HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1457

10.30 a.m. and read prayers.

Mr WRIGHT (Lee) obtained leave and introduced a Bill

for an Act to amend the Racing Act 1976. Read a first time.

Mr WRIGHT: I move:

The racing industry has a proud past, and its future is partly

in our hands. Racing is a very important industry and it is an

essential component of our economy. The industry is also an

important sporting and recreational pursuit, enjoyed by a

broad cross section of the community. It employs thousands

of people and is one of the biggest industries in South

Australia.

The industry is of such magnitude that its betting turnover

for 1997-98 was $723 million. That was made up of TAB

turnover of $593 million; on course tote, $51 million; and

bookmakers, $79 million. From turnover we derive the

revenue to the industry: from the TAB, $26.5 million; on

course tote, $4.1 million; and bookmakers, $1.1 million, a

total of $31.7 million to the industry, purely from betting

turnover. Further to that, the Racing Industry Development

Authority (RIDA) derived $5.1 million from TAB fractions

and unclaimed dividends and special Government appropriation

of $2.5 million to RIDA for marketing, breeding, capital

works, etc. That gives us a total of $39.3 million to the

industry, and Government income from racing was of the

order of $29 million. The great percentage of industry money

and Government income is derived from the TAB. I note that

55 per cent of profits goes to the industry and 45 per cent

goes to the Government.

In my maiden speech on 9 December 1997, some

18 months ago, I said that the racing industry requires some

synergy and change, that we are in somewhat of a vacuum

and that we have let a generation or two slip by. Little did I

know what would unfold, that the Government would not

provide the desired leadership and that the Opposition, with

industry support, would fill the vacuum. This Bill is about

overhauling racing administration, broadening and providing

greater industry representation to the South Australian

Thoroughbred Racing Authority (SATRA), and it is the first

step in reforming the structure of the industry and ensuring

that racing will be able to administer itself in future with

decent legislation set by Government.

SATRA is the peak body that is responsible for controlling

the thoroughbred racing industry across South Australia. It

is not only responsible at a local level but it has a national

context in the Australian racing industry. SATRA has two

members on the Australian Racing Board and, if a State is not

part of that board, it is relegated to picnic club status with no

reciprocity of horses, personnel and no voice or standing in

the Australian thoroughbred industry.

SATRA is charged with the responsibility of making the

best decisions for all the thoroughbred industry in South

Australia. Section 32(1) of the Racing Act 1976, which deals

with the functions and powers of SATRA, states:

(a) to regulate and control the horseracing code and the conduct

of horse race meetings and horse races within the State; and

(b) to prepare and implement plans and strategies for the

management of the financial affairs of the horseracing code and for

the development and marketing of the code.

SATRA stands above the SAJC but, at present, all five of its

members are appointed by the South Australian Jockey Club.

That freezes out key stakeholders from representation on

SATRA. That is simply not good for the industry and can no

longer be tolerated.

This Bill seeks to redress the monopoly that the South

Australian Jockey Club currently has in making sole appointments

to SATRA and, as a consequence, it will broaden and

give greater industry representation on SATRA. It is the first

step in reforming the structure of the industry, collapsing

RIDA, getting the Government out of racing administration

and recognising that the industry can manage itself.

It is also timely, of course, because the current SATRA

appointments expire in October this year. In this Bill, section

26 of the principal Act is repealed and, in proposed section

26 of my Bill, the constitution of SATRA would be six

members, as follows:

(a) Two members appointed by the South Australian

Jockey Club.

(b) One member appointed by the South Australian

Racing Clubs Council.

(c) One member appointed by a new body called the

Thoroughbred Racing Advisory Council (TRAC).

(d) One member appointed by the presiding member of

the South Australian Jockey Club, the South Australian

Racing Clubs Council and the Thoroughbred Racing

Advisory Council, following an advertisement in a newspaper

circulating throughout the State and with the view of

achieving a balance on SATRA.

(e) The Chief Executive Officer of SATRA (ex officio).

The South Australian Racing Clubs Council is deliberately

recognised—and so it should be. The South Australian

Racing Clubs Council is the peak body of the country and

provincial racing clubs and Oakbank. It represents all racing

clubs except the SAJC. Its members come from Mount

Gambier, Lucindale, Port Lincoln, Kimba, Strathalbyn,

Murray Bridge, Woodside and Kingscote. This is very

representative of the country, but currently it cannot nominate

its choice to SATRA. The new Thoroughbred Racing

Advisory Council will, for the first time, bring under the one

umbrella owners, breeders, licensed trainers, jockeys and

apprentices, bookmakers and bookmakers’ clerks, one

representative of stablehands and race club employees, and

a representative of punters. There will be seven members, and

it will bring all the major industry stakeholders together for

the first time.

The Thoroughbred Racing Advisory Council would meet

six times per year, and at least three meetings per year must

be joint meetings with SATRA. It would provide advice to

SATRA, serve as a channel for communication between the

industry stakeholders and, critically, it would appoint a

member to SATRA. New SouthWales has a similar body on

its Thoroughbred Racing Board, and I have spoken to

officials in New South Wales who are delighted about how

it is operating.

The qualifications and experience that are currently in the

Act—for example, financial management or marketing, legal

or business experience in the horseracing industry—will stay,

because this is the quality of the individual who must serve

the industry and be on SATRA. An important fundamental

1458 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

principle is put into this Bill, that is, you cannot go direct

from the SAJC, SARCC or TRAC onto SATRA because you

cannot serve two masters. An appointment to SATRA is to

represent all the thoroughbred industry.

Furthermore, no public sector employee can be appointed

to SATRA. This constitution of SATRA achieves balance

across the industry—balance for the first time. Appointments

to SATRA must give consideration to the desirability of

achieving reasonable diversity in qualifications and experience.

Appointments will be for three years, and to avoid all

appointments terminating at the one time a transitional

provision applies (clause 9). Clause 9 (3) provides that one

SAJC member (by lot) would be appointed for two years, and

subclause (4) provides that the first member of SATRA

appointed by the chairpersons of the South Australian Jockey

Club, the South Australian Racing Clubs Council and the

Thoroughbred Racing Advisory Council will hold office for

two years.

These transitional provisions will apply only in the first

year to ensure rolling starts and stoppages onto SATRA.

Remuneration will be the same as currently exists, and any

increases are to be the average increases paid to the South

Australian Harness Racing Authority and the South Australian

Greyhound Authority over a 12 month period.

In negotiations undertaken, this model has received strong

industry support. The Government will talk about its review:

it may try to liken this model to the old SAJC structure,

which had eight SAJC members plus one provincial, one

country and one trainers and jockeys—but they came from

the existing pool. Qualifications were not required, and in

those days there was limited representation. There is no

similarity between the two. Sadly, this Government has an

appalling record in racing. There is no vision. No decisions

are being made and there is no leadership. This Government

views the racing industry as a low priority.

Racing is screaming out for decisions. All the reports,

studies, consultancies, investigations, reviews and analytical

evidence relevant to the industry are in the hands of those

who make the decisions. And what do they do? They call for

another review. This review is a sham, a guise for a racing

commission. Significantly, on TAB Radio just eight days ago

the Minister refused to rule out a racing commission. The

Minister also said in regard to the review, ‘I think it’s going

to be some months.’ In regard to my comments he said, ‘I’m

not quite sure what he exactly wants to do.’ He did not even

understand the difference between my calling for the venue

rationalisation report to be made public and criticising

another review. He did not even understand the difference.

Like the rest of the industry,Minister, I want you to be the

Minister. I want you to be the real racing Minister. I want you

to lead and to make some decisions, at least while you are in

government. And Minister, do you know what else I want?

I want a Racing Minister who wants to be the Racing

Minister. The Government commenced the venue rationalisation

study in 1996 and we still have no decision—three years

later and still no decision from this Government. The

Government announced its TAB scoping review some 15

months ago, and there is still no model for the industry to

consider—and now it calls another review. How long will this

one be? There is no leadership or, at best, confused leadership,

and the racing industry must have and deserves better.

Every week I get calls from people in the racing industry

asking me what the former Racing Minister is up to: not you,

Sir, but the member for Bragg. They say that he is trying to

set up a racing commission, and they also ask, ‘What is the

current Minister doing?’ This is all too easy for the Opposition

but a disaster for the racing industry. The Opposition

totally rejects a racing commission because, unlike the

Government, we believe that the industry has the maturity

and the intellect to administer itself. Racing can and must be

given the opportunity to administer itself.

Members might think that bickering between the South

Australian Jockey Club and SATRA is not conducive to the

industry’s administering its own affairs. However, this is the

whole point of the Bill, that is, to recognise that the current

arrangements lend themselves to this outcome, and this must

be fixed. Over the years, Governments have in the main

encouraged a welfare mentality for racing administration and

supporters. The racing industry must be capable of operating

in a national environment, where it must be able to function

without undue interference from Government. Any speculation

of Jeff Kennett introducing a racing commission in

Victoria is just that—speculation. Of course, let us not forget

that a racing commission jeopardises our membership on the

Australian Racing Board.

With a view to Labor recognising that the industry can

best manage itself, I foreshadow that Labor will remove

RIDA from the racing administration. RIDA is a quasi racing

commission. It has given specific powers to non-industry

people. It is an authority structure that has been put in place

by this Government. RIDA is not transparent; it does not

consult; it has largely been a failure; and the industry has not

been able to move forward without RIDA.

The Government must learn from the mistakes of RIDA

and let the industry get on with it. A cooperative industry

cannot be achieved while the Government dictates, as it is

currently doing through RIDA. RIDA has been responsible

for additional bureaucracy, confused leadership, confused

marketing direction and capital funds largely being frozen,

as is evidenced by carried forward funds of $6 million. In

marketing alone (and this comes from the annual report of

RIDA), to the end of June 1998 RIDA spent $1.168 million

for industry marketing and promotion. The primary reason

for marketing is to increase attendances, and that simply has

not happened.

Let me give two or three examples of how and why

marketing has failed. First, $500 000 was spent marketing the

1998 Southern Racing Festival for a 2 per cent increase in the

final total attendance for all festival meetings in 1998.

Secondly, this year some $170 000 was spent marketing

Oakbank. Can members imagine marketing Oakbank? If

anything sells itself, it is Oakbank. Once again, there were no

corresponding increases in attendances to see the value of the

money spent.

However, I have a better one. At 7 a.m. on the very day

of the Derby during this year’s carnival (and this is one of the

biggest race meetings on the South Australian calendar), what

are they advertising on the radio? They are advertising Oaks

Day on the following Wednesday. They are not advertising

Derby Day, which is to be held that day, to try to promote it.

Rather, they are advertising the following meeting to be held

some four days later, and they did the same in the Advertiser.

The qualified marketeers will tell us that there are lag

periods and this and that, but let me tell members that they

do not know anything about racing or marketing racing. They

are absolute gooses. That morning, if they wanted to market

anything, they should have been promoting Derby Day. By

the way, do members know what the crowd was for Oaks

Day? They tell us that it was 2 200, which is not a good

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1459

crowd, despite the rain, but really it was only 1 500, because

700 people attended the big lunch organised by Angela

Condous which is held, anyway. So, the true figure was

1 500.

However, this Bill is not about RIDA. It is about getting

the constitution of SATRA correct, by giving it the opportunity

to operate, and then collapsing RIDA, notwithstanding

the need for some components of RIDA, such as probity, to

be relocated. The Government needs to protect the public

interest through mechanisms involving gambling regulation

and probity issues.

Labor has a plan for the racing industry, a plan to allow

it to be the master of its own destiny. It must be accountable

and responsible for its own future. The Government has no

plan except for another review, which will probably lead to

an extension of the current arrangements unless this Bill is

supported.

I commend the Bill to the House and, for the sake of the

future of racing in this State, I urge that this Bill be debated

and not be thwarted by Government parliamentary tactics. I

do not want to see this Government do what it normally does

with private members’ business, that is, adjourn it and not

bring this Bill on for debate. The racing industry deserves

better. If the Government tries to do that it will pay the

penalty.

The former Minister (the member for Bragg) said to me

about this Bill, ‘Nothing will happen. It might make you feel

good, but nothing will happen.’ What a shame we have an

attitude like that. What chance does the racing have with an

attitude like that? The racing industry deserves better and the

racing industry must get better. This Bill deserves bipartisan

support: it deserves to be debated on its merits. It needs to be

considered very carefully and, in debating this Bill, the basis

needs to be the merits of the Bill—not about the failures of

the Government; not about the lack of interest of the current

racing Minister, who does not even have the decency to be

in the Chamber, not to listen to me but to show support to the

racing industry and to give a signal to the racing industry that

he is interested in racing.

Unfortunately, it is not just me: everyone in the racing

industry knows that this racing industry Minister does not like

racing, does not want to be the racing Minister and does not

know anything about it. I can put up with the last one,

because he can learn as he goes along, but I cannot put up

with the first two. I cannot cop—and the Opposition will not

cop—a Government putting someone in charge of racing who

does not like it, who does not want to be the racing Minister

and who does not show up. The more often he goes on

TABRadio the better it is, because every time he goes on he

makes a complete fool of himself.

This Bill deserves to be debated seriously: it has a lot

going for it. It has the support of the racing industry. There

may be some people on the SAJC who have some problems

with it because, of course, they would like to maintain their

monopoly control. But there have been some people on the

SAJC who have said to me, ‘Things must change and this has

some merit.’ This Bill has a lot of merit. It has been well

thought out by the Opposition. A lot of consultation has taken

place not only with key industry stakeholders in South

Australia but also through looking at other Acts around the

country.

The Government can do racing a big favour by debating

this Bill, by looking at it on its merits and not by thwarting

it. If the Government uses its parliamentary tactics to stall this

Bill and to say that there is a review taking place and we will

wait until the review is completed, once again it will be

letting the racing industry down. The racing industry will be

disgusted by its actions and it will just show once again that

this Government has no ideas, no vision and no leadership for

the racing industry. That has to change, and this could be the

first step to doing that. I seek leave to have the detailed

explanation of the clauses prepared by Parliamentary Counsel

inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Clause 1: Short title This clause is formal.

Clause 2: Commencement The measure will come into operation

two months after assent.

It is now necessary to include some definitions in Division 1 of Part

2 in connection with other amendments proposed by this measure.

This clause provides for the reconstitution of the South Australian

Thoroughbred Racing Authority (SATRA).

A member of SATRA will be appointed for a term of three years

(subject to the transitional provisions contained in this measure).

This clause deals with the issue of the entitlements of members of

SATRA (other than the chief executive officer) to remuneration,

allowances and expenses (which will be kept at their present levels

for 12 months and then adjusted on an annual basis in line with the

average of any adjustments for members of SAHRA and SAGRA).

This clause makes various consequential amendments.

It is intended to create a body called the Thoroughbred Racing

Advisory Council (‘TRAC’). the principal functions of TRAC

include to provide advice to SATRA on industry policy and strategic

direction, to provide a communication channel between industry

stakeholders and SATRA, and to provide a forum for discussions and

the making of recommendations to SATRA. TRAC will also appoint

one member of SATRA.

This clause sets out various transitional arrangements associated

with the enactment and operation of the measure

The Hon. G.A. INGERSON secured the adjournment of

the debate.

Mr FOLEY (Hart): I move:

That this House instructs the Government to refer the Pelican

Point power station project to the Public Works Committee for its

immediate consideration, that all work cease at the construction site

until the committee reports and that the committee report to the

House no later than 6 July 1999.

This motion is self-explanatory and I do not intend to speak

long on it. The Public Works Committee on its own motion

resolved that it would call upon the Government to refer the

full Pelican Point power station project to that committee for

consideration. The Government has ignored the request of

that committee and it was felt necessary by the Opposition

(particularly me, as local member) to ensure that due process

follows.

The Pelican Point power station is a significant public

works. When construction commenced the land was still

Crown land; it was still in the ownership of the Government.

Indeed, once the project is completed a significant buffer

zone of land between the waterfront at Pelican Point and the

beginning of the power station will still be Crown land, and

major outlet and inlet pipes will be running over that land. So,

part of the Pelican Point power station will be on Crown land.

1460 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

On any proper reading of the Act relating to the Public

Works Committee it is clear that this project should be

considered by that committee in the proper process. That is

not to pre-empt any outcome but simply to say that this

project should go before that committee. I have said in my

motion that this should done by 6 July. We understand that

work on the project is two months ahead of schedule. A four

week review should occur, and it should be dealt with in that

manner.

Often, the PublicWorks Committee has been ignored by

this Government; clearly, much of its work has been ignored.

The member for Hartley, chirping opposite, knows full

well—because he is a member of that committee—the

amount of work the committee does that is ignored. I simply

move that the committee be allowed to review the project—

and I am not pre-empting the outcome—in terms of enabling

the proper process to be followed. All members should

support the proper work of the Public Works Committee.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The House divided on the motion:

AYES (19)

Armitage, M. H. Brindal, M. K.

Brokenshire, R. L. Brown, D. C.

Buckby, M. R. Condous, S. G.

Evans, I. F. Gunn, G. M.

Hamilton-Smith, M. L.(teller) Ingerson, G. A.

Kerin, R. G. Kotz, D. C.

Matthew, W. A. Meier, E. J.

Penfold, E. M. Scalzi, G.

Such, R. B. Venning, I. H.

Wotton, D. C.

NOES (23)

Atkinson, M. J. Bedford, F. E.

Breuer, L. R. Ciccarello, V.

Clarke, R. D. Conlon, P. F.

Foley, K. O. (teller) Geraghty, R. K.

Hanna, K. Hill, J. D.

Hurley, A. K. Key, S. W.

Lewis, I.P. Maywald, K. A.

McEwen, R. J. Rankine, J. M.

Rann, M. D. Snelling, J. J.

Stevens, L. Thompson, M. G.

White, P. L. Williams, M. R.

Wright, M. J.

PAIR(S)

Olsen, J. W. De Laine, M. R.

Hall, J. L. Koutsantonis, T.

Majority of 4 for the Noes.

Motion thus negatived.

Motion carried.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) obtained leave and

introduced a Bill for an Act to amend the Tobacco Products

Regulation Act 1997. Read a first time.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I move:

Quite some time ago, the mother of a teenager raised the

following issue with me on a radio program on 5AA. She

found it quite extraordinary that her daughter could purchase

herbal cigarettes when she was just 13 years of age. When she

made inquiries about this, she discovered the legal requirements

relating to cigarettes, that is, it is illegal to sell tobacco

products to minors under section 38(1) of the Tobacco

Products Regulation Act 1997, which provides:

A person must not supply, or offer to supply (whether by sale,

gift or any other means), a tobacco product to a child or a person who

the supplier knows or has reason to believe will supply the product

to a child.

That does not relate to herbal cigarettes. Sadly, her daughter’s

friends were pressuring the lass to smoke, and her daughter

assumed that, by smoking herbal cigarettes, she would not be

placing her health at risk. The health food store that supplied

the herbal cigarettes told the lass that they were good for her

skin. That really was just a load of rubbish.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much audible

conversation in the Chamber.

Mrs GERAGHTY: As I was saying, the store told the

lass that smoking herbal cigarettes would be good for her

skin.

Mrs GERAGHTY: I know; it is absolutely extraordinary.

Mrs GERAGHTY: It is not good for your skin, member

for Taylor. A 13 year old would have no reason to doubt

being told such a load of bunk. It is absolutely irresponsible

of any salesperson or proprietor of a store to con a young

person in this way. I understand that the Health Commission

has discussed this issue with the store and explained to them

their obligations. We certainly hope that such tales will not

occur again.

I have also spoken to the proprietor of a health food store

in the city who expressed concerns about the sale of herbal

cigarettes to minors, and because of his concerns he does not

sell them to minors. It is a pity that other proprietors are not

so responsible. The other tales I have heard are that these

herbal cigarettes are not addictive, which may be the case, but

there is concern of a psychological addiction through the

development of a habit. I have also heard that there are no

health risks, such as those associated with smoking nicotinebased

products. However, this is clearly not the case.

Research undertaken at the University of Vienna and

published in the British Medical Journal the Lancet on 6

February this year shows that carbon monoxide levels of

moderate nicotine smokers equals 11 to 21 parts per million,

whereas a heavy nicotine smoker is defined as having levels

over 21 parts per million. Tests conducted on smokers who

did not wish to give up smoking showed that, after smoking

herbal cigarettes (and they tested herbal cigarettes on smokers

because they did not want to test them on non-smokers

because of their concerns), there was a rise from 15 parts

per million to 21 parts per million in one smoker and, after

two herbal cigarettes, a rise from 21 parts per million to 28

parts per million. In another it went from 26 parts per million

to 37 parts per million.

This data shows that smoking herbal cigarettes generates

a similar degree of exposure to carbon monoxide as to

smoking nicotine-based cigarettes. Indeed, they well may

increase the risk of exposure, and therefore there is a

legitimate health risk. This research was done by Dr Ernest

Groman and his associates. Clearly herbal or vegetable-based

cigarettes marketed as an aid to stop smoking may not contain

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1461

nicotine, but they do produce levels of carbon monoxide

which are a risk to the user.

I will quote Dr John Moore-Gillon, Chairman of the

British Lung Foundation, as follows:

If you are burning herbal cigarettes all you are doing is substituting

the burning leaves of one sort of plant for another.

He then goes on to say:

Nicotine is addictive, but it’s all the other stuff that gives you

lung cancer and emphysema. . . You still get tar from herbal

cigarettes, which could do you as much harm.

I am sure we are all aware that tar is the most harmful of the

substances absorbed by the human body during smoking.

While carbon monoxide reduces the amount of oxygen

absorbed in each lungful of air, it is the tar that blocks the

passageways of the lungs and covers them with a sticky

brown substance that inhibits the performance of vital organs.

A report from Action on Smoking and Health states:

Herbal cigarettes and other non-tobacco cigarettes have no

nicotine, but produce tar and carbon monoxide.

Clive Bates, the Director of Action on Smoking and Health,

said:

Using herbal cigarettes is unlikely to be an effective way to give

up smoking.

Although he does not feel that they would do any greater

harm than continuing to smoke, he said that herbal cigarettes

contain all the nasty chemicals that cigarettes contain, but

they do not provide any help in dealing with nicotine

addiction. Clearly a range of health risks are associated with

herbal cigarettes.

However, despite the fact that these products are every bit

as dangerous to the health of the consumer as a nicotinebased

product, they remain easily and legally accessible to

minors. This would appear to be a double standard that can

impact on the well-being of our youth and therefore should

be addressed in the appropriate manner. In February 1999,

Senator Pinsky introduced a Bill in the Assembly of Maryland

to prohibit the sale of herbal cigarettes to minors, which

passed at the third reading 43 to 0. His Bill defined a herbal

cigarette as one composed of one or more herb products but

is not a tobacco product. As far back as 1985, Mexico banned

the sale of clove cigarettes.

If these other assemblies have examined and legislated

against the sale of these products to minors, perhaps we

should consider doing the same, as clearly there are international

concerns about the dangers of smoking herbal

cigarettes. There are many other research studies that I could

quote but, given the examples I have presented, it is obvious

that smoking herbal cigarettes does present a health risk and

as such they should be treated in the same way as tobaccobased

products and not be sold to minors.

I would urge all members to read the Bill and consider

supporting it. I recognise that, when the Tobacco Products

Bill was introduced, perhaps herbal cigarettes were not

available in the quantities they are now, but there is an

anomaly. We have prohibited tobacco-based products to

minors and I think we should consider this Bill and ensure

that we put the safety of children first. I seek leave to have

the explanation of the clauses inserted in Hansard without my

reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

This clause is formal.

This clause defines ‘prescribed product’ for the purposes of

Part 3 of the Act to mean a product that is not a tobacco product

but is designed for smoking.

This clause makes it an offence to supply prescribed products to

children and to permit a child to obtain a prescribed product from a

vending machine.

This clause enables an authorised person to require a person seeking

to obtain prescribed products to produce evidence of his or her age

if the authorised person suspects on reasonable grounds that the

person may be a child.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH secured the adjournment of the

debate.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite): I move:

That the levy proposal forming part of the Northern Adelaide and

Barossa Catchment Water Management Board Initial Catchment

Water Management Plan Annual Review 1998-99, laid on the table

of this House on 25 May 1999, be disallowed.

My object in moving for disallowance is to have the matter

of the levy proposal forming part of this plan debated and

decided upon in this place as soon as possible, given that the

Economic and Finance Committee has objected to the

proposal. I have used the process to expedite this matter only

because the Government will not be supporting the motion.

The Economic and Finance Committee has 21 days following

the Minister’s approval of the levy proposal to, first, object

to the levy, at which time the proposal is referred to the

House of Assembly; secondly, support the levy to ensure its

implementation; or, thirdly, amend the levy and recommend

the changes to the Minister.

The Minister may accept or reject the amendments. Based

on the Minister’s response, the committee can finalise its

response by objecting or supporting. At the 30 April meeting,

the committee determined to object to the levy proposal,

ensuring its referral to and consideration in this House. The

Presiding Member advised the Minister by letter dated the

same day of the decision to object to the levy proposal for

1999-2000. The letter stated:

insufficient time for all members of the committee to thoroughly

examine the levy proposal.

Clearly, the House of Assembly now has the opportunity to

debate the levy proposal and to vote either for or against it.

TheWater Resources Act requires only that the levy proposal

be voted on. However, if the levy proposal is rejected, in

effect this means that the board’s plan for the coming year

cannot be implemented. Without a levy in place, there is no

operational structure to enable the appointed catchment board

to prepare, in conjunction with the community, a comprehensive

catchment plan that will define the priorities and special

needs of the particular catchment area. Without a levy, the

appointed catchment board will become insolvent and

inoperable. However, the real losers will be the people and

the environment within the catchment zone.

The environmental imperatives relate to proper water

management, and the economic development which flows

from sustainable water resources will be delayed for over a

year. Before any development can be commenced, it must be

1462 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

funded. Levies need to be struck prior to the beginning of this

financial year.

A rejection of this levy proposal will mean that no further

levy can be brought into operation until 30 June in the year

2000. All levies collected within catchment areas are spent

within those areas. The board’s funds from the levies can be

used to attract National Heritage Trust funds, therefore

increasing the overall expenditure on major environmental

problems within the catchment areas. Salinity problems,

aquifer recharge and storage, dam diversion storage and bore

leakages causing pollution are only some of the impacts

related to water use which, if not controlled and managed, can

diminish economic development.

The rejection of this motion to disallow the regulation will

enable the plans to be implemented to the benefit of the

residents within the catchment zone. Having regard to the fact

that the Economic and Finance Committee has stated its

reasons for bringing this matter to the House, it has also

stated it does not object to the levy. I ask the House to reject

the motion to disallow.

Ms WHITE (Taylor): It is always interesting when a

Government member must rise to his feet to move a disallowance

motion to defeat a motion with which he actually agrees.

