HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-06-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Supply Bill 2018

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 June 2018.)

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (17:16): I rise today to speak on the Supply Bill. This bill relates to the provision of $6.6 billion worth of funds to operate public services in South Australia. I support this bill. After all, the government cannot spend money it does not have, but I am concerned that no details have been provided to quantify the government spend. This is particularly disconcerting for a government that has already indicated a potential budget deficit; alarming indeed in light of Liberal Party policy pronouncements for small government and reduced government intervention and allowing the market to control and balance the economy.

There have been many speeches inside and out of this chamber about the economics of past and future government spending, as reflected in the policies of both major parties. I will not reiterate those comments. Suffice to note that the Weatherill Labor government had a sound record with state government funding and intervention to support various initiatives that would create the infrastructure and jobs needed in South Australia for the benefit of all South Australians, whilst also focusing on education and training as well as health and hospitals.

Instead, I would like to focus on the old RAH site and plans for its development. There has been much discussion on this issue, but little tangible policy development outcomes, partly because it is a vexed issue and requires much contemplation and discussion, and in part because it presents new challenges that may well have ramifications into the future.

Why the old RAH site, you may ask? What is so special about it? Why can't we just decide its fate and get on with it? All important questions. To appreciate its significance I would like to make some initial observations. The old RAH site comprises seven hectares of prime real estate nestled in the East End of the Adelaide CBD. It was originally part of the Parklands and links up with the universities, galleries and museums on North Terrace. It is located on public land and belongs to the South Australian community, along with various heritage buildings on site. Because of its location, its size and public ownership of the site, it is important that discussions about its future role and purpose are extensively considered.

The Labor government initially entered into discussions with a private consortium of developers before deciding to pursue a different direction for the site in the days preceding the March 2018 election. Labor understands the importance of ensuring the development of this land and has the interest of our community as its primary focus.

The developer's original plan contemplated a 99-year lease over the site to erect a luxury hotel, a university innovation hub, an arts culture centre and 1,200 apartments. Interestingly enough, the Liberal government's vision for the site was not too dissimilar to the developer's proposal, which was rejected by the then Labor government. It includes an innovation start-up and growth hub, an international cordon bleu cooking school, a national gallery for Aboriginal art and culture, a contemporary art gallery and international standard hotel accommodation.

In the period prior to the March 2018 election, a design proposal from a New York-Adelaide consortium for a contemporary gallery was submitted by the then Labor government. The design contemplated a suspended rooftop garden, super lobby and a central performance centre. That design was successful and lauded by a nine-person international jury. It anticipated utilising two hectares of the seven-hectare site.

The Liberal government has not committed to adopting the design plan, but has indicated it will consider the design as part of its overall deliberations for the site. In essence, I would argue that the current government's proposed vision for the site does not actually progress the fate of the site much further. One can adduce that there is a consensus for a gallery or cultural institution in some form. Whether it will house modern or contemporary art and/or Indigenous art and artefacts is unclear.

The Liberal policy anticipates a national gallery for Aboriginal art and culture. In order to proceed down this path, further dialogue and discussion has to be had with the Art Gallery, the Museum (which currently owns and has in store the largest selection of Aboriginal art and artefacts) and Tandanya. The issue of ownership of Aboriginal artefacts, options for incorporating and consulting the various stakeholders is vital to progress any development in this regard.

We need to be clear about the reciprocal arrangements that exist between the Art Gallery, Museum and the Aboriginal community before we are able to proceed forward. Considering the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation is yet to visit the APY lands and speak with the community and the government's failure to recognise the importance of a treaty on a state level does not bode well in this regard.

Consultation with our Indigenous community is not a strong point with the Liberal government. Further Liberal policy talks about more residential development in terms of hotels and accommodation on this site. There is an abundance of accommodation options in terms of hotels, apartments and temporary holiday accommodation in the CBD. We do not require any more residential accommodation or hotel development in the CBD at this point in time.

Occupancy and vacancy rates do not reflect any need for further hotel or apartment development. We do require temporary accommodation and support services for our most vulnerable who are living on the streets or who are experiencing hardship and financial instability. Short-term accommodation, as well as showering facilities, should be made available at the old RAH site, in addition to the provision of basic emergency and first aid assistance and facilities which would be better provided in a health centre type structure.

