have gone silent on it.

In fact, recently with PIRSA in Budget and Finance, I gave them a question on notice because they could not answer it at the time. But there will be a range of events so that it is all stage managed and all the journalists will be there and they will beam it back, and then when they leave, the local government officials up there, who our taxpayers pay for, will say, 'Thank God they've gone. Now we can get back with our real work and try to grow the exports to those states, from our state to places like China.'

So, I will be very interested to see how that plays out, but I expect that we will see a lot of fanfare, a big stack of people going up there—the Premier and maybe a couple of ministers, ministerial advisers, media. It will be very interesting to see the sort of reports we get back here when in actual fact what you really need to do is have a much more one-on-one approach to how you deal with these people. It is about relationships and about making sure you can have those long-term relationships, and in my view it is not about the great big super missions where the Premier and a couple of ministers will swan around and sign MOUs and then jump on the plane and shoot through and leave the mess to the local government officials on the ground.

I thank the Governor for his speech a fortnight ago today and commend him on the great work he has done in his short term as Governor. Through the Chinese New Year/Lunar New Year at the moment I am seeing him on almost a daily or twice daily basis. He is doing a great job, undertaking the fabulous work within the community that he does, and I commend him for that. I look forward to seeing him at many other functions. I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (15:51): I rise to make some remarks in relation to the Address in Reply, and I start by thanking our new Governor, Mr Hieu Van Le and his lovely wife Lan for the work they do. We are all very proud of this wonderful couple, who were born overseas and have such a great story to tell, and we commend them for their work and they are welcome here any time. That said, as I often say in relation to these speeches, having commended the Governor and wife who are in residence at the time, I turn to the comments within the Governor's speech, most of which I find somewhat lamentable. There are a range of issues I would like to raise.

Some of the opening remarks from the speech related to the bushfires that we saw earlier this year, and I think we are all very pleased with the spirit of South Australians in banding together to offer assistance to local residents and the community spirit that was demonstrated. There were a whole range of areas (I will not talk about them all), but being a Hills resident myself (nowhere near the fire) I noted the number of posts on social media from people offering to transport horses. I received a number of calls from people who were concerned for my safety, which I appreciated, although I was never in any danger, being south of the freeway.

I thank the CFS in particular for the wonderful work they do, bearing in mind the volunteer hours that go into their training. We have a shop in our town in Bridgewater that is constantly processing material that people have donated, and it is put out several days a week for people to purchase. There are a whole range of areas in which the CFS volunteer hours are so incredible, and they are at their best in a crisis. They handled the fires magnificently, and we are all grateful to them. I also commend the CFS chief, Mr Greg Nettleton, who really came to the fore and did a great job.

In light of that, it has been disappointing that we have seen the proposed reforms (that word should always be used in inverted commas) to CFS, which we all feel, particularly on this side of the chamber, a number of our members being members of the CFS, will downgrade the influence of the volunteer sector in favour of the MFS. We are glad that there has been an announcement today that the reform process will be slowed, but we are all still very suspicious that it is the ultimate agenda of the government to downgrade the CFS in this state at a time when we are all so aware of the job they have done.

The speech talks about protecting the environment and then turns to the nuclear industry, and I would say that the Liberal Party welcomes debate on this issue. I think things have changed a lot since people in my generation were at high school and feared a nuclear oblivion through the third world war, when the Iron Curtain was still up, and so on. Indeed, it is Liberal policy that we have a discussion on this issue, so that we can put all the facts and figures on the table and recognise that there have been changes to that particular technology over time.

Of course, the issue of this being handled by a royal commission is quite extraordinary and I think has more to do with the internal dynamics of the Labor left needing to be dragged kicking and screaming into some recognition that there might be some future for an expanded nuclear industry in South Australia. The royal commission is quite an extraordinary level to take it to.

We have inquiries in parliament all the time. We have an inquiry into unconventional gas taking place at the moment, so the issue of nuclear having to be elevated to that level, I think, really does speak to the internal problems that the Labor Party has with managing this issue in a sensible manner. And so, in effect, some of the opponents of it may well be muzzled. That is something that may take place and pretty clearly that is some of the pressure that will be brought to bear.

We also had reference to Green Industries SA, which is to be the new incarnation of Zero Waste SA, an organisation that—I will give credit where credit is due—was started by this government. I think the minister at the time might have been John Hill. It has worked collaboratively with government and industry to reduce waste significantly in South Australia. In referring to Zero Waste, I would like to commend the work of its CEO, Mr Vaughan Levitzke, who was also recognised in the Australia Day honours.

Zero Waste is a globally-recognised brand and there is a lot of concern within the sector that that will be lost in this new incarnation that the government is proposing. There is not a great deal of detail at this stage about how that will operate, so that is one issue that deserves further examination when we consider future amendments to that piece of legislation. I think we need to look at this very closely to make sure that we are not throwing out something that has played a very effective role in this state.

The speech had a fair bit of hyperbole in places, including the reference to a carbon-neutral Adelaide green zone. Indeed, it is not going to be the first carbon-neutral city. In 2008, Sydney claimed that mantle and, in 2012, the City of Yarra also claimed that mantle. We are going to have this green zone, and one wonders what that means. Labor is very good at empty symbolism. I suspect it will be another version of that. We had the carbon-neutral cabinet. Former premier Rann wrote to us all to declare that we were going to have a carbon-neutral cabinet. I think this will be one of those. Labor is also very good at running out with initiatives to get a headline and then dropping them when they hope that nobody is looking, so that is one that we will look at with interest.

I note the proposal that, within a decade—which is beyond the term of the current government—electric and hybrid vehicles will be the preferred form of transport within the Adelaide central business district. This again is empty Labor symbolism. Talk to people who do business within the Adelaide CBD about the difficulty that anyone in a vehicle has getting around the city these days thanks to all the things that the Labor Party—and the former Adelaide City Council as well, I might add—has done to restrict things.

There are some people who think that Adelaide can be turned into a walkable city, and we get comparisons with European cities. London has a congestion tax. I wonder whether that has been mooted. But what is forgotten in these sorts of debates is that countries like Australia have big distances, and Adelaide does not have a really comprehensive public transport system, so to try to make those comparisons with a city where somebody can get on an underground railway and get anywhere they want to within 20 minutes is just not realistic. We also had the driverless vehicles, which were claimed to revolutionise transportation in South Australia. I am not quite sure how the government is going to be responsible for that, but there we have it: more empty symbolism. One statement that I agree with is:

Many South Australians lack confidence in the planning process given its significant vested interests.

To that I say, 'Yes, we agree.' We hear from them on a regular basis. Honourable members of this chamber who are members of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee hear from people regularly who have no confidence that there are not secret deals done between government and certain interests. We have examples like Gillman and Newport Quays, in which the government really gets caught out badly. It is almost as if, in making that statement, they are distancing themselves from it, whereas I think they need to take full responsibility and stop having a go at learned people like the judge who made comments about the Gillman inquiry as if they do not know what they are talking about when they clearly do.