That situation has occurred as a result of the incompetent

handling, once again, of these matters, by the Minister for

Environment.

An honourable member: Where is she?

Ms WHITE: And where is the Minister? It is again the

Minister’s Bill. She writes a speech for the hapless member

for Waite, who must stand up and do his duty for the

Minister, but she is out because a vote on a rather controversial

issue is imminent. The Minister is hiding again from the

issue. Perhaps she is looking at what else she is going to cull.

I sometimes think that people in her department probably

have a bit of a bet on how many times they can get the

Minister for Environment to stand up and talk about killing

animals.

Exactly one year ago we debated an identical motion from

the Government to disallow the levy proposal forming part

of this catchment water management board’s initial water

catchment management plan. That debate was introduced in

this House at that time because the Minister, in her usual

arrogant and contemptuous approach to dealing with the

Economic and Finance Committee, provided the committee

with paltry, inaccurate and contradictory information about

the detail of the levy to be imposed on my constituents in the

Northern Adelaide Plains, as well as about the content of the

program and budget for that work. Indeed, members will

recall that last year in this debate the Chair of the Economic

and Finance Committee (a Liberal colleague of the Minister,

I might add) stressed exactly that point to this House.

The impost under the Division 1 levy charged to water

users caused the Economic and Finance Committee to object

to that plan—a plan that was hurriedly devised, in a very

short period of six weeks, without any consultation at all with

water users who would be levied with a significant tax. In

fact, the Minister used her discretionary powers at the time

to exempt the process from the consultation phase.

Let no member of this House be under the false illusion

that the water tax levied in my electorate is at the same rate

as it is for other parts of this State. In the Northern Adelaide

Plains and the Barossa, water users are being taxed approximately

1¢ a kilolitre, and that amount is made up of ½¢ per

kilolitre on water allocation and ½¢ per kilolitre on water

usage.

In other regions of the State, for example the Murray

River and other regions, water users are taxed at .3¢ a

kilolitre. The growers on the Adelaide Plains compete against

growers from the same industry sector, so they ask why the

Government is taxing them at three times the rate that it taxes

their competitors in other regions of the State. There is no

consultation by the Minister, no detailed budget or plan of the

proposed works and they face a tax three times higher than

the levy collected from the same sector growers in other parts

of the State. My constituents have every right to feel aggrieved

at their treatment at the hands of the Minister, who

is costing a good proportion of those growers an extra $1 000

annually in additional tax.

I give credit to the Northern Adelaide and Barossa Catchment

Water Management Board for the improved presentation

of the detail of its budget plan this year. According to the

record of budget expenditure against its initial plan estimates

from last year the board has spent more than estimated on

consultant fees for the development of the plan, less on

economic development ($154 000 against an estimated

$573 000, which was in the initial plan) and more under the

general title ‘social wellbeing’ ($749 000 against an estimated

$479 000).

For those members who need a little assistance with the

maths behind those figures, it means that the board spent five

times as much money on social wellbeing as it did on

economic development. I am the first to acknowledge the

importance of community education as a function of such a

board. I acknowledge that is an important function. However,

this spending pattern will remain for me a significant factor

to monitor. Certainly, I will not be impressed if the hardearned

dollars paid in taxes by my constituents end up being

spent on glossy brochures and sophisticated PR. Anger

amongst growers in the Northern Adelaide Plains about the

size of this water levy has been significant over the past year,

including a lot of resentment from their association, the

Virginia Irrigation Association, with some growers refusing

to pay the levy until quite recently.

Not only does it seem to me that they are being taxed at

a higher rate with this new tax than other water users in the

State but they feel that they have come off second best with

this Liberal Government. In the next motion we will be

debating another water catchment board plan on which we

have received considerable correspondence, as I have

received correspondence on this plan. There is considerable

resentment in that correspondence from industry sectors in

the horticultural industry. One of the major criticisms they

have had of this Minister and the way that the Minister has

operated concerns the bungled approach she has taken

involving a lack of consultation and the waste of time and

resources, an effort that has not led to a proper consultation

process.

This Government is ignoring the real and justified

concerns of many growers in this State. Certainly, the

growers in the Northern Adelaide Plains have not been

pleased with this Liberal Government, just as they have not

been pleased when, for example, we had the incident that

occurred last year when theMinister announced considerable

funding for reparation work on the bores down in the South-

East involving $1 million, I believe. The Minister was made

aware that I would make it a significant political issue if she

did not look at similar needs in the Northern Adelaide Plains.

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1463

Belatedly, we got an announcement about money for meters

in the Northern Adelaide Plains.

But this is the way in which this Government operates:

rather than based on need, it is all about raising additional

taxes.We are going to see much more of that revealed today.

The Government is not consulting with the people who have

valid industry concerns. It ignores the processes.We have the

Minister’s contempt for the Economic and Finance Committee

and its due regard for what is our primary concern, the

constituents of our State (my primary concern is my constituents

in my electorate in the Virginia and Adelaide Plains

areas). The result of that, time and again for the second year

in a row, is that this process ends up in Parliament when a

competent Minister would have been able to deal with it in

the appropriate place—the Economic and Finance Committee.

Mr McEWEN (Gordon): I will speak against this motion

to disallow, and in so doing I make the point that I was in part

responsible for bringing the matter to the House. That had

nothing to do with concerns about the board but much to do

with concerns about the process. If I had not been prepared

to move in this way we would have been denying the member

for Taylor her democratic right in relation to the matter. That

comes about because of the way the Act needs to work once

the Minister approves the plan. Within seven days she must

refer that plan to the Economic and Finance Committee,

which must respond within 21 days, and if it does not respond

within 21 days it automatically concurs in the plan. It so

happens that the member for Taylor would not be available

within the time frame of the Minister’s choosing to exercise

her democratic right. Being aware of that, the committee

brought to the Minister’s attention the times when the

member for Taylor would and would not be available and

asked that the Minister take that into consideration before

starting the clock ticking because, the instant the Minister

starts the clock ticking, the seven and 21 days must automatically

follow.

So, this has nothing to do with my view of the North

Adelaide Barossa Catchment Board: it is more that my view

of democracy sees us today extending to the member for

Taylor the opportunity to speak to the matter in this House

rather than in the Economic and Finance Committee. It would

have been much more appropriate to deal with the matter in

the Economic and Finance Committee, and to some degree

I am sad to say that, as that did not prevail, we find ourselves

addressing the matter here today.

Motion negatived.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite): I move:

That the levy proposal forming part of the Onkaparinga

CatchmentWater Management Board Annual Review 1998-99, laid

on the table of this House on 25 may 1998, be disallowed.

I indicate to the House as I did a moment ago that my object

in moving this motion for disallowance is procedural,

intended to cause this debate and seek a decision as soon as

possible. I again trust that the House will reject the motion to

disallow. As the background to this motion is similar to that

of the earlier one, I will not repeat all the detail provided

under the previous motion, except that to say that, as a

consequence of the motion to reject, the House now has to

debate and vote for or against the levy proposal within this

plan. The Act requires that only the levy proposal be voted

upon, not the plan itself. If the levy proposal is rejected it will

in effect mean that the plan cannot be implemented.Without

a levy in place there is no operational structure to enable the

appointed catchment board to prepare a catchment plan in

conjunction with the community which would define the

priorities and special needs of this catchment area. Without

the levy, the board will become insolvent and inoperable.

Again, the real losers will be the people in the Onkaparinga

catchment zone. Before any enterprise can be undertaken,

funds must be raised.

It is imperative that this matter be resolved forthwith. The

Economic and Finance Committee has indicated that the

reason for bringing the matter before the House is related to

the calculation of the levy for individual assessment.

However, the annual review process proposes a levy under

which almost 90 per cent of the catchment population will

have their levy increased. The Onkaparinga residents already

pay a higher rate of levy than those of any other catchment

in the metropolitan and rural areas of Adelaide, and therefore

the proposal has to be questioned for fairness and equity. It

should also be noted that the board has rescinded its motion

of support for this proposal and will continue to seek as fair

a means as possible to distribute levy rates across its catchment

area.

The Onkaparinga levy is in a process of change. Next year

the board will introduce a water based levy to replace the land

based levy for irrigators in the prescribed wells area. For this

coming year the levy will apply universally across the

catchment. The Minister has favoured a stable, steady

approach to the application of the environmental levy for its

second year of operation. Additionally, it provides for a

reduction of 6 per cent in the levy to all property owners in

the catchment. Having regard to this responsible approach,

I ask the House to reject this motion to disallow.

Mr HILL (Kaurna): Unlike with the last motion, the

Opposition will not do the dirty work for the committee. The

Opposition will support the disallowance. The history of this

matter is simple. Last year was the first year of the operation

of the Onkaparinga CatchmentWater Management Board and

it introduced a property based levy set at a single rate in the

dollar which applied to all properties. As a result of that, an

enormous number of complaints were registered with the

board, some with my office and I guess with other members

in the area. The board properly decided to look at the levy

situation and undertook a process of consultation.

It employed consultants, it advertised extensively in all the

local media, it organised meetings and briefing papers, held

discussions and had submissions put forward to it. As a result

of that extensive, open, thorough public process, it determined

that a different approach should be put in place for

year 2. The different approach was to cap the amount that was

paid by people who had farming properties, in particular, and

others who had more valuable property. It was felt by the

board, I believe unanimously, that this was a fairer system

and was designed to obtain the same amount of cash for the

board’s operations. In effect, property holders would not pay

any more in the dollar at the lower level but, at the higher

level, they would pay a lesser amount, and the amount was

then capped. That was supported by the board and the matter

was put to the Minister.

The Minister, in her wisdom, rejected the board’s

suggestion and I will read to the House her letter which

expresses that rejection. Dated 20 April, in part theMinister’s

letter states:

1464 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

I have noted the board’s recommendations regarding the

calculation of the levy for assessments in council areas but at this

stage will not recommend to councils the adoption of the step method

endorsed by the board.

That is it. That is the only explanation given in this letter as

to why the Minister rejected the suggestion. The board had

been through an extensive community consultation with the

public in the district, the Minister received its recommendation

and said, ‘I have noted the recommendations but will not

proceed at this stage.’ There was no explanation as to why

what was proposed was out of place.

That is another example of the pig-headed nature of the

Minister, it is an example of how out of touch she is with the

community that she is serving, and it is an example of her

hypocrisy. The House will recall that, when some time ago

suggestions were made that the recommendations of the

South-East water boards were inaccurate, the Minister said

that she trusted what they were doing and she had to be bound

by their actions. In this case when the board, after proper

consultation, unanimously supported a change in the levy, she

said ‘No’ without any consideration at all.

I will give the House an example of some of the mail that

I have received from people in the catchment area who are

opposed to the original levy process. I was pleased to get a

letter from the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South

Australia, and I understand that that association has spent

some considerable time lobbying on this matter and has had

conversations with the Premier, who I also understand has

given the association certain undertakings which theMinister

in her rejection of the board’s levy has not satisfied. That is

perhaps one reason why the Minister is in trouble with her

Premier and her future in the Cabinet is looking a bit gloomy.

In its letter to me, the Apple and Pear Growers Association

said:

On behalf of the Apple and Pear Growers Association of South

Australia, we would express deep disappointment at the decision of

the Minister for Environment and Heritage not to ratify the water

catchment levy regime recently proposed by the Onkaparinga

Catchment Water Management Board. . . The Onkaparinga

Catchment Water Management Board, after receiving strong

negative community reaction to the initial levy and the poor level of

community consultation, was very proactive in advancing the levy

review process. The board worked hard to conduct appropriate and

wide-reaching community consultation through the formation of a

levy review reference group. The association, along with a wide

range of other community groups, was represented on this reference

group.

Further, they wrote to the Minister as follows:

Why did we waste time and resources in public consultation?

Doesn’t the Minister trust the consultation process and/or the board?

They are good questions, Minister: I hope you get up and

answer them today. It continues:

They rejected the levy, will the management plan also be

rejected? What are the hidden agendas?

I, too, would like to know the answers to those questions, and

I amsure the Premier would like to know the answers as well.

I have also received correspondence from the Inverbrackie

Creek-Mitchell Creek Catchment Group which expresses its

concerns in similar terms. As I understand it, the Minister is

in all sorts of trouble over this. Some sort of deal is being

done whereby Cabinet will reconsider this matter on Monday

and, as a result, the Minister will be rolled in her position and

the catchment board’s proposition for a staged levy will be

accepted. Today, to allow that to happen, we will not vote on

this process.We will allow deferral but, in so doing, I say that

this House has had a victory over the Minister on this issue,

the community has had a victory over the Minister on this

issue, and the water catchment board has had a victory over

the Minister on this issue. The Minister has been rolled; she

has lost; and she has got it wrong again.

Mr McEWEN (Gordon): I will correct a statement made

by the Minister for Waite.

Mr McEWEN: Sorry, the member for Waite—the

Minister in waiting. The member forWaite has fallen into a

trap. He said that there has been a 6 per cent reduction. Yes,

there has been a 6 per cent reduction in the rate in the dollar

but, if the capital value has gone up by 6 per cent or more, it

can be the other way around. Local government used that

trick for years. The Minister tells me that it has been taken

into account: she might need to look again at the numbers.

Let us go back to what we are really debating today. The

strategic framework for water resource reform was developed

by Sir Eric Neal’s committee in 1993, and it was endorsed by

COAG in 1994. The South Australian Water Resources Act

picked up, for the first time, most of the elements of the

COAG strategic framework. The Act provided for devolution

of these water responsibilities to community based water

catchment management boards. Under the Act, these boards

are required to recommend, amongst other things, a catchment

environment levy.

In the COAG developed national agenda for water reform,

one of the key agenda items is ‘consumption based pricing,

not property taxes set to cover the costs’. This is an interesting

point because we are not moving in this direction and, in

fact, as a result of what we are seeing here today we are

moving in exactly the opposite direction. Let me briefly scan

the six boards. The board that is closest to what COAG

wanted is the Murray River. That board collects levies from

water users. Interestingly enough, about $1.8 million comes

from water users outside the river because it is 1¢ a kilolitre

that SA Water provides to them under their licence to

withdraw water—and you pay for that. Although that board

is getting over $3 million, $1.8 million comes from users

outside the board’s area. However, that is consistent with

COAG’s policy.

The next one that is close to COAG policy is the South-

East board, which collects its money from a division one

levy; and it also collects a small amount from a division two

levy. However, the division two levy is a flat levy on all

assessments—it is not a levy based on capital value but a flat

levy based on assessments.

The Patawalonga and Torrens boards are funded totally

by land based levies, as are most of the northern Adelaide and

Barossa boards. Today, we are dealing with the Onkaparinga

Water Catchment Management Board and its desire to have

a tiered property based levy. Although the average levy

payment for the board area is approximately $13, there is an

enormous spread from around $3 to over $600. The board

was aware of that and concerned about it, as was the member

for Kavel and the Apple and Pear Growers Association—and

a lot of other people—and commitments were given across

the catchment board last year that it would be looked into.

As a result, Sinclair Knight Merz was commissioned by

the board to look into a fairer system. The consultancy looked

at a number of alternative approaches and suggested that a

tiered structure would be more equitable. That would mean

a rate in the dollar on the capital of maybe the first $100 000

of X, between $100 000 and $500 000 of Y, and over

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1465

$500 000 of Z. So, again, it brings the two ends into the

middle.

As required under the Act, the Minister referred the

board’s plans to the Economic and Finance Committee on 20

April. In so doing, she advised the committee that she had

decided not to implement the board’s levy proposal. Her

reasoning was in part because she felt that this would shift the

burden to those owning lower cost housing and that it had

social equity implications.

We are dealing with between 55¢ and $2.65 a year: if that

has social equity implications, I wonder what the Minister is

saying to her colleagues about the new ETSA tax and the new

emergency services tax. It would be interesting to see how

she could carry this debate into those areas if she is genuine

that $2.65 a year has significant social equity implications.

The Economic and Finance Committee referred the matter

back to the Minister, asking that she do some more analysis

and have a look at this proposal or some other proposals. I

understand that the catchment board itself is prepared to look

at a number of different proposals to achieve an objective of

being more equitable than at present. But again I remind

members that the Minister rejected that advice and simply

sent the plan back to us. At that stage we had no choice but

to refer it on here and to commence this debate. However, I

understand that there is another choice: at the eleventh hour

another way through this has been discovered. That is why

we are prepared to adjourn this debate today, to hear the

magic solution that has been discovered.

We are not prepared to dump this at this stage: we do not

actually trust that a solution has been found, but we are

saying, ‘We will give you time. Let’s do what you should

have done properly in the first place: let’s do it now.’ But, in

so doing, let me remind members once again that, of the

70 000 property owners, 50 000 will pay more (up to $2.65

a year more, some 55¢ a year more) and 20 000 will pay less

(there will be some reductions from over $600 to less than

$300). We need to bring the ends closer to the middle.

Everyone accepts that this tax is unfair, not in its average but

in its width. It is the scope that is causing the problem. Any

fair-minded person can see the appalling injustice that the

Minister is perpetrating.

Members should recall that many farmers who own these

properties have annual incomes of less than $20 000 a year,

thanks to the economic rationalist policy settings of the

Government and its colleagues in Canberra.We need to send

a strong message to the Minister: fairness has two ends and

a middle. For the sake of $2.65 at one end and 55¢ in the

middle, the Minister can lessen the burden of others by over

$300: even her own director conceded that the committee had

a valid point. I ask that members support the Onkaparinga

Catchment Management Board and allow the introduction of

a fairer option—a tiered levy structure.

Ms WHITE secured the adjournment of the debate.

Mr CONLON (Elder): I move:

That this House establish a select committee to examine the

amount of funds to be raised by the proposed emergency services

levy, the method by which they will be raised and the purposes to

which those funds will be applied.

The reason for this motion would be obvious to anyone who

has picked up a newspaper or watched the news in the past

week. It concerns the announcement of the Government’s

new tax on property, the emergency services tax. We have a

number of very serious concerns with the Government’s

announcement about this tax. To understand our concerns, we

need to examine the history of this matter and some salient

points.

This tax was introduced to the Parliament some eight

months ago. It was put to us that it was a fairer way of

funding emergency services in South Australia. It is to this

Government’s shame that it has paraded in the media the

ALP’s view that the old system was unfair as some sort of

justification for its current tax grab. It is not. We said at the

time, and I say again, that the old system of funding from

insurance levies was inequitable. We accepted that, but one

cannot use that as an excuse for this disgraceful tax grab, a

tax grab which is aimed not only at punishing hard work and

thrift but also at the only real property and assets to which

ordinary working people aspire and which they own.

I say that it is nothing more than a tax grab for the

following reasons. As I say, I want the House to consider

some salient points when it considers this matter. The old fire

insurance levy for which this system was to be a fair replacement

raised 75 per cent of the Metropolitan Fire Service

budget and 50 per cent of the CFS budget. The budgets of

those two organisations last year were $56 million for the

MFS and about $13 million to $14 million for the CFS. So,

the old levy used to raise $40-odd million. Obviously, the

Government is taking more than that. However, if members

consider those figures, they realise that the entire budget last

year for the MFS and CFS was $70 million. If members allow

the Government to add in State Emergency Services, which

was never funded by a levy before, it will total $72 million.

This Government is an avaricious one and wants a little

sniff extra for itself. What did we find the little sniff extra

was? It wants to raise $140 million. We go from an entire

budget for emergency services of $72 million to a levy, a tax,

that raises $140-odd million. That is not a tax; that is

organised thievery. This matter was going to come back

before this House by way of legislation to amend the Bill

because the Government is not only avaricious but, as we

now well know, it is also grossly incompetent, and its original

drafting was not suited to the purposes that it intended. That

Bill was due for debate in this place, but it became so obvious

that not only the ALP but also the Independents and half the

Government’s backbench were opposed to the tax grab, to the

extent that we now have inadequate legislation in place

because this Government does not have the courage to bring

the Bill back.

By the Government’s own admission, we have legislation

for a wealth tax, a land tax, that is inadequately framed, but

the Government will do nothing about it because it does not

have the courage to bring its tax back to this place for debate.

That is why we are seeking a proper debate on the Government’s

tax. We are seeking to have a select committee

appointed to examine how much money is intended to be

raised by this tax and how and for what purposes it will be

raised.

Those three questions are obviously connected. First, this

Government needs to explain one simple thing; that is, if

emergency services funding last year was $72 million, why

does it want $140 million? Where is the money going?

Secondly, we want to know how the Government intends

raising this money. There is an enormous level of hypocrisy

about the Government’s approach to this tax. The Local

Government Bill will be further debated in another place. One

of the provisions of that Bill will, for the sake of fairness,

1466 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

compel councils to collect their rates in quarterly instalments.

That has caused some hardship to councils but it is fair.

What is the Government’s plan for its emergency services

tax, a very high rate of tax? Will it enable quarterly instalments

to be paid? No, it will not. It will be using the old

system which local government wanted to use for raising

rates and which it told local government was unfair, but it is

only unfair for local government, not for this greedy

Government.

Some other points about this legislation, this tax and the

reason why we should scrutinise it properly relate to, as I say,

this Government’s sheer greed when it comes to grabbing a

few extra dollars. Local government used to pay a proportion

of emergency services funding. It raised that from its

ratepayers and paid it to emergency services. Now, instead

of that, the Government will tax those ratepayers directly.

Instead of paying it through their rates to local government

they will pay it to this Government directly—except they will

pay much more.

But what does this Government want? For over a week it

has been locked in negotiations—locked in extortion—with

the Local Government Association, telling it that it also wants

the windfall back from it. It has taken the money directly

from the ratepayers but the money that local government used

to take from the ratepayers it wants as well. Not only is it

raising $140 million: it wants to tax ratepayers and councils

twice. As I said, this is not a tax: this is legislative organised

thievery. It is without principle and it is merely one of the

most savage tax grabs that we have seen in this place. If there

is one good thing to have emerged from this piece of

legislation, the recent announcements—

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: Sir, I rise on a point of order.

I do not expect that it is the honourable member’s intention,

but it is generally considered discourteous to turn one’s back

on the Chair.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order with respect

to the traditions of the House and the traditions of debate. The

honourable member will address his remarks through the

Chair.

Mr CONLON: I am most chastened to have been

corrected by the butler of the House. There is one good,

positive point to emerge from this. The Government has

found a great salesman for its policies. This Minister should

be out there selling all the Government’s policies. He is a

genius; he has an absolute genius for it. He went out to

defend this tax grab on television on Tuesday night and he

said, ‘It is not all bad. Not everyone is worse off. If you own

a $400 000 house in North Adelaide you will be better off.’

He did not quite get the message that it was not impressing

people, because he did it again on radio and on television the

next day. The Premier should get this bloke to do the budget

speech for him. He is a salesman. This bloke has a genius

for it.

That statement of the Minister shows another one of the

concerns that we have about this measure. It has been

described by people on the other side as a wealth tax. Well,

it might be. But it is beyond that. It does not tax the wealthy.

As I said before, it taxes the results of thrift and hard work.

Many people in my electorate have worked all their lives, are

now retired, own only a couple of pieces of property and will

own only that in their lives—their family home and their car.

Those people are not wealthy, they have a very limited

income, and they will be paying to this Government a couple

of hundred dollars more a year.

Let us refer to the old system. This Government has been

throwing around some bodgie figures.We note that when the

great salesman—the Minister—was trying to sell this he sent

out a set of figures to show what would be the net result of

the new tax. The problem was that the first set of figures that

went out were not good enough, so they changed them and

sent out a second set of figures that looked better. But their

further problem was that they did not get all the copies of the

first paper back. So, we have two sets of figures floating

around out there. And they want to know why we want a

select committee to look at it. They want to know why we do

not trust them. They put out two sets of figures on one day.

There is no person in South Australia who does not recognise

this for what it is—

Mr CONLON: —an absolute (as the Leader says) crook

tax grab. We have the Government salesperson on the radio

talking about how it is all for emergency services. What utter

rot! The Minister might want to respond to this debate today

and tell us, of the $140 million (given that only $70 million

was needed last year), how much extra the MFS will get, how

much extra the CFS will get and how much extra the SES will

get. I have had phone calls from all over the State from

members of the SES. They are outraged. They are saying that

they are not getting any more money: it is just that they all

have to pay a levy on their houses now. They have to get up

at three in the morning and go and do emergency services

work and now they have to pay the Government’s tax as well,

and they are not getting any extra money.

What we do know—and what we want to know more

about—is just how much of this money is going to the

Government’s utterly incompetent and misguided Government

radio network. We believe that, over the period of the

next few years, it may be as high as $175 million, for a

Government radio network that has blown out to

$247 million. No-one in South Australia can believe that this

Government is going down a path of spending $.25 billion on

a radio network that no-one in particular wants. The CFS, in

evidence the other day—

Mr CONLON: We will have a look at the Coroner’s

comments, and I hope you do join the debate and finally tell

the truth about that matter. The CFS the other day was very

lukewarm—

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: I rise on a point of order,

Mr Speaker. In suggesting that I ‘finally tell the truth’ the

honourable member is implying that I have lied, and I object

to that. I ask him to withdraw.

The SPEAKER: The Chair would caution the honourable

member for using this terminology. It is just not acceptable

in debate to imply that people lie in the House. I would ask

the honourable member to withdraw the remark.

Mr CONLON: If the Minister thinks I called him a liar,

I will withdraw that, because I did not. I think the Minister

draws a long bow, and he is certainly a past master of high

dudgeon in this place. In the time remaining I want to make

a couple of very clear points. New SouthWales has had one

of these Government radio networks, something which the

Police Association and the police in New South Wales are

currently trying to get out of. This Government is intent on

spending $247 million on it. We know why: because John

Olsen wrote a very ill advised letter in 1994, and we are still

paying the price for it now.

Let me close by saying that we want this select committee

to come back to this House with recommendations. This is

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1467

a budget matter for the Government, and there are some

limitations on what we can do about it. I make no bones about

this: we will do whatever we can to shame the Government

into using this tax arrangement fairly. The Government is

collecting too much money with this arrangement and is not

applying it to its intended purposes. It is simply unfair.

I make this point: for the Minister to say on radio and on

television that we supported this measure is simply not

factual.We supported a fairer system of emergency services

funding because, as I have said repeatedly, in this place eight

months ago, outside it and again in here today, it was

impossible to argue that the old system had inequities.

We never agreed to the Government’s using this as an

outrageous tax grab, and we never trusted the Government on

this matter. One measure that we in this place sought—and

the member for Stuart would know it well, because he

defeated the measure with an amendment of his own—was

for the matter to go on a regular basis each year before

Parliament’s Economic and Finance Committee so that there

could be scrutiny of the new tax rate being set. Because of an

amendment moved by the member for Stuart and opposition

from him, we were unable to succeed with that. I put the

Government on notice: if it ever has the courage to bring its

flawed Bill back to get it fixed, it will not get the free hand

it now has with this tax. So, we invite the Government to

bring back this badly drafted measure to get it fixed, but

understand this: the Government will not get away with this

forever. Whenever the Minister goes on radio or television

to do his absolutely disgracefully inept job of selling this tax,

he could at least tell the truth about the ALP’s attitude to it.