This approach will assist in addressing congestion in our hospital emergency departments and will provide more accessible and appropriate services outside of a hospital structure. We need to establish a centre for those who have hit upon hard times in our community with the provision of first aid and basic treatment, showering facilities, provision of clean clothes and short-term bedding and sleeping quarters.

Various agencies engaged in providing assistance and support should be consulted and included in implementing this public health centre for the community, which could be based at the old RAH site. The short-stay temporary accommodation that we should be talking about should be based upon need and circumstance. We do not require high-end international standard hotel accommodation for the enjoyment of the wealthy and few.

The old RAH site is on public land. Any initiatives, programs or services should be for the public and our South Australian community. The proposed Liberal vision of an international centre for tourism, hospitality and food studies, with the establishment of a cordon bleu chef training school, appears to disregard the existing TAFE enterprise and training facility at Regency Park, which is already providing hospitality and food services courses. The focus should be supporting and bolstering existing structures and facilities, where necessary, rather than reinventing centres which, in essence, directly compete with existing facilities.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the primary focus of these training initiatives would be to bring in tourism and training dollars, it is unclear how these projects will create business and job opportunities in our state for South Australians, as is alleged by the Liberal government. At the end of the day, how many cordon bleu chefs do we require in our state? Or is it the case that we will be simply training our youth and jobless to leave the state in search of job opportunities elsewhere?

The other issue of concern is the status of the training school for cordon bleu chefs; namely, will the training school be a private or public training facility or a combination of both? This is significant, as the school would be based on public land, using public facilities. Our state government should not be promoting and offering public facilities for private enterprises without adequate financial recompense and unless there are built-in safeguards protecting the hospital on behalf of the South Australian community.

Ownership of the old RAH site must always remain in the hands of the South Australian public, and economic benefits derived from any development initiatives on the site are for the benefit of our community and state. By far, the idea of transferring the old RAH site into an innovation and start-up hub appears to show the most promise in providing real financial and social benefit for the state. Both Labor and Liberal policy promulgates the development of an innovation, start-up and growth hub as a means of business development and job creation opportunities for the state.

Not much detail has been provided to date by the Liberal government. Certainly, there are role models of similar hubs operating around the world, which need to be studied in order to assist in the development of our own plans and strategies. There is Station F in Paris, the Cambridge Innovation Center in Boston and the Sydney Startup Hub, to mention a few that have either been operating for some time or are in the initial development stages.

There is, of course, the MaRS project in Canada, which has now been operating for some 13 years. It is one of the largest urban innovation hubs, with its objective of bringing together start-ups, researchers and innovators. The Don Dunstan Foundation has sought to inform the debate with the establishment of a Thinker in Residence program that has been exploring the relationship between innovation, the economy and society, and how to move forward on development of the old RAH site.

Ilse Treurnicht, the former CEO of the MaRS innovation hub, was the Thinker in Residence at the foundation. There are many similarities and parallels that are relevant for the old RAH site. The MaRS Discovery District was also developed on the site of an old hospital in Toronto, Canada. Other similarities include our education system, the liveability and affordability of our cities, simultaneously the commonality of our large geographies, small population and local markets, and dependence on global trade and transitioning economies with a declining manufacturing sector.

MaRS sees collaborative innovation as a means of providing solutions to problems facing our society and community. Using their language, I quote:

MaRS Discovery District is a not-for-profit innovation hub dedicated to driving economic and social prosperity by harnessing the full potential of innovation.

The MaRS project generates thousands of jobs and millions in revenue with its focus, initiatives and programs that seek to strengthen the economy and improve society. We find ourselves at an important crossroads. We need to make critical decisions that will have a direct impact on the opportunities offered to our children and our children's children.

We need to be courageous and bold in our planning and decision-making. The old RAH site is an outstanding site and requires thorough and extensive consideration. It will involve collaborative effort amongst creative peoples in government, business, education and universities and in various walks of life. It requires thinkers and businesses with vision and planning for our state's future and viability. The promulgation of viable and prosperous strategies for development of the old RAH site will require extensive consultation with all stakeholders.

Most importantly, the South Australian community have the right to be well informed throughout the process, but also are entitled to make contributions at every step of the way of building and transforming the site. It is unacceptable for the Liberal government to negate any consultation on the basis that they have a mandate as a result of the March 2018 election. Their vision concerning the old RAH site lacks any detail or clarity. They have a mandate to develop the site only. The form of the development of the site requires further discussion, dialogue, consultation and planning with the South Australian community.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:31): It gives me great pleasure to rise to make a contribution on behalf of the opposition on the Supply Bill. It is an important bill. The very nature of these bills are particularly brief. The purpose, as its name suggests, is to supply the government with sufficient funds to carry on the business of government, while the parliament goes through the process of considering and approving a budget for the financial year which approaches.