We also had references to prime agricultural land, which I would respond to by saying that this is often better protected by zoning and master planning processes. For instance, the Northern Adelaide Plains we believe needs to have a proper masterplan associated with that whole district so that we can look at the agriculture opportunities and expanding use of wastewater and groundwater resources without some areas being hived off for housing which may well be better utilised for agricultural opportunities.

Things that I put a tick next to included issues such as enabling individuals to better participate in our democracy, regardless of their gender and sexual orientation, and that gender should not be a barrier to full participation in our community. I also commend the comments in relation to the White Ribbon accreditation and note that workplaces, particularly government workplaces, really should lead by example, because they have the capacity to do so and to assist people in their workplace who may be—I have been told I am not allowed to use the word 'victims' of domestic violence—champions of domestic violence.

We also had references to health and the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. The new Royal Adelaide Hospital really was a thought bubble of I think it was the 2007 budget, and what we are seeing now is that the thought bubble and its expenses are causing the government to be forced to make expenditure cuts, which it is now doing to a number of the non-spine hospitals—that is, Modbury, Noarlunga and the Repat Hospital as well as the Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre. One wonders why the government was not upfront with these issues prior to the 2014 election. Indeed, I think the member for Elder had written to her future electorate and claimed that the Liberal Party was going to cut services at Flinders, and now we see that that is exactly what her government is doing.

We hear the health minister on the radio defending things. I have heard the Premier say things along the lines of that Transforming Health is all about quality. Well, it is just patently not. It is patently about cutting expenditure to certain hospitals and shifting services to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and to Lyell McEwin. Clearly, there are a lot of people in government who have never actually worked in hospitals and really do not understand how they operate at all, and do not appreciate that, for instance, when you are providing rehabilitation or mental health services, you often need open space. You certainly need a lot of space for rehabilitation and equipment and providing those services, and relocating them from their current places of operation is going to downgrade the quality enormously.

We also had quite a section on ageing. South Australia has an older population than most of the rest of Australia. I think the government probably should take some of the blame for that, because a lot of our young people leave the state for opportunities for work interstate. It is a huge number of young people. It is actually the working age population which leaves South Australia the most, because this government, in particular, after 12 years, really is strangling the business opportunities. We hear weekly of businesses which are shedding significant numbers of staff, and the opportunities just do not exist.

On the other side of the coin, if we look at the opportunities, there are some, and some of those are referenced in the speech, but I note that they did not actually include anything about workplace policy for older people, volunteering opportunities and the like. There are all locational services which deal with people's immediate living environments rather than some of the social or emotional needs of older people.

We had a very poor choice of words. If there was any moment which made people gasp—which is what the Premier had been promising us—it was when the Governor said: 'My government believes that South Australia can be known as the place where you age, but you do not grow old.' It is just laughable for them to say this sort of thing. I think it was a bit of a brain snap on the part of the person who wrote it. To enter into one's mature years in a healthy manner I think requires people to ease into their retirement, and therefore I think there should be more examination of scaling down from full-time work to part-time work, with greater human interaction and roles which will keep the brain sharp as we age. With those words, I commend the motion to the house.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:07): I will begin by congratulating our new Governor on his new role and in particular his first time opening a session of the South Australian parliament. Whilst I am firmly in the republican rather than the monarchist camp, in my view Mr Hieu Van Le is an excellent choice as our head of state and I wish him well in his tenure as Governor. He was an excellent deputy governor, and I am sure he will acquit himself well in the role.

There were many things in the Governor's speech. However, I will focus on just a handful of them and I will mention a few others in passing. Before I start, having heard a few governors' speeches now, I liken them in some ways to a bad movie which you are determined to enjoy because you have paid good money at the cinema or at the video shop and therefore what you do is you suspend your disbelief.

You try to bring a generous spirit to the project and you desperately try to believe that all the good things that are said will eventually come to pass. Time will tell whether that level of cynicism is justified. Certainly, I will say at the outset that there are some wonderful things in this speech and if they were to come to pass then South Australia would be the better for them, but not everything falls into that category.

I want to start my remarks by talking about the nuclear royal commission. I have only ever once been invited to be a guest speaker to the uranium society. I am not on their Christmas card list anymore and I do not expect to be invited back to any more conferences, but I do recall that, as luck would have it, the conference in Adelaide was just days after the Fukushima nuclear reactor meltdown, the tsunami and then the nuclear disaster. I can still remember this room full of city uranium executives effectively walking around the room saying, 'Chin up, chaps. It's not all that bad. This will blow over. It's just a minor setback.' But really, the doom and gloom was in the air. So, we have seen an industry on its knees since Fukushima. We have seen contracts cancelled and we have seen an industry in decline which is why this royal commission is quite remarkable in many ways.

I will explore shortly what I think the real agenda might be, but the starting point—and other members have raised this— is why on earth a royal commission? When you look at the Royal Commissions Act 1917, you will see that it has a range of quite extensive powers, including coercive powers, and they are very useful, especially when you are dealing with reluctant witnesses and people who need the encouragement of legal process to get them to come in and give evidence, but you have to wonder whether it is the appropriate vehicle for this inquiry. I do not believe it is, and I have not heard any explanation other than the Premier's desire to give this inquiry a level of gravitas. If we can give it a fancy name, like calling it a royal commission, people will take it more seriously.

Whether people take the royal commission seriously will depend on a range of factors. It will depend on the terms of reference, it will depend on the quality of the staff and the range of other commissioners and investigators who are appointed to assist the commission, and then it will depend on an assessment of whether they have adequately and comprehensively weighed up the evidence. If they trip at any of those points, then the royal commission will be discredited.

In terms of the real agenda here, what is it? Is it nuclear power? Well, no, it is not. Nuclear power has been looked at in the past. It is too expensive, too dangerous, too slow, and no-one in South Australia really wants it. I had the pleasure to attend a public meeting in Port Adelaide last week and I mentioned to those in attendance that Professor Ian Plimer had suggested that Port Adelaide was a bit of a wasteland and maybe that might be the spot to have a nuclear reactor, and I have to say that the response was underwhelming. No-one was in agreement with the professor's thoughts on that.

Is the agenda really about enrichment or reprocessing? Well, no, it is not, because the world is already oversupplied and it just does not add up economically. I think that leaves us with the nuclear waste dump as the agenda, and the question there would be, 'Who wants it?' Certainly the nuclear industry would like it because here we are six or more decades into the nuclear industry and they still have no safe way of disposing of the waste. Certainly South Australians do not want it. We had a former premier who legislated against it and who kept winning elections, including on the back of things like protecting South Australia from the nuclear waste dump.