Correctional Services and Emergency Services): After

listening to the shadow spokesperson, I would like to say a

few things. The shadow spokesperson can play the smoke and

mirror tricks that we have become used to over the past

5½ years. He can grandstand, prance around and throw out

a few one liners that the media might enjoy, but at the end of

the day the principles of this new levy are sound, correct and

right. The principles of the levy are about protecting life and

property.

Mr Hanna: Fraud!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The member for

Mitchell happened to vote in favour of this Bill when it came

in. The principles are right. When we look at this during the

select committee—which I am happy to support—members

will again realise how tight this legislation is. I would like to

place on the public record a few other matters. First, the

amendments have not been withdrawn. There is no problem

in debating the amendments at all, but some other amendments

will be brought in. One of the most important amendments

that will be brought in is to stop the Labor Party—if

it ever gets into Government again—from ultimately

destroying South Australia. Members of the Labor Party talk

about this, that and the other, but they never apologise to

South Australians for putting this State in a situation from

which it is almost impossible to recover. Not only did the

South Australian Labor Party not apologise for the fact that

it virtually destroyed South Australia but not once in

5½ years has it tried to support—

Mr FOLEY: I rise on a point of order,Mr Speaker. I am

extremely concerned that the Minister is speaking to the

television cameras with his back to you, Sir. I ask that he

address the Chair accordingly.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order, in the

same way I upheld it for the previous speaker. Members will

address their remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The Opposition has

never said ‘Sorry’ to South Australians. If we have a Sorry

Day for Aboriginals, which I support, we ought to have a

Sorry Day, supported by the South Australian Labor Party,

for the destruction that it caused this State in the 11 years of

its absolute ineptitude. Anything else that will ever happen

in South Australia will pale into insignificance given the

long-term damage that the Labor Party has inflicted on every

man, woman and child, not only those of us who live now but

generation after generation into the future. That is the

problem with the South Australian Labor Party.

However, for once, the South Australian Labor Party

supported the principles of protection of life and property in

a bipartisan manner. That is the first time I have seen the

Opposition support an important Bill to look after South

Australians in the 5½ years I have been in this Parliament.

What then happens down the track when the Opposition sees

a chance for a little bit of political gain? With smoke and

mirrors it then comes and ramps it up and carries on.

Everything is transparent with this. I have no problem

whatsoever with whomever it is looking at the figures.

Everybody in this Parliament said, ‘We have to do more for

emergency services.’ Everybody said it.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The member for

Mitchell says, ‘Yes, that is right.’ However, because they

cannot add up—and that has been proven for 11 years—they

think—

The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Mitchell

to order. The Minister listened to the Opposition’s contributions

in silence. I would ask the Opposition to do the same

thing.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Members of the Labor

Party have never been able to add up. They came into this

Chamber and said, ‘We’ve done $1.5 billion with the State

Bank’—$1.5 billion, and they smiled about that one. A few

months later, they said, ‘We have to let you know we’ve done

another $1 billion, and we are not even saying sorry.’ A few

months later they came in and said, ‘We have dropped

another couple of billion.’ They cannot add up, and the

member for Mitchell confirmed that today when he said,

‘Yes, you have to do more’, but he also said,‘You must do

more with no more collection’. When it comes to things like

the radio network, you can play around with the jokes, but I

suggest that members travel around this State, as I have, to

17 different functions around rural and regional South

Australia in recent times, and look at the radio network and

at how dangerous it is.

I say here publicly that, if somebody dies in future because

the radio network does not work or if somebody dies in future

because the budget has been cut and we cannot get state-ofthe-

art equipment, the jaws of life, modern appliances to put

out fires, the right sort of SES equipment to cut people out of

road trauma situations, I will come back in here every time

and remind every South Australian of the games that the

Labor Party played.

Having said all that, I point out that the levy and the Act

that has been passed with bipartisan support is fully transparent.

More is being done. The CFS is being funded. The MFS,

for one, takes $62 million of the $141.5 million—$62 million

just for the MFS. Does the Opposition, particularly the

1468 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

member for Elder who is endorsed by the United Firefighters

Union, want to cut the MFS budget? Does the member for

Elder want us to continue spending $5.6 million this year

with 16 new fire pumpers to protect life and property? Of

course he does, but we are supposed to do it with less money.

This is about fairness and equity. Some will be paying

more and some will be paying less, but at the end of the day

why should the multinational company insuring offshore and

taking the rent revenue in Adelaide not contribute to emergency

services when the pensioner has already been contributing?

This is a replacement levy: this is not a new tax. It is

a replacement levy, and it is quarantined and dedicated to

emergency services funding, and the pensioners will now get

a concession of at least $40. They were not getting the $40

concession before. My mother is a pensioner and she cannot

afford not to have comprehensive insurance on her car. She

is paying around $28 or $30 already.

I refer to the two sets of different figures. One set of

figures show what the people are currently paying in 1998-99

with their existing levy. We have shown the levy under the

new system with bipartisan support from all colours of

political persuasion in this Parliament.We have shown what

it will be for 1999-2000. New levy or old levy—and members

should make no mistake about this—just to get some of the

bandaids fixed to try to further improve the level of protection

of life and property in this State, there would have to be a

minimum of at least a 25 per cent increase in funding for

emergency services next year. That is a fact. Therefore, you

have to compare apples with apples.

If we are to bring in a levy for 1999-2000, we have to look

at the costs for 1999-2000 under the existing levy. That is a

fact. I stand by that, and that is where those figures are. I look

forward to the Opposition’s examining this matter during the

select committee. It could have done it during the Estimates

Committee, but that may not have provided quite the

opportunity for grandstanding. At the end of the day, this is

one of the tightest pieces of legislation ever passed by the

Parliament. I support the select committee inquiry, and I am

happy to nominate those on our side.

Mr FOLEY (Hart): If there was ever a reason for a select

committee, it is to understand what is driving this hapless

Minister. For the most junior Minister in Government outside

of Cabinet to be responsible for one of the largest taxes this

State has had in decades sends the alarm bells ringing,

particularly in light of the contribution he just made.

The Treasurer has been silent on this matter. We have

heard nothing from the finance Minister of this State as he

has been allowed to watch a junior Minister in a marginal seat

grapple with what is a complex, detailed and significant tax

being imposed upon this State. I do not hold the Minister

responsible for the fact that he is being set up by the Treasurer,

who clearly has designs on one day leading the Liberal

Party and who wants to keep as far away from controversy

as possible.

Mr FOLEY: Leader down here. This tax is $141 million.

The Government and every observer knows it is not just

about funding emergency services. It goes well beyond that.

It will be about plugging the block hole that this Government

has developed over its last three or four budgets. At the end

of the day, when the Government has been silent, what

happens to that money already coming out of Consolidated

Account that is appropriated to emergency services? That

money will be taken out and used to fund other programs

within government. It is an accounting sleight of hand as this

Government—

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: On a point of order, Mr

Deputy Speaker. I do not believe it is within Standing Orders

to anticipate a debate. The budget is coming down this

afternoon. I believe that the matter of relevance is important

to this debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accept the point of order.

Mr FOLEY: I can understand why the member for Unley

is very nervous. I can understand why the member for

Hartley, the Minister himself, and any Government Minister

sitting under about 7 per cent would be terrified at what this

tax will do to their electoral fortunes at the next State

election, because you are gone, you are gone, the member for

Adelaide is gone, and you will be swept from government for

the disgraceful way in which you have taxed the people of

South Australia.

At the end of the day, this has little to do with funding

emergency services. As I said in the committee meeting

yesterday when the head of the CFS was before us, ‘Do you

have the champagne bottles on ice for tomorrow night’s

budget when you will celebrate this doubling and trebling in

funding that the Government keeps telling us you will

receive?’ He said to me, ‘Well, sir, we are a very frugal lot

in the CFS.’ Clearly by what he said, they do not expect to

get a doubling of resources, as this Government would want

us to believe.

When this measure was debated in this House, the

message given by this Government was that it would replace

the existing insurance levy in the order of about $40 million

to $50 million, yet we come into the House on Tuesday to

find that it is $141 million, on the back of an ETSA tax of a

further $100 million. The taxpayers of this State have been

dealt the most massive tax impost this State has seen in

decades. The hapless Minister has a grin on his face. I can tell

you, tax man, when you go doorknocking in the seat of

Mawson at the next State election, you will be dogged by the

fact that you are the tax man of this Government, you have

brought into this State the most significant tax burden in

generations, and you will be responsible for that politically.

We want to have this select committee and have Treasury

officers appear before it. We want to look at the modelling

as to how they have arrived at these numbers. We want to

look at budget allocations. We want to see how much has

been appropriated extra to the CFS, the MFS, surf lifesaving

and the police.We want to look at the impact of the bungled

$247 million radio contract that no emergency service is keen

to have. If you had seen the face of the head of the CFS

yesterday when we asked him for his views on the radio

network, you would know it was less than a ringing endorsement,

spending $250 million of yet uncollected State taxes

on a radio system that nobody wants and is clearly double if

not three times the price that any comparable system should

cost.

This Government should hang its head in shame for the

absolutely disgraceful way it has managed the State’s

finances, and for what is nothing more than an accounting

sleight of hand when it comes to the construction of this State

budget. The Government at the end of the day must think that

the public of this State and the Opposition are mugs and that

we are unable to see through this accounting sleight of hand,

this trickery done by this Government, as it simply plays with

the State’s finances, its books and its budget, and rips from

the good people of South Australia another $141 million on

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1469

top of the $100 million ETSA tax. It should hang its head in

shame.

If there has ever been a need for a select committee to look

at how we arrived at this point, it is this select committee. I

look forward to the Treasury officer sitting opposite me on

that select committee and explaining to me the modelling,

how the budget has been framed and how that money will be

allocated. The Minister suggests that pensioners in this State

should be somewhat pleased and gratified that the Government

is giving them back $40 for a tax which they were not

perhaps previously paying and which they were certainly not

paying to the extent that they will be asked to pay now.

Mr FOLEY: You are going to slug them $200 and give

them back $40. You are going to hit them two or three times

what they were paying before and you will take back $40—

what a heartless move by this Government. What a heartless

move by the Liberal Government and by this Liberal Premier

to hit the pensioners of this State. I pity the pensioners of this

State. John Olsen and his Government are Robin Hood in

reverse.

Mr FOLEY: The member for Unley can shake his fist—

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

Mr FOLEY: —and do what he likes, but on the Government’s

own analogy—

Mr SCALZI: Sir, I rise on a point of order. I believe that

the member for Hart is not properly addressing the Minister

by his title.

The SPEAKER: Order! I uphold the point of order, as I

have done so twice today. Members will address their

remarks through the Chair.

Mr FOLEY: I am taken aback by the vicious onslaught

from the member for Hartley as he counts down the 18

months to losing his seat in office. No wonder the member

for Unley is quite relaxed about this tax because, on the

modelling put forward by thisMinister, people with $400 000

will make a saving. We can understand why perhaps the

member for Unley does not think this is a bad tax. I can tell

members as a member of Parliament, likemy colleague who

represents a lot of people who can ill afford a $200 to $500

tax impost, that it is right not only that we should vent our

anger but also that we should pick through this tax and

expose it for what it is so that when we to go the next State

election every elector, particularly the electors in Hartley, are

made aware of what is involved.

I look forward to personally doorknocking in Hartley with

the Labor candidate at the time.We will make every voter in

this State absolutely aware of what sleight of hand and what

budget trickery the Government has put in place with this tax.

Members opposite should hang their heads in shame.

Mrs MAYWALD (Chaffey): I support the motion to

establish a select committee to look at the establishment of

this new tax on the people of South Australia. I am not quite

as dramatic as the members for Hart and Elder, because I

believe that it is up to the select committee to analyse those

figures. It should not be done here in the Parliament, preempting

what might happen in a proposed select committee

to look into this issue. I am, however, very concerned about

the understandings that were given to me when the original

legislation in respect of this emergency services levy was

passed.

The understanding I was given was that no-one who was

contributing under the existing fire levy collection framework

would be disadvantaged, recognising, of course, that an extra

contribution would be required of approximately 25 per cent

over and above what people were contributing in the next

year’s budget. That is fair enough. An increase of 25 per cent

is what the Government told us would be likely to be

introduced to the fire levy if we did not go ahead with this

emergency services levy.

It was unfair, in my view, that only 70 per cent of the

population contributes to that fire levy as it currently stands;

29 per cent of that figure are under-insuring, so they are not

contributing as they should be—30 per cent are having a free

ride. That, I believe, is unfair. I believe that the original

principle of the emergency services legislation was very

good, aiming as it did to broaden the base and to ensure that

everyone in the State contributed towards emergency

services. However, in the interim that 25 per cent has blown

out considerably. Even though the Minister has tried to say

within the figures he has presented to the public that he has

incorporated the 25 per cent increase to compare apples with

apples, in my calculations it still does not work out.

Currently, the emergency services budget is about

$85 million. If the Government were not to go ahead with the

emergency services levy and had to increase the existing fire

levy by 25 per cent, I calculate that is about $13 million,

which gives us a $68 million contribution from the fire levy,

and then the State Government and local government would

take that up to $98 million. From where all of a sudden does

the $141 million come?

That is the question the select committee needs to be

addressing. On what are we going to be spending this money

and how will we be improving services? Have funds been

taken from emergency services that should not be taken from

them because the Act is specific in terms of emergency

services and the fund? That is my major concern. In briefings

I have had over the past few days—and there have been many

to try to avoid the establishment of the select committee—it

was suggested that we needed to compare apples with apples

and that we needed to incorporate into the figures given to the

public a likely 25 per cent increase. Interestingly enough, a

comment made flippantly was, ‘Why did you pick 25 per cent

and not 50 per cent or 100 per cent?’

Surprisingly, if you do pick a 100 per cent increase on the

fire levies you come out with about $141 million being

raised. That is a really interesting equation in my view. The

other interesting aspect is that the figures presented in the

public arena involve the value of a house, what the insurance

reductions may be and what the average contributions are that

ratepayers have been making through councils, assuming that

there would be a saving to ratepayers; of course that is not the

case as the State Government has also talked about clawing

back 25 per cent of the savings.

Figures are known by the public and whether or not we are

comparing apples with apples on a 25 per cent increase is

irrelevant when we are talking about aspects of the tables

presented to us which do not ring true in the first instance.

Also, those perceived savings are in a climate where local

government is under enormous pressure. Local government

has been subject to rate capping for some time. For the State

Government to come out and say it will be highly recommending

that local government give that money back to

ratepayers is unconscionable, in my opinion. What one level

of government does with its money is of no concern to

another level of government and the State Government should

1470 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

not be directing local government as to what it should be

doing with the rates it is collecting. The State Government

would and does take exception when the Federal Government

tries to do that.

I will not speak further on this. I believe the committee has

a lot of work to do but it is a fair and equitable way of

exposing to the public what the emergency services fund will

be used for and how the money will be raised. It will

recommend to the Parliament whether we believe it is a fair

and equitable measure.

The Hon. M.D. RANN (Leader of the Opposition): In

supporting the motion for a select committee there are a few

facts that need to be laid on the table. I am pleased that the

Independents are speaking about this. I was telephoned by the

South-East television station, which told me about the

concerns of the Independents on this tax and here is the

opportunity for the Independent members to prove it. The

simple fact is that what we are really deciding today is

whether the 1997 State budget was a total fraud. We all

remember what the then Treasurer, Steven Baker, said, ‘We

are in the black, we are on track and we are going to be in

surplus. There is no need to increase taxes, no need to sell

ETSA and we are on the home straight and debt reduction is

proceeding apace.’ Straight after the election we had not just

the ETSA sale proposal but also the $250 million tax

increases in last year’s budget, and now we have the total

fraud of this emergency services tax and John Olsen’s ETSA

tax. I use the word ‘fraud’ wisely.

The simple fact is that every member of this Parliament

(as well as every member in the Liberal Party room, where

there was a brawl yesterday—and there has just been a brawl

out in the corridor) and people in the community (I also

include briefings to the Opposition and others) were told that

this emergency services levy would simply be a replacement

of those existing levies which raise between $40 million and

$50 million a year but which will now be $141 million. It was

a con, a fraud, a deliberate attempt to put in a new tax behind

the guise of our brave emergency services. The emergency

services personnel in this State, both permanent and voluntary,

are being used by this Government to impose a new tax

that will hit all the things that families aspire to own, such as

their own home and a car, boat, trailer—all those things that

people regard as being necessary for their lives and their

enjoyment. We are seeing a new tax; not an emergency

services levy, but a $100 million slug.

It was interesting that, when the member for Hart was

taking about the impact on pensioners, there was the member

for Unley putting on a turn but laughing, and there was the

member for Hartley laughing—and he still is. There was the

hapless Minister, the member for Mawson—

Mr SCALZI: Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER:I ask members that if they rise on a point

of order they actually say they have a point of order, and do

not just stand in their place.

Mr SCALZI: My point of order is that I was not laughing

at the time; it is a serious matter.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order. The

Leader.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: Then there is the member for

Mawson, the Minister for the emergency services tax. It is

interesting to see that, with a marginal seat which on the last

Federal election figures needs a 1 per cent swing for him to

lose—

The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member will

address his remarks through the Chair.

The Hon. M.D. RANN: It needs a 1 per cent swing for

him to lose that seat, but what did we see? Suddenly, the

Premier will not answer questions about John Olsen’s new

tax—his EST. We saw Rob Lucas suddenly become shy,

even though he is protected in the Upper House. They let the

hapless member for Mawson out there on his own, looking

like a startled rabbit, and what did he say to the journalists

yesterday? ‘Don’t panic; don’t panic,’ like Corporal Jones in

a scene from Dad’s Army. When asked whether people would

be worse off, he said, ‘No, not people in North Adelaide with

$400 000 homes; they will be better off.’ Those words will

be plastered in every single house in his electorate, and those

constituents will say, ‘Thanks a lot, Rob; thanks for giving

us the EST.’ The Premier has hung theMinister for Emergency

Services—the member for Mawson—out to dry, and they

have stamped the words ‘emergency services tax’ on his

forehead for the 2½ years to the next election.

This is a forced agreement today for the Minister to allow

a select committee—but it has to be a real select committee.

My advice to the Independents is to go down to the South-

East and the Riverland and hear evidence of the select

committee. Give pensioners the chance to have their say.

Give not only pensioners but also the rural community a

chance to have their say, because the President of the Farmers

Federation said yesterday that there has been no real consultation.

Give the real estate industry and small business a chance

to have a say, with real hearings in a real select committee,

not a con job where the Independents are coerced to go a

certain way by the Government.

Mr McEWEN (Gordon): I put on the record that I did

not particularly appreciate that lecture. Notwithstanding that,

we have a responsibility as a Parliament to scrutinise the rate.

We have passed the Act, and it is now our responsibility to

scrutinise the rate, and in so doing we will be passing the

lifeline to many Liberals. Many of them are saying to us, ‘Go

and scrutinise the rate.’

Mr Foley: Name them!

Mr McEWEN: I will certainly not name them. I need to

make the point that, in supporting the select committee, I am

party to extending a privilege to the Opposition to be part of

the process. In so doing, I put on the record that the Opposition

needs to show some political maturity in terms of this

privilege. It needs to show some responsibility and it needs

to show some vision. We need to approach this matter as a

team and, if we do that, we will use this—

Mr McEWEN: The member for Hart and the member for

Elder say that we can trust them, and I thank them for that.

This is an opportunity for this Parliament to show some

leadership, to accept some responsibility and duly scrutinise

this rate because every South Australian is asking us to do it.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop): Like all speakers before

me on this issue, I say that what has been presented to me this

week with regard to this levy has almost stunned me. It has

astounded me for quite a few reasons.

Mr Foley: Almost stunned you?

Mr WILLIAMS:Well, if it had stunned me I would not

be standing here, would I? It has astounded me on two levels.

First, the quantum, the amount of money, that the Government

has decided to raise through this measure concerns me.

What has astounded me even more is that it is a conservative

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1471

Liberal Government that is bringing in this measure. I doubt

whether a Labor Government would have been game to bring

such a measure before the people of South Australia. It is

ironic that Labor Party members are calling for a select

committee into a wealth tax introduced by a Liberal Government,

which they probably would not be game to introduce

into the State of South Australia, so they can win a few

political points off the Liberal Government.

Mr McEwen: Shame!

Mr WILLIAMS: Shame! I supported the enabling

legislation and it received virtually unanimous support from

the House because we were led to believe that the Bill would

redress some of the inequities in the prevailing system. I

accepted that there were inequities, and in some cases gross

inequities, where up to 30 per cent of people were escaping

the net through the insurance levy and were not contributing

their fair share.

It is ironic that the effect of this new levy is that a great

number of people will still escape the net. One of the things

that the select committee should address is whether the new

system is more equitable. A lot of people will escape the net.

It transfers the burden from tenants to landlords, and it does

so in a big way with regard to Housing Trust tenants. I know

that Labor Party members would argue that that is the way

it should be because those people are the less well off in our

society. I suggest that is not necessarily the case. A new

group has been created who will escape making a contribution

to the emergency services of this State through this

legislation. I seriously question whether the new measure is

any better than the old one.

One of my major concerns is the impact that this levy will

have on the people I represent in rural South Australia,

because a large number of them are asset rich and income

poor. That is why I am amazed that a conservative Liberal

Government has been a party to perpetrating this sort of

skulduggery because many Government members represent

rural people. They represent struggling farmers, who it is

recognised nationwide are invariably asset rich but income

poor. Their contributions will rise. Some of the modelling

that I have seen indicates that their contributions will double.

It is rather interesting that the media hand-out that the

Minister has used over the past couple of days refers to a

farm in Millicent, which is in the heart of my electorate. It

seems that the average farm with a $2 million asset will be

$129 worse off—and that does not include its contribution via

mobile assets or property. I suggest a property such as that

would have three or four vehicles at least, so there is another

$100. It would be $229 worse off. If I was just being

parochial—

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, Minister. This is the figure

out of your document. If the Minister can contain himself for

a moment, I am quoting from his own document which

purports to take off the savings. This is the net figure—the

Minister’s net figure. Since theMinister has raised the matter,

in the documentation that he circulated to the press he has not

told anyone about that other arm of Government out there. He

has included a column showing the savings we will get

through our contributions to local government rates, but there

is another arm of Government out there, and some of his

mates are telling local government they will be forced to

contribute 25 per cent of what they used to put into emergency

services back into the State coffers. That is the principle

which nearly got me: a South Australian conservative Liberal

Government telling local government, through its rating

system, capital based-wealth tax, that it will contribute money

to the coffers of the general revenue of this State. I am

absolutely appalled. I will come back to that shortly.

I have had an interest in this matter for some time as a

result of the work I perform on the PublicWorks Committee.

I would like to quote from a couple of documents. The first

document is a report to the Minister for Justice and the

Minister for Police, Correctional Services and Emergency

Services about funding arrangements for emergency services,

and it is dated 15 May 1998. It refers to the GRN and states:

The most recent advice provided to the steering committee (by

the Department of Treasury and Finance) was that the emergency

services component of the GRN will equate to an ongoing funding

requirement of approximately $25 million per annum. It is assumed

that most of this expenditure (based on use) would be related to the

greater Adelaide area.

When the Public Works Committee was investigating the

GRNC, Mr Keddie, who was representing the CFS—and, to

be fair to him, I believe he was representing the CFS in a

technical capacity—was asked by Mr Scalzi:

With respect to the ongoing costs to maintain the present system,

do you think it would be more or less than maintaining the GRNC

system?

Mr Keddie replied:

My understanding is that the GRNC is cost neutral which

includes maintenance.

So, the CFS thought it was going to be cost neutral. The

Department of Treasury and Finance also gave evidence

before the Public Works Committee, as follows:

The GRNC cost will be fully funded through the appropriation

process. The method of financing the development will be sourced

from two areas, namely:

1. Recovery from agencies of funds included for acquisition of

existing radio equipment.

2. Specific allocation of $185 million set aside in the 1998-99

budget and forward estimates for this purpose.

Unfortunately, the table which is attached shows that

$185 million is set aside in the budget, but $13 million will

be drawn back from agencies. There is also a note to explain

that of the $185 million this will be partially offset by the

appropriate level of recovery from the emergency services

levy.

I contend that at least $25 million a year is going out of

the emergency services levy into the GRN, which is something

that this committee should seriously look into. It has

been announced that $13 million is going in. Of the

$20.6 million that is going towards emergency services

provided by other Government agencies, there is an offset

that general revenue will be funding the police share of the

GRN to the tune of some $12 million. It comes up to the

figure that we were talking about last May. I contend that at

least $25 million is coming directly out of this levy to fund

the emergency services.

I see that the clock has almost wound down, and I said that

I would come back to something about the role of the

conservative Liberal Government. In my maiden speech in

this House about 18 months ago I said in my concluding

remarks:

May I remind the Liberal members that they are the custodians

of conservatism in this State; that many South Australians are relying

on them to demonstrate to the electorate over the next four years that

they are capable of shouldering that responsibility.

I am very saddened: on this matter I think that they have

abrogated that responsibility.

1472 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

Mr LEWIS (Hammond): I am sad to hear the member

for MacKillop say that, because I have assurances from the

Minister for Emergency Services, the Deputy Premier and the

Treasurer, as well as from the Premier himself, those matters

to which the member for MacKillop drew attention are not

matters about which there needs to be any concern. Nonetheless,

I am pleased that there is to be a select committee. The

most important benefit that the select committee will provide

is the opportunity for the education of everyone in South

Australia about the impact of this levy, which we have passed

through this Chamber and the other place. It is law. I

recognise the validity of the observations made by the

member for Gordon and the member for MacKillop in

drawing attention to that fact: it is law.We all supported that

Bill.

More particularly, the select committee will provide

everyone with a chance to understand what that legislation

intended and what is in fact happening. I will be able to rely,

I know, on the assurances that I have received from those

Ministers to whom I referred at the outset of my remarks

because, if we cannot rely on them, what can we rely on?

There will most definitely be benefits to people living in the

country and there will most definitely be benefits to people

living in Housing Trust accommodation who can demonstrate

the need for assistance in ameliorating the impact on their

lower incomes, as is also the case for pensioners in their own

private dwellings or privately leased dwellings outside the

Housing Trust. More particularly, the Government has also

taken into consideration the effect it would have—which

needs amelioration—on self-funded retirees. For better or for

worse, that is the decision that has been made.