This bill seeks to appropriate $6.6 billion, which is, as I roughly make it, a fraction over about a third of the operating expenses of the general government sector for a financial year. I think it is interesting that this Supply Bill would provide for a little over a third of the necessary appropriations for the operating expenses of the year of government, which would get us through to a period only a small number of weeks after when the budget is to be tabled.

I note that it is convention that government bills, upon their introduction to the council, are provided with a period of time so that members can get their heads across the vast amounts of detail that is included and also to be given the opportunity to be briefed by relevant government departments. I say this as a shadow minister who is still yet to be briefed by any government department relevant to my industry and skills shadow portfolio, despite writing to the Minister for Industry and Skills almost a month and half ago.

As a shadow minister, it is critical for me to receive briefings relevant to the funding of the department of industry and skills, as it will be named, to ensure appropriate scrutiny of government decisions, the passage of bills and legislation through the parliament. I hope this lack of a briefing, despite being requested a month and a half ago, is an oversight.

I understand that, given the broad nature of the purpose of the appropriation of these moneys for expenditure by the government, members are allowed a large degree of leeway in speaking to this bill. I will not take full advantage of that, but I will speak to a number of items that I think need to be addressed. I believe it is fair to assume that the government's budget is a good indicator of its priorities for the forthcoming year.

We on this side of the house know that it is not pure luck that leads to a fiscal surplus. Previous Labor treasurers have worked successfully over the previous 16 years to ensure the provision of essential services, while maintaining responsible financial management of the public sector. The Marshall Liberal government inherits a budget that specifically includes an additional $150 million in the current financial year for the operations and cost pressures that face SA Health, and $24 million for child protection.

The former Labor government can be proud of its record during its 16 years in government. Governments always undertake to leave the place in better shape than when they started, and I think this is certainly the case with the previous administration, despite the narrative that those opposite would like to portray.

I want to start by talking a bit about health and the achievements that the previous government made in this area. Labor, during its time in office, made significant investments in our public hospitals, with major upgrades to every metropolitan public hospital and every major country hospital in South Australia. We funded a large number of projects during our time in government and made further commitments during the state election, such as:

continuing to invest heavily in our health infrastructure with more than $1.2 billion committed in the 2017-18 state budget to ensure our public hospitals remained world class, also supporting 3,900 jobs;

to build a new Adelaide women's hospital co-located with the new Royal Adelaide Hospital that is expected to create 1,900 full-time equivalent jobs for South Australians during the life of the project;

$52½ million over four years to create a new and bigger world-class emergency department at the Lyell McEwin Hospital, including doubling the number of adult assessment cubicles, with about 200 jobs during construction;

more than $270 million for a major redevelopment of The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, including an upgraded cardiac service, a new and bigger emergency department, a dedicated elective surgery centre, a new intensive care unit and state of the art rehabilitation services;

$64.4 million to upgrade the existing Women's and Children's site;

$4.7 million over two years to contribute to the Australian Digital Health Agency, delivering the new digital healthcare program;

$44 million towards SAHMRI 2, an item that has been mentioned a number of times in this place, a new state of the art medical research hub to house the Southern Hemisphere's first proton therapy unit; again, 250 jobs during construction and 340 jobs ongoing;

we also invested more than $90 million in upgrades and new services at Modbury Hospital. Improved medical and surgical services and a new purpose-built palliative care hospice were part of Labor's commitments;

$35.4 million for an acute surgical unit to enable a wider range of elective surgeries to be carried out;

a new $9.2 million extended emergency care unit and a new $8.9 million acute medical unit, to allow patients to be seen sooner and more to be treated and discharged at Modbury; and

$15.6 million to create a purpose-built palliative care facility, with 16 individual rooms with private bathrooms to provide contemporary care, on top of more than $62 million invested by the state government in Modbury Hospital since 2002.

We are all aware of the damage and destruction that the previous Liberal government did to the Modbury Hospital. Then health minister, Michael Armitage, privatised Modbury Hospital to Victorian company Healthscope, which meant that the Modbury Hospital was managed from Victoria. Part of Modbury Hospital was blocked off from public patients and over 200,000 private medical records were passed over to a private company. It was the Labor government that then returned Modbury Hospital to public hands to ensure that everyone would have access to all of its services.