I will say that I agree with the member for Giles, Mr Eddie Hughes, who participated last night in an interview along with me on Annette Marner's program on ABC 639. He was referring to the newspaper report yesterday with a consortium of so-called nuclear experts who want to expand the industry in South Australia and they said, 'Maralinga. That would be a good spot for a nuclear waste dump.'

What the member for Giles said, and I wholeheartedly agree, is that you probably could not get much more insensitive than that if you tried, given the history that the traditional owners of that area have had to put up with from the nuclear testing from the 1950s, the botched attempts at clean-up, and the dislocation away from their traditional lands. Why on earth would someone be suggesting that area, especially when they had done no consultation at all with the owners?

I am nervous about the real agenda here. I think it is the nuclear waste dump and I think that that may or may not come out in the evidence that is presented. As I said before, the royal commission is only going to be as good as the inputs but also only as good as the questions that it asks, and those questions are in the terms of reference. It is a longstanding thought amongst many in the conservation movement in particular that if nuclear is the answer, then you are asking the wrong questions.

I think that, with this royal commission at present, with the draft terms of reference that were released at 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, they are asking the wrong questions. Certainly my submission suggested 40 things that they needed to look at. What has come back is really just the same dot points that we already knew: that is, they will look at more mining, they will look at reprocessing, they will look at nuclear power, and they will look at the waste dump. They really have not moved on beyond that.

However, what was remarkable was that 309 people managed to get in with a formal submission to the royal commission with only a one week comment period. That is pretty amazing; 309 people. Of course, one of the main features of the nuclear industry is its secrecy, so it is quite remarkable that the government has chosen to keep the 309 submissions secret; you cannot see them on the website.

If the government were serious about this royal commission the first thing it would have done is published the 309 submissions, because when you do that you can find out whose submissions are being taken seriously and who is being ignored. If you do not get to see the submissions, you might know what is in your own—and a dozen or so have been sent to me—but it is very difficult to determine who is pulling the strings with an exercise like this. So that is my call to the government: publish the 309 submissions and, in three weeks' time, when further submissions close on the draft terms of reference, publish those as well.

The next aspect of the Governor's speech I would like to refer to is the announcement in relation to Green Industries SA. The government says this will be an agency whose task it will be to further encourage and support sustainable industries. That is a welcome development; I do not think it lets the government off the hook in terms of the downgrading of the role of Zero Waste SA, but if this is a reincarnation then maybe we can salvage something from it. Certainly the Greens policy, for many years, has been along the lines of what the government says it wants to do with Green Industries SA: that is, you identify the particular problems that we face in South Australia, you develop solutions to those problems, and then you export those solutions to the world.

What I am talking about are things we all know. We know that we are the driest state in the driest continent and we have water problems; we know that we have the peakiest electricity grid in Australia and that is a problem we need to deal with; we have an ageing population and we need to deal with that; and we have a declining manufacturing base with the automotive industry going (and I will have more to say about that shortly). Again, if we apply ourselves and develop solutions for these issues, then there are international markets we can engage in. So Green Industries SA gets a tick for now but, again, we reserve the right to be disappointed.

The next issue I want to look at is this idea of the carbon-neutral Adelaide green zone, and that Adelaide will become the world's first carbon-neutral city. That sounds fine because no-one really quite knows what that means and they do not really know how it is going to be measured, but I think people are mistrustful of claims like that, and I think there is some form with the government in this area. Some years ago I think the cabinet was going to be the first carbon-neutral cabinet, but when you drill down I do not think it meant much more than that they planted a few trees for each plane flight they took. There was not much in it.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: The Hon. David Ridgway rudely interjects with the little wind turbines on the State Administration Centre which, as he knows and as other members may know, never generated one skerrick of electricity. They never ran a single bar radiator or cooling fan. That is not to say that trials like that are not worth pursuing, but the government is certainly very quiet about the failure of that project.

One aspect of this carbon-neutral Adelaide green zone that I think is quite exciting, and does have potential, was the statement in the Governor's speech that within a decade electric and hybrid vehicles will be the preferred form of transport within Adelaide's central business district. That is a very noble aim, and I look forward to it coming true, but there are some serious problems to overcome, not least of which is the very low base from which we are starting.

I did a bit of an analysis for a constituent who had asked me about the electric car industry in South Australia. I think we worked out that there were seven electric taxis out of the thousands that operate in this state and the number of electric cars, if you exclude little golf buggy-type things, fork-lifts and things like that, actual electric cars on the roads, I think you are counting them in the dozens, rather than in the thousands.

I think electric cars are the future and that is why it is exciting that the government chose to put that reference into the Governor's speech. I was pleased that this week the deputy leader of the Greens federally, Mr Adam Bandt MP, came to Adelaide to launch the Greens' new plan for refocusing automotive assistance away from those car manufacturers who are departing and to redirect that money towards new electric car manufacturers. So, we welcome the government's call that electric and hybrid cars will be the preferred form of transport, but we do query what the government is doing about it.

As we all know, the automotive industry is in crisis. Neither of the old parties, at a federal or state level, has really taken action to make sure that that industry had a sustainable future. We have all the big car makers set to leave within the next three years and, as a consequence, component manufacturers are going to the wall as well. The Greens' plan is to establish a green car transformation scheme and to redirect most of the existing automotive transformation scheme funding towards that new objective, and that is going to be good news for South Australia because, as we know, there are tens of thousands of jobs, not just directly making cars but directly making components and also indirectly related to the component industry.

Victoria and South Australia are the two states with the most to lose and we are the ones who should be working the hardest to try to transition our manufacturing base to one that has a future, and that includes electric cars. Some members might know that, because it is something I have mentioned in the past, until very recently it was not possible for members of parliament to lease anything other than a six-cylinder car. Thank goodness the government has modified its policy. Certainly, when I was elected in 2006, you only had two choices: a Mitsubishi or a Holden six-cylinder car. It was thought (perhaps) beneath the dignity of a member of parliament to drive an electric car, a hybrid car or even a four-cylinder car. So, the government has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the new world of automotive transport.

There are references in the Governor's speech to cycling infrastructure being improved. That is something we welcome, but I make two points. First of all, we still do not have a cycling strategy for South Australia. The last one expired in 2010 and it has not been replaced. If you do not have a strategy then you do not have a plan to ensure that your money is spent in the most efficient and best way possible. You end up with a range of ad hoc projects, many of which do not meet the needs that they should.

The second thing you need is to allocate some resources. As members would know, the current budget for cycling is a fraction of 1 per cent of the transport department's budget—forget the whole state budget, a fraction of 1 per cent. If the budget for cycling was to be increased to 1 per cent of the transport department budget then that would represent a more than doubling of funds put into cycling. So, again, we appreciate that the government says it is committed to cycling infrastructure, but it needs to have a plan and it needs to put in the money.