The other thing that I am sure this committee will discover

and enable the public at large to better understand is that

volunteer organisations will themselves benefit. I amtalking

not about the volunteers in the emergency services but about

charities, churches, youth groups and the like which own

vehicles for one purpose or another. Equally, primary

producers will not have to pay this levy on those vehicles that

simply cross from paddock to paddock over a public road and

thereby require registration and third party insurance against

the risk of bodily injury in any collision that may occur. They

will not have to pay a levy on those movable assets, if you

like—the vehicles that are involved.

I know also that a fair deal has been struck with local

government. We have been assured of that again by the

Ministers to whom I have referred, and we have to be able to

trust that information. I know that they would not in any way

mislead either me or anyone else in this place about that

matter. I know that I can rely on that, and I have to rely on

that: I have nothing else to rely on.

It is for those reasons then that I strongly support the

establishment of the committee, in the certain belief that we

will all have a clearer understanding once the committee has

finished its inquiries and brings it report to the Parliament. I

commend the motion to the House.

Motion carried.

The House appointed a select committee consisting of the

Hon. R.L. Brokenshire, Mr Conlon, the Hon I.F. Evans,

Mr Foley and Mrs Maywald; the committee to have power

to send for persons, papers and records, and to adjourn from

place to place; the committee to report on Tuesday 6 July

1999.

Ms WHITE (Taylor): I move:

That this House—

(a) is committed to ensuring that South Australian university

programs and students are not disadvantaged and is therefore

opposed to voluntary student unionism; and

(b) recognises the valuable contributions that student organisations

make to academic studies, acknowledges that university

community encourages participation and development of

tomorrow’s community, social and business leaders and

supports the universal contribution of all students in recognition

of the services which are provided for the benefit of all

students.

With only a few minutes remaining before we must adjourn,

I realise that I will be cut off in my prime. However, I will

make a few very important points about this motion, which

is aimed specifically to do one thing, that is, to get every

member of this House to state clearly their opposition to

voluntary student unionism.

The Liberal Party in this State has been hedging its bets.

It has been making noises to the students of South Australia,

saying, ‘Yes, we are with you.’ However, I suspect something

different, particularly given the Commonwealth legislation

which is before the Federal Parliament and which will

introduce voluntary student unionism.

This move has been opposed by the whole of the university

sector right across the nation—the academics, the nonacademic

staff, the students, the Australian Vice Chancellors

Committee—and by most commentators and most newspapers,

because people in this country realise that this will

have a detrimental effect on university campuses around the

nation.

I move this motion for two reasons, the first of which is

the legislation that is currently before the Federal Parliament,

and the second reason being that the Government has made

noises to the student associations that it is with them.

However, although acknowledging that the Senate is taking

submissions to their inquiry, the South Australian Government

(and this morning I checked this with the secretary of

that Senate committee) has failed even to make a submission

to that committee.

The Acting Premier at the time, the Hon. Rob Kerin, wrote

to one of the student associations in South Australia on 5 May

1999, and I will read his letter into Hansard. The letter is

addressed to the Vice President/VSU Liaison Officer,

Adelaide University Union, and states:

Thank you for your letter of March 15, 1999, regarding voluntary

student unionism legislation. As you are aware the Commonwealth

has introduced legislation to prevent compulsory student union fee

collection at universities. A Senate inquiry into the proposed Bill,

expected to commence on May 7, 1999, will provide an opportunity

for wide consultation and consideration of all the issues.

At this stage the South Australian Government is not proposing

to introduce such legislation and will continue to involve the interest

of the stakeholders.

This Government has a commitment to ensuring that the South

Australian university programs and students are not disadvantaged.

We recognise the valuable contribution that student organisations

make to academic studies and the services which are provided for

the benefit of all students.

The letter is signed ‘Rob Kerin, Acting Premier,’ and it is

dated 5 May 1999. I read that letter into Hansard purposefully

so that all members of this House can recognise that much

of the wording of the motion that I have moved here today

comes directly from the letter of the Deputy Premier (acting

in his capacity as Premier) to students in South Australia.

That was the guarantee that he gave students of South

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1473

Australian universities. However, I draw members’ attention

to the qualification that he put in his letter: that ‘at this stage’

the Government will not be introducing legislation.

One may ask: if the Federal Liberal Party is introducing

such legislation, what role has the South Australian Government?

The universities in South Australia are set up under

State legislation and, as we have seen in another State, such

a move towards voluntary student unionism has been

legislated.Western Australia has already gone down that path

and, next week when I have some more time allocated to me,

I will talk about what has been the consequence for student

unions, university campuses and services to students in

Western Australia.

This move is necessary to find out once and for all from

the Liberal Party in this State whether it will stand by the

promises that it has made to South Australian students over

a number of years now. Over the past couple of years,

similar, almost identical letters to student associations giving

a similar guarantee have been signed by the Premier and two

former Ministers of higher education in this State. But where

was the State Government when the Federal Senate inquiry

was taking submissions? Not one word. All the university

campuses have been standing up clearly and loudly and the

whole Australian community has been telling this Government

to stop this ideological push just to attack student

associations—which are not industrial unions; they are

student associations.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: Then why call them unions? Why

not call them associations?

Ms WHITE: They are called associations, member for

Waite. If members of the Liberal Party cannot tell the

difference between an industrial union and a student association

they really do not understand what is happening in

universities at this time. The total recognition of the whole

community is that the services provided by student associations

cannot be met out of university budgets. There have

been massive cuts by the Federal Government to universities

around the nation, yet it is trying to deny student associations,

and every university has come out and said they do a very

good job in providing to students services such as counselling

services, legal services, academic and other services, sporting

facilities, cafeterias, libraries and all those sorts of facilities.

Minister Kemp is threatening to withdraw universities’

funding if they continue to allow the compulsory levying of

students for those services through the student associations.

The contribution made by student associations to student

services cannot be met from campus funds, and the attack by

the Government on these services is driven purely by

ideology and is just a payback because students are standing

up for themselves and saying that they want better funding

for their universities in Australia, particularly in South

Australia.

Debate adjourned.

His Excellency the Governor, by message, intimated his

assent to the following Bills:

Collections for Charitable Purposes (Definition of

Charitable Purpose) Amendment,

Criminal Law Consolidation (Intoxication) Amendment,

Criminal Law Consolidation (Juries) Amendment,

Evidence (Confidential Communications) Amendment,

Evidence (Miscellaneous) Amendment,

Nurses,

Road Traffic (Miscellaneous No. 2) Amendment,

Second-hand Vehicle Dealers (Compensation Fund)

Amendment,

Soil Conservation and Land Care (Appeals Tribunal)

Amendment,

Statutes Amendment (Commutation for Superannuation

Surcharge),

Statutes Amendment (Restraining Orders),

Supply,

Tobacco Products Regulation (Smoking in Unlicensed

Premises) Amendment,

Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (South Australia),

Wingfield Waste Depot Closure,

Year 2000 Information Disclosure.

His Excellency the Governor, by message, recommended

to the House the appropriation of such amounts of money as

might be required for the purposes mentioned in the Bill.

His Excellency the Governor, by message, recommended

to the House the appropriation of such amounts of money as

might be required for the purposes mentioned in the Bill.

His Excellency the Governor, by message, recommended

to the House the appropriation of such amounts of money as

might be required for the purposes mentioned in the Bill.

A petition signed by 541 residents of South Australia

requesting that the House urge the Government to ensure that

changes to the Housing Trust rent to income scale are

amended to reflect the scale which operated prior to 27 March

was presented by Ms Breuer.

Petition received.

A petition signed by 536 residents of South Australia

requesting that the House urge the Government to impose a

moratorium on the commercial taking of native finfish in the

River Murray fishery was presented by Mrs Maywald.

Petition received.

question is directed to the Premier. Given the massive

increases in taxes that have occurred and that have been

announced since the 1997 State election, was the then

Treasurer Stephen Baker misleading the public and this

Parliament when he said before the election that the budget

was in surplus and that there would be no increase in the tax

burden on South Australian families after the 1997 election?

1474 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

Stephen Baker, the former Treasurer, described his final

budget as ‘a remarkable and historic turnaround’. We were

apparently on track, in the black, with debt reduction

proceeding apace.

During the election, when Labor asked whether the budget

was still on track, the Treasurer said, ‘I can assure you we

will get across the line.’ The Treasurer also stated on 19

September 1997, ‘We are not out to get an increase in the

quantum of tax.’ At the same time, the Premier was saying

that ETSA would never be sold and did not need to be sold.

Did the former Treasurer mislead the public and the Parliament

about the state of South Australia’s finances?

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no need to ask the

question at the beginning and at the end of the explanation.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: If the Leader of the Opposition

really wanted to help the finances of South Australia, he

could convince Bob Carr that the Grants Commission

recommendations of a five year review ought to have been

those which were accepted, and that would have saved South

Australia $47 million. It is a Labor Premier who has thwarted

this State of $47 million. We went to the recent Premiers’

Conference and the Commonwealth Grants Commission—

The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader will come to order.

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader for interjecting

after he has been called to order.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: Coming back to the point, the

Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendation had

two choices: a three year review, which has been adopted, or

a five year alternative.We went to the Premiers’ Conference

and argued for the adoption of the five year review. South

Australia secured the support of every State and Territory,

with the exception of New South Wales. Because it was not

unanimous, in the Loan Council and the Premiers’ Conference,

the Prime Minister was not prepared to vary the

recommendation, despite the fact that we had won the support

of every State and Territory but for the Labor Premier of New

South Wales.

I would also put forward the fact that it was this Government

that has fought for, won and secured horizontal fiscal

equalisation, a proposal that once again the Labor Premier,

Bob Carr, attempted to dismantle, and in that instance we had

thwarted Bob Carr’s thrust. But there is a more important

issue at stake here, and it is the credibility—

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the Leader for the second

time for continuing to interject after he has been called to

order.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: The credibility of the Opposition

remains in tatters. I note that a number of journalists are

starting to pick up this theme. Here is an Opposition which

wants us to spend money on a whole range of capital works

projects and on 18 per cent wage claims being put by some

union officials to the Government, which we are rejecting.

Labor also wants for there to be no increases in taxes and

charges. It is a formula that simply does not equate, and it is

the indication of an Opposition that clearly has no policy

direction and no plan.

That reinforces its track record in government, because it

was the Labor Party, this Opposition, when in government

which had stewardship of the State Bank and which was

prepared to invest in aeroplanes in Florida, farms in South

Africa, and property in London, New York and Tokyo. It was

this Labor Opposition, when in government, that built that

Myer-Remm centre in Rundle Mall that cost us as taxpayers

$1 150 million, for which we received $150 million when it

was sold. A cool $1 billion was wasted by Labor on the

Myer-Remm centre—not to mention what they wasted by

ignoring the warnings from the State Bank. If only the Labor

Party had acted when the first warnings were put forward to

Ministers and individuals. When the Premier was not

listening, I know that people went to individual Ministers and

asked them to take up the issue with then Premier Bannon to

do something about it, but he would not.

Instead of stopping the slide at that time, the slide just

continued until the election period and they had to front up

and explain how much they had actually lost as a result of the

State Bank debacle. So members opposite should not come

into this Chamber and preach economic fortitude or economic

capability—their track record and performance indicates that

they have absolutely none. Despite the fact that we have

inherited this problem from the Labor Party, and despite the

fact that the Labor Party created the problem and is not

prepared to assist with a solution to the problem, we will

continue to plan effectively for this State to rebuild the

finances of this State so that the kids of this State have a

future.

The Hon. G.A. INGERSON (Bragg):Will the Premier

inform the House of the recent indications of small business

confidence in South Australia?

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: I thank the honourable member

for his question, and I am delighted to be able to report to the

House some particularly good news and reports as they relate

to the small business sector. Following the good news about

the Government’s investment attraction programs, to which

I referred in the House yesterday, is further evidence that we

are getting this State back on track. As I have repeatedly

stated, job creation is a high priority of this Government, and

an important component of this is the confidence in the

economy of the small business sector. The small business

sector, as many people have described it over many years, is

the engine room of the economy.

If the small business sector is confident and performing

then the economy generally is. An important component is

over the past quarter, expectations for the next quarter and

confidence in the small business sector. The most recent

survey, covering the three months February to April this year,

was issued yesterday, 26May. According to that index South

Australian small businesses have enjoyed their best sales and

profitability quarter in over 4½ years.

The index is another demonstration of South Australia’s

current strong economic performance and shows that the very

good recent overall economic indicators for the State are fully

reflected in the activity in the small business sector. Small

business in the State is doing better currently than interstate

counterparts and has more confidence in the future. Quite

often we benchmark ourselves against national or interstate

averages. Given our export performance, which is outperforming

other States, and given the job advertisement survey

to which I referred yesterday, we are well ahead of other

States and well ahead of the national average.

Confidence by small business in South Australia in this

survey has remained at very high levels—higher than in any

other State except Western Australia: 72 per cent of small

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1475

businesses in this State are either fairly or extremely confident

about their prospects for the next 12 months, with only

13 per cent pessimistic about what the next year might hold;

and 33 per cent of small businesses in South Australia say

that they expect economic conditions to be even better in 12

months—more than three times the 10 per cent who expect

them to deteriorate. Just add that to the Access Economics’

monitor report to which I referred in the House yesterday

which said there will be an employment growth in South

Australia out to 2002 and 2003. When was the last time that

this State had reports and economic indicators—the signposts

to the future—with that sort of level of confidence and robust

nature?

Mr Scalzi: Sir Tom’s day.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: Yes, I think it was about that

time: it certainly was not during the 1980s in any Labor

Government period. Certainly the fact that our employmentunemployment

statistics are at their best levels for over 10

years, that is, at their best levels since just prior to the

announcement of the State Bank collapse, clearly indicates

that the hard work and effort that has been put in over the past

five years, or so, is starting to generate.

Sales in the State’s small business sector in the quarter

have risen again over the previous quarter to the highest level

since October 1994. The overwhelming majority of the

State’s small businesses expect sales in the next quarter to

improve even further and 39 per cent expect a better sales

performance over May-July than the previous quarter.

Profitability from small business also rose substantially in the

February-April quarter for the State’s small businesses with

20 per cent reporting increased profits.We all know increased

profits equal job creation, equal new plant and equipment,

equal chasing new markets, equal further advertising and

equal better economic activity. Unless you have the profits,

you cannot underpin the growth, expansion and the employment

of South Australians.

The performance that I have referred to—sales profitability—

is reflected in employment levels in the State’s small

business sector: 16 per cent of small business in the State

increased staff levels in the quarter, a greater proportion than

any other State except New SouthWales, with only 7 per cent

reducing. This is the fourth successive quarter of jobs growth

for small business in the State and the net increase in

employment in this quarter amongst South Australia’s small

business is equal highest since October 1993. Those indicators

clearly demonstrate that the economy is on the improve,

that small business—the engine room of the economy—is

once again selling, is profitable and is employing. That is the

thrust and direction that our polices have put in place here in

South Australia. The budget to be delivered shortly will

continue that approach in the future. The momentum that has

been gained is a momentum that we want to continue and the

beneficiaries of it are South Australians.

Ms WHITE (Taylor): Given the statement by the

Minister for Education, Children’s Services and Training that

the education budget has been cut by $39 million, can the

Minister confirm that the announcement in today’s press of

$60 million to be spent on schools is not additional money

but a rebadge of existing programs, such as the flexible

initiatives funding of $28 million? Can the Minister detail all

existing programs which have been rolled into this

$60 million announcement? Are you not just rebadging

existing programs?

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: I thank the member for

Taylor for her question and I would say that in probably

about 50 minutes she will find the answer.

Mr SCALZI (Hartley): Will the Premier explain the

implications for South Australia of the Victorian budget

brought down earlier this month?

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: The implications of the

Victorian budget are significant and have the potential to be

quite significant for this State. The Victorian budget shows,

again, the capacity that the Government of an effectively

debt-free State has to deliver more and better services to its

people. If you unshackle from the debt you have the capacity

to create greater services, greater infrastructure and a greater

economic climate for job creation. The improvement in the

business climate is particularly important for investment and

the creation of jobs. Most importantly, it is further clear

evidence of the way that South Australia’s competitive

advantage over Victoria and other States will be rapidly

eroded unless we similarly and quickly dispose of our debt

problem so as to be able to match initiatives being launched

interstate to create jobs and stimulate activity in the growth

industries of the future.

It is absolutely fundamental and critical that we do not

allow Victoria to be better positioned than South Australia in

investment attraction. That is the way to export jobs.

According to the figures in the Victorian budget, Victoria’s

debt to Gross State Product ratio is now down to 4.2 per cent,

having nearly halved from 7.9 per cent as recently as

1997-98. It has been halved in the course of the last year. Our

debt:GSP ratio is 18.1 per cent, more than four times that of

Victoria.

The Hon. Dean Brown: Where was it when we came to

government? It was 28 per cent.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: It was 28 per cent; that is right.

The budget figures will show today that there is a trend line

down in terms of our GSP net debt percentage figure. Only

3 per cent of Victorian Government outlays will go on debt

servicing, down from 13 per cent in the 1990s. Its debt

servicing costs next year are 3 per cent of outlays. In South

Australia, 8.6 per cent of outlays currently go on debt

servicing—three times the Victorian figure on debt servicing

costs.

The absence of the debt burden that South Australia faces

has enabled the Victorian budget to bring in $383 million of

new spending and deliver $89 million of tax cuts. That is the

flexibility that can be created if the debt burden is eliminated.

It has increased funding substantially in the key areas of

service delivery to the Victorian people: education spending

is up, health spending is up and police spending is up. In

addition, 400 new police will be recruited and a target of

50 000 additional traineeships and apprenticeships has been

set. I am talking about Victoria. How does it have the

capacity to do that? It is because it has fixed its debt problem.

In retiring debt, it has created the flexibility to reinvest in the

economy in Victoria.

In terms of stimulating business activity, the Victorian

budget has reduced payroll tax from 6 per cent to 5.75 per

cent, and we know that New SouthWales has already moved

to reduce its payroll tax. The significant point about that for

this State is that the new rate is one-quarter of 1 per cent

1476 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

below the South Australian rate of 6 per cent. Even the

economic illiterates opposite ought to be able to work out

what that will mean for businesses calculating whether it is

more cost effective to establish new ventures or expand old

ones in Victoria or South Australia. If we add to that the

power cost reductions in Victoria compared with South

Australia, we start shifting the competitive advantage that we

had over the border.

We have been trying to hang onto the competitive

advantage in this State for investment, for jobs and for our

children. Because we are constantly being blocked in

Parliament from doing these initiatives, the competitive

advantage is shifting to Victoria. In the next three to five

years, that will mean a redirection of investment, and that

means a redirection to Victoria of jobs for South Australians.

Let us look at the population figures, and we all remember the

Leader at the Tollgate at the start of the last election campaign.

Let us stop—

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: Just wait a minute. The Leader

was at the Tollgate saying, ‘We have to stop our kids from

going to Victoria.’Well, we have. In that year, 8 000 went to

Victoria. Now that is down to about 3 000 leaving the State,

and more than 4 000 are coming in.We have turned the tide

of net migration loss of about 8 000 a year into a positive

gain. Not only do we have the birthrate but we have people

coming into South Australia, but that will be put at risk if the

Opposition gets its way in terms of stalling, blocking,

inhibiting and restricting us from a range of policy initiatives

that we want to put in place. Clearly the position is this:

unless we see the warning signs, over the course of the next

five years we will create the reverse of what we are seeing

now—economic growth, a competitive advantage, new

investment, new jobs and population gain for South Australia.

Mr CLARKE (Ross Smith): As theMinister responsible

for the Shop Trading Hours Act, will the Minister for

Government Enterprises as a matter of urgency consult with

the Attorney-General on amending the Retail and Commercial

Leases Act to end the confusion surrounding the issue as

to which parties are entitled to vote on the changing of core

shop trading hours pursuant to section 61(2) of the said Act

following the Government’s extension of shop trading hours?

Following the Government’s decision to extend shop

trading hours from 8 June this year, many lessors and lessees

are confused as to who is eligible to vote on changes to the

core trading hours of shopping centres. The confusion

surrounds section 61(2) of the Retail and Commercial Leases

Act, which provides that each lessor is entitled to one vote,

as is each lessee of a retail shop affected by changes to core

trading hours. Disputes have arisen in cases involving leases

entered into between lessors and franchisors and the subleases

entered into between franchisors and franchisees. Section

61(2) of the Act does not answer the question as to whether

franchisors receive a vote as a lessee or as a lessor.

If they vote as a lessor, does the shopping centre owner

also receive a vote? If the franchisor is regarded as a lessee,

is the franchisee who occupies the retail shop affected by the

change in trading hours entitled to a vote? It’s another fine

old mess you’ve got us into, Ollie!

The Hon. M.H. ARMITAGE: I am delighted to answer

this question. If there is confusion there, I will certainly speak

to the Attorney-General in relation to the Act under his

control. What there is no confusion about with the extension

to shop trading hours is the fact that it will confer great

advantages on the people of South Australia who wish to use

them. That, of course, is the reason why the Government

made its decision. I remind the House that we made that

decision and received basically universal praise for it. That

is interesting, because it is a matter which the previous

Government was not able to deal with without having a huge

hullabaloo and one on which, frankly, the Opposition thought

that we would trip ourselves up when attempting it this time.

It was interesting to note that one of the most vociferous

supporters of the Government’s move was in fact the SDA.

The Hon. M.H. ARMITAGE: On occasions I amforced

to agree with the member for Spence, and this is one of those

occasions. In this instance, the SDA is an extraordinarily

perspicacious group, because it could see the advantages that

would flow to the people of South Australia.

The Hon. M.H. ARMITAGE: Look it up in your

dictionary and you will see. It means that they were wise,

farsighted and realistically intelligent. However, at the end

of the day, 8 June is the day upon which people will be able

to shop under the extended hours. I have had a number of

discussions with a number of people, in particular, a number

of supermarkets. One in particular that I have seen near the

market is looking forward to the day. It is already opening at

12.1 in the morning, and will take every possible advantage

it can to extend for the extra time that the legislation will

allow.

Interestingly, I spent some time out at its Firle store,

which has a most interesting example of how the company

has transformed its employment record from basically casuals

to full-time employees. It is an initiative greatly to be

supported and, of course, the more time we give shops to be

open and the more people who shop in them, the more people

will actually be able to be employed, and that will be a great

advantage to all South Australians.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders):Will theMinister for Human

Services outline to the House some of the successes—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Flinders has the

call.

Mrs PENFOLD: —and recent initiatives in recruiting and

retaining health professionals in rural areas?

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: I had the opportunity about

three weeks ago to travel to six of the country hospitals on

Eyre Peninsula, and to visit the communities and meet with

the general practitioners. It is very obvious how crucial the

GP is in those communities to the life of the town, to the

success of the hospital and, very importantly, to the care of

the aged.

All these country hospitals now provide not just acute

services. Basically, they provide acute services, nursing beds,

hostel accommodation and, in many cases, independent living

accommodation—and, combined with that, the medical clinic

itself, because the doctor in many cases has now moved into

the hospital—and, of course, also community health services.

The retention and the recruitment of doctors and other

health professionals in rural areas is one of the great challenges

throughout the whole of Australia. One of the problems

is that, for every doctor in the country, there are about 1 500

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1477

people. For every doctor in the cities—and it does not matter

whether it is Sydney or Adelaide—there are only about 500

people. So, the imbalance is about three times in favour of the

cities compared to the country.

In South Australia at present we have a shortage of about

40 to 50 GPs. So, the State Government has established the

round table, and out of that round table I have started a

number of initiatives. One of the most important is to try to

overcome the immediate shortage of doctors by recruiting

overseas. I am delighted to say that we have had success in

that area, and there now appears to be 22 suitably trained

overseas doctors who look like coming to South Australia as

a result of those initiatives. All those doctors will go to

country areas, because that is the only location in which they

will get a provider number. But for the first time for many

years we seem to have stabilised the situation in the country

and I think that, over the next two years, we will probably

start to reverse it.

There has been some good news, though, in the past few

weeks. In the past, overseas doctors have been allowed to

come here for only a two or three year period to practise. For

the first time the Federal Government is willing to offer those

doctors permanent residency, provided they stay in the

country for five years.We are in constant discussion with the

Federal Minister on this, but I think we are within at least a

couple of months of coming to an understanding. We have

had negotiations with the Medical Board as well and it has

decided to change the qualifications that need to be met by

the overseas trained doctors to give them a choice between

what they call theAMC and the Royal Australian College of

GPs examination. The vast majority of these doctors would

rather sit for the latter one, whereas in the past they have

always had to sit for the former one.

In the past also there has been a 25 point disadvantage

imposed by the Federal Government for any doctor trying to

come to Australia and seek permanent residency. That is now

being removed and, as a result, if they are willing to work in

the country, provided they are suitably trained, they will get

a provider number and they will get permanent residency for

Australia—provided, of course, ultimately they pass one of

the two examinations. That is the first big achievement. I

know from a number of the doctors I have seen both on Eyre

Peninsula and in the Mallee that they are absolutely thrilled.

There are overseas doctors at places such as Lameroo,

Pinnaroo, Kimba, Wudinna and Port Lincoln. Those towns

up until now have been facing the prospect of losing their GP

in the next year or so. This now gives them the first hope of

having a permanent GP stay in those towns.

We are also putting increased effort into the area of

nursing. We now have a scholarship scheme going that was

initiated by the former Minister for Health. That is starting

to show benefit, because we have been able to get some of

those nurses from country areas back into country areas.We

have also put $1 million extra, as part of the enterprise

agreement negotiations in the past year, into specifically

training nurses in country areas, because there is a shortage

of suitably trained nurses in country areas. There are a

number of other schemes as well, but I highlight to the House

that, for the first time in a number of years, due to a combination

of programs by the Federal Government and the State

Government, we appear to be stabilising the situation with

respect to health professionals in the country, and I think we

may actually be reversing it. But that does not mean that we

do not have a long way to go and it does not mean that it will

not take a great deal of continued activity to make sure that

we start to deliver to people in the country health care

services which at least start to relate and equate to the care

that they would receive in the metropolitan area.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens): Will the Minister for

Police assure the Parliament and the public that the Government

has not been giving house burglars an added advantage

over their victims through extended delays in fingerprinting

of items at the scene of break-ins? On 4 March this year, I

asked a question about a constituent whose home had been

broken into three times in three months and who was told that

there was a three month delay in the processing of fingerprinting

evidence. The constituent believes that these delays

have hindered the apprehension of the offender. In response

to my question, the Minister has confirmed that, due to staff

illness and staff transfers, ‘the delay in searching all prints

received has been exacerbated over the last 18 months’. You

should have fixed this a long time ago.

The SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member is now

commenting.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: The honourable

member has answered her own question. Improvements are

being put forward in this area, including recent advertising

to get more people into that area. However, at the end of the

day, it is a pity that the honourable member did not speak

about the fact that, with 313 000 taskings last year, including

the priority A and B taskings, the average response time was

nine minutes.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Of course, the

Opposition does not like that. It does not like any good news

about the South Australian Police Force. If we look at the

priority A tasking responses, we see that the response times

are much less than even the nine minute average. Given what

is going on at present with some excellent policing work, the

police are doing a very good job of catching criminals.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite):Will theMinister for

Education, Children’s Services and Training inform members

of calls by outgoing teachers’ union President Janet Giles that

the Government needs to spend more of its budget on

education?

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: What a survey it was—the

mother of all surveys, we would have to say about this one.

It was stunning in the depth of its questions. It was nothing

more than a desperate act by a desperate President who is on

her last hooray, and yet another stunt of the AEU. The AEU

commissioned McGregor Marketing to undertake a survey of

some six hundred adults.We might ask, ‘Who sponsored it?’

I am not quite sure. I do not know whether it was the

Opposition in marginal seats, but I think not.

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: As the member for Spence

says, I don’t think so. It was probably out of hard earned

teachers’ wages. The stunt rates on an equal level with those

stunts related to the wages offer from the Government to the

teachers’ union—13 per cent, and they tell us it is not enough.

Six hundred people were asked whether they thought enough

money was being spent on education, and—surprise,

surprise!—80 per cent said that they would like more money

to be spent on education. Another surprise, particularly for

1478 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

the union, was that 70 per cent said education ranked as a

high priority. Mr Speaker, you, I or anybody else in this

House could have stood in the middle of a shopping centre

on Saturday morning and got exactly the same answer

without going to a survey.

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: As the member for Unley

says, I am surprised it was not 100 per cent. When you ask

an obvious question such as, ‘Would you like more money

to be spent?’—and that is very much in depth; it is a pretty

hard question!—I would have thought the result would be

100 per cent. It is just another stunt of the union. The other

real surprise is that the union even bothered to put out a press

release on this matter because, honestly, anybody could have

told you that answer. The reality is that this President is in the

last months of her term. I am sure she cannot wait to get back

into the classroom, because she has been absent for eight

years.

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, and members of Parliament

that education is a high priority. We spend nearly one-third

of the total State budget on education. This State is second

only to Tasmania in the dollars spent per student, with $5417

spent per student.We have not changed class sizes.We have

not reduced SSO hours.We have the lowest class sizes of any

State in Australia, and we have lower class sizes than those

in Independent schools in this State.

We are committed to progress in education in this State.

We are committed to making sure that we lower the numbers

of the bureaucracy and get teachers back into schools so they

are on site, teaching in schools where they are supposed to be,

in both the country and metropolitan areas.

Ms RANKINE (Wright): Will the Minister for Human

Services advise how far the Government has progressed in

installing smoke alarms in South Australian Housing Trust

houses, and will all trust homes be fitted with smoke alarms

by 1 January 2000 as required under the Development Act?

Last week it was reported in the media that a woman and her

three children were saved from their burning Housing Trust

home by two passers-by. Some 70 per cent of the house was

destroyed, with damage estimated at $70 000 but, according

to this report, no smoke alarm was fitted.

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: I am glad the honourable

member has raised that because in the Housing Trust we put

the fitting of smoke alarms as a high priority indeed. If I

remember, we set down a three year program and when there

was a slight under expenditure on some of the capital works

programs for this year, I asked them to proceed with the

installation of more smoke alarms for this current year. In the

Housing Trust, compared to the program we put down, we are

now ahead of that schedule, but it has been a very extensive

program to put smoke alarms in all houses.

As the honourable member has said, by next year all

Housing Trust homes will have smoke alarms fitted. There

are a couple of homes that need the more expensive ones for

those people with hearing impairment, and that is being

looked at as well, but the important thing is the fundamental

program on smoke detectors is on schedule; in fact, ahead of

schedule, and it will continue to be a high priority of the

Housing Trust to make sure that that objective is met.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart): Can the Minister for

Emergency Services advise the House of the importance to

the people of South Australia of having effective emergency

services to assist the people of this State?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: The honourable member would

not know anything about anything, let alone emergency

services!

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I know how concerned

the honourable member is about ensuring there are adequate

emergency services in his electorate. When, sadly, there is a

trauma up that way, whether a bushfire or road accident,

particularly because of the vast distances between the various

towns, emergency services and their effectiveness is of

paramount important. Clearly the most important area of

Government when it comes to life first is that of emergency

services. I would defy anybody in this Parliament who is

serious—even the member for Elder who smiles every time

I talk about the importance of life and property—to deny that

the most important protection for the South Australian

community for life and property is to have an effective

emergency services.

Let us look at a few examples where we have not had

effective emergency services in the past in Australia. I read

with great interest only recently a report from the results of

the Lynton tragedy when five firefighters lost their lives

during active duty in that difficult circumstance. I have

actually experienced a fireball coming towards me in a

national park situation, and I know what it is like. I know

what it is like when you are in a difficult spot. One of the

most important things you require when you see fireballs

coming towards you or a roaring intense fire front is an

adequate emergency services radio network.

Apparently those firefighters at Lynton did not get the

radio call to tell them that there was a wind change and, as a

result, five people lost their lives.We will not let that happen

in South Australia while we are in Government. If Opposition

members want to allow that to happen then that will be on

their heads. The Opposition is complaining that, at the

moment, there is some increase in expenditure for emergency

services. Instead of going out to the community and ramping

up the issues around funding for emergency services, why

does the Opposition not go down to the Rundle Mall right

now and ask the community who are walking around

shopping whether they would prefer to spend an increase on

emergency services in the protection of life and property or

spend $2 million a day (over $700 million a year) in funding

dentists’ overseas bank accounts as a result of the massive

debt the Labor Party incurred on every South Australian.

I know what those people in the Rundle Mall would say

that they would much rather spend the money on emergency

service protection than $2 million a day on Labor’s debt. But,

of course, we will never see the Labor Party going out and

asking a sensible question such as that. New SouthWales had

very big problems handling its hail storm damage situation.

In the end, South Australia’s SES went to New SouthWales

to give some assistance. Our SES personnel are highly trained

in vertical rescue, but it is important that they receive further

training and it is important that they be further funded. It is

about providing effective emergency services.

Other examples include the Rescue 1 and Rescue 2

helicopters, the retrieval teams and the helipads that have

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1479

been built into hospitals to accommodate those retrieval

teams to deliver people involved in road trauma. They are

saving lives. What cost to save life? It is the most important

funding area and it is important that we continue to increase

funding to emergency services.

Mr HILL (Kaurna): Does the Minister for Environment

and Heritage support the establishment in South Australia by

the Commonwealth Government of a national radioactive

waste facility, given the refusal by the Commonwealth

Government to rule out the use of the facility for the storage

of long-lived intermediate radioactive waste to be brought

into South Australia from France? A memorandum from the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Information—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Stuart will come

to order.

Mr HILL: —and Research Services states:

ANSTO (Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation)

has made arrangements with Cogema in France to reprocess the

non-United States spent fuel rods and this reprocessed waste is

expected to be returned to Australia in time to be stored in the South

Australian facility.

The Hon. R.G. KERIN: I have been expecting this

question. The shadowMinister for the Environment has been

making a lot of statements about the Federal Government’s

intention as far as the radioactive waste repository is concerned

and several areas of misinformation have been

highlighted. The honourable member is not the only person

to comment on this issue: some of his political friends have

been making similar comments but a couple of aspects need

to be made clear. The Federal Government’s consultation

processes in this instance have involved a repository for low

level radioactive waste, or short-lived medium level radioactive

waste, such as smoke alarms, exit signs, and a certain

amount of material from hospitals, universities and research

facilities.

Drawn into that has been the Pangea resources issue,

which has headed people off. That is a pretty easy way of

scaring people. I take my hat off to this Federal Government

for the way in which it has gone about this. It has gone

through a process which everyone has understood. The

Federal Government has been out in the community and an

enormous amount of information has been distributed. I will

give members a bit of history on this—

The Hon. R.G. KERIN:We have an agreed process with

the Federal Government. We have not signed off on it. In

terms of consultation, the Federal Government has told us

what it intends to do. There are geological and Aboriginal

health and native title issues that need to be addressed. There

is a whole range of issues, such as water, because

groundwater is an important matter. When we are satisfied

with all the answers, we will make a decision. It is forgotten

that they tend to point the finger at the Coalition in Canberra,

which is really doing the right thing. If we dig back and look

at the history of this issue, we see that not all Federal

Governments have done the right thing.

In 1993 we did not get much in the way of consultation

when the Keating Government sent a heap of this material to

Woomera. The matter goes back to 1986 when Federal Labor

talked to the State Labor Government at the time. In 1991 the

Federal Labor Government sought a further site selection

study and again the State Labor Government in South

Australia gave full cooperation. On 21 October 1991 the then

Deputy Premier, Dr Hopgood, wrote to the Commonwealth

endorsing the need to develop a site. Perhaps some of that

literature has disappeared over time. In April 1992 Federal

Minister Crean wrote to the South Australian Premier as

follows:

The Commonwealth Government strongly supports the prospects

of radioactive waste disposal at Olympic Dam and would welcome

South Australia’s support for the study.

The Hon. R.G. KERIN: Yes, it is a story that has not

been told. The former State Labor Government gave that

support and the current Leader of the Opposition was a

member of Cabinet at that time. In December 1992 the former

South Australian Minister for Health, Mr Evans, presented

a detailed summary to Cabinet on all developments and

advised that a preliminary study had been completed on the

proposal to use the Olympic Dam site.

Compared with what the Commonwealth Government is

doing at the moment, where isolation for the site is a major

factor, the Olympic Dam site now incorporates a large town

which was undertaken by a former Liberal Government with

a bit of help from Norm Forster. The then Labor Government

was looking at putting the repository against the town, which

neither we nor the Commonwealth Government in Canberra

is looking at. Cabinet at that stage endorsed the continuation

of negotiations and in September 1993 Premier Arnold signed

into Cabinet a note which briefed Cabinet on the latest

developments.

The note also referred to the issue of a temporary storage

site at Rangehead nearWoomera. Never at any stage did the

Labor Government oppose either the moves to identify a

permanent disposal site, including the detailed consideration

of South Australian sites, or the Commonwealth’s proposal

for a temporary storage site in South Australia. In fact, in

early 1995 the Federal Labor Government initiated the

transfer to South Australia for storage at Woomera of

radioactive waste which had been stored at the St Marys

munitions factory since 1979. Certainly, the current Coalition

Government leaves that Government for dead so far as

consultation goes.

The ALP has been talking about insufficient public

consultation, but that claim is incorrect and we need only talk

to the people of the north to find that out. A discussion paper

was released in 1992 with 1 300 copies distributed and 124

public submissions received. You do not get 124 public

submissions without doing consultation. The process has

gone through a phase two discussion paper and a phase three.

The Opposition ought to have a good look at its own record

in this regard. Federal and State Labor Governments tried to

sneak a radioactive waste repository into South Australia

without anywhere near the level of consultation that we are

now seeing.

As to whether or not we support the proposal, we have

made clear our position from day one. Every now and then

the member for Kaurna and others throw up the suggestion

that this proposal is other than that put forward by the Federal

Government. It has been clear—

The Hon. R.G. KERIN: Yes.We have made it absolutely

clear all along that we have a long list of conditions that need

to be satisfied. The Federal Government is going through a

process of doing that and a decision will then be made.

1480 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

The Hon. D.C. WOTTON (Heysen): Can the Minister

for Year 2000 Compliance advise the House of the early takeup

rate of usage of the so-called good Samaritan legislation

and how it is beginning to benefit business in South Australia,

particularly?

The Hon. W.A. MATTHEW: I thank the member for

Heysen for his question. I am sure that all members of

Parliament are interested in the response to this question

because it is the direct result of legislation that passed

through this Chamber.

The Hon. W.A. MATTHEW: While the member for

Ross Smith might not have understood the legislation, I am

sure that his colleagues did, because they assisted by ensuring

that the Bill was one of those rare pieces of legislation that

passed through both Houses in less than 24 hours. At the time

the legislation passed through the House, I gave an undertaking

to come back at a very early stage and report the progress

of its take-up.

Disclosure has already been made at a rapid rate by

companies, both national and South Australian, and their

disclosure statements, pleasingly, have been published on the

Internet so that they are readily and easily available to the

public. A number of well-known companies have ensured

that they have taken advantage of the legislation, including

Internode Systems, Knight Frank, Electricity Corporation,

Telstra, Westpac, Bankers Trust and OzEmail.

They are just a few of the companies that have provided

extensive year 2000 disclosure statements under the legislation

passed by this Parliament to ensure that their customer

base and other organisations and individuals who rely on

them can determine the state of preparedness of those

companies. The number of statements now emerging is

extremely encouraging. However, of concern I note that there

is a barrier to an even larger number of companies disclosing

their status and that appears to be legal advice that is imparted

to companies by their legal representatives. Regrettably, some

legal firms or individuals in our State see fit to advise their

clients that they should say nothing.

To those lawyers—and there are a number of lawyers in

this Chamber who may have legal associates to whom they

can pass on this request—I request and implore them to go

through the legislation carefully and see that it provides

protection to their clients. The companies that I have revealed

in the House today as having publicly disclosed have

determined through their legal representatives that the

legislation provides the protection they seek while at the same

time enabling them to provide a level of comfort to organisations

and individuals with whom they deal. Those companies

have made their statements in good faith, they have sensibly

used the legislation, and I hope that many other South

Australian businesses will take advantage of the opportunity

that this Parliament, in true bipartisan spirit, has made

available to them.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell): Is the Minister for Youth aware

of the needs of youth in the Trott Park and Sheidow Park area

as outlined in the SouthWard report prepared by the Marion

Council? What steps will the State Government take to help

Marion Council implement the recommendations of that

report?

The Hon. M.K. BRINDAL: The answer to the honourable

member’s question is that I have been alerted to the fact

that the council to which he referred recently released a report

and I have asked for a copy of that report. As to whether I am

across the specific details of the report, the answer is that I

have not read the report, so therefore I am not. As to whether

this Government is across issues specifically pertaining to

youth, the answer is that we are trying as hard as we can to

understand what those issues are and to address those issues.

There are profound issues for the youth of South Australia,

but I would say to the honourable member and to every

member of this House that, whilst those issues are pertinent

to youth in various areas, especially in some of our more

disadvantaged socioeconomic groupings specific to those

areas, nevertheless most youth across this State share a

commonality of problems. Whether they are the areas that the

honourable member outlines or areas that would be dear to

the member for Taylor or to the member for Kaurna, the

issues that are problems for youth are shared by all youth in

this State, whether they live in the so-called leafy suburbs or

in the northern, southern or Marion districts. This Government

is seriously committed to addressing those issues and

looking at the problems.

For that reason we are doing a number of things.We have

set up a number of structures. We are looking at the operations

of Youth SA. Indeed, members will hear in the budget

that we are looking at all matters pertaining to youth, because

they are a serious part of this State. I will not insult the

members of this House with the comment that youth are our

future, because it is almost trite. But the fact is that they are

the only and the greatest investment that we can make. Why

do members of this House think that the Premier has put such

an emphasis on employment? If there is occasional criticism

of our employment policy, it is that some people believe that

it is skewed towards youth. I maintain that our approach is

balanced, but if there is a skewing I put my hand up and say

yes, if there is a skewing at all it should be skewed towards

young people, because young people are just entering the

work force; young people have not made these problems.

Therefore the answer is no, I am not aware, but we will do

everything we can in addressing both the specific problems

and the generality of the problems of youth.

Mr VENNING (Schubert): Is the Minister for Human

Services able to give any details about the forward planning

for the new health facility in the Barossa Valley?

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: If ever a member should get

a medal for persistence, it is the member for Schubert,

because unofficially he asks me this question every day that

Parliament sits! I commend him on the fact that today he has

asked it officially. I have visited the Angaston Hospital and

am aware that it is an older facility.We are aware of the need

to buy some land and start planning for a new hospital in the

Barossa Valley to cover the entire valley, and we have been

looking at various parcels of land. In fact, we have approached

the owners of two of those parcels of land. Either they

want outrageous prices for them that we are not prepared to

pay or (in one case) the buyer was not willing to sell.

However, I am delighted to tell the honourable member

that we have found a third piece of land that we think is

ideally suited, and we are currently negotiating with the

owner. I hope that we will be able to secure the land and start

to plan for a new health facility for the Barossa Valley in the

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1481

longer or medium term. I acknowledge the honourable

member’s concern: let him be assured that we are working

hard to try to resolve the question of the land and to provide

a broad health service and modern facilities for the whole of

the Barossa Valley.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell): Will the Minister for

Industry and Trade advise what action is being taken to attract

new business to the south, particularly to the two major

industrial areas of Lonsdale and Hackham? I have attended

several meetings lately, including a meeting of the important

Lonsdale Business Association, where business people have

expressed the view that State Government assistance goes

principally to the north and that some businesses thinking of

coming to the south have been encouraged to locate in the

north.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Obviously, I do not have a suburb

by suburb breakdown of the industry attraction. I am happy

to get a breakdown of the attraction to the south.We all know

that 97 per cent of business attraction goes to businesses that

already exist in South Australia, but I am happy to get a

breakdown regarding the south for the honourable member.

Received from the Legislative Council and read a first

time.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN (Premier): I lay on the table the

following budget papers: Budget at a Glance 1999-2000;

Budget Guide 1999-2000; Budget Paper No. 1, Budget

Speech 1999-2000; Budget Paper No. 2, Budget Statement

1999-2000; Budget Paper No. 3, Estimates Statement

1999-2000; Budget Paper No. 4, Portfolio Statements,

Volumes 1 and 2, 1999-2000; Budget Paper No. 5, Capital

Investment Statement 1999-2000; Budget Paper No. 6,

Employment Statement 1999-2000; and I move:

That papers Nos 2, 3, 4 and 5 be printed.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN (Premier) obtained leave and

introduced a Bill for an Act for the appropriation of moneys

from the Consolidated Account for the year ending 30 June

2000, and for other purposes. Read a first time.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: I move:

The SPEAKER: Does the Premier wish to have leave to

continue his remarks?

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Leave granted.

The SPEAKER: Admit the honourable Treasurer.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer): Mr Speaker, thank

you again this year for your hospitality.

Mr Clarke: Why don’t you reciprocate?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I will later on, Ralph. Mr

Speaker, last year the Government authorised a four-year

financial plan designed to shape the growth and financial

framework for the future of our State. It was a plan that required

bold and decisive action by Government. It was a plan

to allow us to take our State proudly into the next millennium.

This year’s budget builds on the foundation established by

last year’s budget in tackling the major challenges facing our

State.

Mr Speaker, those challenges were and still are:

to create jobs

to reduce State debt

to boost investment in economic and community infrastructure

to manage public sector wage pressures

to maintain and improve the quality of our public services.

The Government’s financial plan was built on a balanced

policy mix of revenue increases, expenditure reductions and

asset sales to provide the financial foundation for tackling

these challenges.

The Parliament was given a clear choice of either supporting

the sale or lease of ETSA and Optima and the

associated ongoing financial benefits to the budget or if it

opposed such a sale or lease then it would have to accept the

alternative of tax increases or expenditure reductions.

Sadly for the people of South Australia the Labor Party

and others have chosen the second option and this budget

therefore sees the introduction of the Rann power bill increase

on all households.

As I foreshadowed in this place one year ago, such a

course of action, whilst undesirable and indeed regrettable for

families and households in this State, is nevertheless necessary.

The revenue from this tariff increase will help replace

the asset sale budget premium already built into the forward

estimates and the fall of electricity business dividends into the

budget since the start of the National Electricity Market.

The fact that neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the

Shadow Treasurer have been prepared to promise to get rid

of the power bill increase immediately if elected is recognition

of the fact that such a promise would mean a

$100 million cut in the number of teachers, nurses, and police

employed in our public sector.

Mr Speaker, I cannot emphasise this more strongly—the

Government’s preferred course is to sell or lease the electricity

businesses. But if Parliament continues to block the sale,

then the Government is left with no alternative.

If the impasse within the Parliament can be broken however,

then the Government will immediately move to drop the

power bill increase.

One of the Government’s major reasons for the sale of our

electricity businesses has been the need to avoid the risk of

competing in the National Electricity Market with the

resultant negative impact on dividends and taxation flows into

the budget.

Opponents of the sale have continued to claim that the

Government was receiving $300 million per year from the

electricity businesses and would continue to receive

$300 million per year even after the former monopoly

situation had been replaced by a competitive market.

1482 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

Those opponents then argued that the interest savings from

debt retirement if assets were sold would mean there is no

ongoing financial benefit to the budget from a sale.

This argument is obviously entirely dependent on the

heroic assumption that the budget will forever receive

$300 million per year in dividends and taxes.

Since the commencement of the national market the

Government’s electricity businesses have forecast a significant

decline in the level of distributions to the budget. In fact,

projected distributions are estimated to fall by $159 million

over the four-year planning period when compared to last

year’s budget estimates. After taking account of the power

bill increase this cumulative shortfall reduces to $79 million.

For the next three years the average estimated distribution

to the budget is $164 million—not $300 million.

These estimates are a massive blow to the credibility of

the opponents of a sale—but they are also a massive blow to

the challenge of maintaining a balanced budget.

The risks of Government owned businesses competing in

this market are enormous.

Just last month for example, ETSA Power, which is the

State owned electricity retailer, had to spend $2.6 million

over an 8½ hour period buying power at an average price of

$1440 per MWh, because of an unexpected reduction of the

interconnector with Victoria.

Optima Energy, which operates the Torrens Island plant,

could incur losses of around $1 million for each hour of a

double outage of its B’ unit. Flinders Power, which operates

generators at Pt Augusta and Leigh Creek, could lose

$10 million over an eight hour period in the event of two

double outages of its plant on a high demand day.

Just one of the Government’s electricity businesses has

projected pre-tax profit figures for next year ranging from a

loss of $74 million to a profit of $2 million with amost likely

estimate of a loss of $30 million.

I stress that these are not the profit projections of the

Government but the best estimates of the Board and management

of this business.

It is also worth noting that we will not see a really

intensive competitive market in SA until extra supply is

available late next year when the Pelican Point power station

enters the market.

Given the need to compete in the national market and to

maintain service standards, the businesses are projecting

capital works projects of $690 million over a five year period.

This estimate doesn’t include proposals such as the

$180 million repowering of the Torrens Island proposal by

Optima. Any further increase in capital projects will further

reduce distributions to Government.

Mr Speaker, I cannot emphasise more strongly that these

risks and the numerous others that lie ahead fall straight onto

the taxpayers of this State.

To those members present who are expecting future South

Australians to thank them for keeping the electricity businesses

in public hands, I say just two words—STATE BANK.

Mr Speaker, the inability to sell our electricity businesses

has of course meant the State’s crippling debt burden remains

and we continue to have to pay $2 million a day in interest

costs.

Whilst it is true that debt as a proportion of Gross State

Product is no higher now than it was a generation ago it is not

true that this means debt is not a problem.

Mr Speaker, there are two very fundamental problems

with such comparisons.

First, borrowing in previous generations was necessary to

fund the infrastructure needs of a growing population, which

in turn created growth in the tax base to service that borrowing.

This no longer holds true. This debt has to be serviced

from a tax base that is growing only slowly.

Second, we have to compete for job creating investment

in a world where the bar has been lifted quite dramatically in

recent years. For example Victoria has reduced its debt from

$30 billion to $3 billion and is now able to lower payroll tax.

To claim that debt levels are acceptable because they are no

worse than a generation ago is to assume that the world itself

is unchanged. With substantially lower debt levels around

Australia, our relative attractiveness as a place for investors

is going to be difficult to sustain.

To illustrate this point, Mr Speaker, a recent Access

Economics report showed that at 30 June 1998 this State held

19 per cent of all the State and Territory debt in Australia. By

2003, Access estimates that will have grown to 22 per cent.

If NSW were to sell enough of its electricity assets to repay

its debt then that figure would soar to 43 per cent.

For investor perceptions, the fact that Access undertook

and published these calculations is as significant as the

numbers themselves.

Mr Speaker, eight per cent of the Australian population

resides in this State. How do we expect we can compete as

a State with that sort of debt burden hanging over our heads?

Mr Speaker, it is for all these reasons and more that the

sale or lease of our electricity assets is such an important part

of any strategy to move beyond the mendicant mentality of

the past and to prepare our State to play its rightful role in a

vibrant Australian economy as we move into the next

millennium.

In framing the 1999-2000 Budget the Government’s

principal objective was to stick with the fundamentals set out

in the four year financial plan that we announced one year

ago.

It needs to be noted that this financial strategy differed in

a number of significant aspects to the previous strategy. It no

longer budgeted for zero wage increases with the cost of any

wage increase to be fully funded by the agencies through staff

reductions and it also provided in a structured way for

unexpected cost pressures and new policy initiatives approved

by Cabinet during the four year period.

Such a strategy has obviously assisted the integrity and

sustainability of the budget and allowed it to cope with the

inevitable pressures throughout the year.

Since the 1998-99 Budget and the launch of the four year

plan, significant events have created additional challenges

and this has necessitated a number of adjustments to the

budget strategy to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the

plan.

Mr Speaker, these challenges were:

Parliament’s blocking of the electricity assets sale

legislation—necessitating the introduction of the new

power bill increase

the impact on distributions from the electricity businesses

of entry to the National Electricity Market

Commonwealth Grants Commission recommendations

on Commonwealth funding

continued high growth in demand for health services

brought about by an ageing population, much lower

levels of private health insurance and the impact of

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1483

new technologies—necessitating an increased funding

allocation to the Department for Human Services

cost pressures across a variety of Government projects

and programs including, for example, the new Government

Radio Network, with additional funding sourced

from the provision set aside in the 1998-99 budget and

forward estimates for unforeseen cost pressures

pressure from public sector unions for wage increases

beyond the level provided for in the four year plan—to

date all increases agreed to by the Government have

been within the forward estimates parameters

the need to fund new, emerging community priorities,

such as regional development infrastructure and

expanded employment programs particularly for young

people.

Mr Speaker, there appears to be a naive view from some

that once a budget is balanced it is balanced forever and the

State no longer has a need to raise extra revenue or reduce

expenditure. Of course nothing could be further from the

truth.

One only has to consider wage costs to illustrate this point.

Treasury has estimated that moderate and reasonable wage

increases for teachers, nurses, police and public servants will

add an extra $450 million to our total wage bill in 2002-03

when compared to 1998-99. These increases are all budgeted

for within our forward estimates and are at levels consistent

with wage forecasts included in Commonwealth Budget

papers. To go beyond the $450 million—would clearly

require either extra revenue or further reductions in teacher,

nurse and police numbers.