I have spoken to many people in the north-east over the years and what is such a common topic of conversation is the Modbury Hospital, the hospital loved by the community. They certainly have not forgotten about the damage and chaos that the then Liberal government did to Modbury Hospital. They know that the Liberals cannot be trusted with Modbury Hospital. They know the Liberal Party record on Modbury Hospital.

What is interesting is that I am told the current health minister, Stephen Wade, actually worked as an adviser to Michael Armitage. What is even more interesting is that just 18 months ago minister Wade, I am told, had employed the Hon. Michael Armitage to work for him one day a week. I trust they were not drawing up plans to privatise Modbury Hospital yet again. It is ironic to hear the new minister for Health claim to care about the Modbury Hospital, when it was the Liberal Party that privatised the hospital when they were in government.

Labor committed to a $140 million cash injection over the next 10 years to upgrade country public hospitals and aged-care infrastructure, ensuring high-quality services can continue to be provided to rural and regional communities. This, of course, includes the upgrade to the Mount Gambier hospital renal dialysis unit. I think it is important to clarify this point as it has been raised in this place a number of times since the start of this parliamentary term.

The former minister for health, now Leader of the Opposition in the other place, visited Mount Gambier within a month of becoming minister to inspect the unit and the demands upon it. He and I spoke with local people who were using it and I was able to tell him about the many conversations I had had with people who needed an improved service.

People receiving renal dialysis treatment spend many hours, over many days, every week in the hospital—a challenging prospect for anyone. It was the previous Labor government that provided the funding for the upgrade to the Mount Gambier renal dialysis unit, with funding allocated in the Mid-Year Budget Review of December 2017. As a Limestone Coast resident, I understand just how important this is to the local community. I am glad that the former Labor government provided funding for it. The former Labor government also committed to invest almost $80 million over the next four years to replace medical equipment in metropolitan and country hospitals.

Prior to the state election, the Labor government committed additional funding towards mental health services across Australia, with a focus on supporting people in their homes. That commitment included $17.2 million in a funding boost for community outreach, providing drug and alcohol addiction services in the home and expanding home-based services and transitional care. It also included $5½ million to support existing and youth suicide prevention work. Further, it honoured a mental health guarantee for people receiving mental health services, ensuring that any mental health client ineligible for the NDIS would continue to get current services.

Members would be aware that the NDIS is a major reform that is experiencing difficulties in implementation. It is absolutely imperative that people with a psychosocial disability do not have the added stresses of wondering if the services they receive now, however imperfect they may be, will continue.

The former Labor government also undertook to provide free meningococcal B vaccinations for all South Australian children aged two and under. That was to be provided on an ongoing basis at a cost of $24½ million over four years. Sadly, this is something that so far the Marshall Liberal government has ignored. This is much to the anger of many South Australians and in particular people living in the Limestone Coast.

It is a common topic raised with me when I am home in Mount Gambier, partly because the tragic death of a Mount Gambier baby emphasised the need for this vaccine. I again urge this government to fund this life-saving vaccine as a matter of urgency.

In recent weeks I have also spoken extensively about the Disability Inclusion Bill, which has now been passed. I note that during this discussion the minister committed to only 'putting in a budget bid' when it comes to the creation of a disability advocate. This is not good enough. When you think about the amount of money we are being asked to approve for the running of government—as I mentioned, $6.6 billion—one would think that the relatively small amount needed for the creation of a disability advocate could surely be funded. I certainly hope that this will be the case, and I will be watching closely come budget day, as I am sure will many members of our community who have a disability or who care for someone with a disability.

Another area I believe is particularly strong, and an area that we must always fear the Marshall Liberal government will slash, is education. Labor has always stood up for South Australian schools. After the previous Labor government came to office in 2002, it invested $3.3 billion in school and early years infrastructure. Labor doubled the investment in education, with funding per student in public schools rising from about $7,600 in 2002 to $16,247 in 2017. We also lifted year 12 attainment rates to 92 per cent, the highest in the nation. This was an increase from 57 per cent in 2007.

We lifted the income eligibility for the School Card for a family with one child from just over $37,000 in 2017 to $57,000, or just over, in 2018. This allowed an extra 16,000 families to save on average $274 a year on education costs. One of the families in Mount Gambier that I had the pleasure of visiting prior to the election told me how much this would mean to them. They were on a very modest wage, they had three children and they were expecting this to make quite a big difference to their annual education budget.

