Budget Estimates 2010
Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (17:27): With regard to the estimates process, I will say a few words. In fairness to my colleagues who would like to say something this evening, I will not take long.
There is a lot of debate about the estimates process and whether or not it is useful. Having eagerly sat through my first session of estimates—and I mean that quite genuinely; as a brand new member of parliament I take every opportunity to participate in everything I can and make the very most of it—the conclusion I have come to is that it actually comes down to the quality and attitude of the minister as to whether or not it is useful. I have seen a whole range of ministers work within these committees. We have hard-working, diligent shadow ministers doing their very best, and other backbench MPs supporting them.
I have seen some of the government ministers being very forthright and open, doing their very best to answer questions, not using the Dorothy Dixers and not wasting a lot of time with long, useless opening statements, and I commend those ministers who have done that. I have seen ministers who do their very best to answer questions. You can tell the difference between someone who actually has a handle on his or her portfolio versus someone who does not. I saw one minister not answer a question without referring to an adviser, which I thought was disgraceful. However, there were some ministers who certainly did take on the challenge and who had some faith in themselves to represent their portfolios, and I congratulate them for that.
With regard to outcomes of the estimates, I think we have to accept the fact that, whether or not the process is perfect, we need to make the most of it. We need to ask penetrating questions and get as much information out of this as we possibly can. Certainly, there was a lot of information that came out of the estimates process.
There were issues to do with the fact that the highly touted MOU to bring Filipino workers to South Australia has not progressed. Members should keep in mind the reason for trying to do that is to leave locally skilled workers to do the jobs that we need done. As our requirement for labour increases, people are not all heading off to the mines leaving rural and regional areas, and suburban metro areas as well. Absolutely nothing has happened there.
We found out that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not spoken to the federal minister for approximately two months. We found out that many DTED staff, who were expected to go in this financial year, will actually lose their jobs before the end of the financial year. We found out that the jobs of park rangers are at risk. We found out that a minute fraction of the money that was expected to come into this state through the air warfare destroyer program will never come into South Australia.
We found out even more than we knew before about the fact that water prices are due to skyrocket. We found out that this government needs and depends upon traffic infringement revenue for this budget—that if it does not earn the amount of money that it is looking for in traffic infringement fines the budget will be in difficulty. We found out that a lot of issues that were known to this government before the last election have been kept secret from the South Australian public until now.
I have to say that the estimates process has provided us with some information that we did not have before. With regard to the budget overall, and this is just broad ranging, I had two opportunities—20 minutes and 10 minutes—to talk about the budget. I do not plan to rehash all of that, but, certainly, I will highlight a few of the things that are particularly disappointing to me from a regional South Australian perspective.
I want to highlight the lack of funding to the RDAs; the removal of the fuel subsidy; the small schools grant (as every member here knows, it is not the biggest amount of money but to me one of the most disappointing parts of this budget); the cellar door rebate; the PIRSA cuts ($80 million and 180 people to go out of PIRSA); lack of funding for country and outback roads; and Shared Services, which I have spoken about here many times—just a great shame.
Mr Pederick interjecting:
Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: The minister is not able to tell us, thank you, member for Hammond. The minister is still not able to tell us where the 180 jobs will go from out of PIRSA. Will they come out of Jamestown? I was at Jamestown on Sunday, and people there are terrified about the loss of their jobs. Not only can the minister not tell us how many of those Jamestown jobs will go but also he cannot tell us when he will decide, which is terribly disappointing.
Forests: forward selling three rotations of our forests. Basically, it looks like that money is going to pay for the Adelaide Oval upgrade. It had to come from somewhere. So, forward selling—generations of forestry and work of future income just smitten, absolutely gone. One of the things that surprises me enormously is that, for the first time ever, there is no regional budget paper. That sends a big message right there.
One of the other things about this budget that we now know more than we knew before the estimates process is the lack of consultation. Not only has there been a lack of consultation with the people of South Australia, but I am confident that there has been a lack of consultation from within the Labor Party, from within the government. I am sure that a lot of Labor members of parliament are very disappointed with the impact that this budget will have on their electorates, as I am with the impact on the electorate of Stuart.
I would just like to highlight two really stark things to me in this budget. They are in different parts of the state and completely different issues, but they highlight the problem with this government: first, the small schools grant (which I have spoken about extensively previously and which will affect eight schools in the electorate of Stuart) to go. It is only $30,000 per school, but to those schools it makes an enormous difference. To those towns, to the hard-working students, principals, families and governing councils it makes an enormous difference.
Secondly, the Parks recreational centre. The member for Light —and I am glad that he is here to listen to this—said that we would falsely claim the Parks issue as our own. Honestly, that is crazy. the Parks issue is not just an Enfield issue and it is not just an Adelaide issue. When I lived in Adelaide I lived in Croydon. I used to go to the Parks recreational centre a few times a week for years.
Mr Pengilly: You didn't vote for the member for Croydon, did you?
Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Thank you very much, member for Finniss, I did not support the member for Croydon at the election booth. No, I certainly did not. That is a fantastic place. I am not claiming it as my own. We are not claiming it as our own. However, it is an example of what is going on within this government when the government can plan to slash something like that without consulting with the people. I am sure—and I am not putting words in anyone's mouth—that there was minimal consultation from within the local government members of parliament who would be dreadfully affected by this. It certainly came out afterwards how astounded they were at that.
I look at one extreme: a small amount of money primarily in country schools—I know it affects city schools as well—a small schools grant, and a large amount of money, $5 million I think it is, for the Parks in a metro setting. That highlights to me that the government is not looking after communities. The government is not consulting with communities. The government is not doing the very best it can for people on the ground, and I am terribly disappointed about that.
I will pick up on a couple of comments the member for Light made before. I congratulate him for the fact that he did stand up and speak. I have to give him credit for that. I think you were the only government member who stood up to speak. I do not want to miss anyone out, but you were the only one I heard. I will tell you what, you made three big mistakes. First, giving us a hard time about the Parks Community Centre; secondly, asking how we would have done things differently. There are a lot of ways, but one very simple thing would have been to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital on site where it is right now. Saving approximately $1 billion over the life of the project would have made a huge, huge difference. The third thing you said and where you made a dreadful mistake was in talking about our trust in our leader, the member for Heysen—huge, huge error. There is not one person on this side who does not trust her to stand up for South Australia.
I will give a very good example of why. When she was in here on the very first day of estimates questioning the Premier of this state, he tried to give her a hard time because she made a mistake. The Premier said to our leader, 'Look, you are getting all angry. Don't get angry with your staff because they've mixed things up.' She instantly, without any hesitation, said, 'Premier, that was my mistake, I mixed up that question. It was my mistake and I fixed it.' That is why we trust our leader.
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: You made three very bad mistakes when you stood up to speak. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the estimates.
Members interjecting:
The SPEAKER: Order!
Comment