Speaking of planning, we have had the expert panel provide its report and, as with all such reports, there is some good, there is some bad and there is some ugly. The government is committed to responding midyear to that report and we are told that we will have legislation before parliament by the end of the year. One aspect of reform that the Greens are looking forward to is the charter of citizen participation. We do not know what it is going to contain, but it has a nice title.

I have to say, the signs are not good, if we look at the way things are currently going in the planning system. I will just give one example. I recently attended a City of Unley meeting that Mr David Pisoni had called in response to a number of community concerns about high-rise housing on Unley Road. As I have said before, the Greens believe that we need to increase the density in certain parts of Adelaide—and I think most South Australians have come to that conclusion as well—as an alternative to urban sprawl. But what is disappointing about the way things are going in places like Unley Road is that, whilst the community generally accepts that change is inevitable, when they negotiate in good faith with their local council or with their government and they do reach agreement and settle on a consensus or a compromise, they would like to think that it is genuine.

That is why I think the people of Unley are rightly disappointed: that, having negotiated a zone that would contain a maximum five-storey development, the very first cab off the rank, the first developer to come along wanting to develop in the new zone says, 'I'll have seven, thank you.' I think the residents are quite right to be dismayed, because they are thinking, 'Well, doesn't five mean five? Why did we spend all these years negotiating about increasing the density of our suburb if the first time someone comes along they put in an application for seven?'

I know the government does not understand this concept because the Governor's speech also refers to the fact that the urban growth boundary, that we have had for many years now, does need to have a firmer legislated base because currently nobody trusts it, nobody believes that it will stick. The way I describe it is that the urban growth boundary has been drawn with an HB pencil when most people expect it should be drawn with a texta colour because, whenever the developers come along and demand that farmland be rezoned, the government has jumped to those requests.

So, I am looking forward to the planning legislation that we will see in parliament later this year. As the only member of state parliament with planning qualifications, I am in my element with this, and I look forward to the government genuinely negotiating for reform and not trying to simply push through the agenda of its backers in the property industry.

There are references in the Governor's speech to South Australia's role as a food and wine producer and the need to protect prime agricultural land. I have to say that they are objectives that the Greens wholeheartedly support but, again, the way things are currently going, it is very difficult to believe what the government says. I will take the example of the evidence that was presented last week down in the South-East to the parliamentary hearing into fracking. Whilst that committee has not reported, certainly the comments of the witnesses were reported widely in the newspapers, so it is appropriate to refer to them here.

What we saw down in Millicent was a bit of a Who's Who of the wine industry, some of the key people, the representative bodies and executives from some of the biggest wine companies in Australia, or indeed the world, like Treasury Wine Estates, giving evidence to a parliamentary committee saying they are incredibly nervous about what an expanded gas industry might mean for their industry, and not just the potential physical impacts in terms of groundwater pollution and things like that, but in terms of perception, because this is an industry that is dependent on image and perception.

As one witness put it: if he is taking Chinese buyers up to the Coonawarra and going past gas wells then that really is not a look that they are seeking to achieve in terms of convincing people that South Australia is a clean and green place to grow food and wine. So, the government really has to ask itself: is it serious about that objective when it is currently promoting unconventional gas and other invasive mining in some of our best agricultural land?

The Governor's speech also refers to taxation reform. I must admit that in my time in politics that has been one of the most difficult areas, because any time somebody mentions that taxes might be reformed, their political opponents come out with a mantra: you want new taxes. As a result, no one is prepared to put forward new taxes and all we do is tweak the old taxes.

Now I hope that this process in South Australia is a genuine process and that all parties come to it with an open mind, because certainly the South Australian taxation base is narrow. Ever since, I think it was the High Court in 1942, upholding the commonwealth's right to levy income tax, South Australia has been limited to taxes on property and on transactions, taxes on gambling and taxes on employment, which I must say I have always found curious, that we all say that we want more work and more employment and we tax it, and we all say we want less pollution but we do not tax that. So this tax review, if it is a genuine review, should look at taxing the things less that we want more of, and more that we want less of. So I am looking forward to that process as well.

There has been a bit of commentary around the current inquiry or the current consultation in relation to time zones, and I have to say that, whilst it might have been a water cooler conversation for a little while, it seems to have gone off the boil lately, but certainly the Greens wanted to honour the process and we have consulted our members. I cannot give you an answer today; the jury is out.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: What did the 11 members say?

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I am not responding to that interjection. The Greens have consulted with our members. We have had dozens of responses and I have to say they are a varied mix, from the status quo to going west to going east. At the end of the day it is not the most important issue facing South Australia, and people have said it is a distraction from the real issues, but nevertheless there is probably no harm in looking at it again.

The Governor's speech refers to the quality of our democracy and whether certain sectors of the community have greater access than they should as a result of their wealth and their political donations, and I have to say that this is something that the Greens have been on about for years and years, and, whilst the parliament in 2013 did make some meagre effort to reform this system, I do not think the parliament got it right. The legislation that we now have—that the Electoral Commission is desperately trying to work out how to administer, not altogether successfully as I understand it—but the legislation that passed was basically about limiting how much parties could spend on elections rather than trying to limit how much money they raised from corporations, unions or the public.

My view was then and is now that if you are serious about cleaning up democracy, if you are serious about breaking the connection between political donation and political influence, you have to go to the source of the funding and you have to limit the amount of money that can be given, because, with limiting spending, really all that does is it invites creative accounting and it invites political parties to gather nest eggs of assets so that they can fund elections from the proceeds of capital rather than from donations. But I really do not think that limiting spending on elections to effectively the sort of amounts people already spend is going to clean up our democracy, and the Greens' concern was and still is that we do not want the best democracy money can buy.

The Governor in his speech referred to remuneration of members of parliament, and this is always a vexed issue. The position that the Greens take is that pay for members of parliament should not be disproportionate to the work that they do and to other comparable sectors, in particular public sector work, as well. My personal view, and this is not a fixed party position yet, is that we would do well to basically get rid of some of the allowances currently provided to members of parliament and roll them into salary and, in particular, I am looking at the committees where the current system is that everyone is entitled to a paid committee, whether you are interested in the subject matter or not because it is really regarded as part of base pay.

I would be getting rid of payment for committees. I would keep the committees, because they do important work, but I would get rid of the payment; you could roll it into salary, and then you would end up with people on committees who genuinely want to be there and have a particular interest in that area of work. Whilst it was not in the Governor's speech (and I will be ruled out of order if I talk about it too much), I would also be getting rid of the chauffeur-driven cars for chairs of committees.

Electoral reform is back on the agenda. It was disappointing that we did not fix the system at the end of the last parliament, but we get to have another go. The different options that have been put forward include the way votes are counted for the upper house. The government always likes to bring in reform of the tenure of upper house members and the size of the chamber. The Greens' position has not changed from when former Premier Mike ran introduced it: we are supportive of reduced terms in the upper house, we are not supportive of the reduced size of the chamber. We have not yet been given good reason to change that view.