We invested $692 million in the Building Better Schools program to upgrade 91 public schools across the state and $250 million to build new science and maths facilities in 139 public schools as part of STEM Works. This is all part of building towards the future and the future jobs.

We invested $1 billion in school infrastructure in the past four years alone, including the new Adelaide Botanic High School, which is due to open in term one of 2019. We invested more than $500 million to reform the state's child protection and child development systems and appointed a Commissioner for Children and Young People to ensure South Australian children could have their voices recognised.

I move now to Fund My Neighbourhood. We were told recently that Fund My Neighbourhood will not continue in 2018. In fact I quote from the Treasurer, who, commenting on a statement that 'Fund My Neighbourhood funding will be allocated to support commitments made by the new state government that will improve South Australian communities,' said:

This was an example of the sort of programs and the waste that the former government sadly engaged in in a desperate but unfailing attempt to get re-elected prior to the last election.

Let us look at this statement, and I will particularly reference my local area of the Limestone Coast. Fund My Neighbourhood, we will remember, was participatory democracy, where everyone could vote for the community facilities or improvements they wanted. In my area, Boandik Lodge received $150,000 towards a hydrotherapy pool, Boandik Lodge being an aged-care facility in Mount Gambier. The CEO of Boandik Lodge, Gillian McGinty, was quoted as saying that $150,000:

...from Fund My Neighbourhood will be a great boost to achieving the goal of a hydrotherapy pool for the local community...

A facility that can be used by residents of Boandik as well as other community members will be a valuable addition to our city.

I wonder how Boandik Lodge would respond to the view that such a pool is a waste of money for them.

Similarly, I move to the small township of Kongorong where Fund My Neighbourhood provided funds for its sporting facilities for female change rooms and the Kongorong Soldiers Memorial Institute received funding for new showers and an upgrade of the toilets. I hope members are aware of how important those sports facilities and community institutes are to small communities. Funding that allows significant improvements is an investment in our community. Again, I ask: why are sporting facilities for a worthy community considered a waste of money?

Thirdly, the Wehl Street Theatre in Mount Gambier received funding for new seating. The Wehl Street Theatre is a lovely old building in Mount Gambier and in fact when I was a teenager and growing up there I was involved in the local theatre group. It would not surprise me if the seating is still the same as then. In fact, it has been upgraded, but with second-hand seating—again, I think over 20 years ago, if my memory serves me correctly.

The funding to improve that seating, including making it more available for people with a disability, is a very good use of community funds and hardly a waste of money. I refer again to the Treasurer's comments that these funds will be used to improve South Australian communities. I suggest, and I am not sure how it can be argued otherwise, that those funds have done exactly that: they have improved South Australian communities.

It has also been suggested that this was some kind of pork-barrelling to win marginal seats. This is despite the fact that these funds were allocated on a per capita basis. However, despite that concept of equal funding, that concept of participative democracy, I thought perhaps I should look into it. I found some evidence that would support the inference that, indeed, this was about gaining votes.

One of the areas that received funding through Fund My Neighbourhood more than doubled their Labor votes at the booth in the centre of the region. I refer stunningly, shockingly to the Kongorong booth, which increased its Labor vote in 2014 from three votes to seven votes in 2018. There we have it: the evidence that clearly this was about trying to win marginal seats.

Instead, I suggest that this was not about pork-barrelling; this was about enabling local communities to have a say in where the funds were to go. It was about local communities saying, 'These are the priorities for us and we don't need bureaucrats telling us where and how we should spend these funds.' This was about local communities getting improvements to their local services and it was well and truly about improving South Australian communities.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:47): I rise to close the debate and to make some closing remarks at the second reading. I thank all honourable members who have made a contribution to the Supply Bill debate. This, together with the Address in Reply debate, provides one of a handful of opportunities for members to speak more broadly on a range of issues that might be of interest to them or of concern to them, as opposed to the specifics of a particular bill in a piece of legislation before the house at the time.

Whether I have been in government or in opposition, I have always welcomed the opportunity to either participate or to listen to the contributions of members. Given the time, I will not respond to all of the issues that have been raised. Some of the issues have been well and truly ventilated during question time and on other occasions. However, I would like to respond to just a couple of the contributions that were made today, which are obviously fresh in my mind.