In recent weeks there have been a number of claims made

that there has been a blow out in wage costs in the budget and

that the Rann power bill increase and the emergency services

levy were required in part to fund a black hole created by this

wage blow out.

Once this claim had been made by one commentator

everyone scrambled over each other to be the first political

lemming to throw itself over the cliff of credibility.

What then are the facts?

all wage settlements have been settled within the

budgeted forward estimates

in fact we have been unable to settle an argument with

the AEU for nearly a year because we have refused to

increase our offer above the budgeted forward estimates

wage increases in the SA public sector in 1998 were at

less than half the level of the private sector whereas in

1994, 1996 and 1997 wage increases in the public

sector were significantly higher than private sector

wage increases.

So Mr Speaker any claims of wage cost blowouts are

entirely unsupported by the facts.

One of the adjustments included in this budget has been

the decision to extend the target from thirty to forty years for

eliminating past service superannuation liabilities.

Given the financial challenges facing the State we can no

longer afford to be reducing this liability at a rate much faster

than all other States undertaking such action. For example

both NSW and Victoria have adopted a fifty year funding

strategy.

Mr Speaker, through this series of adjustments the

Government’s commitment to a balanced budget is maintained.

That the Government has been able to adjust the

budget strategy to accommodate some very substantial shocks

without compromising the fundamental tenets of the plan, is

in itself a testimony to the improved structural integrity of the

budget.

In addition, the forward estimates continue to make

provision for unforeseen cost pressures and emerging new

priorities.

Some of the key features of the budget Mr Speaker are:

that it is a balanced budget, in 1999-2000 and in the

three outyears, measured in accordance with ABS

Government Finance Statistics standards

a significant increase in funding for employment

programs, building on the successful program established

in the 1998-99 Budget

a package of carefully targeted spending measures to

address the most outstanding community priorities,

with the largest component of this package going into

health

a strong program of capital investment of over

$1 billion—creating essential social and economic

infrastructure

whilst net debt as a percentage of Gross State Product

continues to fall—net debt remains unacceptably high

and total interest costs remain at $735 million.

Mr Speaker, above all else this is a responsible budget,

consolidating the hard work of the past five years, adjusting

to accommodate adverse events but remaining true to the path

of fiscal responsibility so vital to the future of this State.

This budget also continues the very useful reforms in

budget presentation, which were commenced last year. The

accrual approach to presenting the budget—incorporating the

full cost of service provision, including depreciation, and

disclosure of all financial obligations accrued each year,

including superannuation and long service liabilities—was

a clear improvement to public accountability.

This year the output presentation is more fully developed

and performance indicators are provided for most outputs.

The Parliament can be assured that the quality of financial

and non-financial information provided with the budget is

second to none in Australia.

Once again I want to acknowledge publicly the hard work

of Treasury officers who, together with Ministers and their

staff and portfolio staff work tirelessly to prepare the budget.

Mr Speaker, South Australia experienced solid economic

growth during 1998-99, with strong household consumption

spending playing a key part. A strong increase in wheat and

wine production has been accompanied by solid growth in

exports.

After several years of impressive growth, business

investment is estimated to have fallen slightly in 1998-99,

mainly because of the completion of major investment at

Olympic Dam. Nevertheless, business investment in South

Australia remains at relatively high levels by historical

standards.

Employment grew by an estimated 1¼ per cent during

1998-99 and this rate of growth is expected to slow to around

1 per cent in 1999-2000, as a result of the expected weakening

in the national economy.

Unemployment in South Australia fell during the year to

8.3 per cent—down from 9.5 per cent a year ago and much

lower than the high of over 11 per cent under the previous

Labor Government. While unemployment is at its lowest

level since 1990, it still remains above the national average,

as has been the case for the past three decades.

1484 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

Mr Speaker, despite the more positive outlook over the

last twelve months, job creation remains the top priority of

the Government. The rate of youth unemployment in

particular is well above the national average and this situation

is not acceptable to the Government.

Notwithstanding the significant financial constraints on

the budget, our commitment to action on job creation is a

major focus in the budget. The Government is releasing an

Employment Statement with the budget today. I will come to

some of the details later.

Mr Speaker, South Australia’s rate of population growth

continues to improve. The main reason for the improvement

has been the dramatic fall in the level of interstate migration

losses. In 1995 South Australia suffered a loss from net

interstate migration of almost 8000. But in the twelve month

periods to September 1997 and September 1998 the losses

were 3900 and 2900 respectively—a very positive sign for

the State.

Mr Speaker, the budget assumes reasonably conservative

estimates of future growth in GSP and employment, estimates

that are below those for the national economy.

The challenge for Government is to create an economic

environment in which these estimates can be exceeded.

Mr Speaker, the last twelve months have witnessed the

emergence of significant reforms in Commonwealth-State

finances.

At the Premiers’ Conference on the 9th of April this year

the Premier, along with the Prime Minister and other

Premiers and Chief Ministers, signed the multi-lateral

“Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-

State Financial Relations”.

Under the Agreement, 1999-2000 is the last year in which

States and Territories will receive Financial Assistance

Grants from the Commonwealth. Instead, the entire proceeds

of the GST will go to the States.

The States have also agreed to abolish some of their most

inefficient taxes, including financial institutions duty, bank

debits tax and various stamp duties such as those on business

conveyances, leases, cheques and credit arrangements.

The proposed reform is a major one and is supported by

all State and Territory Governments as a means to ensure

access to a revenue base offering much greater prospects for

growth than currently available.

In the transitional years, the Commonwealth has guaranteed

that the budgetary position of each individual State

and Territory will be no worse than under current arrangements.

Projections of GST revenue in future years show that all

States, including South Australia, will benefit considerably

from the reform.

Under the reform, the annual Premiers’ Conference will

be largely replaced by a new Ministerial Council to be

established from 1 July 1999 to oversee operation of the Inter

Governmental Agreement. The Council will be chaired by the

Commonwealth Treasurer and will consist of the State

Treasurers.

Of course, these reforms are subject to the Commonwealth

gaining passage of the relevant legislation. Given that this

State stands to gain substantially from the reforms, Mr

Speaker, it can only be hoped that the minor parties do see

their way clear to act in the national interest.

Revenue measures taking effect in 1999-2000 will result

in increased revenue. These measures include:

the power bill increase necessitated by Parliament’s

blocking of the ETSA sale legislation

introduction of the Emergency Services Levy, as announced

last year

a proposed increase in stamp duty rates on transfers of

properties valued at over $500 000

Whilst own source revenue growth shows an 11.9 per cent

increase in real terms in 1999-2000 this is largely the impact

of the “one-off” increases in SAAMC dividends. If the

SAAMC dividends are excluded, real terms revenue growth

is 5.9 per cent next year followed by real terms decline in two

of the following three years.

Mr Speaker, I have referred elsewhere to the power bill

increase. In reality it has no significant effect on the four year

financial plan as it simply makes up for the loss of the

electricity businesses sale premium and for part of the

reduced distributions from the electricity business.

As foreshadowed in last year’s budget, the new emergency

services levy commences on 1 July 1999, replacing the

existing fire services levy on insurance companies. It applies

to owners of fixed and mobile property irrespective of

whether the property is insured. The cost of the levy will

therefore be shared by all property holders.

Mr Speaker, it is important that I emphasise that the net

addition to revenue from the levy is fully hypothecated to

support costs associated with the provision of emergency

services including police services, State Emergency Services,

improved communication systems, fire service costs previously

funded by local government, volunteer and research

grants together with costs associated with the collection and

monitoring of the levy. Further details are provided in other

budget papers.

I now turn to the stamp duty measure. Mr Speaker, South

Australia has one of the lowest marginal rates of stamp duty

on property value in excess of $500 000.

To assist the Government to meet its budgetary objectives,

marginal rates of stamp duty on high value property transfers

will increase from 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent on that part of

property value between $500 000 and $1 million, and from

4.5 per cent to 5 per cent on that part of property value in

excess of $1 million. For a property transfer of $1 million,

stamp duty will increase from $38 830 to $41 330.

The revised duty rate structure is estimated to raise

$7.5 million in 1999-2000 and $8.1 million in a full year.

The increased rates of duty will impact predominantly on

commercial property transfers, very few residential contracts

will be affected given that the increases apply to dutiable

value in excess of $500 000.

The measure will also effectively be time limited if

national tax reform goes ahead. Under the Commonwealth’s

proposed New Tax System, stamp duty on non-residential

conveyances would be abolished in about 2005-06.

Mr Speaker, while these increases will be an extra burden

for families, they have been designed so as to operate as

fairly as possible. Concessions will apply to the power bill

increase and to the emergency services levy, while the stamp

duty increase is specifically targeted at the very high end of

properties.

Mr Speaker the Government has again steered clear of any

increase in payroll tax and tried to minimise the impact on

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1485

businesses to ensure the right environment for job creation

is maintained in South Australia.

Even after introduction of these new taxation measures it

is estimated that in 1999-2000 State taxation per capita in

South Australia will still be the third lowest of all the States

and Territories. Compared with the national average, taxes

will be $89 lower for every man, woman and child in South

Australia, even after increases announced in the budget.

Mr Speaker, total outlays will rise by 5.2 per cent in real

terms in 1999-2000. This increase is largely the result of a

49.1 per cent lift in capital outlays, with current outlays

growing only 1.7 per cent in real terms.

While I come specifically to capital investment spending

later, the real picture for current outlays is one of continuing

restraint. Current outlays excluding interest and superannuation

payments are unchanged from 1998-99 levels and in fact

are expected to remain almost constant throughout the

forward estimates period.

Mr Speaker, a key indicator across the forward estimates

is the trend in final consumption expenditure excluding past

service superannuation payments. This indicator is the best

measure of discretionary spending by Government. The

dominant component of this measure is wage and salary

payments.

If wage movements are out of control, then it will

certainly show up in this measure. Mr Speaker, I am glad to

say that real growth in final consumption expenditure

excluding past service superannuation payments averages less

than 1 per cent per annum over the next four years—a clear

indication that wage settlements agreed to date are reasonable

and have not adversely affected the budget outlook.

Mr Speaker, while outlays had to be reduced as part of the

Government’s 4 year strategy to eliminate the deficit, with the

financial position now stabilised, it has been possible in the

last two budgets to return benefits to the community in the

form of extra funding for services. This is now evident in the

budget aggregates that show outlays in the budget are above

1994-95 levels in real terms.

In key areas of service delivery, outlays are up substantially,

reflecting concerted efforts to reallocate spending

within the budget to areas of high priority.

Mr Speaker, the two most important examples are that:

health outlays are up 16 per cent in real terms

education outlays are up 8 per cent in real terms.

Whilst there have been real increases in health spending,

significant increase in demand for services in all States, has

left health systems under great financial stress.

Despite a 4.5 per cent increase in funding for 1999-2000

the health portfolio will have to achieve savings of around

$46 million from the level of real spending that occurred in

1998-99. The boost in real spending in the last 2 years has

been funded in part by a significant run-down in cash reserves

in the portfolio.

The 1999 Employment Statement builds on the 4 year

$100 million package of initiatives announced in last year’s

statement. It involves new spending and extensions to

programs worth $28.5 million over the next three years and

aims to provide a further 7400 people with job and training

opportunities.

In addition, there are a number of significant budget

initiatives which are also aimed at increasing economic and

employment growth.

These include addition funding totalling $77 million

consisting of:

$49 million over three years to maintain forward commitments

and ensure expansion of assistance in industry

and tourism development and attraction

$4.5 million per annum over three years for a new

Regional Infrastructure Development Fund

$2 million for developing biotechnology opportunities

$12.5 million over three years aimed at increasing tourism

growth by funding existing and new major events and

festivals.

The 1999-2000 budget provides for a gross capital

investment program totalling $1150 million including some

allowance made for project delays. In addition, expenditure

in the order of $200 million is anticipated on private sector

funded infrastructure projects making a total program of

$1350 million.

Growth between years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is a

consequence of the funding of new initiatives, increased

expenditure associated with works in progress and works

carried over from previous years.

It is estimated there will be an increase of around

$270 million in the public sector investment program in

comparison to the estimated outcome for 1998-99—much of

this increase attributed to works carried forward from

previous years.

Significant growth ($139 million) has also occurred in the

private sector provision of infrastructure initiatives. This is

primarily as a result of the Pelican Point power station, which

is expected to cost in the order of $400 million over a two

year construction period.

The Government is investing to enhance the delivery of

key community services including:

health $91 million—with a $29 million investment in

strategic metropolitan hospital redevelopment at the Royal

Adelaide Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Lyell

McEwin Health Service, Modbury Hospital, Noarlunga

Health Service and the Repatriation General Hospital;

housing, with investments that include renovations of

some 950 houses, acquisition of 30 established houses and

construction of 150 new houses. Further, an investment

of $9.6 million will be made in urban regeneration

projects and an investment of $9.1 million in Aboriginal

housing and crisis accommodation;

education, with new major projects worth in excess of

$60 million across primary and secondary schools planned

for 1999-2000;

$22.4 million in 1999-2000, has been provided for

investment in TAFE colleges including the Adelaide

Institute of TAFE Centre for Performing and Visual Arts,

the Onkaparinga Institute redevelopment at the Victor

Harbor campus, the Regency Institute stage 2 redevelopment

and the new facility at the Spencer Institute, Kadina

campus;

in justice and public safety, investments include completion

of construction of the Adelaide Youth Court,

commencement of the Christies Beach Magistrate Court

complex and commencement of Stage 1 of the Supreme

Court upgrading, together with the replacement of the Mt

Gambier and Glenelg police complexes and significant

investment is planned in Police communications.

1486 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

Mr Speaker, as we start to open the door to the new

millennium we can see that as a State we face many challenges

but also many opportunities.

This budget is part of a coherent financial plan which is

geared to best prepare South Australia to grasp these

opportunities.

As with any bold vision for the future there will always be

difficult decisions—therefore there will always be opportunities

for some to oppose and obstruct implementation of the

plan.

Yes—it will be easy to oppose every asset sale

Yes—it will be easy to oppose every new revenue increase

Yes—it will be easy to oppose every school closure or cut

in service

And yes—it will be easy to cheer chase on the steps of

Parliament House and support union leader demands for

18 per cent wage increases.

But will this approach balance a budget and reduce debt:

is this political leadership?

is this a plan to take SA into the future?

is this in fact a policy?

Mr Speaker, to face the challenges and grasp the opportunities

that present themselves South Australia doesn’t need

political chameleons capable of blending instantly into any

political environment.

SA actually needs a bold vision to take us into the next

millennium—it needs political strength and leadership to

pursue a course because it is right for the State and all South

Australians.

It needs a budget which will assist in the task.

I commend the budget to the House.

The Hon. J.W. OLSEN (Premier): I seek leave to have

the remainder of the second reading explanation inserted in

Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Clause 1 is formal.

Clause 2 provides for the Bill to operate retrospectively to 1 July

1999. Until the Bill is passed, expenditure is financed from

appropriation authority provided by the Supply Act.

Clause 3 provides relevant definitions.

Clause 4 provides for the issue and application of the sums shown

in the schedule to the Bill. Subsection (2) makes it clear that the

appropriation authority provided by the Supply Act is superseded by

this Bill.

Clause 5 is designed to ensure that where Parliament has

appropriated funds to an agency to enable it to carry out particular

functions or duties and those functions or duties become the

responsibility of another agency, the funds may be used by the

responsible agency in accordance with Parliament’s original

intentions without further appropriation.

Clause 6 provides authority for the Treasurer to issue and apply

money from the Hospitals Fund for the provision of facilities in

public hospitals.

Clause 7 makes it clear that appropriation authority provided by

this Bill is additional to authority provided in other Acts of Parliament,

except, of course, in the Supply Act.

Clause 8 sets a limit of $50 million on the amount which the

Government may borrow by way of overdraft.

Ms HURLEY secured the adjournment of the debate.

Children’s Services and Training) obtained leave and

introduced a Bill for an Act to amend the Stamp Duties Act

1923. Read a first time.

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted

in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

To assist the Government to meet its budgetary objectives, stamp

duty rates on high valued property are to be increased. Stamp duty

rates on high valued conveyances were last increased in 1992-93

when a marginal rate of 4.5 per cent was introduced for that part of

property value in excess of $1 million.

As part of the 1999-2000 Budget, the marginal rate of duty that

applies to property value between $500 000 and $1 million will

increase from 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent; that part of property value

in excess of $1 million will attract a marginal rate of 5 per cent

instead of 4.5 per cent.

The new rates will apply to documents lodged for stamping on

or after the date of assent of the amended legislation, except for

documents relating to written agreements entered into prior to the

Budget announcement on 27 May 1999; these documents will

continue to be taxed at the old rates. The revised rate structure is

estimated to raise $7.5 million in 1999-2000 and $8.1 million in a

full year.

The increased rates of duty will impact predominantly on

commercial property transfers; very few residential contracts will be

affected given that the increases apply to dutiable value in excess of

$500 000.

Stamp duty payable on $1 million properties will continue to be

lower in South Australia relative to Victoria,Western Australia and

the Northern Territory. For property values of $5 million and above,

stamp duty payable will continue to be lower in South Australia

relative to New South Wales, Victoria, and the two Territories.

The measure will also effectively be time limited. As part of

National Tax Reform, stamp duty on non-residential conveyances

is to be abolished. The date of abolition will depend on the speed

with which the new funding arrangements generate additional funds

to provide the State with the financial capacity to repeal stamp duty

on non-residential conveyances. On current estimates, a likely repeal

date is 2005-06.

Explanation of Clauses

This clause is formal.

This clause revises the rates of duty chargeable on conveyances with

a value exceeding $500 000.

The amendments will apply to instruments first lodged for stamping

on or after the commencement of this measure. However, the

amendments will not apply to an instrument if the Commissioner is

satisfied that the instrument gives effect to a written agreement

entered into before 27 May 1999.

Ms WHITE secured the adjournment of the debate.

The Hon. R.G. KERIN (Deputy Premier): I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

Ms WHITE (Taylor): I want to raise two issues in the

short time available to me. The first issue relates to the deal

that workers in my electorate get under the new deregulated

WorkCover arrangements. Secondly, I want to complete

some remarks I made yesterday about the failure of the

Federal Parliament to pass a motion to disallow regulations

providing exemptions from the Disability Discrimination Act

under sections of the South Australian Education Act and the

effect that that will have, particularly for children with

disabilities within our South Australia system—in other

words, what it means to South Australia.

To begin, I want to read to the House a letter I received

from a constituent dealing with his experience after a work

Thursday 27 May 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1487

injury. I often speak in this place about what has happened

in recent years under this Liberal Government to workers and

their rights when they are injured and the extremely traumatic

processes that they have to go through and the stress that

causes. This letter is not chosen by me because it is the worst

case that I have seen but because it is a typical experience—

as bad as that is—of many of my working constituents who

have been injured. I will not include the individual’s name or

street address but will just read the text of the letter. I ask

most constituents, because these are detailed and involved

cases, to write some of the history of what happened to them

and their experiences, and this letter was written to me in this

context. I get many such letters every day and this letter,

dated 12 May 1999 addressed to me, is as follows:

I was asked to compile a list of my complaints with regard to

WorkCover. First off, it would be appropriate to say what my

problem is. In April 1991, I was injured while working under a car

carrier trailer. A hydraulic ram slid off the tines of a forklift which

twisted my lower back causing facet joint injuries. As a result of this

injury my employment was terminated. I have been able to secure

employment since then in the transport industry but have been unable

to sustain this employment. I was retained by WorkCover as a

driving instructor and acquired employment with Gawler Truck

Driving School. After nearly three years with this company and after

many arguments as to the condition of his training vehicles, my

doctor put me on restricted hours.

As this still did not help me in the vehicles (semi-trailers), the

doctor took me off work completely. On the doctor’s suggestion, I

filed for workers’ compensation. On doing this I was sacked by my

employer. As the claim was not accepted on first submitting it, I went

on to sickness benefit. I then hired a lawyer and took theWorkcover

agent, which was FAI at the time, to court. It took 12 months to get

them into court and they were forced to accept my case as it was

claim No. 5 because of the same problem, aggravation of my original

injury.

Each time I have claimed WorkCover and their agents end up

putting me back into trucks. This of course starts the whole thing

over again. Whilst I was on sickness benefit and awaiting the court

case, I applied for a veteran’s service pension. This was accepted

within a week of my application going through, so I was taken off

sickness benefit and placed on this pension.

Then after the court case and FAI was forced to take my case, I

was taken off the pension and placed back onWorkCover. Now my

two year review has come up (after 12 months) and after many ups

and downs with promissory jobs that never eventuated, back on

trucks I might add, I am informed by my doctor that I could be

kicked off the system.

Now my complaint is this: as I received a section 43 payout of

$32 000 back in 1996 and I was already on a pension for a permanent

disability, and after four claims with the same problem, why try to

put me back into trucks? The payout was basically spent as soon as

I got it, catching up on the bills, which mounted up because of the

lower wage from WorkCover. Why are we condemned to a lower

wage because of an injury?Was it my fault the employer (who was

not licensed to drive a forklift) dropped the half ton ram on to my

back?

Since FAI lost their contract withWorkCover, I was assigned to

Mercantile Mutual insurance, and since then I have had nothing but

emotional harassment. Personnel Placement Consultants are in

charge of finding me employment. I have assisted them as much as

possible in trying to find employment, especially within the

restrictions placed on me by my doctor. For 12 months I have had

to put up with these job offers which fall through as soon as they

hear of my injuries. To me, anybody with common sense would say,

‘Put him back on a pension.’ I don’t want a pension but I also don’t

want to put up with these suggested promises of employment, either.

Even though I would give my eye teeth to get back on the road again,

I doubt that I would last too long at it.

I have copies of the functional capacity evaluation and a

vocational report done by Mercantile Mutual to help find me a job.

These reports say I would make a good truck driver, but as my doctor

doesn’t want me back in trucks, why are they pushing? I amtold that

even though my injury is slowly getting worse there will be no more

section 43 payout. What am I to do? I will only aggravate my injury

by returning to trucks. I cannot survive on the low wage I am

receiving and if I can’t get a payout I will lose my house and all that

goes with it.

With all the Government charges being whacked on by State,

Federal and local councils, how I am supposed to survive? As I

cannot afford to get photocopies done of any paperwork you might

want, I am hoping you could do this for me. Anyway, I don’t know

if my problem has come through but I’ve tried to explain it as best

I can. I thank you for your time, and await the outcome.

The letter was signed by the constituent. I put that letter into

Hansard to issue a challenge to the Minister for Government

Enterprises. Years ago it used to be that we would negotiate

with the Minister responsible forWorkCover to get solutions

for our constituents. It used to be that the Government paid

some interest in our constituents. That no longer happens.

What happens now is that we in the electorate offices

negotiate with lawyers, private insurance companies and with

our constituents in a long, drawn-out and very difficult

process which often is not successful, because of the changes

affecting injured workers that this Liberal Government has

heartlessly introduced.

I issue the challenge to the Minister to take an interest in

just one of my constituents—this one. This is a very typical,

not unusual case, and it is the sort of case I get day in, day

out, every single day of the week. I issue a challenge to him

to help one of my constituents and then I will try for the rest.

I informed the House recently of the changes to the

disability discrimination Act and the exemption of two

sections of the South Australian Education Act from the

Federal legislation. The problem that I did not have time to

tell the House about on that occasion is that, because anything

done in compliance with these sections of the Education Act

in South Australia will be exempt from complaint under the

Commonwealth Act, many children with disabilities in our

schools will be disadvantaged. The ministerial council on

education (MCEETYA) is currently developing disability

standards. It is a consultative process, a task force has been

set up and some progress is being made. Now the Federal

Government has decided to exempt the South Australian

Education Act, totally overriding that process. That sends a

clear signal to disabled people in this State.

Mr VENNING (Schubert): I rise to speak about yet

another success in my electorate of Schubert. Tarac Australia

Limited has been involved in the wine industry in the Barossa

for almost 70 years, having commenced its operation in

Nuriootpa in 1930. This company has played an integral role

in the overall success of the Barossa and continues to support

and be part of the current wine industry boom. Along with the

Deputy Premier (Hon. Rob Kerin), I was privileged to attend

the opening by him of the new facility at Tarac a couple of

weeks ago. This facility uses world, leading-edge technology

and plant which enables Tarac to extract an additional 5 per

cent yield from the grape crush, which will provide an

estimated four million litre boost to the State’s annual wine

production.

Tarac, a South Australian based company, is the largest

privately owned distiller in Australia. It will recover high

quality wine from about one tenth of Australia’s grape marc

with this new technology. I remind the House that grape marc

is the skins, unused juices and seeds that are left over after the

crushes of the normal wine process. I know Mr David Obst,

the company’s Chief Executive, and he advised me that the

company’s objective was to process 10 000 tonnes of

premium red grape marc annually, adding an estimated

$35 million to $50 million a year to the value of the wine

industry’s production. That is no mean feat.

1488 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Thursday 27 May 1999

Tarac’s red wine recovery facility, which recovers red

wine by processing the residual grape skins from the press,

is the first in the world and provides the Australian wine

industry with an added advantage over our international

competitors. I commend the investors and the directors of

Tarac for taking what could be seen as a risk to undergo a

process that has no peer. There is nothing to copy. This is

first class, world technology. This production process, which

is a world first and is Australian patented, further enhances

the State’s reputation as the international leader in innovative

wine technologies.

Mr Obst said that the recovery facility will be expanded

in future years as demand increases. Tarac has become

Australia’s largest facility for recycling and value adding

winery by-products. After processing the marc, it goes to the

distillery as it normally would and then it becomes a very

valuable mulch and soil conditioner. The company has

invested $11 million in this extensive upgrade at Nuriootpa,

which includes a new $2.5 million cellar door facility, and

many members may have seen it on the Barossa ValleyWay

at Nuriootpa.

This is the only facility of this type in Australia to offer

customers a range of spirits and liqueurs for tasting and

purchase. It also provides opportunities for visitors to see the

production methods for the world’s major categories of

spirits. Many members have noted these bottles in my office

here in Parliament House—how attractively they are

packaged and how wonderful the product is inside the bottles.

It is a pleasure to have an industry such as this in one’s

electorate. A very distinguished feature of the cellar door is

a traditional Australian brandy pot still, manufactured in

South Australia in 1928. The Tarac Technologies RedWine

Recovery Facility and the Barossa Distillery Cellar Door

represent a totally new investment in South Australia of

$11 million, which provides 18 new jobs on top of the

existing large work force.

To be investing $11 million in unproven technology

speaks volumes about the kinds of people we have in our

industry. I wish Tarac all the best, and I am totally confident

of the product it is now producing, a sample of which I have

in my office and have shown members. The quality and

colour of this product can be up to 32 times the colour of

normal red wine, depending on the grade. This product can

be used in industry to boost wines of much lesser quality,

certainly in the way of colour and natural alcohol. It is a

magic product. This investment shows real confidence in this

State and in the region. It is a real success story for the

Barossa, and I am very proud to be the local member. The

State should also be proud: this investment further contributes

to the economic benefit of South Australia.