There is a lot in the Governor's speech to give us hope. There is lots in there to have us despair as well. With a bad movie you have to suspend your disbelief in order to get maximum satisfaction out of it. The Greens are trying not to be too cynical. We would love the government to wholeheartedly try to implement the things that have been set out in the speech. We will work with the government where we can, and where the government falls short we will seek to bring it to account.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (16:36): I rise to make a few comments on the Governor's speech. I congratulate His Excellency the Governor on the opening of parliament and also on his appointment to the oldest and highest public office in the state. His rise from refugee to viceroy serves as an inspiration to us all.

I want to put on the record a few quotes from the Governor's speech, which we all know are not the words of His Excellency but that of his elected government, so goes our constitutional system. I will start close to the beginning, and I quote:

The Weatherill Labor government understands the angst and uncertainty felt by those who have recently lost their jobs at Arrium. They need both our support and new opportunities to contribute.

The government pretends to care and show solidarity, but when a genuine opportunity to assist the people of Whyalla and the north of the state, by allowing for the proposed Gillman oil and gas hub to go ahead in Whyalla, which could have alleviated the devastation for locals out there, the government did not even look at the alternative, despite reservations of Gillman board members.

This was detailed by David Washington in his InDaily article of 11 February. Encouragingly, there is potential for my beloved home town, with a plan for a future nuclear industry to revolve around Whyalla, as proposed by SA Nuclear Energy Systems, and detailed by Tory Shepherd in yesterday's Advertiser, which brings me to the next part of the Governor's speech, and I quote:

The government will establish a royal commission into the nuclear industry to investigate what role South Australia can and should play in the nuclear fuel cycle.

I welcome this announcement as a supporter of nuclear power and its potential as an efficient and clean source of energy, and as a source of employment and economic activity in a troubled economy such as ours. However, the royal commission should only be seen as a positive move if it leads to a positive outcome. If there is no development of a nuclear industry in South Australia, then this action by this government can only be seen as a distraction—another example of Labor talking big and not delivering.

There is no coincidence in the announcement of the Premier's about-face on nuclear power occurring shortly after the health minister announcing the gouging of the state's health system, which included the heartless and ill thought out closure of the Repat and Noarlunga Hospitals. Yesterday's Advertiser shows that the industry is ready to work with the government, and there are proposals ready to go. There need not be delay here, and our economy needs new industry such as this in order to modernise, diversify and, ultimately, once again become competitive with the rest of Australia. I return to the Governor's speech, and I quote:

Green industries SA, an agency whose task it will be to further encourage and support sustainable industries, will be established this year to help attract investment and export our expertise around the world.

How ridiculous. If South Australia's renewable energy industries are profitable, they will receive private investment, and if our skills are considered to be world-class they will be sought after. There is absolutely no need for a government agency to act as a conduit between business and the rest of the world. This is nothing short of corporate welfare, something that Labor harps about apparently only when it is politically convenient for them to do so. The Governor's speech states:

[The] government has already invested significantly in the transformation of Adelaide. It has also taken on established interests to open up the city. This has enabled small venues to grow and a thriving live music scene to emerge.

What has the government done other than make it easier and cheaper to obtain a small venue liquor licence? This should have been the minimum standard anyhow. All liquor licensees, whether they be an established family of a long line of publicans or the owner of a small bar, should be commended for their investment of time and capital as small business owners. For the government to take credit for the hard work and industry of South Australia's finest is disingenuous political opportunism.

While opening up this new licensing category, the government has simultaneously refused to relent on penalty rates, and in fact criticised business owners for refusing to open up on Sundays when it is not profitable to do so, has limited trading hours on Friday and Saturday nights, and finally is looking to ban smoking in outdoor beer gardens in the next 18 months, after significant investment from licensees to comply with the previous legislative changes. Who will reimburse these people for their investment which the health minister is now making redundant? The Governor also said:

Within a decade, electric and hybrid vehicles will be the preferred form of transport within Adelaide's central business district.

What does this mean? Given that the number of hybrid and electric cars currently on South Australian roads is less than half of 1 per cent of total registered cars in South Australia, is the government predicting a dramatic surge in popularity of these vehicles? Are they expecting the price of these vehicles to come down vis-a-vis fossil fuel cars? Or is the government being sneaky with words here in saying that these vehicles will be preferred by the government regardless of the citizen-consumer's tastes and affordability?

Will the government be enforcing its preference for these vehicles in the CBD with a variant of a congestion tax, where every conventionally fuelled vehicle will be taxed upon entry into the CBD? Surely the most obvious answer to ridding the CBD of cars is to improve public transport, and when I say improve, a good start would be making the limited services currently available more efficient and reliable. Perhaps more Adelaideans would be happy to use public transport if the government could guarantee that every individual would be at work on time and home in a timely manner without unnecessary delay, discomfort and dissatisfaction. The Governor's speech further states:

Our Motor Vehicles Act was written when the FB model Holden was being released to the market in 1959, and our Road Traffic Act two years later. [The] government will reform both pieces of legislation, and also legislate for driverless vehicles which will revolutionise transportation in South Australia.

Quite obviously, the current motor vehicles and road traffic acts are not the same pieces of legislation that were assented to in 1959 and 1961 respectively. The Premier, who is a lawyer, and the Minister for Transport, or perhaps their speechwriters, have forgotten the convention of the nomenclature of legislation. Just because an act of parliament bears the year in which it was assented to in its title, it does not mean it has not been amended over time to remain up to date.

In fact, the original Motor Vehicles Act of 1959 which replaced and amended parts of the original road traffic act of 1934 has been amended no less than 133 times by separate amendment acts including eight in 2013 alone, the most recent of them all. Similarly the Road Traffic Act of 1961, which replaced the road traffic act of 1934 and the road traffic board act of 1960 has been amended 128 times by separate amendment acts including the four most recent in 2013.

What all this demonstrates is that this reform, which no doubt the government is building up to be one of the greatest of the Hon. Mr Weatherill's premiership, is actually a sham. These acts need no reform as they are up to date as of last year. Using the reference to the FB Holden, the Premier's spin doctors would have South Australians believe that this act is an anachronism that is not worth the parchment it is written on. If the government believes there to be a deficiency in the current legislation, then introduce an amendment and the parliament will consider it.

This brings me to the actual issue of driverless cars, which is another example of the government dreaming up a solution where there is yet to be a problem. When driverless cars become a reality, the current act should be amended to reflect the change on our roads. However, until that actually happens, why are we wasting time and resources on this?

Once again, this is nothing short of a distraction from the chronic problems this government is facing and the decisions it is making that are harmful to South Australian families. The Governor talks about his personal connection to Asia while also talking about the government's strategy to foster trade in the region. He also adds:

I look forward to assisting in the development of the state's relationship with this dynamic region.