Part of the contribution of the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos was in relation to the ORAH, and I welcome her, clearly, close interest in what the development at the ORAH site might be. We share her view that a seven-hectare site in the CBD is an almost once in a lifetime opportunity to do good things, not only for that local area but also, more importantly, for the future development of the economy and the state. There are exciting projects envisaged for that site and we hope that the honourable member and her colleagues will get on board, get with the program and support the government in its initiatives in relation to that site.

I must admit that I only came in at one part of the honourable member's speech. I do not know whether it was her view or whether she was quoting somebody else's view in relation to the opposition to residential apartments and hotel developments on the site. I will need to check the record, but I would remind the honourable member, if it was her view, that it was her government that was actually suggesting residential apartments and five-star or six-star hotels on the site.

There was significant opposition from the now Premier, one of the former leaders of the opposition—the member for Heysen, Ms Isobel Redmond—and the local member, Rachel Sanderson. They were strongly opposed to the notion of residential apartments on the site. So if that was her view, then her view is at odds with that of her party, which we welcome, and they are entirely consistent with the view of the new government.

We think there are much more exciting things that can be done to the site in terms of economic development and there are plenty of other opportunities throughout the CBD for apartments and residential development. We have seen plenty of that not too far, frankly, from the ORAH site, where there are significant residential apartment building blocks going up. We welcome the honourable member's views there.

To be fair, I think both the former government and the current government have flagged, at various stages, the possibility of a hotel on the site. The member has obviously indicated her opposition to that. Certainly, the new government is not locked in to the view that there should be a hotel on the site, and I think there are increasing arguments being put to the government that perhaps that is not the best way to go. As a member of the government, I will certainly take on board the views of the honourable member in relation to that issue.

I am not sure whether the honourable member addressed the exciting reactivation of the heritage buildings on Frome Road and North Terrace in terms of encouraging innovation, start-ups and entrepreneurship, but I would hope, again, that she would be very supportive of that. This site is a perfect opportunity, as the Premier has outlined, for exciting developments. There are heritage buildings which have to be kept and they need to be reactivated and used. Our advice has been that they are quite suitable for start-ups, entrepreneurship and innovation hubs, and there are a number of industries and businesses that have already expressed a considerable degree of interest in participating in the ORAH site.

The honourable member did refer to the exciting developments in relation to a cultural gallery, if I can put it that way. She was right to say that the former government's strong preference was for a contemporary art gallery. The new government is much more in tune with an Aboriginal culture and art gallery. That is essentially what we went to the election with and we will be continuing to pursue that particular option. We think that is a much more exciting option, with great respect to the art aficionados in this chamber and elsewhere.

There are a number of contemporary art galleries throughout Australia, but an exciting development, as is envisaged in relation to highlighting what we are told are—and I do not profess to be an expert in this area—some of the exciting collection pieces we have, both in the Art Gallery and the Museum, may well be something which, if appropriately done, would give us the stand-alone iconic attraction that South Australia should have. There are many who have argued that that is what we need and that this is a perfect site for that. There are many challenges ahead.

The governance arrangements and all those sorts of things are challenges that will need to be confronted. However, there is an extraordinary prospect at the end of the line, if it can be done and done well, in terms of having an iconic project and hopefully an iconic building on that site, which may well attract not only South Australians who want to go and visit but, more importantly, interstate and international visitors who might be prepared or willing to come to South Australia to see something that is extraordinarily unique. It is different, it is uniquely Australian and South Australian and, from that viewpoint, it might attract interstate and international visitors to our state as well.

In relation to the international school of hospitality, I want to correct the honourable member. I think there is information available on various websites and other places that would I think correct her misconception about what is proposed there, and that is that it is not going to be in competition with TAFE Regency; it is actually going to be a removal of those programs from Regency Park onto the ORAH site. So there is not going to be competition, and it will involve TAFE.

The announcement both prior to the election and subsequent talks about Le Cordon Bleu, but it also talks about the TAFE offering, as currently exists at Regency Park, as a collaborative arrangement. What it says is that there is much to offer in terms of having that offering in the CBD. A lot of the overseas students and their families, but in particular overseas students who come to study and train here, will be attracted by a central location where there is accommodation conveniently nearby. There is the attraction of central business district living with cafes and all the attractions of being in the City of Adelaide, as opposed to being somewhat out of the centre of Adelaide at Regency Park.