Also today I welcome the announcement by the Minister

for Transport, the Hon. Diana Laidlaw, that at last the

Government will fund the Gomersal road. We have funding

to seal the road, which I remind members is an alternative

route to the Barossa, leaving the Sturt Highway in the

approximate area of Sheoak Log and journeying almost

directly east to come onto the Barossa ValleyWay just south

of Tanunda—the area commonly known as Tanunda South.

I have been campaigning long and hard for this with my

colleague the member for Light; the road actually passes

through his territory but goes to a town in mine. I also

appreciate the cooperation that we have had from the Minister

(via the report that was prepared and a further report that she

is undertaking on facilitating the actual road) as well as from

the two district councils—Kapunda-Light (through which

most of the road travels) and Barossa.

It certainly has been a long and hard lobbying process.

Most members would know the name of Gomersal road,

because not too many opportunities have been missed to

remind them. It makes it worthwhile for a member of

Parliament finally to get a reward such as this. I acknowledge

the $2.2 million that the Government is putting toward this

project and I also acknowledge the large amount of money

that both district councils will put in. My only concern is that

I believe that this road should come under State Government

control and not be under local government control, as it

currently is. I believe that this road is far too busy a corridor

to the north of Adelaide to remain under the jurisdiction of

the Kapunda-Light Council and that it should be taken up by

the State Government, even via a swap transaction. I am sure

that the council could take over responsibility from Government

in some other area.

That was the only area in which I was disappointed: I am

totally thrilled with the rest of it, as will be all my constituents

in the Barossa Valley. The Minister emphasised the rail

option. Certainly, we can do much more with the rail corridor

that we are fortunate to have. More work will be done there

and I only hope that we are able to upgrade the railway

between Nuriootpa and Angaston for the Barossa tourist train

to go to the end of the trip. I note that the funding is there: all

we need now, via my colleague the Hon. Graham Ingerson,

is to facilitate the maintenance charges, which is a difficult

thing. But I am confident: he has pulled off marvels before

and he will do it again.Without putting him in, I hope that the

negotiations with the private owner will see the Barossa train

go to the end. However, if it is not to be, we still have a

magic facility. Many members have travelled on the Barossa

tourist train. It is a marvellous experience and is having great

success.

I know that budget day is not exactly the easiest day for

a Government, but we have much to be positive about. I urge

members on both sides to think of the good things in our

State and the progress that has been made by the Government,

some of it (although not a lot) with bipartisan support.

I would like to see more of that, and I encourage members to

say that we have a great State and together we can make it

greater. I am honoured to be the member for this region. It is

very easy to stand here and talk about positives, because I do

represent a very positive, productive and go-ahead area.

Motion carried.

At 4.6 p.m. the House adjourned until 1 June at 2 p.m.

Questions on Notice HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1489

7. Mr HILL: How many land clearance applications are

currently before the Native Vegetation Council in relation to

horticultural and viticultural projects and in each case, who are the

proponents and how many hectares are to be cleared?

The Hon. D.C. KOTZ: Currently there are 24 applications for

native vegetation clearance, relating to horticultural and viticultural

projects, for which final determinations have not yet been made by

the Native Vegetation Council.

The requested information for those projects is as follows, listed

in chronological order in terms of receipt of applications. Reference

is made to tree numbers where the application relates to scattered

trees in developed pasture situations and to an area of land (in

hectares) where the application relates to clearance of more intact

native vegetation or of native vegetation regrowth.

1. Applications relating to Horticulture

Kermel Pty Ltd 12 trees

Nangkita Holdings Pty Ltd 469 trees

MJ & SB Longbottom 82 trees

A Fischer 89 trees

RH & ML Badman 14 trees

DJ & KL Treloar 4 trees

LJ & LF Rowntree 20ha

R Legoe 80 trees

JD (et al) Maney 39 trees

DK & JM Herrmann 48 trees

I Schulz 4 trees

CR Cranwell 5ha

Nangwarry Pastoral Co 18 trees

Applications relating to Viticulture

MA Ledson 152 trees

PS & SJ Wooding 30 trees

SJ Secker & ML Thomas 8 trees

D & L Hutton 10 trees

Y Kais 1.2ha

LW & KA Eldredge 12 trees

Cave Ridge Estates 18 trees

R Melino 6 trees

NA McLean 7 trees

GO & DE Noack 6 trees

Bevington Pty Ltd 4 trees

In considering these figures, the following points also need to be

borne in mind:

as a general policy, the Native Vegetation Council tends to treat

applications of a large scale as ‘broad-acre clearance’ that cannot

be considered for approval as they are so seriously at variance

with the Native Vegetation Act and beyond the discretion of the

NVC;

it is usual in such cases to recommend to the landholder that the

application be reviewed with a view to substantially reducing the

number of trees under application. This in fact has occurred with

Nangkita Holdings, with the NVC deferring its decision pending

a revision of the application by the landholder;

the figures should not be taken to be actual tree removal totals as

they represent amounts applied for by the proponents, as the final

approvals by the Native Vegetation Council may vary significantly

from the above;

in reaching its decisions, the Native Vegetation Council uses

strict criteria to determine whether clearance should be permitted

or not; and

in most cases, clearance which is permitted is subject to rigorous

conditions, such as a requirement for re-establishment of native

vegetation or other conservation measures elsewhere on the

subject properties, such that the overall effect is a long-term

environmental gain for South Australia.

21. Mr KOUTSANTONIS: How many South Australians

are currently on home detention, what are the resources needed to

monitor these people and how many offenders have broken their

home detention conditions in the past year?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Minister for Police, Correctional

Services and Emergency Services has been advised by the Department

for Correctional Services that there are two categories of Home

Detainees, those persons placed on bail by the courts who may be

subject to Home Detention conditions, and sentenced prisoners

nearing the final stages of their period of imprisonment.

Whilst the Department for Correctional Services is responsible

for the placement of sentenced prisoners onto Home Detention, both

groups of Home Detainees are supervised by Department for

Correctional Services personnel.

Staff resources required to monitor these people comprise 9

Home Detention Supervisors and 3 Administrative Officers.

Equipment and telephone costs for the past twelve months have

amounted to $218 000.

For the 12 month period 1 January 1997-31 December 1998, the

number of persons on home detention are 147 Bailees and 280

Sentenced Prisoners, giving a total of 427.

60 Sentenced Prisoners broke their home detention. The reasons

for revocation are as follows:

49 (82 per cent) breached conditions,

5 (8 per cent) escaped,

2 (3 per cent) committed an offence,

2 (3 per cent) voluntarily returned to custody, and

2 (3 per cent) returned to custody for other reasons.

80 Bailees broke their home detention conditions. The reason for

revocation is not recorded electronically for Bailees.

61. Mr. ATKINSON: Will the Government amend the

Criminal Law (Undercover Operations) Act 1995 to allow for

operations to gather evidence of serious criminal behaviour that has

already taken place?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No. The legislation authorises the use

of undercover operations for the purpose of criminal investigation.

Undercover operations enable the police to provide persons engaging

or about to engage in serious criminal behaviour an opportunity to

manifest that behaviour or to provide other evidence of that

behaviour.

The Criminal Law (Undercover Operations) Act 1995 was enacted

to clarify the law of entrapment following the High Court decision

in Ridgeway. It was not intended as a means of obtaining evidence

in relation to offences that have already taken place.

The Act confers powers upon police in this State, which are

already unprecedented in other Australian jurisdictions, and was

reached by a careful tri-partisan consensus at the time it was enacted.

That consensus was necessary so that the Bill could be enacted in a

very short time so as to save a number of prosecutions under threat,

or thought to be under threat, from the Ridgeway decision. There is

no evidence whatsoever that a similar legal problem exists in relation

to serious criminal behaviour that has already taken place. Ridgeway

is limited to condemnation of police participation in the creation of

the crime and does not extend to the detection of the crime after the

event.

0 The conferral of similar wide ranging powers on police to ‘entrap’

suspects who are believed to have committed a crime in the past

would pose significant dangers. For example, Parliament has enacted

laws which are designed to balance the rights of the suspect against

the powers of the State in the investigation of crime, including

restriction on the powers to arrest, search, seize and interrogate. A

licence to ignore the legal restrictions enacted by Parliament in this

area (for example) would create havoc.

89. Mr HILL:

1. What protections have been put in place to ensure that

developments in the area near Lake Alexandrina and its tributary

wetlands are consistent with the RAMSAR Wetland Agreement?

2. Why was an irrigation plan approved that allowed drainage

of saline water from the Finniss tributary to Black Swamp?

3. Did departmental officers who approved the plan have any

knowledge of the Tookayenta Catchment Plan s specific provision

to preclude water transfer to and from the catchment and what

1490 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Questions on Notice

qualifications and training in the environmental impact of irrigation

practices did these officers have?

1. The Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal

Affairs, together with key stakeholders from the community, has

been formulating a management plan for the Ramsar wetlands. I

expect to release this for public comment in 1999.

The draft management plan contains measures aimed at bringing

about consistent zoning in the flood plain of both Lake Alexandrina

and Lake Albert in the council areas of the Rural City of Murray

Bridge, Alexandrina Council and Coorong Council.

Representatives of the Department have already met with an

officer from Planning SA and council representatives, to begin the

formulation of a project to undertake the necessary planning

investigations as the basis, if necessary, for coordinated Plan

Amendment Reports under the provisions of the Development Act

1993. The project is being carried out as an extension of a Natural

Heritage Trust project entitled ‘Sustainable Development Along the

Murray’.

The draft management plan also has provisions relating to the

rationalisation of the Ramsar boundary to make this more definable,

ecologically relevant and to ensure the inclusion of wetlands.

2. Due to the limited information provided in the question, the

Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs is

unable to definitively determine which particular development the

question is referring to. It appears likely however, that the question

refers to the development of a vineyard by Sorrell s Vineyard and

Winery Pty Ltd, utilising River Murray water transferred to their

property.

Approval to the application to transfer water was subject to

completion of a comprehensive irrigation, drainage and management

plan (IDMP), which assesses the irrigation and drainage impacts of

the proposal. An IDMP is required prior to approval being given to

use transferred water on a property. The IDMP provided by the

Company indicates that current best management practices for vineyards

are to be used in the development of the site, thereby minimising

the drainage impacts.

The impact of drainage leachate to Black Swamp, which is a

natural site for the discharge of regional groundwater, was also

considered. Groundwater under the site is of reasonable quality and

any drainage water is not anticipated to be highly saline. Depending

on the depth of any underlying groundwater and the properties of the

underlying soils and rock, the time lag between irrigation application

and discharge is considered to be in the order of decades. In addition,

the Sorrell property is underlain by low permeability clay, which is

expected to significantly reduce the speed of drainage leachate.

Efficient irrigation techniques are required however, to ensure that

localised waterlogging does not occur causing production losses on

the land in question.

The requirement for an irrigation, drainage and management plan

to be submitted prior to approval being given for the use of water on

land is a standard procedure for all water allocation transfer requests

where water is taken from the River Murray PrescribedWatercourse.

3. Officers within the Department for Environment, Heritage

and Aboriginal Affairs who consider applications for irrigation plans

are aware of the provisions in the Tookayerta Catchment Plan, and

one officer contributed to the development of that plan. The author

of the plan has confirmed that the specific provisions precluding

water transfer to and from the catchment are related to the headwaters

of the catchment and not to the downstream reaches, where

the Sorrell s development is being undertaken. These provisions

aim to control development in the upper catchment to protect the

environment and downstream users.

All applications, which involve the taking of water from the

River Murray PrescribedWatercourse, which includes its tributaries,

are currently considered in accordance with theWater Resources Act

1997 and the River Murray Water Allocation Plan only. It is

envisaged however, that catchment and other plans prepared by local

groups, which do not currently have any legal status, will be formally

recognised in the comprehensive catchment water management plan

being prepared by the River Murray CatchmentWater Management

Board. This plan will provide a more integrated holistic approach to

water resource management throughout the River Murray Catchment.

Three officers from the Department for Environment, Heritage

and Aboriginal Affairs conferred on the Sorrell s Vineyard

application. All have greater than ten years experience in the

assessment of water use impacts and catchment management, including

the environmental impacts of irrigation practices. Two of the

officers have related tertiary qualifications.

90. Mr HILL:

1. Is water being pumped by a private entity from the

Tookayenta Creek to five other properties including a nursery

through a metered system and, if so, is the supply being operated as

a commercial venture?

2. Were these properties subdivided from a larger allotment and,

if so, what effect did this water supply have on the value of these

properties?

3. Is the inlet to this supply located within metres of the

boundary of the Murray Darling Basin?

4. Has the Minister examined the legality and appropriateness

of the pumping arrangements and, if so, what were the results?

1. Water is being supplied by a private entity to four allotments

through a one and a quarter supply line, which has been metered by

the supplier. The supplier charges the recipients of the water to cover

electricity and maintenance costs only. Only two of the landowners

are currently using water. One landowner has a house only; the other

has a house and operates a very small cut flower nursery. Records

kept by the supplier indicate that approximately 700 kilolitres of

water have been used over a period of five to six years

The supplier also winter pumps from Tookayerta Creek to a

series of holding dams, and pumps water for irrigation of vines

whenever possible. Water stored in the dams is used to finish

irrigation when the Creek runs dry.

2. The properties were not created from the subdivision of a

larger land allotment. Land values have not been affected by the

supply of water to the properties.

3. The inlet to the supply is located just within the boundary of

the River Murray PrescribedWatercourse, which is described as the

1956 flood level. At the pump site Tookayerta Creek flows downstream

to Lake Alexandrina, with no flow of Lake water back up due

to wind action or pump extraction. Movement upstream to this point

would only occur at a flood above or equal to 1956. Tookayerta

Creek usually runs dry about the end of January or early February.

4. The Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal

Affairs is currently undertaking a comprehensive examination of the

history of the pumping arrangements before making a determination

on the legality and appropriateness of those arrangements.

98. Mr ATKINSON:Are auctioneers able to derive fees or

commissions from both the vendor and buyer and what are the

circumstances where this practice is unlawful under current State

legislation?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: In this State auctioneers may derive fees

from both the vendor and the purchaser in any given transaction. The

fees charged by an auctioneer in any particular transaction are simply

a matter of contract between the auctioneer and the other contracting

party, with nothing preventing an auctioneer from contracting with

both sides to a transaction and obtaining fees from them both. The

case where an auctioneer obtains a fee from the purchaser is

commonly known as a buyer’s premium’.

Current South Australian legislation does not render this practice

unlawful. The Sale of Goods Act has provisions concerning the

conduct of auction sales generally, but it does not deal with the

imposition of a buyers premium.

However, there may be instances in which the actions of an

auctioneer in obtaining a buyers premium will offend against the

provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1987.

The Fair Trading Act contains a specific provision, in section

58(g), prohibiting the making of false or misleading representations

with respect to the price of goods and services, including interests

in land. If an auctioneer has not provided information to the

purchaser as to the constitution of the selling price then they may,

in effect, falsely represent the ‘true’ selling price of the goods and

services. In those cases a purchaser who has suffered loss or damage

as a result of the auctioneer’s behaviour may be able recover the

amount of that loss from the auctioneer.

The Act also covers the situation where an auctioneer auctions

land. Section 59 provides that a person shall not make a false or misleading

representation concerning, amongst other things, the price

payable for land. A failure to disclose the true nature of the price,

Questions on Notice HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1491

whether a buyers premium applies and the manner in which it is

calculated, may lead to a breach of this section with resultant remedies

being available to a purchaser.

In the case of any sale by auction, the auctioneer should provide

information regarding the make up of the sale price to potential

purchasers prior to the commencement of the auction. The information

provided should clearly outline if an amount will be payable in

addition to the purchase price, and if so the method by which the

amount will be calculated.

The appropriate time for an auctioneer to inform potential

purchasers of the constitution of the sale price, as a matter of policy

and good practice, is prior to the commencement of the auction sale.

Many auction houses act in an entirely appropriate manner in this

regard by notifying the general public through their advertisements

in the press that a buyers premium will apply to the auction sale.

99. Mr KOUTSANTONIS: What have been the top 5 speed

camera sites located within the Electorate of Peake in terms of

revenue raised during the past 4 financial years and for each site,

how much revenue has been raised, how many expiation notices

were issued, how many times were these sites operated and how

many reported casualty accidents have occurred at or near these

sites?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have been provided the

following response by Police that the top 5 speed camera locations

within the Electorate of Peake for the period 1 July 1994-30 June

1998 are as follows:

Road Suburb

Notices Issued Revenue Approx. No. of Times

Worked

Casualty

Crashes

Burbridge Road Brooklyn Park 13 440 $1 559 000 340 31

Port Road West Hindmarsh 4 105 $476 000 153 70

South Road West Hindmarsh 2 833 $328 000 111 60

Henley Beach Road Brooklyn Park 2 573 $298 000 91 59

Grange Road Kidman Park 2 366 $274 000 112 67

Revenue is an approximation based on the average revenue received from speed camera expiation notices issued in 1997-98.

100. Mr KOUTSANTONIS: How many separate incidents

of larceny, vandalism, motor vehicle theft, prohibited drugs and

break and enter occurring at the Mount Thebarton Ice Arena and

adjoining streets have been reported since 1997?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have been advised by the

Police the following statistics concerning reported crimes that have

occurred in the vicinity of Mount Thebarton Ice Arena from 1 July

1997 to 31 December 1998:

Offences Category July 1997-Dec 1998

Reported Cleared

Murder 0 0

Attempted Murder 0 0

Manslaughter 0 0

Driving Causing Death 0 0

Serious Assault 8 4

Minor Assault 36 16

Assault Police 4 4

Rape/Attempt. 4 2

Sexual Offences nec 2 0

Robbery with Firearm 0 0

Robbery other weapon 2 0

Other Robbery Unarmed 4 0

Other Offences 4 2

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON 64 28

Break & Enter—Dwelling 70 2

Break & Enter—Shop 16 0

Break & Enter—Other 34 6

Fraud/Forg/Misap 12 14

Receiving /Unlawful Possession 4 4

Larceny/Illegal Use 48 4

Illegal Interference 6 0

Larceny from Motor Vehicle 88 4

Larceny from Shops 10 6

Other Theft 106 16

Property Damage—Arson/Explosives 6 0

Property Damage—Not Arson/Explosives 90 6

OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY 490 62

Hinder/Resist Police 6 6

Firearm/Weapon Offences 4 4

Disorderly/Offence Behaviour 8 8

Drug Offences 14 14

Drink Driving Offences 64 64

Dangerous, Reckless or Negligent Driving 2 2

Other Offences 30 16

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER 128 114

TOTAL RECORDED OFFENCES 682 204

101. Mr KOUTSANTONIS: What is the expected opening

date for the AUSLAN Pre-school at Klemzig, why has there been a

delay and how many children were due to commence in the first term

of 1999?

The Hon M.R. BUCKBY: In South Australia fifty two (52)

children with hearing impairment and children of Deaf adults access

their local pre-schools. Additional support for children with hearing

impairment includes transport assistance and specialist teaching and

support delivered through the Preschool Support Program. Children

with hearing impairment receive an average of two sessions of

preschool support per week.

The proposal for an Auslan pre-school program at Klemzig

Primary School would offer a bilingual/bi-cultural Auslan program,

supporting intensive early exposure to signing which may facilitate

improved educational outcomes for children in the target group.

Klemzig Primary School already provides a focus for Auslan

across its curriculum and attracts children whose first language is

Auslan. The establishment of a preschool program would be a logical

extension of the school’s educational program, if sufficient demand

for a new specialised preschool service can be established.

Klemzig Primary School and the Deaf Society of South Australia

have provided information on numbers of children who might

participate in the program. A total of six hearing impaired children

and children of Deaf adults between the ages of three and a half and

five years would be eligible to use the service during 1999.

Klemzig Primary School estimates that a maximum of six

hearing-impaired children and children of Deaf adults would access

such a preschool program in any given year. Available data from the

school indicates that the number of 4 year olds whose parents have

expressed an interest in enrolment at a Klemzig preschool is

approximately nine in 1999, three in 2000 and two in 2001. Some

of these children may also access early and pre-entry sessions.

The small number of children who might use the service means

that the cost of establishing and maintaining the program is high. The

costs associated with transport assistance for children living across

the metropolitan area, the provision of specialised staff and the

modification of an existing classroom and outdoor area to meet early

childhood standards are significant.

Information from Klemzig Primary School indicates that two

children aged 4 years, and three eligible for early/pre-entry sessions

may have enrolled in term 1 1999 if a preschool program had been

available. These children are able to access their local preschools

with those in their term of pre-entry (ie. one session per week)

receiving additional preschool support to facilitate learning and

communication outcomes. Where possible, preschool support staff

with Auslan signing skills will be employed to support these

children.

1492 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Questions on Notice

I have instructed departmental officers to undertake further work

on the viability of a pilot program at Klemzig utilising existing

resources, and establishing closer links between the Klemzig Primary

School and the Klemzig Preschool. I anticipate that this work will

be completed early in term 2 1999.

103. Mr KOUTSANTONIS: What action is taken by the

South Australian Police when a duress alarm is activated in an

electorate office, what are the expected response times and how

many incidents were reported during 1998?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I have been advised by the

Police that the action taken with respect to attending a duress alarm

activated from an electorate office, is no different from any other

duress alarm activation.

Police categorise duress alarms as a priority A incident due to the

expectation that the activator is in immediate physical danger. A

patrol is despatched for immediate attendance without delay.

During 1998 police attended 17 624 Category ‘A’ alarms. This

figure includes hold-up alarms, intruder alarms and duress alarms.

At this stage SAPOL is unable to provide a breakdown to specific

duress alarm attendance rates. The response time for patrol attendance,

based on the initial call until police arrival at scene, is approximately

ten minutes.

It is planned that the current Common Computer Aided Despatch

project involving Police, Fire and Ambulance Services will enhance

the capacity to provide refined statistical data in the future.

108. Mr SNELLING: Is the current logbook system applied

to the licensing of new drivers to be reviewed and, if so, when?

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: The Minister for Transport and

Urban Planning has advised that the logbook system (or Competency

Based Training program) for the licensing of novice drivers has

operated in South Australia since April 1993. Currently, some 75 per

cent of all novice drivers obtain their class car licence through the

logbook system.

In the last three years, several studies have been commissioned

to examine the effectiveness of the logbook system in preparing

more competent drivers—by Transport SA, the National Roads and

Motorists’ Association (NRMA) and Austroads (due to be completed

in July 1999). Generally the SA logbook is considered Australian

best practice for driver licensing—and similar schemes now operate

in NSW and the ACT.

Currently, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Transport

Safety is investigating a range of driver training and testing policies

and procedures. As part of this reference, the Committee is evaluating

a proposed new logbook for novice drivers designed to provide

more detailed information on the performance for each logbook task.

It is considered this initiative may also help to provide greater

assistance to parents and other supervising drivers.

Furthermore, Transport SA is preparing a study to examine the

relationship between the type of training and testing undertaken (that

is logbook or practical testing) and the subsequent offence and

accident history of the licensee.

112. Ms WHITE:

1. Is the Minister continuing with plans to move to a flat rate of

pay for temporary relief teachers (TRT) and, if so, why?

2 What effect does the Minister anticipate that a flat rate of pay

(rather than pay relativity based on skill level) will have on TRT’s

willingness to upgrade their skills?

3. What is the total of those days work per year lost by all TRTs

resulting from the shortening of the school year by one week?

4. How much of the education budget was spent on TRTs in

1997-98 and what are the projections for the TRT budget during

1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001?

5. Under what circumstances will a school be denied a TRT in

place of a teacher who is on leave or absent?

1. The matter of a flat rate for TRT work is currently a part of

the Enterprise Agreement package. At this time the department has

not negotiated a position in relation to this issue. However, it is

important to understand that anymove to a flat rate would be implemented

in a way that no current TRTs would be financially disadvantaged.

2. I do not anticipate that a flat pay rate for TRTs will have any

impact on their willingness to upgrade their skills.

3. It is not possible, at this stage, to quantify the impact of the

shortened school year in relation to the days lost to teachers who

undertake TRT work.

4. The TRT expenditure for 1997-98 was as follows:

Conversions from Other Projects

normal teacher (Commonwealth

Formula allocations to and State

Allocation TRT funded)

$11 121 000 $19 080 000 $4 717 000

In future years it is predicted that the formula allocation will be

reduced by the impact of the shortened school year and that the

project allocation will vary each year according to departmental and

Commonwealth priorities.

5. TRT allocation to a school is managed at the school level.

115. Mr HILL: How many and what percentage of students

at each of the following schools received School Cards during 1998

and 1999:

Aldinga Junior Primary and Primary, Christies Beach High,

Christies Beach Primary, Christies Downs Primary, Moana

Primary, Noarlunga Downs Primary, O’Sullivan’s Beach

Primary, Seaford Primary, Seaford Rise Primary, Seaford Years

6-12 and Willunga High?

The Hon M.R. BUCKBY: The following is the number and

percentage of school card approvals for the specific schools

requested for the 1998 school year.

School Card Percentage

School Name 1998 for 1998

Aldinga Junior Primary 168 74.34

Aldinga Primary 259 59.54

Christie Downs Primary 102 64.56

Christie Downs Special 26 66.67

Christies Beach High 509 47.61

Christies Beach Primary 169 65.50

Moana Primary 220 60.11

Noarlunga Primary 63 54.31

Noarlunga Downs Primary 219 72.28

O’Sullivan Beach Primary 158 76.70

Port Noarlunga Primary 156 44.57

Seaford 6-12 275 43.39

Seaford Primary 191 55.36

Seaford Rise Primary 224 52.58

Willunga High 275 34.06

It is not possible to provide School Card figures for the 1999

school year until after the cut-off for term 4 enrolments, which is 5

November 1999.

116. Mr HILL: When will the 6–12 staffing formula policy

be announced?

The Hon M.R. BUCKBY: At this stage there is no planned

variation to the current staffing formula and consequently no planned

announcement of a 6-12 staffing formula.

117. Mr HILL: Did sand dredging occur as close as 100

metres to the Christies Beach shore line in 1998 and, if so, why was

it not restricted to beyond 400 metres of the shore line, what damage

occurred and what action has the Minister taken in relation to any

breach?

The Hon. D.C. KOTZ: Dredging for sand offshore of Port

Stanvac was initiated under the previous Labor Government and has

been undertaken since 1989. Dredging was last carried out in 1997.

All work was restricted to an area beyond 600 metres from the

shoreline. No further dredging is intended in this area.

118. Mr HILL: Will the Minister rule out sand dredging at

Moana Beach?