If these are the Governor's own words, that is fine. He is free to comment, but if he is reading what has been written for him by the Premier and the government, then this is a serious breach of protocol and constitutional convention. Involving the Governor personally and directly with a government policy blurs the line between the partisan elected government and the apolitical Queen's representative.

We know that the Premier has called the appointment of His Excellency one of his greatest achievements. This in itself disrespects our constitutional system. His Excellency is appointed by Her Majesty The Queen, not by the Premier, and he has a constitutional responsibility to respect that arrangement and not arrogantly parade around as if he owns the place. I quote:

My government understands that it needs to insist upon cultural change within our Public Service if it is to attract the volume of investment needed to create new jobs.

The government needs to be serious about this, and if it is, then wholesale reforms are needed not just in a purge of executive-level management, which to date has been the only change to the Public Service since the Hon. Mr Weatherill took over as Premier. This is hardly cultural change. There needs to be a refocusing of the Public Service on serving the public rather than the minister and the government's ends.

An officiousness in the enforcement and compliance of burdensome regulation and legislation harms productivity in this state. There should be a tangible benefit to the enforcement of government regulation and legislation, whereas often, to businesspeople every day and South Australians, many of the decisions of government departments and their public servants are baffling in their adherence to strict wording over practicality. Whether this is a flaw of legislation, regulation or those enforcing it, it should be investigated by the government and acted upon if the desire is for true cultural change.

The government's comments on the taxation system were contradictory at best and disingenuous at worst. The Premier has said repeatedly that he is all about big government and the words that he has provided to the Governor confirm this. I quote:

Taxation is the means by which we provide services that create opportunity and confront inequality.

There is no reference to necessary services and any limitation on state power. The state should only provide when people cannot provide for themselves, for it is those with the means (the taxpayer) who are providing those services to those who do not. Humorously, the Premier's words continue:

South Australia…needs a taxation system that both attracts investment to create new opportunities and encourages business owners to employ more South Australians.

The success of our tax system should therefore be measured by the jobs and growth created in our economy and the quality of services we provide to the community.

…The government is open to radical reform to our taxation system.

This is good to hear, because I have been proposing this for a long time, as many of us have on this side of the chamber, and indeed as we do as a party. We do not consider this radical, but I think this government may: the proposal is to simply cut tax rates. 'How will we pay for everything?' the Treasurer will cry out. Cut capital expenditure. It is simply embarrassing to suggest that reform is needed in the tax system to attract business investment when all business wants is lower taxes.

The solution is obvious, but there must be a commitment from government to cut expenditure or it simply will not work, ever. We know that Labor will never cut expenditure and therefore they cannot lower or remove taxes, so when the Premier and Treasurer talk about tax reform, what they mean is higher taxes. They will run around pretending to consult, but what this is really about is how they can guarantee maximum return with as little political harm as possible—how noble.

What great public servants these people are, and the Premier would like more money for himself, calling for a reform of politicians' pay, which actually means an increase. This should only be considered if the state can afford it. When the government talks about judging the tax system on jobs and growth created in our economy, its successes can only be classified as an abject failure. The government knows the current system is broken and knows what business wants, but that runs contrary to what the Premier and Labor want to do, so in the meantime they will talk about reform, pretend to consult, pay lip service to various stakeholders, and then go about doing whatever it wants. It is the same old story. To quote the Governor:

South Australia's exceptional half-hour time difference to the convention of whole-hour time zones has been consistently raised as an impediment to South Australian companies with significant interstate and overseas interests.

Once again, this can only be a distraction. Why does the change need to occur now? The only change that makes any logical sense is to repeal the Standard Time Act of 1899 and go back to the full hour, which is accurate as per South Australia's true meridian. Moving to the eastern time zone is ridiculous. Australia, particularly South Australia, is a vast geographical entity and moving the time zone another half an hour to the east creates all sorts of havoc with daylight hours for residents in the west of the state. Moving central time half an hour backwards is fair for everyone and solves the government's supposed dilemma with regard to the half hour discrepancy. The Governor's speech states:

Corporate campaign contributions cannot be permitted to inappropriately influence our public policy.

I agree, and neither should those of other organisations such as trade unions. Donations from any non-natural person should be treated similarly to how the government intends to treat so-called corporate donations. Do not simply target businesses, but all organisations which are neither political parties nor individuals. I return to the speech:

It will propose to reform the system of voting to eliminate the anti-democratic practice of preference harvesting.

This is a positive move, and perhaps the government will consider the idea of a threshold, 4.55 per cent or 5 per cent of the vote, which roughly equates to the value of one Legislative Council seat, or even 9.09 per cent or 9 per cent, as that equates to the value of one of the 11 seats vacant during any given election cycle. The threshold would work by eliminating only the parties or groupings which receive at least that much of the total primary Legislative Council vote to be eligible to return a member to this place. All the minor and micro parties which receive less than this threshold will have their preferences distributed. The Governor's speech states:

The government will also introduce deadlock reform, which will involve new options to resolve disputes between houses.

This should concern all honourable members in this place, including those on the government benches, as it goes to the heart of the independence and power of this place. Under our constitutional arrangements, this place is on a legislative equal footing with the other place, save for a few specific areas. This should not be watered down at all, and I would suggest that any attempt to curtail the powers of this place would be met with fierce opposition from honourable members of the crossbench, whose parties' voices are only heard in this place. If the current deadlock procedures do not work, it is because of the intransigence of the government and an unwillingness to negotiate from its ministers.

The convention of the deadlock process is that those who represent this place at a deadlock conference represent the will of the chamber as determined by resolution of the same. If that means that government members of this place must be at odds with their colleagues from the other place, then so be it. Proposing reform or changing the system will not and should not change the power or the will of the place to make its own decisions and similarly to disagree with the majority on the floor of the other place. This is how it has been since 1857, and it is a cornerstone of our representative democracy.

Whilst on the subject of representative democracy, His Excellency made some remarks about involving everyday South Australians in parliamentary debates and the like. I cannot help but think our system is based on representative democracy, not direct democracy, and therefore any move to involve people not duly elected to contribute to debate can potentially be harmful to the system, or at least make it less efficient.

Consultation with the community should be encouraged, but let us be honest, even with the advent of social media, which bridges the gap between the political class and the average citizen, all we see on Twitter, for instance, is ministers, members, staffers, party hacks and journalists engaging in unhelpful, puerile bickering. I cannot see how this improves the quality of political debate in this state.

Any process which opens up the current parliamentary standards and standing orders to allow strangers to contribute will surely only see many of the same people dominate the process, those who are already in the system and aware of how it works. Any attempt to connect with those outside the political sphere should be made to those who are disillusioned with politics and the system, not to those seeking to gain influence and use it for their own ends. I further quote:

The government will renew the Department for Education and Child Development and its services.