That is a challenging option as well, but it does not exclude TAFE. It is completely inclusive of the TAFE offering. It is something that the new Premier, Premier Marshall, is passionately involved with in terms of the discussions that he had in opposition with the key players in relation to the offering at Regency Park and the potential new key players at the ORAH site. If the honourable member has a look at some of the aspects of that new proposal, some of her concerns should be me ameliorated by an exciting new opportunity on that site.

I will make one other point in relation to the ORAH. I think the honourable member did make some unkind—if I can use a gentle word—commentary on the former leader of the opposition in terms of his knowledge of the Aboriginal culture, the lands and his knowledge of his portfolio area. I do not know the exact number, but I suspect the now Premier, the then leader of the opposition, has visited the APY lands in particular many more times than the honourable member ever has and, indeed, probably many more times than almost anyone in this chamber, maybe with the possible exception of the Leader of the Opposition, who might be catching up, as the former minister and continuing shadow minister.

The now Premier has demonstrated, over a number of years, a close and abiding interest in the portfolio area. He has taken continued portfolio responsibility for it and he has certainly visited the APY lands—

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: I think he was on the Reconciliation SA board before he was a member of parliament.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My colleague, the Hon. Mr Stephens, who knows much more about this area than I, says that the Premier was on the Reconciliation SA board before he became a member of parliament, and he became a member of parliament in 2010, so that is eight years ago.

The Premier and ministers are ripe for criticism in many areas, but I think in that area that was misplaced criticism in terms of the Premier's commitment and knowledge of this portfolio area. Of course, that does not mean that the judgements that he and the government make will always be supported by the honourable member, but I certainly do not believe it can be dismissed on the basis that he knows very little about the area and has not visited the communities often enough to know enough about it.

The Hon. Ms Scriven made some comments in relation to a range of issues. I will not address all of those, but will make some brief comment about the Fund My Neighbourhood difference of opinion that the government has with the former government in relation to that. For the public record and for my very good friends at The Border Watch, I have never said and would never say that a project such as Boandik Lodge, which I know as well—or better, I should say—as the honourable member (just because I am older I probably know more people who have been in Boandik Lodge than she has over the years), but anyway put that to the side—we won't have a battle about it; we both know a bit about the Boandik Lodge—I would never be critical of funding that goes to a project like that, or to sporting projects, wherever they might happen to be.

Some of the projects funded by Fund my Neighbourhood I am sure were worthwhile and would be a high priority, not only for the former government but for the new government. However, some of the projects that were funded, in the new government's viewpoint, were not sensible expenditure of taxpayers' money, and would certainly not be a priority for the new government. That is why we allowed the continuation of the first stage of the program to its completion, but we were not going to continue with stage 2, which was the $20 million fund for 2018-19.

We are, and remain, trenchantly critical of the process that was used. The honourable member is quite happy to, in essence—I would refer to the process as a popularity contest: whoever can organise the most people on the phone or to vote for a particular issue got the funding. The honourable member prefers to call it participative democracy—each to their own. That is the description the former government would have adopted.

Certainly from my experience and view of what occurred in relation to the funding, whoever generally was able to organise the largest number of their mates, friends and colleagues to vote for their particular project got the money, and if there was a much more worthwhile project but it was not able to organise a large number of supporters, might not have been as adept at social media campaigns as others, because they did not get the votes they are were unable to win the popularity contest.

We think that spending $20 million of taxpayers money should be done on a more considered basis than a simple ring around as to who can get the most votes on a popularity contest. If you are a former government that thinks that, 'Well, it is only $20 million and we will splash it around, whoever gets the most votes wins', that's fine. That's the way the former government ran things; that's why they were thrown out of office, because they ran their government like that.

The Hon. I.K. Hunter: What a load of rubbish.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you did get thrown out of office comprehensively, and it was for a variety of those sorts of issues. People, after 16 years, got sick and tired of ministers and governments wasting their money in this particular way. They want a mature and adult government that is prepared to look at a project, perhaps like Boandik Lodge, and say, 'Okay, sensible project, we've evaluated it, that is the way a process should be conducted,' and a mature, adult government will conduct themselves in that particular way and it is not going to be a popularity contest where whoever organises the most gets the biggest lick of the lollipop in terms of the $20 million.

With those few words, in conclusion I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading of the Supply Bill. Most importantly, this ensures that public servants and public services continue to be paid until the Appropriation Bill is passed later in the year.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (18:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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