1. Investigations for offshore sand sources, to provide for the

replenishment of Adelaide’s beaches, have been conducted by the

Questions on Notice HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1493

Coast Protection Board since 1975, and are an ongoing requirement

of its work.

2. Currently, a study is being undertaken four kilometres

offshore of Moana, in water of greater depth than 15 metres. The

results of this study will be duly reported to the Coast Protection

Board.

3. Any decision by the Board to conduct further dredging operations

offshore, will take into account the experience gained from

the past dredgingwork, and most importantly after full consultation

as required with other interested councils and the public.

120. Mr ATKINSON:

1. Why did the first train leaving Bowden Station after Skyshow

99 depart at 10.05 pm and not 20 minutes earlier when the event had

finished, why did the first city bound train not depart until after 10.30

pm and why were trains not waiting in Bowden Station before the

event finished?

2. Were there similar delays at North Adelaide and Mile End

Stations?

1. The first train leaving Bowden Station after Skyshow 99

departed at 10.11 pm after waiting for eight minutes in order for a

large number of passengers to board. There was no train waiting

earlier as it was anticipated that trains would not be needed until

about 15 to 20 minutes after Skyshow finished allowing time for

people to walk to the Bowden Station. In addition, the layout and

safe operation of the signalling system meant that a train could not

wait at Bowden Station before the event finished because the

adjacent and subsequent road level crossing warning bells/lights

would be operating while the train sat at Bowden. The first City

bound train departed Bowden Station at 10.36 pm as per the public

timetable. Due to the high utilisation of resources, this did not allow

additional City bound services to be provided at this time.

2. The first trains leaving Mile End Station after Skyshow 99

departed at 10.00 pm and 10.02 pm heading towards Noarlunga

Centre and Belair respectively. These trains were waiting at Mile

End Station from 9.39 pm. The first City bound train departed Mile

End Station at 10.02 pm.

The first trains leaving North Adelaide Station after Skyshow 99

departed at 10.00 pm. This train was waiting at North Adelaide

Station from 9.49 pm. The first City bound train departed Mile End

Station at 10.02 pm.

121. Ms WHITE:

1. What level of consultation has the Department of Education

and Children’s Services had with disability advocacy groups and

other interested parties on the Government’s request for certain

sections of the Education Act 1972 to be proscribed for exemption

from the Federal Disability Discrimination Legislation?

2. If granted, how will this proscription affect the education

services to children with disabilities?

3. What has been the Government’s motivation in applying such

exemption?

4. How will such exemption affect the State Government’s

liability with respect to disabled children’s access to education

services?

5. Does the Minister intend to use the power to ‘direct a child

to a particular school’ and to force a disabled child who is currently

enrolled at one school to attend an alternate school?

6. How does the Minister intend to use the power to ‘direct a

child to a particular school’ if a certain exemption from the Disability

Discrimination Act is granted?

1. In 1995 the South Australian Attorney General, Mr Griffin

sought exemption under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)

from the Commonwealth Attorney General for Section 75(3) and

75A of the Education Act.

Prescribing exemption of these sections of the Education Act

maintains the status quo. It is not a change of policy.

The Commonwealth Attorney General has only recently advised

that he has instructed the Office of Legislative Drafting to draft the

necessary regulations to prescribe section 75(3) and 75A of the

Education Act.

The process for applying for exemptions is provided for in

Section 47(2) of the DDA which states, ‘This part does not render

unlawful anything done by a person in direct compliance with a

prescribed law’.

2. The exemption of Sections 75(3) and 75A of the Education

Act will not change current departmental practice. The department

has over 10 000 students with a disability enrolled in its schools.

Only about 800 of those attend special schools. The overwhelming

majority of students with disabilities attend their local school. It is

not the intention of the government to move away from its general

policy of inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream

settings.

The direction of a student with disabilities or learning difficulties

under Section 75A to a particular school has only occurred in

extremely rare circumstances.

3. The Government is committed to fulfilling its responsibilities

in relation to providing education services to all students in South

Australia.

There have been rare times where the level of expertise, assessment

and facilities in a school elected by the parents have not

met the educational needs and interests of a particular student with

a disability. It is in these infrequent circumstances that the Director-

General (Chief Executive) may need to direct the placement of a

child to a particular school. The effect of exempting Section 75B and

Section 75A is that such a direction would not be unlawful under the

DDA.

Section 75 has been in operation since 1991 without any

restriction from that time until 1996 when the sunset clause in

Section 47(3) of the DDA came into effect.

South Australia is a leader in the field of anti discrimination,

being the only State or Territory developing training packages for

all leaders to assist schools in complying with the DDA.

4. This exemption will not affect the Government’s commitment

to provide educational services to all students in South Australia in

a non discriminatory way. It was never intended that the operation

of Sections 75(3) and 75A would be exercised in a discriminatory

way.

The State Government has recently shown its commitment to

students with disabilities and learning difficulties by releasing

additional special needs funding and taking this issue out of any

industrial relations context.

5. Under the Education Act 1972, the Minister has no powers

to direct a placement of a student in South Australian schools. The

power rests with the Chief Executive. The power is only exercised

when consideration of a student’s individual learning and social

needs, his/her access to appropriate curriculum, and his/her health

and safety require placement in a school which is not the preferred

school of the parents. In this circumstance consultation occurs with

the family.

The Education Act also provides an appeal process relating to the

power to direct a child to a particular school.

6. The Minister has no power under the current Act to direct the

enrolment of a particular student. The power of the Chief Executive

to direct the enrolment of a particular student in a particular school

is an extremely rare event. It only happens after extensive consultation

and only when it is in the best interests of the child.

The Education Act also provides an appeal process relating to the

power to direct a child to a particular school.

127. Mr ATKINSON: How is the 1998-99 boat registration

revenue being used?

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: The use of revenue collected from

recreational boat registration is defined in the Harbors and Navigation

Act 1993, Section 90 (2) as being:

‘applied to defray the costs of administering this Act insofar as

it relates to recreational vessels and may only be applied for that

purpose.’

As a consequence, the 1998-99 recreational boat registration

revenue is used to cover the administration costs involved in the

collection of the revenue, but more importantly for the engagement

and operation of Marine Safety Officers and safety programs related

to recreational boating activities.

128. Mr HILL:

1. What percentage of motor vehicles have neither comprehensive

nor third party property insurance?

1494 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Questions on Notice

2. What percentage of accidents involve at least one uninsured

motor vehicle?

3. What is the average cost of damage per vehicle involved in

accidents?

4. Will the Government implement compulsory third party

property insurance?

1. The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that 6-8 per cent

of SA registered vehicles have neither comprehensive nor third party

property insurance.

2. The percentage of crashes involving vehicles without property

insurance can not be determined from Police accident reports as the

parties involved are not required to disclose such information.

3. The average cost of damage per vehicle involved in crashes

also can not be determined from Police accident reports.

Motorists are only currently required to report property damage

crashes when the damage estimate exceeds $600. Accordingly, less

costly crashes are unlikely to have been reported.

4. The introduction of compulsory third party property insurance

was the subject of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Economic and

Finance Committee in 1995. After considering the evidence for and

against compulsory third party property insurance, the Committee

did not favour the introduction of a compulsory scheme.

130. Mr HILL: Has the requirement of the 1988 SANTOS

Mining Agreement that any proposed petroleum operation in the

Coongie Lakes area be subject to an environmental impact study

been set aside and if so, why?

The Hon. R.G. KERIN: The requirements of the 1988 Coongie

Lakes agreement between the Government and the Petroleum explorers

have not been put aside. The agreement references the section of

the Planning Act 1982 dealing with applications for petroleum

production licences (PPL’s) and associated environmental assessments.

The Planning Act 1982 has been repealed and replaced by the

Development Act 1993 which contains very similar provisions

regarding such licences. Neither the Agreement nor the Planning Act

require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process be

undertaken for PPL applications within the Coongie Lakes Control

Zone.

The requirements are for a process to determine whether an EIS

is required or not. This process will be undertaken. As I previously

advised on 4 March in this place, a public consultation process has

been initiated regarding the Coongie Lakes area and related

petroleum activities. This process is due to be finalised later this

year. The determination on the requirement or otherwise for an EIS

to be undertaken will be deferred until this initial consultation

process has been completed.

131. Mr HILL:

1. What building trades courses are conducted by DTAFE and

at which campuses?

2. Have any such courses been cancelled over recent years and

if so, what are the details?

Courses available in Building and Furnishing

Full-time (FT) and Part-time (PT)

Certificate III in Building and Furnishing

Locations: Elizabeth (PT) Ph: 8207 9700

Gilles Plains (PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Marleston (PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Millicent (PT) Ph: 088 733 4499

Noarlunga (PT) Ph: 8207 3900

Certificate IV in Building

Locations: Elizabeth (PT) Ph: 8207 9700

Gilles Plains (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Marleston (FT/PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Millicent (PT) Ph: 088 733 4499

Noarlunga (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 3900

Whyalla (PT) Ph: 088 648 8788

Diploma in Building

Locations: Gilles Plains (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Marleston (PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Certificate IV in Building Drafting

Locations: Gilles Plains (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Marleston (FT/PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Noarlunga (PT) Ph: 8207 3900

Diploma in Building Design and Drafting

Locations: Gilles Plains (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Marleston (FT/PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Diploma in Built Environment

Locations: Gilles Plains (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Marleston (FT/PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Noarlunga (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 3900

Certificate in Floor and Wall Tiling

Locations: Gilles Plains (FT/PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Certificate III Furnishing

Locations: (Furnishing)

Marleston (PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Noarlunga (PT) Ph: 8207 3900

(Wood Machining)

Marleston (PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Mount Gambier (PT) Ph: 0887 351 555

Certificate III Furnishing (Floor Covering)

Locations: Marleston (PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Certificate III Furnishing (Furniture Upholstery)

Locations: Marleston (PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Advanced Certificate in Furnishing (Cabinet Making, Finishing,

Glassworking, Upholstery)

Locations: (Cabinetmaking)

Elizabeth (PT) Ph: 8207 9700

Marleston (FT/PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Millicent (PT) Ph: 088 733 4499

Noarlunga (PT) Ph: 8207 3900

(Finishing)

Marleston (FT/PT) Ph: 8226 0666

(Glassworking)

Gilles Plains (PT) Ph: 8207 1100

(Upholstery)

Marleston Ph: 8226 0666

Certificate in Glassworking

Locations: Gilles Plains (PT) Ph: 8207 1100

Certificate in Joinery

Locations: Marleston (PT) Ph: 8226 0666

Noarlunga (PT) Ph: 8207 3900

Training Programs in Building Trades (Building and Construction)

Locations: Elizabeth (FT) Ph: 8207 9700

Gilles Plains (FT) Ph: 8207 1100

Marleston (FT) Ph: 8226 0666

Millicent (FT) Ph: 088 733 4499

Noarlunga (FT) Ph: 8207 3900

Port Augusta (FT) Ph: 088 648 9922

Port Lincoln (FT) Ph: 088 688 3600

Port Pirie (FT) Ph: 088 632 1633

Whyalla (FT) Ph: 088 648 4788

Certificate in Vocational Education Furnishing Trades

Locations: Marleston (FT) Ph: 8226 0666

Millicent (FT) Ph: 088 733 4499

Noarlunga (FT) Ph: 8207 3900

Port Augusta (FT) Ph: 088 648 9922

Port Lincoln (FT) Ph: 088 688 3600

Port Pirie (FT) Ph: 088 632 1633

2. No courses have been discontinued. There are a full range of

courses still available, however locations have been rationalised

slightly, viz

no apprentice training in Spencer (Whyalla) since 1997 in

Carpentry and Joinery.

apprentice training at Mount Gambier in Carpentry and Joinery

finished about 1996—but has been taken up on a demand basis

at Millicent since then.

training in Bricklaying, Tiling, Plastering, Painting and Decorating,

Glassworking and Signwriting has continued to be centred

at Gilles Plains due to limited enrolments.

137. Mr HILL:

1. How many dolphins have been reported dead on or off the

coast in each calendar year since 1996, what were the causes of death

on a percentage basis and what number of dolphins were found at

which locations?

2. How many estimated deaths have occurred in each of these

years as a result of fishing industry activities?

Questions on Notice HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1495

1. and 2. The Department for Environment, Heritage and

Aboriginal Affairs does not maintain detailed records of all dolphin

carcasses located in South Australia. This task is undertaken by the

Curator of Mammals at the South Australian Museum, assisted by

the Marine and Coastal Community Network.

140. Ms WHITE:

1. For each of the school years since 1993, what has been the

ratio of junior primary principals to primary principals in South

Australian schools?

2 If there is a trend over time in these ratios, what is the

Government policy responsible for that trend?

1. The following information is provided in relation to the ratio

of primary to junior primary principals:

Junior Primary Primary

Total Primary and Junior

Primary Principals No. Principals Per cent No. Principals Per cent

1992 553 69 12 484 88

1993 539 67 12 472 88

1994 528 68 13 460 87

1995 538 60 11 478 89

1996 495 51 10 444 90

1997 485 50 13 435 87

1998 475 55 12 420 88

2. The ratio of principals in each of these sectors has been quite consistent and represent no trend in any direction.

144. Ms WHITE: Has the budget for savings from the closure

of schools in 1998-99 changed from the Minister’s $2 million figure

given to Parliament on 19 June 1998 and if so, what is the new figure

and how will the difference be made up?

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: The department’s budget strategy

identified savings of the $2 million in the 1998-99 financial year

associated with school redevelopments. At Estimates Committee on

the 19 June 1998, I indicated the Government would not move on

any site reviews until an amendment to the Education Act introduced

in the Lower House had passed. This was assented to on 24

December 1998. Future school redevelopments will be considered

in the light of the amendment.

Current departmental projections indicate that savings in 1998-99

are the order of $335 000 leaving a shortfall of some $1.665 million.

This shortfall will be temporarily covered by the use of cash reserves

in 1998-99. It is not planned to make up the difference by cuts in

other areas of the department’s budget.

145. Ms WHITE:

1. How many Government schools do not use EDSAS in the

public sector?

2. Is EDSAS Year 2000 compliant?

3. Is BookMark Year 2000 compliant and if not, does the

Minister intend to ensure that it will be?

4. How much will it cost to make these systems Year 2000

compliant?

1. The EDSAS application is made up of 3 modules [Finance,

Curriculum (including profiles) and School/Student/Staff with all

Government schools using the School Student Staff module.

Approximately 150 schools have implemented the Finance module

to date. Implementation is proceeding as planned and due for

completion by 31 December 1999, with approximately 500 schools

still to implement this module. Implementation of the curriculum

module will be occurring over the next three years. This will involve

further use of the profiles component to assist schools in monitoring

student achievement. Currently the use of the module is optional and

for school based purposes only.

2. Matcom, the vendor has advised that EDSAS is Year 2000

compliant and the department has undertaken compliancy testing

which has confirmed that the current version of the EDSAS software

is Year 2000 compliant.

3. The Bookmark software version 9.2.6g has been tested by the

department both centrally and within a school site and found to be

Year 2000 compliant when operating on compliant hardware. All

Bookmark school sites were issued with the compliant version in

1998 and they will be reminded to ensure that this version is installed

on compliant hardware.

4. Since both EDSAS and Bookmark are Year 2000 compliant,

there will be no cost.

149. Ms WHITE:

1. What criteria does a school need to satisfy in order to obtain

the services of a school counsellor?

2. How does this criteria adequately reflect the need for a

counsellor?

3. Are individual school counsellors working predominantly in

a single school or in clusters of schools?

1. The purpose of the primary school counsellor position is to

address the needs of school communities with high concentrations

of disadvantaged students and with a long-term history of disadvantage.

With the twenty additional positions allocated in 1999, there

are currently ninety positions available to primary schools.

In allocating primary school counsellor positions to schools for

1999, schools were considered for the allocation of a counsellor if

the following criteria applied:

either their current or estimated (1999) number of school card

holders was over 100, and

their weighted average percentage of school card holders over the

last three years was over 50 per cent.

Schools that met both criteria were ranked and a list generated.

In ranking schools a 75 per cent weighting was given to the weighted

average percentage of school card holders, and a 25 per cent weighting

to total school card enrolments.

Tenure of the positions ranges from four to two years, with those

schools ranked highest being allocated a counsellor position for four

years, the next highest ranked schools three years and the remaining

schools two years.

2. The emphasis of the Primary School Counsellor Program is

upon effecting ‘whole school change’, to support school communities

to become proactive in their planning and to focus on success

orientation for students encountering the effects of disadvantage.

School card is currently used as the indicator of disadvantage.

A review of the allocation formula is conducted on a regular

basis. The review group is chaired by the Assistant Director, Special

Services and consists of representatives from Area, Primary and

Junior Primary Principals Associations and Primary School Counsellors

Association. The review group considers information provided

by schools such as the role of the counsellor, school population and

demographics and the allocation criteria.

3. School counsellors are allocated to a single school. Individual

counsellors are able to provide professional development and advice

for other schools. This is negotiated between the relevant school

principals.

1496 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY Questions on Notice

151. Ms RANKINE: How many accidents occurred at the

Grove Way and Golden Way intersection during each of the years

1995-96 to 1997-98, and how many occurred at the intersection of

the Grove Way, Atlantis Drive and Aeolin Drive during the same

years?

Grove Way and Golden Way Intersection

Personal Property

Fatal Injury Damage Total

1995-96 0 3 22 25

1996-97 0 7 33 40

1997-98 0 10 27 37

Grove Way, Atlantis Drive and Aeolin Drive intersection

Personal Property

Fatal Injury Damage Total

1995-96 0 2 3 5

1996-97 0 0 7 7

1997-98 0 2 6 8

152. Ms RANKINE:

1. When will the upgrade of Main North Road to six lanes

between the Grove Way and Kings Road commence?

2. Will the upgrade include overpasses at all major intersections,

facilities for cyclists, improved landscaping and any other safety

measures?

3. What noise reduction measures will be included in this

upgrade?

1. As Main North Road is a National Highway, the funding for

the upgrade will be provided by the Commonwealth Government,

through the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional

Services.

South Australia reviews the needs of the State’s National

Highway network on an annual basis and provides a proposed five

year strategy for future works. As part of the strategy, the State has

proposed that funding for this section of road commence in the 2000-

2001 financial year.

However, the actual timing of the project is dependent on confirmation

of funding from the Commonwealth Government.

2. The upgrade of Main North Road, between the Grove Way

and Kings Road, will have at-grade signalised intersections. Provision

has been made for bicycle lanes and separate pedestrian

footpaths. Landscaping will also be implemented, and other safety

measures will include the use of open graded asphalt for improved

wet weather road performance, skid resistance and noise reduction.

3. When the original planning and design for this section of road

was carried out in 1996, no noise reduction measures were included.

However, as mentioned previously, landscaping and the use of open

graded asphalt will assist in noise reduction. Prior to commencement

of construction, Transport SA will review all aspects of the project,

including any further noise reduction measures required.

154. Ms WHITE: Have the student visa conditions of the

international students studying at the Regency Park School of Hotel

Management changed by further restricting the number of hours they

can work per week in the paid workforce and, if so, what action can

be taken to ensure their ability to study is not affected?

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: The visa procedures alteration being

implemented by the Commonwealth Department of Immigration and

Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) now includes an entitlement fee of

A$50. There are no changes to the number of hours that a student can

work.

The procedure is:

1. Student obtains a Certificate of Enrolment from an

educational institution.

2. Student attends the Australian Embassy–Immigration

Department in the respective country.

3. Student applies for visa, attaches the Certificate of

Enrolment and pays a new fee of A$50.

4. Immigration Section of offshore Embassy considers the

students application and grant work rights (normally of 20 hours

per week).

5. Student arrives and attends class.

6. Regency Institute Hotel School or any other TAFE

Institute monitors students ability to manage study load and work

necessity.

7. Should there be a problem in managing study and work,

a counselling session may involve all parties being student,

Institute and DIMA representatives.

156. Ms THOMPSON: What proportion of students received

School Cards during 1988 1998 and 1999 at each of the following

schools—Antonio, Christies Beach High, Christie Downs Primary,

Flaxmill, Hackham West Primary, Lonsdale Heights Primary,

Morphett Vale High, Morphett Vale South Primary, Morphett Vale

West Primary, Reynella Primary, Reynella South Primary and

Stanvac Primary?

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: The following are the proportion of

students who received School Card during 1988 and 1998.

1988 1998

School Name Per cent Per cent

Antonio School 14.42 35.21

Christies Beach High School 26.83 57.32

Christie Downs Primary School 47.81 57.87

Christie Downs Special School 57.14 70.00

Flaxmill Primary School 21.52 53.26

Flaxmill Junior Primary School 20.34 62.09

Hackham West Primary School 43.32 68.66

Hackham West Junior Primary School 38.76 71.21

Lonsdale Heights Primary School 34.42 60.56

Morphett Vale High School 18.12 44.00

Morphett Vale South Primary School 41.74 63.72

Morphett Vale West Primary School 19.94 51.69

Reynella Primary School 9.63 28.68

Reynella South Primary School 22.58 49.59

Stanvac Primary School 19.10 60.25

The cut-off dates for School Card applications for the 1999

school year are as follows:

Term 1 30 April 1999

Term 2 18 June 1999

Term 3 27 August 1999

Term 4 5 November 1999

It is not possible to supply figures relating to the proportion of

School Card students in specific schools for the 1999 school year

until after November 1999 when all applications have been received

and processed.

159. Ms RANKINE: What is the nature and cost of improvements

to the Saint Kilda boat ramp since the introduction of the

boat levy?

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: $3 750 has been spent from the levy

on boat channel markers at Saint Kilda. The Minister for Transport

and Urban Planning has recently approved levy funding of up to

$275 000 towards the dredging and widening of the Saint Kilda boat

channel. The funding is subject to agreement by the City of Salisbury

to a number of conditions which have been put to Council.

No levy funds have been spent on improvements to the boat

ramp. It is believed that the City of Salisbury intends to redevelop

this site in the future. The South Australian Boating Facility

Advisory Committee is awaiting advice from Council on its overall

strategy for the development of boating facilities at Saint Kilda prior

to considering whether to recommend Government funding.

164. Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Does the Department of

Transport monitor the time and number of flights arriving or

departing Adelaide Airport and if so, how many have occurred

during the curfew during each year since 1994?

The Hon. DEAN BROWN: No, Transport SA does not monitor

the time and number of flights arriving or departing Adelaide

Airport. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth, through

Airservices Australia.

168. Mr KOUTSANTONIS: What are the statistics for drug

use in schools situated in the Peake electorate?

Questions on Notice HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY 1497

The Hon. M.R. BUCKBY: The Department of Education,

Training and Employment (DETE) does not gather statistics specifically

related to drug usage for Peake or any other electorate. Students

can be suspended, excluded or expelled from school on a range of

grounds. A snapshot of statistics for suspension, exclusion and

expulsion is collected in term 3 each year. The grounds that could

apply to drug related behaviours include ‘the student has acted in a

manner which threatens the good order of the schools’ and ‘the

student has acted illegally’. These grounds describe a range of

behaviours and are not indicative of drug usage alone.

All instances of illegal drug possession or use, which are detected

in schools, must be reported to police.

The number of police interventions, with students in schools, for

illegal drug use and possession are not available to the department.

South Australia Police keep data for illegal behaviours that result in

students becoming involved in the juvenile justice system.

Senior SAPOL officers who are responsible for managing illegal

drugs report that the main illegal drug used by students is cannabis

and that heroin in schools is very rare. SAPOL could not recall any

cases where students were involved in the use or possession of

heroin.

169. Mr KOUTSANTONIS:

1. What categories of books are kept in the school libraries

located in the Peake electorate, which categories are loaned and what

is the extent of complaints received from parents with in respect to

books being kept from loan?

2. Have any of these school libraries undertaken an audit of the

suitability of their books being read by minors and if so, what are the

details?

1. All of the seven schools in the Peake electorate are very aware

of the importance of having suitable reading materials for their

students. Most schools contain a wide range of books, with categories

including general fiction, non-fiction, and teacher reference (for

teachers only). One secondary school has a small selection available

only to senior students. The librarian and the English Coordinator

decide these books. They are not on display and are only available

to students on the English Coordinator’s recommendation. The

school’s principal has received no complaints about any books

during his five years at the school.

The other schools all reported no complaints, with the exception

of one primary school, which had only two complaints in the last

seven years. The teacher librarian at this school reported that she had

less than five complaints during her nineteen years in the profession.

2. Teacher librarians generally follow a selection procedure

based on the Library Association of Australia’s statement on Freedom

to Read and the Australian School Libraries Association

guidelines. Books are generally selected from approved reviewing

journals, suppliers and recommended reading lists from professional

literature supplied to the school. There has not been a need to undertake

formal audits as librarians and teachers constantly review the

materials in their libraries and weed out’ anything they believe

contains unsuitable or inappropriate information. Principals and

librarians are very aware of the need to provide relevant and high

quality literature, and as only one or two complaints have been

received in seven years the schools are clearly meeting the needs of

their students to the satisfaction of each parent community.

171. Mr HILL:

1. What was the extent of the work done in Biscay Road at

Aldinga in February 1999, who undertook this work and how much

did it cost?

2. What was the cost of the remedial work done some six weeks

later, why was it necessary and who paid for it?

1. The work completed in February 1999 on Biscay Road,

Aldinga (approximately 460m from its junction with Main South

Road and extending approximately 2.4km) stemmed from severe

surface undulations, due to the expansive nature of the pavement

subgrade. The work included mixing existing pavement, grading,

reshaping and providing a temporary trafficable seal (primer seal)

to protect the pavement from water and degradation by traffic.

Transport SA’s Field Operations Unit (sub-contracted to

Pavement Technology Limited and Boral Asphalt) completed these

works on Biscay Road at a cost of $133 000.

2. Following the completion of works trialed on Biscay Road

in February 1999, Transport SA conducted pavement monitoring for

a period of six weeks. This monitoring revealed some weak areas,

requiring remedial work. This was not unexpected due to the nature

of the pavement material encountered.

Earlier, the same treatments had been successful in addressing

the same expansive soil subgrades on McLaren Vale Road, Black

Road and Black Top Road.

Transport SA’s Field Operations Unit (sub-contracted to Pioneer)

completed the remedial work at a cost of $2 400, which included new

granular materials and shaping to suit the existing surface with

primer seal placed as necessary. The cost was met by Transport SA.

178. Ms RANKINE: How long will the Boat Levy remain in

place given the period of application is based on the need for

maintenance and development?

The Hon. DEAN BROWN:Part 14 Division 3 of the Harbors

and Navigation Act 1993, provides for the payment of an annual levy

on the registration of a recreational vessel. There is no time limit or

sunset clause. Currently, the request for funding of improvements,

upgrades and new facilities, significantly exceeds the revenue

collected from the Boating Levy.