Given that the Liberal opposition has been calling for child protection to be removed from this department, of course we would welcome 'renewal', as this government has euphemistically termed it. Child protection should be completely separate from the education of every South Australian child. I am glad that the government has listened to the opposition, parents and other stakeholders on this issue. The speech then talks about the relocation of central office staff out to local areas to work more closely with schools and staff. Naturally, the Liberals welcome decentralisation. In fact, given the failings of this department of late, surely this proves that increasing centralisation is not a positive, but often leads to aloofness and maladministration.

In the Governor's comments referring to his comments on Confucian thought and his Vietnamese upbringing, the government has once again personally associated the Governor with the partisan political musings of this Labor government. This is completely inappropriate and an affront to our constitutional arrangements, as I said earlier. Finally, from the speech:

Delays continue to reduce the effectiveness of our justice system. Disputes must be addressed in a more efficient manner.

I am no legal eagle but how can the government be calling for more efficiency in the administration of justice while subsequently cutting funding to the Courts Administration Authority which is now being forced to consider the closure of the Port Adelaide and Holden Hill court precincts? All this will do is put even more pressure on the courts' precincts still standing. This is hardly efficiency.

Whilst there is more I could say, I will conclude my contribution here. Once again, I thank His Excellency for his attendance here and I commend the motion to the council. I look forward to the session and wish all honourable members the best, in particular the new member for Davenport, the very talented and most affable Mr Sam Duluk.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:55): I am pleased to contribute to this debate, the address in reply to the speech of the Governor in opening the parliament. I acknowledge the fact that His Excellency Hieu Van Le opened the parliament for the first time since he took on that important role in the democracy of our state. I congratulate once again His Excellency on taking up that position, after, as was mentioned by the Hon. Mr Parnell, having served very well in the position of Lieutenant-Governor for some time.

I have known the Governor for many years. I first came into contact with him when he was giving back to the community. When he first came to this country a number of people in Gawler and surrounding areas gave him and his family great support and, in subsequent years, he often went back to that community to provide the Gawler branch of the then Indo-Chinese Refugee Association great support in assisting the more recent arrivals from South-East Asia. I know the regard that he is held in is very high by what is now known as the Gawler branch of the Australian Refugee Association and the broader association across South Australia.

I also note the number and range of events where I have bumped into the Governor and his wife, Mrs Lan Le, since he has taken on that position. I think it is a great credit to them both that they have involved themselves in such a wide variety of events in this state.

Firstly, I acknowledge that in the Governor's speech he mentioned the passing of a number of former members of this parliament. Of course, one was the Hon. Dr Such who passed away while still in the service of the parliament. We have had condolence motions in this place for the Hon. Don Banfield, the Hon. Cecil Creedon, the Hon. Dr Such, Mrs Heather Southcott AM and only in the last sitting the Hon. Arthur Mornington Whyte AM, former president of this chamber. I have spoken to most of those condolence motions, but I certainly add now my acknowledgement of the service to this state by all of those people.

Before making some comment on a number of the matters raised in His Excellency's speech, I want to relay a conversation I had with a constituent recently who I think is very well informed, well educated, and someone who is a student generally of our democracy. They asked me the question, 'Can you confirm when the last opening of parliament was held? Was it held just after the election of last year?' I said that it was, and that person then said, 'When was it?' I replied that it was in May last year, and this person then said, 'Well, can you justify why we need another opening of parliament nine months later?'

As much as, I think, most members of parliament here can stick up for our democratic Westminster system and the right of the government of the day to do that, it is very hard to find a reason to justify why a newly re-elected government felt it had to prorogue the parliament barely six months after it had actually established the parliament. That is something this current government needs to explain to people; why we prorogued the parliament, and why many items of business have now had to be reintroduced. That is something for the government to explain. As someone who has been here for as long as I have, I found it very difficult to give that person something that they could feel justified the government's decision.

In relation to aspects of the Governor's speech, the first one I would like to refer to is his reference to the fact that 'Our Motor Vehicles Act was written when the FB model Holden was being released to the market in 1959, and our Road Traffic Act two years later.' The role of ferries in the South Australian community—obviously, in the river and lakes communities—is as important and relevant today as it was in 1959. Unfortunately, I think there has been a number of events and actions in recent times that have probably put a lot of doubt in the minds of the community, particularly in a number of localities along the River Murray and in lakes communities, as to whether this current government sees the role of ferries in our road traffic system as important as it should be.

I recently attended a meeting of the Murray Mallee Local Government Association at Tailem Bend. There was a presentation made there by the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (which I will refer to a little more shortly) which was largely to give some explanation for a meeting that had been held earlier at Cadell regarding the fact that significant load limit restrictions were being placed on two of the timber-based ferries that remain in the system. I understand that another one will quite possibly have similar restrictions placed upon it in the near future.

The presentation was made to the Murray Mallee Local Government Association and, as a result, the following motion was moved by the Mid Murray council. That motion was:

That Rebecca Timmings, Manager Traffic Solutions, DPTI, and Joseph Rositano, Mechanical Services Manager, DPTI be thanked for their informative presentation to the MMLGA and

1) That the Murray and Mallee Local Government Association write to the Premier, Treasurer and State Minister for Transport highlighting the importance of the ferry services to the Murray River and Lakes communities and requested funding be allocated in the 2015/16 budget for the replacement of the remaining three timber hulled ferries.

2) That a copy of that letter be sent to the State Opposition Leader, State Shadow Treasurer, State Shadow Minister for Transport and State Members for Chaffey, Stuart, Schubert, Hammond, Local Government Association of SA, John Dawkins MLC and other relevant State and Federal Members, and

3) That concern over ferry services be referred to the Chief Executive Officer of the Murray and Mallee Local Government Association to re-activate the Ferry Working Party with the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

Of course, the background to the ferry working party goes back to 2012 (I think it was June 2012), when the state government, the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, held a public meeting in Cadell to give that community 16 days' notice that it was going to close the Cadell ferry. I think most members in this place would understand the great concern that caused the people of Cadell but also, of course, so many other communities.

As a result of that, the decision was reversed by the Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, and a ferry working party was established, a joint state/local government working party, to meet and prepare an options paper on the sustainability of Murray River ferries. The working party consisted of representatives from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and the Renmark, Paringa, Coorong and Mid Murray councils.

The fact that this working party has been suggested to be reactivated shows that the communities who rely so heavily on the ferries as part of the road network are very concerned. Certainly, the motion would indicate that, currently, the state of the timber hulled ferries is of such concern that there is a great threat that one of those ferries could go out of action and there is no spare ferry ready to go. So, I think that is why the motion indicates that it is really important that the government does find the money to make sure that we do have the timber hulled ferry replacements, the steel hulled ferries, in the system as soon as is absolutely possible.

I will change tack a little bit in getting to the reference in the Governor's speech on health. It will not surprise anybody that I would like to start in relation to mental health and suicide prevention. I would firstly like to read a letter that I wrote to the Hon. Jack Snelling on 2 February. It reads as follows:

Dear Minister, I refer to your response to questions on Friday, 18th July 2014 during Estimates Committee A (pages 148 and 149 of the Committee Hansard) regarding the appointment of another 1.0 FTE position to assist with the rollout of the State Suicide Prevention Strategy. During the Committee you stated in a response to a question from the Member for Morphett;

Dr McFETRIDGE: On the same budget reference, [Budget Paper 6, page 72, suicide prevention] is there funding in the forward estimates for a salary for the dedicated officer rolling out these programs or the government's suicide prevention strategy, more particularly?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am advised, yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: In the suicide prevention programs. In the community grants area, I understand there is only [one] staff member who is organising the rollout of these programs. Is there any intent to increase that?'

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That one FTE is actually an additional position on top of what we have currently got.

I will continue with my letter:

As it has been some six months since the Estimates Committee process, I am writing to seek clarification of when this position will be filled.

Thank you in anticipation of your swift response.

That letter was written on 2 February and, at this stage, I have had no response. I think it is important that that position be provided. I have given great encouragement to the government to continue to show its support, the support that it has demonstrated through the development of its Suicide Prevention Strategy and the support for the growing number of community groups that I think have evolved in South Australia around suicide prevention and broader mental health issues.

I see all the time a great number of people who respond to suicide and self harm and to mental health issues generally across communities, whether they be in small country communities or in quite densely settled urban areas where people can be even more lonely than in a country community. I think there is a great searching for assistance. The government has shown already with the limited amount of resources that have been available to the Suicide Prevention Strategy that great steps can be taken, and certainly those steps have been taken by many suicide prevention networks.

I note that a large number of other areas want to go in that direction, and I think that can only be assisted by the investment in that other position which, as I have said, was promised during the estimates last year. So, I urge the government to do that. In his speech, the Governor specifically mentioned domestic violence. I think it is a reference that echoes community concern, and I was very pleased that that reference was made in Hieu Van Le's speech. He said:

My government will strengthen responses to violence against women.

New initiatives include a court assistance service and an early warning system to provide an escalation point if there have been flaws in the response of a government agency to a report of violence.

My government, as the largest employer in the state, will lead by example by ensuring all departments obtain White Ribbon Workplace accreditation.

I commend those efforts and acknowledge the White Ribbon movement and the number of ambassadors that are in this council. As I have said in this place before, anybody who is now nominated to be a White Ribbon Ambassador has to go through an induction. They have to actually be approved. The Hon. Mr Gazzola and I did not have to go through that.

He would have passed it with flying colours and I may not have, but the reality is that there is a great scrutiny of those who put their hands up to be White Ribbon ambassadors and there is also a lot of training that goes with it in relation to how those ambassadors can best advance the cause, most particularly amongst young men in the community, to stamp out what is a blight on our society. So I give great credit to the Governor for mentioning that in his speech to open the parliament.

Further to matters relating to health, I must mention my concern about the government's plans to end the existence of the emergency department at the Modbury Hospital. I think it is interesting to note that in early 2013, the government spent $17.4 million on increasing the emergency treatment and assessment spaces at Modbury from 23 to 40 after already completing the first stage of the project which included installing more modern facilities like a security room and a discharge transit lounge.

In fact, in February 2013, the health minister, the Hon. Jack Snelling, put out a press release on 22 February, and that included quotes from the member for Florey in another place and the member for Newland in another place who, of course, have their electorates served very well by Modbury Hospital. The member for Florey said, and I quote:

'It will provide state-of-the art facilities for staff and the almost 40,000 patients who attend the Emergency Department each year at Modbury Hospital,' Ms Bedford said.

Member for Newland Tom Kenyon welcomed work starting on the final stage of the re-development.

'This will be a bigger and better emergency department that the people of the north-eastern suburbs deserve,' Mr Kenyon said.

It is just remarkable that in that short space of time the government has abandoned the emergency department at Modbury. I note a document that is on the website of the Modbury Hospital Foundation—and the foundation actually does great work to promote that hospital—but the document called 'Fast Facts Modbury Hospital' indicated a number of facts about the history of the hospital and the way in which it serves the north-eastern suburbs of Adelaide and, of course, well up into the Adelaide Hills region.

One of those items on that fast facts bulletin is called 'The changing face of Modbury Hospital'. I think that is very appropriate because obviously members of the Labor Party for years have criticised the previous Liberal government's decision to allow Modbury to be run by private operators. There will always be opinions in that part of Adelaide as to the level of success of that move or otherwise. There were a number of Labor members in the area who were elected on a great promise to bring Modbury back into the control of the actual government health system and, of course, that was achieved a number of years ago.

Can I say, and I have said this quite openly to the members concerned, particularly the member for Florey, that ever since that has happened, the direction of that hospital has changed so many times, and the member for Florey, I think, has to apologise for so many of the things that have happened at the Modbury Hospital that she said would never happen when it returned to administration by the government.

It is just extraordinary that, having said those things about the upgrade of the emergency department at Modbury only two years ago, in February 2013, those people are out there trying to defend the decision of the government to close emergency at Modbury and send people, largely, to the Lyell McEwin Hospital, which is already overworked all the time, that I am aware of. Most people in this place would understand the stress that the Lyell McEwin Hospital is already under.

In conclusion, in relation to the references in the Governor's speech to economic development, I wanted to put something on the record about the work done by Defence SA, which probably has not had as much publicity as references to submarines. The Department of Defence is currently looking to replace a number of land combat system vehicles in its fleet. As part of this project, Defence SA has worked to provide two precinct concept plans, one at Techport on the Le Fevre Peninsula and the second at Edinburgh, which of course is a very crucial part of the defence department's Australian assets but also is very important to South Australia's economy. Those two plans will encourage industry to construct and maintain these vehicles here in South Australia.

A request for tender by the Department of Defence was due this month. However, it has not yet been released, but the state government is hoping the project will be put out to tender soon. Initially, the Department of Defence is looking to acquire approximately 250 vehicles in a first batch purchase, with a view to purchasing up to 700 vehicles in the future.

Defence SA is working with the Department of Defence to have local manufacturing content as a key requirement of the tender. It is also working with key bidders to try to ensure they base their manufacturing here in Adelaide. Defence SA is also working to ensure the federal government includes as part of the tender a 15-year performance-based through-life support program for the vehicles. I certainly would encourage the strong consideration of those vehicles to be built here in South Australia.

Again, I thank His Excellency for the manner in which he addressed the parliament on the opening of our new session and also for the dignified, respectful way that he encompasses his work across all the community of South Australia, and I very much look forward, as one of my colleagues said earlier, to his ongoing service as Governor of South Australia and his work with not only the whole parliament but also, very importantly, the Legislative Council.

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

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